Sunday, 31 July 2011
Saturday, 30 July 2011
GSK Seroxat MHRA LandRover - Signs That FIDDAMAN Rage Has Turned Into An Addiction
Signs That Rage Has Turned Into An Addiction
By: Newton Hightower 0diggsdigg
All addictions have symptoms, which allow us to recognize these problems as addictive diseases. The signs of addictive diseases are self-stimulation, compulsion, obsession, denial, withdrawal and craving syndrome, and unpredictable behavior. Like alcoholism or drug use, anger meets many of the criteria.
Self-Stimulation
For those who are rageaholics, expressing anger is self- stimulating. It triggers the compulsion for more anger. For example, let’s pretend that we are going to provide treatment for alcoholics. On the way to the treatment center we stop and buy a case of beer. When we get to the meeting, we tell the alcoholics in therapy that they just need to do a lot of drinking to get it out of their system once and for all. This is similar to when therapist tell men with rage problems, “You just need to express yourself and get it out of your system." It is just as absurd. The more alcoholics drink, the more they want. The more ragers rage, the more they want to rage.
Compulsion
Anger addiction or “rageaholism" is the compulsive pursuit of a mood change by repeatedly engaging in episodes of rage despite adverse consequences. Rageaholics continue to rage compulsively without regard to the negative consequences. Compulsion or loss of control is the inability to stop expressing anger once we have begun. The inability to control angry words is a certain sign of rageaholism. Loss of control--that is addiction.
Obsession
Rageaholics are frequently preoccupied with resentment and fantasies of revenge. Those thoughts sometimes rise powerfully and allow no other thoughts to enter. The force of anger is sometimes irresistible and followed by action. Therefore, the preoccupation with the “wrongs" of others and revenge continually leads to rage. Progressively, these thoughts crowd out all others until our life becomes chronically revenge-oriented. At that point, anger controls our thoughts.
Denial
Denial keeps anger addicts trapped. It is the mental process by which we conclude that the addiction is not the problem; it’s “them." Ignorance of addiction and the inability to examine ourselves, work together to keep rageaholics stuck. Knowing no other way to live, we deny that there is anything wrong with us. This system of denial ensures that the process of rage and righteous indignation will continue. Righteous indignation keeps our focus off of ourselves. This is why ragers seldom are able to say, “I am wrong."
Withdrawal and Craving
As with any addiction, anger has a detoxification period. Craving is high during this time. Those who abstain from name-calling, profanity and yelling during this period report more depression than usual for the first three months. Typically, during the first 90 days of abstinence, ragers feel vulnerable and spend a lot of time thinking and hoping for a situation that will allow us to use violence for some heroic purpose. Afterward, however, if we have achieved complete abstinence and maintained it for 90 days, we find we no longer think in profane or disparaging terms. It may even become shocking when we hear others do it.
Unpredictable Behavior
Another definition of alcoholism is that when an alcoholic drinks, there is no way to predict his or her behavior. He may drink appropriately from time to time, just as the rageaholic may express anger appropriately from time to time. However, when the alcoholic starts to drink alcohol, all bets are off. No one knows what is going to happen. When rageaholics start to express anger, no one knows where it is going to go. The most likely think is that they will explode, rant and rave. Rageaholics would like to learn how to express our anger appropriately just like alcoholics would like to learn how to drink appropriately. While there are some exceptions, I encourage those with rage problems to abstain from the expression of anger for one year.
This plan is only for that small percent of the population who have rage or violence problems. The approach described here is not for everyone; but for those addicted to rage, it won’t work to express your anger.
Anger addiction is biochemical problem - Bob FIDDAMAN "angerholic"
Anger can become addictive.
Anger addiction is biochemical problem.Like victims of alcohol or substance abuse, the "angerholic" is hostage to a host of body reactions, one of which is an upsurge of adrenalin that generates a sense of invincibility.
According to James C. Tanner,rage addiction produces a "Superman" scenario, in which one feels powerful, galvanized for action.
Anger can bring on a "rush" that feels "so strong and good" that many "want to experience it again and again." Rage releases biochemical and neural changes in the body that can become self-consuming with repetition. Such is the nature of addiction.
How We Rage is a Learned Behavior
According to Psychology Professor Seymour Feshbach, Freud's notion that venting actions can drain anger is incorrect. Venting pent-up emotions by yelling or hitting increases hostility rather than diminish it. In a study on rage,a group of normal boys, with neither violent nor destructive tendencies, were asked to be involved in play aggression. The purpose was to see if such "venting" would have any effect on their behavior. It did. It increased the boys' aggressiveness. In fact,it raised the boys' sense of destructiveness and hostility.
Anger addiction is a learned behavior. Being allowed to display aggression lessened the boys' ability to manage their responses. Play aggression indirectly condoned a set of behavior that had previously been considered "off limits."
The "how" of raging is internalized behavior.
Homes that are continuous battlefields incubate the seeds of rage compulsion. As parents, we have the responsibility to be emotionally in control so that we do not expose our children to toxic behavior.
What are the Symptoms of Anger Addiction?
- easy arousal to anger
The child gets angry over trivialities. You accidentally drop his toy and he throws a tantrum. That's because getting angry gives him pleasure. He is excited by the adrenalin rush of rage.
-obsession with past episodes of anger
An "angerholic" child dwells on what happened a few weeks or months ago. He does not forget easily what you did the "other day." In many ways, these memories are self stimulating.
- compulsion to rage
There is a sense in the child that he is compelled to rage. He cannot entertain any other responses except hostility and destructiveness. He is unable to listen to reason. He loses control. Loss of control is a sign of compulsion.
- denial
The child cannot admit that he is wrong. The problem is always with the "other person."
-vindictiveness
The child addicted to anger spends a lot of time and energy harboring resentment and plotting revenge. He seems to derive particular pleasure in micromanaging revenge.
Many of these symptoms overlap those of Oppositional Defiant Disorderand Bipolar DisorderIt is important for parents to seek professional help when several of the indicators above for anger addiction are evident in their child.
What do you do when your child seems to be angry all the time? What if he or she is using anger as a tool to control your responses? What if your child has learned the trick of sabotage?
When your child uses this--Anger as a Weapon: When Your Child“Points the Gun” at You, you can learn how to turn the situation around!
Disclaimer: The above information is meant only to inform and should never displace professional consultation.
"I blog, therefore I am" - FIDDAMAN the blog addict
"I blog, therefore I am" is a great and dangerous fallacy and the blog addict needs to understand that.
http://middlewesterner.typepad.com/middlewesterner/2005/02/the_blogging_ad_1.html
You'll see that one who is tempted to blog starts by hanging out with bloggers (in a virtual sense) and soon enough gets sucked into the endless cycle of Post-and-Read-and-Post-and-Read. And soon enough, something that started out as an innocent and fun way to pass the time turns dark and ugly and begins to ruin a life - and not just the blogger's life, but the lives of those around him.
Unlike the heroin addiction, the cure for the blog addict is not necessarily total abstinence. Rather, as with many sexual addictions, the goal is to change the habit and the mind-set, so that the patient gains control of the activity, rather than allowing the activity to control him.
Facebook and Twitter are creating a vain generation of self-obsessed people with child-like need for feedback, warns top scientist
Facebook and Twitter are creating a vain generation of self-obsessed people with child-like need for feedback, warns top scientistBy Sarah Harris
Facebook and Twitter have created a generation obsessed with themselves, who have short attention spans and a childlike desire for constant feedback on their lives, a top scientist believes.
Baroness Greenfield, professor of pharmacology at Oxford University, believes the growth of internet 'friendships' – as well as greater use of computer games – could effectively 'rewire' the brain.
Vain generation: A top Oxford scientist has warned that repeated exposure to social networking websites could harm users. (Picture posed by model)
This can result in reduced concentration, a need for instant gratification and poor non-verbal skills, such as the ability to make eye contact during conversations.
More than 750million people across the world use Facebook to share photographs and videos and post regular updates of their movements and thoughts.
Millions have also signed up to Twitter, the 'micro-blogging' service that lets members circulate short text and picture messages about themselves.
Baroness Greenfield, former director of research body the Royal Institution, said: 'What concerns me is the banality of so much that goes out on Twitter.
'Why should someone be interested in what someone else has had for breakfast? It reminds me of a small child (saying): “Look at me Mummy, I'm doing this”, “Look at me Mummy I'm doing that”.
'It's almost as if they're in some kind of identity crisis. In a sense it's keeping the brain in a sort of time warp.'
A twitter message from Stephen Fry
The academic suggested that some Facebook users feel the need to become 'mini celebrities' who are watched and admired by others on a daily basis.
They do things that are 'Facebook worthy' because the only way they can define themselves is by 'people knowing about them'.
'It's almost as if people are living in a world that's not a real world, but a world where what counts is what people think of you or (if they) can click on you,' she said.
'Think of the implications for society if people worry more about what other people think about them than what they think about themselves.'
Her views were echoed by Sue Palmer, a literacy expert and author, who said girls in particular believe they are a 'commodity they must sell to other people' on Facebook.
She said: 'People used to have a portrait painted but now we can more or less design our own picture online. It's like being the star of your own reality TV show that you create and put out to the world.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2020378/Facebook-Twitter-creating-vain-generation-self-obsessed-people-child-like-need-feedback-warns-scientist.html#ixzz1TZkjY8fl
Facebook and Twitter have created a generation obsessed with themselves, who have short attention spans and a childlike desire for constant feedback on their lives, a top scientist believes.
Repeated exposure to social networking sites leaves users with an 'identity crisis', wanting attention in the manner of a toddler saying: 'Look at me, Mummy, I've done this.'
Baroness Greenfield, professor of pharmacology at Oxford University, believes the growth of internet 'friendships' – as well as greater use of computer games – could effectively 'rewire' the brain.
Vain generation: A top Oxford scientist has warned that repeated exposure to social networking websites could harm users. (Picture posed by model)
This can result in reduced concentration, a need for instant gratification and poor non-verbal skills, such as the ability to make eye contact during conversations.
More than 750million people across the world use Facebook to share photographs and videos and post regular updates of their movements and thoughts.
Millions have also signed up to Twitter, the 'micro-blogging' service that lets members circulate short text and picture messages about themselves.
Baroness Greenfield, former director of research body the Royal Institution, said: 'What concerns me is the banality of so much that goes out on Twitter.
'Why should someone be interested in what someone else has had for breakfast? It reminds me of a small child (saying): “Look at me Mummy, I'm doing this”, “Look at me Mummy I'm doing that”.
'It's almost as if they're in some kind of identity crisis. In a sense it's keeping the brain in a sort of time warp.'
A twitter message from Stephen Fry
The academic suggested that some Facebook users feel the need to become 'mini celebrities' who are watched and admired by others on a daily basis.
They do things that are 'Facebook worthy' because the only way they can define themselves is by 'people knowing about them'.
'It's almost as if people are living in a world that's not a real world, but a world where what counts is what people think of you or (if they) can click on you,' she said.
'Think of the implications for society if people worry more about what other people think about them than what they think about themselves.'
Her views were echoed by Sue Palmer, a literacy expert and author, who said girls in particular believe they are a 'commodity they must sell to other people' on Facebook.
She said: 'People used to have a portrait painted but now we can more or less design our own picture online. It's like being the star of your own reality TV show that you create and put out to the world.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2020378/Facebook-Twitter-creating-vain-generation-self-obsessed-people-child-like-need-feedback-warns-scientist.html#ixzz1TZkjY8fl
Friday, 29 July 2011
Cumbria in running for new GSK plant
Cumbria in running for new GSK plant
Pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) could bring new jobs and investment to Cumbria after confirming it will build a new manufacturing plant in the UK.
The company has said that preference for its new biopharmaceuticals plant will go to one of three existing operations, including its site in Ulverston. The other proposed locations for the plant are Montrose, Scotland, or its Barnard Castle factory in County Durham.
The news follows the coalition government’s proposals to create a ‘patent box’ to encourage research, development and related manufacturing in the UK, spurring GSK on to pledge £500m to UK manufacturing projects.
The company said a 10 per cent reduction in corporation tax on profits generated from UK-owned intellectual property will allow the company to develop new technology, build new facilities and invest in fledgling companies.
Chief executive Andrew Witty added: “This will enable us to increase investment in communities where we have existing facilities by scaling up current manufacturing and building a significant new plant.
“With a more IP-friendly environment, we also plan to launch a new UK venture capital fund and invest in new technologies such as green chemistry.”
GlaxoSmithKline's plans for expansion will see it pay more tax in the UK but also deliver the prospect of new jobs
Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, has reiterated that the government's patent box will make the UK more attractive to businesses. Photograph: Linda Nylind
GlaxoSmithKline lent its support to the UK economy on Tuesday by pledging to hire more staff and pay more taxes – in stark contrast to its US rival Pfizer, which is shutting a key centre in southern England.
Glaxo's chief executive, Andrew Witty, reiterated that the government's patent box – which will offer lower rates of corporation tax on profits generated from the fruits of UK research and development from 2013 – had made the UK more attractive. He has previously attacked British companies that relocate in search of lower taxes, lambasting businesses that turn themselves into "mid-Atlantic floating entities" with no connection to society. The UK's largest pharmaceuticals company, based in Brentford, west London, employs about 16,000 people in Britain of a global workforce of 98,000, and is promising to expand at a time when Pfizer is shutting its R&D centre in Sandwich.
"We expect over the next several years to be increasing our activity in the UK. What we want to do is have more manufacturing and do more R&D work in Britain," Witty said on Tuesday. "We would expect this to lead to us paying a greater tax yield in the UK."
This will increase the corporation tax paid by the company – £500m last year, with 97% of sales made outside Britain – because more profits will be deemed to be generated here. He added the company would be a "net hirer of personnel" in the UK in the next few years, which also means higher employee taxes. Witty cautioned that any further cuts to drug prices could make the UK less attractive as a base but added that the UK managed to strike a good balance between setting competitive prices for medicines and supporting research.
Glaxo has started to bring back some manufacturing that had been moved to India and intends to build a new factory in Britain for the first time in 25 years, which could create 500 jobs. It is considering Cumbria, County Durham and two sites in Scotland as locations. Globally, it expects to reduce its tax rate from 27% to 25% by 2014 as it shifts drug production from the US to emerging markets.
The drugmaker moved back into the black with a £1.1bn profit in the second quarter following a £340m loss a year ago, when it was hit by a £1.6bn legal charge to settle litigation over Avandia's links to heart risks. It reported a 4% drop in sales for April to June to £6.7bn, following sales declines of 10% and 11% in previous quarters.
GSK also announced that Promacta had produced positive results in late-stage clinical tests for hepatitis C.
Under Witty, Glaxo is focusing more on consumer healthcare and emerging markets. He hailed bumper sales of Sensodyne toothpaste and Horlicks, one of the most popular drinks in India, and said that the group would return to sales growth next year after a run of patent losses. "This is quite an important turning point for the group. The headwinds are diminishing. This is a fundamentally different-looking group to the one we started with a few years ago."
One of the first big pharma companies to revamp its research operations, GSK will now make £300m more cost savings than expected, bringing the total to £2.5bn by the end of 2012.
Witty was confident that GSK would be an R&D winner. It has been spending around 14% of sales on research since 2007. Opinion is divided over whether Big Pharma companies should slash their R&D budgets and buy in more drugs developed by biotech firms and universities to boost their profits and share prices.
Last year spending on R&D by the pharma industry fell for the first time, as Pfizer started chopping its R&D budget by $1.5bn to $6.5bn following its acquisition of Wyeth. This means it will only be committing 10-11% of its 2012 estimated revenues to R&D. Pfizer's former head of research John LaMattina has warned that the cuts may come back to haunt Pfizer."That's a pretty low percentage for the largest pharmaceutical company in the world," he said recently. Historically, the industry has spent 15% to 20% of sales on R&D.
Thursday, 28 July 2011
SEROXAT MP Jonathan Djanogly in blagging scandal
Watchdog will not investigate minister over detectives
Mr Djanogly recruited private detectives after what he said were "malicious" claims about him Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
What is blagging?
Minister defends using detectives
Labour MP John Mann claimed they had used "improper methods", including "blagging", to obtain information.
But the ICO said the law banning blagging did not apply because the material was not of a personal nature.
Mr Djanogly said the accusation had been "politically motivated".
The MP for Huntingdon has admitted using private detectives to investigate a number of his aides and colleagues following what he called "a series of malicious allegations" about him relating to the expenses scandal.
He later said he may have "over-reacted", but insisted he had been assured by the investigators "that all of their inquiries were carried out in an entirely lawful manner".
Blagging addresses, phone bills, bank statements and health records - obtaining them without the owners consent - has been illegal since 1994, although there is a defence of doing it in the public interest.
Courts minister
Mr Mann said he had written to the ICO asking it to investigate what he believed were "wholly unethical" practices, which he said could ultimately be the subject of a civil or criminal case.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
The matters raised do not appear to represent recorded personal information”
End Quote
Spokesman
Information Commissioner's Office
He called for Mr Djanogly to resign as a minister.
"His position is untenable because he is the minister responsible for the courts," said Mr Mann.
"He can't be responsible for the courts if he is also responsible for people who could be up in front of them.
"It's rather extraordinary that the government hasn't got rid of him already."
The ICO said it had looked into Mr Mann's complaint and had written to inform him it would not be taken further.
"The matters raised by Mr Mann do not appear to represent recorded personal information as covered by the Data Protection Act," a spokesman said.
"A potential breach of section 55 - the act's 'blagging' offence - does not therefore arise."
Mr Djanogly said in a statement: "I am pleased that the Information Commissioner has dismissed this politically-motivated claim and confirmed that no grounds exist for an inquiry."
Mr Djanogly recruited private detectives after what he said were "malicious" claims about him Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
What is blagging?
Minister defends using detectives
The Information Commissioner's Office says it will not be pursuing a complaint against Conservative Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly about his use of private detectives.
Labour MP John Mann claimed they had used "improper methods", including "blagging", to obtain information.
But the ICO said the law banning blagging did not apply because the material was not of a personal nature.
Mr Djanogly said the accusation had been "politically motivated".
The MP for Huntingdon has admitted using private detectives to investigate a number of his aides and colleagues following what he called "a series of malicious allegations" about him relating to the expenses scandal.
He later said he may have "over-reacted", but insisted he had been assured by the investigators "that all of their inquiries were carried out in an entirely lawful manner".
Blagging addresses, phone bills, bank statements and health records - obtaining them without the owners consent - has been illegal since 1994, although there is a defence of doing it in the public interest.
Courts minister
Mr Mann said he had written to the ICO asking it to investigate what he believed were "wholly unethical" practices, which he said could ultimately be the subject of a civil or criminal case.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
The matters raised do not appear to represent recorded personal information”
End Quote
Spokesman
Information Commissioner's Office
He called for Mr Djanogly to resign as a minister.
"His position is untenable because he is the minister responsible for the courts," said Mr Mann.
"He can't be responsible for the courts if he is also responsible for people who could be up in front of them.
"It's rather extraordinary that the government hasn't got rid of him already."
The ICO said it had looked into Mr Mann's complaint and had written to inform him it would not be taken further.
"The matters raised by Mr Mann do not appear to represent recorded personal information as covered by the Data Protection Act," a spokesman said.
"A potential breach of section 55 - the act's 'blagging' offence - does not therefore arise."
Mr Djanogly said in a statement: "I am pleased that the Information Commissioner has dismissed this politically-motivated claim and confirmed that no grounds exist for an inquiry."
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Zyvox antibiotic and antidepressants may be fatal combination
Zyvox and antidepressants may be fatal combination July 27, 2011 - 2:36PM
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/zyvox-and-antidepressants-may-be-fatal-combination-20110727-1hznv.html
Pfizer's Zyvox antibiotic can cause potentially fatal central nervous system reactions in patients who also take antidepressants that increase levels of the brain chemical serotonin, US regulators said.
Pfizer's Zoloft and Pristiq, Eli Lilly's Cymbalta and GlaxoSmithKline's Paxil and Wellbutrin are among 29 psychiatric drugs that patients may need to stop taking temporarily when they require treatment with Zyvox, the Food and Drug Administration said in a drug safety communication.
Zyvox can interact with these antidepressants to cause a toxic reaction known as serotonin syndrome, in which excess amounts of the chemical build up in the brain, according to the FDA.
Some deaths among patients who suffered such a reaction were reported to the FDA's adverse-event database, the agency said.
Pfizer reported $1.18 billion in revenue from Zyvox last year.
Confusion, memory issues, hyperactivity, excessive sweating and muscle twitching are among the symptoms of excess serotonin levels.
Patients taking psychiatric drugs should not stop using them without first consulting a health-care professional, the FDA said.
The current US package insert for Zyvox "already includes prominent information regarding the potential for serotonergic interactions, the risk of serotonin syndrome and the need for careful observation of patients prescribed Zyvox who are on such agents", Kristen Neese, a Pfizer spokeswoman, said.
The company has not identified any new safety signals related to those drug interactions, she said.
"In an ongoing commitment to ensure patient safety, Pfizer continually monitors all relevant safety information including information pertaining to the concomitant use of Zyvox and serotonergic antidepressant medications," Neese said.
Bloomberg
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/zyvox-and-antidepressants-may-be-fatal-combination-20110727-1hznv.html#ixzz1TI1vmVpa
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
What Does Norway Shooter Anders Behring Breivik and Bob Fiddaman Have in Common?
Hate! They are both energized and stimulated by a short term feeling of euphoria when they post hate! They are both addicted to hate! It makes them feel alive in their mundane lives where the web is their only source of companionship and means of fabricating celebrity status.
Messages like the ones posted by Bob Fiddaman, messages that encourage men like Anders Behring Breivik to mass murder children, should be banned from the web along with the fanatic that posted them.
Neither men have issue with making public racial slurs online. Their ignorance is parasitic, both feel they are beyond reproach, they are both racist, extreme fanatics that believe they are doing the world some good.
Monday, 25 July 2011
FIDDAMAN - FIDDLEMAN - FIDDY rumbled 10 years ago in alt.rock-n-roll.acdc
ROVER SUPERVISOR: Fiddleman, have you finished collating those documents?
BOB: Umm...oh yes, I was just getting to those. And it's Fiddaman, sir.
ROVER SUPERVISOR: Right. And just what *have* you been doing the past
three hours, Fiddaberg?
BOB: Oh.....well I've been, umm....
ROVER SUPERVISOR: I say, what's that you're writing there?
BOB: That? Oh it's nothing.......nothing, really.
ROVER SUPERVISOR: Why it looks.....It looks like some sort of poetry,
Fiddenhoff!
BOB: It's Fiddaman, sir.
ROVER SUPERVISOR: Right.
BOB: You see, these chaps in the AC/DC newsgroup have been having a go at
me...questioning my work ethic and such.
ROVER SUPERVISOR: Well, I can't imagine why....
BOB: And I thought this poem might be a good way for me to publicly
humiliate myself even more egregiously than I already have.
ROVER SUPERVISOR: So, Fiddenowski, why exactly do you talk about your work
troubles in an AC/DC newsgroup. Isn't that some sort of rock band?
BOB: I do it because they talked about hockey once.
ROVER SUPERVISOR: You mean to tell me you've been on hiatus two years, and
you're composing poetry on company time halfway through your third day back
on the job? And look, it's not even any good.....it barely rhymes and your
structure is heinously amateurish. Fiddenstein, I'm going to have to
discuss this matter with Mr. Rover himself at the corporate offices. We may
have to place you on the Long-Term Please-For-The-Love-Of-God-Go-Away
Register.
BOB: I'm sorry sir, but if you continue to mispronounce my name, I'm going
to be forced to sue you, your entire family, and everyone you've ever met
for the heinously abusive mental anguish you're presently inflicting upon
me. And for good measure, I'll go home and pout for 10 years. Just watch
me.
ROVER SUPERVISOR: Fuddleman, I would advise you to collate those documents
with great brevity, as I've eight inches of dick-tation I need you to take
after that.
BOB: Could you just call me Poetboy?
ROVER SUPERVISOR: Oh shuttup, Fingleman.
Sunday, 24 July 2011
The battle to control the mind - Scientology v Psychiatry - Melbourne Age April 1991
Jo Chandler and Jacqui MacDonald
The Melbourne Age
22 April 1991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEN a royal commission last year exposed atrocities at Chelmsford Private Hospital in New South Wales, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights scored dual victories: one public, one private.
The first came with the release of Mr Justice Slattery's 12-volume report into the nightmarish "cuckoo's nest" of Chelmsford — a private hospital where the commission found that at least 24 people died as a result of deep-sleep therapy. Another 24 patients survived the treatment but later took their own lives, 19 of them within a year of leaving Chelmsford, it found.
CCHR had lobbied for an inquiry into Chelmsford for more than a decade, and the royal commissioner and the media were critical of authorities for being so slow to take CCHR's claims seriously.
The second, private victory for CCHR and its parent organisation, the Church of Scientology, which established CCHR in Australia in 1972, was heralded in the pages of the Scientology magazine 'Impact'.
On being recognised for her courageous work, the Australian president of CCHR, Ms Jan Eastgate, herself a
Scientologist, said: "It's a fantastic group to receive an award from and I know that ridding this planet of psychiatry helps Scientology expand and therefore helps all of you.
"We have been fighting a war and we have won."
The battle analogy was an ironic echo of the words penned by the enigmatic "Jekyll and Hyde" psychiatrist at the centre of the Chelmsford tragedy, Dr Harry Bailey, before he swallowed a lethal combination of barbiturates and alcohol on 8 September 1985. "Let it be known that the Scientologists and the forces of madness have won," he wrote in a suicide note given the commission.
The conflict that so obsessed Ms Eastgate and Dr Bailey was one parochial campaign in an international war that has raged for 40 years between Scientologists and some they regard as their sworn enemies, psychiatrists.
Now the battlefield is Victoria, which CCHR claimed this month was "the deep-sleep capital of Australia". As the Victorian health commission winds up a long inquiry into deep-sleep therapy use in this state — largely at the instigation of CCHR — Scientology documents raise questions about the motives behind the church's push for the probe.
A key issue is the disturbing indication in the documents that apart from CCHR's altruistic interest in the Victorian inquiry, the Church of Scientology had a hidden agenda — and what could be seen by some as a witch-hunt aimed at discrediting the doctors and organisations helpful in outlawing the church in Victoria more than 25 years ago.
Those documents target the late Melbourne psychiatrist and deep-sleep advocate Dr Alex Sinclair as a key person behind the suppression of Scientology and a "big fish as regards enemy action against (the church)", and outline plans to have him made the subject of official investigations.
Scientology was, for a period, banned in Victoria after a Board of Inquiry into Scientology, conducted by Kevin Anderson, QC, which found in 1965 that while some aspects of Scientology seemed so ludicrous that its practitioners could be dismissed as "harmless cranks", to do so would be a grave mistake.
Mr Anderson reported to Parliament that the church was evil, and a serious threat to the community. Dr Sinclair participated in this inquiry.
A former Scientologist active in the church at the time says that the church continued under the guise of the Church of New Faith, until amendments under federal legislation in 1973 recognised Scientology as a religious denomination. That status, which remains in place today, effectively neutered the bans of Victoria and other states.
Perhaps the most stunning aspect of the reports is that more than 20 years after the Anderson inquiry, Melbourne Scientologists were — at least in 1987 — still trying to root out the individuals behind the 1965 probe that so damaged the young church internationally.
The preoccupation of a church organisation with investigations, debriefing and sweeping information gathering — particularly in regard to the medical world — may seem baffling without an understanding of the roots of Scientology, and the fixation of the church's founder, L. Ron Hubbard on espionage as a means of defending his empire against attack. Hubbard died, or in Scientology jargon "dropped his body", in 1986 after several years in hiding.
In the 1960s, Scientology developed an intelligence bureau known as the Guardian's Office, which was run by Hubbard's then wife, Mary Sue Hubbard. In an unofficial biography of Mr Hubbard, investigative journalist Russell Miller wrote that one of the "operating targets" was to assemble data by investigation for use "in case of attack", while another operation involved the theft, destruction or laundering of government records that held unflattering information about Mr Hubbard or the church.
In 1977, FBI raids on Scientology offices in Washington and Los Angeles uncovered evidence of a spy system that resulted in nine Scientologists, including Mary Sue Hubbard, being indicted for crimes including theft of government documents, burglarising government offices, intercepting government communications and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
The sentencing memorandum of Mary Sue and her colleagues in 1978 — after they pleaded guilty to one count each — stated: "The crime committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk or file was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organisation was free from their despicable conspiratorial minds."
Mr Hubbard was convinced that behind all the attacks on him and his church were a small group of communists who had infiltrated most of society, as a 1968 executive directive to his followers — obtained from the United States — illustrates.
"PSYCHIATRY and mental health were chosen as a vehicle to undermine and destroy the West. And we stood in their way," he wrote. He declared that Scientology had to stop this subversive destruction of the West.
The skirmish between the medical world and Hubbard began in 1950 with an article he wrote for a pulp science [part missing] — An Introduction to a New Science", and which subsequently developed into a best-selling book. His theory promised a technique that would cure any non-organic insanity, as well a providing a cure for numerous physcal ailments, from arthritis to the common cold.
Central to his theory is a process known as auditing. A California court described this as a one-on-one dialogue between a Scientology "auditor" and a Scientology "student".
"The student ordinarily is connected to a crude lie detector, a so-called E-meter." The auditor asks probing questions and notes the student's reactions as registered on the E-Meter," the court said.
"Through the questions, answers and E-meter readings, the auditor seeks to identify the student's . . . engrams." These engrams are negative feelings, attitudes or incidents that act as blockages preventing people from realising their full potential and living life to the fullest.
The court said that since Scientology held the view people had lived many past lives, they carried engrams accumulated during those past lives a well as some from the present.
The auditor and student then worked to identify and eliminate all the student's engrams so he could achieve the state of "clear", the court said.
The medical profession was outraged, accusing Hubbard of "sweeping generalisations", of devising "a clever scheme to dip into the pockets of the gullible" and encouraging dangerous amateur psychological meddling.
Over the years Hubbard's theories acquired overtones of science fiction inspired spiritualism and evolved into the Church of Scientology. A letter from Hubbard to a senior aid provide an interesting perspective on just why Hubbard founded the religion.
The letter describes how Hubbard believed the development of his theories — then occurring within Hubbard "clinics" — should occur within some sort of independent structure. "I didn't go to all the work I went to on the HAS (Hubbard Association of Scientologists) and other things to forget that my own revenue has to be a lot better than it has been in the past," he wrote.
"Perhaps we could call it a Spiritual Guidance Centre. Think up its name will you. And we could put in nice desks and our boys in neat blue with diplomas on the walls and one, knock psychotherapy into history; and two, take enough money to shine up my operating scope; and three, keep the HAS solvent.
"I await your reaction on the religion angle . . . A religious charter would be necessary . . . to make it stick. But I sure could make it stick. We're treating the present time beingness; psychotherapy treats the past and the brain. And brother, that's religion, not mental science," he wrote.
Scientology developed a highly organised structure within which adherents "bought" their way up a "bridge" to enlightenment and mental and physical health by paying for literature and specialist classes. A 1987 British investigation of the cult by 'Panorama' featured a Hubbard policy document on which the directive "make money" featured four times.
The same program listed 27 known sub-groups and companies of the church — including CCHR — many of which ex-Scientologists have repeatedly asserted were formed as part of long-term exercise to create social reform bodies that would improve Scientology's battered image.
A 1970 French Government police agency investigation into Scientology found: "This sect, under the pretext of freeing humans is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by (use of) pseudo-scientific theories" and that Scientology used "a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with this sect".
A Californian Superior Court memorandum of intended decision found that from evidence given to that court in 1984, similar conclusions to the French statement could be drawn in US.
Ms Toby Plevin, a Los Angeles attorney involved in numerous actions against Scientology, argues that the bedrock of Scientology practice is to create in all believers a massive unity of mind when they have come to it on the expectation that their individual lives will improve.
Psychiatrists, too, have exercised extreme defensiveness against Scientology.
In 1988, an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald showed just how acute tensions remained between Scientology and Psychiatry. It reported that when a Sydney psychiatrist disturbed at the treatment of patients in Chelmsford wrote to one of the world's most eminent psychiatrists expressing concerns in 1981, he was urged to expose deep-sleep therapy at Chelmsford.
Sir Martin Roth, at that time the Professor of Psychiatry at Cambridge University, replied: "The inhumanity and cruelty to which patients (at Chelmsford) appear to have been subjected is quite unique in my experience and the Scientologists and other will have obtained ammunition for years or decades to come." He went on to urge that the issue be kept, for the moment, confidential.
Scientologists around the world have accused psychiatry of gross butchery, the church was itself accused of brainwashing.
MRS Hana Whitfield, an American ex-Scientologist who worked in the church's higher echelons was a personal aid to Hubbard, and argues that Scientology is Hubbard's own brand of psychotherapy continues to be practised in the hands of unlicensed people.
"They don't know they are using trance induction techniques. They don't know they are using de-sensitisation techniques (and they are) ignorant of what can go wrong," she said.
In 1989, the California Court of Appeal upheld the finding that a former Scientologist, Larry Wollersheim, had suffered psychological damage as a result of Scientology practices. A manic depressive, Mr Wollersheim had been physically restrained from leaving the church and threatened with attack if he did leave; forced to continue auditing when he wanted to stop; ordered to leave his family; financially ruined by the church and ordered not to seek professional help as his emotional state crumbled.
The court also found that auditing was conducted in a "coercive atmosphere (the church) created through threats of retribution against those who would leave the organisation".
In a 1984 case in the Superior Court of California, a court memorandum of intended decision said that the record was replete with evidence of Scientology "enemies" being subjected to threats and abuse.
The judge wrote: "In addition to violating and abusing its own members' civil rights, the organisation over the years with its "Fair Game" doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the church whom it perceives as enemies. The organisation clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder."
Of Hubbard, the court report said: "The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile."
• Additional research, David Wilson.
Thursday, 21 July 2011
GlaxoSmithKline Pandemrix™ - narcolepsy 335 cases out of 31 million doses - zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
GlaxoSmithKline European regulatory update on Pandemrix™
Issued: Thursday 21 July 2011, London UK
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced today that the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended an update to the product label for the H1N1 influenza vaccine, Pandemrix.
Based on a review of currently available information on an increased number of reported cases of narcolepsy among children and adolescents in a small number of European countries, the CHMP confirmed that the overall benefit-risk balance for Pandemrix remains positive.
The CHMP recommended that the product information for Pandemrix should be updated to state that in persons under 20 years of age, Pandemrix should only be used if the recommended seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine is not available, and if immunisation against H1N1 is still needed, for example, in persons at risk of the complications of infection. This revision does not apply to adults over 20 years of age.
The label revision concludes an ongoing review of data by the CHMP, including the preliminary findings of an epidemiological study of narcolepsy and pandemic vaccines across a network of research and public health institutions (VAESCO) in eight European countries, as well as epidemiological data from Finland and Sweden. The preliminary findings of the VAESCO study confirmed a signal in Finland, but do not enable conclusions to be drawn in other countries, where vaccination coverage with Pandemrix was lower. Epidemiological studies in Finland and Sweden suggest an association between Pandemrix vaccination and narcolepsy in children and adolescents in those countries. The CHMP stated that further research is necessary in order to determine the potential role of genetic, environmental and other factors in raising the risk of narcolepsy.
This label update supersedes advice to healthcare professionals introduced in April this year recommending they perform an individual benefit-risk assessment, taking the narcolepsy information into account when considering the use of Pandemrix in children and adolescents.
GSK is committed to patient safety and will continue to work closely with the EMA and other national regulatory organisations in the best interest of patients. Further information from ongoing studies, including the final data from the VAESCO study and an epidemiological study in Canada being supported by GSK, is however still needed in order to gain additional insight into the cause of the reported cases of narcolepsy. In addition, GSK has committed to conduct further research into any potential association between Pandemrix and narcolepsy and will seek independent expert advice on this research activity, as agreed with the EMA.
Over 31 million doses of Pandemrix have been administered worldwide in 47 countries. A total of 335 cases of narcolepsy in people vaccinated with Pandemrix have been reported to GSK as of 6 July 2011, with 68% of these cases of narcolepsy originating from Finland and Sweden.
GlaxoSmithKline – one of the world’s leading research-based pharmaceutical and healthcare companies – is committed to improving the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer. For further information please visit www.gsk.com.
GlaxoSmithKline cautionary statement regarding forward-looking statements
Under the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, GSK cautions investors that any forward-looking statements or projections made by GSK, including those made in this announcement, are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Factors that may affect GSK's operations are described under 'Risk Factors' in the 'Business Review' in the company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for 2010.
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
Monday, 18 July 2011
FIDDAMAN is a veritable castrate who hid behind a solicitor rather than face Rover ! - pathetic !!
> Hail to the BOD
> Hey Bob with all that cash you could take all the Brits from the NG to
> Philly
> Hey Slaine - there's nowt a marrer with us from up north lol
> Dave from Co. Durham
I'd love to Dave - but I haven't even got the money yet!! My solicitor is
negotiating with them at the mo, knowing them bastards (Rover Group) they'll
hold out until the very last minute.
The cheapest flight I can find from Birmingham is £451.56 - That's a lot of dough.
Anyway I shouldn't get too carried away as it might not happen yet...
They've promised me things in the past but have failed to deliver.
*Fingers Crossed though*
--
and remember...
KEEP IT STIFF
Ballbreaker 375
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/876bef826d9784c9/d7bd97e5dbf57eae?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=fiddaman+%2B+rover&pli=1
> Hey Bob with all that cash you could take all the Brits from the NG to
> Philly
> Hey Slaine - there's nowt a marrer with us from up north lol
> Dave from Co. Durham
I'd love to Dave - but I haven't even got the money yet!! My solicitor is
negotiating with them at the mo, knowing them bastards (Rover Group) they'll
hold out until the very last minute.
The cheapest flight I can find from Birmingham is £451.56 - That's a lot of dough.
Anyway I shouldn't get too carried away as it might not happen yet...
They've promised me things in the past but have failed to deliver.
*Fingers Crossed though*
--
and remember...
KEEP IT STIFF
Ballbreaker 375
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/876bef826d9784c9/d7bd97e5dbf57eae?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=fiddaman+%2B+rover&pli=1
LandRover offered unemployable FIDDAMAN a £10,000 pittance & he didn't have the BALLS to take it to court
Could be making that journey after all.
My employers have made me an offer of £10,000, I've rejected it but at least
it's a good springboard for negotiations.
I won't budge on £20,000, anything more will be a bonus.
Milton Keynes, Paris and Philadelphia, now I'm buzzing.
Fingers crossed that the deal goes through eh?
-
and remember...
KEEP IT STIFF
Ballbreaker 375
source - https://groups.google.com/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/876bef826d9784c9/d7bd97e5dbf57eae?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=fiddaman+%2B+rover
My employers have made me an offer of £10,000, I've rejected it but at least
it's a good springboard for negotiations.
I won't budge on £20,000, anything more will be a bonus.
Milton Keynes, Paris and Philadelphia, now I'm buzzing.
Fingers crossed that the deal goes through eh?
-
and remember...
KEEP IT STIFF
Ballbreaker 375
source - https://groups.google.com/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/876bef826d9784c9/d7bd97e5dbf57eae?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=fiddaman+%2B+rover
How to Spot a Narcissist - Christopher Lane gives advice on how to spot the FIDDAMAN's of this world !
You can't help falling for them, and by the time you've gleaned their true colors, you're hooked —and possibly hurt. welcome to the contradictory universe of narcissism
Sunday, 17 July 2011
Scientology emerges not as a religion, but as an expensive placebo for the great unwashed
There’s a reason why dog-eared copies of “Dianetics” are for sale at every New Jersey garage sale: History. Trace the roots of Scientology, and you’ll end up on the NJ Turnpike, where science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986) launched his self-help-movement-turned-religion after the 1950 publication of “Dianetics,” his mind-over-body bestseller.
The Church of Scientology was incorporated in none other than Camden, after the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation was started in Elizabeth in 1953.
“Inside Scientology” by Janet Reitman is an amazing book. She was an embedded reporter, got information and much insight into what’s now known as the celebrity’s religion.
Actually, she wasn’t fully embedded. She asked, but the Scientologists said no. So she figured out a way to get the story by joining the “church,” albeit with a few lies here and there. There are plenty of former Scientologists who have an ax to grind, but she walked in — and out — without bias.
Don’t expect a full tell-all. Her book is mostly a masterful telling of the church’s history and the division among its members due to current Scientology leader David Miscavige.
Miscavige was a follower of Hubbard. He assumed control at 25 when Hubbard died — alone, a California recluse under investigation by the IRS. Miscavige turned that around and got rid of the IRS, and the once self-help movement is now a bona fide, tax-exempt religion.
Dianetics — which purports to explore the metaphysical relationship between the mind and body — has some sound points in Reitman’s eyes. How it became a religion — well, that’s the genius of Hubbard. To many people, he made sense in that long-ago book, a time when the Cold War was in full freeze, when people were frightened of the bomb, when things began to feel out of control. But Hubbard also saw an opportunity for a religion, a nonprofit. Maybe he didn’t want to pay taxes, maybe he saw himself as a sort of God. No one will ever know for sure.
Reitman’s book seems to suggest that Hubbard saw himself as a savior of sorts, and as he aged, his religious movement almost failed, which is when Miscavige stepped in.
(Page 2 of 2)
More than 25 years since Hubbard’s death, the movement remains a religion, still working, collecting big bucks from such celebrities as Tom Cruise (who can forget his jumping around Oprah’s couch in 2005?).
Cruise is only one of many celebrities who embrace Scientology. There’s Kirstie Alley, Catherine Bell, Jenna Elfman, John Travolta and his wife, actress Kelly Preston. It’s a long list. But, Reitman points out, there are many followers who have no such status; they simply follow and pay. And pay. And pay.
Reitman said in an interview that Hubbard was the first Oprah. And it’s the Oprah-figure he remains in every country except the United States. It’s only here, Reitman points out, that his philosophy is an actual religion. Other countries? It’s still a self-help movement, nothing more.
In the end, Reitman decides that although the belief system may work, she realized it’s only for the uneducated and desperate. Her interviews reveal that Scientology isn’t much more than jargon. Anyone with a liberal arts education will soon see through it, how its “science” is stolen from philosophers who are unknown even to Scientology recruiters. Still, she says “they” — the ones who exhaust a potential follower with long lectures — can sound quite convincing, especially when people are desperate.
The question is: How desperate are we?
“Inside Scientology” gives insight about how desperate times can influence the masses. The May 21, 2011, “Rapture Day” was a prudent reminder.
Vaccines, the CIA, and how the War on Terror helped spread polio in Nigeria
Vaccines, the CIA, and how the War on Terror helped spread polio in Nigeria
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/jul/15/1
How a polio vaccination in Nigeria collapsed in the face of anti-Western sentiment and conspiracy theories, and why using a vaccine drive to hunt Bin Laden may not have been the smartest idea ever conceived by the CIA's strategists
Residents of Columbus, Georgia awaiting polio vaccination in the early 1960s. Guardian reporter Saeed Shah claimed this week that "the CIA organised a fake vaccination programme in the town where it believed Osama bin Laden was hiding in an elaborate attempt to obtain DNA from the fugitive al-Qaida leader's family."
It sounds a bit like something out of a bad novel, and has aroused the anger of Medicins sans Frontiers and bloggers like Seth Mnookin, who point out that anti-vaccine conspiracy theories abound in the developing world (and here too of course), and suggest a CIA plot involving a vaccine programme is hardly going to help matters.
Two writers at the Guardian, Sarah Boseley and Andrew Chambers, highlighted the problems caused by anti-Western sentiment and conspiracy theories in Nigeria, where attempts to eradicate Polio fell into disarray in the mid-noughties. Neither went into much detail about it, so I thought I'd add a little background here.
In 1988 the World Health Organzation launched an ambitious attempt to mass-vaccinate African children against poliomyelitis. This ramped up in 1996 with a campaign to "Kick Polio out of Africa", launched by Nelson Mandela, and supported by the African Football Confederation. Combining vaccinations with health worker training and door-to-door awareness campaigns, aid workers swept across Africa and drove the disease into full-scale retreat. Fifty million children were to be vaccinated in 1996 alone.
By 2003, much of Africa was polio-free. In a fascinating review published in PLoS Medicine in 2007, bioethicist Ayadele Jegede takes up the story of what happened next:
in mid-October 2003, the GPEI launched what was hoped to be the final onslaught against polio, with a plan to immunize more than 15 million children in west and central Africa. The GPEI had particular concerns about the high prevalence of polio in Nigeria, which accounted for 45% of polio cases worldwide and 80% of cases reported from the African region in 2003 [Renne, 2006].
Things began to go horribly wrong when the officials of three states in the northern, Muslim regions of the Nigeria - Kano, Kaduna, and Zamfara - refused to allow the vaccine to be administered in their territories.
Vaccination campaigns need to reach virtually 100% of a population to prevent pockets of resistance from emerging. For this to happen, healthy people must allow themselves to be treated with preventative medicine, and so public trust is immensely important. If trust is eroded - as we saw in Britain with the media-driven MMR hoax - a mass-vaccination strategy becomes very difficult to manage. You can judge for yourself what Jegede's paper reveals about the state of trust in northern Nigeria:
[The leaders of the three rogue states] argued that the vaccine could be contaminated with anti-fertility agents (estradiol hormone), HIV, and cancerous agents. Datti Ahmed, a Kano-based physician who heads a prominent Muslim group, the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria (SCSN), is quoted as saying that polio vaccines were 'corrupted and tainted by evildoers from America and their Western allies.' Ahmed went on to say: 'We believe that modern-day Hitlers have deliberately adulterated the oral polio vaccines with anti-fertility drugs and viruses which are known to cause HIV and AIDS'.
This story is depressingly familiar for the UN and WHO, particularly in the wake of 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror. The AfPak region has been a particularly tricky area in which to gain trust, for obvious reasons, and in 2007 the parents of twenty-four thousand children refused to allow health workers to administer polio vaccines. The Guardian reported at the time that this was "mostly due to rumours that the harmless vaccine was an American plot to sterilise innocent Muslim children."
In Nigeria, as in Pakistan, Muslim clerics played a key part in driving these rumours, playing on anti-American sentiment and fears that America's wars were part of a wider war on Islam. Back in 2004 Ali Guda Takai, a WHO doctor working in Kano, told the Baltimore Sun:
What is happening in the Middle East has aggravated the situation. If America is fighting people in the Middle East, the conclusion is that they are fighting Muslims.
Of course it would be simplistic to blame these failures entirely on the War on Terror. Nigeria has a large and growing population, over 154,000,000 according to World Bank as of 2009, having added the equivalent of the entire UK in twenty years. Since at least the 1980s, population control has been a controversial political issue.
In a male-dominated culture with a strong tradition of polygamy (in the Islamic north at least), where children are seen as gifts from God, the power of men is measured by the size of their families, and different political, ethnic and religious groups compete to be the most populous, fertility is an especially sensitive issue. After various government attempts to tackle the problem, and reduce family sizes, many Nigerians have a fear of state health plans that borders on paranoia, as Jegede's review notes:
Some people connected this population control campaign with immunization, believing that vaccination was one way the government might be reducing the population. This belief was not restricted to northern Nigeria—similar opinions were also expressed in some communities in southern Nigeria.
For example, in an anthropological study carried out in Nigeria, an adult male participant stated that 'people do carry rumour that immunization is a secret way of controlling population.' A young female participant said 'some people say that immunization is part of the methods used to check the number of children a woman can bear.'
A third major factor in distrust of is one that probably wouldn't occur to many of us, described in the Baltimore Sun and quoted in Jegede's paper. Would you trust a stranger knocking on your door offering you free medicine?
The aggressive door-to-door mass immunizations that have slashed polio infections around the world also raise suspicions. From a Nigerian's perspective, to be offered free medicine is about as unusual as a stranger's going door to door in America and handing over $100 bills. It does not make any sense in a country where people struggle to obtain the most basic medicines and treatment at local clinics.
The end result of all this was that the attempt at total eradication failed, and polio remains in Nigeria to this day. By 2006, the region accounted for more than 80% of global polio cases, and became an exporter of the virus to other nations as far afield as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia.
It's a reminder that, when it comes to health, no country is an island. To pathogens our species is one big interconnected lump of opportunity, whether we like it or not. Vaccines are one of the greatest weapons against disease ever invented, they turn us from victims into conquerors, and they probably shouldn't be taken in vain.
(Adapted and expanded from an article originally published at layscience.net in 2008)
Twitter: @mjrobbins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/jul/15/1
How a polio vaccination in Nigeria collapsed in the face of anti-Western sentiment and conspiracy theories, and why using a vaccine drive to hunt Bin Laden may not have been the smartest idea ever conceived by the CIA's strategists
Residents of Columbus, Georgia awaiting polio vaccination in the early 1960s. Guardian reporter Saeed Shah claimed this week that "the CIA organised a fake vaccination programme in the town where it believed Osama bin Laden was hiding in an elaborate attempt to obtain DNA from the fugitive al-Qaida leader's family."
It sounds a bit like something out of a bad novel, and has aroused the anger of Medicins sans Frontiers and bloggers like Seth Mnookin, who point out that anti-vaccine conspiracy theories abound in the developing world (and here too of course), and suggest a CIA plot involving a vaccine programme is hardly going to help matters.
Two writers at the Guardian, Sarah Boseley and Andrew Chambers, highlighted the problems caused by anti-Western sentiment and conspiracy theories in Nigeria, where attempts to eradicate Polio fell into disarray in the mid-noughties. Neither went into much detail about it, so I thought I'd add a little background here.
In 1988 the World Health Organzation launched an ambitious attempt to mass-vaccinate African children against poliomyelitis. This ramped up in 1996 with a campaign to "Kick Polio out of Africa", launched by Nelson Mandela, and supported by the African Football Confederation. Combining vaccinations with health worker training and door-to-door awareness campaigns, aid workers swept across Africa and drove the disease into full-scale retreat. Fifty million children were to be vaccinated in 1996 alone.
By 2003, much of Africa was polio-free. In a fascinating review published in PLoS Medicine in 2007, bioethicist Ayadele Jegede takes up the story of what happened next:
in mid-October 2003, the GPEI launched what was hoped to be the final onslaught against polio, with a plan to immunize more than 15 million children in west and central Africa. The GPEI had particular concerns about the high prevalence of polio in Nigeria, which accounted for 45% of polio cases worldwide and 80% of cases reported from the African region in 2003 [Renne, 2006].
Things began to go horribly wrong when the officials of three states in the northern, Muslim regions of the Nigeria - Kano, Kaduna, and Zamfara - refused to allow the vaccine to be administered in their territories.
Vaccination campaigns need to reach virtually 100% of a population to prevent pockets of resistance from emerging. For this to happen, healthy people must allow themselves to be treated with preventative medicine, and so public trust is immensely important. If trust is eroded - as we saw in Britain with the media-driven MMR hoax - a mass-vaccination strategy becomes very difficult to manage. You can judge for yourself what Jegede's paper reveals about the state of trust in northern Nigeria:
[The leaders of the three rogue states] argued that the vaccine could be contaminated with anti-fertility agents (estradiol hormone), HIV, and cancerous agents. Datti Ahmed, a Kano-based physician who heads a prominent Muslim group, the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria (SCSN), is quoted as saying that polio vaccines were 'corrupted and tainted by evildoers from America and their Western allies.' Ahmed went on to say: 'We believe that modern-day Hitlers have deliberately adulterated the oral polio vaccines with anti-fertility drugs and viruses which are known to cause HIV and AIDS'.
This story is depressingly familiar for the UN and WHO, particularly in the wake of 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror. The AfPak region has been a particularly tricky area in which to gain trust, for obvious reasons, and in 2007 the parents of twenty-four thousand children refused to allow health workers to administer polio vaccines. The Guardian reported at the time that this was "mostly due to rumours that the harmless vaccine was an American plot to sterilise innocent Muslim children."
In Nigeria, as in Pakistan, Muslim clerics played a key part in driving these rumours, playing on anti-American sentiment and fears that America's wars were part of a wider war on Islam. Back in 2004 Ali Guda Takai, a WHO doctor working in Kano, told the Baltimore Sun:
What is happening in the Middle East has aggravated the situation. If America is fighting people in the Middle East, the conclusion is that they are fighting Muslims.
Of course it would be simplistic to blame these failures entirely on the War on Terror. Nigeria has a large and growing population, over 154,000,000 according to World Bank as of 2009, having added the equivalent of the entire UK in twenty years. Since at least the 1980s, population control has been a controversial political issue.
In a male-dominated culture with a strong tradition of polygamy (in the Islamic north at least), where children are seen as gifts from God, the power of men is measured by the size of their families, and different political, ethnic and religious groups compete to be the most populous, fertility is an especially sensitive issue. After various government attempts to tackle the problem, and reduce family sizes, many Nigerians have a fear of state health plans that borders on paranoia, as Jegede's review notes:
Some people connected this population control campaign with immunization, believing that vaccination was one way the government might be reducing the population. This belief was not restricted to northern Nigeria—similar opinions were also expressed in some communities in southern Nigeria.
For example, in an anthropological study carried out in Nigeria, an adult male participant stated that 'people do carry rumour that immunization is a secret way of controlling population.' A young female participant said 'some people say that immunization is part of the methods used to check the number of children a woman can bear.'
A third major factor in distrust of is one that probably wouldn't occur to many of us, described in the Baltimore Sun and quoted in Jegede's paper. Would you trust a stranger knocking on your door offering you free medicine?
The aggressive door-to-door mass immunizations that have slashed polio infections around the world also raise suspicions. From a Nigerian's perspective, to be offered free medicine is about as unusual as a stranger's going door to door in America and handing over $100 bills. It does not make any sense in a country where people struggle to obtain the most basic medicines and treatment at local clinics.
The end result of all this was that the attempt at total eradication failed, and polio remains in Nigeria to this day. By 2006, the region accounted for more than 80% of global polio cases, and became an exporter of the virus to other nations as far afield as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia.
It's a reminder that, when it comes to health, no country is an island. To pathogens our species is one big interconnected lump of opportunity, whether we like it or not. Vaccines are one of the greatest weapons against disease ever invented, they turn us from victims into conquerors, and they probably shouldn't be taken in vain.
(Adapted and expanded from an article originally published at layscience.net in 2008)
Twitter: @mjrobbins
Saturday, 16 July 2011
Liquid Prozac for SSRI tapering - it clearly exists so why doesn't FIDDAMAN admit it?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2015021/Anti-depressant-prescriptions-quadruple-20-year-10-adults-depressed.html#ixzz1SFycA43i
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2015021/Anti-depressant-prescriptions-quadruple-20-year-10-adults-depressed.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Thursday, 14 July 2011
CCHR FAILED as GPs prescribe soaring numbers of drugs for depression
GPs prescribe soaring numbers of drugs for depression
One in 10 adults has been diagnosed with depression while the number of prescriptions issued for antidepressant drugs has risen fourfold in the last 20 years, according to the latest figures.
Use of drugs such as Prozac has soared during recession Photo: PETER STEINER
By Tim Ross, Social Affairs Editor
A new analysis from the Office for National Statistics has found rising rates of depression, anxiety and conditions such as obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) among adults in England since the early 1990s.
But the rate at which doctors are prescribing drugs to treat depression has increased far more sharply than the number of adults being diagnosed with these conditions.
Mental health groups said the figures suggested some GPs were too reliant on the cheap option of prescribing drugs, rather than addressing underlying psychological issues through counselling or therapy.
The Office for National Statistics analysis showed that doctors in England issued 39.1 million prescriptions for anti-depressant drugs such as Prozac in 2009, four times higher than the 1991 level of 9 million.
However, the proportion of adults diagnosed with a common mental disorder, such as depression, phobias, OCD, panic disorder and anxiety, rose far more modestly over a similar timescale, from 15.5 per cent in 1993 to 17.6 per cent in 2007.
Related Articles
•Depression is still a dark destroyer
07 Jan 2010
•Commonly used antidepressants may raise heart disease risk
01 Dec 2010
Women were significantly more likely than men to be diagnosed with a mental disorder, while one in 10 adults in England was diagnosed with depression last year, the figures showed.
Three-quarters of all adults assessed as being in need of treatment were not receiving either medication or counselling.
Bridget O'Connell, head of information at the mental health charity, Mind, said anti-depressant drugs could be crucial for some sufferers but should not be the first port of call.
The rise in the number of prescriptions could be due to growing numbers of people with depression, partly as a result of the economic downturn, she said. Patients may also be more willing to seek help, while doctors are better at recognising symptoms of depression.
We welcome the fact that people are seeking help and hope that it is a sign that stigma is reducing, she said. However, antidepressants are not recommended as the first port of call for mild to moderate depression - watchful waiting and talking therapies are.
Unfortunately, we know that in many cases a lack of access to talking treatments, such as counselling, means that doctors are left with little choice but to prescribe medication.
One in five patients is forced to wait more than two years to see a counsellor or psychotherapist, she said.
Philip Hodson, a fellow of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, which has 36,000 members, said the huge rise in prescriptions for anti-depressants must partly reflect poor medical practice.
There is a role for anti-depressant therapy in conjunction with talking therapy, he said. But the fact remains that probably a third of all patients get nothing from anti-depressants. It is a cheap alternative to prescribe but in the long term it is a false economy.
In England, the highest rates of mental health problems were among 45-54 year-olds, with one in five adults in this age group (20%) suffering a common disorder. This group has also experienced the largest rise in disorders since the early 1990s.
Rates of depression were lowest in Wales at 7.9 per cent. The figures also showed that more than 430,000 people took time off work with stress between 2007 and 2009.
Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said doctors were right to prescribe more antidepressants to patients, in higher doses and for longer.
Antidepressants make patients better, she said. Depression is a biological disorder caused by a deficiency of chemicals in the brain.
I think we were under-treating depression in the past. When I was a younger GP we might put patients on antidepressants for a month or two months. Now we put them on appropriate doses for longer periods of time anything up to a year or 18 months
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8637944/GPs-prescribe-soaring-numbers-of-drugs-for-depression.html
One in 10 adults has been diagnosed with depression while the number of prescriptions issued for antidepressant drugs has risen fourfold in the last 20 years, according to the latest figures.
Use of drugs such as Prozac has soared during recession Photo: PETER STEINER
By Tim Ross, Social Affairs Editor
A new analysis from the Office for National Statistics has found rising rates of depression, anxiety and conditions such as obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) among adults in England since the early 1990s.
But the rate at which doctors are prescribing drugs to treat depression has increased far more sharply than the number of adults being diagnosed with these conditions.
Mental health groups said the figures suggested some GPs were too reliant on the cheap option of prescribing drugs, rather than addressing underlying psychological issues through counselling or therapy.
The Office for National Statistics analysis showed that doctors in England issued 39.1 million prescriptions for anti-depressant drugs such as Prozac in 2009, four times higher than the 1991 level of 9 million.
However, the proportion of adults diagnosed with a common mental disorder, such as depression, phobias, OCD, panic disorder and anxiety, rose far more modestly over a similar timescale, from 15.5 per cent in 1993 to 17.6 per cent in 2007.
Related Articles
•Depression is still a dark destroyer
07 Jan 2010
•Commonly used antidepressants may raise heart disease risk
01 Dec 2010
Women were significantly more likely than men to be diagnosed with a mental disorder, while one in 10 adults in England was diagnosed with depression last year, the figures showed.
Three-quarters of all adults assessed as being in need of treatment were not receiving either medication or counselling.
Bridget O'Connell, head of information at the mental health charity, Mind, said anti-depressant drugs could be crucial for some sufferers but should not be the first port of call.
The rise in the number of prescriptions could be due to growing numbers of people with depression, partly as a result of the economic downturn, she said. Patients may also be more willing to seek help, while doctors are better at recognising symptoms of depression.
We welcome the fact that people are seeking help and hope that it is a sign that stigma is reducing, she said. However, antidepressants are not recommended as the first port of call for mild to moderate depression - watchful waiting and talking therapies are.
Unfortunately, we know that in many cases a lack of access to talking treatments, such as counselling, means that doctors are left with little choice but to prescribe medication.
One in five patients is forced to wait more than two years to see a counsellor or psychotherapist, she said.
Philip Hodson, a fellow of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, which has 36,000 members, said the huge rise in prescriptions for anti-depressants must partly reflect poor medical practice.
There is a role for anti-depressant therapy in conjunction with talking therapy, he said. But the fact remains that probably a third of all patients get nothing from anti-depressants. It is a cheap alternative to prescribe but in the long term it is a false economy.
In England, the highest rates of mental health problems were among 45-54 year-olds, with one in five adults in this age group (20%) suffering a common disorder. This group has also experienced the largest rise in disorders since the early 1990s.
Rates of depression were lowest in Wales at 7.9 per cent. The figures also showed that more than 430,000 people took time off work with stress between 2007 and 2009.
Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said doctors were right to prescribe more antidepressants to patients, in higher doses and for longer.
Antidepressants make patients better, she said. Depression is a biological disorder caused by a deficiency of chemicals in the brain.
I think we were under-treating depression in the past. When I was a younger GP we might put patients on antidepressants for a month or two months. Now we put them on appropriate doses for longer periods of time anything up to a year or 18 months
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8637944/GPs-prescribe-soaring-numbers-of-drugs-for-depression.html
PAXIL Sara Carlin - Health Canada’s inaction on inquest recommendations - FIDDAMAN ignored
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/dead-teens-family-assails-health-canadas-inaction-on-inquest-recommendations/article2096677/
A coroner’s inquest into the death of Sara Carlin, an 18-year-old from Oakville, Ont., who hanged herself in her parents’ home in 2007 after taking the antidepressant Paxil, ruled last summer that Health Canada should take steps to improve the safety of medications, including the creation of an independent drug-safety board and improving its mechanisms for warning doctors about potential adverse reactions. The inquest also urged Health Canada to require drug companies to submit all clinical trials, including those with mixed or negative results, before considering approval of a new medication.
Ms. Carlin’s family contends she became depressed after taking Paxil for anxiety and that it may have played a role in her suicide. GlaxoSmithKline, which manufactures the drug, told the inquest Ms. Carlin was depressed when she began taking the drug, that the treatment helped her, and that other factors, such as pressure at school and family issues, may have been to blame.
Health Canada, which posted its response to the recommendations online this week, said it is either considering or has already implemented them.
But Terence Young, a Conservative member of Parliament for Oakville who advocates for increased vigilance around medications, said Health Canada has ignored the recommendations and is “misleading” the public into thinking it makes drug safety a priority.
“They are being totally disingenuous,” Mr. Young said.
One of the most significant recommendations from the inquest was for the creation of a board that would operate independently from Health Canada, with no funding from the pharmaceutical industry, to investigate drug safety and issue public warnings.
Health Canada responded by saying it already implemented that recommendation, citing the 2002 creation of the Marketed Health Products Directorate within the department that focuses on surveillance of drugs. It also noted the government set up the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, which operates as part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Neil Carlin, Ms. Carlin’s father, said that doesn’t come close to what the inquest recommended. The MHPD is part of Health Canada and the DSEN is part of an organization that appointed a top Pfizer executive to its governing council, putting their independence into question, Mr. Carlin said.
“We fail to see how that can be considered independent,” he said. “I don’t think we truly believed there was going to be anything earth-shattering in their response. … I’m not surprised.”
The department did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
In the document, Health Canada said the recommendation to require drug companies to report all clinical trials, including ones with negative results, before approving new drugs is “under consideration.” The department also said that its website provides information on drug safety and that it has fulfilled the remaining recommendations.
Mr. Young characterized the document as an “absolute disgrace” that will do little to help ensure Canadians receive accurate, timely information about drug safety and keep potentially dangerous ones off the market.
“They had the audacity to say they’ve already solved this problem,” Mr. Young said. “That is blatantly untrue. It’s blatantly misleading.”
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Why did FIDDAMAN go cold turkey whilst Breggin advised How to Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs year 2000?
Your Drug May Be Your Problem - Breggin
Chapter 8: How to Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs
http://books.google.com/books/about/Your_Drug_May_Be_Your_Problem.html?id=VecIaByXNuIC
You may feel in a rush to stop taking psychiatric drugs. Perhaps you are experiencing distressing side effects or feel "fed up" with being sluggish and emotionally numb. Beware! It's not a good idea to abruptly stop taking drugs without first making sure that there's no danger involved in doing so. In our opinion, it is almost always better to err in the direction of going too slowly rather than too quickly. In rare cases, the development of a severe adverse reaction may require an immediate withdrawal; but if you are having a serious drug reaction, you should seek help from an experienced clinician.
Once you have begun to withdraw from psychiatric drugs, don't let anyone—not even your doctor—rush you. Especially if there's a chance that you are going too fast, pay careful attention to how you feel physically, emotionally, and spiritually. At the same time, however, you should take into account the warnings of professionals, family members, or friends who believe that withdrawal is causing you more problems than you realize. You may not be the best judge of your emotional condition as you come off drugs, so you should take into consideration the concerns of people you trust.
Gradual Withdrawal Is Its Own Protection
When people take psychiatric drugs, their decision-making faculties may function less effectively. Their feelings are numbed. At these times, if their thinking were expressed in words, it would likely communicate indecision, apathy, or confusion. Or they may experience different feelings in rapid succession, almost as if they were out of control. Because people generally want to think more clearly, to "feel fully" again, and to be more in control of themselves, they are motivated to stop taking psychiatric drugs.
Coming off drugs gradually helps to "contain" the emotional and intellectual roller-coaster that sometimes accompanies withdrawal. Indeed, a slow, gradual tapering serves as a discipline upon the withdrawal process. This discipline is backed by available knowledge and sound clinical experience. In the absence of a trusted friend or ally to provide feedback on your progress, in the absence of a support network, gradual withdrawal is likely to be the wisest strategy—especially if you are unsure as to how quickly you should proceed. Even if a medical doctor or other health professional is assisting you or monitoring your withdrawal, a gradual taper is usually the safest strategy.
Why Gradual Withdrawal Is Better Than Sudden Withdrawal
The minute a psychiatric drug enters your bloodstream, your brain activates mechanisms to compensate for the drug's impact.1 These compensatory mechanisms become entrenched after operating continuously in response to the drug. If the drug is rapidly removed, they do not suddenly disappear. On the contrary, they have free rein for some time. Typically, these compensatory mechanisms cause physical, cognitive, and emotional disturbances—which are collectively referred to as the withdrawal syndrome.
The simplest way to reduce the intensity of withdrawal reactions is to taper doses gradually, in small increments. This way, you are giving your brain appropriate "time" and "space" to regain normal functioning. Unless it is clearly established that you are suffering an acute, dangerous drug-induced toxic reaction, you should proceed with a slow, gradual withdrawal. The longer the withdrawal period, the more chances you have to minimize the intensity of the expected withdrawal reactions.
Interestingly, there is some evidence that "gradual discontinuation tends to shorten the course of any withdrawal syndrome."2 In other words, the actual duration of all expected symptoms from drug withdrawal is likely to be shorter if you withdraw slowly than if you withdraw abruptly.
In one early study of withdrawal from tricyclic antidepressants, 62 percent of those withdrawn in less than two weeks experienced withdrawal reactions, compared to only 17 percent of those withdrawn over a longer period.3 Because unpleasant withdrawal reactions are one of the main reasons you might be tempted to abort your withdrawal, a gradual taper increases your chances of succeeding and remaining drug-free.
In addition, it appears that people who gradually reduce their drug intake find a renewed vigor and energy that they now can learn to reinvest. In contrast to a sudden, unplanned cessation, a gradual withdrawal allows them to find constructive ways to use this energy, to appreciate the new confidence in their abilities that they will develop, and to consoli¬date the new emotional and behavioral patterns that will be learned in the process.
One published account describes the case of a woman who wanted to stop Paxil after taking 20 mg daily for six months. Her doctor abruptly cut this dose in half, to 10 mg daily, and gave her the new dose for one month. Then, during the following two weeks, he gave her 10 mg every other day. On alternate, nondrug days, the woman experienced severe headaches, severe nausea, dizziness and vertigo, dry mouth, and lethargy. The dose was reduced to 5 mg daily but, convinced that this only prolonged her agony, she stopped abruptly. She is reported to have experienced two weeks of various withdrawal symptoms and then to have fully recovered.4
A more gradual taper, rather than an abrupt 50 percent reduction at the start, might have reduced the severity of this woman's overall withdrawal reactions. Granted, many users of psychiatric drugs do cease them suddenly, without experiencing any significant withdrawal pains. Our experience, however, suggests to us that abrupt withdrawal is chosen by people who are not properly informed or supervised, who cannot tolerate their drug-induced dysfunctions any longer, or who act impulsively because they perceive that no one is listening to them or understanding their suffering.
Remove Drugs One at a Time
Many people, perhaps yourself among them, take several psychiatric drugs simultaneously. Common psychiatric drug combinations include an antidepressant and a tranquilizer; a stimulant and a tranquilizer; lithium and an anticonvulsant; or a neuroleptic, an antiparkinsonian, and a tranquilizer.
You can withdraw from several drugs simultaneously, but this is a risky strategy. It should be reserved for cases of acute, serious toxicity. In addition, since drugs taken together (such as neuroleptics and antiparkinsonians) often have some similar effects, withdrawing them together can make withdrawal reactions worse. If you intend to withdraw simultaneously from two or more drugs, you should do so under the active supervision of an experienced physician or pharmacist.
When you take two drugs, your brain tries to compensate not only for the effects of each one separately but also for the effects of their interaction. The physical picture gets even more complicated with each additional drug. The increasing complexity goes far beyond our actual understanding, creating unknown and unpredictable risks during both drug use and withdrawal. In cases of multidrug use, withdrawal is like trying to unravel a thick knot composed of many different strings—without cutting or damaging any of the strings. In this analogous situation, you would have to proceed quite carefully indeed, gradually disentangling one string and continually adjusting the others in response to the ongoing progress.
It is usually best to reduce one drug while continuing to take the others. The process begins anew once you've eliminated the first drug completely and have gotten used to doing without it.
Which Drug Should Be Stopped First?
If you want to get off more than one drug, there are some considerations in deciding which drug to stop first. Let's say you're taking drug "A" to counteract the side effects of drug "B"; in this case, you should probably start withdrawal with drug "B." For example, if you're taking a sleeping pill for insomnia caused by Prozac or Ritalin, you may want to delay withdrawal from the sleeping pill until you have begun to reduce the Prozac or Ritalin. Similarly, if you're taking Cogentin or Artane or some other drug to suppress movement disorders caused by neuroleptics, you should probably first reduce your neuroleptic before you attempt to withdraw from the Cogentin or Artane.
Because benzodiazepine tranquilizers often provoke unpleasant, lengthy, and potentially dangerous withdrawal reactions, some people choose to withdraw from their use last, after they've experienced withdrawal from other drugs and strengthened their resolve and gained confidence.
The 10 Percent Method
Pharmacy textbooks often describe the 10 percent withdrawal method, especially with regard to benzodiazepine tranquilizers. It may be applied to any psychiatric drug. If you wish to stop taking psychiatric drugs, the 10 percent method (or variations on it) can be a good starting point.
This method generally stipulates that withdrawal be carried out in approximately ten steps, or 10 percent at a time. Sometimes, the very last step is itself divided into a series of smaller steps. The duration of each step may vary from a few days to several weeks or months. Thus, if an individual stops a decade-long use of tranquilizers or neuroleptics, each step could sensibly last two or three months, barring any major difficulties. Many older persons have been taking tranquilizers daily for over twenty years. In these cases, a withdrawal period of two years is not unusual.
The 10 percent method is not absolute. It should be adapted to individual situations and changing circumstances. As we mentioned, withdrawal needs to be sensitive to each individual's developing situation as the process unfolds. Overall, however, the 10 percent method provides three benefits: (1) an easily applied schedule; (2) the sensible suggestion that it is best to stay roughly within such decrements, even if the first steps turn out to be uncomplicated; and (3) in cases where withdrawal difficulties manifest themselves after most of the dose has been reduced,5 a framework in which the individual can avoid compounding such difficulties by not rushing through the remaining steps of withdrawal.
As noted, this method suggests that 10 percent of the initial dose be removed at each step. Thus, a person taking 200 mg of a drug would re¬duce it by 20 mg (10 percent of 200) at each step of the withdrawal.
Seven to ten days is a reasonable length for each step if the duration of drug use has not exceeded one year.
•The first step involves going from 200 mg to 180 mg and taking the latter dose for seven to ten days.
•The second step involves going from 180 mg to 160 mg, and again staying on this dose for seven to ten days.
The other steps are similar, involving a 10 percent reduction until you are down to 0 mg. However, the very last step may be the most difficult, even if the original amount of the drug has now been reduced by 80 percent or more. In that case, you could reduce the remaining quantity itself gradually. You could progress, say, by 25 percent decrements, over two weeks or more. This would mean, in our example, going from 20 mg to 15 mg, then to 10 mg, then to 5 mg, then to zero. (As described in Chapter 7, some people benefit from prolonged use of tiny doses during the last phase of withdrawal.) Each substep could last four or five days, or more, based on your ongoing assessment of your progress—ideally, validated by feedback from your doctor and from trusted friends or relatives.
How to Divide Dose Reductions During the Day
Perhaps you are taking drugs in divided doses throughout the day. For instance, you might be taking a dose in the morning, at noon, and before bedtime. One way to reduce this kind of intake is to use the 10 percent method to progressively decrease the morning doses until these are eliminated; then move on in a similar manner to the noon doses and, ultimately, to the evening doses.
Alternatively, you could reduce the morning dose during the first step of the 10 percent method, then reduce the noon dose during the second step, then reduce the evening dose during the third step. Once this cycle was finished, you would begin the fourth step with a further reduction of the morning dose, and so on, until the withdrawal is completed.
Sometimes there will be obvious reasons to choose the morning or evening dose as the first one to reduce. When taking tranquilizers such as Xanax or Klonopin, for example, many people find that they awaken in the morning in a state of anxiety or agitation due to withdrawal from the previous evening dose. Therefore, they may feel more comfortable beginning with a reduction of the afternoon dose. Others may find that they become excessively sleepy in the afternoon. They might want to begin by reducing that dose. Still others may be concerned about difficulty sleeping if they stop the evening dose of a tranquilizer. In that case, they would be wise to begin reducing a dose that is given earlier in the day.
There are no hard and fast rules about which doses to reduce first. In general, however, you should consider initially reducing the dose that's causing the most side effects, such as the afternoon dose that makes you too sleepy. Conversely, you may want to initially keep the dose that seems to be helping you the most, such as the evening dose if you have insomnia.
How to Fraction Individual Doses
To follow the above steps, you may have to use smaller doses than those written on your prescription. Psychiatric drugs usually come in pills of varying doses, such as 200, 100, 75, 50, and 20 mg. You can request that your pharmacist provide you with pills of different strengths when you are filling your prescription, or help you determine which combinations of existing pill strengths you should use to decrease the dose by as close to 10 percent as possible. Most pills have a slit that allows them to be divided in half easily; you can also purchase a device for cutting pills, which is available at many pharmacies. Capsules, too, can sometimes be opened and their contents divided up. Your pharmacist can inform you about any problems involved in dividing your pills or the contents of your capsules. You should also discuss this process with your doctor.
* * *
In sum, the actual process of reducing your drug intake is not inherently complicated. For a prudent, minimal-risk withdrawal, it's a good idea, first, to adapt the withdrawal to your unique circumstances, both psychological and physical. Second, it's a good idea to proceed gradually— for example, by 10 percent reductions every seven to ten days or longer—depending on how long you've been taking drugs. Third, if you're taking several drugs simultaneously, it's best to remove one at a time, again in a gradual manner.
Chapter 8: How to Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs
http://books.google.com/books/about/Your_Drug_May_Be_Your_Problem.html?id=VecIaByXNuIC
You may feel in a rush to stop taking psychiatric drugs. Perhaps you are experiencing distressing side effects or feel "fed up" with being sluggish and emotionally numb. Beware! It's not a good idea to abruptly stop taking drugs without first making sure that there's no danger involved in doing so. In our opinion, it is almost always better to err in the direction of going too slowly rather than too quickly. In rare cases, the development of a severe adverse reaction may require an immediate withdrawal; but if you are having a serious drug reaction, you should seek help from an experienced clinician.
Once you have begun to withdraw from psychiatric drugs, don't let anyone—not even your doctor—rush you. Especially if there's a chance that you are going too fast, pay careful attention to how you feel physically, emotionally, and spiritually. At the same time, however, you should take into account the warnings of professionals, family members, or friends who believe that withdrawal is causing you more problems than you realize. You may not be the best judge of your emotional condition as you come off drugs, so you should take into consideration the concerns of people you trust.
Gradual Withdrawal Is Its Own Protection
When people take psychiatric drugs, their decision-making faculties may function less effectively. Their feelings are numbed. At these times, if their thinking were expressed in words, it would likely communicate indecision, apathy, or confusion. Or they may experience different feelings in rapid succession, almost as if they were out of control. Because people generally want to think more clearly, to "feel fully" again, and to be more in control of themselves, they are motivated to stop taking psychiatric drugs.
Coming off drugs gradually helps to "contain" the emotional and intellectual roller-coaster that sometimes accompanies withdrawal. Indeed, a slow, gradual tapering serves as a discipline upon the withdrawal process. This discipline is backed by available knowledge and sound clinical experience. In the absence of a trusted friend or ally to provide feedback on your progress, in the absence of a support network, gradual withdrawal is likely to be the wisest strategy—especially if you are unsure as to how quickly you should proceed. Even if a medical doctor or other health professional is assisting you or monitoring your withdrawal, a gradual taper is usually the safest strategy.
Why Gradual Withdrawal Is Better Than Sudden Withdrawal
The minute a psychiatric drug enters your bloodstream, your brain activates mechanisms to compensate for the drug's impact.1 These compensatory mechanisms become entrenched after operating continuously in response to the drug. If the drug is rapidly removed, they do not suddenly disappear. On the contrary, they have free rein for some time. Typically, these compensatory mechanisms cause physical, cognitive, and emotional disturbances—which are collectively referred to as the withdrawal syndrome.
The simplest way to reduce the intensity of withdrawal reactions is to taper doses gradually, in small increments. This way, you are giving your brain appropriate "time" and "space" to regain normal functioning. Unless it is clearly established that you are suffering an acute, dangerous drug-induced toxic reaction, you should proceed with a slow, gradual withdrawal. The longer the withdrawal period, the more chances you have to minimize the intensity of the expected withdrawal reactions.
Interestingly, there is some evidence that "gradual discontinuation tends to shorten the course of any withdrawal syndrome."2 In other words, the actual duration of all expected symptoms from drug withdrawal is likely to be shorter if you withdraw slowly than if you withdraw abruptly.
In one early study of withdrawal from tricyclic antidepressants, 62 percent of those withdrawn in less than two weeks experienced withdrawal reactions, compared to only 17 percent of those withdrawn over a longer period.3 Because unpleasant withdrawal reactions are one of the main reasons you might be tempted to abort your withdrawal, a gradual taper increases your chances of succeeding and remaining drug-free.
In addition, it appears that people who gradually reduce their drug intake find a renewed vigor and energy that they now can learn to reinvest. In contrast to a sudden, unplanned cessation, a gradual withdrawal allows them to find constructive ways to use this energy, to appreciate the new confidence in their abilities that they will develop, and to consoli¬date the new emotional and behavioral patterns that will be learned in the process.
One published account describes the case of a woman who wanted to stop Paxil after taking 20 mg daily for six months. Her doctor abruptly cut this dose in half, to 10 mg daily, and gave her the new dose for one month. Then, during the following two weeks, he gave her 10 mg every other day. On alternate, nondrug days, the woman experienced severe headaches, severe nausea, dizziness and vertigo, dry mouth, and lethargy. The dose was reduced to 5 mg daily but, convinced that this only prolonged her agony, she stopped abruptly. She is reported to have experienced two weeks of various withdrawal symptoms and then to have fully recovered.4
A more gradual taper, rather than an abrupt 50 percent reduction at the start, might have reduced the severity of this woman's overall withdrawal reactions. Granted, many users of psychiatric drugs do cease them suddenly, without experiencing any significant withdrawal pains. Our experience, however, suggests to us that abrupt withdrawal is chosen by people who are not properly informed or supervised, who cannot tolerate their drug-induced dysfunctions any longer, or who act impulsively because they perceive that no one is listening to them or understanding their suffering.
Remove Drugs One at a Time
Many people, perhaps yourself among them, take several psychiatric drugs simultaneously. Common psychiatric drug combinations include an antidepressant and a tranquilizer; a stimulant and a tranquilizer; lithium and an anticonvulsant; or a neuroleptic, an antiparkinsonian, and a tranquilizer.
You can withdraw from several drugs simultaneously, but this is a risky strategy. It should be reserved for cases of acute, serious toxicity. In addition, since drugs taken together (such as neuroleptics and antiparkinsonians) often have some similar effects, withdrawing them together can make withdrawal reactions worse. If you intend to withdraw simultaneously from two or more drugs, you should do so under the active supervision of an experienced physician or pharmacist.
When you take two drugs, your brain tries to compensate not only for the effects of each one separately but also for the effects of their interaction. The physical picture gets even more complicated with each additional drug. The increasing complexity goes far beyond our actual understanding, creating unknown and unpredictable risks during both drug use and withdrawal. In cases of multidrug use, withdrawal is like trying to unravel a thick knot composed of many different strings—without cutting or damaging any of the strings. In this analogous situation, you would have to proceed quite carefully indeed, gradually disentangling one string and continually adjusting the others in response to the ongoing progress.
It is usually best to reduce one drug while continuing to take the others. The process begins anew once you've eliminated the first drug completely and have gotten used to doing without it.
Which Drug Should Be Stopped First?
If you want to get off more than one drug, there are some considerations in deciding which drug to stop first. Let's say you're taking drug "A" to counteract the side effects of drug "B"; in this case, you should probably start withdrawal with drug "B." For example, if you're taking a sleeping pill for insomnia caused by Prozac or Ritalin, you may want to delay withdrawal from the sleeping pill until you have begun to reduce the Prozac or Ritalin. Similarly, if you're taking Cogentin or Artane or some other drug to suppress movement disorders caused by neuroleptics, you should probably first reduce your neuroleptic before you attempt to withdraw from the Cogentin or Artane.
Because benzodiazepine tranquilizers often provoke unpleasant, lengthy, and potentially dangerous withdrawal reactions, some people choose to withdraw from their use last, after they've experienced withdrawal from other drugs and strengthened their resolve and gained confidence.
The 10 Percent Method
Pharmacy textbooks often describe the 10 percent withdrawal method, especially with regard to benzodiazepine tranquilizers. It may be applied to any psychiatric drug. If you wish to stop taking psychiatric drugs, the 10 percent method (or variations on it) can be a good starting point.
This method generally stipulates that withdrawal be carried out in approximately ten steps, or 10 percent at a time. Sometimes, the very last step is itself divided into a series of smaller steps. The duration of each step may vary from a few days to several weeks or months. Thus, if an individual stops a decade-long use of tranquilizers or neuroleptics, each step could sensibly last two or three months, barring any major difficulties. Many older persons have been taking tranquilizers daily for over twenty years. In these cases, a withdrawal period of two years is not unusual.
The 10 percent method is not absolute. It should be adapted to individual situations and changing circumstances. As we mentioned, withdrawal needs to be sensitive to each individual's developing situation as the process unfolds. Overall, however, the 10 percent method provides three benefits: (1) an easily applied schedule; (2) the sensible suggestion that it is best to stay roughly within such decrements, even if the first steps turn out to be uncomplicated; and (3) in cases where withdrawal difficulties manifest themselves after most of the dose has been reduced,5 a framework in which the individual can avoid compounding such difficulties by not rushing through the remaining steps of withdrawal.
As noted, this method suggests that 10 percent of the initial dose be removed at each step. Thus, a person taking 200 mg of a drug would re¬duce it by 20 mg (10 percent of 200) at each step of the withdrawal.
Seven to ten days is a reasonable length for each step if the duration of drug use has not exceeded one year.
•The first step involves going from 200 mg to 180 mg and taking the latter dose for seven to ten days.
•The second step involves going from 180 mg to 160 mg, and again staying on this dose for seven to ten days.
The other steps are similar, involving a 10 percent reduction until you are down to 0 mg. However, the very last step may be the most difficult, even if the original amount of the drug has now been reduced by 80 percent or more. In that case, you could reduce the remaining quantity itself gradually. You could progress, say, by 25 percent decrements, over two weeks or more. This would mean, in our example, going from 20 mg to 15 mg, then to 10 mg, then to 5 mg, then to zero. (As described in Chapter 7, some people benefit from prolonged use of tiny doses during the last phase of withdrawal.) Each substep could last four or five days, or more, based on your ongoing assessment of your progress—ideally, validated by feedback from your doctor and from trusted friends or relatives.
How to Divide Dose Reductions During the Day
Perhaps you are taking drugs in divided doses throughout the day. For instance, you might be taking a dose in the morning, at noon, and before bedtime. One way to reduce this kind of intake is to use the 10 percent method to progressively decrease the morning doses until these are eliminated; then move on in a similar manner to the noon doses and, ultimately, to the evening doses.
Alternatively, you could reduce the morning dose during the first step of the 10 percent method, then reduce the noon dose during the second step, then reduce the evening dose during the third step. Once this cycle was finished, you would begin the fourth step with a further reduction of the morning dose, and so on, until the withdrawal is completed.
Sometimes there will be obvious reasons to choose the morning or evening dose as the first one to reduce. When taking tranquilizers such as Xanax or Klonopin, for example, many people find that they awaken in the morning in a state of anxiety or agitation due to withdrawal from the previous evening dose. Therefore, they may feel more comfortable beginning with a reduction of the afternoon dose. Others may find that they become excessively sleepy in the afternoon. They might want to begin by reducing that dose. Still others may be concerned about difficulty sleeping if they stop the evening dose of a tranquilizer. In that case, they would be wise to begin reducing a dose that is given earlier in the day.
There are no hard and fast rules about which doses to reduce first. In general, however, you should consider initially reducing the dose that's causing the most side effects, such as the afternoon dose that makes you too sleepy. Conversely, you may want to initially keep the dose that seems to be helping you the most, such as the evening dose if you have insomnia.
How to Fraction Individual Doses
To follow the above steps, you may have to use smaller doses than those written on your prescription. Psychiatric drugs usually come in pills of varying doses, such as 200, 100, 75, 50, and 20 mg. You can request that your pharmacist provide you with pills of different strengths when you are filling your prescription, or help you determine which combinations of existing pill strengths you should use to decrease the dose by as close to 10 percent as possible. Most pills have a slit that allows them to be divided in half easily; you can also purchase a device for cutting pills, which is available at many pharmacies. Capsules, too, can sometimes be opened and their contents divided up. Your pharmacist can inform you about any problems involved in dividing your pills or the contents of your capsules. You should also discuss this process with your doctor.
* * *
In sum, the actual process of reducing your drug intake is not inherently complicated. For a prudent, minimal-risk withdrawal, it's a good idea, first, to adapt the withdrawal to your unique circumstances, both psychological and physical. Second, it's a good idea to proceed gradually— for example, by 10 percent reductions every seven to ten days or longer—depending on how long you've been taking drugs. Third, if you're taking several drugs simultaneously, it's best to remove one at a time, again in a gradual manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)