Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher Page 5

  In an analysis of more than eighty clinical studies of the newer antidepressants, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research in the Department of Health and Human Services found that, overall, half of the patients did not respond to the drugs. For those who did, sixty-four percent of the benefit was attributed to placebo effect. Why were placebos so effective in these studies? People with mild to moderate depression are very responsive to attention and suggestion. Many patients come to these clinical studies with hope for recovery. They establish supportive relationships with interviewers and caretakers because they are evaluated and monitored frequently. These circumstances alone may be all some people need to work through their depressive episode (Glenmullen, Prozac Backlash, 208).

  Children are even more susceptible to suggestion than adults. That is why study after study has shown antidepressants to be no more effective in children than placebos. A review was published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease in 1996 in which the authors concluded, “The evidence is unanimous that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in children with symptoms of depression.” They then cited several other reviewers that had come to the same conclusion (Glenmullen, Prozac Backlash, 208).

  A blatant example of the misrepresentation of the SSRIs efficacy in children and adolescents is provided by the Paxil studies for the treatment of depressed adolescents. GlaxoSmithKline published a study in 2001 that showed “depressed adolescents were significantly more likely to improve when treated with Paxil than when treated with a placebo.” In May 2003, British drug authorities acquired all nine studies that were done on Paxil for the treatment of adolescents under the age of eighteen. This included the one published study and eight unpublished studies. A compilation of this data showed a very different picture than the published article had represented. “The patients were no less depressed after taking Paxil than after taking placebos, and the incidence of emotional lability (including suicidal thoughts) was twice as high (3.2 percent versus 1.5 percent).” This prompted the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to advise doctors against prescribing Paxil for patients under the age of eighteen (Abramson 117).

  On January 3, 2004, Prozac became the only SSRI currently approved for use in depressed children ages seven to seventeen. However, the study Eli Lilly used to gain that additional indication also raises questions upon closer inspection. According to Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, “At least two of the 48 children treated with Prozac in the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-sponsored trial [had] attempted suicide.” However, in the single published report of this trial that appeared in Archives of General Psychiatry, there is no mention of any children having attempted suicide. Instead, the published report states: “Side effects, as a reason for discontinuation, were minimal, affecting only 4 patients who were receiving Prozac.” In 2001, FDA reviewers looked at three pooled Prozac pediatric trials and found that “22 children dropped out because of adverse reactions in the Prozac-treated group compared to five in the placebo groups.” The review also noted there were three suicide attempts among the Prozac group versus one in the placebo group. “Furthermore, six of the Prozac-treated children, but none on placebo, developed mania or hypomania” (Gardner, F).

  The bottom line is, tucked away and unavailable to the public eye without someone going to great lengths to obtain all the data, is the indisputable, but well-hidden, fact that not only are these drugs ineffective, but the “actual rate of death from suicide is higher in patients who take the new antidepressants than in those who take the older tricyclics,” or who receive no treatment at all. That’s right! The statistical results of all the published and unpublished data revealed, out of every 1000 persons with depression that were treated with one of the new antidepressant drugs, 4.6 more committed suicide each year than would have if they had not received any treatment at all (Abramson 116).

  Keep in mind, in the studies that won the SSRIs initial FDA approval, seriously depressed patients, anyone suicidal, those with manic/depression, children, and the elderly were typically excluded. These drugs are currently prescribed like candy to all of these groups. Often, as you will see, it is with dire consequences.

  4

  A “Chill Pill” to Kill

  “A man’s spirit sustains him in sickness but a crushed spirit who can bear?”

  —(Proverbs 18:14)

  On December 9, 2004, exactly one week following Megan’s suicide, Prime- time Live broadcast an exposé on the dangers of antidepressants. Under the circumstances, it was a bone-chilling report. I could barely stand to listen to the 9-11 calls played in the broadcast. Family members begged for help sounding terrified and desperate as their children tried to kill themselves. A ten-year-old girl was heard begging and screaming repeatedly, “I want to die! I want to die!” in the background (“Drug Company Investigation”). The hair literally stood on the back of my neck. If only my sister had seen this report a week earlier, maybe things would have turned out differently. There were so many of these “if only” moments to reflect on.

  A staggering number of cases are pending against pharmaceutical manufacturers of antidepressants as well as the doctors who prescribed them. By 1994, there were 160 cases against Prozac alone. Homicide and suicide cases, where behavior is attributed to adverse drug reactions, continue to pile up on court dockets. In fact, some have been highly publicized. Many others have been settled and given gag orders as terms of the settlement. Still others will remain tied up in litigation for years.

  While we look at a few of the shattered lives left in the wake of the SSRIs, see if you can identify some of the symptoms that would signify an adverse SSRI reaction in the following patient case studies. What may seem like isolated incidents appear to form a pattern when the stories are grouped together. Keep in mind, in a review of the media and survivor group reports on violence, violence and murder were found to be “quite rare among depressed patients.” Therefore, it is impossible to attribute the following horrible events to depression, the disease, itself (Breggin, Talking Back to Prozac, 159).

  The Pittman Trial

  A tragic case that recently made major headlines from South Carolina involved a young boy named Christopher (Chris) Pittman. Chris was sentenced to thirty years in prison after being found guilty of shotgunning his grandparents to death and setting their house on fire. The murders occurred just weeks after Chris was started on the antidepressant Zoloft. He had previously been on Paxil. Only days before the murders, Pittman’s psychiatrist had doubled the dose of his medication. Chris was twelve years old at the time. At five feet, one inch tall, he only weighed ninety-seven pounds. The forensic psychologist and other experts retained by Pittman’s attorney claimed Chris’ actions were definitely triggered by an adverse drug reaction. Of course, Pfizer, the manufacturer of Zoloft, refuted this possibility. Its representative, Dr. Steve Romano, testified the causal link between Zoloft use and aggression/suicide could not be substantiated. He further stated, in early February, the FDA had issued “a new label for Zoloft that deleted any references to a causal link between antidepressants and an increase in aggression” (Springer).

  CBS profiled this case in a 48 Hours piece, “Prescription for Murder,” that aired on April 16, 2005, following Christopher’s conviction. I sat numbly watching as the report revealed Chris’ experience of many of the adverse reactions I have addressed here. On the day of the murders, Chris had been disciplined by his grandparents. Chris had gotten into a fight with a much younger student on the school bus, and he was also reported to have been fidgeting and kicking the piano bench in church earlier that evening. Both incidents were obvious signs of agitation. Chris’ sister reported Chris had been almost manic at Thanksgiving. She said he was talking rapidly and had started several sentences without finishing them, as though his thoughts were racing faster than he could express them. Chris had also complained to an aunt that he did not like the drug he was taking because it mad
e him “feel like [his] skin [was] crawling.” When questioned by the interviewer if he knew what he was doing at the time of the murders, Chris said he felt like he was “watching a movie” and was unable to control his actions or his intense feelings of anger and agitation. Chris said he had heard a voice in his head telling him to “kill,” and it just kept getting louder.

  The prosecutors in the case pointed to the emotional blunting Chris exhibited after he was apprehended in order to portray him as a cold-blooded, premeditated killer with no remorse whatsoever for his actions. However, family members and clergy painted quite a different picture. They described Chris as a shy, introverted little boy who dearly loved his grandparents. In fact, he had run away from his father’s home in Florida because he wanted to live with them. This side of the story also revealed a troubled child that had been abandoned by his mother and shuffled back and forth between his grandparents’ home in South Carolina and his father’s home in Florida. His father had been married and divorced three times. It was obvious Chris had suffered tremendous loss.

  When one member of the jury was questioned about the guilty verdict, he said he and others simply couldn’t believe a drug could cause somebody to kill.

  “A million people take it every day,” he said.” Why would he be the only one who reacts like this?”

  That is a good question. Unfortunately, Chris Pittman isn’t the only one to react this way!

  Because he was tried as an adult for a crime he committed at the age of twelve, Chris Pittman will not be eligible for parole until he is forty-two years old, even though several experts testified Pittman acted under the influence of toxic, mind- altering drugs he was given by his doctor. Where is the justice in that? First, this child and his family were victimized by the health care system. Then they were victimized, again, by the legal system. Apparently, Pfizer could afford a better legal defense than Chris Pittman. The closing screen of this documentary was Pfizer’s written disclaimer that “Zoloft has not been proven to cause homicidal tendencies” (“Prescription for Murder”).

  (Please note that no offense is intended to Andy Vickery, the Houston attorney who defended Pittman. He provided his service free of charge, and he obviously had Chris’ best interests at heart. Unfortunately, litigation of this nature is very costly. Moreover, a pharmaceutical company’s financial and legal resources are unlimited. It has been my personal experience that pharmaceutical companies will do anything in order to protect their financial interests.)

  The Hawkins Case

  In the summer of 2001, a Supreme Court judge in Australia delivered a verdict clearly finding that David Hawkins, a seventy-three-year-old man who had murdered his wife the day after going on Zoloft and who also had a prior history of an adverse reaction to Zoloft, would not have committed the act if he had not been on the drug (Healy, Let Them Eat Prozac, 219). After strangling his wife, Mr. Hawkins was reported to have said:

  I have killed my wife…I got tablets from the doctor yesterday and I think they were too strong. I went, I went absolutely wild. I don’t know. I was mad. I can’t say any more.I have got to go. I am heading out and I am going to get rid of myself. Nobody, nobody can help me now. Nobody can help me now. Look I’ve got to go. I’m shaking here. I can’t wait. I can’t stop (Tracy 2001).

  The Johnston Case

  In 2001, Jay Johnston was awarded $3 million following an antidepressant negligence suit. Johnston, a strapping, seventeen-year-old, high-school jock from Oregon, tried committing suicide after being prescribed Zoloft, Ritalin, and Prozac. In 1996, Johnston had sought treatment for depression from his family doctor. The doctor first prescribed Zoloft and Ritalin. Johnston claimed to have attempted suicide. His doctor initially increased the medication, but she ultimately switched him to Prozac. In the spring of 1997, following arguments with his mother and a friend, Johnston put a shotgun to his chin and made another attempt to end his life. He survived the blast, but he is now grossly disfigured. His doctor filed an appeal (Nielsen).

  The Tobin Case

  In June 2001, a Wyoming jury ordered GlaxoSmithKline to pay several million dollars to the family of Donald Schell. Schell was a sixty-year-old man who murdered his wife, daughter, and granddaughter before he killed himself, two days after starting on the company’s drug, Paxil (paroxetine).

  Schell had a history of problems with his nerves, primarily stress related to work and bereavements. He had previously had an adverse reaction to Prozac in 1990. As noted by his previous doctor, Prozac had made Schell become tense, anxious, and jittery despite several antidotes (Inderal, Ativan and Desyrel) given to him in order to combat these symptoms.

  Donald Schell had been married to his wife, Rita for thirty-seven years. They had two children named Michael and Deborah. Nine months earlier, Deborah had given birth to the Schell’s first grandchild, and she had brought the baby from Billings to visit for a few days in February 1998.

  Also in February 1998, Schell began complaining about difficulties in sleeping, so he and his wife visited a primary care physician. The doctor did a thorough examination, which included rating scales that indicated Mr. Schell’s main complaint to be poor sleep. The ratings also revealed Mr. Schell felt hopeful about the future and thought well of himself. Schell’s doctor diagnosed an anxiety state and prescribed Paxil. Unaware of Schell’s previous negative response to Prozac, he did not prescribe any covering antidotes for side effects such as agitation. Forty-eight hours later, Donald Schell put three bullets from two different guns through Rita’s head and then through Deborah and Alyssa’s heads before shooting and killing himself.

  On June 6, 2001, the Wyoming jury awarded for damages “four times greater than the biggest previous award in Wyoming—a first-ever verdict against a pharmaceutical company for a psychiatric side effect of a psychotropic drug” (Healy, Let Them Eat Prozac, 222). Paxil’s manufacturer was ordered to pay $6.4 million after some very damaging company records were exposed in the trial. Several things were revealed that GlaxoSmithKline had not disclosed. For example, in the 1980s, it was discovered that healthy volunteers on Paxil were suffering withdrawal symptoms after discontinuation with only a couple weeks of use. In a trial performed with healthy company employees that had not previously exhibited depressive symptoms, as many as eighty-five percent suffered agitation, abnormal dreams, insomnia, and so forth. An average of fifty percent of volunteers exhibited physical dependence on Paxil. In thirty-four studies performed on healthy volunteers, they found that twenty-five percent had become agitated on Paxil. Some healthy volunteers even became suicidal. One leading investigator made notes documenting his surprise at the large number of problems reported by healthy volunteers (Tracy 2001).

  The Miller Case

  Matthew Miller was thirteen years old when the sudden changes of puberty and his family’s move to a new community caused him to become depressed. Matthew could not seem to penetrate the cliques in his new school. His parents said he complained he felt like an outsider and was angry at everybody. His grades suffered. Matt’s teachers administered a set of tests, and Matt fell marginally on the outside range of normal. However, Matt’s parents agreed to take him to see a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist diagnosed Matthew as having either a depressive disorder or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. He enthusiastically endorsed a “terrific new medication” and urged Matthew’s parents to have him try it for “just one week.” He told them it would improve Matt’s mood and make him feel better about himself. The doctor just happened to be a consultant and speaker for Pfizer (Healy, Let Them Eat Prozac, 196).

  During the next week, Matt’s grandmother noticed Matt was fidgety, “jumping out of his skin.” Then, on July 28, 1997, after Matt had taken the last tablet of his one-week trial of Zoloft, he reportedly “got out of bed, went to his closet, and hung himself.” His parents were devastated. Matt did not leave a note, and there had been no previous attempts of suicide. Matt had ended his life impulsively. His parents, who were in the next room, never
even heard a sound (Ko).

  Pfizer fought the case and argued suicide is the second-most common cause of death in thirteen-year-old males. That is true; however, thirteen-year old children don’t die very often. One of their experts even argued Matt may have hanged himself by accident in an act of autoerotic asphyxiation gone wrong (Healy, Let Them Eat Prozac, 197).

  The Wesbecker Case

  The most convincing evidence of a cover-up involving the litigation with one of these drugs was exposed in the Wesbecker Trial of 1994. It was one of the earlier Prozac cases. Unfortunately, this trial coincided with the O.J. Simpson trial that caused a media frenzy, so it received scant attention in the news at the time. To read a riveting account of this case, John Cornwell wrote about it in The Power to Harm.

  Five years earlier, Joseph Wesbecker went on a murderous rampage with an AK-47 in Louisville, Kentucky, killing and maiming several of his coworkers. His wrongful death suit became a legal publicity scandal when it ended with a not guilty verdict.

  Wesbecker had a poor, difficult childhood, which included time spent in an orphanage. He began working as a printing press operator in his early twenties. He married and had two sons. Economic stress in the 1970s increased pressure on him and other employees at Standard Gravure as fewer employees were expected to produce more work. Wesbecker’s marriage dissolved. He started seeing a psychiatrist and was diagnosed with depression. After attempting suicide, Wesbecker was placed on a number of different medications.