Friday, March 30, 2007

The "Science" of Treating Child Bipolar

Zyprexa Weighs In (Pun Intended): I posted recently about the "science" of treating "bipolar disorder" in kids. Here's an example of what passes for evidence in the child bipolar treatment world.

An open label (i.e., not placebo-controlled) study indicated that olanzapine (Zyprexa) was “efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of acute mania in youths with bipolar disorder.” By definition, it’s pretty tough to show that your treatment works in the absence of a control group (see research methods 101), so how can it be said that the treatment was efficacious? And as for being “well-tolerated,” keep in mind that the average participant gained five kilograms in eight weeks. That’s not so healthy. If this is what passes for solid evidence, then I suppose bipolar in kids as young as two years old is widely underdiagnosed, and that Zyprexa is a godsend for these poor undertreated children.


. said...

Great Post! I can't read that literature any more, I am too stressed as it is :)

What I do, is copy those "papers" and give them out to my students, and ask THEM to find the problems. Gee... UNDERGRADS CAN DO IT!!!

So here is my problem: if the experimental design, analysis, results and interpretation are all wrong or misleading, one NEEDS TO GO TO THE JOURNAL EDITOR. People need to write in and ask these editors to HIRE methodological reviewers. I would never even let an RCT investigator make claims like efficaciousness, unless they have a multi-site, multi-assessment, blinded RCT, with at least 1000 people. I would also make them clearly state other numbers that would let us understand the generalizability of the "treatment effect".

This Post is about another meaningless journal article, that idiot MDs hold up as support for their lack of understanding of the medications they prescribe and the impact of those medications of the lives of consumers and their families. Why alot of MDs don't understand is the effect on the community standards their complacency has.

Once again.. thanks for the ranting opportunity.. if it too much feel free to delete this comment.

Thanks.. BK

Anonymous said...

"Based on the results of a six-week clinical trial sponsored by Lilly, the FDA granted the company approval to manufacture and distribute Zyprexa in September of 1996 for the treatment of adult schizophrenics. The trial leading up to approval involved 2,500 people, and two-thirds of the participants didn't even complete the trial."

In his book, Mad In America, Robert Whitaker, reported that one in every 145 subjects who entered the trials for Zyprexa, Risperdal, Seroquel, and Serdolect had died."

"Despite these severe known side effects, children between the ages of 6 to 11 were recruited for a clinical trial conducted at the University of California Los Angeles soon after Zyprexa was approved for adults. The children were not schizophrenic, but were diagnosed with other disorders. According to the published report on the research, all of the children experienced adverse effects and none were helped."

"An independent researcher, Dr David Healy, studied FDA raw data on Zyprexa and concluded that it was among “the deadliest drugs ever to gain FDA approval.”

(A few extracts from:

Pushing deadly drugs to any child, particularly toddlers, is disgusting - it should go down in history as being on a par with the war crimes of Nazi Germany. I can't understand how they manage to keep on doing it year after year. It's as if the children (and adults) who die are somehow invisible.

Anonymous said...

New report from US AHR&Q is shocking:

"...The sharpest rise in spending was for antipsychotic drugs (a.k.a. neuroleptics) which were approved only for use in managing schizophrenia and bipolar disorder--together these account for 2% of the population. Yet total purchases to treat these conditions more than tripled -- from $1.3 billion to $4.1 billion.

These second generation neuroleptics are the most toxic of all psychotropic drugs: they interfere with normal metabolic, endocrine, and cardiovascular function. Their mechanisms of action induce debilitating chronic disease--including hyperglycemia, insulin-resistant diabetes, stroke and heart attacks..."

And this is the stuff they're pushing to tiny developing CHILDREN.

Quite a lot interesting facts in that article, here's one of them:

"Of note: New York Governor Eliot Spitzer appears to have completely reversed his informed legal action in the public interest when, as Attorney General, he filed suit against GlaxoSmithKline to persuade drug companies to disclose the facts about drug safety to the public. As a newly elected governor, he made a political appointment to appease the mental health drug industry cartel.

Eliot Spitzer appointed Michael Hogan, PhD, Commissioner of NYS Office of Mental Health. Dr. Hogan was a pivotal promoter of TMAP and the EXPANDED USE of the most expensive psychotropic drugs when he headed the Ohio Office of Mental Health, and chaired the President's NEW FREEDOM COMMISSION ON MENTAL HEALTH which gave TMAP a federal seal of approval. Dr. Hogan also serves on the National Advisory Council of TEENSCREEN, the other MARKET EXPANSION SCHEME..."

(uppercase emphasis added)

Anonymous said...

Starting at 2 years old they're missing out on possible sales. Which might be why they're pushing it onto helpless, defenceless BABIES who are even more vulnerable than 2 year olds.

"...According to Dr. Yolande Lucire, a forensic psychicatrist based in New South Wales, Australia, doctors are giving children YOUNGER THAN 1 YEAR OF AGE prescriptions for atypical antipsychotics -- a class of narcotics used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar mania, psychotic agitation and other similar conditions..."

On what grounds? How can anyone diagnose babies as having 'mental disorders' when they can't even put a full sentence together?

Doctors who believe that a baby CAN be diagnosed with a disorder that need psychotropic drugs are lacking in normal human common sense, let alone intelligence.

As for Dr Lucire, she's paying the usual high personal and professional price for going against mainstream psychiatry.

Sorry, I should have put this in with the last comment, rather than do two. Anyway, rant over.