Patricia Casey Being Creative

Creativity 

noun 

1. the state or quality of being creative. 

2. the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination: the need for creativity in modern industry; creativity in the performing arts. 

3. the process by which one utilizes creative ability: Extensive reading stimulated his creativity. 

Source: Dictionary.com 

Creativity 

Creativity is associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. 

Source: Patricia Casey, Irish Psychiatrist.

It's difficult to get my head around Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey's latest offering in the Health & Living magazine. In fact, there are two problems in writing about her article, 'The Curse of Creativity', Problem 

1. She may instruct her lawyers to send me an intimidating letter for daring to oppose her opinion, 

and 

2. I may be diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder for offering a creative response to her written work.

On a recent trip to London Patricia Casey ventured inside the National Gallery, in particular Room 45, which houses amongst others, paintings by Vincent Van Gogh .

Casey writes:

The information on the paintings noted that many were painted during his time in the Saint-Paul asylum near Saint-Remy, in the Provence area of France. They showed his genius, evident even in the throes of major mental illness.

Over the years there have been many psychiatrists that use Van Gogh's apparent mental disorder/s as an argument when in truth none of them can actually prove that he did have a mental disorder.

Van Gogh was born with a brain lesion and, as a result suffered from seizures, he also frequently drank absinthe, a drink that was, back then, associated with violent crimes and social disorders.

It is documented that Dr. Gachet, one of Van Gogh's physicians, was thought to have treated his epilepsy with digitalis. This prescription drug can cause one to see in yellow or see yellow spots.

Far be it from me to diagnose someone from all those years ago but the above would suggest that he may not have had a mental illness at all, in fact his brain lesion, enjoyment of absinthe and medication could have made the white-coated head-shrinkers believe that he was mentally disturbed. It's a valid argument is it not?

In fact, a critic once had this to say about Absinthe:

Absinthe makes you crazy and criminal, provokes epilepsy and tuberculosis, and has killed thousands of French people. It makes a ferocious beast of man, a martyr of woman, and a degenerate of the infant, it disorganizes and ruins the family and menaces the future of the country. [1]

Anyway, back to Casey's article...

Casey tells us that the connection between creativity and mental illness has been examined and powerfully answered in a study published in the 'British Journal of Psychiatry'. She adds that the findings of the study show that creativity is associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

In the case of Van Gogh I could oppose Casey's take on the study and put forward the argument that his creativity could have been down to the use of Absinthe [which, back then, was known to cause hallucinations]. Absinthe included a toxin called Thujone and when taken in high doses [quantity] can cause one to see objects in yellow. Or maybe it was the digitalis prescribed to him by his doctor, a drug that can cause one to see in yellow or see yellow spots. Is it just a coincidence that Van Gogh loved the colour yellow whilst being creative with his work?

If one's creativity is associated with a mental disorder then what hope do we have? It beggars the question what Casey believes about the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM], a book based on psychiatrists and their own creative minds in what should be deemed a mental disorder or not. There is no science to what they write, it's all based on creative thinking and judging by what they deem to be mental disorders one can only assume that they have all been on an Absinthe drinking binge.

In years to come I anticipate that the DSM will be placed in the National Gallery of London. Do they have any rooms for Fantasy?

Casey's article can be read in full HERE.



Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

GSK - Absolutely Jabulous

I wasn't going to write about this but with various emails and messages on social networks telling me about it I thought I'd better, at least, offer a small snapbyte for cyberspace.

Once again it would appear that GlaxoSmithKline are swimming that great river of Egypt [Denial ~ The Nile] with regard to their Pandemrix vaccine [flu-jab] and its link to narcolepsy, a sleep disorder that causes excessive sleepiness and frequent daytime sleep attacks.

Today's Mail Online is reporting that 6 year old Josh Hadfield is still suffering from the after effects of the controversial jab.

"I’m up with him around four times each night to feed him snacks and also comfort him because he has horrendous nightmares," she said. "He used to be sent home from school every time he fell asleep but now they have set aside an area in his classroom where he can take a nap."

Worringly, the Mail Online is reporting that young Josh is now taking the antipsychotic Ritalin and other antidepressants.

So, let's get this straight. A 6 year old is given a flu jab, he has an adverse reaction to it, a reaction that is so horrendous that he sleeps for most of the day, his school even allow him to take a nap. To combat this, young Josh is given a powerful antipsychotic and, according to the Mail Online, antidepressants, medication that has not been recommended for use in children.

Amazing isn't it. I don't know why they just don't stick young Josh in a glass box with a hamster wheel and some straw.

The story of Josh appeared in the Mail Online back in April this year, it's unknown if he was taking Ritalin and antidepressants back then.

GlaxoSmithKline's Dr Pim Kon, said: "There is currently no evidence at all to suggest there is a causal link between Pandemrix and narcolepsy." She added that GSK are working hard with the regulatory authorities to try to understand what is happening.

Dr Pim Kon is no stranger to controversy. Last year she told the InPharma magazine that European regulators [EMA] were wrong to withdraw its diabetes drug Avandia from the market. Avandia was suspended by the EMA last year because of high levels of heart attack, heart failure and strokes in patients.

I've briefly touched on Glaxo's Pandemrix Vaccine in the past on this blog.

Back in 2009 Switzerland medicine regulators, Swissmedic, restricted the use of Pandemrix because they had not recieved enough data about it. In a statement they announced, that they had received data on the vaccine for adults, but not for pregnant women and very little data for children. "For this reason, Swissmedic has not yet authorised the administration of Pandemrix to pregnant women, children under the age of 18 and adults over 60."


It's unclear whether or not Swissmedic later authorised the use of Pandemrix in children.

Also in 2009 The Environmental Illness Resource announced that Glaxo's Pandemrix vaccine was unsafe to use in those that had environmental illnesses. The full statement can be read HERE.

In 2010 I highlighted a story that had made the Finnish press. According to Nelonen (Channel 4) news, the Chancellor of Justice was investigating if bribery was used in the Pandemrix vaccine trade.

The Nelonen (Channel 4) news reported that the the investigation had begun because two individuals had reported their suspicions to the Chancellor. The investigation targeted the Ministry of Health and THL, National Instute for Health and Welfare. THL had received more than six million euros last year from GlaxoSmithKline, which manufactures Pandemrix. THL has also had a key role in the decision to order Pandemrix to every Finnish inhabitant.

Ironically, the study that now has Glaxo and the medicine health regulators in a tizz stems from Finland. In what seems to be a massive U-Turn, the Finnish government said it accepted a link between Pandemrix and narcolepsy and has promised compensation and support for affected families.

So, nothing to do with the 2010 expose then? I wonder whatever did come of that investigation?

A cynic, Moi?


Watch a special investigation into the Pandemrix/Narcoplepsy link on BBC IPlayer HERE

Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

**Correction: Ritalin is, of course an amphetamine and not an antipsychotic. [Thanks Judy for noticing the error]

MHRA's June Raine Sticks Fingers In Her Ears

It appears that I'm not the only one with a gripe against the MHRA.

Dr June Raine, Director, Vigilance, Risk Management of Medicines, MHRA

All Party Parliamentary Group for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction [APPGITA] website is sharing an email sent to June Raine by John Perrott.

Perrott points out that Raine, for reasons unknown, refuses to answer his questions regarding Wyeth withholding safety data from the UK Ativan data sheet or explain why it took a further 18 years for warnings to start being listed by the MHRA.

Perrott's email asks further questions of the MHRA, questions that I doubt will ever be answered. What his email does show, however, is that once again the MHRA are under the spotlight for all the wrong reasons and when they are called to task by members of the public they either label them 'vexatious' or just simply refuse to answer questions.

There's me thinking they had a duty and moral obligation to answer queries.

John Perrott's email can be read in full HERE


RELATED: - MHRA In Buck-Passing Specialist Cahoots

MHRA In Buck-Passing Specialist Cahoots

Buck-passing:  - The shifting of responsibility or blame to another.

Vague - Not clearly expressed; inexplicit.

I used to liaise with the MHRA. There was a time when they sought my advice on the Yellow Card reporting system. I'm not the only person or organisation they sought help from.

I called it quits with the MHRA when they would not admit that Seroxat [Paxil] was a teratogen. I severed ties with them, save for the odd Freedom of Information request.

Regular readers will know of the recent SSRi Learning Module that the MHRA have apparently devised for healthcare practitioners. I criticized this module in three separate posts on this blog [Links at foot of this article]

What was irksome for me was the buck-passing that was apparent throughout the module. On the subject of severe SSRi withdrawal the MHRA are telling healthcare practitioners to recommend "specialists" to patients.

With this in mind I sent the following to the MHRA:

Can the MHRA provide me with a list of specialists experienced in SSRi withdrawal that are a; in the UK and b; available on the NHS.

The MHRA, as transparent as ever, have replied:

Dear Mr Fiddaman,

You ask for a list of specialists with experience of managing SSRI withdrawal.

The MHRA regulates the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines and medical devices, but it does not regulate health professionals. We do not, therefore, hold lists of individual health professionals of the type you seek.

Health professionals are registered to practice by their statutory regulatory bodies (such as the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council). Those who specialise are further accredited by their professional institutions (such as the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists).

Turning to SSRI withdrawal, health professionals have recourse to summaries of product characteristics, which give information on SSRI withdrawal. Further, in July, the MHRA published information on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (link below), which has a section on ‘SSRIs/SNRIs and the risk of withdrawal reactions’. It links to several documents on advice emerging from detailed review of evidence on SSRI withdrawal undertaken by the MHRA and its Expert Working Groups.

More recently, the MHRA’s learning module on the SSRIs briefly outlines points for health professionals to bear in mind about SSRI treatment. The learning module, developed for healthcare professionals, should be read in conjunction with other information such as treatment guidelines.

Withdrawal effects vary from person to person and call for individual management guided by advice in summaries of product characteristics and the background information we have published. If necessary, health professionals can request advice from local specialist mental health services.

Because I feel this should be out in the open, I am adding my response to the above on my blog. I feel the MHRA are once again shirking their responsibilities here and simply playing the game of 'pass the buck'.

My response:

Dear Whoever,

Firstly, I apologise for not naming you in person, there was no sig at the foot of the email you sent me. There was also no reference number to quote.

I am well aware of your SSRi Learning module and also aware that you are recommending doctors to advise patients, who are struggling severe withdrawal, to seek 'specialist' advice.

Couple of points.

You, as a regulator, do not have a list of these so-called specialists yet, without any qualms or vetting them, you are advising doctor's to use their services. Why?

If I were to ask my GP to consult the RCP and RCGP will they be able to give him a list of specialists in SSRI dependence and withdrawal that he can consult?

Do you not feel, as a regulator, that you should, at the very least, see what training these specialists have had in the field of SSRi withdrawal?

To be brutally honest, your SSRi Learning Module is, quite frankly, poor advice. You will be no doubt aware of my criticism of it on my blog?

You have, in the past, met with stakeholders with regard to antidepressants [SSRi's] - it appears you have ignored those meetings in favour of what the manufacturers of these drugs have to offer.

You, at my request, also met with Professor David Healy who has acknowledged that there are a significant number of people on SSRi's that will never be able to stop. Have you relayed this information to healthcare specialists, do you agree with Professor Healy's advice or do you think the advice is wrong? I would like a straight answer on this please.

As I understand, you promised to liaise with Professor Healy should any more concerns arise re SSRi withdrawal. To my knowledge you have not liaised with him since your 2010 meeting with him. Why?
There is no withdrawal protocol for SSRi's, you can't offer it neither can the manufacturers, it's left, in the main, to former patients who have struggled at the hands of SSRi withdrawal.

In essence, your recommendations to healthcare professionals via your SSRi Learning Module regarding these 'specialists' has been recommended without first researching these specialists. That's poor management on your part and once again you, the regulator, are putting the onus on healthcare professionals to make a decision.

Obviously my next question will fall under the Freedom of Information Act.

1. What input did you receive from the pharmaceutical industry for your SSRi Learning Module?

 2. Please list any grants/funding you, may or may not have, received for your SSRi Learning Module.

To recap:

 Non FOI questions:

1. You, as a regulator, do not have a list of these so-called specialists yet, without any qualms or vetting them, you are advising doctor's to use their services. Why?

2. If I were to ask my GP to consult the RCP and RCGP will they be able to give him a list of specialists in SSRI dependence and withdrawal that he can consult?

3. Do you not feel, as a regulator, that you should, at the very least, see what training these specialists have had in the field of SSRi withdrawal?

4. You, at my request, also met with Professor David Healy who has acknowledged that there are a significant number of people on SSRi's that will never be able to stop. Have you relayed this information to healthcare specialists, do you agree with Professor Healy's advice or do you think the advice is wrong?

5. As I understand, you promised to liaise with Professor Healy should any more concerns arise re SSRi withdrawal. To my knowledge you have not liaised with him since your 2010 meeting with him. Why?

The following two questions fall within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act.

1. What input did you receive from the pharmaceutical industry for your SSRi Learning Module?

2. Please list any grants/funding you, may or may not have, received for your SSRi Learning Module.

Bob Fiddaman.

PS: I'd appreciate a reference number for this continued correspondence.

The reason I am adamant to get to the bottom of this matter stems from the three critiques I wrote concerning the MHRA's SSRi Learning Module which can be read at the following links:


MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part I

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part II "Keeping A Stiff Upper Lip"

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part III - MHRA's Ghosts In The Machine

Jennifer Saunders Side Effects/Depression Battle

I read with sadness today that Jennifer Saunders, the British comedienne and writer, has been having treatment for breast cancer.

As a man I will never quite understand the range of emotions a woman must go through whilst receiving treatment for this illness.

What concerned me about her Harley Street treatment was the use of two drugs.

Tamoxifen and citalopram.

According to The Daily Mail the side-effects of Tamoxifen pushed Jennifer into menopause, which she likened to ‘jumping off a cliff’.

The Daily Mail writes:

She will continue to take tamoxifen, which works by blocking the female hormone oestrogen, for five years but admitted it had left her feeling depressed and unable to get out of bed.

The mother-of-three, who was diagnosed last year, said: ‘You are pushed into menopause like jumping off a cliff… bang!’

She also revealed she was put on anti-depressants after chemotherapy.

Jennifer was given a course of the SSRi citalopram [Cipramil] - I find this astounding.

Back in 2009, at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 45th Annual Meeting, it was revealed that patients who are taking tamoxifen to reduce their risk for breast cancer recurrence should avoid concomitant use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, of which citalopram is one.

SSRi's are potent inhibitors of the cytochrome P450 2D6 enzyme that converts tamoxifen to its active metabolite, endoxifen. By inhibiting the enzyme, these drugs reduce the blood levels of this active metabolite, and so reduce the efficacy of tamoxifen in protecting against breast cancer recurrence.

I'm a big fan of Saunders and her husband Ade Edmonson, I grew up with them. I hope that, at some point, the Harley Street specialists who prescribed Jennifer citalopram can refer to the studies out there that suggest that SSRi's and Taoxifen should not be mixed.

Daily Mail article HERE


**British drug regulators, the MHRA, post drug safety warning regarding Tamoxifen and SSRi medication [2010] HERE

** Listen to the audio recording of when two Irish parents met citalopram manufacturer Lundbeck to pose questions about the safety and efficacy of their product HERE

Who Are You?

It appears the World Health Organisation [WHO] took an interest in myself and Ablechild this morning. Quite what they are looking for is unknown, unless of course they are pissed off that Ablechild will be appearing on CNN this weekend or that I've been covering the media interest that's surfaced over the past week or so?

They seemed to be pretty interested in the Seroxat/Paxil withdrawal guidance I have available for download, will they be endorsing it for me or perhaps offering an alternative? They should ask GlaxoSmithKline for their withdrawal protocol, or perhaps they should ask the MHRA for a list of SSRi withdrawal specialists they claim exist.

I've wrote to the MHRA again asking them to list all the SSRi experts and if those experts are available on the NHS. Ironically, the MHRA paid a visit to my blog about a minute before the World Health Organisation.

You see, the MHRA have devised an SSRi Learning Module for doctors in the UK, it's basically a module of buck-passing and looks, to me at least, as if it was ghost-written by the pharmaceutical industry.

If I wanted to withdraw safely from an addictive drug the last people I would turn to would be an agency that is wholly funded by the pharmaceutical industry, particularly when that drug is GlaxoSmithKline's Seroxat and particularly when that agency [MHRA] have a Chairman [Alasdair Breckenridge] who is a former employee of the Seroxat manufacturer and whose Head of Licensing [Ian Hudson] is former World Safety Officer at Seroxat's manufacturers and whose former Senior Medical Officer [Rashmi Shah] is now a paid expert witness for Seroxat's manufacturer in UK litigation .

It appears to me that these mystical SSRi withdrawal specialists that the MHRA refer to in their SSRi Learning Module, actually don't exist, they are passing the buck to someone...or something that is not answerable.

So, I'm left wondering why the World Health Organisation would appear on my page this morning, a minute or so after it is visited by the MHRA?

Are they going to tell me that I should not offer out withdrawal guidance or are they concerned that the MHRA's SSRi Learning Module is, like their Yellow Card Reporting System, deeply flawed?

Time will tell.

I'm still waiting for an answer from the MHRA, it wasn't a Freedom of Information request so it should only take them a couple of days...even though I sent the email on the 28th November!

Related


MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part I

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part II "Keeping A Stiff Upper Lip"

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part III - MHRA's Ghosts In The Machine

GlaxoSmithKline/MHRA - When Ignorance Turns To Bliss - Part I of IV

GlaxoSmithKline/MHRA - When Ignorance Turns To Bliss - Part II of IV - Witness For The Defence

GlaxoSmithKline/MHRA - When Ignorance Turns To Bliss - Part III of IV - Expert Statistician

GlaxoSmithKline/MHRA - When Ignorance Turns To Bliss - Part IV - The Colour of Money




Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Psychiatric Drugs In The Media

There's been quite a flurry of activity recently with regard to the mainstream media reporting on psychiatric drugs, particularly in the use of children. We had the UK first with a Channel 4 News Special.

 

Next we had the USA and ABC's flagship current affairs programme, 20/20, reporting on Foster care homes and the use of mind-altering drugs in children, some under the age of 1.

PART ONE

PART TWO

PART THREE

Then TV3's 60 Minutes from New Zealand reporting on the dangers of SSRi medication not only in children...but adults too. [No video but review can be read HERE]

I'd like to say the times are changin'...but there's a bloody long way to go.

Next week Ablechild's co-founders, Patricia Weathers and Sheila Matthews, appear on CNN with their take on the mass drugging of children.

There's a huge spanner been thrown into the works. The people are fighting back...in the name of those your drugs have harmed and killed.

Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

ABC 20/20 Confront The Pill Pushers

Over the past week or so ABC News in America have been covering the plight of the thousands of children caught in the loop of the mental health system. These children have each had a poor start in life and have been placed into Foster care because, more often than not, they have been abused by their parents or, in some instances, have had to deal with the death of their parents.

Last night ABC's 20/20 rounded off their investigation with a 10 minute special entitled Confronting Doctors [As yet not available on YouTube]. It was, in essence, a pastiche of their two previous specials from Wednesday and Thursday but featured a more in-depth look at the case of 7 year-old Gabriel Myers.

Gabriel's father was in prison whilst his mother had become addicted to prescription drugs. One day she had drove to a shopping mall with Gabriel in the car and had fallen asleep. She was thrown into prison whilst Gabriel was placed into Foster care. [I use the word care loosely]

During the weeks that went by Gabriel was moved from home to home and saw a number of therapists. He became disruptive, trashing his room. From that point he was assigned to psychiatrist, Sohail Punjwani who, for reasons only known to himself, deemed Gabriel to be in need of psychotropic medication, this after a five-minute consultation  and a diagnosis based on nothing but personal opinion, an opinion that would ultimately result in 7 year-old Gabriel Myers taking his own life by wrapping a shower hose around his neck and hanging himself.

Gabriel's death was ruled as an accident but anyone who knows just how dangerous these drugs can be, not only for adults taking them but children too, will know that putting a child as young as 7 on a mixture of mind altering drugs was the probable causation into him taking his own life. There is overwhelming evidence that shows how these drugs can induce suicidal thoughts. Psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry alike will point to the trauma in young Gabriel's life as being the possible reason why he killed himself, kind of hypocritical when you consider for a moment that a child is thrown into a strange place with adults he has never met and children he has never met all the time missing his mom and wondering when he will see her again. Adding fuel to the fire [psychiatric drugs] was clearly not the answer, it was merely a way of suppressing or dumbing-down young Gabriel.

Sharyn Alfonsi of ABC News tracked down Gabriel's psychiatrist and asked him why he had prescribed these drugs to Gabriel.

Punjwani:  "Sad stories happen but that does not mean the doctor is responsible for it because we are in the business of taking care of these children."


Alfonsi then pressed Punjwani and asked him how much time he actually spent with Gabriel. She put it to him that he only spent 5 minutes in consultation with Gabriel.

Punjwani:  "That is untrue."


Later, and off camera, Punjwani conceded that it was possible that he only spent 5 minutes with Gabriel whilst adjusting his medication.

Alfonsi revealed that Punjwani has an arrest record for being in possession of cocaine and to avoid prosecution he agreed to go through a court mandated rehabilitation program.

Comment


The plight of Gabriel is truly tragic, it appears he was removed from one trauma to another, one burning building to another. His case is just a small part of a bigger picture, a picture that the world of the pharmaceutical industry, psychiatry and medicines regulators don't want the likes of you and I to see. It's a secret society where the 3 bodies that know the truth do everything in their power to suppress the truth. It's a wanton neglect of our little people whereby on the odd occasion we get the 'good' psychiatrists speaking out about this mindless form of abuse.

The prescribing physicians should hang their heads in shame, although I doubt very much if they have any conscience relating to the prescribing of these drugs to children who haven't even had a chance to develop a fully working brain. Doctor's, it could be argued, such as Punjwani are the ones with the mental disorders, it is an act of insanity to hand out brain altering medication to children on an assumption, particularly based on such little time spent with that child during consultation.

Insanity
1. The state of being seriously mentally ill; madness. 
2.Extreme foolishness or irrationality.


I think it safe to suggest that anyone who thinks prescribing mind-altering drugs to a child suffering the trauma of being separated from their parents could fall into category 2 [above]

To make matters worse neither the pharmaceutical industry, psychiatry or medicines regulators take accountability for this huge failure, instead, they buck-pass by blaming one another and/or the child's original "illness". Are we expected to believe that young Gabriel Myers actually had an illness, that the majority of children placed in Foster care have an illness?

For too long we, firstly as human-beings and secondly as parents, have ignored the abuse of the mind that these drugs cause our children, we cannot see this abuse because their are no bruises, no broken bones, no bandages. Imagine, if you will, the brain of a small child. Apart from taking a severe blow to the head I can't think of any other way other than prescribing these medications that would cause brain trauma. To numb one's thinking, to suppress emotions such as grief or loss is, in my books at least, abuse.

It has become acceptable to use these dangerous medications on children, mainly, in part, to the massive promotional campaigns by the pharmaceutical industry and key opinion leaders [leading 'relnowned' psychiatrists] who add their names to ghostwritten publications that deem these drugs effective to use in children. As parents we too have a responsibility. A naughty son or daughter does not necessarily mean we have a little Damien Thorn or Regan McNeil on our hands. They should not be labelled with a mental disorder for showing human emotion. Furthermore, they should not be given cocktails of pharmaceutical drugs because they show signs of grief or loss.

The drugging of children in Foster care in America is appalling, it's by no means just an American problem, it's going on in other countries. We have a society that automatically labels unruly children as misfits, brats, we have an industry that labels them with psychiatric disorders. We have, in essence, the perfect set of lab rats to abuse and to make a whole heap of money whilst doing it.

The ABC trilogy of stories is very much the tip of the iceberg. Children in Foster care are 13 times more likely to be prescribed drugs that can cause a bio chemical imbalance than children not in care. It's a startling figure but those not in care who are prescribed these drugs are also in danger.

There are two kinds of bullies, there are those that abuse then there are those that stand back and watch the abuse without intervening. I'll leave the pharmaceutical industry, psychiatry and the medicines regulators to decide on which type of bully they are.

A lot of effort has come from advocates and organisations during the making of this series. It is because of people and organisations whose hearts are in the right places that ABC were able to broadcast across America, they were able to spread the awareness that has been created over the years by a long list of people who bang the drum constantly regarding the abuse of drugging children. The list is long but a special mention goes out to Sheila Matthews of Ablechild, Ken Kramer of Psych-Search and, of course, where would we all be without the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights.

If you are foolish enough to believe that this is the end of the matter, think again, there's a whole new breed of pill-pushing being promoted down under in Australia. If you think it's utterly ridiculous to give a child mind altering drugs because he is deemed to have a mental disorder then what would you think of someone who could predict if your child was going to get a mental disorder in future years and to nip it in the bud put your child on a heap of psychiatric drugs just like Gabriel Myers? Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, I give you the time-travelling DeLorean driving psychiatrist, Patrick McGorry.

Part III can be found on the ABC 20/20 website HERE

Related articles:


12 Year-Old Kid Speaks before Senate and Congress about Psychiatric Drugs

U.S. Government Fails to Oversee Treatment of Foster Children With Mind-Altering Drugs ABC News Part I

Billion Dollar Drug Company Law Firm Restructures Connecticut Welfare System

In Memory of Gabriel Myers

Twitter - #FosterChange




Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Health Canada Under Scrutiny

Health Canada, the Canadian medicine's regulator are to be examined and reported on with regard to prescription pharmaceuticals in Canada.

In a recent motion the Honourable Senator Ogilvie moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Frum that the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on prescription pharmaceuticals in Canada, including but not limited to:

(a) the process to approve prescription pharmaceuticals with a particular focus on clinical trials; 

(b) the post-approval monitoring of prescription pharmaceuticals;

(c) the off-label use of prescription pharmaceuticals; and

(d) the nature of unintended consequences in the use of prescription pharmaceuticals.

The committee are to submit its final report no later than December 31, 2013, whereupon it is hoped that by March 31, 2014 all findings will be made public.

I'm always weary of "investigations" into the way pharma does it's business through agents, end of the day Health Canada are merely batting for the same side as the pharmaceutical industry, I see no implementations of the 16 recommendations made at the Sara Carlin inquest almost a year and a half ago.

What's needed from this investigation is not the bog-standard recommendations, Health Canada will more than likely ignore them anyway. What is needed is for Health Canada to be more transparent, to open it's doors to the parents that have lost children to the very same drugs they were supposed to regulate.

I don't really care much for medicine regulators, it's apparent to me since I have been writing this blog that they are about as useful as chocolate teapot. Some will argue that we need them in place to protect us from harmful drugs, experience tells me that they do everything but that.

Regulators do not regulate, they merely pass the buck, they are pretty powerless and exist, it appears, to protect the purse strings of the pharmaceutical industry.

I hope the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology can bring about some changes with implementations and not recommendations.

The motion can be viewed HERE





Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

ABC News Foster Care Investigation

Following on from Part I, ABC News aired the second part of their investigation into the mass drugging of children in Foster care homes across America. Part II centered around the death of 6 year-old Gabriel Myers who, after being placed in a Foster care home, was prescribed a powerful mix of antipsychotic drugs after a 5 minute consultation with his psychiatrist, Dr. Sohail Punjwani.

ABC News catches up with Punjwani to ask him why.

Also featured in the ABC News investigation is FDA spokesperson, Robert Nelson. Nelson is asked, in essence, who is going to accept responsibility for the mass drugging of children. His response and demeanor during the short interview leaves a lot to be desired.



Later today ABC News will air the third part of their investigation.

The 'off-label' prescribing of powerful mind altering drugs to children is a huge problem of epic proportions not only in America but other countries too. Limp-wristed medicine regulators shirk any responsibility claiming that the warnings about prescribing these medications to children are clearly stated on the labelling and in warning letters to doctors. They then sit back and allow the very same doctors they have warned to prescribe the medication to children 'off-label'.

It's mindless and the only industry that I can think of where an unapproved product is...well, approved.

My disdain for medicine regulators is well known, only last week I covered the MHRA's proposed SSRI Learning Module for Clinical Practitioners in the UK and showed how utterly contradictory it is. [Parts 1, 2 and 3.]

What we have here is a failure by adults to hold up their hands and accept responsibility. It's buck-passing of the highest order and is basically putting children on a never ending Highway to Hell.

Senators and congressmen take note: The root of this problem is The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM]. Once you see how utterly ridiculous the "illnesses" are, you will be able to understand why tax payers are being ripped off at the expense of the welfare and safety of children. You want to eradicate the problem, then go to the root cause and ask the authors of the DSM for scientific proof. It's a manual that is basically a licence to print money for the pharmaceutical industry.

Related links:

12 Year-Old Kid Speaks before Senate and Congress about Psychiatric Drugs

U.S. Government Fails to Oversee Treatment of Foster Children With Mind-Altering Drugs ABC News Part I

Billion Dollar Drug Company Law Firm Restructures Connecticut Welfare System

In Memory of Gabriel Myers






Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

12 Year-Old Kid Speaks before Senate and Congress about Psychiatric Drugs

Sen Tom Carper: "We need to figure out what works." 

There's always a defining moment in history, I believe I just witnessed it, I never expected that defining moment to come from the voice of a 12 year old boy from the state of Texas.

Ke' Onte Cook gave evidence before the Senate and Congress today regarding his experience in Foster care. The Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security had gathered in the wake of a report by The US Government Accountability Office [GAO] that showed that the prescribing of drugs to children in state care is out of control.

Startling facts were revealed in the online stream:

• Children in Foster care were prescribed mind altering drugs up to 4.7 more times than children not in care.

• Thousands of children had received more than the recommended dose of mind altering drugs

• Over 600 children in state care were on 5 or more mind altering drugs at any given time

• 5,265 infants [under the age of 1] were prescribed mind altering drugs.

The bullet points above may shock you, what's even more shocking is that this data comes from just 5 States pooled in the GAO investigation. Can you begin to imagine the figure if all the US States were pooled?

Sen Brown [Massachusetts] told the congress that nearly 40% of Foster children in Massachusetts had been prescribed 1 or more psychiatric drug. On learning that over 5,000 infants across five States had been prescribed these drugs he said it was "shocking and disturbing".

Sen Carper, who chaired the meeting, added, "We can't stand idly by while children's lives are put in danger."


Sen Collins [Maine] added her disgust with, "I am troubled by the use of psychiatric drugs for use in children in Foster care." She also told congress that the GAO report had found that in Texas children in care were 53 more times likely to be prescribed 5 psychiatric drugs at once more than children not in care and added that there was thousands of infants on psychotropic drugs.

The Senate sat in stunned silence as they listened to a statement from 12 year-old Ke' Onte Cook. Ke' Onte had been place in care from the age of 6 and a half. He told the panel that he was told that if he didn't take his drugs he would be punished by not being allowed to watch TV. He did not know why he was on drugs or how many he was taking, he could not remember. Ke' Onte also informed the panel that later on he had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD] Insomnia, Depression and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD] during which he could not process thoughts, felt glazed and tired, had stomach aches and a "lights out" mood. He added that he was first prescribed the medications [3 different drugs a day] because he was throwing tantrums and was upset after being taken into State care.

Sen Carper asked Ke' Onte how he managed to get off the medication. Ke' Onte informed him that he sought the help of an Attachment Therapist who talked to him about his history and added that "It helped me to get over the anger." When asked by Sen Carper if he had a message he would like to add Ke' Onte replied, "Medication isn't going to help children with problems, it just sedates them."


Sen Carper concluded that "We need to figure out what works." and told Ke' Onte, "Some good is going to come out of what you experienced."


Ke' Onte received a round of applause from the Senate and Congress... I would have given him a 21 gun salute.

GAO's full report can be read HERE

Here's Sen Carper's Opening Statement.


Back in March 2011 myself and Ablechild's Sheila Matthews exposed a billion dollar drug company law firm and their involvement in the Connecticut Foster care system. Full article HERE

Sitting Back in Anger

There are those that do then there are those that...well, that just sit there shrugging their shoulders not giving a toss.

There is a global problem with children being prescribed mind-altering drugs, in fact the increase in drug prescriptions stranglely does not run concurrent with the increase in apparent mental disorders. The drugs, the system, is being manipulated.

Put a bunch of children on courses of powerful antipsychotics, chances are their reactions to them will mimic the traits of a depressive or someone who shows a lack of interest. Solution? Feed them more drugs.

The term "chemical cosh" has been used by many people to describe these drugs, they whip the child into submission - Go and sit in the corner and be quiet, I'm not putting up with your tantrums today.

It's all well and good writing blogs about this problem or posting videos to Twitter and Facebook, chances are that only a small number of people on friend lists will retweet or share on the social networking websites. People these days seem more moved by a dog being mistreated or a cat being thrown into a bin by a passer-by. There's public outrage [and rightly so] at seals being clubbed to death or secretly filmed videos of animals being mistreated by the travelling circus. I've seen campaigns on Facebook that range from the ridiculous to the sublime and seen grown adults post links to the various games on Facebook, "You have been invited to play Mafia Wars." Hey, each to their own, whatever gets you through the day, I'm not knocking the fact that you wish to escape from reality, we all need that escapism at some point in our lives.

There are far too many shoulder shruggers, The why should it bother me, my kids are fine type. Sometimes we, as adults, have to step out of our own bubbles to see the true state of humanity. Yeh, it sucks, it's depressing and why should we take on other people's problems when we have so much crap in our own lives?

Nice take on life folks.

There are those that do then there are those that sit back and watch those that do. "You are doing great work", "Thanks for highlighting this", "Thanks for posting, I'll read after I have planted the seeds in my garden on Farmville."


I'm of the opinion that the people that highlight these stories about the ever-increasing drugging of children do not want the thanks, they'd much prefer people to do something about it. Recognition is nice but what is it worth if your message gets lost amidst the back-slapping and high fives? By all means thank those that highlight these stories but please remember what you are thanking them for then ask yourself what you can do about the reason why you thanked them.

There is a trend for those that do, they never stop at one story, they continue to highlight the plight of children being drugged because they know they have to. Repetition is the key.

Next, we have the haters. Those people that just don't like to see good triumph over evil, the anonymous knuckleheads who are so hellbent on discrediting that they fail to realise that they are no better than the white-coated buffoons that hand out these drugs, the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them and the independent bodies that, apparently, regulate them.

Yesterday saw me join a bunch of folk for a demonstration in my hometown of Birmingham. It was to protest against the use of ECT, otherwise known as Electroconvulsive therapy. Two incidents that struck me were thus:

Scene: Standing outside Maple House where there was a symposium for psychiatrists who were gathered to discuss the benefits of ECT.

A psychiatrist, who bore a striking resemblance to comedian Billy Connolly, came outside for a cigarette break, he couldn't help but look in the direction of the protesters as we were only about 5 yards away from him. He, like so many before him, had the usual smirk on his face, the patronising kind that suggests that he knows best. He looks toward our direction and says, "So, I hear you are Scientologists", then exhaled cigarette smoke in one of those laughing fashions. "Well, I'm not", I replied. His bottom lip quivered, he shuffled, shrugged his shoulders and eventually said, "Good for you." Hey great Mr Psychiatry man, if you are going to make a broad statement toward a crowd then, at the very least, have some form of defence if you are wrong. Then again, they do like to label people eh?

Scene: Standing around the corner from Maple House holding a banner.

A member of the public stops and asks me what ECT stands for. I explain and he shakes his head before coming back with, "I thought they stopped doing that in the age of the witch.". He then walked away, hopefully better educated for that brief minute we spoke.

Two incidents, two very contrasting points of view.

One has to throw a stone to get the pool to ripple, I do my bit and many other bloggers out there do the same. The Citizen's Commission on Human Rights [CCHR] have been doing it for many years, their stones being boulders. They don't stop at isolated cases, they add more coal to the fire because the train track is never ending, boy, do I know that feeling.

This post isn't about singing the praises of CCHR, they pretty much know how I feel about their organisation. This post is one that wishes to tap into the conscience of those that feel that there IS a problem but there isn't much they can do about it. They are wrong, they need to start making the pool ripple because psychiatry, the pharmaceutical industry, medicine regulators and those haters will continue to induce harm to children around the world.








Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE