Parents Defend School's Use of Shock Therapy

Phil Dawdy's mentioned this story, over at Furious Seasons, and I thought I'd reproduce it, here:

Parents Defend School's Use of Shock Therapy

Phil's gripe on the application of this treatment (I use the term wrongly) appears to centre on the absence of any kind of input from the kids. There's something in that, I guess, but there's something else going on here, which I can't quite put my finger on, just now. I'm going to go and have a cigarette and make another cup of tea, and think about it.

OK. This quotation struck me:

"“People want to believe positive interventions work even in the most extreme cases,” [Michael P. Flammia, the lawyer for Rotenberg, said]. “If they did, that is all we would use.”"

He goes on to say that Rotenberg gets the kids off the drugs that have been shovelled into them (no surprise, there), and give the parents hope with this approach. The NYT piece doesn't appear to mention which "positive interventions" have been tried.

Now, the thing is, I've noticed that if one wishes to change habitual behaviour, one needs to provide an alternative. This is made all the easier if one establishes what it is that a particular behaviour seeks to achieve (assuming that all behaviour is positive in nature, from the perspective of the person exhibiting that behaviour). I simply don't see how one can effect real change by denying a person the facility to express or achieve something (even if it involves violent conduct). That requires that the person not only suppresses the behaviour, but also establishes a substitute that works, when the behaviour might well be ingrained, and the original purpose of the behaviour is no longer recalled with ease.

That puts a shitload of responsibility on the shoulders of a person who is, by consensus, already in no position to make any decisions for themselves. I don't see that that works, to be honest. In the meantime, of course, any "positive" results that are had are credited to the sadists applying the electric shocks.

Or maybe everything that I've written above is complete bollox.

Matt

Drug reactions 'kill thousands'

According to the excellent Yellow Card scheme. Although, as acknowledged, reporting is patchy, and the real figure is probably much higher than the estimate of 3,000 fatalities (plus a further 13,000 adverse reactions).

Drug reactions "kill thousands"

Anyway, I was particularly amused by the MHRA's response, from our good friend, Dr June "like the mountains I'm blue" Raine:

"Our role is to ensure that the benefits of medication outweigh the risks. It is important to note that a report of an adverse drug reaction does not necessarily prove that it was caused by the drug.

"Other factors such as underlying disease or other medicines may contribute to suspected adverse reactions."

Which conveniently misses the point. Drugs have acknowledged side effects, and to then suggest (without further investigation), that the patient may be at fault looks piss poor to me. Besides which, this approach obliges the patient to prove that the drug caused the side effect, which was acknowledged as being a risk of taking the drug.

Stop protecting the Worshipful Company, June: it's not big, and it's not clever. Another possibility is that the true incidence of a side effect has been masked, or its existence suppressed, altogether. Why don't we discuss that? By the way, June, you forgot to say something about "robustness," and "fact-basedness," which is important, I think, if you're going to quote from the Agency's* tagline:

We enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe. No product is risk-free. Underpinning all our work lie robust and fact-based judgements to ensure that the benefits to patients and the public justify the risks.

Finally, June, you'd best make sure that the drugs you license have a benefit, against which to assess the risks, eh?

Matt

* The MHRA is four years old.

Tantrum-prone kids at risk for depression

Study: Aggressive bouts of hysterics may be sign of serious problem

I came across this rather odd piece, originally on Reuters:

Tantrum-prone kids at risk for depression

Apparently, one may not get angry about anything, unless one wants to risk being denounced as mentally ill (whereupon one may be ignored, completely). I wonder if anyone has ever tried to ascertain what these "angry" kids are angry about? And I wonder if anybody has ever questioned the wisdom of teaching people that they may not complain about anything? And, last but not least, I wonder if anybody has ever considered the possibility that the most "tantrum-prone kids" are the ones who have adults' decisions explained to them least often? Probably not, if my experience is anything to go by. I doubt very much that it's the children who are mentally ill, frankly.

Matt

Uncomfortably Numb

Fidders has posted this, over on Seroxat Sufferers (actually, it's been posted on any number of blogs in this area of interest). I thought it was rather poignant:



By the way "video" (say "wid-ay-o"), is Latin for "I see".

Related links:
Uncomfortably Numb

Medical Accountability Network

I came across this video on YouTube, listed as a related video to the Fox video, below:

Can antidepressants cause violence?

I'm not sure that it said anything that I hadn't heard already, although I do rather wish that I'd seen this sub 10-minute video before I'd taken fluoxetine, rather than having to spend a year of my life piecing this shit together, after the event...

Related links:
Medical Accountability Network

Hannity's America

I was quite surprised to see this piece, which Phil Dawdy has made available, over at Furious Seasons, not least because it's the first that I've seen of a major news channel covering this angle of the story, although concerns over the link between mass murder and antidepressants, particularly SSRIs, have long been expressed by those who have studied these things:



It's a shame that we don't see these little things on a more regular basis - it's the repetition that finally drives the message home, I think...

Matt

Patient to challenge drug ruling

There's a human element to this story. As such, I don't feel completely comfortable drawing inferences from its (re)appearance on News24, tonight:

Patient to challenge drug ruling

In brief, the heads-up is that the NHS is obliging Mrs Otley, a former NHS nurse, to foot the bill for her entire treatment, should she choose to opt for Avastin, over her current medication. Mrs Otley has experienced a certain amount of success with the drug, manufactured by Sanofy-Synthelabo and Genentech, and wishes to continue with it.

I don't know, to be honest. I think the thing that got me going was the very deliberate way that the reporter had Mrs Otley name the drug for the cameras. That set the tone for the piece, for me, and ended up making it look like DTC advertizing, masquerading as a news item. If the Beeb feels like hauling a patient suffering from Seroxat withdrawal up in front of camera, in order to tell his/her story, I might feel inclined to review my opinion of its objectivity.

Matt

Psychologists urged to upgrade ethics rules

I thought that this piece, on Pharmalot, was quite interesting:

Psychologists urged to upgrade ethics rules

There's not a whole lot to argue with, there. Indeed, one might even suggest that this stuff is self-evident. I wonder what it is, then, that causes people to do what is intuitively inappropriate? Perhaps it's the notion that "everybody else is doing it"? Or, "well, there's no harm, is there?"?

Or perhaps it doesn't occur to anybody that the marketplace is not a place of excellence, crammed with excellent products, each vying for market share, but is, in fact, a place of shoddy workmanship and products, which require bribery, in order to be sold, because they won't sell on their own merits? Perhaps.

Matt

Sentenced to Science: Prisoners as Human Guinea Pigs

There's nothing particularly new happening, today (plus ca change, plus ca le meme chose), but I felt like venting my spleen in the general direction of the MHRA, and the subject of experimenting on "nobodies" seemed to me to be as good as anything else. This to the MHRA, copied to Breckenridge, Woods, Johnson and Vara:


Dear Sir or Madam,

I came across this little snippet, as I surfed around, looking for something damning to say about your quack industry:

Sentenced to Science: Prisoners as Human Guinea Pigs

Of course, I already know that "science" and the CIA have been in collusion over mind control experiments (the infamous "Operation Midnight Climax", for example), but I'm delighted to see that engaging in experimentation on unwitting participants (either completely unwitting, or unwitting as to the nature of the experiments that they were participating in), is not confined to fucking around with people's nervous systems.

"One wishes that his statement to the Associated Press were true: "We've all come a long way from saying we should experiment on marginal people, with or without their consent.""

Yes, that just about sums it up, I think. What is the MHRA's position, when it comes to experimenting with drugs on people who are unlikely to complain, and if they do, may be discredited, or silenced, relatively easily? To be honest, I find it as difficult to see you (ie, the "scientific" community) as human, as you do to regard those damaged by the drugs that you have licensed as human.

You had better believe that I'm coming after you. Enjoy your coffee.

Best regards


Matthew Holford


"We enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe. No product is risk-free. Underpinning all our work lie robust and fact-based judgements to ensure that the benefits to patients and the public justify the risks."

The MHRA is four years old.

Matt

Gunman goes on rampage at US mall‏

Another day, another mass shooting. This to the MHRA, including Breckenridge and Woods, copied to Johnson and Vara:


Dear Sir or Madam,

I picked up on this piece, this morning:

Gunman goes on rampage at US mall

I understand that Robert Hawkins had been "treated" for depression and ADHD, in the past, although, as with the Pekka-Eric Auvinen, in the Finnish shootings, I note that the BBC has elected not to investigate/report on the link between SSRIs/antipsychotics/etc and homicide/suicide. Nor has any other mainstream news outlet, as far as I can tell.

Is the MHRA able to establish which, if any, drugs Hawkins had been prescribed? And would it kindly furnish me with that information? Kindly remember, when answering, that homicidality/suicidality are acknowledged side effects of these drugs, and are noted on the PIL.

Best regards


Matthew Holford


"We enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe. No product is risk-free. Underpinning all our work lie robust and fact-based judgements to ensure that the benefits to patients and the public justify the risks."

The MHRA is four years old.

Update
The MHRA mailed me back, today, Thursday, 20 December, in order to tell me that it was clueless. Yes, I know, that's a cheap shot. So sue me.

Related links:
CNN
Seroxat Secrets
Seroxat Sufferers