FDA Alert: Watch for Suicide of Kids on AD's 10/27/03

[Nick]

X-No-Archive: Yes

Watch for Suicide with Depression Drugs, FDA Says
Mon October 27, 2003 02:31 PM ET

Entire story.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=3698174&src=eDialog/GetContent&section=news

Key points

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a
public health advisory on Monday to alert doctors to reports that
children and teen-agers with major depression thought about or
attempted suicide in several clinical trials of antidepressants.

The FDA said it had reviewed reports about eight antidepressant drugs
-- Paxil, Prozac, citalopram, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone,
sertraline, and venlafaxine.

Experts say an estimated 750,000 U.S. adolescents suffer from
depression and 500,000 attempt suicide every year.

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:42:30 GMT, "Nick" > wrote:

>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>Watch for Suicide with Depression Drugs, FDA Says
>Mon October 27, 2003 02:31 PM ET
>
>Entire story.
>
>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=3698174&src=eDialog/GetContent&section=news
>
>Key points

the whole thing--and when reading it NB:
1) it is acknowledging that it is saying nothing new
2) it is not purporting a link between antidepressants and suicidal
ideation
3) it notes that depression (not medication) is the leading cause of
suicide
just a slightly different spin than what the original poster put on it
by selectively quoting

Mon October 27, 2003 02:31 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a
public health advisory on Monday to alert doctors to reports that
children and teen-agers with major depression thought about or
attempted suicide in several clinical trials of antidepressants.

Only one drug, fluoxetine, sold by Eli Lilly and Co. under the name
Prozac, is approved for treating pediatric depression. But doctors are
free to prescribe any approved drug and several are being tested.

"The data do not clearly establish an association between the use of
these drugs and increased suicidal thoughts or actions by pediatric
patients," the FDA said in a statement.

"Nevertheless, it is not possible at this point to rule out an
increased risk of these adverse events for any of these drugs,
including Paxil (paroxetine)." Paxil is made by GlaxoSmithKline Plc .

"The labeling of antidepressant drugs already carries precautionary
language that the possibility of a suicide attempt is inherent in
major depressive disorder and may persist until significant remission
occurs. Close supervision of high-risk patients should accompany
initial drug therapy," the FDA advised.

It said no one should stop taking the drugs abruptly, and certainly
not without consulting a doctor.

The FDA said it had reviewed reports about eight antidepressant drugs
-- Paxil, Prozac, citalopram, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone,
sertraline, and venlafaxine.

"FDA is aware of press and medical journal reports of suicide attempts
and completed suicides in pediatric patients receiving
antidepressants, and many such reports have also been submitted to FDA
as spontaneous reports," the agency said.
But it said it is hard to tell whether the drugs actually caused the
suicide, because depression is the leading cause of suicide.

The FDA has scheduled a meeting on Feb. 2, 2004, of the
Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory committee and the Pediatric
Subcommittee of the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee.

Experts say an estimated 750,000 U.S. adolescents suffer from
depression and 500,000 attempt suicide every year. About 1,700
succeed.
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a
>public health advisory on Monday to alert doctors to reports that
>children and teen-agers with major depression thought about or
>attempted suicide in several clinical trials of antidepressants.
>
>The FDA said it had reviewed reports about eight antidepressant drugs
>-- Paxil, Prozac, citalopram, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone,
>sertraline, and venlafaxine.
>
>Experts say an estimated 750,000 U.S. adolescents suffer from
>depression and 500,000 attempt suicide every year.
>
>
>

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[jake]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:54:57 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:42:30 GMT, "Nick" > wrote:
>
>>X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>Watch for Suicide with Depression Drugs, FDA Says
>>Mon October 27, 2003 02:31 PM ET
>>
>>Entire story.
>>
>>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=3698174&src=eDialog/GetContent&section=news
>>
>>Key points
>
>the whole thing--and when reading it NB:
>1) it is acknowledging that it is saying nothing new

That the FDA is concerned enough to put out an alert is certainly new.
and headine despite your attempts at minimisation.


>2) it is not purporting a link between antidepressants and suicidal
>ideation

It is saying the data do not establish a CLEAR link..

hardly the same


"Nevertheless, it is not possible at this point to rule out an
increased risk of these adverse events for any of these drugs,
including Paxil (paroxetine)."


>3) it notes that depression (not medication) is the leading cause of
>suicide

"But it said it is hard to tell whether the drugs actually caused the
suicide, because depression is the leading cause of suicide."

hardly the same

>just a slightly different spin than what the original poster put on it
>by selectively quoting

The only spin I see is yours.

[Annelisa]

"jake" > wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:54:57 -0500,

snipped


The original FDA alert was with regards to clinical studies evidencing
SSRI's activate suicidal ideations in non-suicidal people.

The FDA followed up that alert up with one warning clinical studies evidence
Effexor activates suicide ideations in non-suidical people.

This FDA alert is newsworthy because the FDA expanded the alert to include
two more AD's....Serzone and Remeron.

Remeron being added to the list is most especially newsworthy because,
Remeron isn't generally perceived to be similiar to the SSRI's, or SNRI's
or Effexor.

If or should I say, when the FDA get's around to adding Lexapro to the
list, making it 9 AD's altogether, I will post that FDA alert too.

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 02:16:53 +0000, jake > wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:54:57 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:42:30 GMT, "Nick" > wrote:
>>
>>>X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>
>>>Watch for Suicide with Depression Drugs, FDA Says
>>>Mon October 27, 2003 02:31 PM ET
>>>
>>>Entire story.
>>>
>>>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=3698174&src=eDialog/GetContent&section=news
>>>
>>>Key points
>>
>>the whole thing--and when reading it NB:
>>1) it is acknowledging that it is saying nothing new
>
>That the FDA is concerned enough to put out an alert is certainly new.
>and headine despite your attempts at minimisation.

If I minimized, so did the alert as it repeated that this is not based
on new findings.

>
>
>>2) it is not purporting a link between antidepressants and suicidal
>>ideation
>
>It is saying the data do not establish a CLEAR link..hardly the same

Well, what it *says* is
"The data do not clearly establish an association between the use of
these drugs and increased suicidal thoughts or actions by pediatric
patients."

I think most readers are intelligent enough to form their own opinions
based the entire text rather than paragraphs quoted here and there.
>
>"Nevertheless, it is not possible at this point to rule out an
>increased risk of these adverse events for any of these drugs,
>including Paxil (paroxetine)."

and the next sentence was:
"The labeling of antidepressant drugs already carries precautionary
language that the possibility of a suicide attempt is inherent in
major depressive disorder and may persist until significant remission
occurs. Close supervision of high-risk patients should accompany
initial drug therapy," the FDA advised.

i.e., nothing new.
>
>
>>3) it notes that depression (not medication) is the leading cause of
>>suicide
>
>"But it said it is hard to tell whether the drugs actually caused the
>suicide, because depression is the leading cause of suicide."
>
>hardly the same

Try reading the sentence you quoted again.

>>just a slightly different spin than what the original poster put on it
>>by selectively quoting
>
>The only spin I see is yours.

Thats probably because of your particular set of biases--Linda being
one of the biggest.

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[jake]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:55:26 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 02:16:53 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:54:57 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:42:30 GMT, "Nick" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>>
>>>>Watch for Suicide with Depression Drugs, FDA Says
>>>>Mon October 27, 2003 02:31 PM ET
>>>>
>>>>Entire story.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=3698174&src=eDialog/GetContent&section=news
>>>>
>>>>Key points
>>>
>>>the whole thing--and when reading it NB:
>>>1) it is acknowledging that it is saying nothing new
>>
>>That the FDA is concerned enough to put out an alert is certainly new.
>>and headine despite your attempts at minimisation.
>
>If I minimized, so did the alert as it repeated that this is not based
>on new findings.

an alert is quite the opposite of minimising the dangers..
It is drawing attention to them..



>
>>
>>
>>>2) it is not purporting a link between antidepressants and suicidal
>>>ideation
>>
>>It is saying the data do not establish a CLEAR link..hardly the same
>
>Well, what it *says* is
>"The data do not clearly establish an association between the use of
>these drugs and increased suicidal thoughts or actions by pediatric
>patients."
>
>I think most readers are intelligent enough to form their own opinions
>based the entire text rather than paragraphs quoted here and there.

clearly you do not think any such thing
...as your spinning would then be redundant

For most readers..I supect the original Reuters headline is clear
enough..

Watch for Suicide with Depression Drugs, FDA Says
Mon October 27, 2003 02:31 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a
public health advisory on Monday to alert doctors to reports that
children and teen-agers with major depression thought about or
attempted suicide in several clinical trials of antidepressants.

>>
>>"Nevertheless, it is not possible at this point to rule out an
>>increased risk of these adverse events for any of these drugs,
>>including Paxil (paroxetine)."
>
>Close supervision of high-risk patients should accompany
>initial drug therapy," the FDA advised.
>
>i.e., nothing new.

nothing new?

It is certainly new to the millions of people prescribed these
prescribed these drugs by a GP ..without an initial psychiatric
assessment..let alone any monitoring or supervision of any kind..close
or otherwise..

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands ordering them on the internet
without ever seeing a doctor..

>>>3) it notes that depression (not medication) is the leading cause of
>>>suicide
>>
>>"But it said it is hard to tell whether the drugs actually caused the
>>suicide, because depression is the leading cause of suicide."
>>
>>hardly the same
>
>Try reading the sentence you quoted again.

perhaps you should ..without your alterations..
The report certainly does not rule out suicidal depression brought on
by medications as in the case of the Paxil "normal volunteers..

Just what part of "it said it is hard to tell whether the drugs
actually caused the suicide" do you fail to understand?

>>>just a slightly different spin than what the original poster put on it
>>>by selectively quoting
>>
>>The only spin I see is yours.
>
>Thats probably because of your particular set of biases--Linda being
>one of the biggest.

I will discuss issues ..such as children attempting suicide whilst
undergoing clinical trials for drug companies..but your obsession with
Linda you will have to deal with on your own..

__

"When society turns a blind eye to the dangers of drugs and rushes to embrace a
pharmaceutical cure for nearly every condition, there is almost no end to the
harm that may result".

Thomas.J.Moore

[Annelisa]

"jake" > wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:55:26 -0500, Mark D Morin
| > wrote:
|

| >Thats probably because of your particular set of biases--Linda being
| >one of the biggest.
|
| I will discuss issues ..such as children attempting suicide whilst
| undergoing clinical trials for drug companies..but your obsession with
| Linda you will have to deal with on your own..

If he is so obsessed with L that he is attempting to press others into
service as proxy for L, perhaps, he ought to seek professional help and
have a therapist act as the proxy.

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 02:45:07 GMT, "Annelisa" >
wrote:

>"jake" > wrote in message
...
>| On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:54:57 -0500,
>
>snipped
>
>
>The original FDA alert was with regards to clinical studies evidencing
>SSRI's activate suicidal ideations in non-suicidal people.

Could you post that alert linda?
I'm willing to bet that that is NOT what it said.


================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:30:23 +0000, jake > wrote:


>>I think most readers are intelligent enough to form their own opinions
>>based the entire text rather than paragraphs quoted here and there.
>
>clearly you do not think any such thing
>..as your spinning would then be redundant

Clearly you and linda are the two who cut and paste info from the
alert.


>
>For most readers..I supect the original Reuters headline is clear
>enough..
>
>Watch for Suicide with Depression Drugs, FDA Says
>Mon October 27, 2003 02:31 PM ET
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a
>public health advisory on Monday to alert doctors to reports that
>children and teen-agers with major depression thought about or
>attempted suicide in several clinical trials of antidepressants.
>
>>>
>>>"Nevertheless, it is not possible at this point to rule out an
>>>increased risk of these adverse events for any of these drugs,
>>>including Paxil (paroxetine)."
>>
>>Close supervision of high-risk patients should accompany
>>initial drug therapy," the FDA advised.
>>
>>i.e., nothing new.
>
>nothing new?

that's correct

>
>It is certainly new to the millions of people prescribed these
> prescribed these drugs by a GP ..without an initial psychiatric
>assessment..let alone any monitoring or supervision of any kind..close
>or otherwise..

It's been on the warning lables and general print outs each patient
gets from the pharmacist for ages.

>
>Not to mention the hundreds of thousands ordering them on the internet
>without ever seeing a doctor..
>
>>>>3) it notes that depression (not medication) is the leading cause of
>>>>suicide
>>>
>>>"But it said it is hard to tell whether the drugs actually caused the
>>>suicide, because depression is the leading cause of suicide."
>>>
>>>hardly the same
>>
>>Try reading the sentence you quoted again.
>
>perhaps you should ..without your alterations..

no alterations jake.

>The report certainly does not rule out suicidal depression brought on
>by medications as in the case of the Paxil "normal volunteers..
>
>Just what part of "it said it is hard to tell whether the drugs
>actually caused the suicide" do you fail to understand?

I understand it just fine. What part don't you understand

>
>>>>just a slightly different spin than what the original poster put on it
>>>>by selectively quoting
>>>
>>>The only spin I see is yours.
>>
>>Thats probably because of your particular set of biases--Linda being
>>one of the biggest.
>
>I will discuss issues ..such as children attempting suicide whilst
>undergoing clinical trials for drug companies..but your obsession with
>Linda you will have to deal with on your own..

I find it interesting that you have never (or not in the past two
years anyway) corrected linda when she has been blatently wrong. The
many times she has summarized an article and said something 180
degrees opposite what the article said. Not once have you called her
to task for her slander, her lies, her vindictiveness.

Who is it that is biased jake?

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:50:52 GMT, "Annelisa" >
wrote:


>If he is so obsessed with L that he is attempting to press others into
>service as proxy for L, perhaps, he ought to seek professional help and
>have a therapist act as the proxy.

talking about yourself in the third person again?

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:02:00 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:30:23 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>
>>>I think most readers are intelligent enough to form their own opinions
>>>based the entire text rather than paragraphs quoted here and there.
>>
>>clearly you do not think any such thing
>>..as your spinning would then be redundant
>
>Clearly you

perhaps you should clean your spectacles(or get some if you dont wear
them)
if you wish to talk of clearly..

FWIMBW I posted it in another group in its entirety..
you on the contrary added to it..


>and linda are the two who cut and paste info from the
>alert.

I will disuss issues but not your obsession with Linda..
AFAIAA concern with violating copyright is the issue..
rather than your uglyminded interpretations..



>
>
>>
>>For most readers..I supect the original Reuters headline is clear
>>enough..
>>
>>Watch for Suicide with Depression Drugs, FDA Says
>>Mon October 27, 2003 02:31 PM ET
>>
>>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a
>>public health advisory on Monday to alert doctors to reports that
>>children and teen-agers with major depression thought about or
>>attempted suicide in several clinical trials of antidepressants.
>>
>>>>
>>>>"Nevertheless, it is not possible at this point to rule out an
>>>>increased risk of these adverse events for any of these drugs,
>>>>including Paxil (paroxetine)."
>>>
>>>Close supervision of high-risk patients should accompany
>>>initial drug therapy," the FDA advised.
>>>
>>>i.e., nothing new.
>>
>>nothing new?
>
>that's correct

really ..?
its always been public knowledge that children are attempting suicide
whilst antidepressants are tested on them in clinical trials has it?

>>
>>It is certainly new to the millions of people prescribed these
>> prescribed these drugs by a GP ..without an initial psychiatric
>>assessment..let alone any monitoring or supervision of any kind..close
>>or otherwise..
>
>It's been on the warning lables and general print outs each patient
>gets from the pharmacist for ages.

NO it has not been on inserts for "ages"
the drug companies have been forced by court cases and
been overidden by regulatory bodies..
kicking and screaming all the way to do such..


Stock prices fall as a result of such warnings.
Furthermore as global operators the amount of information revealed
...as to adversive reactions..varies from country to country depending
upon what each national legistature has insisted upon.

In any event an insert from the pharmacy hardly constitutes monitoring
or supervision..






>
>>
>>Not to mention the hundreds of thousands ordering them on the internet
>>without ever seeing a doctor..
>>
>>>>>3) it notes that depression (not medication) is the leading cause of
>>>>>suicide
>>>>
>>>>"But it said it is hard to tell whether the drugs actually caused the
>>>>suicide, because depression is the leading cause of suicide."
>>>>
>>>>hardly the same
>>>
>>>Try reading the sentence you quoted again.
>>
>>perhaps you should ..without your alterations..
>
>no alterations jake.

(not medication) exists nowhere
in the text..it is your addition..



>
>>The report certainly does not rule out suicidal depression brought on
>>by medications as in the case of the Paxil "normal volunteers..
>>
>>Just what part of "it said it is hard to tell whether the drugs
>>actually caused the suicide" do you fail to understand?
>
>I understand it just fine.


Then why persist in the stale...
old discredited drug company spin that the suicidal ideation
has nothing to do with the drug but is a symptom of the depression?

that normal volunteers become suicidal in drug trials has totally
discredited that idea..

>what part don't you understand

very droll...


>
>>
>>>>>just a slightly different spin than what the original poster put on it
>>>>>by selectively quoting
>>>>
>>>>The only spin I see is yours.
>>>
>>>Thats probably because of your particular set of biases--Linda being
>>>one of the biggest.
>>
>>I will discuss issues ..such as children attempting suicide whilst
>>undergoing clinical trials for drug companies..but your obsession with
>>Linda you will have to deal with on your own..
>
>I find it interesting that you have never (or not in the past two
>years anyway) corrected linda when she has been blatently wrong. The
>many times she has summarized an article and said something 180
>degrees opposite what the article said. Not once have you called her
>to task for her slander, her lies, her vindictiveness.
>
>Who is it that is biased jake?

I will discuss issues with you but not your obsession with Linda
frankly it is really tedious..

the thread is about concern that children given ADs in clinical trials
are attempting suicide..not how much you hate another poster..

--
"Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is
finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; until there is no longer any
first-class and second-class citizens of any nation; until the color of a man's
skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; until the basic
human rights are equally guaranteed to all, without regard to race -- until
that day, the dreams of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of
international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but
never attained."

Haile Sellassie

[Jon Quixote]

In news message: ,
jake > typed:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:54:57 -0500, Mark D Morin
> > wrote:

<snipt>

>> the whole thing--and when reading it NB:
>> 1) it is acknowledging that it is saying nothing new
>
> That the FDA is concerned enough to put out an alert is certainly new.
> and headine despite your attempts at minimisation.

Not sure what you mean about how "new" this alert is - IIRC, I read the
warning *presented* in the alert close to a decade ago in a Paxil brochure.


The point appears to be twofold:

1. Some people commit suicide while under clinical trials (or afterword)
2. There isn't any way they can determine whether it's the drug's fault or
the fact(?) that the people taking the drug are, in all likelihood,
depressed, and hence at highest risk for suicide regardless of whether they
are on these medications or not.

IMO this is more of a FDA attempt to heighten general public awareness of
the risk rather than an attempt to present it as "new".

I believe you and Mark are disagreeing over interpretation based on
differences of phrasing - you appear to be contending that for the FDA to
issue an alert is new, whereas Mark appears to be contending that the
information the FDA is presenting isn't new.

So far as I can tell, you're both "right", but not for the reason the other
thinks. :)

Again, if I read this disagreement correctly, you are correct, AFAIK, the
FDA has not previously issued a *general* alert for public consumption
regarding the *possible* link between antiDs and rare increase in suicidal
ideation.

Mark is correct in that the information that is being presented in the alert
regarding that *possible* link is NOT new, and has been included with most
if not all antidepressant literature for quite a long time, including the
warning to the prescriber to monitor the patient's initial exposure to the
drug closely due to the *possible* risk of increased ideation.

If I misinterpreted either side, my apologies for jumping in on that
particular part of y'all's conversation.

I note that elsewhere you claimed that "normal" (presumably meaning
"non-depressed") people committed suicide while taking the drugs in question
during their trials - where did you get that from? I didn't see any hint of
such a statistic.

<snipt>

--
Jon Quixote
What is axiomatic frequently isn't.

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:46:56 GMT, "Jon Quixote"
> wrote:

>In news message: ,
>jake > typed:
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:54:57 -0500, Mark D Morin
>> > wrote:
>
><snipt>
>
>>> the whole thing--and when reading it NB:
>>> 1) it is acknowledging that it is saying nothing new
>>
>> That the FDA is concerned enough to put out an alert is certainly new.
>> and headine despite your attempts at minimisation.
>
>Not sure what you mean about how "new" this alert is - IIRC, I read the
>warning *presented* in the alert close to a decade ago in a Paxil brochure.
>
>
>The point appears to be twofold:
>
>1. Some people commit suicide while under clinical trials (or afterword)
>2. There isn't any way they can determine whether it's the drug's fault or
>the fact(?) that the people taking the drug are, in all likelihood,
>depressed, and hence at highest risk for suicide regardless of whether they
>are on these medications or not.
>
>IMO this is more of a FDA attempt to heighten general public awareness of
>the risk rather than an attempt to present it as "new".
>
>I believe you and Mark are disagreeing over interpretation based on
>differences of phrasing - you appear to be contending that for the FDA to
>issue an alert is new, whereas Mark appears to be contending that the
>information the FDA is presenting isn't new.
>
>So far as I can tell, you're both "right", but not for the reason the other
>thinks. :)
>
>Again, if I read this disagreement correctly, you are correct, AFAIK, the
>FDA has not previously issued a *general* alert for public consumption
>regarding the *possible* link between antiDs and rare increase in suicidal
>ideation.
>
>Mark is correct in that the information that is being presented in the alert
>regarding that *possible* link is NOT new, and has been included with most
>if not all antidepressant literature for quite a long time, including the
>warning to the prescriber to monitor the patient's initial exposure to the
>drug closely due to the *possible* risk of increased ideation.
>
>If I misinterpreted either side, my apologies for jumping in on that
>particular part of y'all's conversation.
>



If the FDA had listened to Mark of course..they would have realized
that would have been no need to send out this alert to all doctors
and health care professionals..
In the real world..the data from their studies convinced them there
was....

despite the attempt to generalise to suicides in general in AD treated
patients the report actually is concerned with CHILDREN who are
attempting suicide more often when taking the AD than those recieving
a placebo.
this is headline news...
here is the actual alert

http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/mdd.htm


FDA PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY

October 27, 2003

Subject: REPORTS OF SUICIDALITY IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS BEING TREATED
WITH ANTIDEPRESSANT MEDICATIONS FOR MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER (MDD)

Dear Health Care Professional:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would like to call your
attention to reports of the occurrence of suicidality (both suicidal
ideation and suicide attempts) in clinical trials for various
antidepressant drugs in pediatric patients with major depressive
disorder (MDD).

While occurrences of suicidality are not unexpected in patients with
MDD, preliminary data suggest an excess of such reports for patients
assigned to several of these antidepressant drugs compared to those
assigned to placebo.


FDA has completed a preliminary review of such reports for 8
antidepressant drugs (citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine*,
mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine)
studied under the pediatric exclusivity provision, and has determined
that additional data and analysis, and also a public discussion of
available data, are needed.

FDA plans to hold an advisory committee meeting before the
Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Pediatric
Subcommittee of the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee on
February 2, 2004.

I guess they should just abandon the meeting huh?
as all the data and findings are on the insert??
sheesh..

here is the previous Talk paper that was not "ages ago "
but only four months ago

June 19, 2003

FDA Talk Paper

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2003/ANS01230.html

FDA Statement Regarding the Anti-Depressant Paxil for Pediatric
Population

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said today it is reviewing
reports of a possible increased risk of suicidal thinking and suicide
attempts in children and adolescents under the age of 18 treated with
the drug Paxil for major depressive disorder (MDD). Although the FDA
has not completed its evaluation of the new safety data, FDA is
recommending that Paxil not be used in children and adolescents for
the treatment of MDD. There is currently no evidence that Paxil is
effective in children or adolescents with MDD, and Paxil is not
currently approved for use in children and adolescents. Other approved
treatment options are available for depression in children.

Paxil is approved for use in adults for the treatment of Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder (OCD), MDD, Panic Disorder, Social Anxiety
Disorder (SAD), Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Post-traumatic
Stress Disorder. There is no evidence that Paxil is associated with an
increased risk of suicidal thinking in adults.

Three well-controlled trials in pediatric patients with MDD failed to
show that the drug was more effective than placebo. The new safety
information that is currently under review was derived from trials of
Paxil in pediatric patients.
Following its review of the same data, the UK Department of Health
issued a Press Release on June 10 stating that paroxetine (brand name
Seroxat in the UK) must not be used to treat children and teenagers
under the age of 18 years for depressive illness because UK
authorities have concluded that there is an increase in the rate of
self harm and potentially suicidal behavior in this age group, when
paroxetine is used for depressive illness.


>I note that elsewhere you claimed that "normal" (presumably meaning
>"non-depressed") people committed suicide while taking the drugs in question
>during their trials - where did you get that from? I didn't see any hint of
>such a statistic.

No..I said became suicidal


nobody did for a long time..the drug company supressed the results of
their safety trials showing this..and only gave then to researchers
when a court forced then too..

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s312381.htm


Researcher and academic raises questions about common anti-depressants
PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
PM Archive - Wednesday, 13 June , 2001 00:00:00
Reporter: Mark Colvin
MARK COLVIN: Now more on a story we brought you yesterday on the
question surrounding some of the most widely prescribed
anti-depressant drugs.

The questions were raised by a researcher in Wales who has been
delving into the archives of one of the big drug companies. He's Dr
David Healy of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine, a
leading expert on, and critic of, anti-depressants and he's on the
line now from Wales.

Dr Healey how did you find this new information? Where, where were you
digging?

DAVID HEALY: Okay, well roughly a year-and-a-half ago now in the
university department here, we had - as part of some research - to
look at how the anti-depressants work, given one of the
anti-depressants that acts on the serotonin system - Zoloft, and
another anti-depressant that has no action from the serotonin system,
to a group of medical and nursing colleagues here.

We found that Zoloft could make some absolutely normal people better
than well, but equally it made two of our normal volunteers acutely
suicidal.

Now I've also been involved in some legal actions where people have
committed suicide or homicide on, on SSRI's [Selective Serotonin
Reuptake Inhibitor] and following our work here I was curious to look
at the healthy volunteer archives that companies like SmithKline and
Pfizer have.

MARK COLVIN: SmithKline which is now, I think, called Glaxo
SmithKline, is that right?

DAVID HEALY: That is the case yes. You see in order to get these drugs
onto the market in the first instance, they've got to do what are
phase one studies which usually involve giving the drug either once,
or over the course of a few weeks, to several hundred healthy
volunteers.

MARK COLVIN: Are these documents closely guarded secrets, or were they
easy for you to get?

DAVID HEALY: Well no they are a closely guarded secret. My
understanding is that very few other people have ever seen any of this
work. And the interesting thing about this is the companies portray
themselves as being in a scientific business, but in actual fact the
emphasis I think needs to be on the business rather than the science,
because one of the cardinal rules of science is that you make all of
your data freely available.

MARK COLVIN: Are you saying then that because of business reasons they
covered up information which they should have released?

DAVID HEALY: Well what I'm saying is the company responses on an issue
like this will be that the findings from their healthy volunteer work
is proprietary data and that you would never get a response like that
from a university department.

MARK COLVIN: But what did it say? Did it confirm your feeling that
these drugs had side effects or could give people withdrawal symptoms?

DAVID HEALY: Yes it did. What the argument from the companies has been
is when people who are depressed become suicidal or nervous on their
drug that that's the illness.

Now what the healthy volunteer work shows is that during the 1980s
when this was actually being done, several years before these drugs
reached the marketplace, that healthy volunteers being put on these
drugs were becoming agitated at a rate of up to one in four.

And in the case of Glaxo SmithKline's drug Paroxotine, they were
concerned about withdrawal problems from the drug, and showed that in
some instances when people had only been on the drug for two or three
weeks, that there were up to 85 per cent of the healthy volunteers
involved having withdrawal problems from the drug.

MARK COLVIN: Some experts here were saying there shouldn't really be
any big surprise about this because all drugs have side effects and
all drugs have some form of withdrawal symptom. Is that a fair
argument?

DAVID HEALY: Well yes, SRI's were sold as a new group of drugs, which
unlike the benzodiazepines - Valium, Librium and drugs like that -
were not going to make people physically dependant.

The withdrawal problems from Paroxotine appeared to be as great as
the, if not greater than, any of the physical dependence that was
caused by Valium and Librium during the 1980s.

MARK COLVIN: So drugs like Prozac and Seroxat, Aropax, drugs like
that, are just as physically dependent you say as drugs like Valium
which were widely blamed for addicting a lot of people and these drugs
were supposed to liberate people from that possibility of addiction.

DAVID HEALY: That's right yes, and furthermore, in some of the
clinical trial work that has been done since by the companies, what
they've done is they've done what are called long-term trials, and
during the course of these people who have appeared to respond to the
drug are then re-randomised to placebo, and when they get unwell the
companies have been saying, "well look this is evidence that they have
again become clinically depressed, and that the people who are on the
drug haven't become as likely to become depressed, and therefore this
is evidence that you should take our drug in the longer term. It will
ward off future episodes of depression".

But knowing what I know now and knowing what I believe the companies
knew then, this all looks very unsatisfactory to me now in that the
most, the simplest way to explain people becoming unwell after the
drug is halted, is in terms of a discontinuation problem from the
drug.

And rather than this being evidence that you should continue with the
drug, this really is evidence that clinicians should be thinking about
how to wean people off these drugs safely.

MARK COLVIN: Dr David Healy thank you very much indeed. Dr David Healy
of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine who has been
researching in the archives of Glaxo SmithKline.

[kc]

"jake" > wrote in message
...
>

> It is certainly new to the millions of people prescribed these
> prescribed these drugs by a GP ..without an initial psychiatric
> assessment..let alone any monitoring or supervision of any kind..close
> or otherwise..
>
> Not to mention the hundreds of thousands ordering them on the internet
> without ever seeing a doctor..


you realize that this is a problem with the doctors and internet drug
pushers, not with the medications themselves.

right?

-kelly

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:30:33 +0000, jake > wrote:

>
>AFAIAA concern with violating copyright is the issue..
>rather than your uglyminded interpretations..

This is coming from someone who routinely reposts the entire article
rather than simply provide a link?


>>It's been on the warning lables and general print outs each patient
>>gets from the pharmacist for ages.
>
>NO it has not been on inserts for "ages"

It has been here
>>>perhaps you should ..without your alterations..
>>
>>no alterations jake.
>
>(not medication) exists nowhere in the text..it is your addition..

don't know what you are talking about jake--nothing was inserted nor
deleted in my cutting and pasting.


>the thread is about concern that children given ADs in clinical trials

That's not what the thread says jake

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:54:03 +0000, jake > wrote:


>despite the attempt to generalise to suicides in general in AD treated
>patients the report actually is concerned with CHILDREN who are
>attempting suicide more often when taking the AD than those recieving
>a placebo.
>this is headline news...
>here is the actual alert
>
>http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/mdd.htm

and where are the nondepressed controls you were talking about who
became suicidal?

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:24:45 -0800, "kc"
> wrote:

>
>"jake" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
>> It is certainly new to the millions of people prescribed these
>> prescribed these drugs by a GP ..without an initial psychiatric
>> assessment..let alone any monitoring or supervision of any kind..close
>> or otherwise..
>>
>> Not to mention the hundreds of thousands ordering them on the internet
>> without ever seeing a doctor..
>
>
>you realize that this is a problem with the doctors

You blame the doctors for believing drug company disinformation and
lies?
One primary purpose of such advisories is to correct such
disinformation as to the safety and prescribing practices..

>and internet drug
>pushers,

sadly many such sites employ doctors on a commission only
basis to prescribe to strangers

>not with the medications themselves.

nice try..

the use of SSRIs to treat depression is problematic
and of increasing concern..whatever spin might be used to hide thr
fact





>
>right?
>
>-kelly
>

[kc]

"jake" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:24:45 -0800, "kc"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"jake" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >
> >> It is certainly new to the millions of people prescribed these
> >> prescribed these drugs by a GP ..without an initial psychiatric
> >> assessment..let alone any monitoring or supervision of any kind..close
> >> or otherwise..
> >>
> >> Not to mention the hundreds of thousands ordering them on the internet
> >> without ever seeing a doctor..
> >
> >
> >you realize that this is a problem with the doctors
>
> You blame the doctors for believing drug company disinformation and
> lies?

no, i blame doctors for not requiring psych consults before perscribing psyc
meds. i blame the doctors for not monitoring patients who need to be
monitored. i don't see any disinfo here. the med inserts say that suicide
is a risk in ANY depressed patient, and indeed it is. if the docs hand out
a pill and ignore a suicidal patient, how on earth can that be the drug co's
fault?

> One primary purpose of such advisories is to correct such
> disinformation as to the safety and prescribing practices..

execpt there was no disinformation. this advisory doesn't tell anyone
anything new.


> the use of SSRIs to treat depression is problematic
> and of increasing concern..whatever spin might be used to hide thr
> fact

seriously, i have no idea what your little agenda is all about, but SSRIs,
among other depression treatments, save MANY more lives than you claim they
take.

i've said it before. don't like them, don't take them. but there's no
reason to wage a campaign against an entire class of meds that have saved so
many lives.

-kelly

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:40:42 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:30:33 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>>
>>AFAIAA concern with violating copyright is the issue..
>>rather than your uglyminded interpretations..
>
>This is coming from someone who routinely reposts the entire article
>rather than simply provide a link?

are you being deliberately obtuse?
Its not my issue..and I did not post the
article here..




>
>
>>>It's been on the warning lables and general print outs each patient
>>>gets from the pharmacist for ages.
>>
>>NO it has not been on inserts for "ages"
>
>It has been here
>>>>perhaps you should ..without your alterations..
>>>
>>>no alterations jake.
>>
>>(not medication) exists nowhere in the text..it is your addition..
>
>don't know what you are talking about jake--nothing was inserted nor
>deleted in my cutting and pasting.

the words "(not medication)" arrived from where then?

>
>
>>the thread is about concern that children given ADs in clinical trials
>
>That's not what the thread says jake

the thread says nothing..contributors to it do..

the subject line is

FDA Alert: Watch for Suicide of Kids on AD's 10/27/03
on my newsreader anyhow..


>
>================================================== ==
>Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
>"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
>eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
>that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
>a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
> "Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
>lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
>No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
>is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
>you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
>you no longer need to feel it.
> "Yo need to forgive your father."
>
>Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"
>
>http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

--
"Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is
finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; until there is no longer any
first-class and second-class citizens of any nation; until the color of a man's
skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; until the basic
human rights are equally guaranteed to all, without regard to race -- until
that day, the dreams of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of
international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but
never attained."

Haile Sellassie

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:37:18 -0800, "kc"
> wrote:

>
>"jake" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:24:45 -0800, "kc"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"jake" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >
>> >> It is certainly new to the millions of people prescribed these
>> >> prescribed these drugs by a GP ..without an initial psychiatric
>> >> assessment..let alone any monitoring or supervision of any kind..close
>> >> or otherwise..
>> >>
>> >> Not to mention the hundreds of thousands ordering them on the internet
>> >> without ever seeing a doctor..
>> >
>> >
>> >you realize that this is a problem with the doctors
>>
>> You blame the doctors for believing drug company disinformation and
>> lies?
>
>no, i blame doctors for not requiring psych consults before perscribing psyc
>meds. i blame the doctors for not monitoring patients who need to be
>monitored. i don't see any disinfo here. the med inserts say that suicide
>is a risk in ANY depressed patient, and indeed it is. if the docs hand out
>a pill and ignore a suicidal patient, how on earth can that be the drug co's
>fault?
>
>> One primary purpose of such advisories is to correct such
>> disinformation as to the safety and prescribing practices..
>
>execpt there was no disinformation. this advisory doesn't tell anyone
>anything new.

really..?

you were aware of the following by some sort of
precognition or ESP then..I presume

"While occurrences of suicidality are not unexpected in patients with
MDD, preliminary data suggest an excess of such reports for patients
assigned to several of these antidepressant drugs compared to those
assigned to placebo. "

unfortunately the FDA guessed most
doctors and health care professionals did not possess your
speciaslpowers and issed an alert..








>
>
>> the use of SSRIs to treat depression is problematic
>> and of increasing concern..whatever spin might be used to hide thr
>> fact
>
>seriously, i have no idea what your little agenda is all about, but SSRIs,
>among other depression treatments, save MANY more lives than you claim they
>take.

this was the promise..and the sales proposition..

time has proved the confidence misplaced..
it has yet to be shown that SSRIs "save childrens lives" in any way
shape or form..

>i've said it before. don't like them, don't take them. but there's no
>reason to wage a campaign against an entire class of meds that have saved so
>many lives.

so lets just sweep the victims and ruined lives
under the carpet then...

I know..why dont we just abandon all safety and
regulatory bodies entirely..and give children whatever drugs the
multinationals see fit to produce?

--
"Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is
finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; until there is no longer any
first-class and second-class citizens of any nation; until the color of a man's
skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; until the basic
human rights are equally guaranteed to all, without regard to race -- until
that day, the dreams of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of
international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but
never attained."

Haile Sellassie

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:48:38 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:54:03 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>
>>despite the attempt to generalise to suicides in general in AD treated
>>patients the report actually is concerned with CHILDREN who are
>>attempting suicide more often when taking the AD than those recieving
>>a placebo.
>>this is headline news...
>>here is the actual alert
>>
>>http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/mdd.htm
>
>and where are the nondepressed controls you were talking about who
>became suicidal?


I never suggested for one moment they were in the alert..
As you know full well..having discussed it before ..
the data on the the normal volunteers
are hidden as "proprietry information" in the drug company archives.

Disclosure necessitates court orders.


http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58004-DH.htm

Miss Sarah Wark, Senior Scientific Assessor 28 February 2000
Post-Licensing Division, Medicines Control Agency
Market Towers, 1 Nine Elms Lane
LONDON SW8 5NQ

Dear Miss Sarah Wark,

[See previous letter]

I will be very happy in due course to send you a copy of the full
study report when this is available. It may however take some weeks or
even some months before I can forward this to you.

In the meantime it is my understanding that a number of the studies
with various different antidepressants that have been conducted with
healthy volunteers as part of a series of pre and post registration
tests have noted similar reactions to the ones that I have reported in
our study. So much is this the case, that there is a general
understanding in the field, certainly among the older practitioners
working with different pharmaceutical companies, that strange
reactions of this type are almost to be expected from healthy
volunteers. 20 or 30 years ago the rationale for accepting such
reactions was that antidepressants would never be given to anybody who
wasn't depressed and that there were clearly differences between the
brains of people who were hospitalised cases of endogenous depression
compared with normal volunteers.

These rationales have vanished as depression has extended to the point
where cases of what were Valium are now cases of Prozac. The most
commonly prescribed use for Prozac it seems to me, and many of the
other SSRIs, is for anxiety and stress reactions. These are the people
whom I see regularly becoming suicidal on these drugs. This is a group
of patients in whom it is not clear that there are likely to be any
great differences between their brain states and those of healthy
volunteers.

My understanding is that there are many people in the field whom the
MCA could consult who would be able to confirm this position. There is
also likely to be a considerable amount of data that companies have
but whether they have submitted this to you or not is less clear to
me.

I think the study on Sertraline induced suicidality in healthy
volunteers is directly relevant to the question of suicide in the
Prozac SPC that you say you will consider in the event that new
information emerges. I feel this is new information directly relevant
to the Prozac SPC. I think it's highly likely that Lilly in addition
to other companies will have data of the kind that I have referred to
above.

As regards Legal Jeopardy I have consulted with a number of lawyers on
this and all appear to agree with me.

The situation as I see it is as follows. Patients entering clinical
trials have a range of adverse effects which are not at present being
coded for either at all or satisfactorily. In the case of side-effects
not coded for satisfactorily these include problems such as suicidal
ideation, which are coded for under depression. Akathisia is not coded
for. Emotional indifference or emotional blunting or disinhibition are
not coded for.

This is an understandable situation. It is understandable and perhaps
acceptable if in the absence of figures to support a proper incidence
for these problems, marketeers for a company claim that the incidence
of these side-effects is zero. Everybody knows, you included I'm sure,
that side-effect data commonly marketed by companies is hopelessly
inadequate and underestimates the true extent of the problems probably
by a six-fold factor. The legal jeopardy arises when patients who
suffer from an adverse effect on the drug to the extent that they
consider a legal action are then faced with a company denying that the
drug causes the problem based upon the way the side-effect data have
been coded in their clinical trials. This could happen to you or me or
Dr Jones. Take the side-effects that have happened on Prozac for
instance, and the way Lilly have handled the data on this issue in
both court cases last year and in print in academic journals within
the last 18 months. It is this that constitutes a state of legal
jeopardy.

I would be very grateful if you could confirm for me that our
understandings coincide on this point. If they do not, and you
consider that this state is not a state of legal jeopardy, I would be
very grateful if you cold explain to me exactly why not. I would not
want to mislead any more people than I might have already misled by
including this understanding of current practices in any more articles
or books that I write.

I would be very grateful therefore to hear back from you on this point
specifically.

Yours sincerely,

David Healy MD FRCPsych
Director, North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine




>
>================================================== ==
>Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
>"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
>eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
>that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
>a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
> "Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
>lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
>No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
>is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
>you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
>you no longer need to feel it.
> "Yo need to forgive your father."
>
>Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"
>
>http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Jon Quixote]

In news message: ,
jake > typed:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:46:56 GMT, "Jon Quixote"
> > wrote:
<snip>
>> So far as I can tell, you're both "right", but not for the reason the
>> other thinks. :)
>>
>> Again, if I read this disagreement correctly, you are correct, AFAIK, the
>> FDA has not previously issued a *general* alert for public consumption
>> regarding the *possible* link between antiDs and rare increase in
>> suicidal ideation.
>>
>> Mark is correct in that the information that is being presented in the
>> alert regarding that *possible* link is NOT new, and has been included
>> with most if not all antidepressant literature for quite a long time,
>> including the warning to the prescriber to monitor the patient's initial
>> exposure to the drug closely due to the *possible* risk of increased
>> ideation.
>>
>> If I misinterpreted either side, my apologies for jumping in on that
>> particular part of y'all's conversation.
>>
>
> If the FDA had listened to Mark of course..they would have realized
> that would have been no need to send out this alert to all doctors
> and health care professionals..
> In the real world..the data from their studies convinced them there
> was....

Interesting. I'm split on the significance of the alert now. On the one
hand, the Reuter's report appears to be a followup on the alert, wherein the
FDA clarified what it had issued in the alert in such a way as to tend to
support Mark's POV - but OTOH, the original alert tends to support your POV.

> despite the attempt to generalise to suicides in general in AD treated

Perhaps that phrasing is a bit harsh? I don't know that he's "attempting" to
generalize, rather it appears that he's saying that the information, if the
Reuter's followup is accurate, is basically saying that irregardless of
whether it is being aimed at pediatricians or not, the information contained
therein has been known to health care professionals for quite a while.

I note that your disagreement gets more specific thereafter insofar as
whether medlit included with the drugs are in and of themselves effective
for alerting anyone, whether the ingestor or the prescriber, but that's an
issue I don't feel qualified to comment on except personal feeling: "fine
print" is unfortunately both necessary (due to costs otherwise of
reproducing mandated FYI material in standard print - and this nation
already complains of the cost associated with medication VERY frequently)
and IMO more often an artifact to slip unpleasant information under the
reader's threshold of attention.

"Fine print" is a legally acceptable compromise and one that's difficult to
make a statement pro or con for. Given that fine print would likely not even
be included if not legally mandated, at least the information IS there,
rather than not included at all if they weren't forced to do so.

IIRC, it's already been challenged in the past as inadequate if fine print
information that affects the health or wellbeing of the assignee is kept to
a "for more information, call/goto/write to such and so place" minimum. That
may even be the case for any product or service that materially impacts the
assignee whether physically or financially.

> patients the report actually is concerned with CHILDREN who are
> attempting suicide more often when taking the AD than those recieving
> a placebo.
> this is headline news...
> here is the actual alert
>
> http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/mdd.htm
<snip>

> I guess they should just abandon the meeting huh?
> as all the data and findings are on the insert??
> sheesh..

I don't believe he was suggesting abandoning the meeting for any reason. It
appeared to me that he was simply saying the information is not new and has
been known to pediatricians and other health care professionals for a while.

HOWEVER, I will say that the original alert's phrasing DOES suggest to me
that the FDA is emphasizing an even GREATER risk than first believed as
applied to children

> here is the previous Talk paper that was not "ages ago "
> but only four months ago
>
> June 19, 2003
>
> FDA Talk Paper
>
> http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2003/ANS01230.html

Again, it depends on which phrasing one is reading - Mark's, that claims the
information has been available for quite some time, or yours, where you are
emphasizing that for the FDA to make widespread public announcement
regarding this phenomenon IS new.

>> I note that elsewhere you claimed that "normal" (presumably meaning
>> "non-depressed") people committed suicide while taking the drugs in
>> question during their trials - where did you get that from? I didn't see
>> any hint of such a statistic.
>
> No..I said became suicidal

So you did. My mistake and my apologies.

> nobody did for a long time..the drug company supressed the results of
> their safety trials showing this..and only gave then to researchers
> when a court forced then too..
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s312381.htm

Whom to "condemn", then, if somebody isn't aware of the fine print - the
unpleasant (or even "alarming") news, as it were?

In this particular case, I think it depends on how likely the suppression of
evidence is, and if so, why there hasn't been a MUCH bigger stink about it
than apparently only one doctor's concern.

If it turns out the suppression isn't occuring in the way the interview
implies, and that the information is, in fact, available - just not widely
disseminated without query being involved - we kind of come back full
circle: the information IS well known because doctors HAVE done the followup
queries.

That DOESN'T excuse the pharmaceutical companies from playing "head in the
sand" games with their data, of course - but it's a separate point of debate
from this thread, I believe.


--
Jon Quixote
What is axiomatic frequently isn't.

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:36:14 +0000, jake > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:40:42 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:30:33 +0000, jake > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>AFAIAA concern with violating copyright is the issue..
>>>rather than your uglyminded interpretations..
>>
>>This is coming from someone who routinely reposts the entire article
>>rather than simply provide a link?
>
>are you being deliberately obtuse?
>Its not my issue..and I did not post the
>article here..

It looks like you are the one being obtuse.
Did you not write: "AFAIAA concern with violating copyright is the
issue.."

>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>It's been on the warning lables and general print outs each patient
>>>>gets from the pharmacist for ages.
>>>
>>>NO it has not been on inserts for "ages"
>>
>>It has been here
>>>>>perhaps you should ..without your alterations..
>>>>
>>>>no alterations jake.
>>>
>>>(not medication) exists nowhere in the text..it is your addition..
>>
>>don't know what you are talking about jake--nothing was inserted nor
>>deleted in my cutting and pasting.
>
> the words "(not medication)" arrived from where then?

What are you talking about?
I cut and paste jake--there was nothing in what I pasted that wasn't
in what I copied. If there was, tell it to microsoft.

>
>>
>>
>>>the thread is about concern that children given ADs in clinical trials
>>
>>That's not what the thread says jake
>
>the thread says nothing..contributors to it do..
>
>the subject line is
>
> FDA Alert: Watch for Suicide of Kids on AD's 10/27/03
>on my newsreader anyhow..

and is that equivalent to what you said the thread is about?
================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:49:52 +0000, jake > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:37:18 -0800, "kc"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"jake" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:24:45 -0800, "kc"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"jake" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >> It is certainly new to the millions of people prescribed these
>>> >> prescribed these drugs by a GP ..without an initial psychiatric
>>> >> assessment..let alone any monitoring or supervision of any kind..close
>>> >> or otherwise..
>>> >>
>>> >> Not to mention the hundreds of thousands ordering them on the internet
>>> >> without ever seeing a doctor..
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >you realize that this is a problem with the doctors
>>>
>>> You blame the doctors for believing drug company disinformation and
>>> lies?
>>
>>no, i blame doctors for not requiring psych consults before perscribing psyc
>>meds. i blame the doctors for not monitoring patients who need to be
>>monitored. i don't see any disinfo here. the med inserts say that suicide
>>is a risk in ANY depressed patient, and indeed it is. if the docs hand out
>>a pill and ignore a suicidal patient, how on earth can that be the drug co's
>>fault?
>>
>>> One primary purpose of such advisories is to correct such
>>> disinformation as to the safety and prescribing practices..
>>
>>execpt there was no disinformation. this advisory doesn't tell anyone
>>anything new.
>
>really..?

Yes.
Some of us read the literature jake.

>"While occurrences of suicidality are not unexpected in patients with
>MDD, preliminary data suggest an excess of such reports for patients
>assigned to several of these antidepressant drugs compared to those
>assigned to placebo. "

and that statement still does not support the conclussion that you are
inferring.

>>
>>> the use of SSRIs to treat depression is problematic
>>> and of increasing concern..whatever spin might be used to hide thr
>>> fact
>>
>>seriously, i have no idea what your little agenda is all about, but SSRIs,
>>among other depression treatments, save MANY more lives than you claim they
>>take.
>
>this was the promise..and the sales proposition..
>
>time has proved the confidence misplaced..

How has that been proven jake?

>it has yet to be shown that SSRIs "save childrens lives" in any way
>shape or form..
>
>>i've said it before. don't like them, don't take them. but there's no
>>reason to wage a campaign against an entire class of meds that have saved so
>>many lives.
>
>so lets just sweep the victims and ruined lives
>under the carpet then...

alone with the ones who decide that they can no longer go on living
because of self riteous assholes like you.
================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:02:27 +0000, jake > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:48:38 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:54:03 +0000, jake > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>despite the attempt to generalise to suicides in general in AD treated
>>>patients the report actually is concerned with CHILDREN who are
>>>attempting suicide more often when taking the AD than those recieving
>>>a placebo.
>>>this is headline news...
>>>here is the actual alert
>>>
>>>http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/mdd.htm
>>
>>and where are the nondepressed controls you were talking about who
>>became suicidal?
>
>
>I never suggested for one moment they were in the alert..
>As you know full well..having discussed it before ..
>the data on the the normal volunteers
>are hidden as "proprietry information" in the drug company archives.

Oh, that's right. That hidden information that's somehow not
available.
Keep at it and you will sound as paranoid as linda.

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:07:21 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:36:14 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:40:42 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:30:33 +0000, jake > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>AFAIAA concern with violating copyright is the issue..
>>>>rather than your uglyminded interpretations..
>>>
>>>This is coming from someone who routinely reposts the entire article
>>>rather than simply provide a link?
>>
>>are you being deliberately obtuse?
>>Its not my issue..and I did not post the
>>article here..
>
>It looks like you are the one being obtuse.
>Did you not write: "AFAIAA concern with violating copyright is the
>issue.."

sigh..
the issue for your favourite-NOT
poster ..

I am quite comfortable with fair useage .



>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It's been on the warning lables and general print outs each patient
>>>>>gets from the pharmacist for ages.
>>>>
>>>>NO it has not been on inserts for "ages"
>>>
>>>It has been here
>>>>>>perhaps you should ..without your alterations..
>>>>>
>>>>>no alterations jake.
>>>>
>>>>(not medication) exists nowhere in the text..it is your addition..
>>>
>>>don't know what you are talking about jake--nothing was inserted nor
>>>deleted in my cutting and pasting.
>>
>> the words "(not medication)" arrived from where then?
>
>What are you talking about?
>I cut and paste jake--there was nothing in what I pasted that wasn't
>in what I copied. If there was, tell it to microsoft.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>the thread is about concern that children given ADs in clinical trials
>>>
>>>That's not what the thread says jake
>>
>>the thread says nothing..contributors to it do..
>>
>>the subject line is
>>
>> FDA Alert: Watch for Suicide of Kids on AD's 10/27/03
>>on my newsreader anyhow..
>
>and is that equivalent to what you said the thread is about?

the word pedantic springs to mind..

I guess it depends on your interpretation

It seems a fair summation..not particularly
different to the headlines of the major newswires crrying the story..
eg

1)Beware of Suicide witDrugs - FDA

Mon Oct 27, 5:46 PM ET Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=1&u=/nm/20031027/hl_nm/health_depression_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (news -
web sites) alerted doctors on Monday about reports that
antidepressants might raise the risk of suicide in children and
teen-agers with major depression.

While there is no evidence to show most antidepressants could cause
young patients to commit suicide, doctors need to carefully watch
them, the FDA said


or

2) FDA Warns of Possible Drug-Suicide Link


http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-fda-suicide-warning,0,912321,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

By Associated Press

October 28, 2003, 9:55 AM EST

WASHINGTON -- Some anti-depressant drugs undergoing trials in children
may be associated with suicides, the Food and Drug Administration said
Monday.

The agency said reports in the press and medical journals describe
suicide attempts and suicides in children receiving antidepressants.
Many such reports also have been submitted to the FDA.


Click2Houston.com

3) FDA: Antidepressants May Be Linked To Kids' Suicide


POSTED: 4:19 p.m. EST October 27, 2003

http://www.click2houston.com/health/2585311/detail.html
WASHINGTON -- The Food and Drug Administration says some
antidepressant drugs undergoing trials in children, including Paxil,
may be associated with suicides.


__

"When society turns a blind eye to the dangers of drugs and rushes to embrace a
pharmaceutical cure for nearly every condition, there is almost no end to the
harm that may result".

Thomas.J.Moore

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:11:06 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:49:52 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:37:18 -0800, "kc"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"jake" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:24:45 -0800, "kc"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >"jake" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >> It is certainly new to the millions of people prescribed these
>>>> >> prescribed these drugs by a GP ..without an initial psychiatric
>>>> >> assessment..let alone any monitoring or supervision of any kind..close
>>>> >> or otherwise..
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Not to mention the hundreds of thousands ordering them on the internet
>>>> >> without ever seeing a doctor..
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >you realize that this is a problem with the doctors
>>>>
>>>> You blame the doctors for believing drug company disinformation and
>>>> lies?
>>>
>>>no, i blame doctors for not requiring psych consults before perscribing psyc
>>>meds. i blame the doctors for not monitoring patients who need to be
>>>monitored. i don't see any disinfo here. the med inserts say that suicide
>>>is a risk in ANY depressed patient, and indeed it is. if the docs hand out
>>>a pill and ignore a suicidal patient, how on earth can that be the drug co's
>>>fault?
>>>
>>>> One primary purpose of such advisories is to correct such
>>>> disinformation as to the safety and prescribing practices..
>>>
>>>execpt there was no disinformation. this advisory doesn't tell anyone
>>>anything new.
>>
>>really..?
>
>Yes.
>Some of us read the literature jake.

I am sure many a busy overworked GP would like the leisure time to be
able to as well..
As it is studies tell us that reliance on information provided by drug
company Reps tends to be the norm..


>>"While occurrences of suicidality are not unexpected in patients with
>>MDD, preliminary data suggest an excess of such reports for patients
>>assigned to several of these antidepressant drugs compared to those
>>assigned to placebo. "
>
>and that statement still does not support the conclussion that you are
>inferring.


that more patients on the drug report suicidality than those given a
placebo seems pretty clearcut..and certainly reason for a responsible
safety body to inform prescribers..



>
>>>
>>>> the use of SSRIs to treat depression is problematic
>>>> and of increasing concern..whatever spin might be used to hide thr
>>>> fact
>>>
>>>seriously, i have no idea what your little agenda is all about, but SSRIs,
>>>among other depression treatments, save MANY more lives than you claim they
>>>take.
>>
>>this was the promise..and the sales proposition..
>>
>>time has proved the confidence misplaced..
>
>How has that been proven jake?

I thought you were saying you read the literature?
a highly selective reading perhaps..


Aside from the enduring risks ongoing treatment poses, the severity of
the anxiety withdrawal engenders can be extreme. In the case of the
healthy volunteer studies undertaken in the 1980s by Beecham one
volunteer in the aftermath of taking Seroxat committed suicide. The
company deny a link between their drug and the suicide but there are
good arguments to put forward in favour of a link.

Not least of those arguments is the data from RCTs. In an accompanying
paper, the evidence was put forward that Lilly, Pfizer and GSK have
recoded under placebo suicidal acts that occurred in the washout phase
of trials – that is following discontinuation of prior treatment.




http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58092-DH.htm


SSRIs & WITHDRAWAL/DEPENDENCE

BRIEFING PAPER: 20-06-2003

DAVID HEALY

Summary

Dependence on and withdrawal from antidepressants has been recognised
since the early 1960s.

"The withdrawal syndrome complicates the evaluation of patients after
drug discontinuation since both patients and physicians often
interpret the onset of symptoms as an upsurge of "anxiety" related to
incipient relapse, and resume treatment with the gratifying subsidence
of the "anxiety". This may cause both patients and physicians to
overvalue the importance of the medication to the patient’s stability"
(Kramer et al 1961).

Therapeutic drug dependence or normal dose dependence needs to be
distinguished from drug dependence of the sort caused by opiates and
amphetamines.

Therapeutic drug dependence may give rise to withdrawal syndromes
lasting months or more.

Companies have not been required to test their drugs for therapeutic
drug dependence prior to marketing.

In the case of the SSRIs it would seem that therapeutic drug
dependence has been used as a means to claim prophylactic efficacy for
these drugs.

Companies’ marketing for SSRIs implies that these drugs differ from
the benzodiazepines in terms of producing dependence; these claims are
not warranted.

Recognition of dependence on antidepressants will provide safety for
patients and a stimulus to companies to produce safer drugs.

At present under the influence of company marketing many clinicians
and patients are operating with a model that claims depression is a
chronic condition that may need treatment for life – this is a model
with no basis in epidemiological data.




>
>>it has yet to be shown that SSRIs "save childrens lives" in any way
>>shape or form..
>>
>>>i've said it before. don't like them, don't take them. but there's no
>>>reason to wage a campaign against an entire class of meds that have saved so
>>>many lives.
>>
>>so lets just sweep the victims and ruined lives
>>under the carpet then...
>
>alone with the ones who decide that they can no longer go on living
>because of self riteous assholes like you.

OIC
In your opinion those who believe in informed consent..and free access
to information as to drug safety are responsible for suicides.

Perhaps you think parents should not be told this official concern
as to the advisability of SSRIs for children exists..

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:12:40 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:02:27 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:48:38 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:54:03 +0000, jake > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>despite the attempt to generalise to suicides in general in AD treated
>>>>patients the report actually is concerned with CHILDREN who are
>>>>attempting suicide more often when taking the AD than those recieving
>>>>a placebo.
>>>>this is headline news...
>>>>here is the actual alert
>>>>
>>>>http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/mdd.htm
>>>
>>>and where are the nondepressed controls you were talking about who
>>>became suicidal?
>>
>>
>>I never suggested for one moment they were in the alert..
>>As you know full well..having discussed it before ..
>>the data on the the normal volunteers
>>are hidden as "proprietry information" in the drug company archives.
>
>Oh, that's right. That hidden information that's somehow not
>available.


nothing "somehow " about it..
All drug companies have archives of safety tests on normal volunteers.
they refuse access to these archives on the grounds of "proprietry
information"

but of course you know this..

slowly but surely..they are being forced to divulge such information..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4201752-103690,00.html

David Healy, director of the North Wales department of psychological
medicine and the UK's foremost expert in antidepressants, found
studies in archives in Harlow, Essex, which show that the company,
then SmithKline Beecham, realised in the 80s that healthy volunteers
were suffering withdrawal symptoms when they stopped taking the drug
after only a couple of weeks.

Yet the company has failed to warn patients or doctors, he says, and
it has argued that people suffering problems when they stop taking the
drug have suffered a recurrence of depression and need to go back on
the medication.


http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58092-DH.htm

The state of affairs this gives rise to becomes apparent in a review
of Risperidone by A Mosholder cited below - unless a drug company
volunteers information to the FDA that their drug causes withdrawal
and or dependence the FDA will not make an assessment about the drug
as causing withdrawal or dependence. Patients can commit suicide in
the immediate withdrawal period but without an indication from the
company that a withdrawal syndrome is a possibility the FDA will not
consider that this is a possible cause of that suicide.


>Keep at it and you will sound as paranoid as linda.

I will discuss issues with you..but your tedious obsession with Linda
you will have to deal with on your own..

[mark]

jake wrote:

>>Oh, that's right. That hidden information that's somehow not
>>available.

> nothing "somehow " about it..
> All drug companies have archives of safety tests on normal volunteers.
> they refuse access to these archives on the grounds of "proprietry
> information"
>
> but of course you know this..

I love it when you tell me what I know and what I don't know.
I know no such thing jake.

[mark]

jake wrote:


>>Some of us read the literature jake.
>
> I am sure many a busy overworked GP would like the leisure time to be
> able to as well..
> As it is studies tell us that reliance on information provided by drug
> company Reps tends to be the norm..

what studies would those be.
How many physicians have you actually talked to on the issue?

>>>"While occurrences of suicidality are not unexpected in patients with
>>>MDD, preliminary data suggest an excess of such reports for patients
>>>assigned to several of these antidepressant drugs compared to those
>>>assigned to placebo. "
>>
>>and that statement still does not support the conclussion that you are
>>inferring.

> that more patients on the drug report suicidality than those given a
> placebo seems pretty clearcut..

That it seems clear cut to you speaks more to what YOU don't know about
depression and it's treatment rather than health care providers.


>>>>>the use of SSRIs to treat depression is problematic
>>>>>and of increasing concern..whatever spin might be used to hide thr
>>>>>fact
>>>>
>>>>seriously, i have no idea what your little agenda is all about, but SSRIs,
>>>>among other depression treatments, save MANY more lives than you claim they
>>>>take.
>>>
>>>this was the promise..and the sales proposition..
>>>
>>>time has proved the confidence misplaced..
>>
>>How has that been proven jake?
>
>
> I thought you were saying you read the literature?

same question.
>
>
> Aside from the enduring risks ongoing treatment poses, the severity of
> the anxiety withdrawal engenders can be extreme. In the case of the
> healthy volunteer studies undertaken in the 1980s by Beecham one
> volunteer in the aftermath of taking Seroxat committed suicide. The
> company deny a link between their drug and the suicide but there are
> good arguments to put forward in favour of a link.

I'm sure I can find one person who drank milk and then comitted suicide.
That data point tells us nothing.

>
> Not least of those arguments is the data from RCTs. In an accompanying
> paper, the evidence was put forward that Lilly, Pfizer and GSK have
> recoded under placebo suicidal acts that occurred in the washout phase
> of trials – that is following discontinuation of prior treatment.

yet another document that is not attainable.

>
> http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58092-DH.htm

All I see is an extended editorial. Is there supposed to be some data?
>>>it has yet to be shown that SSRIs "save childrens lives" in any way
>>>shape or form..
>>>
>>>
>>>>i've said it before. don't like them, don't take them. but there's no
>>>>reason to wage a campaign against an entire class of meds that have saved so
>>>>many lives.
>>>
>>>so lets just sweep the victims and ruined lives
>>>under the carpet then...
>>
>>alone with the ones who decide that they can no longer go on living
>>because of self riteous assholes like you.
>
>
> OIC
> In your opinion those who believe in informed consent..and free access
> to information as to drug safety are responsible for suicides.

Your crusade has nothing to do with informed consent. That has been
taken care of in doctors offices for at least the past ten years as far
as a response to medication.

How many people in the recovery phase of nonpharmacological treatment
also experience suicidal ideation? Your placebo controls don't answer
that because a placebo is not treatment.

[Markasurusi Probertasaurusi]

"kc" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jake" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > It is certainly new to the millions of people prescribed these
> > prescribed these drugs by a GP ..without an initial psychiatric
> > assessment..let alone any monitoring or supervision of any kind..close
> > or otherwise..
> >
> > Not to mention the hundreds of thousands ordering them on the internet
> > without ever seeing a doctor..
>
>
> you realize that this is a problem with the doctors and internet drug
> pushers, not with the medications themselves.
>
> right?

NO! The anti-med know nothings always blame the pills. It is the pills
fault. The pill has magical, mind controlling power, that makes people do
bad things. You do not even have to take the pill to be doing the bad
things.

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:05:33 -0500, mark > wrote:

>jake wrote:
>
>>>Oh, that's right. That hidden information that's somehow not
>>>available.
>
>> nothing "somehow " about it..
>> All drug companies have archives of safety tests on normal volunteers.
>> they refuse access to these archives on the grounds of "proprietry
>> information"
>>
>> but of course you know this..
>
>I love it when you tell me what I know and what I don't know.
>I know no such thing jake.


you must have memory problems then..you have debated it at length
before..

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:15:45 -0500, mark > wrote:
>
>> Not least of those arguments is the data from RCTs. In an accompanying
>> paper, the evidence was put forward that Lilly, Pfizer and GSK have
>> recoded under placebo suicidal acts that occurred in the washout phase
>> of trials – that is following discontinuation of prior treatment.
>
>yet another document that is not attainable.
>

That is the entire point...

If data is withheld and concealed it is disingeneous
to argue that it does not exist therefore a drug is safe..

This situation has not escaped the attention of members of the
American Medical Association..even if you are unaware of it..



Safeguarding the Quality of Clinical Research
by Joel Lexchin, MD

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/10619.html

Three colleagues and I have just published a systematic literature
review demonstrating that pharmaceutical research funded by drug
companies is more than 4 times as likely to favor the drug made by the
sponsor than research funded by other sources [1]. This finding
extended to pharmaceuticals that treat a wide range of diseases such
as osteoarthritis of the knee, multiple myeloma, various psychiatric
problems, Alzheimer’s disease, and venous thromboembolism. The
totality of the evidence reported in our meta-analysis of a subset of
homogeneous studies suggests that there is some kind of systematic
bias to the outcome of published research funded by the pharmaceutical
industry.

Our results are quite disturbing given that in Canada and the United
States the pharmaceutical industry is the largest direct funder of
medical research. In the US in 2002, the industry outspent the
National Institutes of Health by $26.4 billion to $24 billion [2]. All
of the world’s leading medical journals publish industry-sponsored
research; doctors and scientists need to be able to have confidence in
the conclusions of this research. We are calling for a major push
toward making the process of research and publication more
transparent.

The data we examined did not allow us to reach any definitive answers
about the source of outcome bias, but we think there are 2 possible
sources––publication bias and the use of inappropriate comparator
agents. The reluctance of journals to publish negative findings is a
well-known form of publication bias, but there are other forms this
bias can take. In the case of some negative findings, pharmaceutical
companies may own the data, and, naturally enough, are not interested
in submitting these unfavorable findings to a journal. Researchers may
self-censor, reasoning that if they publish results showing the
inferiority of a company’s products it may be more difficult to obtain
research funding from a company. In some instances, companies help
researchers write up their results because the investigators do not
have the time or lack the necessary skills to do it themselves. Will a
company be willing to assist in writing up a research trial that does
not favor its product?

Appropriate comparative trials between drugs are frequently lacking
and are often replaced by trials against placebos. In instances where
there is a strong placebo effect or where the course of a disease is
highly variable, placebo-controlled trials are justified. In other
instances, however, trials may use a placebo for comparison as a way
of producing positive results for the drug being tested. In trials
where 2 active drugs are being compared, the doses may not be
equivalent. For example, the dose of the comparator may be too
high––leading to more side effects––or too low––leading to lesser
efficacy. It should be noted that, in the literature we examined, we
could not determine who was responsible for the choice of the
comparator agent––the sponsoring company, the investigators, or a
regulatory authority.

Some steps have already been taken to improve the reporting of
randomized clinical trials. An international group of investigators,
statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical editors met to revise
the CONSORT statement in 2001 [3]. Journals that follow these
recommendations, give their readers a transparent rationale for why
the study was undertaken and how it was conducted and analyzed. That
same year, the editors of 13 major medical journals, including JAMA,
CMAJ, and Lancet, issued a declaration regarding publication
requirements for their respective journals. These standards require
authors submitting a manuscript to disclose all financial and personal
relationships between themselves and others that might bias their
work. They must describe the role of the study sponsor(s) in study
design and the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data.
Authors must also disclose the trial funders’ involvement in the
writing of the report and the decision to submit for publication; and,
in certain cases, editors may ask authors to sign a statement such as
"I had full access to all of the data in this study, and I take
complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy
of the data analysis."

In my opinion, and that of my collaborators, more needs to be done to
improve the integrity of clinical research reports. We echo the
repeatedly made suggestion that all clinical trials be registered
prospectively in order to prevent publication bias. Such a registry
would allow interested parties to see if there were trials that did
not make it to publication and analyze any links between funding
status and publication. We also recommend that authors and editors
consider including a statement about the beliefs of the investigators
prior to conducting research about the uncertainty of the treatments
they plan to study. Uncertainty about the superiority or inferiority
of the different agents being compared would assure readers that
comparators were not chosen to ensure the final outcome of the study.

We recommend other measures such as, to the extent possible,
disengaging pharmaceutical companies from the design of clinical
trials; this is the responsibility of the investigators. Drug
companies should restrict themselves to funding the trials. Assessment
scales for the methodologic quality of research should be expanded to
include a measurement of the appropriateness of the comparator(s). All
journals that publish clinical trials should embrace the statement
from the 13 editors on publication requirements. Finally, readers need
to be alert to the funding sources of clinical trials, whatever they
may be, and take into consideration whether the sponsoring group may
have influenced the trial results.

Reference
1. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry
sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ
2003;326:1167-70.
2. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA:
Industry Profile 2003 (Chapter 2). Available at:
http://www.phrma.org/publications/publications/profile02/2003%20CHAPTER%202.pdf.
Accessed June 30, 2003.
3. The CONSORT statement is an important research tool comprising a
checklist and flow diagram to help improve the quality of reports of
randomized controlled trials. The statement offers a standardized way
for researchers to report trials and is intended to make experimental
process more transparent so that readers can more appropriately
evaluate the study’s validity. See CONSORT. Available at:
http://www.consort-statement.org/. Accessed June 27, 2003.



Joel Lexchin, MD, teaches health policy at York University and also
works as an emergency physician at the University Health Network, both
in Toronto, Canada. He has written extensively on the relationship
between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry and has served as a
consultant on pharmaceutical issues to the province of Ontario, the
Canadian and New Zealand governments, the Australian National
Prescribing Service and the World Health Organization.


>> http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58092-DH.htm
>
>All I see is an extended editorial. Is there supposed to be some data?
>>>>it has yet to be shown that SSRIs "save childrens lives" in any way
>>>>shape or form..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>i've said it before. don't like them, don't take them. but there's no
>>>>>reason to wage a campaign against an entire class of meds that have saved so
>>>>>many lives.
>>>>
>>>>so lets just sweep the victims and ruined lives
>>>>under the carpet then...
>>>
>>>alone with the ones who decide that they can no longer go on living
>>>because of self riteous assholes like you.
>>
>>
>> OIC
>> In your opinion those who believe in informed consent..and free access
>> to information as to drug safety are responsible for suicides.
>
>Your crusade has nothing to do with informed consent. That has been
>taken care of in doctors offices for at least the past ten years as far
>as a response to medication.

you have a shred of data or evidence that supports this assertion?

The amount of time spent with patients gets less and less

If the doctors do not possess the information or have been disinformed

themselves ..they they are hardly in a position to aid with informed
consent..

[jake]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:15:45 -0500, mark > wrote:

>jake wrote:
>
>
>>>Some of us read the literature jake.
>>
>> I am sure many a busy overworked GP would like the leisure time to be
>> able to as well..
>> As it is studies tell us that reliance on information provided by drug
>> company Reps tends to be the norm..
>
>what studies would those be.
>How many physicians have you actually talked to on the issue?

seeing as you ask..

I was rather suprised to find that many of the psychiatrists from
around the world I coversed with at the American Psychiatric
Association conference..were not only equally disgusted at the
corruption and tainting of research by the drug companies..but have
formed associations to combat it.
and you?

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:06:26 +0000, jake > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:15:45 -0500, mark > wrote:
>>
>>> Not least of those arguments is the data from RCTs. In an accompanying
>>> paper, the evidence was put forward that Lilly, Pfizer and GSK have
>>> recoded under placebo suicidal acts that occurred in the washout phase
>>> of trials – that is following discontinuation of prior treatment.
>>
>>yet another document that is not attainable.
>>
>
>That is the entire point...

you missed the sarcasm
>>Your crusade has nothing to do with informed consent. That has been
>>taken care of in doctors offices for at least the past ten years as far
>>as a response to medication.
>
>you have a shred of data or evidence that supports this assertion?

Of course I do. Who is it, you or I, who works with physicians?
Who is it, you or I, who writes, gives, and explains informed
consents?

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:27:28 +0000, jake > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:15:45 -0500, mark > wrote:
>
>>jake wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Some of us read the literature jake.
>>>
>>> I am sure many a busy overworked GP would like the leisure time to be
>>> able to as well..
>>> As it is studies tell us that reliance on information provided by drug
>>> company Reps tends to be the norm..
>>
>>what studies would those be.
>>How many physicians have you actually talked to on the issue?
>
>seeing as you ask..
>
>I was rather suprised to find that many of the psychiatrists from
>around the world I coversed with at the American Psychiatric
>Association conference..were not only equally disgusted at the
>corruption and tainting of research by the drug companies..but have
>formed associations to combat it.
>and you?

you didn't answer the question


================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:43:28 +0000, jake > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:05:33 -0500, mark > wrote:
>
>>jake wrote:
>>
>>>>Oh, that's right. That hidden information that's somehow not
>>>>available.
>>
>>> nothing "somehow " about it..
>>> All drug companies have archives of safety tests on normal volunteers.
>>> they refuse access to these archives on the grounds of "proprietry
>>> information"
>>>
>>> but of course you know this..
>>
>>I love it when you tell me what I know and what I don't know.
>>I know no such thing jake.
>
>
>you must have memory problems then..you have debated it at length
>before..

I remember the *debate* just fine jake.
Don't forget that just because you assert that something happens is
not evidence that it happens. And it's FAR from evidence that I
*know* it happens.
================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Unigamer]

Hate to burst your bubble, but since when has the average home end-user
online been concerned with copyright online? It was infringed on from
the very beginning, infringed on even more with the advent of the WWW,
and the ultimate infringement was P2P. I admit, it may be a problem, but
I've laughed at copyrights ever since I first got online and saw cut and
paste, and saw scanners. ;-)

jake wrote:
<snip>
> AFAIAA concern with violating copyright is the issue..
> rather than your uglyminded interpretations..
>
<major snippage>

Jeff

(Remove both "nospam"s from the address in this message to reply by email.)

[Looneyguard]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:46:04 GMT, Unigamer
> wrote:

>Hate to burst your bubble, but since when has the average home end-user
>online been concerned with copyright online? It was infringed on from
>the very beginning, infringed on even more with the advent of the WWW,
>and the ultimate infringement was P2P. I admit, it may be a problem, but
>I've laughed at copyrights ever since I first got online and saw cut and
>paste, and saw scanners. ;-)
>
>jake wrote:
><snip>
>> AFAIAA concern with violating copyright is the issue..
>> rather than your uglyminded interpretations..
>>
><major snippage>
>
>Jeff
>
>(Remove both "nospam"s from the address in this message to reply by email.)

The irony here is the Church of Scientology was the worst group using
it as a tactic to squelch criticism against them.

[Jurgen]

"Mark D Morin" > wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:27:28 +0000, jake > wrote:
|
| >On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:15:45 -0500, mark > wrote:
| >
| >>jake wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >>>>Some of us read the literature jake.
| >>>
| >>> I am sure many a busy overworked GP would like the leisure time to be
| >>> able to as well..
| >>> As it is studies tell us that reliance on information provided by drug
| >>> company Reps tends to be the norm..
| >>
| >>what studies would those be.
| >>How many physicians have you actually talked to on the issue?
| >
| >seeing as you ask..
| >
| >I was rather suprised to find that many of the psychiatrists from
| >around the world I coversed with at the American Psychiatric
| >Association conference..were not only equally disgusted at the
| >corruption and tainting of research by the drug companies..but have
| >formed associations to combat it.
| >and you?
|
| you didn't answer the question

Too many to count.






|
|
| ================================================== ==
| Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
| "Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
| eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
| that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
| a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
| "Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
| lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
| No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
| is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
| you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
| you no longer need to feel it.
| "Yo need to forgive your father."
|
| Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"
|
| http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Jurgen]

"Mark D Morin" > wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:43:28 +0000, jake > wrote:
| >you must have memory problems then..you have debated it at length
| >before..
|
| I remember the *debate* just fine jake.
| Don't forget that just because you assert that something happens is
| not evidence that it happens. And it's FAR from evidence that I
| *know* it happens.

I see the weasel is worming, wiggling, and denying facts and reality, as
usual.

[jake]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:46:04 GMT, Unigamer
> wrote:

>Hate to burst your bubble, but since when has the average home end-user
>online been concerned with copyright online? It was infringed on from
>the very beginning, infringed on even more with the advent of the WWW,
>and the ultimate infringement was P2P. I admit, it may be a problem, but
>I've laughed at copyrights ever since I first got online and saw cut and
>paste, and saw scanners. ;-)

Doesnt burst my bubble..
I agree totally..
IMO there is a huge difference between cutting and pasting an
informative(or not)article...and copying for resale and commercial
gain or pirating.

Some people simply us accusations of breaching copyright..
as a last ditch attempt to attack the credibility of another poster
when their arguments have failed..




>
>jake wrote:
><snip>
>> AFAIAA concern with violating copyright is the issue..
>> rather than your uglyminded interpretations..
>>
><major snippage>
>
>Jeff
>
>(Remove both "nospam"s from the address in this message to reply by email.)

[jake]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:56:24 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:06:26 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:15:45 -0500, mark > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not least of those arguments is the data from RCTs. In an accompanying
>>>> paper, the evidence was put forward that Lilly, Pfizer and GSK have
>>>> recoded under placebo suicidal acts that occurred in the washout phase
>>>> of trials – that is following discontinuation of prior treatment.
>>>
>>>yet another document that is not attainable.
>>>
>>
>>That is the entire point...
>
>you missed the sarcasm

perhaps..


>>>Your crusade has nothing to do with informed consent. That has been
>>>taken care of in doctors offices for at least the past ten years as far
>>>as a response to medication.
>>
>>you have a shred of data or evidence that supports this assertion?
>
>Of course I do.

would you care to produce a cite then?

It is a common complaint of psychiatric patients that doctors do not..
in fact..either listen..inform or even be aware of some of the effects
of the drugs they prescribe..
hence the poularity of such groups as
alt.support.depression.medication..where patients exchange information
on such..

>Who is it, you or I, who works with physicians?
>Who is it, you or I, who writes, gives, and explains informed
>consents?

lol..

Being employed as a psychologist confers no priviledged access to
reality or insight into the structure of communications between GPs
...psychiatrists and their patients world wide..furthermore you are the
first to sneer at patients and their relatives first hand experiences
as "merely anecdotal" and of no significance..

Your blind faith in doctors is misplaced


Patients used as drug 'guinea pigs'

Firms pay out millions to doctors to test medicines

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/story/0,1480,892118,00.html


Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
Sunday February 9, 2003
The Observer

When Italia Sudano went for a check-up with her GP, Dr Robert Adams,
she was in good health. Her husband had died a few months earlier and
her blood pressure was a little high.
Yet nothing could have prepared Sudano, 72, for the nightmare that was
to follow and the discovery of a trail of greed and fraud that went
right to the heart of the medical profession.

She was astonished to discover that her trusted GP had been using her
as a guinea pig by giving her tablets which had not been medically
approved. Worse still, he was being paid to do so by a pharmaceutical
company.

An investigation by The Observer has revealed that many doctors are
risking their patients' health by subjecting them to medical trials
without their knowledge.

Sudano's ordeal began when Adams took a blood test and asked her to
return the next week. She had been living at Letchworth in
Hertfordshire since arriving from Italy 50 years earlier and she
trusted British doctors.

Over the next few weeks Adams asked Sudano to return for more blood
tests. By the end of the second month her arms were black and blue.
Her son, Joe, said they looked as though they had been slammed in a
door. She said: 'At one point I asked if he was selling my blood.'

Little did Sudano know how close to the truth her comment was. On her
last visit, Adams took a bottle of pills from the top drawer of his
desk and suggested Sudano take one a day. While she thought it strange
she wasn't being given a prescription, she trusted her doctor.

But within hours of swallowing the pill, she could hardly walk because
she was so dazed. Her face had swollen up badly and she was in
considerable pain.

She stopped taking the tablets and complained to Hertfordshire Health
Authority. This sparked an investigation that led to one of the
largest cases of medical research fraud ever uncovered in Britain.

It emerged that over the previous five years Adams had earned more
than £100,000 from drug companies, including the European giants
AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer. They were all paying him to
test their new drugs on his patients. Like Sudano, many of his
patients had never given their consent and had no knowledge they were
being used as human guinea pigs in a medical trial. Patients with no
symptoms were given drugs and others who needed proper medication were
given placebos. Adams was receiving almost £1,000 for each patient.

Last month Adams was found guilty by the General Medical Council (GMC)
of serious professional misconduct and suspended for 12 months. The
GMC's lawyer described it as 'assault' and Sudano is now looking to
sue Adams.

GlaxoSmithKline was using Adams to study its anti-depressant
Paroxetine, but had to cancel the trial at a cost of hundreds of
thousands of pounds.

The drugs industry talks of bad apples and the odd errant doctor
milking the system but insists that trials using GPs are essential for
medical advances and that payment to doctors for the extra work
involved is ethically correct.

But an investigation by The Observer suggests the problem of GPs using
patients as guinea pigs without their consent is more widespread. Some
3,000 doctors each year are paid by drug firms to sign up their
patients to tests and on average 15 patients are needed for each
trial. With doctors picking up £1,000 per patient, drug companies are
spending £45m on getting doctors onside. There is no suggestion the
companies are implicated in moves to carry out the tests by doctors on
patients secretly.

Medical fraud experts estimate that one per cent of all drug trials
involve fraud, including failure to get proper consent from patients.
This means hundreds of patients a year are being given unapproved and
potentially dangerous drugs without their knowledge

---

The country's foremost investigator of medical research fraud is Peter
Jay, the former Metropolitan Police detective chief inspector who
arrested serial killer Dennis Nilsen. Since 1996 Jay has run
MedicoLegal Investigations, an independent body, and has taken 12
doctors to the GMC.


Jay said: 'While the industry has become more alert to the problems
over the last decade there is still clearly a worrying and persistent
problem in research fraud involving doctors. This is not just an issue
of patient safety, but a problem that might lead to bad drugs being
approved or good drugs failing to be approved.'

The Observer's revelations of the continuing problem of research fraud
have sparked calls for industry guidelines to be toughened up. David
Hinchcliffe, the Labour chair of the House of Commons Health Select
Committee, described the situation as bordering on 'scandalous' and
said his committee would look into the issue.

He said: 'The relationship between the drug firms and the medical
profession is one that needs to be thoroughly investigated. It is
extremely worrying that patients' trust is being abused by doctors who
are more interested in making money from the pharmaceutical industry.'

[jake]

Patients used as drug 'guinea pigs'

Firms pay out millions to doctors to test medicines

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/story/0,1480,892118,00.html


Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
Sunday February 9, 2003
The Observer

When Italia Sudano went for a check-up with her GP, Dr Robert Adams,
she was in good health. Her husband had died a few months earlier and
her blood pressure was a little high.
Yet nothing could have prepared Sudano, 72, for the nightmare that was
to follow and the discovery of a trail of greed and fraud that went
right to the heart of the medical profession.

She was astonished to discover that her trusted GP had been using her
as a guinea pig by giving her tablets which had not been medically
approved. Worse still, he was being paid to do so by a pharmaceutical
company.

An investigation by The Observer has revealed that many doctors are
risking their patients' health by subjecting them to medical trials
without their knowledge.

Sudano's ordeal began when Adams took a blood test and asked her to
return the next week. She had been living at Letchworth in
Hertfordshire since arriving from Italy 50 years earlier and she
trusted British doctors.

Over the next few weeks Adams asked Sudano to return for more blood
tests. By the end of the second month her arms were black and blue.
Her son, Joe, said they looked as though they had been slammed in a
door. She said: 'At one point I asked if he was selling my blood.'

Little did Sudano know how close to the truth her comment was. On her
last visit, Adams took a bottle of pills from the top drawer of his
desk and suggested Sudano take one a day. While she thought it strange
she wasn't being given a prescription, she trusted her doctor.

But within hours of swallowing the pill, she could hardly walk because
she was so dazed. Her face had swollen up badly and she was in
considerable pain.

She stopped taking the tablets and complained to Hertfordshire Health
Authority. This sparked an investigation that led to one of the
largest cases of medical research fraud ever uncovered in Britain.

It emerged that over the previous five years Adams had earned more
than £100,000 from drug companies, including the European giants
AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer. They were all paying him to
test their new drugs on his patients. Like Sudano, many of his
patients had never given their consent and had no knowledge they were
being used as human guinea pigs in a medical trial. Patients with no
symptoms were given drugs and others who needed proper medication were
given placebos. Adams was receiving almost £1,000 for each patient.

Last month Adams was found guilty by the General Medical Council (GMC)
of serious professional misconduct and suspended for 12 months. The
GMC's lawyer described it as 'assault' and Sudano is now looking to
sue Adams.

GlaxoSmithKline was using Adams to study its anti-depressant
Paroxetine, but had to cancel the trial at a cost of hundreds of
thousands of pounds.

The drugs industry talks of bad apples and the odd errant doctor
milking the system but insists that trials using GPs are essential for
medical advances and that payment to doctors for the extra work
involved is ethically correct.

But an investigation by The Observer suggests the problem of GPs using
patients as guinea pigs without their consent is more widespread. Some
3,000 doctors each year are paid by drug firms to sign up their
patients to tests and on average 15 patients are needed for each
trial. With doctors picking up £1,000 per patient, drug companies are
spending £45m on getting doctors onside. There is no suggestion the
companies are implicated in moves to carry out the tests by doctors on
patients secretly.

Medical fraud experts estimate that one per cent of all drug trials
involve fraud, including failure to get proper consent from patients.
This means hundreds of patients a year are being given unapproved and
potentially dangerous drugs without their knowledge

---

The country's foremost investigator of medical research fraud is Peter
Jay, the former Metropolitan Police detective chief inspector who
arrested serial killer Dennis Nilsen. Since 1996 Jay has run
MedicoLegal Investigations, an independent body, and has taken 12
doctors to the GMC.


Jay said: 'While the industry has become more alert to the problems
over the last decade there is still clearly a worrying and persistent
problem in research fraud involving doctors. This is not just an issue
of patient safety, but a problem that might lead to bad drugs being
approved or good drugs failing to be approved.'

The Observer's revelations of the continuing problem of research fraud
have sparked calls for industry guidelines to be toughened up. David
Hinchcliffe, the Labour chair of the House of Commons Health Select
Committee, described the situation as bordering on 'scandalous' and
said his committee would look into the issue.

He said: 'The relationship between the drug firms and the medical
profession is one that needs to be thoroughly investigated. It is
extremely worrying that patients' trust is being abused by doctors who
are more interested in making money from the pharmaceutical industry.'

__

"When society turns a blind eye to the dangers of drugs and rushes to embrace a
pharmaceutical cure for nearly every condition, there is almost no end to the
harm that may result".

Thomas.J.Moore

[jake]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:57:12 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:27:28 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:15:45 -0500, mark > wrote:
>>
>>>jake wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Some of us read the literature jake.
>>>>
>>>> I am sure many a busy overworked GP would like the leisure time to be
>>>> able to as well..
>>>> As it is studies tell us that reliance on information provided by drug
>>>> company Reps tends to be the norm..
>>>
>>>what studies would those be.
>>>How many physicians have you actually talked to on the issue?
>>
>>seeing as you ask..
>>
>>I was rather suprised to find that many of the psychiatrists from
>>around the world I coversed with at the American Psychiatric
>>Association conference..were not only equally disgusted at the
>>corruption and tainting of research by the drug companies..but have
>>formed associations to combat it.
>>and you?
>
>you didn't answer the question

"many " is sufficient answer enough
to your as hominem diversionary tactics..AFAIAC
You ARE aware that ..unlike you..psychiatrists are medical doctors and
physicians?

__

"When society turns a blind eye to the dangers of drugs and rushes to embrace a
pharmaceutical cure for nearly every condition, there is almost no end to the
harm that may result".

Thomas.J.Moore

[Mark D Morin]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:43:54 +0000, jake > wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:56:24 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:06:26 +0000, jake > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:15:45 -0500, mark > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not least of those arguments is the data from RCTs. In an accompanying
>>>>> paper, the evidence was put forward that Lilly, Pfizer and GSK have
>>>>> recoded under placebo suicidal acts that occurred in the washout phase
>>>>> of trials – that is following discontinuation of prior treatment.
>>>>
>>>>yet another document that is not attainable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is the entire point...
>>
>>you missed the sarcasm
>
>perhaps..
>
>
>>>>Your crusade has nothing to do with informed consent. That has been
>>>>taken care of in doctors offices for at least the past ten years as far
>>>>as a response to medication.
>>>
>>>you have a shred of data or evidence that supports this assertion?
>>
>>Of course I do.
>
>would you care to produce a cite then?

Doctor's offices don't have citations.
Mr. Quiote independantly told you that he has been receiving the
information for 10 years. What's it going to take for you to
understand that the information has been out there?


>>Who is it, you or I, who works with physicians?
>>Who is it, you or I, who writes, gives, and explains informed
>>consents?
>
>lol..
>
>Being employed as a psychologist confers no priviledged access to
>reality or insight into the structure of communications between GPs
>..psychiatrists and their patients world wide..

But it does provide more access than someone who is not in the health
care field.

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[jake]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:58:45 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:43:28 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:05:33 -0500, mark > wrote:
>>
>>>jake wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Oh, that's right. That hidden information that's somehow not
>>>>>available.
>>>
>>>> nothing "somehow " about it..
>>>> All drug companies have archives of safety tests on normal volunteers.
>>>> they refuse access to these archives on the grounds of "proprietry
>>>> information"
>>>>
>>>> but of course you know this..
>>>
>>>I love it when you tell me what I know and what I don't know.
>>>I know no such thing jake.
>>
>>
>>you must have memory problems then..you have debated it at length
>>before..
>
>I remember the *debate* just fine jake.

then you are prefectly aware that it is not a question of data being
"somehow" not available..

>Don't forget that just because you assert that something happens is
>not evidence that it happens. And it's FAR from evidence that I
>*know* it happens.
Ok
then you dont know that first phase testing requires pharmacuetical
companies to accumulate data on normal volunteers..or that they
routinely deny access to rearchers..
whatever..


>================================================== ==
>Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
>"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
>eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
>that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
>a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
> "Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
>lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
>No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
>is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
>you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
>you no longer need to feel it.
> "Yo need to forgive your father."
>
>Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"
>
>http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

__

"When society turns a blind eye to the dangers of drugs and rushes to embrace a
pharmaceutical cure for nearly every condition, there is almost no end to the
harm that may result".

Thomas.J.Moore

[jake]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:57:41 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:43:54 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:56:24 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:06:26 +0000, jake > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:15:45 -0500, mark > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not least of those arguments is the data from RCTs. In an accompanying
>>>>>> paper, the evidence was put forward that Lilly, Pfizer and GSK have
>>>>>> recoded under placebo suicidal acts that occurred in the washout phase
>>>>>> of trials – that is following discontinuation of prior treatment.
>>>>>
>>>>>yet another document that is not attainable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is the entire point...
>>>
>>>you missed the sarcasm
>>
>>perhaps..
>>
>>
>>>>>Your crusade has nothing to do with informed consent. That has been
>>>>>taken care of in doctors offices for at least the past ten years as far
>>>>>as a response to medication.
>>>>
>>>>you have a shred of data or evidence that supports this assertion?
>>>
>>>Of course I do.
>>
>>would you care to produce a cite then?
>
>Doctor's offices don't have citations.

so you do not..in fact have any evidence or data to
support your assertion that SSRIs inciting suicidality
has been "taken care of in doctors offices for ten years"


>Mr. Quiote independantly told you that he has been receiving the
>information for 10 years. What's it going to take for you to
>understand that the information has been out there?

A time machine?

an interface to your parallel universe?
In this one The FDA insisted on the change three months ago


>
>
>>>Who is it, you or I, who works with physicians?
>>>Who is it, you or I, who writes, gives, and explains informed
>>>consents?
>>
>>lol..
>>
>>Being employed as a psychologist confers no priviledged access to
>>reality or insight into the structure of communications between GPs
>>..psychiatrists and their patients world wide..
>
>But it does provide more access than someone who is not in the health
>care field.

Quite incorrect.
Sociologists have been studying doctor-patient interactions for
decades and have far more objective insight than that derived from
your personal observations..

[jake]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:38:28 -0800, Looneyguard >
wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:46:04 GMT, Unigamer
> wrote:
>
>>Hate to burst your bubble, but since when has the average home end-user
>>online been concerned with copyright online? It was infringed on from
>>the very beginning, infringed on even more with the advent of the WWW,
>>and the ultimate infringement was P2P. I admit, it may be a problem, but
>>I've laughed at copyrights ever since I first got online and saw cut and
>>paste, and saw scanners. ;-)
>>
>>jake wrote:
>><snip>
>>> AFAIAA concern with violating copyright is the issue..
>>> rather than your uglyminded interpretations..
>>>
>><major snippage>
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>(Remove both "nospam"s from the address in this message to reply by email.)
>
>The irony here is the Church of Scientology was the worst group using
>it as a tactic to squelch criticism against them.

"He who fights monsters must take care that he himself does not become
a monster. And when you gaze into the void, the void gazes also into
you."

Friedrich Nietzsche
(Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146).

[Jurgen]

"jake" > wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:57:41 -0500, Mark D Morin
| > wrote:
|
|. What's it going to take for you to
| >understand that the information has been out there?
|
| A time machine?
|
| an interface to your parallel universe?
| In this one The FDA insisted on the change three months ago
|

Morin is infamous for his historical revisionism.

For years, Morin has steadfastly denied that SSRI's cause suicidal
ideations and suicide.

Now, the FDA alerts come out...and Morin claims he knew it all along.

ROFLMOA

[Mark D Morin]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:45:20 +0000, jake > wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:57:41 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:43:54 +0000, jake > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:56:24 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:06:26 +0000, jake > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:15:45 -0500, mark > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not least of those arguments is the data from RCTs. In an accompanying
>>>>>>> paper, the evidence was put forward that Lilly, Pfizer and GSK have
>>>>>>> recoded under placebo suicidal acts that occurred in the washout phase
>>>>>>> of trials – that is following discontinuation of prior treatment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>yet another document that is not attainable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That is the entire point...
>>>>
>>>>you missed the sarcasm
>>>
>>>perhaps..
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Your crusade has nothing to do with informed consent. That has been
>>>>>>taken care of in doctors offices for at least the past ten years as far
>>>>>>as a response to medication.
>>>>>
>>>>>you have a shred of data or evidence that supports this assertion?
>>>>
>>>>Of course I do.
>>>
>>>would you care to produce a cite then?
>>
>>Doctor's offices don't have citations.
>
>so you do not..in fact have any evidence or data to


Read that sentence again.
I have evidence
Evidence has been presented here in the form of testimony

>support your assertion that SSRIs inciting suicidality
>has been "taken care of in doctors offices for ten years"
>
>
>>Mr. Quiote independantly told you that he has been receiving the
>>information for 10 years. What's it going to take for you to
>>understand that the information has been out there?
>
>A time machine?
>
>an interface to your parallel universe?
>In this one The FDA insisted on the change three months ago

What's your point?
Are you assuming that there were no such warnings prior to the FDA
intervention?

>>>>Who is it, you or I, who works with physicians?
>>>>Who is it, you or I, who writes, gives, and explains informed
>>>>consents?
>>>
>>>lol..
>>>
>>>Being employed as a psychologist confers no priviledged access to
>>>reality or insight into the structure of communications between GPs
>>>..psychiatrists and their patients world wide..
>>
>>But it does provide more access than someone who is not in the health
>>care field.
>
>Quite incorrect.
>Sociologists have been studying doctor-patient interactions for
>decades and have far more objective insight than that derived from
>your personal observations..

you know this how? simply because they conform to your expectations?


================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:24:37 GMT, "Jurgen" > wrote:

>
>"jake" > wrote in message
...
>| On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:57:41 -0500, Mark D Morin
>| > wrote:
>|
>|. What's it going to take for you to
>| >understand that the information has been out there?
>|
>| A time machine?
>|
>| an interface to your parallel universe?
>| In this one The FDA insisted on the change three months ago
>|
>
>Morin is infamous for his historical revisionism.
>
>For years, Morin has steadfastly denied that SSRI's cause suicidal
>ideations and suicide.
>
>Now, the FDA alerts come out...and Morin claims he knew it all along.
>
>ROFLMOA

Linda, Take a close look at that history you claim that I have
revised. And I won't be expecting an apology--not from you.

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:02:10 +0000, jake > wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:58:45 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:43:28 +0000, jake > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:05:33 -0500, mark > wrote:
>>>
>>>>jake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, that's right. That hidden information that's somehow not
>>>>>>available.
>>>>
>>>>> nothing "somehow " about it..
>>>>> All drug companies have archives of safety tests on normal volunteers.
>>>>> they refuse access to these archives on the grounds of "proprietry
>>>>> information"
>>>>>
>>>>> but of course you know this..
>>>>
>>>>I love it when you tell me what I know and what I don't know.
>>>>I know no such thing jake.
>>>
>>>
>>>you must have memory problems then..you have debated it at length
>>>before..
>>
>>I remember the *debate* just fine jake.
>
>then you are prefectly aware that it is not a question of data being
>"somehow" not available..

I remember your position just fine.
I didn't agree with it then and I don't agree with it now.

>
>>Don't forget that just because you assert that something happens is
>>not evidence that it happens. And it's FAR from evidence that I
>>*know* it happens.

>Ok
>then you dont know that first phase testing requires pharmacuetical
>companies to accumulate data on normal volunteers..or that they
>routinely deny access to rearchers..

That's not the way it worked in the trials I participated in.
Have you written a proposal for an IND? The one that I wrote did not
call for "normal volunteers" and it would not have passed my IRB if it
had.

>whatever..

definately

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Jon Quixote]

In news message: ,
jake > typed:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:57:41 -0500, Mark D Morin
> > wrote:

<snip>

>> Mr. Quiote independantly told you that he has been receiving the
>> information for 10 years. What's it going to take for you to
>> understand that the information has been out there?
>
> A time machine?
>
> an interface to your parallel universe?
> In this one The FDA insisted on the change three months ago

Um. Ok, this is really looking to be a miscommunication. The FDA may have
been insisting for only the last three months - but I have my flyer from my
first Wellbutrin prescription from ten months ago:

"Suicide: The possibility of a suicide attempt is inherent in depression and
may persist until significant remission occurs. Accordingly, prescriptions
for WELLBUTRIN SR tablets should be written for the smallest number of
tablets consistent with good patient management."

More specifically, let's do the time warp again:

http://www.benzo.org.uk/diazepam.htm

Note the year.

I still believe y'all are talking at cross-purposes. As I understand it, you
are referring to specific occurences as "new", whereas Mark is referring to
the information as "not new".

It appears to me that you are concerned about:

Recent drugs and their increased influence on ideation and/or attempts among
children

Whereas Mark is saying that:

It is common and long-known knowledge that many antidepressants in general
have a small risk of increasing ideation and/or actual attempts among some
ingestors, regardless of age, gender or other factors.

I don't believe he is disparaging the information that the FDA is
emphasizing recently, he appears only to be commenting that it's not new
information.

Oh, and to correct myself in my other post, it was imiprimine I read the
warning about, not Paxil.

--
Jon Quixote
What is axiomatic frequently isn't.

[jake]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:48:27 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:45:20 +0000, jake > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:57:41 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:43:54 +0000, jake > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:56:24 -0500, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:06:26 +0000, jake > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:15:45 -0500, mark > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not least of those arguments is the data from RCTs. In an accompanying
>>>>>>>> paper, the evidence was put forward that Lilly, Pfizer and GSK have
>>>>>>>> recoded under placebo suicidal acts that occurred in the washout phase
>>>>>>>> of trials – that is following discontinuation of prior treatment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>yet another document that is not attainable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is the entire point...
>>>>>
>>>>>you missed the sarcasm
>>>>
>>>>perhaps..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Your crusade has nothing to do with informed consent. That has been
>>>>>>>taken care of in doctors offices for at least the past ten years as far
>>>>>>>as a response to medication.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>you have a shred of data or evidence that supports this assertion?
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course I do.
>>>>
>>>>would you care to produce a cite then?
>>>
>>>Doctor's offices don't have citations.
>>
>>so you do not..in fact have any evidence or data to
>
>
>Read that sentence again.
>I have evidence
>Evidence has been presented here in the form of testimony

as you yourself point out a poster simply stating something is not
evidence or data..


well..if personal testimomy has become evidence then here
is some more on this topic

"well I'll tell you something. I was more depressed on my meds than
not
being on my me. Topamz and Lexapro made it worse. I did 2 suicide
attempts while being on the meds and cried all the time. I stopped
taking my meds, Neither doctor nor parents know about it. I feel 100%
better off of them than being on them. So I dont need the FDA to tell
me that I was a high risk case on the meds, I had the proof on my
arms."




>
>>support your assertion that SSRIs inciting suicidality
>>has been "taken care of in doctors offices for ten years"
>>
>>
>>>Mr. Quiote independantly told you that he has been receiving the
>>>information for 10 years. What's it going to take for you to
>>>understand that the information has been out there?
>>
>>A time machine?
>>
>>an interface to your parallel universe?
>>In this one The FDA insisted on the change three months ago
>
>What's your point?
>Are you assuming that there were no such warnings prior to the FDA
>intervention?

far from being contraindicted for children Paxil was claimed to be
safe..nowhere on the insert..fine print or otherwise werev these
specific concerns mentioned.



>
>>>>>Who is it, you or I, who works with physicians?
>>>>>Who is it, you or I, who writes, gives, and explains informed
>>>>>consents?
>>>>
>>>>lol..
>>>>
>>>>Being employed as a psychologist confers no priviledged access to
>>>>reality or insight into the structure of communications between GPs
>>>>..psychiatrists and their patients world wide..
>>>
>>>But it does provide more access than someone who is not in the health
>>>care field.
>>
>>Quite incorrect.
>>Sociologists have been studying doctor-patient interactions for
>>decades and have far more objective insight than that derived from
>>your personal observations..
>
>you know this how? simply because they conform to your expectations?

There is a whole body of literature and research..
addressing the topic of doctor-patient interactions that has maybe
passed you by.
your own personal obervations are no substitute..

http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2002/may02/mcappc.pdf

Modern Culture and Physician-Patient Communication
Culture, Language, and the Doctor-Patient Relationship
Warren J. Ferguson, MD; Lucy M. Candib, MD


Background: This review’s goal was to determine how differences
between physicians and patients in race, ethnicity, and language
influence the quality of the physician-patient relationship.

Methods: We performed a literature review to assess existing evidence
for ethnic and racial disparities in the quality of
doctor-patient communication and the doctor-patient relationship.

Results: We found consistent evidence that race, ethnicity, and
language have substantial influence on the quality of the
doctor-patient relationship.

Minority patients, especially those not proficient in English, are
less likely to engender empathic response from physicians, establish
rapport with physicians, receive sufficient information, and be
encouraged to participate in medical decision making.


Conclusions: The literature calls for a more diverse
physician workforce since minority patients are more likely to choose
minority physicians, to be more satisfied by language-concordant
relationships, and to feel more connected and involved in decision
making with racially concordant physicians.

The literature upholds the recommendation for professional
interpreters to bridge the gaps in access experienced by non-English
speaking physicians. Further evidence supports the admonition that
“majority� physicians need to be more effective in developing
relationships and in their communication with ethnic and racial
minority patients.
(Fam Med 2002;34(5):353-61.)

--
"Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is
finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; until there is no longer any
first-class and second-class citizens of any nation; until the color of a man's
skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; until the basic
human rights are equally guaranteed to all, without regard to race -- until
that day, the dreams of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of
international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but
never attained."

Haile Sellassie

[Randall Bart]

'Twas Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:36:14 +0000 when all alt.support.tourette stood
in awe as jake > uttered:

>>>>no alterations jake.
>>>
>>>(not medication) exists nowhere in the text..it is your addition..
>>
>>don't know what you are talking about jake--nothing was inserted nor
>>deleted in my cutting and pasting.
>
> the words "(not medication)" arrived from where then?

The words "(not medication)" are Mark's words from a sentence Mark wrote.
He made no representation that the sentence was written by anyone but him.
You appear to be accusing him of misquoting himself.

(I am normally smart enough to stay out of these cross-posted flamefests.
I must be suffering from a stupid attack today.)

--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-917-715-0831
dt ||\ They're Murdering Terri Schiavo http://www.terrisfight.org
a |/ Multiple sclerosis: http://www.cbc.ca/webone/alison/
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://yg.cotut.com

[jake]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:16:56 GMT, Randall Bart >
wrote:

>'Twas Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:36:14 +0000 when all alt.support.tourette stood
>in awe as jake > uttered:
>
>>>>>no alterations jake.
>>>>
>>>>(not medication) exists nowhere in the text..it is your addition..
>>>
>>>don't know what you are talking about jake--nothing was inserted nor
>>>deleted in my cutting and pasting.
>>
>> the words "(not medication)" arrived from where then?
>
>The words "(not medication)" are Mark's words from a sentence Mark wrote.
>He made no representation that the sentence was written by anyone but him.
>You appear to be accusing him of misquoting himself.

sure
the addition of (not medication) was Marks spin..
the advisory is clear..
they do not know and err on the side of caution..as they rightly
should..
nowhere do they say that the medication does not cause these effects..
and its grossly misleading to suggest such..


>
>(I am normally smart enough to stay out of these cross-posted flamefests.
>I must be suffering from a stupid attack today.)
know what you mean..
:>)

[Mark D Morin]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:35:15 +0000, jake > wrote:


>>>so you do not..in fact have any evidence or data to
>>
>>
>>Read that sentence again.
>>I have evidence
>>Evidence has been presented here in the form of testimony
>
>as you yourself point out a poster simply stating something is not
>evidence or data..
>
>
>well..if personal testimomy has become evidence then here
>is some more on this topic

The topic as you have it here is whether or not there was prior
knowledge by prescribers before the alerts.

>
>"well I'll tell you something. I was more depressed on my meds than
>not
>being on my me. Topamz and Lexapro made it worse. I did 2 suicide
>attempts while being on the meds and cried all the time. I stopped
>taking my meds, Neither doctor nor parents know about it. I feel 100%
>better off of them than being on them. So I dont need the FDA to tell
>me that I was a high risk case on the meds, I had the proof on my
>arms."

what's your point?


>>What's your point?
>>Are you assuming that there were no such warnings prior to the FDA
>>intervention?
>
>far from being contraindicted for children Paxil was claimed to be
> safe..nowhere on the insert..fine print or otherwise werev these
>specific concerns mentioned.

Last I heard, children were people too. Warnings applicable to people
are just as applicable to children.


>There is a whole body of literature and research..
>addressing the topic of doctor-patient interactions that has maybe
>passed you by.

No they haven't

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:56:41 GMT, "Jon Quixote"
> wrote:

>In news message: ,
>jake > typed:
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:57:41 -0500, Mark D Morin
>> > wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Mr. Quiote independantly told you that he has been receiving the
>>> information for 10 years. What's it going to take for you to
>>> understand that the information has been out there?
>>
>> A time machine?
>>
>> an interface to your parallel universe?
>> In this one The FDA insisted on the change three months ago
>
>Um. Ok, this is really looking to be a miscommunication. The FDA may have
>been insisting for only the last three months - but I have my flyer from my
>first Wellbutrin prescription from ten months ago:
>
>"Suicide: The possibility of a suicide attempt is inherent in depression and
>may persist until significant remission occurs. Accordingly, prescriptions
>for WELLBUTRIN SR tablets should be written for the smallest number of
>tablets consistent with good patient management."
>
>More specifically, let's do the time warp again:
>
>http://www.benzo.org.uk/diazepam.htm
>
>Note the year.
>
>I still believe y'all are talking at cross-purposes. As I understand it, you
>are referring to specific occurences as "new", whereas Mark is referring to
>the information as "not new".
>
>It appears to me that you are concerned about:
>
>Recent drugs and their increased influence on ideation and/or attempts among
>children
>
>Whereas Mark is saying that:
>
>It is common and long-known knowledge that many antidepressants in general
>have a small risk of increasing ideation and/or actual attempts among some
>ingestors, regardless of age, gender or other factors.
>
>I don't believe he is disparaging the information that the FDA is
>emphasizing recently, he appears only to be commenting that it's not new
>information.
>
>Oh, and to correct myself in my other post, it was imiprimine I read the
>warning about, not Paxil.

Thank you.

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Jurgen]

"jake" > wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:48:27 -0500, Mark D Morin
| > wrote:
|
| >I have evidence
| >Evidence has been presented here in the form of testimony
|
| as you yourself point out a poster simply stating something is not
| evidence or data..
|

Especially, not the word of any poster having zero credibility owing to
their being in the habit of posting of lies, false accusations and
slanderous assertions about total strangers, as well as, their engaging in
historical revisionism, and their posting delusional crappola--psychotic or
otherwise, etc. etc.

When it comes to posters like him, you are better off assuming the OPPOSITE
of anything he asserts is what you will find is most likely true.

[Mark D Morin]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:02:30 GMT, "Jurgen" > wrote:

>
>"jake" > wrote in message
...
>| On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:48:27 -0500, Mark D Morin
>| > wrote:
>|
>| >I have evidence
>| >Evidence has been presented here in the form of testimony
>|
>| as you yourself point out a poster simply stating something is not
>| evidence or data..
>|
>
>Especially, not the word of any poster having zero credibility owing to
>their being in the habit of posting of lies, false accusations and
>slanderous assertions about total strangers, as well as, their engaging in
>historical revisionism, and their posting delusional crappola--psychotic or
>otherwise, etc. etc.

That's not nice to say about Mr. Quiote linda.


================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Jon Quixote]

In news message: ,
Mark D Morin > typed:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:02:30 GMT, "Jurgen" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "jake" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:48:27 -0500, Mark D Morin
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have evidence
>>>> Evidence has been presented here in the form of testimony
>>>
>>> as you yourself point out a poster simply stating something is not
>>> evidence or data..
>>>
>>
>> Especially, not the word of any poster having zero credibility owing to
>> their being in the habit of posting of lies, false accusations and
>> slanderous assertions about total strangers, as well as, their engaging
>> in historical revisionism, and their posting delusional
>> crappola--psychotic or otherwise, etc. etc.
>
> That's not nice to say about Mr. Quiote linda.


Cool, you think she was writing about me? I hadn't even seen it until you
quoted it - there's more than one way to plonk a troll. :)

Don't worry about defending me, thanks for the thought, though. She's
certainly not worth involving me between you two's apparently ongoing
skirmishes, save your energy for those who might actually care about what
she thinks. :)

BTW - did you happen to notice that even *she* is getting tired of repeating
her various adjectives and is starting to settle for "etc. etc." in their
place? I'm pretty sure her answers to everyone will eventually boil down to
"I obsess about you constantly, etc., etc."

(/me idly wonders if she'll rise to the bait...)

--
Jon Quixote
What is axiomatic frequently isn't.

[Mark D Morin]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:57:24 GMT, "Jon Quixote"
> wrote:

>In news message: ,
>Mark D Morin > typed:
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:02:30 GMT, "Jurgen" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "jake" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:48:27 -0500, Mark D Morin
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have evidence
>>>>> Evidence has been presented here in the form of testimony
>>>>
>>>> as you yourself point out a poster simply stating something is not
>>>> evidence or data..
>>>>
>>>
>>> Especially, not the word of any poster having zero credibility owing to
>>> their being in the habit of posting of lies, false accusations and
>>> slanderous assertions about total strangers, as well as, their engaging
>>> in historical revisionism, and their posting delusional
>>> crappola--psychotic or otherwise, etc. etc.
>>
>> That's not nice to say about Mr. Quiote linda.
>
>
>Cool, you think she was writing about me? I hadn't even seen it until you
>quoted it - there's more than one way to plonk a troll. :)

I doubt it. I just found it humerous that she wasn't aware that
someone else had commented about the same thing that I was trying to
say.

>(/me idly wonders if she'll rise to the bait...)

you're bad :)

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Smoky In Vegas]

"Mark D Morin" > wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:57:24 GMT, "Jon Quixote"
| > wrote:
|I just found it humerous that she wasn't aware that
| someone else had commented about the same thing that I was trying to
| say.

Quiote's follow up post made it clear as day, contrary to what he first
asserted, he really is NOT aware of the causal relationship between
Antidepressants and the suicidal ideations and suicides occuring in people
prescribed them.

Quiotes followup post made it quite clear he FALSELY believes that the DRUG
induced suicide ideations and suicides are the result of the disease,
despite FDA alert to the public the empirical evidence suggests suicidal
ideations are activated by the antidepressant medications listed in their
alert.
..
..

[Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA]

Oh my GOD should be the response of every concerned,
caring and honest person; it sure is from me.

This of course proves everything we have ever written
on the subject is true.

Thanks for this article, it should be read by every person!!

In article >, jake says...
>
>
>Patients used as drug 'guinea pigs'
>
>Firms pay out millions to doctors to test medicines
>
>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/story/0,1480,892118,00.html
>
>
>Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
>Sunday February 9, 2003
>The Observer
>
>When Italia Sudano went for a check-up with her GP, Dr Robert Adams,
>she was in good health. Her husband had died a few months earlier and
>her blood pressure was a little high.
>Yet nothing could have prepared Sudano, 72, for the nightmare that was
>to follow and the discovery of a trail of greed and fraud that went
>right to the heart of the medical profession.
>
>She was astonished to discover that her trusted GP had been using her
>as a guinea pig by giving her tablets which had not been medically
>approved. Worse still, he was being paid to do so by a pharmaceutical
>company.
>
>An investigation by The Observer has revealed that many doctors are
>risking their patients' health by subjecting them to medical trials
>without their knowledge.
>
>Sudano's ordeal began when Adams took a blood test and asked her to
>return the next week. She had been living at Letchworth in
>Hertfordshire since arriving from Italy 50 years earlier and she
>trusted British doctors.
>
>Over the next few weeks Adams asked Sudano to return for more blood
>tests. By the end of the second month her arms were black and blue.
>Her son, Joe, said they looked as though they had been slammed in a
>door. She said: 'At one point I asked if he was selling my blood.'
>
>Little did Sudano know how close to the truth her comment was. On her
>last visit, Adams took a bottle of pills from the top drawer of his
>desk and suggested Sudano take one a day. While she thought it strange
>she wasn't being given a prescription, she trusted her doctor.
>
>But within hours of swallowing the pill, she could hardly walk because
>she was so dazed. Her face had swollen up badly and she was in
>considerable pain.
>
>She stopped taking the tablets and complained to Hertfordshire Health
>Authority. This sparked an investigation that led to one of the
>largest cases of medical research fraud ever uncovered in Britain.
>
>It emerged that over the previous five years Adams had earned more
>than £100,000 from drug companies, including the European giants
>AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer. They were all paying him to
>test their new drugs on his patients. Like Sudano, many of his
>patients had never given their consent and had no knowledge they were
>being used as human guinea pigs in a medical trial. Patients with no
>symptoms were given drugs and others who needed proper medication were
>given placebos. Adams was receiving almost £1,000 for each patient.
>
>Last month Adams was found guilty by the General Medical Council (GMC)
>of serious professional misconduct and suspended for 12 months. The
>GMC's lawyer described it as 'assault' and Sudano is now looking to
>sue Adams.
>
>GlaxoSmithKline was using Adams to study its anti-depressant
>Paroxetine, but had to cancel the trial at a cost of hundreds of
>thousands of pounds.
>
>The drugs industry talks of bad apples and the odd errant doctor
>milking the system but insists that trials using GPs are essential for
>medical advances and that payment to doctors for the extra work
>involved is ethically correct.
>
>But an investigation by The Observer suggests the problem of GPs using
>patients as guinea pigs without their consent is more widespread. Some
>3,000 doctors each year are paid by drug firms to sign up their
>patients to tests and on average 15 patients are needed for each
>trial. With doctors picking up £1,000 per patient, drug companies are
>spending £45m on getting doctors onside. There is no suggestion the
>companies are implicated in moves to carry out the tests by doctors on
>patients secretly.
>
>Medical fraud experts estimate that one per cent of all drug trials
>involve fraud, including failure to get proper consent from patients.
>This means hundreds of patients a year are being given unapproved and
>potentially dangerous drugs without their knowledge
>
>---
>
>The country's foremost investigator of medical research fraud is Peter
>Jay, the former Metropolitan Police detective chief inspector who
>arrested serial killer Dennis Nilsen. Since 1996 Jay has run
>MedicoLegal Investigations, an independent body, and has taken 12
>doctors to the GMC.
>
>
>Jay said: 'While the industry has become more alert to the problems
>over the last decade there is still clearly a worrying and persistent
>problem in research fraud involving doctors. This is not just an issue
>of patient safety, but a problem that might lead to bad drugs being
>approved or good drugs failing to be approved.'
>
>The Observer's revelations of the continuing problem of research fraud
>have sparked calls for industry guidelines to be toughened up. David
>Hinchcliffe, the Labour chair of the House of Commons Health Select
>Committee, described the situation as bordering on 'scandalous' and
>said his committee would look into the issue.
>
>He said: 'The relationship between the drug firms and the medical
>profession is one that needs to be thoroughly investigated. It is
>extremely worrying that patients' trust is being abused by doctors who
>are more interested in making money from the pharmaceutical industry.'
>
>__
>
>"When society turns a blind eye to the dangers of drugs and rushes to embrace a
> pharmaceutical cure for nearly every condition, there is almost no end to the
> harm that may result".
>
> Thomas.J.Moore

[Mark D Morin]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:53:39 GMT, "Smoky In Vegas"
> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>"Mark D Morin" > wrote in message
...
>| On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:57:24 GMT, "Jon Quixote"
>| > wrote:
>|I just found it humerous that she wasn't aware that
>| someone else had commented about the same thing that I was trying to
>| say.
>
>Quiote's follow up post made it clear as day, contrary to what he first
>asserted, he really is NOT aware of the causal relationship between
>Antidepressants and the suicidal ideations and suicides occuring in people
>prescribed them.

What causal relationship?
That research hasn't been done linda.

>
>Quiotes followup post made it quite clear he FALSELY believes that the DRUG
>induced suicide ideations and suicides are the result of the disease,

You might want to read what he wrote again

>despite FDA alert to the public the empirical evidence suggests suicidal
>ideations are activated by the antidepressant medications listed in their
>alert.

You might also want to read the alert again.

================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Lucky]

First, Quiote quoted text from the manufacturers insert for wellbutrin,
which is not one of the 8 anti-depressants included in the FDA's alert.

Secondly, the text he quoted was 10 mos old, not 10 years old.

Thirdly, the text he quoted is irrelevant to this discussion because it
merely asserts that suicide ideations are inherent to depression, and such
ideations are not the ones the FDA is alerting the public about.

The FDA alert is about suicidal ideations TRIGGERED or activated by 8
anti-depressant medications.

Now, quit muddying the waters.

The FDA widely publicised its alert that suicide ideations are caused by 8
antidepressant drugs, and any child on any of those 8 meds needs to be on
suicide watch round the clock...7/24 365.days. a year...

parents of children on those 8 AD's best heed that alert and place their
child on SUICUDE WATCH if they are taking any of those 8 AD's or they may
not only lose their child to sucide, but face criminal charges for failing
to have children on the 8 AD's on sicide watch. .
..
(In FACT, the parent(s) of a child who committed suicide was indicted on
cirminal charges just this past week. )

So quit trying to minimize the significance of the FDA alert....when the
parents of children on any of those 8 AD's news of the alert was posted for,
might not only lose a child to suicide, or have them maim themselves during
suicide attempts, but face criminal charges if they poopah the alert, as
you wish them too.

[Lucky]

"jake" > wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:39:44 -0500, mark > wrote:
| you ASSume rather too much about peoples backgrounds and experience
| Mark..with no data whatsoever..
| not that your ad hominem bull**** attacks on me are relevant to Dr
| Healy's analysis of research on antidepressants...
|

Morin is unable or unwilling to accept the validity of any other persons
personal truth, beliefs, thoughts and opinions, POV, where they differ
from Morin's delusions..

morin seeks to superimpose his false beliefs, delusional crappolla,
thoughts and opinions onto others whose personal truth, led them to possess
different beliefs, thoughts, opinions POV.

Morin browbeats, abuses, threatens, intimidates and engages in all manner
of harassment trying to coerce others into silence who express truths,
beliefs, opinions, and POV different than Morins.

Discussing with him deteriorate ratther quickly, because of how abusive he
becomes towards those who stick to what they know to be TRUE, and/or the
beliefs, opinions, POV their personal truth incites them to possess. .

Whenever anyone refuses to allow Mark to dictate their thoughts or posting
habits, he gets more and more and more personally abusive, more hateful,
owing to his inability to accept he cannot control or dictate what other
peoples thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and view.

Mark seems to need professional help.

They have a therapy PERFECT for people like Morin.

Its called EFT....

Emotional Freedom Techniques
A Universal Healing Aid

http://www.emofree.com/newcomer.htm#What
http://www.emofree.com/



EFT Manual: The Basic Steps to Your Emotional Freedom

http://www.mercola.com/forms/eftcourse.htm


Helps people who are trying to control what they can't controll....other
people, and the r thoughts, beliefs, opinions, they express, as well as
their posting habits on public unmoderated Newsgroups!!!!!

[Mark D Morin]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:48:10 GMT, "Lucky" > wrote:

>First, Quiote quoted text from the manufacturers insert for wellbutrin,
>which is not one of the 8 anti-depressants included in the FDA's alert.

That's not all he said.

>
>Secondly, the text he quoted was 10 mos old, not 10 years old.

If you read again, you will find that is in error.

>
>Thirdly, the text he quoted is irrelevant to this discussion because it
>merely asserts that suicide ideations are inherent to depression, and such
>ideations are not the ones the FDA is alerting the public about.
>
>The FDA alert is about suicidal ideations TRIGGERED or activated by 8
>anti-depressant medications.

You should read the alert again.

>
>Now, quit muddying the waters.
>
>The FDA widely publicised its alert that suicide ideations are caused by 8
>antidepressant drugs,

and again.


================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:19:28 GMT, "Lucky" > wrote:

>"jake" > wrote in message
...
>| On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:39:44 -0500, mark > wrote:
>| you ASSume rather too much about peoples backgrounds and experience
>| Mark..with no data whatsoever..
>| not that your ad hominem bull**** attacks on me are relevant to Dr
>| Healy's analysis of research on antidepressants...
>|
>
>Morin is

still stuck on me linda? I'm flattered.
================================================== ==
Ruby stepped toward him. "Edward," she said softly.
"Learn this from me. Holding anger is a poison. It
eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon
that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is
a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.
"Forgive, Edward, Forgive. Do you remember the
lightness you felt when you first arrived in heaven?...
No one is born with anger. And when we die, the soul
is freed of it. But now, here, in order to move on,
you must understand WHY you felt what you did, and WHY
you no longer need to feel it.
"Yo need to forgive your father."

Mitch Albom, "the five people you meet in heaven"

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Jon Quixote]

In news message: ,
Mark D Morin > typed:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:48:10 GMT, "Lucky" > wrote:
>
>> First, Quiote quoted text from the manufacturers insert for wellbutrin,
>> which is not one of the 8 anti-depressants included in the FDA's alert.
>
> That's not all he said.
>>
>> Secondly, the text he quoted was 10 mos old, not 10 years old.
>
> If you read again, you will find that is in error.
>
>>
>> Thirdly, the text he quoted is irrelevant to this discussion because it
>> merely asserts that suicide ideations are inherent to depression, and
>> such ideations are not the ones the FDA is alerting the public about.
>>
>> The FDA alert is about suicidal ideations TRIGGERED or activated by 8
>> anti-depressant medications.
>
> You should read the alert again.
>>
>> Now, quit muddying the waters.
>>
>> The FDA widely publicised its alert that suicide ideations are caused by
>> 8 antidepressant drugs,
>
> and again.

This is rather amusing, watching somebody rave on second-hand about me even
when ignored. Is it possible for her to miss my (and your) points any futher
than she already has?

I'm betting "yes". I'm a sucker for the sure thing. :)

What's so sad is if she had attempted to rein in her vitriolic emotionalism
in the first place and simply stuck to her points, I would have been willing
to continue to converse with her - but she's just not amenable to reason
without imagining an ulterior motive that somehow conspires against her and
so rushes to insinuating attack in her haste to defend herself.

Pity, because it does appear that she's capable of coherent response, even
if it's somewhat clueless.

I'll be very surprised if I'm not now included as part of "your" camp (as
she's defined it) simply because I'm willing to talk to you without
condemning you constantly. Sheesh.

--
Jon Quixote
What is axiomatic frequently isn't.

[jake]

Press Release Source: Knight Ridder


Knight Ridder Exclusive: Off-Label Drug Prescriptions Skyrocket in
U.S.
Sunday November 2, 12:01 am ET
Thousands Became Ill Last Year After Taking Nation's Most Popular
Drugs Off-Label

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031102/sfsu001_1.html


WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- A three-part
investigative series by Knight Ridder Newspapers has found that
patients nationwide are being injured and killed as doctors routinely
prescribe drugs in ways the Food and Drug Administration has never
approved as safe and effective. The study, based on a sample of
top-selling drugs, found that the number of off-label prescriptions
has nearly doubled in five years. The Knight Ridder analysis released
today is perhaps the most comprehensive ever done of off-label
prescribing.
The series by investigative reporters Alison Young and Chris Adams is
based on interviews with patients, doctors, researchers and drug
companies, and the review of thousands of records from lawsuits,
government hearings and regulatory actions, medical records and
scientific studies. The complete results will run over the next three
days in Knight Ridder newspapers across the country.

Off-label prescribing is legal, widely accepted and defended by
doctors and the American Medical Association. Victims of off-label
prescribing interviewed by Knight Ridder have suffered heart attacks
and strokes, had permanent nerve damage or lost their eyesight. Based
on the FDA's own data, the report estimates that at least 8,000 people
became seriously ill last year after taking some of the nation's most
popular drugs for off-label purposes.

Among the report's findings on prevalence of off-label prescribing:
21 percent of the prescriptions examined were for off-label uses
115 million off-label prescriptions for the drugs analyzed by Knight
Ridder were written in the U.S. last year, nearly double the number of

five years ago

As many as 90 percent of the prescriptions for some drugs were
off-label uses.
Three-quarters of anti-seizure medications are prescribed off-label,
as are nearly two-thirds of antipsychotics and about one-quarter of
antidepressants
Some Drugs Sold Mostly for Unapproved Purposes

The report tracks some of the most widely prescribed drugs in the U.S.
It found that doctors are giving their patients epilepsy drugs for
depression, hot flashes and to help them lose weight. They use
antidepressants to treat premature ejaculation and pain, and powerful
antipsychotics for insomnia and attention deficit disorder. High
blood-pressure pills are prescribed for headaches and anxiety;
antibiotics are used to treat viruses.

Eight out of 10 prescriptions for the epilepsy drug Topamax aren't for
epilepsy. Thalidomide, the morning-sickness drug that caused horrible
birth defects and ushered in today's FDA drug-safety rules, even is on
the market, and 99 percent of its prescriptions are off-label.

Methodology

To calculate how often drugs are prescribed off-label, Knight Ridder
analyzed the three top-selling drugs in 15 classes of medications,
comparing what doctors said they prescribed them for with the FDA's
approval for each. The analysis looked at 900 million prescriptions
written in 1998 and 2003 for more than 1,000 different ailments. Its
estimate of the prevalence of off-label prescribing excluded cancer
treatments or pediatric off-label uses, because they already are known
to have a large percentage of off-label use.

To estimate how often patients are harmed by this practice, Knight
Ridder reviewed the FDA's database of adverse drug reactions. The FDA
estimates that only 1 to 10 percent of reactions are reported. Knight
Ridder identified more than 800 reports filed during 2002 of serious
reactions involving off-label prescriptions for its sample of 45
drugs. Experts say that means anywhere from 8,000 to 80,000 people
probably were affected.


--
‘All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated
by corporate bodies

and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of
industry.

Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector.’

Editorial (2000). Resisting smoke and spin. Lancet 355, 1197.