Guess what the Number one selling pharmaceutical in 2008 was

Peace be with you

While reading Furious Seasons today I learned that Antipsychotics have become the number one selling type of prescription in U.S.A. The Psychiatric industry has slowly increased sales of antipsychotics until now they are Number one.

It seems bizarre that more money is made on “mental illness drugs” when there is absolutely no evidence that there is even an “illness” involved. It is even more bizarre when you realize that long term studies show that these antipsychotics statistically don’t work any better than sugar pills.

Philip at Furious Seasons believes that increase is due to all the people now being treated for depression, and off-labeling of antipsychotics. Personally I believe that MAP (Medication Algorithm Programs) programs around the nation which are trying to drug anyone making less than $20,000 per year, are also to blame. Note that the $20,000 figure represents two times the federal poverty level of a single person. The drugs that the MAP programs require as the first line of treatment with any publicly paid for “mental health services” are the most expensive Atypical antipsychotics.

Regardless of the cause this is a grave concern. Our mental health budgets have increased from almost nonexistent to the biggest single entity in our local county government’s budgets. Now pharmaceuticals sales are beginning to represent this trend also. As long as such a majority of our health dollars go to this neo-eugenics plan can we really expect health care reforms? There’s a reason why we spend more money and get less health care than the rest of the world, and antipsychotics are one of the reasons why.

love eternal


4 Responses to “Guess what the Number one selling pharmaceutical in 2008 was”

  1. The Noble Lie Says:

    All the best to you, Tad.

    I guess that would put some of these other antidepressants and such in the category of “gateway drugs” then.

  2. theplazoid Says:

    Peace be with you Noble

    Hahaha I never thought of that. It would be funny if it wasn’t so fucked up. The unfortunate thing is though, that children as young as 4 years old are now being addicted to those dangerous drugs. In my eyes this amounts to state sponsored child abuse.

    love eternal

  3. stan Says:

    Keep up the great post Tad.

    The more mountain tops we shout from, the more people will have to stop ignoring the truth.

    Change? Well Psychiatry and mega Pharma corporations teamed with a power oriented and greedy government makes that process a slow and arduous one indeed.

    Yet, that is just all the more reason to keep the volume high and the pressure on.

    Keep turning those screws Tad.


  4. FIG Says:

    TODAY is Tuesday, MARCH 31, 2009



    JAMA: PSYCHIATRIC-DRUG PEDDLERS, reputation in tatters.

    DO YOU trust the JAMA ?
    I DON’T !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    MARCH 28, 2009 Sat……………………..
    Medical Group Seeks
    Probe of Its Journal.

    more in Health »


    The American Medical Association said it has asked an oversight committee to investigate charges that the top editors of its well-known medical journal threatened a researcher who publicly faulted a study in the publication.
    The move by the AMA follows criticism of the actions of top editors
    at the Journal of the American Medical Association, known as JAMA.

    The AMA, in a statement, said JAMA operates with editorial independence. However, the association said it has “formally referred” the matter to a seven-member Journal

    Oversight Committee, comprised primarily of medical academics, to investigate the actions of JAMA editors. The oversight committee is a standing body that has editorial responsibility for JAMA, including evaluating the performance of the editor in chief.
    A Tennessee researcher, Jonathan Leo, says top JAMA editors threatened him and his dean after he published an online letter earlier this month in the British journal BMJ that

    criticized how results were reported in a JAMA study last year that looked at the use of the antidepressant Lexapro in stroke victims. Dr. Leo also said JAMA didn’t disclose the author of the study’s financial relationship with Lexapro’s maker, Forest Laboratories Inc.
    Dr. Leo is a professor of neuroanatomy at Lincoln Memorial University in Harrogate, Tenn. Forest acknowledged that it had paid the author for speeches, but said his Lexapro research was independent.

    Dr. Leo said JAMA editors demanded that he retract the letter. In addition, he says JAMA’s executive deputy editor, Phil Fontanarosa, told him, “You are banned from JAMA for life. You will be sorry.” Dr. Fontanarosa, through a spokeswoman, has said Dr. Leo’s version of the conversation is “inaccurate.”

    Dr. Leo’s dean, Ray Stowers, says JAMA Editor in Chief Catherine DeAngelis threatened in a telephone conversation earlier this month that she would “ruin the reputation of our medical school” if he didn’t force Dr. Leo to retract the BMJ letter and stop talking to the media. Dr. DeAngelis, through a spokeswoman, has denied threatening the dean.

    The AMA statement said it takes the concerns raised over the Dr. Leo matter “very seriously.” It said the AMA board will “give careful consideration to whatever is reported to it” by the oversight committee.

    The AMA action comes a day after a nonprofit group that monitors industry links to medical research called for the suspension of the JAMA editors, and an investigation into their treatment of Dr. Leo.

    In an editorial posted on the JAMA Web site last week, Drs. DeAngelis and Fontanarosa responded to the controversy over their handling of Dr. Leo’s criticisms by accusing the researcher of a “serious breach of confidentiality” by writing about the problems with the JAMA study while the medical journal was still investigating the matter.

    Dr. Leo said he identified the undisclosed conflict of interest through a quick Internet search. The editors said that, going forward, anyone complaining of an author failing to report a conflict of interest will “be specifically informed that he/she should not reveal this information to third parties or the media while an investigation is under way.”
    Write to David Armstrong at

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s