Good article
I have thought that there could be a link between suicide and some homicides and prescribed drugs. I have observed someone who has mental problems but refuses to take prescription drugs and that person seems to have found ways to cope without drugs. She told me that she has identified what triggers her stress and now has a better perspective of her illness. This person never took prescription drugs at all and did have a personal battle but after a period of ten years now leads a reasonable life. Not everyone is the same however.

4freedom has hit the nail on the head - everyone is different. I also know a man with a mental illness, While he is taking his medication he is fine and a great guy. A couple of times he has tried to go without. The consequences were astounding, he becomes aggressive and completely irresponsible.

In my own case I became very depressed after a serious illness. Apparently this is not an uncommon occurrence after illness or body trauma- witness postnatal depression. I took drugs and not only me but also those around me noticed a huge difference. They do work for some.

Maybe the fault lies with those who prescribe the drugs. Is the patient given regular reviews as with, say, heart medication? Or is it the case that the drug is prescribed and the condition is considered automatically cured? I agree that the pharmas wield a huge amount of influence but their products do help some and a much more detailed investigation of the issues raised is needed.

Having lost my career and my health to paroxetine induced serotonin syndrome, and watch a psychiatrist who prescribed over double the *maximum* receive a stern letter I found myself involved in the global pursuit of GSK with Elliot Spitzer [then] AG of NY and UK MP's. I studied David Healy's work and accessed internal documents. As a trained scientist and critical thinker, I found ultimately I still could, indeed must, trust only the evidence before me.

My conclusion? The persecution of "Big Pharma" is a phoney industry buoyed by conflicts of interest, sour grapes, pseudoscience, ignorance of business dynamics and share holder rights, the billion dollar "wellness industry", science illiteracy in Western nations and the need to apportion blame.

This article skirts with irresponsibility close to an outrageous condoning of the entire Big Pharma conspiracy. Why has mental illness "skyrocketed"? For much the same reason the "epidemic" of autism is caused by vaccines - the very staple of Big Pharma/Big Brother paranoia.

It hasn't and isn't. We now have definitive diagnostics and an approach that is inclusive of the intellectually challenged and psychologically disabled. A return to the days of Asylums, physical restraint, electro-shock therapy and straight-jacketing the "criminally insane" instead of the - admittedly imperfect - De-institutionalisation in modern societies is abhorrent to consider.

With autism we see an expanded diagnostic approach such that we now have an entire Spectrum of autistic disorders as opposed to one devastating criterium. Even with Wakefield exposed as a fraud and criminal, he remains a martyr figure for the conspiracy theorists. Their staple? "Big Pharma".

To allude that the TGA fails Australians re pharmaceuticals when it lacks the teeth to prevent mystical cancer cures, homeopathy, quality control-free herbal preparations, reflexology, acupuncture, mesotherapy, homeoprophylaxis, iridology, homotoxicology, crystal vibration therapy, and just recently "harmonic energy bracelets" is offensive.

Depressed patients attempt suicide. Correlation with med's is not causation. This mistake was made by Hon. Paul Flynn UK member for Newport West, made worse by the fact suicide during *recovery* is a known symptom predating SSRI's.

This is a worthy area. But far from realistic.

Data, can be “cooked” (a process which mathematician Charles Babbage in 1830 defined as “an art of various forms, the object of which is to give to ordinary observations the appearance and character of those of the highest degree of accuracy”.
As early as 1830 Charles Babbage discussed the deplorable decline of science in England by mentioning a variety of ways in which empirical data could be manipulated by irresponsible investigators. In the following submission I wish to address some of the tortious issues that may arise with respect to pharmaceutical companies manipulating clinical trial data to have their harmful products deemed safe by industry professionals and consumers. In the first instance I raise issues relating to Negligence, duty of care and standard of care.
Although some reports may suggest that pharmaceutical companies are all honest and ‘upfront’ in their dealings, other reports from media agencies may attempt to minimise the true magnitude of neglect to a ‘few bad apples’. Daniele Fanelli suggests this issue is much more widespread, and claims that it may be seen as the ‘tip of the iceberg as many frauds are never discovered’. For instance, “routine data audits conducted by the United States Food and Drug Administration between 1977 and 1990 found flaws in 10-20% of studies, some of these flaws led to 2% of clinical investigators judged guilty of serious scientific misconduct”.
Hang in there Gal

The problem in Australia is pharmaceutical corporations are not adequately held accountable for failures to warn consumers (including Doctors) accurately about the level and potential side effects of their products. Indeed, the harmful consequences of taking the medication such as antidepressants (also known as Selective Serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRI’s]) may substantially surpass their benefit. The implications of manipulating research data bears profound consequences upon those who are likely to be harmed by medication that has been derived from faulty information or fraud. The grave concerns surrounding this type of fraud are that it presents an alternate reality, one that is fraudulent and created under the semblance of scientific testing that is no better than playing a game of ‘pin the tail on the donkey’ whilst blindfolded.
Gal!

Let us take the following example to highlight the concerns I have. With respect to the benefits of pharmaceutical products, there is also a growing consensus based upon experts that pharmaceutical companies are fabricating and falsifying clinical trial data in order to sell their harmful products to an unsuspecting public. For instance, known risks identified in clinical trials such as suicidal ideations and adolescent homicides have been associated with the taking of psychopharmaceuticals. Other problems that influence the market place involve large transnational pharmaceutical corporations.
Gal!