Friday, February 29, 2008

Baughman - 'The Northern Illinois University Murders Due to 'Chemical Imbalances' or 'Chemical Balancers' - Drugs?'

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/northern-illinois-university-murders-chemical-imbalances-chemical-balancers_490227_1.html
Thursday, Feb. 21 2008
'The Northern Illinois University Murders Due to 'Chemical Imbalances' or 'Chemical Balancers' - Drugs?'
Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD, Neurologist/Child Neurologist


EL CAJON, Calif., Feb 21, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Writing of the Northern Illinois University shooter, Steven P. Kazmierczak, The New York Times (Benedict Carey, 2/19/08, A20) remarks " ... doctors say it is almost impossible to tell whether the spasms of violence stem in part from the drug reactions or the underlying illnesses." A girlfriend said Kazmierczac took Prozac to battle anxiety and compulsive behavior. While psychiatry (psychology too) and the pharmaceutical industry want anxiety, depression, elation impulsiveness, poor conduct, trouble with math, reading, writing,
 
Dr. Fred Baughman   etc., portrayed as brain abnormalities/diseases/disorders/
syndromes, so as to be able to portray their drugs as "treatments," throughout medical recorded history, there is no such thing as an demonstrable physical abnormality/disease in all of psychiatry.
 
Diseases of the brain, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-Lou Gehrig's disease, stroke, meningitis, etc., are the province of neurology, my specialty. This was assured in 1948 when the two specialties were formally split with "neuropsychiatry" becoming the separate, new specialties, "psychiatry" and "neurology." This means that the drugs prescribed by psychiatrists (and throughout mental health, by all sorts of doctors) are toxins/poisons, the first and only demonstrable abnormality/disease that psychiatric patients have. But today, patients are lied to -- told, for purposes of informed consent, that they have a disease or chemical imbalance. This gains their consent. Whether it is actual informed consent is irrelevant to the pharmaceutical companies. There is little doubt that without the "chemical imbalance" lie the epidemic psychiatric drug poisoning would be a small fraction of what it is today.
 
As in the University of Northern Illinois case, almost all of the high school, and college shooters have been psychiatric patients on a diet of psychiatric drugs. Nor is the issue of whether they still have the poison in their system or not critical. All psychiatric drugs damage the previously normal brain and body. This is how they alter the subjective symptoms for which they are said to be "treatment." Even if stopped they have altered and thus damaged the previously normal individual.
 
At a 1970 Congressional hearing on the drugging of school children where hyperactivity was first called a brain disease, Dr John D. Griffith, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, testified: "I would like to point out that every drug, however innocuous, has some degree of toxicity. A drug, therefore, is a type of poison and its poisonous qualities must be carefully weighed against its therapeutic usefulness." Such a scientific, weighing of the risks vs. the benefits of psychiatric medications is virtually never carried out today because the psychiatric diagnosis, never a "chemical imbalance"/disease, is always portrayed as one. Why? Because the psychiatric diagnosis is almost always portrayed as one requiring treatment with a "chemical balancer", or pill. Every year, tens of thousands of children are court-ordered to take psychiatric drugs for diagnoses such as ADHD, conduct and oppositional-defiant disorders. Should their parents refuse, then, without trial, the parents are pronounced "medically negligent" and threatened with the loss of custody of the child -- their child. Their child whose emotional life they are no longer allowed to direct. This is what we have come to in the USA!
 
Eric Harris, who was denied enlistment into the armed services, and one of the two Columbine shooters, had been on Zoloft, a Prozac-like antidepressant. There is no such thing as the balancing of the "chemical imbalance" portrayed in the Zoloft ad. And yet the FDA, as much a part of the pharmaceutical enterprise as psychiatry, allows the pharmaceuticals to peddle their lies directly to the American public via publicly-owned airwaves.
 
Today, in the US, we have been so taken in by the "chemical imbalance"/ "chemical balancer" lie that 9-10 million school children are on one or more psychiatric drugs, including 60-70% of those in foster care (who cannot defend themselves). At the same time psychiatry asks us to believe that half of all of us in the US will one day be afflicted with a "serious mental disorder"/ "chemical imbalance" ("Are we all going mad, or are the experts crazy?" Stuart A. Kirk, Los Angeles Times, August 14, 2005) and that they too will need one or more "chemical balancers"/drugs.
 
                                      By
 
                           Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD
                        Neurologist/Child Neurologist
SOURCE Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD
 
 

Busted - Child Psych - Florida

Miami Herald 

Psychologist charged in girlfriend's OD death

Rachel Fenzi

A psychologist who works with substance abusers has been arrested after his younger girlfriend -- a former patient -- overdosed on OxyContin that authorities said he supplied.

Adam Feder, 40, of North Miami-Dade, is charged with manslaughter and trafficking in controlled substances.

Miami-Dade police say he supplied OxyContin to his girlfriend, Rachel Finzi, 20, of Lauderhill, who died in his North Miami-Dade apartment in 2006.

According to his online bio, Feder teaches at Florida International University and Florida Atlantic University as an adjunct professor. Neither school's website lists him in their faculty directory.

He works for the North Star Centre in Boca Raton, according to the clinic's website.

''Dr. Feder has published articles and made numerous presentations on a variety of topics related to the treatment of children, adolescents and substance abusers,'' according to his bio. 

 

Psychiatrist testifies he prescribed three drugs at first session to 5 year old

How can this be right? 
 
You may recall the extremely high profile case of Rebecca Riley, a  4 year old  girl in Massachusetts, who died while on various psychiatric drugs including the antipsychotic drug  Seroquel.   The Boston Globe, NY Times,  CNN and USA Today  reported that story widely.  
 
Now , a responsible psychologist from Tennessee contacted us this morning to report  a tragedy.    The mother of a 6 year old girl named Cheyenne is on trial in Tennessee for her daughter's murder.
 
Psychiatrist Saran Mudumbi should also be on trial.   He prescribed a combination of drugs for this little girl that included the antipsychotics Risperdal and Seroquel.  (More on antipsychotic drugs here: http://tmap.wordpress.com/
 
http://www.southernstandard.net/news.php?viewStory=46251

Psychiatrist Saran Mudumbi testified that he put Cheyenne Delp, then 5, on three  different types of medication to fight depression,  anxiety and paranoia after one office  visit with the child. That initial visit took place April 3, 2003
 
Southern Standard 

Cheyenne was heavily medicated  -   Psychiatrist testifies he prescribed three drugs at first session
By James Clark 
Feb 27, 2008

Regardless of what killed Cheyenne Delp on June 26, 2004, she was a child under the influence of heavy medication the day she died.

The medicine Cheyenne was prescribed was so powerful, she had to undergo an EKG to determine if her heart was healthy enough for her to take Imipramine, a heavy duty anti-depressant.



Imipramine

Risperdal 

Guanfacine

Benadryl 

Seroquel
 
 

Gutsy New Jersey Moms - Informed Consent Bill On Psychotropics Back In NJ

These gutsy New Jersey Moms want you to sign their petition, go here: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?393291fg

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/02/informed-consent-bill-on-psychotropics-revived-in-nj/

Informed Consent Bill On Psychotropics Back In NJ

Three years ago, the FDA required makers of antidepressants to supply Med Guides along with their pills. That wasn’t good enough for a couple of New Jersey moms, who have been pushing their state legislature to go even further - a bill requiring a doctor or nurse to obtain informed consent from a minor’s parent before writing a prescription for any psychotropic that already carries a Black Box warning.

Last November, however, it looked like the bill, which had been kicking around a year, was dead after making it to the New Jersey assembly and senate. The state senator who heads the health committee, Joe Vitale, failed to schedule the bill for a vote, citing procedural issues and the need for further study. At the time, he told us the bill would still move forward, but it never did. He hasn’t returned calls seeking comment.

As a result, the legislation had to be introduced from scratch. Though those two moms, however, have succeeded in finding five new sponsors in the assembly, where the bill has been introduced and will be heard this coming Monday morning before the consumer affairs committee. “This fight isn’t over,” says Lisa Van Syckel, a self-styled parental advocate. (This is the bill).

“Informed consent is the only way to make sure information is passed from physcians to patients,” says Laurie Yorke, a registered nurse and the other mom who pushed for legislation. “And with these drugs, there are a lot of varying opinions among physicians, as well as misconceptions in general. Unfortunately, the adverse reactions can be misconstrued as part of the illness, when it may be due to the drug. And parents need to know that, but if they’re not given sufficient information, they’re not going to know what to look for.”

Meanwhile, the moms and their supporters are seeking sponsors in the state senate for a companion bill. A spokeswoman for one senator, Shirley Turner, says Turner is interested in the bill and is considering introducing legislation.

It remains unclear whether the bill will again be opposed by the New Jersey chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, a non-profit advocacy group. Phil Lubitz, the advocacy director for the local chapter, which has accepted funding from drugmakers that sell antidepressants and antipsychotics, including Abbott Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Wyeth and Johnson & Johnson, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

 

The Sun is Setting on Psychiatry

Rocky Mountain News
Antidepressants kill again
Edward C. Krug, Ph.D
February 28, 2008

We have just had another antidepressant-induced murderous rampage at a school. As a biochemist and minister, I need to point out some things that are missing in the public discussion of these tragedies.

First, these antidepressants cause chemical imbalances. The body is well perfected by God and evolution. When you introduce an outside chemical to change the body, the body pushes back, reacts. For example, when you first start drinking coffee for the extra energy, you get jangles or nerves, the result of a chemical imbalance. Continue drinking coffee and the caffeine lift decreases as your body compensates to the chemical imbalance created by the caffeine. Stop drinking coffee and you get headaches as your body adapts to the chemical imbalance caused by caffeine withdrawal. Antidepressants create far worse chemical imbalances.

There is no chemical imbalance that causes the depression. This is an advertiser’s lie. Some, long term, inescapable problem causes the person to feel like they are being slowly destroyed. This is called suppression. Strongly suppressed people become depressed. The chemicals are balanced for the stress the person is undergoing. Giving the person drugs that make them feel happier does nothing to change the suppression. They just tolerate it better. If they are lucky, conditions change and they escape the suppression, and the drug is said to have worked. Often, the antidepressants don’t work because the suppression is not handled.

How the person reacts to the drug-induced chemical imbalances depends on the nature of the suppression that caused the person to become depressed. Murder and suicide are just the reactions that get noticed. These individuals have battled the suppression long before they became depressed and the anger and desperation built up determines how they lash out under the antidepressant-induced chemical-imbalance. Without the suppression and drugs, they would be fairly normal people.

The drug-induced chemical imbalance affects another principal of biology: Use it or lose it! The ability to cope with stress is a skill. Under the influence of these happy pills, the ability to cope deteriorates. Remove the drugs, and the stress is now too much, and the person takes desperate measures.

These antidepressants also erode the moral compass we all have. Normally, the idea of causing damage to our self or others stresses us, but less so under antidepressants. Under continued suppression, and now, with a weakened moral compass, people still look for ways to fight back. Elaborate plans can be developed, as we have seen at these school mass murders. Once the person has a plan on how to fight back, a calmness and determination sets it. The moral compass is discarded. The rest is history, and the future.

These murderous rampages will continue to happen because Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising of pharmaceuticals is increasing antidepressant consumption and annual multi-billion dollar sales, paid for by tax dollars and insurance dollars.

Advertising works! Describe a condition well enough and anybody listening will believe they have it, and ask for medicine. It must be true if they say it often enough! Our government is spending millions in the war against drugs, and the pharmaceutical companies are spending so much more to keep us taking more drugs. Antidepressant consumption has skyrocketed. Antidepressant drugs are now measurable in river water leaving major cities, and occasionally in city drinking water. As drug sales go up, the violence will only get worse.

Two actions are required. First, repeal direct-to-consumer drug advertising! Call your congressman, demand it! Second, be a friend, care, take time to listen, and be willing to butt in to stop suppression, bullying and injustice. This message has been repeated by great people throughout history; Love thy Neighbor. Drugs are not answer. Listening and understanding is. The wrong thing to do is nothing. A punch line to an old joke says it best. We don’t need psychiatrists; we have friends!

Edward C. Krug, Ph.D. is a resident of Denver.

 

Lilly Faces Initial Zyprexa Trial

 

Lilly Faces Initial Zyprexa Trial

Alaska's Civil Suit Might Set
Pattern for Other Actions
By AVERY JOHNSON
February 28, 2008; Page D6

Eli Lilly & Co. is set to square off next week in the first trial over its schizophrenia drug Zyprexa, defending a civil suit by the state of Alaska that will be closely watched by state and federal prosecutors investigating the drug company.

The trial's outcome -- or even evidence introduced along the way -- could influence fragile settlement talks under way with the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and state attorneys general. An unfavorable verdict for Lilly might also embolden other states to file suit.

Plaintiffs and prosecutors have alleged for years that the Indianapolis drug maker failed to adequately warn that its powerful antipsychotic drug could lead to inordinate weight gain and diabetes. Lilly, which has sold about $35 billion of Zyprexa since its 1996 launch, has set aside $1.2 billion to settle with about 31,000 private claimants. But an additional 1,200 private suits are pending, and the company hasn't been able to strike a deal with public-sector plaintiffs.

Alaska accuses the company of failing to warn patients of Zyprexa's side effects, and of making deceptive claims in marketing the drug. Its 2006 complaint, filed by the state's attorney general, also alleges that Lilly improperly marketed Zyprexa "off-label" to the state's Medicaid recipients, costing Alaska more than it should have to reimburse patients. The state's Medicaid program spent about $40 million on Zyprexa in the past five years, about a third of it for off-label uses.

 

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Antidepressant Drugs Don't Work!

U.K. study casts doubt on antidepressant drugs
Researchers find placebos work just as well in many patients
WASHINGTON - Antidepressant medications appear to help only very severely depressed people and work no better than placebos in many patients, British researchers said.
Researchers led by Irving Kirsch of the University of Hull reviewed a series of studies, both published and unpublished, on four antidepressants, examining the question of whether a person's response to these drugs hinged on how depressed they were before getting treatment.
They were Eli Lilly and Co.'s Prozac, also known as fluoxetine, Wyeth's Effexor, also called venlafaxine; GlaxoSmithKline's Paxil, also called Seroxat or paroxetine, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co's drug Serzone, also called nefazodone, which it no longer markets in the United States.
,,,   The researchers obtained data on all the clinical trials submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the licensing of the four drugs. 
 
"Although patients get better when they take antidepressants, they also get better when they take a placebo, and the difference in improvement is not very great. This means that depressed people can improve without chemical treatments," Kirsch said in a statement. 
 


 guardian.co.uk logo  

Prozac, used by 40m people, does not work say scientists

A single Prozac capsule

A single Prozac capsule.

Prozac, the bestselling antidepressant taken by 40 million people worldwide, does not work and nor do similar drugs in the same class, according to a major review released today.

The study examined all available data on the drugs, including results from clinical trials that the manufacturers chose not to publish at the time. The trials compared the effect on patients taking the drugs with those given a placebo or sugar pill.

 ...  "Given these results, there seems little reason to prescribe antidepressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients, unless alternative treatments have failed," says Kirsch. "This study raises serious issues that need to be addressed surrounding drug licensing and how drug trial data is reported."

The paper, published today in the journal PLoS (Public Library of Science) Medicine, is likely to have a significant impact on the prescribing of the drugs. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) already recommends that counselling should be tried before doctors prescribe antidepressants. Kirsch, who was one of the consultants for the guidelines, says the new analysis "would suggest that the prescription of antidepressant medications might be restricted even more".

The review breaks new ground because Kirsch and his colleagues have obtained for the first time what they believe is a full set of trial data for four antidepressants.

They requested the full data under freedom of information rules from the Food and Drug Administration, which licenses medicines in the US and requires all data when it makes a decision.

More here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/26/mentalhealth.medicalresearch

 

a product that has no value? tsk tsk

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2527622020080226

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Antidepressant medications appear to help only very severely depressed people and work no better than placebos in many patients, British researchers said.

Researchers led by Irving Kirsch of the University of Hull reviewed a series of studies, both published and unpublished, on four antidepressants, examining the question of whether a person's response to these drugs hinged on how depressed they were before getting treatment.

They were Eli Lilly and Co's Prozac, also known as fluoxetine, Wyeth's Effexor, also called venlafaxine; GlaxoSmithKline's Paxil, also called Seroxat or paroxetine, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co's drug Serzone, also called nefazodone, which it no longer markets in the United States.

They are all so-called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.

The researchers found that compared with placebo, these new-generation antidepressant medications did not yield clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially had moderate or even very severe depression. The study found that significant benefits occurred only in the most severely depressed patients.

"Drug-placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients. The relationship between initial severity and antidepressant efficacy is attributable to decreased responsiveness to placebo among very severely depressed patients, rather than to increased responsiveness to medication," the researchers wrote.

The researchers obtained data on all the clinical trials submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the licensing of the four drugs.

"Although patients get better when they take antidepressants, they also get better when they take a placebo, and the difference in improvement is not very great. This means that depressed people can improve without chemical treatments," Kirsch said in a statement.

But Mary Ann Rhyne, a spokeswoman for Paxil maker GSK, said the study only looked at data submitted prior to the drug's U.S. approval.

"The authors have failed to acknowledge the very positive benefit these treatments have provided to patients and their families who are dealing with depression and they are at odds with what has been seen in actual clinical practice," Rhyne said.

"This analysis has only examined a small subset of the total data available, while regulatory bodies around the world have conducted extensive reviews and evaluations of all of the data available," she said.

Doug Petkus, a spokesman for Wyeth, maker of Effexor, said he had not seen the study and could not comment.

(Reporting by Will Dunham and Julie Steenhuysen; Editing by Eric Walsh)


BREAKING NEWS: New study reveals that antidepressants simply don't work

WASHINGTON - Antidepressant medications appear to help only very severely depressed people and work no better than placebos in many patients, British researchers said.

Researchers led by Irving Kirsch of the University of Hull reviewed a series of studies, both published and unpublished, on four antidepressants, examining the question of whether a person's response to these drugs hinged on how depressed they were before getting treatment.

They were Eli Lilly and Co.'s Prozac, also known as fluoxetine, Wyeth's Effexor, also called venlafaxine; GlaxoSmithKline's Paxil, also called Seroxat or paroxetine, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co's drug Serzone, also called nefazodone, which it no longer markets in the United States.

And:

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2008/02/25/depressing-news-on-antidepressants.aspx

In short, there was virtually no difference in the response to drug vs. placebo of patients who suffered moderate levels of depression, and a small difference for patients with very severe depression, they report in the study published this evening in the journal PLoS Medicine. That small difference was, however, clinically insignificant—that is, the difference was so small that government health authorities do not recognize it as a meaningful improvement: on a standard scale of depression, patients should improve by 3 points, but the spread between placebo and drug was only 1.8. The difference between drug and placebo was clinically meaningful only for patients at the upper end of the very severely depressed category.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Montana sues drug companies over psych drugs

Helena Independent Record
State AG sues two drug companies
February 22, 2008
By CHARLES S. JOHNSON

Attorney General Mike McGrath has sued two national pharmaceutical companies and accused them of manufacturing certain prescription drugs that were “in defective condition and unreasonably dangerous.”

McGrath filed the complaint in state district court in Helena Wednesday against Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP over their prescription drugs Risperdal and Seroquel, respectively. These medicines were intended to treat adult schizophrenia and short-term treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar disorder.
He charged that the two companies “have engaged in false and misleading marketing, advertising and sales campaigns to promote these drugs for non-medically indicated uses.” McGrath said the companies “successfully deceived physicians, citizen-users and others in the medical community” about the safety of these drugs compared to other antipsychotic drugs in order to carve out a greater market share.

This false promotion of these two atypical antipsychotic drugs have led to some Montanans who faced “serious injuries, illnesses, diseases or death,” McGrath said.
He said the two companies illegally marketed and promoted Risperdal and Seroquel for uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including treatment of dementia, sleep disorders, depression, attention deficit disorder, autism, depression, mood disorders and others.

That unlawful marketing and promotion turned Risperdal inState AG sues two drug companiesto one of the best-selling prescription drugs last year, with $4.2 billion in sales, McGrath said. Likewise, Seroquel captured 24 percent of the market in 2006, with $3.4 billion in sales to make it AstraZeneca’s top-selling prescription drug, he said.

Read more here: 
http://tmap.wordpress.com/

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Tarnished view of wonder drugs

 
 
 
Philadelpihia Inquirer
Letters to the Editor 
February 21, 2008 
 
Your article about adverse side effects and the resulting lawsuits from atypical antipsychotic drugs (”Tarnished view of wonder drugs,” Feb. 17) is disturbing for what it reveals about the tactics the pharmaceutical industry uses to promote powerful and often harmful drugs.
 
Just as disturbing is that this story and most articles about pharmaceuticals are published in the business section of the paper. If your assumption is correct, namely that most people are concerned  about drug company shenanigans only if it threatens their stock earnings, then that may be the most  disturbing thing of all.
 
Richard G. Fried
Kimberton

 

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Antipsychotics Pounded Again - Philadelphia Inquirer

 
 
Philadelphia Inquirer,
Tarnished View of Wonder Drugs
Feb. 17, 2008
By Karl Stark
CHIP ELLIS / For The Inquirer
Tammy Wandling of West Virginia hired legal counsel in Philadelphia after son Austin developed a growth in his breast while taking Risperdal for autism.
 
Slideshow element
SARAH J. GLOVER / Inquirer Staff Photographer
John Huff of Pleasantville, N.J., required surgery to remove the female-size breasts he developed at 14 while on Risperdal.
 
Slideshow element
SARAH J. GLOVER / Inquirer Staff Photographer
John Huff, 17, of Pleasantville, N.J., took the antipsychotic Risperdal for seven years for behavioral problems. "He would ask me 'Am I a girl?' said his mother, Nicola. A spokeswoman for Risperdal's maker, Janssen, said the side effect was rare. 
 
When they were first introduced in the early 1990s, new antipsychotic medications for severe mental illness were seen as wonder drugs that were safer and more effective than their predecessors.

Sales soared as doctors tried them on new conditions, including dementia, aggression and other behavioral problems. Children and the elderly were among the biggest users.

But now, several studies questioning some of the drugs' benefits have led many doctors to talk of using them for shorter periods and with tighter monitoring, because of side effects that include sedation, obesity and diabetes.

"You can't just pop someone on it and see them in a year," said Jason Karlawish, a geriatric psychiatrist at the University of Pennsylvania.

These drugs, known as atypical antipsychotics, offer a contentious case study of a common pattern in pharmaceuticals. New drugs are typically approved for narrow uses and get tried off-label on conditions that are difficult to treat. Companies' sales efforts stoke up overall use until the research catches up years later, dulling the early enthusiasm. While some patients are helped, lawsuits are also a common legacy.

The atypicals were originally approved for severe mental illness - schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - which had limited markets.

But under a determined marketing effort portraying them as safer and more effective than their predecessors, the atypicals came to be tried beyond their approved uses for nursing-home residents, prisoners, and children younger than 6 years old.

Total U.S. sales for the class reached $13 billion in 2007, doubling sales of 2002, according to IMS Health Inc., a pharmaceutical-information firm. Atypicals carry such names as Risperdal, made by Janssen Pharmaceutica, part of Johnson & Johnson; Zyprexa from Eli Lilly & Co.; Seroquel by AstraZeneca P.L.C.; Geodon by Pfizer Inc.; and Abilify by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

All over the country, state officials are discovering that atypicals have become the largest drug class in Medicaid, the health program for the poor. And many state officials question whether that reflects overzealous marketing or real need. Several states, including Pennsylvania, are suing some drugmakers for allegedly promoting the drugs beyond approved uses and commissioning "ghost-written" articles to stoke use of the drugs.

More here:

We Do Not Tolerate the Madness

NewsWithViews.com 
WHY ARE WE TOLERATING THIS MADNESS?

By Lynn Stuter

February 19, 2008

Once again Americans sit transfixed in front of televisions, soaking up the images of violence emanating from Northern Illinois University. Six are dead including the shooter — a 27 year old man; a former student at NIU who, like so many before him, was a “nice young man” who had gone off his meds and started acting erratic.

The talking heads are at it again. News anchor after news anchor, rehash after rehash, focuses on guns on campus; talking head after talking head makes the preposterous and unsubstantiated claim that more guns means more violence.

The American people sit in front of their television sets and gobble it up like the latest tasty creation in candy, marketed with the promise of keeping the consumer thin.

That such might not be the truth goes right over the heads of people who want to believe, wholeheartedly, that their government would never lie to them, much less those nice people who deliver what little real news doesn’t end up on the editing room floor before the daily news airs.

There is one commonality in all of these shootings that, while mentioned, is lost in the subterfuge focusing on guns.

Not long ago, a young man was arrested in the parking lot of a high school in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. On the front seat of his car was found a loaded shotgun; three other high-powered rifles were found in the trunk; the result of a burglary at his uncles’ home the night before in which the young man was suspect.

What was to come out in the days following this incident was that the young man had recently been on mind-altering anti-depressants.

Here we go again. Kip Kinkel, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, the Virginia Tech shooter, all on mind-altering prescription anti-depressants, as was the Northern Illinois University shooter; as have been a long list of shooters who have killed a multitude of others before killing themselves or surrendering as authorities converged.

How many of these shootings have to happen before the people rise up and demand accountability for young people being put on these mind-altering drugs? How many more people have to die before we finally say “enough is enough”?

More here: http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter119.htm


 
Natural News
Illinois Shooter was Treated with Psych Meds Prior to Shooting Rampage
February 17, 2008
by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) It comes as no surprise to anyone who's been following school shootings all the way back to the Colombine High massacre in Colorado: Every young, male shooter that has gone on a killing spree in the United States also has a history of treatment with psychotropic drugs -- typically SSRI antidepressants. These shootings have three things in common: 1) The shooters are young males. 2) The shooters exhibit a mind-numbed disconnect with reality. 3) The shooters have a history of taking psychiatric medications.

This latest shooting by 27-year-old Stephen Kazmierczak shares the same three factors. Stephen was considered a "normal, undistressed person," according to press reports. He was considered "an outstanding student" and even received a Dean's Award for outstanding work in sociology. So what happened to Stephen's brain that caused him to snap and open fire on students in a college classroom?

Psych meds make good people do bad things

Psychiatric medications, of course, are well known to cause extremely violent thoughts and behavior in young males. This is actually acknowledged by the FDA and is found in the black-box warnings printed on the packaging for such drugs. In Europe, the prescribing of many such drugs to children and teens is actually illegal. But in the United States, where psychiatric medications have become the "new medicine" for American youth, nobody seems to pay attention to the simple fact that every school shooting we've seen in the last decade has been committed by a young male with a history of treatment with psychiatric medications.

The
mainstream media, of course, is trying to spin the story by claiming Stephen snapped because he stopped taking his medications. MSM headlines proclaim, "Illinois Shooter Stopped Taking His Medications." What these headlines fail to communicate is the fact that psychiatric drugs cause long-term disruptions in the brain which lead to a strong dissociation with reality. These young, male shooters hardly even know they're in the real world anymore. They no longer see their fellow classmates as human beings, but rather as lifeless objects to be used for target practice. For those people taking psychiatric medications, there's even a strong dissociation with one's own life, as evidenced by the repeated willingness of these shooters to ultimately turn their guns on themselves.

More here: http://www.naturalnews.com/022656.html 

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Are they bi-polar or just toddlers?

News - Press (Fort Myers, Florida)
Are they bi-polar or just toddlers?
January 31, 2008 
John Rosemond

Dr. Dimitri Papolos of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and his wife, Janice, are the recognized authorities on early-onset bipolar disorder. They are the authors of "The Bipolar Child" (Broadway, $27.95), which their Web site (www.bipolarchild.com) calls "the acknowledged bible" concerning the disorder. The book is already in its third edition and has sales of more than 200,000. The Papoloses have a devoted following of parents whose children present the symptom picture in question.
The Papoloses believe EOBD is a serious psychiatric illness caused by as-yet-unknown biological abnormalities and routinely recommend a treatment plan that features powerful psychotropic drugs. They claim that the disorder is much more prevalent than previously thought. For example, they assert that 80 percent of children with EOBD are found to meet full criteria for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which is to say most kids who are diagnosed with ADHD also have, or really have, EOBD.

Especially intriguing is the Papolos' proposed list of "very common" symptoms for EODB including separation anxiety, tantrums (especially in response to the word "no"), defiance, hyperactivity, inattentiveness, unpredictable mood swings, and distractibility. Those "symptoms" will be familiar to anyone who has lived with a toddler.

Seemingly, the Papoloses would have us believe that behaviors normally associated with toddlerhood are actually manifestations of a disease that should be treated with drugs that have pronounced negative side effects (e.g., nausea, diarrhea, severe drowsiness, significant weight gain) as soon in the child's life as possible. Are the "terrible 2s" a disease?

Should most toddlers be on drugs? I have to admit to having no small amount of difficulty with the reasoning involved here. One thing is certain: The Papoloses are a boon to both the mental health and pharmaceutical industries. I'm not so certain they are a boon to children.

In their book and in the May 2007 issue of their newsletter, available through their Web site, the Papoloses recommend against using the word "no" with a bipolar child "because it will trigger a meltdown." When they were toddlers, my children often suffered wild seizures at the sound of "no."

Interestingly, however, these seizures were eventually cured with regular doses of that very word in combination with consequences the Papoloses would probably consider draconian. My wife and I were unaware that we should have been giving them drugs.

In the same issue of their newsletter, the Papoloses say that parents of bipolar children should "suffer the physical abuse" of their children. Over the past few years, I've consulted with quite a few parents of children ages 2 and older who were prone to hitting and kicking their parents when their parents did not give them their way. In nearly every case (I actually know of no exceptions), these kids were cured of their criminal tendencies in short order by parents who did not suffer this abuse, parents who administered not drugs but quite old-fashioned discipline.

An unknown author (sometimes identified as Jordan W. Smoller, University of Pennsylvania) has posted on the Internet a satire titled "The Diagnosis and Treatment of Childhood" in which he proposes, with tongue in cheek, that childhood itself is a disorder with congenital onset. "Smoller's" symptoms include knowledge deficits, dwarfism, emotional lability, and legume anorexia, to which I would add separation anxiety, tantrums, defiance, hyperactivity, and every other thing associated with the so-called "terrible 2s."

The satire is truly funny, even hilarious. The question becomes: Is it also prophetic? 
 

 

Psych sp

 
Miami Herald
CUBAN SPY
Former Cuban spy may lose psychology license
A Cuban-American psychologist who admitted providing Cuba with information on Miami exiles may lose his Fla. psychology license.
 

Florida's surgeon general has filed a complaint with the state Board of Psychology against Carlos Alvarez, a psychologist and former Florida International University professor convicted of conspiring to act as an unregistered agent for Cuba.

The administrative complaint is being reviewed by the department's attorneys before it goes to the board, said Eulinda Jackson, a spokeswoman for Ana Viamonte Ros, the state surgeon general and Florida health secretary. Viamonte Ros complaint, filed in December, asks the board to consider penalties against Alvarez, including revocation or suspension of his license, limiting of his practice, a fine or a reprimand.

Viamonte Ros told the board in the eight-page complaint that Alvarez violated rules of his profession for being convicted and failing to advise the board of his guilty plea in a timely manner.

Eli Lilly Lawyer Accidentally Leaks Settlement Talks on Zyprexa

Lilly Lawyer Accidentally Leaks Settlement Talks

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/02/lilly-lawyer-accidentally-leaks-settlem
ent/

Pharmalot.com
February 5th, 2008 <http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/02/05/>
By Ed Silverman

Talk about comical. The news last week that the drugmaker is negotiating
with federal and state prosecutors over improper marketing of Zyprexa
was the result of an accident, according to Portfolio
<http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/02/05/Eli-Lilly-E-Mail
-to-New-York-Times> . But it was a big accident.

As it turns out, a lawyer at Pepper Hamilton, one of two high-priced law
firms negotiating the deal with the government, mistakenly sent an
e-mail containing a comprehensive and confidential document to a
reporter at The New York Times. How could that have happened? The
reporter, Alex Berenson, has the same last name as another lawyer who
was supposed to have received the e-mail, Bradford Berenson
<http://www.sidley.com/ourpeople/Detail.aspx?attorney=971> , who works
at Sidley Austin.

Lilly Lawyer Accidentally Leaks Settlement Talks

yikes.jpg

Talk about comical. The news last week that the drugmaker is negotiating with federal and state prosecutors over improper marketing of Zyprexa was the result of an accident, according to Portfolio. But it was a big accident.

As it turns out, a lawyer at Pepper Hamilton, one of two high-priced law firms negotiating the deal with the government, mistakenly sent an e-mail containing a comprehensive and confidential document to a reporter at The New York Times. How could that have happened? The reporter, Alex Berenson, has the same last name as another lawyer who was supposed to have received the e-mail, Bradford Berenson, who works at Sidley Austin.

Of course, this is embarassing for the law firm, which is being paid who-knows-how-much to get Lilly the best deal possible, and keep quiet about the details until the package is wrapped and the bow is placed on top. And this is infuriating for Lilly, which wants to carefully manage the message sent to investors, doctors and a slew of others who will hinge on every word concerning any settlement.

But it’s great luck for Berenson - the reporter, that is - because he got a scoop (which amounts to a poke in the eye for Lilly, since he’s the same reporter who was leaked sealed court documents last year and called ‘reprehensible‘ by a federal judge).

Not surprisingly, Lilly assumed the leak came from someone on the government side, Portfolio writes. The US Attorney in Philadelphia, which is leading the talks, declined to comment to the mag, as did Berenson (the reporter). Lilly would only say Pepper Hamilton is still retained. There was no word on how often the unnamed lawyer who caused this gaffe had communicated previously with Berenson - the reporter, not the lawyer.

[AboveTheLaw says they’re cousins. In any event, correctly identify which Berenson is which and win a free subscription to Pharmalot. As a personal aside, we look forward to drugmakers hiring attorneys named Silverman.]

Hat tip to Starkman blog

Monday, February 04, 2008

Senator Demands Answers on Drugs not FDA aproved for Kids

PILL PUSH RAGE

POL WANTS PROBE

By SUSAN EDELMAN

February 4, 2008 -- A key New York state senator demanded yesterday that top health and mental-health officials explain why the Medicaid program has been paying for tens of thousands of children to receive psychiatric drugs that have not been FDA-approved for kids.

Thomas Morahan (R-Rockland), chairman of the senate's Committee on Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, said he was stunned by a Sunday Post report that the state Medicaid program spent $82.8 million on powerful antipsychotics, anticonvulsants and antidepressants for children under 18 in 2006 - a sum up nearly $15 million since 2004.

Many of the drugs have potentially dangerous side effects and have not been adequately tested or approved as safe and effective for children.

"I have deep concerns for the well-being of all children in our state, whether they receive medication through Medicaid or through other means," Morahan said. "It is critical that state agencies be fully responsible and aware of the medical ramifications of psychiatric drugs."

Morahan called on the Health Department and the Office of Mental Health to issue a report by Feb. 25.

While the drugs - mostly approved for adults - can be effective in treating illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, experts fear they may be overprescribed or used to control common behavior problems.

The drugs have serious possible side effects, including diabetes caused by weight gain, Parkinson's-like movement disorders and breast growth in boys. Several of the drugs carry FDA "black box" warnings that the medication may cause youngsters to become suicidal.

Medicaid officials told The Post they pay claims for the drugs without requiring doctors or other prescribers to give a specific diagnosis Officials could not say what the kids were treated for.

New York Post

PILL PUSH RAGE

POL WANTS PROBE

By SUSAN EDELMAN susan.edelman@nypost.com

February 4, 2008 -- A key New York state senator demanded yesterday that top health and mental-health officials explain why the Medicaid program has been paying for tens of thousands of children to receive psychiatric drugs that have not been FDA-approved for kids.

Thomas Morahan (R-Rockland), chairman of the senate's Committee on Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, said he was stunned by a Sunday Post report that the state Medicaid program spent $82.8 million on powerful antipsychotics, anticonvulsants and antidepressants for children under 18 in 2006 - a sum up nearly $15 million since 2004.

Many of the drugs have potentially dangerous side effects and have not been adequately tested or approved as safe and effective for children.

"I have deep concerns for the well-being of all children in our state, whether they receive medication through Medicaid or through other means," Morahan said. "It is critical that state agencies be fully responsible and aware of the medical ramifications of psychiatric drugs."

Morahan called on the Health Department and the Office of Mental Health to issue a report by Feb. 25.

While the drugs - mostly approved for adults - can be effective in treating illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, experts fear they may be overprescribed or used to control common behavior problems.

The drugs have serious possible side effects, including diabetes caused by weight gain, Parkinson's-like movement disorders and breast growth in boys. Several of the drugs carry FDA "black box" warnings that the medication may cause youngsters to become suicidal.

Medicaid officials told The Post they pay claims for the drugs without requiring doctors or other prescribers to give a specific diagnosis Officials could not say what the kids were treated for.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Universal Child Care Means Ending Parents' Rights

http://eagleforum.org/column/2008/jan08/08-01-16.html
Universal Child Care Means Ending Parents' Rights by Phyllis Schlafly
January 16, 2008

When Hillary Clinton showed television viewers the Christmas presents
she wants to give us if she is elected, her most important was Universal
Pre-K, following closely after Universal Health Care.
Hillary was reminding us of her status as the grand dame of the ideology
expressed in her favorite African slogan, "It takes a village to raise a
child."
Indeed, there seem to be many busybodies who believe the village, i.e.,
government functionaries, should make major decisions about the
upbringing of children, including what they are taught and how they are
medicated. They may approach this incrementally, but their goal is
always "universal."

We thought it was outrageous when the Ninth Circuit proclaimed in the
Palmdale case in 2005 that the fundamental right of parents over the
upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of
the school door." Now the Hillary-style liberals are also acting as
though parents' rights over their own children do not extend beyond the
threshold of the local health clinic.

Massachusetts has just started to require that all children in Medicaid
(460,000 kids) must be subjected annually to mental health screening in
order to detect signs of possible mental illness, autism, or depression.
One of the criteria on the questionnaire used to identify mental health
problems is that the child is "seeming to have less fun."

It's not hard to predict that many children will be unfairly saddled
with a false label, assigned to unnecessary and expensive treatment, and
prescribed costly drugs whose effect may range from worthless to
harmful. These costs to the taxpayers will be expanded by the inevitable
fattening of the pocketbooks of psychiatrists and psychologists.

Eli Lilly settles 900 more claims over Antipsychotic Zyprexa

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801240416
Indianapolis Star
Eli Lilly settles 900 more claims over Zyprexa January 24, 2008
INDIANAPOLIS -- Eli Lilly and Co. has settled another 900 personal-
injury claims against its antipsychotic drug Zyprexa, including five set
to go to court next month, thus avoiding what would have been the first
trial in the U.S. The Indianapolis drug maker confirmed the settlement
Wednesday but declined to reveal the amount. With the latest agreements,
Lilly has settled more than 25,000 claims, leaving about 1,100
unsettled. Many of the plaintiffs have claimed Lilly underplayed the
drug's side effects, including weight gain and elevated blood sugar.
Lilly has set aside $1.2 billion to pay claims.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


More on Zyprexa below...

Video: Zyprexa Drug Rep
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj0LZZzrcrs&feature=related

Video - St. Petersburg Times reporter on Zyprexa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuK1t474ei4


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/16/Worldandnation/Fast_facts_about_Zypr.s
html

St. Petersburg Times
Zyprexa in court
December 16, 2007
Individual claims: Over the past two years, Eli Lilly has paid $1.2-
billion to settle lawsuits from some 30,000 people, most of whom claim
Zyprexa caused them to develop diabetes. Hundreds more cases are
pending.

State claims: Nine states have sued Eli Lilly claiming the company
promoted Zyprexa for off-label uses and downplayed its risks. Each state
wants to be reimbursed hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid
dollars paid for Zyprexa.

Florida has not sued and won't comment, though Eli Lilly has said that
it received a subpoena in 2005 from the state's Medicaid Fraud Control
Unit, seeking documents related to the sales, marketing and promotional
practices of Zyprexa.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHE
AD02011008.htm
Daytona Beach News Journal
January 10, 2008
Florida undecided as states sue over costly drug program "Our office is
aware of concerns with antipsychotics in Florida's Medicaid program but
we cannot acknowledge nor provide any information pertaining to ongoing
criminal investigations," said Sandi Copes, a spokeswoman with the
Florida Attorney General's office. Florida Medicaid records show the
number of children -- some just months old
-- who were prescribed the drugs went from 9,364 seven years ago to
18,137 in 2006. No records for privately insured patients are available.
"The situation is out of control," said David Cohen, a professor at
Florida International University who has been studying the use of
antipsychotics since 1983. While no long-term studies have been done on
the effects the drugs have on children, there is evidence children on
the drugs face greater risks of diabetes, hyperglycemia and extreme
weight gain, Cohen said. Parent, Richard Davis, said he watched in
horror as his daughter Ciara, then 6, gained 40 pounds, developed
breasts and had uncontrollable tongue and facial movements.
"Those drugs were killing her," Davis said. Over his objections, he said
Ciara was given antipsychotics by her mother and while in foster care. A
court-appointed guardian also noted the effects in an August
2003 report, describing a visit in which Ciara "never once kept her
tongue in her mouth." Ciara, now 11, was taken off the drugs after
about a year, her father said, and she quickly dropped the added weight.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/o
pnOPN28011608.htm
Editorial: Drugs for children? Prescriptions of anti-psychotics
troubling January 16, 2008 ... And a state struggling to keep up with
rapid changes that have pushed Medicaid costs for powerful
anti-psychotic drugs from $9
million seven years ago to almost $30 million in 2006. Something
doesn't add up. Do all these children need the drugs they're being
prescribed? ... the trend is disturbing. Other states are already
pushing hard for answers, and Florida should join in. The drugs in
question are known as atypical anti-psychotics and include Risperdal,
Abilify, Geodon and Seroquel ... Twenty-six states are exploring legal
action against drug companies for unfair trade practices or consumer-
protection violations (Florida is one of them; the Attorney General's
Medicaid Fraud Control Unit served drug manufacturer Eli Lilly with a
request in 2005 for information regarding its marketing of the drug
Zyprexa.) Other states are being more aggressive; several have actually
filed suit seeking to reclaim some of the millions spent on these drugs.

How Teenage Rebellion Has Become a Mental Illness

http://www.alternet.org/story/75081/
How Teenage Rebellion Has Become a Mental Illness

By Bruce E. Levine, AlterNet. Posted January 28, 2008.

Big pharma has some new customers. Not complying with authority is now,
in many cases, labeled a disease.
For a generation now, disruptive young Americans who rebel against
authority figures have been increasingly diagnosed with mental illnesses
and medicated with psychiatric (psychotropic) drugs.

Disruptive young people who are medicated with Ritalin, Adderall and
other amphetamines routinely report that these drugs make them "care
less" about their boredom, resentments and other negative emotions, thus
making them more compliant and manageable. And so-called atypical
antipsychotics such as Risperdal and Zyprexa -- powerful tranquilizing
drugs -- are increasingly prescribed to disruptive young Americans, even
though in most cases they are not displaying any psychotic symptoms.

Many talk show hosts think I'm kidding when I mention oppositional
defiant disorder (ODD). After I assure them that ODD is in fact an
official mental illness -- an increasingly popular diagnosis for
children and teenagers -- they often guess that ODD is simply a new term
for juvenile delinquency. But that is not the case.

More here: http://www.alternet.org/story/75081/

3 docs miss stroke & say mother is depressed after losing her baby - mother dies - UK

Another example of why a full medical physical should always be performed on someone before a psychiatric diagnosis.
 
 
20 January 2008
WRONG WRONG WRONG
EXCLUSIVE 3 docs miss stroke & say Linsey is depressed after losing her baby.. Nurses are even sent to take her to a psychiatric hospital After 11 DAYS' hell she dies in hospital following a brain op Appalling tragedy of mum of two killed by medical blunders
By Martyn Halle

Heartbroken Mark Hibberd is mourning his wife Linsey after a shocking series of hopelessly WRONG diagnoses by a procession of doctors.

Linsey, 29, was struck down with all the classic symptoms of a stroke a few days after her eagerly-awaited third baby was still-born.

But a hospital casualty doctor WRONGLY diagnosed her slurred speech and numbness on one side of her body as grief caused by loss of the child.

As the symptoms worsened Mark, 39, called his GPs but two doctors WRONGLY diagnosed depression - and one even sent two nurses to take Linsey to psychiatric hospital.

Finally a psychiatrist with no specialist training in brain haemorrhage took one look at the semi-paralysed mum and stated the blindingly obvious: SHE'S HAD A STROKE.

By then it was too late. Mum-oftwo Linsey died from a massive blood clot on the brain just 11 days after losing her baby.

Unusually, the hospital where the first wrong diagnosis was made paid for last week's funeral without being asked.

But Mark, who wept bitterly as his wife's coffin was lowered into the same grave as their still-born son's, told The People: "I can't believe that I've lost the baby and my wife one after another.

FDA Warnings Did Not Herald Closer Pediatric SSRI Supervision or Drastic Drop in Prescribing

FDA Warnings Did Not Herald Closer Pediatric SSRI Supervision or Drastic Drop in Prescribing

Marlene Busko

January 17, 2008 — Following US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings about pediatric suicidality risk with selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), patient monitoring did not increase and prescribing dipped modestly, according to 2 studies.

The first study, which looked at provider contact following initial antidepressant prescribing, is published in the January issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry. The second study, which examines trends in prescribing antidepressants, appears in the January issue of Archives of General Psychiatry.

 

Life cycle of ADHD

 
Life cycle of ADHD
 
Does medication make a difference in the long run for kids suffering from the disorder? New research suggests it doesn't.

By Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 28, 2008
Doctors and parents have long been left to guess at which children with a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, will go on to become adults with significant attention problems, how well they will navigate the challenges of adulthood and whether early recognition of -- and medication for -- their condition will make any difference in the trajectory of their lives.
 
Now a series of studies following 457 Finnish children from birth to ages 16 to 18 offers a glimpse of how the primary symptoms of ADHD typically evolve. At the same time, the studies raise provocative questions about the long-term effect of treating those symptoms with medication.
 
The studies focus on a subset of 188 Finnish teens considered to have "probable or definite ADHD" that will follow them into adulthood and 103 kids with conduct disorder -- behavior issues that fall short of an ADHD diagnosis but put kids at higher risk for similar problems. Those teens were compared with a group of Finnish teens with no ADHD diagnosis.
 
Researchers found it is the can't-sit-still kids -- the stereotype of the "ADHD generation" -- who are most likely to mature out of the disease. Among those with persistent ADHD, they also found, half have problems with cognitive skills that are key to success in adulthood, but half have no such deficits.
 

Eli Llily to pay more than $1 billion to federal and state governments for Psych Drug Zyprexa?

 
New York Times
 
Lilly in Settlement Talks With U.S.
January 30, 2008

Eli Lilly and federal prosecutors are discussing a settlement of a civil and criminal investigation into the company’s marketing of the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa that could result in Lilly’s paying more than $1 billion to federal and state governments.

If a deal is reached, the fine would be the largest ever paid by a drug company for breaking the federal laws that govern how drug makers can promote their medicines.

Several people involved in the investigation confirmed the settlement discussions. They insisted on anonymity because they have not been authorized to talk about the negotiations.

Zyprexa has serious side effects and is approved only to treat people with schizophrenia and severe bipolar disorder. But documents from Lilly show that between 2000 and 2003, Lilly encouraged doctors to prescribe Zyprexa to people with age-related dementia, as well as people with mild bipolar disorder who had previously been diagnosed only as depressed.