Posted on 01/29/2006 2:03:19 PM PST by gobucks
"The link between violence and antidepressants is unclear"
Its getting clearer to some experts, those who look.
When visiting the site itself, the following contains links to each article:
http://www.lucire.com.au
"...Risks, Benefits and Consequences
1. SSRIs: Forensic Issues. Risk Benefit Analysis and Potential for Litigation In Australia. Duty to warn? (Powerpoint) Presented at RANZCP Forensic Section Conference October 2003 Geelong
2. Do SSRIs cause Suicide (2004) (Powerpoint).
3. Four seminal papers on SSRIs and their complications.
Ronald Wm. Maris, PH.D. - Suicide and Neuropsychiatric Adverse Effects of SSRI Medications: Methodological Issues. Daubert : Competent Science on SSRI - Suicide (2002).
David Healy, MD; Chris Whitaker, MSc - Antidepressants and suicide: risk-benefit conumdrums (2003).
Peter R. Breggin - Suicidality, violence and mania caused by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs): A review and analysis (2004).
The Work of David Healy has informed all these papers.
4. SSRIs: Do they cause suicide? The Science: Daubert Admissible evidence. Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences, May 19, 2004. In Press. Also Interantional conference of medical law, Sydney
5. SSRIs and their effects on Mental Health Presentations: A plausible hypothesis. ,(PowerPoint) Presented at RANZCP Forensic Section Conference October 2004, Fremantle.
6. New Drugs New Problems (PowerPoint) presented Section of Forensic psychiatry, April 9 2005.
7. New Drugs New Problems: Medico-political expose of the suicide crisis in Mental Health, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences.
8. The Ethics of the Solitary Empiricist: How PhaRMAs changed common human unhappiness into a deficit disease. Blackheath Philosophy Forum May 9 2005. Do Second Generation Antidepressants Cause Suicide? A Daubert Hearing. Health, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. May 19. 2004.
9. Effects of Second Generation Antidepressants and Antipsychotics on Mental Health Services in Australia Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 40th Conference, Convention Centre, Sydney 22 to 27 May. 2005.
10. Akathisia and Crime: Product Liability issues. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 40th conference, Convention Centre, Sydney 22 to 27 May. 2005..."
On the same page:
"Dr Lucire is a forensic psychiatrist....
...[her] field of experience includes issues in:
criminality,
child custody,
compensation,
common law,
credibility and reliability,
Daubert standard of evidence,
early health-based retirement,
evaluation of disability and injuries,
insurance law,
superannuation,
differentiating true from fabricated sexual abuse allegations,
textual analysis to identify confabulation, and
product liability,
false advertising by pharmacutical companies,
medical negligence,
pharmacological injury.
Her clients have included the major institutions in Australia, legal aid services, prosecutors, claimants and defendants, major Insurers of Workman's' and Workers Compensation, victims' compensation boards, superannuation boards, commercial, public and private liability insurers.
She practices in both criminal and civil litigation, the latter a vexed area which tends to be more influenced by political than theoretical considerations. Her efforts include in this area revolve around the provision of an accurate diagnosis, so that causation is correctly attributed.
Dr Lucire believes that it is only from this starting point of diagnosis of organic or functional disorder that causation can be attributed. Functional disorder can and should be differentiated from malingering. By the time a case comes up for settlement, the original symptoms of injury have often been replaced by 'functional overlay' which causes confusion for the physical specialists.
Her review of those clients who are not obviously 'psychiatric' is useful and use can be made of such evaluations by many defendant and plaintiff clients..."
It becomes clear that Dr Lucire is very hot on Daubert's standard of evidence (real standards, real evidence) when assessing drugs, which is nothing like pharmaceutical "evidence" (falsified, hidden).
No, why? Neither are the experts like Dr Lucire, David Healy or the many people who are concerned about the number of people suffering adverse effects.
Are you a pharmaceutical rep?
No.
bump for later read.
I'm only asking because I've noticed that its a pharmaceutical line to bring up "scientology" when they can't refute the evidence about their drugs. I'm an agnostic myself, Christian now and again, and other people I know personally with the same views on drugs are from mixed beliefs - most are Christians.
The left demonizes guns while ignoring the real problem...violent people on drugs.
A lot at risk for the Pharmaceutical Industry, but the 'scientology' line won't work for them much longer - the researchers below are surely not scientologists?
From:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/182310/
"Disease-mongering is putting people at risk, researchers say
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4898488.stm
Pharmaceutical firms are inventing diseases to sell more drugs, a researchers have warned.
Disease-mongering promotes non-existent diseases and exaggerates mild problems to boost profits, the Public Library of Science Medicine reported.
Researchers at Newcastle University in Australia said firms were putting healthy people at risk by medicalising conditions such as menopause.
But the pharmaceutical industry denied it invented diseases.
DISEASE-MONGERING
Restless legs - Prevalence of rare condition exaggerated
Irritable bowel syndrome - Promoted as a serious illness needing therapy, when usually a mild problem
Menopause - Too often medicalised as a disorder when really a normal part of life
Report authors David Henry and Ray Moynihan criticised attempts to convince the public in the US that 43% of women live with sexual dysfunction.
They also said that risk factors like high cholesterol and osteoporosis were being presented as diseases - and rare conditions such as restless leg condition and mild problems of irritable bowel syndrome were exaggerated.
The report said: "Disease-mongering is the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows the markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.
Campaigns
"It is exemplified mostly explicitly by many pharmaceutical industry-funded disease awareness campaigns - more often designed to sell drugs than to illuminate or to inform or educate about the prevention of illness or the maintenance of health."
The researchers called on doctors, patients and support groups to be aware of the marketing tactics of the pharmaceutical industry and for more research into the way in which conditions are presented.
They added: "The motives of health professionals and health advocacy groups may well be the welfare of patients, rather than any direct self-interested financial benefit, but we believe that too often marketers are able to crudely manipulate those motivations.
"Disentangling the different motivations of the different actors in disease-mongering will be a key step towards a better understanding of this phenomenon."
But Richard Ley, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said the research was centred on the US where the drugs industry had much more freedom to promote their products to the public.
"The way you can advertise is much more restricted in the UK so it is wrong to extrapolate it.
"Also, it is not right to say the industry invents diseases, we don't. It is up to doctors to decide what treatment to give people, we can't tell them."
Has Richard Ley forgotten the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's OWN BATTLE PLAN? It wasn't that long ago and they've certainly been very busy implementing it over the last 6 years...
http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/5111-005.htm
"....The strategy for DTCA used by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) has been enacted throughout Europe, especially in the major drug-producing countries. The ‘Battle Plan’, was described in a private meeting by the Director-General of the ABPI, and reported in the trade journal, Pharmaceutical Marketing, as follows:
"Now the ABPI has announced that it is launching the final stages of a campaign before it tackles the Government and the EU head on ... It is the spearhead of a carefully thought-out campaign. The ABPI battle plan is to employ ground troops in the form of patient support groups, sympathetic medical opinion and healthcare professionals - known as 'stakeholders' - which will lead the debate on the informed patient issue. This will have the effect of weakening political, ideological and professional defences … Then the ABPI will follow through with high-level precision strikes on specific regulatory enclaves in both Whitehall and Brussels." (Jeffries, 2000)[v] ..."
A brilliant computer scientist and friend once described the effect of Prozac on him. He said it didn't increase his desire to commit suicide. He already wanted to do that. What Prozac did was eliminate the lack of motivation and initiative to act on his desires. He eventually succeeded in June 1993.
Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.
Sorry to hear that...
No. Some people are just evil, criminal assholes.
You'll find in that list very many people who were NOT violent before being given psychotropic drugs. But I agree about the guns - when drug induced akathisia and/or psychosis sets in, then its likely less people would die if guns were not to hand - though where guns are not, it doesn't stop people using other means. As is evidenced in that list.
Drug-induced akathisia and drug-induced psychosis chemically make changes to the way people think. Which is why psych medications are called 'mind altering'.
It happens even in healthy trial volunteers.
http://www.drugawareness.org/Oldsite/healy.html
Extract:
"In the first clinical trial of its kind, Dr David Healy, director of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine at the University of Wales, gave Prozac to a volunteer group of mentally healthy adults and found even their behaviour was affected. He said: 'We can make healthy volunteers belligerent, fearful, suicidal, and even pose a risk to others.'
Healy says between one in 20 and one in 10 people who take Prozac can be affected by akathisia, whereby they become mentally restless or manic and lose all inhibitions about their actions 'People don't care about the consequences as you'd normally expect. They're not bothered about contemplating something they would usually be scared of,' he said."
http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58048-DH.htm
"...Am I to understand that in our healthy volunteer study when two of our volunteers became agitated and suicidal that their suicidality had nothing to do with their agitation? Would the MCA like to interview our two healthy volunteers?..."
"...Am I to understand that in Pfizers’ Hindmarch study where all volunteers taking sertraline appeared to become agitated/apprehensive that Pfizer discontinued the study without any concerns that this agitation/apprehension might lead on to something like suicide? Can anyone in the MCA tell me what kind of agitation would not lead to concerns that if prolonged or severe it could result in suicide?..."
So nothing to argue the evidence with other than to imply anyone with evidence must be a scientologist?
Refute what evidence? You don't even have a theory. You've posted lists of homicides/suicides connected with anti-depressants, but you haven't established causality, let alone the mechanism of that causality.
That's how you compare so well with Scientologists: it's not about scientific reasons to use or avoid a given substance, it's an evangelical crusade.
You appear to have missed one or two of the evidence based posts after the list of homicides. The list wasn't presented as EVIDENCE - merely showing the effect psychotropic drugs can have on SOME people.
I'll leave you alone now to do your best to discredit the other posts :)
There's nothing to discredit. You did a document dump; it's "word salad" with no scientific method.
Typical resort to ad hominem attacks when losing the argument. You offered a tremendous number of violent acts where the actor was on an SSRI or other psychotropic drug. Trying to pawn it off as the vain rantings of a scientologist doesn't cut it.
ROTFL. So you're incapable of going to the link of Dr Lucire and reading the Daubert evidence based SCIENCE, or any of the other links where only a FRACTION of the article is in the posts above?
You haven't presented anything to refute whats there, and all you use is "are you a scientologist" or "its a document dump".
Not EVERYONE is like you, SOME will actually bother to visit the sites and read, some will agree and some will not but at least they'll hopefully come to their own conclusions and debate in an intelligent and non-confrontational way. Facilitating material for THOSE open-minded, intelligent people is the purpose, and having done that - well, that is good enough for me :)
Take care.
Before I leave Myrddin, I think being 'accused' by implication of being a scientologist is somewhat of an attack (and a 'typical' very well known one), but maybe I clicked on the wrong 'reply' as I think it was the other poster who first came in to me with
"Are you a scientologist?"
My apologies if I responded to the wrong person.
Take care :)
There hasn't been any argument presented for me to lose LOL.
Unless the question "Am I a scientologist" is counted here as an argument - and thats a yes or no answer only, and its "No".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.