The Medicating of America

by Maureen Kennedy Salaman

President, National Health Federation
June 2006

Nobody is Safe

Whatever you choose to call them: psychotropic, neuroleptic, or psychoactive drugs, Americans have become so complacent about, and dependent upon, psychiatric medications that some parents are using them to chemically restrain their children and teenagers.

A two-year investigation by the Florida Statewide Advocacy Council found that more than 50 percent of Florida's foster children ‑‑ including infants and toddlers ‑‑ were being given mind‑altering drugs.  Forty-four percent of them had not been seen by a pediatrician, and of those who had, five percent had no diagnosis.  Another 12 percent had a diagnosis of "other," which included hearing impaired, bed-wetting and the dubious, subjective diagnosis of "adjustment disorder."

 The Medicating of America

The drugs given the children were designed to treat schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder.  In young growing bodies these drugs can cause heart problems, growth suppression, psychosis, and decreased blood flow to the brain.  A common side effect is tics or shakes.  For more on this horror, read the chapter on Tardive Dyskinesia in my book, All Your Health Questions Answered Naturally.

It is estimated that today more than six percent of American children are taking some kind of psychiatric medication.  Not surprisingly, among teenagers this number is even higher.

A 2006 Brandeis University study found that over a seven-year period (1991-2004), psychotropic drug prescriptions for teens increased by 250 percent.  The study revealed that in 2001 one in every ten office visits by teenage boys led to a prescription for a psychotropic drug, and a diagnosis of ADHD was given one‑third of the time.  Also, up to 26 percent of the time when these medications were prescribed, no mental health diagnosis was made.

A new phenomena -- school shootings -- may be related to this increased use of psychotropic drugs as many shooters were on psychotropic drugs at the time.

According to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a psychiatric watchdog group, eight out of 13 school shootings, such as the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, were committed by teens on psychiatric drugs.  Mothers on these drugs have killed their children or even cut off the arms of their baby while taking these drugs.

Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old youth who killed his parents and then killed two and wounded 22 of his fellow students at Thurston High School in Oregon, was taking Prozac.

Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado, was under the influence of Luvox (fluvoxamine), an antidepressant medication.  The potential side effects of Luvox are listed in the manufacturer's warning: "Frequent" adverse effects include "manic reaction" and psychotic reaction."  Symptoms of mania include delusions of grandeur, intense irritability, and rages and delusional thoughts.

Fifteen‑year‑old Shawn Cooper of Notus, Idaho fired a shotgun at students and school staff.  According to his stepfather, he had been taking a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).

Thirteen‑year‑old Chris Fetters of Iowa killed her favorite aunt.  She was taking Prozac.

In 2001, Christopher Pittman killed his grandparents while taking Zoloft, an antidepressant similar to Prozac.

Ann Blake Tracy, Ph.D., author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora?, has been studying the violent, dark side of SSRIs such as Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft drugs for over ten years.  When she examined 32 murder/suicides involving women and their children, she found that in 24 of 32 cases an SSRI drug was involved.

A report issued by the Drug Enforcement Agency warned that Ritalin, commonly prescribed for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, "shares many of the pharmacological effects of . . . cocaine."  Some experts believe Ritalin can cause psychotic reactions resulting in suicide and violent behavior toward others.

A particularly sharp rise among children being prescribed psychotropic drugs has been noted after 1999, when the federal government began allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise their drugs directly to consumers.  Between 1996 and 2000, pharmaceutical companies increased their spending on television advertising six fold, to $1.5 billion.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse reported in 2005 that while teen use of cigarettes and illegal drugs are down, the abuse of prescription sedatives or painkillers is up significantly.

A brain imaging study found that the brains of teenagers are still developing, and that psychotropic drugs can endanger the growth process.  One of the last parts of the brain to completely mature is the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for planning, judgment, and self‑control.  When taken during this acute phase of growth, mind-altering drugs may keep young people from ever developing self‑control and good judgment.  This brings us to the prevalence and risks of psychotropic medications and what happens when self-control and good judgment are lost.

The Risks for Suicide

In 2003, children and adolescents made up about eight percent of patients prescribed antidepressant drugs in the U.S., constituting over ten million prescriptions dispensed for patients younger than 18 years.  These drugs included Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, and Celexa.

In September 2004, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) researchers analyzed 24 clinical trials involving 4,582 pediatric patients taking antidepressant medications for depression, anxiety, or other psychiatric disorders.  They concluded that patients taking antidepressants were twice as likely as patients taking placebo (fake) pills to experience suicidal thoughts or attempt suicide.

A month later, the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory to warn the public about the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in children and adolescents being treated with antidepressant medications.   The FDA called for the labels of all antidepressants to have a "black box" warning about this risk.  The new warning, by the way, does not recommend they not be used by children and adolescents.

Interestingly enough, the FDA black-box decision came some ten months after regulators in England had declared that most antidepressants are not suitable for children under 18.

Adults, too, are at risk.  In February 2005, a study of data from 702 controlled clinical trials involving 87,650 adult patients found that those taking antidepressant drugs were twice as likely to attempt suicide as those receiving a placebo dummy pill or other treatments.

The FDA now admits that people being treated for depression should be cautious when taking antidepressants.

On June 30, 2005, the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory release entitled, "Suicidality in Adults Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications."  The advisory states: "Several recent scientific publications suggest the possibility of an increased risk for suicidal behavior in adults who are being treated with antidepressant medications" and warns: "Adults being treated with antidepressant medications, particularly those being treated for depression, should be watched closely for worsening of depression and for increased suicidal thinking or behavior."

Drugs to treat psychosis are also associated with suicide.  A study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (v.188, 2006) compared suicide rates associated with schizophrenia from 1875 to 1924, when antipsychotic drugs were not as prevalent, and from 1994 to 2003, when patients were commonly treated with psychotropic drugs.

The researchers found that the suicide rate for schizophrenia between 1875 and 1924 was 20 per 100,000 hospital years, a lifetime rate of less than 0.5 percent.  For the modern drug era, the lifetime suicide rate was found to be as high as 18 percent.  The study concluded, "These findings point to an increase in suicide rates for patients with schizophrenia."

An article by Robert Whitaker in Medical Hypothesis (v.62, 2004), entitled "The Case against Antipsychotic Drugs: a 50-year Record of Doing more Harm than Good," states that, "Forty percent or more of all schizophrenia patients would fare better if they were not so medicated . . . (patients) may be no better than they were 100 years ago, when water therapies and fresh air were the treatment of the day."

A shocking study was recently conducted in which young people were given the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa to treat them for schizophrenia, even though they had not yet developed the disorder.  The study was financed by Zyprexa's manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and the National Institute of Mental Health.  It was so poorly conducted and dangerous that most participants dropped out before the study could be concluded.  How did Eli Lilly and the Institute determine who should be study participants?  They used a scale that assessed risk for psychosis, with behaviors considered symptomatic (and normal in teenagers) such as suspiciousness, grandiosity, and bizarre thoughts.

There are many, many studies showing that pharmaceutical drugs used to treat mental illness are detrimental at best and deadly at worst.  In countries where drugs are used the least, patients do the best.

The World Health Organization (WHO) piloted a study that compared schizophrenia outcomes in "developed" and "developing" countries.  It began the study in 1968, and examined 1,202 patients in nine countries.  At both two‑year and five‑year follow‑ups, the patients in the poor countries were doing much better.  The researchers concluded that schizophrenia patients in the poor countries "had a considerably better course and outcome than (patients) in developed countries"

A follow-up WHO study found that 63.7 percent of patients in poor countries did well at the end of two years.  In contrast, only 36.9 percent of patients in the U.S. and six other developed countries did well at the end of two years.  The researchers concluded that "being in a developed country was a strong predictor of not attaining a complete remission." 

Although the WHO researchers didn't say why developed countries were unsuccessful in treating their mentally ill, they did note that in the developing countries only 15.9 percent of patients were continuously maintained on psychotropic drugs, compared to 61 percent of patients in the U.S. and other developed countries.

This backs up U.S. research that shows that these drugs induce brain changes that make people more biologically prone to psychosis.

Dr. Courtenay Harding has conducted studies that show patients who do not use psychiatric medications on a long‑term basis are the most likely to recover from schizophrenia.

In the Vermont Longitudinal Study of Persons With Severe Mental Illness, of the 68 percent of people diagnosed with schizophrenia who recovered, 50 percent never took psychiatric medications and another 25 percent only took them periodically to control symptoms.

Ties That Bind - The DSM

If drugs don't work and actually harm people, if the studies and research show this, if people don't like them -- why are physicians prescribing them, why are people buying them, and why are pharmaceutical companies so rich?

When considering the mental health of their patients, physicians and psychiatrists use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th. Edition.  Better known as the DSM‑IV, the manual is published by the American Psychiatric Association and covers conventionally recognized mental-health disorders, causes, gender and age statistics, and prognoses as well as research and treatment approaches.

The DSM is used by medical practitioners and is the industry's bible.  The information contained in it is the final word for the practice of conventional psychiatry in the United States and other "developed" countries.  If a treatment option or diagnosis is not written in its pages, it is not used or considered.

The manual is also tremendously important to pharmaceutical companies, as the Food and Drug Administration will not approve a drug to treat a mental illness unless the condition is in the DSM.  Once a condition is included in the manual, drug companies can then market the "approved" medications to physicians and consumers.

The original 1952 DSM manual contained 107 mental-health disorders.  The most recent edition identifies 365.

In a not-so-shocking revelation, it was recently uncovered that every one of the psychiatric "experts" who provided information about disorders typically treated with pharmaceuticals -- mood disorders, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders -- benefitted financially from drug companies, and those ties were especially strong where drugs were recommended as a first-line treatment.  Most of the money received by the DSM‑IV experts was for research.  Other financial perks included speaking or consulting fees, ownership of company stock, gifts, and paid travel expenses.

The DSM uses research to back up its treatment recommendations, which would be appropriate if the findings were objective and unbiased.  However, many of the "experts" who conducted the research have such close ties to pharmaceutical goals that the research and its conclusions should be considered invalid.

For example, Eli Lilly & Company was seeking to market its drug Prozac® (fluoxetine hydrochloride) to treat premenstrual syndrome (PMS); but first PMS had to be considered a psychiatric disorder.  Five of the six researchers charged with this task had ties to Eli Lilly.  Of course, a new disorder to cover this problem was conveniently recognized.  In November 1999, the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of Eli Lilly’s Prozac for the treatment of "premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD)," a "severe" psychiatric form of PMS.

However, since the patent on Prozac had expired, Eli Lilly got the FDA to approve their drug Serafem for the treatment of PMDD.  Prozac and Serafem are the exact same drug.  While the patent on Prozac has expired, the patent -- and the profits -- on Serafem are protected until 2007.

Once a patent expires, a generic form of the drug may be manufactured, with considerable cost savings to a consumer.  I looked at the Internet website www.drugstore.com  and did some cost comparisons.  Thirty 20-milligram capsules of brand name Prozac costs $129.96.  Thirty 20-milligram capsules of the same drug – generic Fluoxetine HCl -- costs $15.99.  Twenty-eight 20-milligram capsules of Serafem costs $110.99.

Big Money at Stake

The financial benefits are so incredibly large that it is not surprising to find pharmaceutical giants entrenched in institutional bias and industry manipulation.

According to a research paper entitled "Mental Health Policy and Psychotropic Drugs," the amount of money spent on psychotropic drugs grew from an estimated $2.8 billion in 1987 to nearly $18 billion in 2001 (Coffey et al. 2000, Mark et al. 2005), and the amount spent on psychotropic drugs has been growing more rapidly than what has been spent on drugs overall (IMS Health 2005).

Consumer spending on antidepressant and antipsychotic medications grew 11.9 percent and 22.1 percent, respectively, in 2003, whereas  spending on drugs overall grew at 11.5 percent in 2003 (IMS Health 2005).

Antidepressants were the fourth leading class of drugs in 2004 with annual global sales totaling $20.3 billion.  Antipsychotics, the fifth leading class, had annual sales totaling $14.1 billion ‑‑ and are projected to increase to $18.2 billion by 2007.  It has been estimated that the profit on all psychotropic drugs in 2006 will reach $35 billion.

Old-Fashioned Medicine

When I was growing up doctors knew best, and they were considered father figures.  We trusted physicians to know us well and treat us well.  I am afraid that when physicians are trapped in the profit-driven HMO insurance system they are little more than pawns for healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies.

We are now in an age where we must fight for old-fashioned medicine.  We must be willing to fight for our right to choose our medical care, and be willing to pay for it.  As physicians and pharmaceutical companies push pills aggressively on every front, we must be cautious, and we must be knowledgeable.   Do not trust the diagnosis, the doctor, or the documentation.  Consumers and "crazies," beware.  You are probably not as sick as they think.

.