Kickle said:

Quote:

Proof? Clinical depression gets magically 'cured' by electroshock in 95% of all cases.

---

No, it doesn't.

---

mad_cow said:

That doesn't make sense. If he had symptoms that made the doctor think she was bipolar, how was she fine? How she reacts to her diagnoses is not the fault of psychology.

I like energy psychology.

---

Quote:

    Confronted with children whom psychologists, psychiatrists and teachers claimed had ADHD, I have not been able to find any abnormality—no disease whatsoever!

    Dyslexia (or Specific Reading Disability), we are told, is an abnormality in the language parts of the brain, not manifest until the child fails to gain literacy in the early grades of school. What parents and teachers are usually not told, however, is that over sixty years of research have failed to confirm that a defect of any sort exists in the brain of a child who has been labeled dyslexic. Sadly, maintaining this condition to be a fact is doing incredible damage to these individuals. These made-up disorders, along with others including “Severe Emotional Disorder” or “Dyscalculia” (special arithmetic disorder), have never been validated as brain diseases. And believe me, I’ve asked the “experts.’

    I wrote to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), to Ciba-Geigy (manufacturer of Ritalin), to Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorders (CH.A.D.D.) and four times to leading ADHD researchers at the NIMH, requesting that they direct me to one or a few articles in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature that constitutes proof of a physical or chemical abnormality in ADHD, thus making it a “disease.”

    Paul Leber, M.D., of the FDA wrote in response: “...as yet no distinctive pathophysiology for the disorder has been delineated.” Gene Haislip of the DEA responded: “We are also unaware that ADHD has been validated as a biologic/organic syndrome or disease.”

    I have yet to receive anything which would constitute proof of an abnormality—one that can be tested for patient-by-patient—one proving that we are not drugging entirely normal children. Even the APA admits in its DSM-IV that there are “...no laboratory tests that have been established as diagnostic” for “Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.”

    Lawrence Diller, M.D. of the University of California, San Francisco, who was a conferee at the 1996 DEA Conference on Stimulant Use in the Treatment of ADHD, wrote: “The reason why you have been unable to obtain any articles or studies presenting clear and confirming evidence of a physical or chemical abnormality associated with ADHD is that there is none.”



here is the link By Fred A. Baughman, Jr., M.D.

http://groups.msn.com/DebateCriticalThin...482622601008312

---

Diaboleros said:

Kickle said:

Quote:

Proof? Clinical depression gets magically 'cured' by electroshock in 95% of all cases.

---

No, it doesn't.

---

Hahaha, brilliant argumentation! But ok, you're right, I looked it up and it was only 90%.

---

YawningAnus said:

Diaboleros said:

Kickle said:

Quote:

Proof? Clinical depression gets magically 'cured' by electroshock in 95% of all cases.

---

No, it doesn't.

---

Hahaha, brilliant argumentation! But ok, you're right, I looked it up and it was only 90%.

---

do you have a link to that?

---

Quote:

do you have a link to that?

---

Quote:

1) until 2001 some psychiatrists labelled homosexuality as a mental disorder. It was removed from the DSM III-R in 1987 as a mental disorder.... but not in China until 2001.
So here is just one crow the APA has had to eat. I often wonder how many homosexuals were drugged, detained and told that they were mentally ill during that time. Not only did they have to admit that they were dead wrong about it, it is also an admittance that their methods, classification, and even the procedure of classification of mental illness is inherently flawed.

2) Convulsive therapy was introduced in 1934 by Hungarian neuropsychiatrist Ladislas J. Meduna who, believing mistakenly that schizophrenia and epilepsy were antagonistic disorders, induced seizures with first camphor and then metrazol (cardiazol). Within three years metrazol convulsive therapy was being used worldwide.
over 70 years ago, one dumbass who thought himself a practitioner of science, induced seizures in people and it catches on world-wide use in three years..... this turned into the more commonly known "shock-therapy" which has been shown to cause memory loss and brain damage.
But, that is barbaric, right? no one does that anymore....... right?

3)In the USA, ECT machines are manufactured by two companies, Somatics, which is owned by psychiatrists Richard Abrams and Conrad Swartz, and MECTA. The Food and Drug Administration has classified the devices used to administer ECT as Class III medical devices.[6] Class III is the highest-risk class of medical devices. The risks of ECT, according to the FDA, include brain damage and memory loss.[7] In the UK the market for ECT machines was long monopolised by Ectron Ltd, although in recent years some hospitals have started using American machines. Ectron Ltd was set up by psychiatrist Robert Russell, who together with a colleague from the Three Counties Asylum, Bedfordshire, invented the Page-Russell technique of intensive ECT.

here is a little blurp about Mecta..


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a stunning reversal, an article in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology in January 2007 by prominent researcher Harold Sackeim of Columbia University reveals that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) causes permanent amnesia and permanent deficits in cognitive abilities, which affect individuals' ability to function.

"This study provides the first evidence in a large, prospective sample that adverse cognitive effects can persist for an extended period, and that they characterize routine treatment with ECT in community settings," the study notes.

For the past 25 years, ECT patients were told by Sackeim, the nation's top ECT researcher, that the controversial treatment doesn't cause permanent amnesia and, in fact, improves memory and increases intelligence. Psychologist Sackeim also taught a generation of ECT practitioners that permanent amnesia from ECT is so rare that it could not be studied. He asserted that most people who said the treatment erased years of memory were mentally ill and thus not credible.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimates that more than 3 million people have received ECT over the past generation. "Those patients who reported permanent adverse effects on cognition have now had their experiences validated," said Linda Andre, head of the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, a national organization of ECT recipients.

Since the mid-1980s, Sackeim worked as a consultant to the ECT device manufacturer Mecta Corp. He never revealed his financial interest in ECT to NIMH, as required by federal law, and, until 2002, did not reveal it to New York officials as required by state law. Neuropsychopharmacology has endured negative publicity over its failure to disclose financial conflicts of journal authors, resulting in the editor's resignation and a promise to disclose such conflicts in the future; yet there is no disclosure of Sackeim's long-term relationship with Mecta, nor did Sackeim disclose his financial conflict when his NIMH grant was renewed to 2009 at approximately $500,000 per year.

The six-month study followed about 250 patients in New York City hospitals, an unusually large number; most ECT studies are based on 20 to 30 patients. Sackeim's previously published studies were short term, making it impossible to assess long-term effects. "However, in other contexts over the years -- court depositions, communications with mental health officials, and grant protocols -- Sackeim has claimed to follow up patients for as long as five years. This raises serious questions as to how long he has actually known of the existence and prevalence of permanent amnesia and why it wasn't revealed until now," Andre said.

Besides finding that ECT routinely causes substantial and permanent amnesia, the study contradicts Sackeim's oft-published statements that ECT increases intelligence and that patients who report permanent adverse effects are mentally ill.

"The study is a stunning self-repudiation of a 25-year career," Andre said.

Committee for Truth in Psychiatry
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v32/n1/pdf/1301180a.pdf



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



oh, and the other guy that makes shock machines....


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of patients who receive ECT . . . are well satisfied with the results and are hardly motivated to influence public opinion on the subject - they are too busy getting on with their lives. . ." -- from Richard Abrams' "Electroconvulsive Therapy"

When medical students learn about shock therapy, they turn to the only textbook on the subject: Electroconvulsive Therapy, published by Oxford University Press. Richard Abrams, a professor of psychiatry at the Chicago Medical School, writes that shock therapy is proven safe and effective for depression and other problems, even in children and the elderly.

He advises that shock should be considered as the first treatment given, not as the last resort. He concludes with an attack on doctors who criticize shock treatment and attaches a form to have patients sign when they consent to shock therapy.

But Abrams doesn't tell the medical students one thing: He owns Somatics Inc., one of the nation's two shock machine manufacturers.

He didn't tell his publisher, either.

"Wow," says Joan Bossert, executive editor of Oxford University Press. "I did not know that." She would have had him disclose that in the book's preface, she says. "I really wish he'd told us, but it doesn't take away from his expertise," she says. Neither did Abrams disclose his financial interest in the academic journal Psychiatric Clinics in September 1994, when he wrote an upbeat article on shock titled, "The Treatment That Will Not Die."

In some recent articles, Abrams disclosed that he's a "director" of Somatics. But readers weren't told that he is also president and owns the company with shock researcher Conrad Swartz, a University of South Carolina psychiatry professor.

Abrams says it's ridiculous to think his ownership of a shock machine company may create a conflict of interest. "Most advances in medical instruments and technology have come from practicing physicians putting (their) knowledge to work in building better equipment," he says. He says he thought Oxford University Press knew he owned Somatics. "The association is very well-known in the community," he says.

In a 1991 deposition, Abrams said Somatics provided half his income.

Abrams and Swartz started Somatics Inc., in Lake Bluff, Ill., in 1985. Somatics makes about half the USA's shock machines; MECTA Corp. of Lake Oswego, Ore., makes the rest.

Abrams wouldn't reveal company revenues or profits, but the Somatics Thymatron shock machine is used in about 500 hospitals nationwide and costs approximately $10,000. "It's a very small industry," Swartz says. "The sales of these machines don't compare with the sales of any one drug." Swartz says Somatics' profits are comparable to having an additional psychiatry practice. (The average psychiatrist made $131,300 in 1993.)

Swartz writes extensively on shock therapy, too, and also rarely discloses his Somatics ties.

For example, when a doctor wrote in Convulsive Therapy, a medical journal, that doctors could save money using sports mouth guards during shock treatment, Swartz wrote a letter attacking the idea. He did not disclose that Somatics sells specially designed mouth guards for $23 a dozen.

Abrams and Swartz should "absolutely, without a doubt, disclose their ownership in all their publications," says Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. They also should disclose it to patients on informed consent forms before shock treatment, Caplan says.

"True informed consent is not what the doctor thinks you should know, it's what a reasonable patient might want to know," he says.

Swartz calls this absurd.

"It's a nonissue. Every doctor who does ECT makes money, just as every doctor who prescribes drugs does," he says. "Patients know . . . and don't particularly care." Swartz says Somatics was founded because MECTA wasn't listening to psychiatrists who do shock therapy.

"I'm now able to improve machines. Who else can best advance ECT? Someone like me, who knows what they're doing," says Swartz, who has a Ph.D. in engineering as well as a medical degree. For his part, Abrams is the most quoted shock therapy researcher.

The American Psychiatric Association's 1990 task force report on how to practice shock therapy cites him more than any other expert. His 340-page textbook is often the sole source of information about shock therapy in general medical books and articles read by doctors and patients.

Abrams' textbook never mentions Somatics by name. But he describes new shock machine innovations found only on Somatics machines.

For example, his textbook reports that a charge "delivered over four to eight seconds will optimize the risk-benefit ratio for ECT and provide maximal clinical efficacy with minimal cognitive consequences."

Only one machine gives a four to eight second charge: the Somatics Thymatron DGx.

And Abrams sells it.



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



but these are isolated incidents...... right? surely a person could not say that every aspect of psychiatry is for financial gain.

4) The first distributor of Methadone: Eli Lily
here is a list of some people who have worked for the company:
Eli Lilly has a global reputation for attracting global leaders in the fields of health policy, management, and scientific research. Prominent former Lilly employees include:

Ernesto Bustamante, Peruvian scientist.
Mitch Daniels, current Governor of Indiana, former Hudson Institute executive, and former Director of Office of Management and Budget for President George W. Bush.
Roald Hoffmann, Nobel Prize-winning chemist.
Michael Johns, former White House speechwriter and Heritage Foundation policy analyst.
Claude H Nash, CEO, ViroPharma.
Peter Nicholas, co-founder of Boston Scientific.
Randall L. Tobias, former United States Director of Foreign Assistance and Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with the rank of Ambassador.
Prominent Lilly board members have included:

George Herbert Walker Bush, former President and Vice President of the United States of America.
Martin Feldstein, economist, Harvard University.
Kenneth Lay, former CEO, Enron (1986-2002).
William Verity Jr., former U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

but what does that prove?

look up zyprexa....

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to a New York Times article published on December 17, 2006,[6] Eli Lilly has engaged in a decade-long effort to play down the health risks of Zyprexa, its best-selling medication for schizophrenia, according to hundreds of internal Lilly documents and e-mail messages among top company managers. These documents and e-mail messages were soon made publicly available as a location hidden Tor service[7], and then made available on the public Internet. Eli Lilly got a temporary restraining order from a US District Court signed on January 4, 2007 to stop the dissemination or downloading of Eli Lilly documents about Zyprexa, and this allowed them to get a few US-based websites to remove them; on January 8, 2007, Judge Jack B. Weinstein refused the Electronic Frontier Foundation's motion to stay his order[8]. The documents can now only be downloaded from public Internet sites outside the US.[9][10][11]These health risks include an increased risk for diabetes through Zyprexa's links to obesity and its tendency to raise blood sugar. Zyprexa is Lilly’s top-selling drug, with sales of $4.2 billion last year.

The documents, given to The New York Times by Jim Gottstein, a lawyer representing mentally ill patients, show that Lilly executives kept important information from doctors about Zyprexa’s links to obesity and its tendency to raise blood sugar — both known risk factors for diabetes. The Times of London also obtained copies of the documents and reported that as early as October 1998, Lilly considered the risk of drug-induced obesity to be a "top threat" to Zyprexa sales.[12] In another document, dated October 9, 2000, senior Lilly research physician Robert Baker noted that an academic advisory board he belonged to was "quite impressed by the magnitude of weight gain on olanzapine and implications for glucose."

Lilly’s own published data, which it told its sales representatives to play down in conversations with doctors, has shown that 30 percent of patients taking Zyprexa gain 22 pounds or more after a year on the drug, and some patients have reported gaining 100 pounds or more. But Lilly was concerned that Zyprexa’s sales would be hurt if the company was more forthright about the fact that the drug might cause unmanageable weight gain or diabetes, according to the documents, which cover the period 1995 to 2004. In 2006, Lilly paid $700 million to settle 8,000 lawsuits from people who said they had developed diabetes or other diseases after taking Zyprexa. Thousands more suits are still pending.[13]

Lilly told its sales representatives to suggest that doctors prescribe Zyprexa to older patients with symptoms of dementia. One document states "dementia should be first message" for primary care doctors, since they "do not treat bipolar" or schizophrenia, but "do treat dementia." Three months after its launch, the Zyprexa campaign, called 'Viva Zyprexa', led to 49,000 new prescriptions. In 2002, the company changed the name of the primary care campaign to 'Zyprexa Limitless' and began to focus on people with mild bipolar disorder who had previously been diagnosed as depressed -- even though Zyprexa has been approved only for the treatment of mania in bipolar disorder, not depression.[14]

In 2002, British and Japanese regulatory agencies warned that Zyprexa may be linked to diabetes, but even after the FDA issued a similar warning in 2003, Lilly did not publicly disclose their own findings.

Eli Lilly agreed on January 4, 2007 to pay up to $500 million to settle 18,000 lawsuits from people who claimed they developed diabetes or other diseases after taking Zyprexa. Including earlier settlements over Zyprexa, Lilly has now agreed to pay at least $1.2 billion to 28,500 people who claim they were injured by the drug. At least 1,200 suits are still pending, the company said. About 20 million people worldwide have taken Zyprexa since its introduction in 1996.[15]




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



manufactured by Eli Lily. Maybe if I have more time I will go into more detail regarding the crimes of this pharm corp as well as Merck and others.

5)DSM. Every psychiatric expert involved in writing the standard diagnostic criteria for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia has had financial ties to drug companies that sell medications for those illnesses, a new analysis has found.

Of the 170 experts in all who contributed to the manual that defines disorders from personality problems to drug addiction, more than half had such ties, including 100 percent of the experts who served on work groups on mood disorders and psychotic disorders
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902560.html
here is the PDF.... http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/DSM%20COI.PDF

so the very people who are classifying mental disorders are the ones with financial ties to the companies that are making the "cures" for the mental disorders......

not to mention that more than 50% of the people on the advisory panel regarding the hidden studies of Vioxx had financial ties to the company that makes Vioxx! I wish I could get a jury of my best friends too!.

6) off-label usage.
Off-label use is the practice of prescribing drugs for a purpose outside the scope of the drug's approved label, most often concerning the drug's indication. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires numerous clinical trials to prove a drug's safety and efficacy in treating a given disease or condition. If satisfied that the drug is safe and effective, the drug's manufacturer and the FDA agree on specific language describing dosage, route and other information to be included on the drug's label. More detail is included in the drug's package insert. However, once the FDA approves a drug for prescription use, they do not attempt to regulate the practice of medicine, and so the physician makes decisions based on her or his best judgment. It is entirely legal in the United States and in many other countries to use drugs off-label. Exceptions to this are certain controlled substances, such as opiates, which cannot be legally prescribed except for approved purposes (at least in the U.S.). In Australia, amphetamines are included in these drugs which cannot be prescribed off-label.

whats wrong with that? its legal.... right?

well, it is illegal for drug companies to promote and advertise their drugs for off label usage. But what seriously irks me is that doctors are not forced to tell patients that the drug they are prescribed is not reccommended for the intended use.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDA admits that it lacks the authority to regulate the practice of medicine. Accordingly, the agency does not purport to control the practice of off-label prescribing by physicians


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


http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/articles/bioethics/offlabel_11/

although there have been many lawsuits involving every major pharmaceutical corporation regarding advertising off-label use to doctors, I dont think any have won.

Off-label promotion undercuts the FDA's ability to ensure safety and efficacy.
Off-label promotion removes incentives for manufacturers to conduct studies on safety and efficacy.
Off-label promotion encourages manufacturers to seek FDA approval only for the narrowest, most-easy-to-support indications.


I really could go on all day..... any maybe tommorrow I will fill another 20 pages of credible information regarding why psychiatry is quite possibly the most creul practice on the face of this earth.... but for now, just mull some of this over.
I doubt many will even read more than a few paragraphs.

---

Quote:

In the US the 1999 Surgeon General's report on mental health summarised psychiatric opinion at the time about the effectiveness of ECT. It stated that both clinical experience and controlled trials had determined ECT to be effective (with an average 60 to 70 percent remission rate) in the treatment of severe depression, some acute psychotic states, and mania. Its effectiveness had not been demonstrated in dysthymia, substance abuse, anxiety, or personality disorder. The report stated that ECT does not have a long-term protective effect against suicide and should be regarded as a short-term treatment for an acute episode of illness, to be followed by continuation therapy in the form of drug treatment or further ECT at weekly to monthly intervals.[15] A 2004 large multicentre clinical follow-up study of ECT patients in New York - describing itself as the first systematic documentation of the effectiveness of ECT in community practice in the 65 years of its use - found remission rates of only 30-47 percent, with 64 percent of those relapsing within six months.[16] A survey of New York psychiatrists found that they thought that 85 percent of their patients benefited from ECT.[17]

---