Archive for the ‘Psychotherapy’ Category

It’s Amazing What Some People Think They Know About Depression

March 26, 2012

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

      If common sense won’t do it, maybe economics will

Health: Antidepressants give drugmakers the blues
Just as brain research homes in on the causes of depression, Big Pharma finds it financially risky to develop new antidepressants

<insert>

      Brain research has been “homing” in on the causes of depression for decades. The causes are apparently so elusive they escape over and over.


By KATE KELLAND AND BEN HIRSCHLER, Reuters March 23, 2012

LONDON — The development of a novel antidepressant ground to a halt this week when researchers found it did not make patients feel any better than the pills they were already taking.

<insert>

     Since the old ones don’t  work, the new ones must be really awful. Search “depression” in this blog for support for the “don’t work” assertion.

The drug firms took the hit, with shares tumbling in Targacept, while AstraZeneca wrote off a total of $146.5 million for the drug’s failure.

It was bad news for investors and bad news for patients — and a depressingly familiar tale for drugmakers seeking to develop new treatments for brain illnesses.

<insert>

     Not bad news for patients. The gullible will not be bombarded by slick and relentless propaganda about ineffective medication.

Data from Thomson Reuters Pharma shows returns for pharmaceutical companies in the antidepressant market are collapsing — despite widespread use of pills such as Prozac — as patents expire and new drugs fail to make it to market.

Some Big Pharma firms are quitting the field altogether. Others are hacking back investment and shedding jobs.

These might seem like prudent decisions in an increasingly expensive and frustrating field. Other diseases such as cancer and diabetes are reckoned to be better areas to be in these days. Yet some scientists say the timing could hardly be worse.

Researchers who study the brain believe they are finally figuring out the basic mechanics of depression and other mental disorders, discoveries that should open the door to far more effective ways to tackle illnesses that can cripple society.

<insert>

   C’mon. If I had a dime….

“It’s a great time for brain science, but at the same time a poor time for drug discovery for brain disorders,” says David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London. “That’s an amazing paradox which we need to do something about.”

The numbers say it all.

Major depression affects around 20 per cent of people at some point in their lives. The World Health Organization predicts that by 2020, depression will rival heart disease as the health disorder with the highest disease burden in the world.

<insert>

     Well, they’ve never been wrong about anything. Remember the swine flu, or was it bird flu epidemic?

Around a third of all Americans and 40 per cent of all Europeans could be classified as mentally ill, with a European study last year finding that almost 165 million people in the region suffer each year from a brain disorder of some kind.

<insert>

     And thence, their European Union governance and declining standard of living is explained. No need to caricature those who caricature themselves.

The study covered more than 100 illnesses from insomnia through depression to schizophrenia.

In the developed world, at least, we are popping more pills than ever. One in five adults in the United States is now taking at least one psychiatric drug, according to data from Medco Health Solutions, a pharmacy benefit manager.

But the drugs only work in some of the people some of the time, and there is an urgent need for new, more effective therapies.

“The burden of these diseases is huge, and the costs are enormous — and it’s only going to get worse with increasing life expectancy,” said Colin Blakemore, professor of Neuroscience at Britain’s Oxford University.

<insert>

     It’s only a tragedy if we believe that we desperately need pills to fix problems. That’s enough. It just goes on with more propaganda about the wonder of illusory treatment.  Of course, if the problems are illusory, the treatments  will , hypothetically, always work

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Against Anti-Depressants

January 29, 2012

     Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

     Another diatribe against anti-depressants–a little rhetoric heavy, but the facts are correct.

Would you pay $12 billion for this?

Why antidepressants just don’t work

The 30 million Americans who take antidepressants are facing a serious mental disorder, that’s for sure — but it’s not depression.

It’s the mass delusion that causes them to waste $12 billion a year on meds scientifically proven time and again NOT to work. The latest research confirms that these drugs are nothing more than a lie with side effects.

Some of the most commonly used antidepressants of all — the SSRIs given out like candy at Halloween — can actually make the depression far WORSE for a huge number of patients.

<insert>

     SSRIs are selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors–fancy name, but drugs which decrease serotonin are no more effective than those which increase it or leave it alone. This is a fad, spiked by relentless PR work.

You may as well flush that $12 billion right down the toilet.

In the first study, sertraline (you know this junk better as Zoloft) was pitted against a placebo and psychotherapy — and after 16 weeks, there was virtually no difference between the three groups.

None!

But at least placebos never hurt anyone — and the only risk of talk therapy is an hour of mind-numbing psychobabble.

SSRIs like Zoloft, on the other hand, come with enough risks to fill a book: sexual dysfunction, bizarre behavior, suicide, and sleeping problems — not to mention the dizzies, shakes, and sweats.

Think that’s enough? I’m just getting started! SSRIs have been linked to osteoporosis in men and women alike as well as a higher risk of stroke and an early death in women.

And now, you can add one more serious side effect to that ever-growing list: worsening depression. Because yet another new study finds that up to a fifth of all patients on Cymbalta or similar medications may actually feel even lousier than they did before they started taking meds.

Talk about adding insult to injury!

<snip>

    Chronic ingestion of artificial substances of dubious value can never be a good idea.


Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Psychiatry’s Grand Illusions

January 26, 2012

     Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

Psychiatry’s Grand Confession
Posted on January 23, 2012 by Jonathan Leo, Ph.D. / Jeffrey Lacasse, Ph.D. RSS

The psychiatry profession has finally come clean and confessed on a national media outlet that there is no evidence to support the Serotonin Theory of Depression. Today, on NPR’s Morning Edition there is a segment about the chemical imbalance theory, and virtually all the psychiatrists who are interviewed acknowledge that the there was never any evidence in support of the idea that low serotonin causes depression. But then, amazingly, they go on to say that it is perfectly fine to tell patients that serotonin imbalance causes depression even though they know this isn’t the case.

<insert>

   Since the “effectiveness” of anti-depressant drugs is limited and is not dependent of whether serotonin increases, decreases or stays the same, this theory never has had any explanatory power.

Several years ago in PLoS Medicine we wrote a long piece about the serotonin theory and the disconnect between what research psychiatrists say in professional journals and textbooks and what the advertisements say. While the advertisements presented the theory as scientific fact, the scientific sources clearly did not. Given the enormous marketing programs that pushed this theory combined with the media’s lack of skepticism, we were sympathetic to the general public who could hardly be faulted for thinking that theory had some foundation in fact. Following the publication of our piece a reporter contacted us and suggested that we were attacking a well accepted theory. We pointed out to the reporter that we weren’t attacking a sacred cow but that instead we were pointing out the mainstream psychiatry didn’t even accept this theory. We urged the reporter to contact the FDA, NIMH, APA, etc and ask them about the science behind the advertisements. He did, and as expected, an expert from the FDA explained that the theory was really just a metaphor. The problem is that patients who heard their physician explain the serotonin theory thought they were hearing real science. They weren’t told it was a metaphor and hence thought it was a fact. When a doctor talks about high cholesterol, diabetes, or hypothyroidism, they are talking about scientific measurement, not a metaphor. How is a patient with high cholesterol and depression who listens to their doctor’s explanation of their conditions supposed to know when the doctor has moved from science to metaphor?

Several months ago Ronald Pies published an interesting article in Psychiatric Times entitled, “Psychiatry’s New Brain-Mind and the Legend of the Chemical Imbalance.” Pies, just like the experts on NPR, acknowledges that the Chemical Imbalance theory is not true. However, according to Pies, it was the pharmaceutical companies who espoused the theory, and not well-informed, practicing clinicians, because the psychiatry community has known all along that the theory is not true.

But if the Psychiatry Community knew all along that the theory was not true, then why did they not clarify this issue for the general public? Shouldn’t they have pointed out to the general public and patients that what the pharmaceutical companies were saying about psychological stress was not true? Why did the professional societies not publicly set the record straight?

There are many angry comments on the NPR website. These comments are interesting, because apparently many patients who were told that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance never understood that were hearing a metaphor and not science. Since the chemical imbalance theory is often presented as a rationale for taking SSRIs, such patients now understandably feel lied to by their clinicians.

Perhaps the most interesting part about the NPR piece is that the reporter seems to not understand that the idea of telling a falsehood to patients because you think it is good for them is a serious violation of informed consent. Shouldn’t the reporter have asked the obvious questions, such as:

1) Do you feel it is acceptable to present a scientific theory as fact even though you know it is false?
2) Is it okay for psychiatrists to tell patients stories about their conditions that psychiatrists know are false?
3) Is there not an ethical issue when a psychiatrist informs their patient that they have a serotonin imbalance, when the medical textbooks on the shelf clearly say this is a falsified theory?

In general, we are fans of NPR, but hopefully the next news outlet that covers this topic will be more investigative in their approach.

<end>

      Psychopharmaceuticals are like political programs, the product is shoddy, but the marketing  world-class.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Psychiatric Drugs And Brain Damage

January 23, 2012

 

   Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

    The incentive for making humans patients with treatable “diseases” is the incredible amount of money made by the purveyors of these toxic treatments.

The Cure for Mood Disorders Is Dementia?

Posted on January 22, 2012 by Jill Littrell, Ph.D. RSS

Perhaps the most alarming current trend in psychiatry, documented by Domino and Schwartz (2008), is the rise in prescriptions for the class of drug called “atypical antipsychotics”, which include seroquel/quetiapine, abilify/aripiprazole, clozaril/clozapine, geodon/ziprasidone, invega/paliperidone, risperdal/risperidone, zyprexa/olanzapine. Initially, these drugs were introduced for the treatment of psychosis. They were touted as being superior to earlier antipsychotics because the belief was that they would not induce the very uncomfortable Parkinson’s type motor symptoms associated with the older typical antipsychotics, and the long term motor problems called tardive dyskinesia. Unfortunately, the large government-funded CATIE study found that movement disorders are associated with the atypicals as well, although perhaps to a lesser extent than the older anti-psychotics.

<insert>

     Although the usefulness of anti-psychotics for psychoses is questionable, their use for other things is madness.

In psychiatry, the pattern is always the same. An initial treatment is found either to be ineffective or associated with serious side effects. Then a new drug is introduced which is supposed to be more effective or avoid the problems of the earlier treatment. Presently, the new class of drug for anxiety, sleep disorders, Major Depression, and Bipolar Disorder appears to be atypical antipsychotics (documented by Comer, Mojtabai, and Olfson, 2011, Crystal, Olfson, Huang, Pincus, Gerhard, 2009, and Fullerton et al.,2011). Atypicals are even being given to children for a wide range of problems. DosReis et al. (2011) examined the use of atypical antipsychotics in foster children. Among the children receiving antipsychotic medications, 53% had a diagnosis of ADHD, 34% had a diagnosis of depression, 21% had a diagnosis of bipolar, while only 5% had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Apparently, psychiatrists are using atypical antipsychotics as general panaceas.

<insert>

     The general panacea is up there with turning lead into gold. The problem with that would be that gold would soon to worth little more than lead, but that’s for another day.

In moving from the older drug to a newer drug, psychiatrists are well intentioned. Everyone knows that antidepressants don’t work very well and some (see Irving Kirsch) argue that they don’t work period. Antidepressants can induce mania, so they are contraindicated for anyone with Bipolar Disorder. Lithium, a medication for Bipolar, destroys kidneys. Anti-epileptics are also used for Bipolar, but they have a warning from the government for inducing suicidal ideation. Thus, one can see why psychiatrists were searching for a better option for treating major depression or Bipolar Disorder. With regard to anxiety and insomnia, drugs of the valium class, prescribed for sleep and anxiety, are fairly rapidly addicting. If people discontinue use of valium-type-drugs abruptly, they risk life threatening seizures. Thus, the older drugs for Major Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and insomnia are bad news. The motivation for something better is understandable. But, the new panacea, the atypicals, is effectively jumping from one bad remedy to an even worse one.

<insert>

    What Kirsch found was, that the more side effects a placebo has, the more highly it would be rated, with the really active placebos being rated as good as the best antidepressive.

In February 2011, Ho, Andreasen, Ziebell, Pierson, and Magnotta documented the brain volume reduction among their patients taking drugs that block dopamine, which includes the older antipsychotics and the newer atypicals. To prove causation, subjects have to be randomly assigned to a particular treatment or a control group. Fulfilling that requirement can be difficult with human subjects. So for proof of the causal connection, Ho et al., cited animal studies which observed the necessary random assignment. Researchers randomly assigned monkeys, none of whom were suffering from psychosis, to receive or not receive anti-dopamine drugs for two years. The animal researchers found that the antipsychotics do result in brain volume shrinkage. These results are consistent with what is known about brain health generally. Dopamine is a trigger for the release of growth factors in brain. If you block the dopamine message with a drug that sits on the receptor, there will be less release of growth factors, and poorer brain health.

Of course, brain volume reduction is only the latest, most awesome problem with the atypical antipsychotic drugs. From the outset, it has been known that the atypicals are associated with significant weight gain, diabetes, and high levels of fat in the blood. Moreover, atypicals are associated with QT wave prolongation (capable of inducing a heart attack). So if you take seroquel for sleep, you might be sleeping for longer than intended.

When drugs are approved by the FDA, they are evaluated for damage to major organ systems. Unfortunately, the drugs given to change mood and behavior are not evaluated for damage to structures in the brain. Perhaps tests of changes in cognitive capacity should be added to the check-list for evaluating pharmaceuticals. If a drug, taken over years, is shown to impair ability to learn in an animal, then the psychiatrists won’t be able to blame cognitive deterioration, widely acknowledged in the journals regarding patients with schizophrenia and bipolar, on the underlying condition of the patient. If impairments in ability to reason and process information are clearly acknowledged as side effects, then patients can evaluate whether the small possibility to escaping distress by taking the drug is worth the risk of long term brain damage.

<end>

    Brain damage and ineffectiveness, what’s not to like?

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Psychotropic Drugs And Aggression

January 20, 2012

      Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

     Two judgments, totaling 1.158 B$ have been made against Johnson and Johnson, the maker of risperdal, for urging off-label usage. This is a report of one study. This study is different from others in that it counted aggressive behavior rather than using indirect methods of measuring aggression. A placebo had the same effect on aggression.

Drugs Offer No Benefit in Curbing
Aggression, Study Finds

By BENEDICT CAREY
The drugs most widely used to manage aggressive outbursts in intellectually disabled people are no more effective than placebos for most patients and may be less so, researchers report.

The finding, being published Friday, sharply challenges
standard medical practice in mental health clinics and nursing homes in the United States and around the world. In recent years, many doctors have begun to use the so-called antipsychotic drugs, which were developed to treat schizophrenia, as all-purpose tranquilizers to settle threatening behavior — in children with attention-deficit problems, college students with depression, older people with Alzheimer’s disease and intellectually handicapped people.

The new study tracked 86 adults with low I.Q.’s in community housing in England, Wales and Australia over more than a month of treatment. It found a 79 percent reduction in aggressive behavior among those taking dummy pills, compared with a reduction of 65 percent or less in those taking antipsychotic drugs.

The researchers focused on two drugs, Risperdal by Janssen, and an older drug, Haldol, but said the findings almost certainly applied to all similar medications. Such drugs account for more than $10 billion in annual sales, and research suggests that at least half of all prescriptions are for unapproved “off label” uses — often to treat aggression or irritation. 

The authors said the results were quite likely to intensify calls for a government review of British treatment standards for such patients, and perhaps to prompt more careful study of treatment for aggressive behavior in patients with a wide variety of diagnoses.

Other experts said the findings were also almost certain to inflame a continuing debate over the widening use of
antipsychotic drugs. Patient advocates and some psychiatrists say the medications are overused.

Previous studies of the drugs’ effect on aggressive outbursts have been mixed, with some showing little benefit and others a strong calming influence. But the drugs have serious side effects, including rapid weight gain and tremors, and doctors have had little rigorous evidence to guide practice.

“This is a very significant finding by some very prominent psychiatrists” — one that directly challenges the status quo, said Johnny L. Matson, a professor of psychology at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, co-author of an editorial with the study in the journal Lancet.

While it is unclear how much the study by itself will alter
prescribing habits, “the message to doctors should be, think twice about prescribing, go with lower doses and monitor side effects very carefully,” Dr. Matson continued, adding: “Or just don’t do it. We know that behavioral treatments can work very well with many patients.”

Other experts disagreed, saying the new study was not in line with previous research or their own experience. Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, said that Risperdal only promotes approved uses, which in this country include the treatment of irritability associated with autism in children. In the study, Dr. Peter J. Tyrer, a professor of psychiatry at Imperial College London, led a research team who assigned 86 people from ages 18 to 65 to one of three groups: one that received Risperdal; one that received another antipsychotic, the
generic form of Haldol; and one that was given a placebo pill. Caregivers tracked the participants’ behavior. Many people with very low I.Q.’s are quick to anger and lash out at others, bang their heads or fists into the wall in frustration, or singe the air with obscenities when annoyed.

After a month, people in all three groups had settled down, losing their temper less often and causing less damage when they did. Yet unexpectedly, those in the placebo group improved the most, significantly more so than those on medication. In an interview, Dr. Tyrer said there was no reason to believe that any other antipsychotic drug used for aggression, like Zyprexa from Eli Lilly or Seroquel from AstraZeneca, would be
more effective. Being in the study, with all the extra attention it brought, was itself what apparently made the difference, he said.

“These people tend to get so little company normally,” Dr. Tyrer said. “They’re neglected, they tend to be pushed into the background, and this extra attention has a much bigger effect on them that it would on a person of more normal intelligence level.”

The study authors, who included researchers from the
University of Wales and the University of Birmingham in
Britain and the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, wrote that their results “should not be interpreted as an indication that antipsychotic drugs have no place in the treatment of some aspects of behavior disturbance.” But the routine prescription of the drugs for aggression, they concluded, “should no longer be regarded as a satisfactory form of care.

<end>

    Aside from the cost, the side effects and the non-working, these drugs do a great job.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Stopping Smoking And Staying Stopped

January 14, 2012

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

“It’s easy to quit smoking. I’ve done it hundreds of times.” Mark Twain.

     It’s not quitting that difficult. It’s staying quit.

Non-cigarette nicotine delivery systems

Nicotine Gum and Skin Patch Face New Doubt
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: January 9, 2012

The study, published Monday in the journal Tobacco Control, included nearly 800 people trying to quit smoking over a period of several years, and is likely to inflame a long-running debate about the value of nicotine alternatives.

In medical studies, the products have proved effective, making it easier for people to quit, at least in the short term. Those earlier, more encouraging findings were the basis for federal guidelines that recommended the products for smoking cessation.

But in surveys, smokers who have used the over-the-counter products, either as part of a program or on their own, have reported little benefit. The new study followed one group of smokers to see whether nicotine replacement affected their odds of kicking the habit over time. It did not, even if they also received counseling with the nicotine replacement.

<insert>

    Smoking is the most difficult of all “addictions” of which to rid oneself. As with most addictions, the majority of quitters do it themselves.

The market for nicotine replacement products has taken off in recent years, rising to more than $800 million annually in 2007 from $129 million in 1991. The products were approved for over-the-counter sale in 1997, and many state Medicaid programs cover at least one of them.

“We were hoping for a very different story,” said Dr. Gregory N. Connolly, director of Harvard’s Center for Global Tobacco Control and a co-author of the study. “I ran a treatment program for years, and we invested” millions in treatment services.

Doctors who treat smokers said that the study findings were not unexpected, given the haphazard way many smokers used the products. “Patient compliance is a very big issue,” said Dr. Richard Hurt, director of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Hurt said products like nicotine gum and patches “are absolutely essential, but we use them in combinations and doses that match treatment to what the individual patient needs,” unlike smokers who are self-treating.

The products have been controversial since at least 2002, when researchers at the University of California, San Diego, reported from a large survey that they appeared to offer no benefit. The study did not follow people over time. A government-appointed panel that included nicotine replacement as part of federal guidelines for treatment also came under fire, because panel members had gotten payments from the product manufacturers.

“Some studies have questioned these treatments, but the bulk of clinical trials have unequivocally endorsed them,” said Dr. Michael Fiore, director of the University of Wisconsin’s Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention and the chairman of the panel that wrote the guidelines. Dr. Fiore, who has reported receiving payments from drug makers, said that “there are millions of smokers out there desperate to quit, and it would be a tragedy if they felt, because of one study, that this option is ineffective.”

In the new study, conducted in Massachusetts, the researchers followed a representative sample of 1,916 adults, including 787 people who said at the start of the study that they had recently quit smoking. They interviewed the participants three times, about once every two years during the 2000s, asking the smokers and quitters about their use of gum, patches and other such products, their periods of not smoking and their relapses.

At each stage, about one-third of the people trying to quit had relapsed, the study found. The use of replacement products made no difference, whether they were taken for the recommended two-month period (they usually were not), or with the guidance of a cessation counselor.

One subgroup, heavy smokers (defined as those who had their first cigarette within a half-hour of waking up) who used replacement products without counseling, was twice as likely to relapse as heavy smokers who did not use them.

“Our study essentially shows that what happens in the real world is very different” from what happens in clinical trials, said Hillel R. Alpert of Harvard, a co-author with Dr. Connolly and Lois Biener of the University of Massachusetts, Boston.

The researchers argue that while nicotine replacement appears to help people quit, it is not enough to prevent relapse in the longer run. Motivation matters a lot; so does a person’s social environment, the amount of support from friends and family, and the rules enforced at the workplace. Media campaigns, increased tobacco taxes and tightening of smoking laws have all had an effect as well.

<end>

    As usual in “addictions”, stopping is easy, staying stopped is much more difficult.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Medication And Troubling Behavior

January 10, 2012

   Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

Thanks to madinamerica.com for this reference.

If troubled kids aren’t bipolar, then what is troubling them?

    Article by: JEREMY OLSON , Star Tribune
    Updated: December 3, 2011 – 11:36 PM

Experts struggle to identify the causes and proper treatment of children with outbursts. Powerful psychotropic drugs may not be the answer.

For every 10 kids who enter Elmore Academy, a correctional facility in southern Minnesota, three or four take psychotropic drugs for bipolar disorder or mood problems.

By the time they leave, only one or two remain on the potent medications, according to estimates by Dr. Terence Cahill, the facility’s consulting physician.

"These kids go off the medication and they do just fine," he said. "People are treating bad behaviors with medication."

The experience at Elmore Academy reflects a larger trend: the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of bipolar disorder among American children in the past two decades. Clinic visits for bipolar youth quadrupled between 1995 and 2003, reaching 800,000, one study found.

Today, mental health experts generally agree the label has been issued too liberally — to thousands of children whose problems don’t match criteria for the disease — and that powerful psychotropic drugs have been prescribed too often.

But even as American psychiatry gets its house in order on the issue, an unsettling question remains: If these troubled kids aren’t bipolar, what is wrong with them?

<insert>

    I interviewed over 3,000 convicted criminals during my days as a correctional psychologist. They are troubling not troubled. The notion that people do criminal acts because they suffer from mental illness is one of the great shibboleths which do nothing to rehabilitate criminals. Psychiatrists get quite exercised when one asks them about giving drugs to drug addicts to cure drug addiction and anti-social behavior. The psychiatrists insist that it’s medication that these folks are getting. The fact that giving criminals psychopharmaceuticals does not decrease recidivism is of no interest.

Some doctors believe the children are suffering from unrecognized trauma such as violence or poverty — a hazard that is common among youth in state child protection and corrections systems. Others believe there is no current explanation that makes sense, and are creating a new diagnosis to fit children whose rapid tantrums and mood swings result in bipolar labels.

Still others believe these children are exposed to so much visual media and stress that they can no longer govern their emotions.

If these theories are right, they could alter treatment for thousands of children. Some could be spared the use of mood stabilizers or antipsychotics — powerful drugs that can have severe side effects ranging from significant weight gain to muscle tics to hallucinations.

<insert>

      There’s also that pesky brain shrinkage problem of long-term use.

"Clearly with adults with bipolar disorder, medication is very necessary," said Libby Bergman, a therapist with the Family Enhancement Center in Minneapolis. "In childhood, I think it slows the children down, making them easier to manage, but I don’t know that medication always solves the problem.

"And it isn’t necessarily the safest thing," she added. "I don’t think we have any idea what those types of psychotropic medications can do to the developing brain."

One emerging theory is that the affected children have suffered trauma — perhaps outright abuse, or perhaps subtler forms such as living with divorce, poverty or crime.

Children coping with trauma can seem agitated and aggressive — the calling cards of pediatric bipolar disorder. A misdiagnosis can be reinforced by parents, who want medical solutions for their kids and might not recognize — or want to admit — the daily trauma their children experience.

"It’s not as if they had one car accident or they witnessed one episode of abuse of a loved one," said Dr. Michael Sutherland, a child psychiatrist in Duluth. "In a lot of cases, it’s kids that have been forced to live in kind of scary or neglectful conditions."

<insert>

     If A (trauma), then B(bad behavior) is testable–and wrong, by the way–but, B, thence A is a theory about a theory. This is a member of the group exemplified by sexual abuse causes adult depression, therefore, adult depression means sexual abuse.

Guardian ad litem Denise Graves has seen the criss-crossing of trauma and bipolar symptoms among children in the child-welfare system — and has stepped in to oppose prescriptions for foster children whose problems didn’t seem medically related.

"How do you separate that [trauma] from a true, organic mental disorder?" she said. "It’s hard to differentiate because of the tragic lives they’ve led."

Several studies suggest that doctors err on the side of medicating foster children. In November, a study published in the journal Pediatrics found, paradoxically, that foster children were as likely to take multiple psychotropic drugs as children receiving disability benefits due to diagnosed disorders.

This month, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that foster children were more likely to receive five or more psychotropic drugs at once — or to receive drugs at dosages above federal safety thresholds — than other children on Medicaid programs.

If trauma is the root of the problem for some children, psychiatrists say, they would be better served by therapy and identifying what’s wrong in their lives, rather than with powerful medications.

"Most of the time there is something that has happened in a child’s life, something that got them stuck developmentally," said Sue Sexton, a St. Paul psychologist who treats kids with stress-related disorders.

Until the 1990s, doctors were ridiculed for suggesting bipolar disorder in children. Then an influential Harvard psychiatrist concluded that the disorder simply looked different in kids. While adult bipolar disorder features prolonged mania and depression, Dr. Joseph Biederman concluded that the disorder surfaced in children in the form of rapid bursts of aggression. Doctors welcomed the diagnosis, because it gave a name to the baffling symptoms and aggression they saw in some of their patients.

The next fad diagnosis

Now some mental health experts worry that trauma is becoming the next fad diagnosis. "There is always the possibility that any diagnosis can become soup du jour," even when the underlying disease actually exists, said Dr. Joseph Lee, a child psychiatrist at Hazelden’s Center for Youth and Families in Plymouth.

Lee said the profession won’t solve the bipolar mystery in children until therapists sort out another factor: the role of illicit drug abuse. "By default," he said, "you can’t make a lot of these diagnoses if there’s the presence of substances."

When children are admitted to Hazelden, Lee tries to determine how much their problems reflect addictions, behaviors or mental disorders. He obtains a thorough family history, looking for clues that patients are predisposed to anxiety, addiction or other problems.

The teens sent to Elmore Academy have the same complex stories: Many have histories of family trauma and substance abuse. Confinement to Elmore spares them from both, Cahill said, making it easier to determine whether their problems reflect bipolar disorder and whether they are on medications they don’t really need.

"Let’s see how you look when you get off your chemical, and then maybe we can get you off of our chemicals," Cahill said. "If they’re sober and they’re accessible, it’s amazing what you can do with kids without having to give them medication."

Another theory points to the high-stress, media-intensive environments in which kids are raised. Children’s brains are "sculpted" by their experiences, particularly by emotional or intense experiences. The more children are exposed to stress, anxiety and grief, the more their brains are hard-wired to react instinctively to emotional experiences, said Dr. L. Read Sulik, a child psychiatrist in Fargo, N.D.

"Our kids today are by and large stimulated at a much higher level and stressed at a much higher level than before," he said. "We should be stepping back and saying: What is changing that we are seeing such an increase in the number of children that are having significant emotional and behavioral problems?"

Sulik advises parents to teach "hyperaroused" children to soothe themselves. Stress breeds stress, he said, so frustrated parents will fuel frustrated children. Simple things like sufficient sleep, meals and exercise can help, he said.

A national panel of child psychiatrists is creating a new disorder, called disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, that would fit more of these children better than a bipolar diagnosis.

The disorder would apply to children who are generally irritable and prone to temper outbursts out of proportion to the social situations they are in. Treatment is unclear, though studies are underway to determine if antidepressant drugs would help and whether antipsychotics are necessary.

Two existing conditions

Another theory comes from Dr. Stuart Kaplan, author of the book "Your Child Does Not Have Bipolar Disorder." The Pennsylvania psychiatrist believes children diagnosed with bipolar disorder suffer from two existing conditions: attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder.

The proposed new disorder is merely "bipolar light," in his view, and still implies the need for medication.

That’s a distinction that has to do with the "mad or bad" debate. Bipolar is a "mad" disorder, an inherited chemical imbalance for which children can’t be held accountable, he said. On the other hand, ODD is a "bad" disorder, a combination of temper and disregard for authority that requires therapy and discipline.

If he is right, Kaplan said, these children need therapy for ODD and stimulant drugs for ADHD — drugs often denied to bipolar children for fear they will fuel their aggression. Regardless, the new disorder would be an improvement, Kaplan said, to the bipolar label that steers some kids to wrong treatments and dampens their outlooks for the future.

<insert>

     This is how psychiatry deals with problem behaviors–they label it and then contend that the behavior is caused by the syndrome they’ve created.

"Kids are growing up now and finding out they don’t have bipolar disorder," he said. "One day, one of these kids is going to write a great memoir or make a great movie dramatizing the enormity of the injustice that’s been done to them."

<end>

   Giving troubling individuals medication doesn’t work, but it provides endless fascination from endless discussion.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Better Than Psychiatric Drugs

December 22, 2011

 

          Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

     Robert Whitaker provides the following evidence for the value of Cognitive Therapy for those labeled psychotic.

      One of the many conceits of bloggers is that they present themselves as infallible, knowing this and that long before the unanointed have even thought about events and concepts. This is one of the findings I never predicted along with the greater usefulness of cognitive  therapy in general. Most psychotherapy can be characterized as weak in the extreme, but apparently it is better than psychiatric medication.

Cognitive Therapy Found Effective in Unmedicated Psychotic Patients . . . And Other News

For a long time, psychotherapy has been seen as providing little benefit to patients with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders. However, two recent studies, including one in unmedicated patients, have found cognitive therapy to be quite helpful.

In the first study, researchers in the United Kingdom tested cognitive therapy in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who refused antipsychotic medication and had been off the drugs for six months. Twenty patients were provided with a maximum of 26 CT sessions over nine months, and then were followed for an additional six months.

 
In a paper published in Psychological Medicine, the U.K. researchers reported that  35%  of the patients had at least a 50% reduction in their psychiatric symptoms at the end of nine months (as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndromes Scale), and that an even higher percentage of patients — 50% — had reached this level of improvement by the end of the followup period.

No patient significantly deteriorated during the study, and only one dropped out during the nine-month treatment period.

The researchers concluded that cognitive therapy for psychotic disorders “is an acceptable treatment and is associated with a clinically significant reduction in psychiatric symptoms at both end of treatment and follow-up, in a group that are assumed to deteriorate without total adherence to medication.” In addition, cognitive therapy was “associated with improved functioning and self-rated recovery, with significant increases shown at follow-up for both.”

An obvious question, but one unaddressed by the study, is how these results would compare with outcomes from drug treatment over a 15-month period. It also would be helpful to run a study in which  unmedicated psychotic patients were randomized to CT or to a “placebo” form of psychotherapy, and thus determine if CT beat placebo.

 
The second CT study was led by Aaron Beck, the father of cognitive therapy in the United States, and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania. Their goal was to help low-functioning schizophenia patients with severe negative symptoms — a loss of motivation and emotional engagement — identify and pursue concrete goals for improving their quality of life and reintegrating into society.

In the study, 60 were randomized either to a combination of cognitive therapy and standard therapy (which included antipsychotic medication), or to standard therapy alone. Those in the cognitive therapy group got weekly outpatient CT sessions for 18 months, with each session typically lasting 50 minutes. At the end of 18 months, the CT patients had better functioning and greater improvement on their negative and positive symptoms relative to those who received standard treatment only. The researchers concluded:
“The [CT] treatment encourages the patients to set goals related to their everyday functioning, and they become motivated to engage in tasks (initially simple pleasurable, social, and constructive activities) that move them out of their withdrawn state. This increase in activity and motivation puts the patients more in touch with reality and reduces hallucinations, delusions, and disorganization. Reduced positive symptoms allow for further engagement in activity, leading to better functional outcomes and enhancement of motivation, which in turn facilitate a further amelioration of positive symptoms.”

In this case, one wonders what outcomes might have been if cognitive therapy had been paired with a medication tapering protocol, given that antipsychotics can induce emotional lethargy in patients. But together, the two studies tell of a non-drug therapy that needs to be further tested and explored.

<snip>

   One of the sad commentaries on the treatment of “mental illness” is that there is no well-organized and wealthy group to lobby for cognitive therapy. On the other hand, there is an extremely well-organized and very wealthy group, drug manufacturers, pushing the use of drug therapies. Alas, apparently in neither study was there a behavioral measure of improvement.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Only Debate About Paying For Psychological Programs Which Work

October 15, 2011

 

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

 

“A biker is riding by the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion’s cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her before the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage, and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain, the lion jumps back, letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A New York Times reporter has witnessed the whole scene, and addressing the biker, says, "Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole life."

"Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right."

"Well, I’ll make sure this won’t go unnoticed. I’m a journalist from the New York Times, you know, and tomorrow’s paper will have this on the front page. What motorcycle do you ride and what political affiliation do you have?"

"A Harley Davidson, and I am a Republican."

The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the New York Times and reads, on the front page:

*REPUBLICAN BIKER GANG MEMBER ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH*”

from: James Delingpole, 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy

and, from the New York Times,

    A Serious Medical Condition

Sally Satel is a psychiatrist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

The spirit of parity is twofold: cover both physical and mental disorders and pay for non-experimental, standard-of-care treatments.

Let’s take the first prong. Anorexia nervosa is indisputably a medical condition, not a trivial body image problem. It has one of the highest mortality rates among psychiatric disorders. Girls, women and, increasingly, males with anorexia nervosa typically develop defects in perception that could fairly be called delusional. Imagine a skeletal teen weighing 68 pounds who looks at herself the mirror only to see a fat girl staring back.

<insert>

      Notice how, once something is made into a “medical condition”, it is spoken of with hushed reverence which removes it from the realm of rational discussion.

    Anorexia nervosa has one of the highest mortality rates among psychiatric disorders.

Now let’s turn to treatment. For severe cases, inpatient or residential treatment is often considered imperative, even life saving, and has been the standard of care for many years.

However, that standard falls short. Within the last decade, controlled treatment trials have revealed that their effectiveness is limited — not zero, but limited. The relapse rate is very high, according to my colleague, Dr. Walter H. Kaye, who directs the eating disorders program at the University of California, San Diego, because patients are often unable to deal with the reduced structure in their life following discharge.

So, instead of spending months in a residential setting insulated from the outside world, state-of-the-art care for eating disorders is now taking place in the least restrictive setting possible. Such intensive daily treatment capitalizes on pragmatic strategies for coping with a patient’s disrupted appetite, anxiety, obsessive focus on food and unstable moods.

<insert>

    From what we know about drug and alcohol rehabilitation, it is clear that the standard 3R method–Remove-Repair-Replace method does not work. Any rehabilitative efforts must occur in the client’s everyday world and last a long time. Short-term residential programs (Remove) are the most expensive and least effective of all the programs.

What does all this mean for the California ruling regarding private insurance companies? The dilemma is this: residential care, as some critics have alleged, may not be ideal, yet, as Dr. Kaye says, alternatives can be difficult to find. The most promising programs are usually associated with academic medical centers. Families depend on their local therapists or primary care doctors who may not know about these innovative treatments. And, if they are aware of the latest developments, there may not be professionals in the community who provide it.

    It is impossible to compare medical and psychiatric modes of care in hope of making them ‘equal.’

In the end, insurance should cover effective and appropriate treatment for anorexia nervosa, which may or may not be residential care, for a particular patient. Adding coverage for any medical illness according to category (e.g., residential care) is usually a bad idea. For one thing, the “victory” ruling implies that patients now have access to the Cadillac of care. Not only is this misleading — residential is not necessarily the best modality — it can make that particular intervention look more attractive simply because it had previously been denied. Second, since treatment often follows financing, patients may be preferentially steered toward residential care when less restrictive but new forms of intervention may be comparable and are probably better.

As far as parity is concerned, there are no obvious metrics for defining “doses” of treatment. Thus, it is impossible to compare medical and psychiatric modes of care in hope of making them “equal.” At best, we can hold insurers to covering a reasonable amount of current-practices treatment in accord with the same coverage and utilization limits as other non-mental health types of treatment under similar insurance coverage policies. State laws or court rulings should not require them to do more than that in offering fair and equitable coverage and should stop well short of dictating more narrowly defined modes of specific treatment or specific amounts and durations.

<end>

    The paradox of residential treatment is that it lasts the shortest amount of time, costs the most and is the least expensive.

    Any payer should only pay for effectiveness, not the appearance of it or the intention to do good works.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Do Psychiatric Drugs Produce The Conditions They Are Designed to Alleviate?

September 18, 2011

 

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

     Whitaker’s take on psychiatric drugs is that the recent large increases in drug prescription is producing the very thing it’s supposed to prevent, long-term psychic disability reflected in the increase in disability pensions.

In the News–Robert Whitaker

Anatomy of an Epidemic Down Under: Psychiatric Drugs and the Astonishing Rise of Disabling Mental Illness in New Zealand and Australia
 
September 16, 2011
 
During the past six months, I have traveled to a number of English speaking countries to speak about my book Anatomy of an Epidemic, and everywhere—Canada, the U.K., Ireland, New Zealand (and Iceland)—I find the same questions being asked. Why, everyone wants to know, is mental illness becoming such a big problem in their society? And what are they to make of psychiatric drugs, which are being so frequently used?
 
And so I am now starting to look at disability numbers in those countries, and as might be expected, they are all telling a similar story.
 
In the United States, the number of adults on government disability due to mental illness rose from 1.25 million in 1987 to 3.97 million in 2007. On a per-capita basis, the disability rate rose from 1 in every 184 Americans in 1987 to 1 in every 76 Americans  over that 20-year period. (Total population divided by number of working-age adults on disability.) At the same time, societal spending on psychiatric drugs soared, from less than $1 billion in 1987 to more than $40 billion annually today.

<insert>

      Big business indeed. Here are the incentives. 40 billion of them.
 

Now, I recently spent a week in New Zealand speaking on this topic. The United States and New Zealand are the only two Western countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to directly market their products to consumers, and perhaps not surprisingly, the prescribing of antidepressants in that country has soared over the past 15 years. And now here is its disability data.

<insert>

      The advertising causes more use which in turn produces more "need". Sweet, except for that lives ruined thing.
 

 
New Zealand’s Numbers
 
In 2000, there were 23,142 adults 18 to 64 years old on government disability (sickness or invalid benefits) in New Zealand due to psychiatric conditions. In 2010, there were 48,899 adults on government disability due to psychiatric disorders. On a per capita basis (total population divided by number of working-age adults on disability), that is an increase in disability from 1 in every 168 to 1 in every 90.
 
It is also notable that in 2000, disability due to psychiatric conditions represented 26% of the total disability pie, and that by 2010, this percentage had jumped to 34%. In other words, it is mental illness that is driving the country’s disability numbers upward. Between 2000 and 2010, the total disability count rose by 56,161 adults in New Zealand, and 46% of that increase was due to psychiatric conditions.
 
Finally, World Health Organization researchers recently published their findings on the prevalence of “bipolar spectrum disorder” in eleven countries. The United States led the list, while New Zealand was second. In the United States, the WHO investigators reported, the lifetime prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorder is 4.4% of the population; in New Zealand, it is 3.9%. At the bottom of the 11-country list were India, at .1%, and Bulgaria, .3%. Although I don’t have the prescribing data for antidepressants in those latter two countries, I feel confident in stating that antidepressant usage in those two countries much be much less than it is in the United States and New Zealand. 
 
You might conclude, from this report, that a dramatic increase in the prevalance of bipolar disorder is one of the societal costs of allowing direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.
 
 
Australia
 
While Australia doesn’t allow direct-to-consumer advertising, use of antidepressants and other psychotropics is quite popular in that country. Psychiatry in that country has adopted a drug-based paradigm of care similar to ours. There, the number of adults on disability due a psychiatric disorder rose from 140,965 in 2001 to 227,420 in 2010. That is an increase in the disability rate from 1 in every 137 to 1 in every 98 (Total population divided by adults of working age on disability.)
 
Moreover, as is the case in New Zealand, psychiatric disorders are composing an ever-greater percentage of the disability pie in Australia, increasing from 22.6% in 2001 to 28.7% in 2010.   Between 2001 and 2010, 51% of the increase in total number of disability beneficiaries in Australia was due to psychiatric disorders.
 
 
Iceland
 
Researchers in Iceland, which also has embraced the use of antidepressants, recently provided an update on disability numbers in that country. There, the number of new cases of disability annually due to mental and behavioral disorders rose from 84 per 100,000 population in 1992 to 217 per 100,000 population in 2007.
 
 
Where there’s smoke . . .
 
One common criticism of Anatomy of an Epidemic has been that I mistake “correlation for causation.” The fact that disability numbers have soared during a time of sharply increased usage of psychiatric drugs doesn’t prove that the drugs are causing the rise in disability, the critcs say. I agree, but in fact, in my book, I used the disability data  merely as a starting point for questioning our drug-based paradigm of care. However, as I now find the same correlation occurring in country after country, I would say this is a case of more and more “smoke” appearing, and at some point, you have to ask when such correlational data provides evidence of a “fire.”
 
The drug-based paradigm of care that we have adopted in the United States, which took off in 1987 with the arrival of Prozac on the market, has taken hold in many Western countries. I wish that a researcher could take the time to chart usage of psychiatric drugs in fifteen “developed” countries over the past 20 years, and chart the number of people on government disability due to mental illness during that period (and the prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorder in those countries.) If that could be done, I think that the pattern that shows up in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland woul, quite unfortunately, be found again and again.
 
And if  that fact were documented, I wonder whether the defenders of our current paradigm of care would once again shout: Correlation is not causation! Or would it be taken as evidence that something is quite amiss with this paradigm of care?

<end>

     This is one of the societal shifts in assumptions  such as Communism or Global Warming upon which history will visit the verdict, "What in hell?–How could they possibly have believed that?"

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.