Three reports focus on the huge increase in SSRI antidepressant

prescriptions issued for American children:

 

They are, the Medco Drug Trend report, a parent opinion poll, and an SSRI prescribing report sponsored by NARSAD.

1. The MEDCO Drug Trend report documents the skyrocketing increase in SSRI prescriptions for children. However, evidence of a
medical need to justify that increase is nonexistent.

Prescription drug spending for behavioral conditions rose 77% between 2000 and 2003;
In 2003, spending on behavioral medications to treat children overtook both the antibiotic and asthma categories, which are
traditionally high-use categories in pediatric medicine;

Among the largest increases were medications primarily used to treat ADHD -- where spending increased by 183% for children overall-
-and by 369% increase for children under age 5;

Spending on antidepressants for children grew 25%, while use of these drugs rose 27 percent between 2000 and 2003;
In the first three months of 2003, the number of children using antidepressants increased by 15%;

The number of children on drugs to treat autism and conduct disorders increased by more than 60% from 2000 to 2003, while spending
on these drugs rose 142% in the pediatric group; Among children ages 5 through 9, drug use was up 85 percent, while spending in this category grew 174%;

Use of antibiotics in children showed no change, while spending (i.e. cost) increased 24%.

See: Medco's Drug Trend Report and Symposium: http://www.drugtrend.com

 

The most severe, immediate harm from antidepressants affects a small minority of children. The full range of damage these drugs may
cause to the developing brain of millions of American children will likely emerge only years later. For the present, the psychiatric drug
stakeholders are formulating novel "interpretations" of the data through their prism of self-interest.

For example, Laurie Flynn, former executive director of NAMI (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill), who now heads Carmel Hill Center
for Early Diagnosis & Treatment--a division of Columbia University, Child & Adolescent Psychiatry--a federally funded, national teenage
mental health screening program, claimed that the MEDCO report demonstrates the importance of antidepressants: "just like antibiotics
and anti-asthma drugs."

2. A summary report about a telephone poll conducted "amidst the current controversy over anti-depressant safety" during the first week
of May, was released by Carmel Hill. The poll was commissioned by Columbia University--a major stakeholder in psychiatric drug
research with substantial financial support from the drug industry and government. 512 parents of children under 18 were polled by
phone. The questions parents were asked appear to have been designed to elicit responses favoring widespread school "screening for
depression" to prevent suicide.

The most robust findings reported by Carmel Hill show that:
68% of parents (78% males, 57% females) believe that antidepressants are overprescribed to teens compared to 8% who think the
opposite!

67% of parents (73% male, 60% female) believe antidepressants are usually, but not always safe for teenagers.
More than half the parents believe that antidepressants pose an increased risk of suicide;
38% of parents say the drugs affect brain development;
37% of parents believe they cause weight gain / loss; and
30% of parents (46% female, 22% male) believe antidepressants worsened depression. See: www.teenscreen.org

The results are being spun to justify increased screening which the authoritative USPTS found useless. However, the unacknowledged
purpose of screening is increased treatment--i.e. increased use of antidepressants.

3. A report funded by NARSAD (the National Alliance for Research in Schizophrenia and Depression) was presented at the American
Psychiatric Association (May 1-6. 2004). It demonstrates how selective reporting and novel interpretations blur the facts to deflect their
impact. The indefensible antidepressant prescribing increase in children is disingenuously downplayed. Indeed, the NARSAD-
sponsored report by Linda Robinson omitted any mention of the most astounding evidence--that the highest rise in SSRI prescriptions-
-369%--was for preschool age children. )

NARSAD is financially dependent largely upon psychotropic drug manufacturers - as is NAMI.

The bias of the NARSAD-sponsored report is further underscored by the author's misrepresentation of the definitive evidence of drug-
induced suicidality.

Disclosure of that evidence has raised public concern and shaken the public trust.

Robinson is quoted on Doctor's Guide (below) stating: "Recently and notably there has been some British research leading to concern
about suicidality among children using SSRIs," Ms. Robinson added. "We haven't seen that problem here in U.S. research, but the issue
is currently under review by the U.S. FDA."

See: APA: Depression Diagnosis Rate Rising Among US Children Along With SSRI Use By Bruce Sylvester. Doctor's Guide

The evidence linking SSRIs to suicidality is NOT merely suggested by "some British research"--the evidence has been scientifically
demonstrated and replicated by several authoritative, independent analysts--including FDA's expert drug safety analyst.

Indeed, in April 2004, the suicidal risk has been acknowledged by manufacturers* of antidepressants in their revised labels See, for
example: http://www.effexorxr.com/pdf/Wyeth_HCP.pdf http://www.wyeth.com/contentShowLabelling.asp?id=100

*Pfizer and Lilly have yet to revise the labels of their antidepressants (sertraline / Zoloft; fluoxetine /Prozac; atomoxetine / Strattera)

Thus, it would appear that the purpose of trivializing the evidence about drug hazards are calculated to encourage prescribing
physicians not to hesitate, but to continue to prescribe the drugs for children as if they were "safe and effective."

For years, the psychiatric drug industry and those who are financially dependent on that industry's profitability, have blocked
independent examination of the full evidence, dismissing psychiatric drug casualties as "anecdotal," not representative of a problem.

These same stakeholders are now engaged in spinning the damaging data, raising spurious doubts about the credibility of company
controlled clinical trial data. The purpose is to delay action by the FDA, and thereby to prolong the reckless drug prescribing binge
that MEDCO documented.