I thought I had sent out something recently to FW but can't find it, on
the most recent research from 2010 showing that placebos outperformed,
equalled or almost equalled antidepressants in efficacy. It showed how
small a margin of success rate can enable a new drug to fly--especially
when Pharma is paying for the study.
We always see the new studies promoting new drugs, but few are published
showing long-term changes, psychologically and physically, on the
patients after years of treatment.
The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009, conducted research showing that
atypical antipsychotics, widely given to patients with dementia these
days, increased death rate by 1.6-1.7X greater in 17 placebo controlled
studies. Atypicals are known to generate a high level of suicide in
youths, but the following, from Rense.com, reveals that antipsychotics
increase the general suicide rate of these patients by 68X was pretty
shocking to learn:
Natalia
Dr. Ann Blake Tracy
Executive Director International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.org
9-8-2
Dr. Arif Khan presented his research at a recent meeting sponsored by
the National Institute of Mental Health. This was a meeting of the New
Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit. The essence of the research was an
analysis of the data on the suicide rate for patients who participated
in the clinical trials for these new drugs - over 71,604 people. Now
these are the clinical trials where these drugs were tested on the
public to see if they were "safe and effective." This clinical data is
then presented to the FDA for approval for marketing of these new
compounds.
In his presentation Dr. Khan made note of what we learned long ago when
this information was revealed through court documents in SSRI wrongful
death cases - that is, that "actively suicidal" patients are excluded
from the clinical trials on the SSRI antidepressants. What he found
shocking about this is that despite the actively suicidal being excluded
from these clinical trials the suicide rate among those taking these
medications ABSOLUTELY SKYROCKETED from 11 out of 100,000 to 718 out of
100,000 !!!
So, what I want to know is who is it that flunked their math courses -
the FDA or the drug company researchers?!! Obviously it was both!
What frightens me more than anything at this point of realization is
millions of patients going into withdrawal from these drugs. The rapid
or abrupt withdrawal from these antidepressants can produce suicide,
mania, seizures, psychotic breaks, etc. at an even greater rate than
while on the drugs. Extreme caution MUST be taken.
Here are the suicide rates. Keep in mind as you read through these that
the rate of 11 out of 100,000 persons per year is the suicide rate for
the population at large.
*752 per 100,000 for those treated with atypical
antipsychotics--risperidone (Risperdal), olanzapine (Zyprexa), and
quetiapine (Seroquel);
*718 per 100, 000 for those treated with the SSRIs - Selective Serotonin
Reuptake Inhibitors (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa)
*425 per 100, 000 for those treated for "social anxiety disorder" with
nefazodone (Serzone), mirtazapine (Remeron), and bupropion
(Wellbutrin/Zyban);
*136 per 100,000 for those treated for panic disorder--with
benzodiazepine alprazolam (Xanax);
*105 per 100, 000 persons for those treated for obesessive-compulsive
disorder with anticonvulsant valproate (Depakote).
These figures clearly speak for themselves. The massive numbers of
wrongful death suits will obviously follow. At least loved ones will
know why they have lost those who meant so much to them via such tragic
circumstances.
Keep in mind as you read through this data that the new antipsychotics
listed here are basically a combination of the older antipsychotics and
the SSRIs. They too have a STRONG effect upon serotonin levels. Also the
most likely reason researchers saw an even higher rate of suicide in
placebo with the antipsychotics is that these patients were likely being
abruptly discontinued from their older antipsychotics for the clinical
trials. This abrupt withdrawal causes suicide.
Dr. Ann Blake Tracy Executive Director International Coalition for Drug
Awareness www.drugawareness.org
and the author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? - Our Serotonin Nightmare
800 280-0730 Office 801-282-5282
http://www2.eclinicalpsychiatrynews.com/scripts/om.dll/serve
http://www.rense.com/general29/ei.htm
On 3/15/2011 11:55 AM, Mike Spencer wrote:
Arthur wrote:
Forwarding this interesting piece.
In today's excerpt - the truth wears off:
Further editorial on this piece along with comments from readers here:
http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2010/12/10/new-yorker-are-humans-the-problem-with-the-scientific-method/
A point made there:
"The scientific method is flawed because initial results are modified,
elaborated or thrown out altogether over time." But that's exactly
why the scientific method is a success. This tired argument is
made often by antievolutionists, and it's essentially criticizing
science because it's not fundamentalist religion with revealed,
unchanging truth.
And we have to consider the dominance of profit motive in contemporary
science, especially pharmacological research:
We'll make $500,000,000 if we can make a case, or get some people
with unimpeachable credentials to make a case, that our patented
molecule cures cancer, makes crazy people manageable or keep you
looking nubile past menopause. We'll make ten times that if we
can manufacture it and distribute it world-wide in 40 ton lots
within a year, before anybody rocks the boat.
My words, not those of the author, but you get the idea. Corporate
managers don't *care* about science or truth, only about engendering
and exploiting belief, however dubious the putative facts may be.
Worse, once someone is actually *collecting* the gigabuck revenue
stream from a product, vast sums of money can be devoted to putting
out fires, viz. to bolstering the preferred "truth" and stamping out
heresy.
I learned such statistics as I know by tracking my wife through her
courses when she went back in mid-career for an advanced degree.
Interesting stuff but the "truth emerges from that formulaic 95%"
struck me as religious dogma right off, especially as it was applied
to social and clinical situations where the underlying mechanisms --
mechanisms at the molecular or neurological level -- remain Terra
incognita. This is where and when I learned about "physics envy" in
the umm... "softer" sciences.
Statistics done on, say, 10^25 molecules can tell us something
meaningful about the distribution of kinetic energy of individual
molecules given an average temperature. An anti-psychotic drug trial
on 1500 patients (order of 10^3 stunningly complex organisms) is a
whole 'nother can of worms.
Another snippet from the above-referenced article:
UPDATE: Not sure what "weak coupling ratio for neutron decay"
means, I sent by email to a theoretical physicist prominent in
public discussion and who has his eye on large issues, Arizona
State U's Lawrence Krauss, the graf [sic] in the New Yorker on
that and gravity measurements.
Here is a slightly amended rendition of his reply:
"The physics references are [deposit scatological bovine
expletive here] .... the neutron data have fallen, reflecting
under-estimation of errors, but the lower lifetime doesn't
change anything having to do with the model of the neutron,
which is well understood and robust .... And as for
discrepancies with gravity, the deep borehole stuff is
interesting but highly suspect. Moreover, all theories
conflict with some experiments, because not all experiments
are right." / LMK
ObFutreWork: Lots of jobs for people with skill in melifluously and
euphoniously persuading other people of the truth of
things that we wish were true.
- Mike
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
