Thread: Studies show adverse side effects in Schizophrenia drugs Le

Pharmaceutical companies pulling out of pushing these drugs won't make up for the people they destroyed while on these drugs. They need to answer for that...



Studies show adverse side effects in Schizophrenia drugs
Tuesday, December 28, 2010 by: Amy Chaves, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author

Email this article to a friend Printable Version FREE Email Newsletter

8Share
Share/Save/Bookmark
Get daily news updates from the Health Ranger

Your email privacy is 100% protected.


(NaturalNews) The November 2010 issue of Nature reported that several large pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, have chosen to pull out of the psychiatric pharmacology in the treatment of schizophrenia. The reason is obvious, according to Nature author, Abbott: The first generation of schizophrenia drugs (manufactured in the 1950s) and the second generation (manufactured in the 1990s) have not addressed the adverse side effects of antipsychotic drugs on patients.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes schizophrenia as a mental disorder that interferes with a person's ability to identify what is real. A person affected with this disorder is not able to manage emotions, cognition, as well as communication. Symptoms could appear in early adolescence as "early flickers of paranoia, hypersensitivity, and hallucination" (Dobbs, 2010). According to WHO, schizophrenia is usually characterized by disruptions in the most fundamental human attributes such as perception, language, thought, emotion, and sense of self. In 2001, WHO estimated that schizophrenia affects 7 per thousand of the adult population (the equivalent of 24 million worldwide), mostly between 15 to 35 years old.

The same November 2010 issue of Nature discussed about a US clinical trial involving nearly 1,500 patients in 57 clinical sites, and at a cost of US$43 million. This trial examined an array of second generation antipsychotic drugs to determine if they were better than the first generation antipsychotic drugs. The clinical trial spanned from 2001-2005. When the results of the unblinded trial were released in 2005, the psychiatric community and pharmacological companies were astounded: the findings suggest that the new drugs were barely different from the old ones.

Although both generations of anti-psychotic drugs were reported to control hallucinations and delusions, patients taking the second generation drugs remained confused, withdrawn, and devoid of drive, the same side effects observed in the first generation drugs. The result of this clinical trial, according to psychiatrist Jeffrey Lieberman, is frustrating and humbling for the research community and it had a chilling effect on the pharmaceutical industry (Abbott, 2010).

A systematic review in 2003 by Bagnall, et al., examined the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic drugs used to treat schizophrenia. The review consisted of 171 randomized, controlled trials, of which 28 were from drug manufacturers. Although the review showed that atypical drugs (i.e., risperidone, amisulpride, olanzipine, and clozapine) were seen to be more effective in relieving symptoms of schizophrenia than typical ones, it nonetheless found the following common side-effects: agitation, movement disorders, impotence, dry mouth, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, and weight gain.

The same systematic review examined the safety of these drugs and some of the following adverse reactions were found: death, malignant syndrome, seizures, hepatic dysfunction, and cardiac problems.

A systematic review, involving the application of scientific strategies to limit bias, is a synthesis of relevant studies that address specific clinical questions. Reviews of this kind are considered as the best evidence for making clinical decisions.

The findings of the 2001-2005 US clinical trial and the systematic review of Bagnall, et al. point to the ineffectiveness of anti-psychotic drugs in dealing with schizophrenia. Considering that up to 1% of the world's population is estimated to be affected by this disorder, schizophrenia represents a huge market for any pharmaceutical. However, as research have shown, the pharmaceutical industries have done little in 50 years to address the adverse side-effects that patients have experienced from antipsychotic drugs .

References:

Abbott, A. (11 November, 2010). The drug deadlock. Nature, 468, 158-159.

Bagnall, A. M., Jones, L., Ginnelly, L., Lewis, R., Glanville, J., Gibody, S.,...Kleijnen, J. (2003). A systematic review of atypical antipsychotic drugs in schizophenia (Executive Summary). Health Technology Assessment, 7(13). Retrieved from http://www.hta.ac.uk/pdfexecs/summ7...

Dobbs, D. (11 November, 2010). The making of a troubled mind. Nature, 468, 154-156.

WHO. Schizophrenia. Retrieved from http://www.searo.who.int/en/section...


About the author
Amy Chaves is a researcher, teacher, counsellor and writer. She has a Ph.D. in Counselling Psychology from the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. She is currently writing a book on connectedness and writes blogs in her website, which can be viewed at http://amychaves.blogspot.com/


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030847_schiz ... z19Poeq6G3




http://www.naturalnews.com/030847_schiz ... fects.html


Kathyet

Unfortunately most medication for psychiatric problems have horrendous side effects. Law enforcement sees it more than most people. There all calls to police all the time about bipolar people assaulting a relative and they are not on their meds. They go from relative to relative and often times no one wants to take them in because when cannot deal with them when they do not take their meds. One call I recall involved an elderly woman who was hallucinating really badly and was yelling at officers why they aren't doing anything to help their fellow officer who was just killed. I had to convince her to take her medication and things would be better which she took. The guys found it humorous and walked away.

Originally Posted by swatchick

Unfortunately most medication for psychiatric problems have horrendous side effects. Law enforcement sees it more than most people. There all calls to police all the time about bipolar people assaulting a relative and they are not on their meds. They go from relative to relative and often times no one wants to take them in because when cannot deal with them when they do not take their meds. One call I recall involved an elderly woman who was hallucinating really badly and was yelling at officers why they aren't doing anything to help their fellow officer who was just killed. I had to convince her to take her medication and things would be better which she took. The guys found it humorous and walked away.

It isn't though. I had a friends son commit suicide he was bipolar, or so they say. The Doctors instead of changing the diets of some of these people, they simply pump them full of medications and lots of times they make things worse. All it is is experimentation on thousands people.

Kathyet

Diet does not always work either. Years ago before all these meds people where institutionalized and depending on the conditions of the institution some did well.

All drugs have side effects ranging from mild to severe. The good has to be weighed against the bad. Schizophrenia is a very serious mental illness. I would rather see them drugged than locked up in a ward in straight jackets totally out of their minds.

In the long run, a combination of diet and drugs along with love and support is the best treatment, at least until something better comes along.

Originally Posted by forest

All drugs have side effects ranging from mild to severe. The good has to be weighed against the bad. Schizophrenia is a very serious mental illness. I would rather see them drugged than locked up in a ward in straight jackets totally out of their minds.

In the long run, a combination of diet and drugs along with love and support is the best treatment, at least until something better comes along.

That would be great but in the real world unfortunately it does not happen very often. Many do not take their meds and end up living in the streets as family members cannot cope with them. Life on the streets being homeless ia alot worse than some of the facilities for the mentally ill. I have seen them robbed, beaten and killed.

Originally Posted by swatchick

Originally Posted by forest

All drugs have side effects ranging from mild to severe. The good has to be weighed against the bad. Schizophrenia is a very serious mental illness. I would rather see them drugged than locked up in a ward in straight jackets totally out of their minds.

In the long run, a combination of diet and drugs along with love and support is the best treatment, at least until something better comes along.

That would be great but in the real world unfortunately it does not happen very often. Many do not take their meds and end up living in the streets as family members cannot cope with them. Life on the streets being homeless ia alot worse than some of the facilities for the mentally ill. I have seen them robbed, beaten and killed.

What I meant to convey is drugs have their place. I wouldn't want to see them eliminated for schizophrenics because of side effects and see them locked up in an institution living in hell without them. I am comparing the use of drugs to the none-use in this case.

Originally Posted by forest

Originally Posted by swatchick

Originally Posted by forest

All drugs have side effects ranging from mild to severe. The good has to be weighed against the bad. Schizophrenia is a very serious mental illness. I would rather see them drugged than locked up in a ward in straight jackets totally out of their minds.

In the long run, a combination of diet and drugs along with love and support is the best treatment, at least until something better comes along.

That would be great but in the real world unfortunately it does not happen very often. Many do not take their meds and end up living in the streets as family members cannot cope with them. Life on the streets being homeless ia alot worse than some of the facilities for the mentally ill. I have seen them robbed, beaten and killed.

What I meant to convey is drugs have their place. I wouldn't want to see them eliminated for schizophrenics because of side effects and see them locked up in an institution living in hell without them. I am comparing the use of drugs to the none-use in this case.

I don't know what the answer is Forest All I can say is I would be wary of allowing the physicians administer drugs of any kind to my loved ones without really checking it out thoroughly.


More than 25 percent of children now on chronic prescription medications

Friday, December 31, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

Email this article to a friend Printable Version FREE Email Newsletter


(NaturalNews) The rate of prescription drug use among children and teens continues to rise, with a new report from Medco Health Solutions Inc. saying that at least a quarter of all U.S. children are now regularly taking pharmaceutical drugs. And according to the report, many of these drugs were originally intended for adults, and carry with them unknown side effects for long-term use in young people.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports that in addition to taking drugs for conditions like attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and asthma, children are now taking things like sleeping pills, diabetes drugs and even statin drugs, which are typically only prescribed for adults. The report cites an eight-year-old boy, for example, who has been taking blood pressure medications since he was a baby.

Dr. Danny Benjamin, a professor of pediatrics at Duke University, admitted to the WSJ that prescribing chronic medications to children is a serious problem. "We know we're making errors in dosing and safety," he said, noting also that parents must do more to question the safety of medicines their doctors prescribe.

Experts worry that the increasing prevalence of children on prescription drugs is causing these young people serious harm, and that parents should instead seek out dietary and lifestyle changes for their children. But because many doctors continue to dole out the drugs like candy, despite known dangers, many parents just accept them for their children without giving it a second thought.

And the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has done little, if anything, to warn the public about the dangers of using chronic prescription drugs, especially in small children. Safety studies in young people are not necessarily required in order for doctors to prescribe adult medications to children, as long as the drug is already FDA-approved.

Sources for this story include:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030879_child ... z19hG1foXl


http://www.naturalnews.com/030879_children_drugs.html


Kathyet

With all the additives in food, children's diets, and lack of parenting what do you expect. Alot of it boils down to that. When I was a child attention deficit disorder was non existent. Then again our parents controlled what and how much TV we watched, what we ate and drank. As kids we never drank alot of soda and ate home cooked meals.

Originally Posted by swatchick

With all the additives in food, children's diets, and lack of parenting what do you expect. Alot of it boils down to that. When I was a child attention deficit disorder was non existent. Then again our parents controlled what and how much TV we watched, what we ate and drank. As kids we never drank alot of soda and ate home cooked meals.

It get worse than that, floride in the water not to mention other contaminants, vaccines most of us take and give our children, foods, rains etc, grown with pesticides...and that is just a few things the list goes on and on, not just foods either try education, media etc....


Kathyet