You would think so. But when it comes to potentially neurotoxic agents as a by-product of something that is perceived as "good," people take a "see no evil" approach to the issue.
This is especially true of LEGAL psychiatric drugs. The profession only looks into neurotoxicity questions when forced into it, and long after much damage has been done. Even then, they acknowledge the problems and do nothing about it.
A perfect example is neuroleptics (antipsychotics). It took them 2 decades to begin to acknowledge the neurological wreckage these drugs cause. But even then, they simply put the appropriate warnings in the PDR and kept on truckin'. Now in the last few years, we're beginning to hear the first whiffs of potential neurotoxicity problems with SSRIs.
Thanks for continuing to highlight this issue. We need to know a lot more on this as well as progress on related issues such as the role of neurotoxic agents in Parkinsons and Alzheimer's. When the U.S., with 5% of the world's population, produces 25% of the Alzheimer's patients, something is wrong.
July 8, 2002
DOCS GET BONUS FOR GIVING MMR VACCINE
What Next? It seems that in the U.K., GPs have been getting payments for rounding up their patients for the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. If 90 per cent are vaccinated, they receive 2,865 pounds, but the payola drops to 955 pounds if only 70 per cent are vaccinated.
It seems now that the docs are concerned that they may be wrecking their credibility with their patients. Sure, especially since the MMR has become so controversial.
Let’s get this straight: they’ve been receiving extra money for vaccine targeting? Isn’t that a CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Or are British docs too dumb to understand that?