A couple of years ago, actor Tom Cruise was dismissed as a kook for ranting against antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs. But in light of what we’re now learning about SSRIs, is it possible that we collectively owe Cruise an apology?

First, let me say that I still think Cruise is an odd guy. And I know that his bashing of SSRIs is not rooted in scientific research, but in the strange tenets of Scientology — including an irrational hatred of the field of psychiatry.

Second, I strongly believe that antidepressants can help people. I’ve seen their positive effects on people personally. But I also believe the FDA should take further steps to ensure the safety of these medications, and to curb the greed-fueled marketing of SSRIs by drugmakers.

With those caveats, there’s no question that across a number of fronts, Cruise is receiving a level of vindication regarding SSRIs.

As Evelyn Pringle reports in Scoop:

The demolition of the giant “psycho-pharmaceutical complex” appears to be on the horizon … The antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRI’s, such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa and Lexapro are at the center of the storm. These drugs have been prescribed to more Americans than any other class of medications over the past two decades. Cymbalta, Effexor and Wellbutrin are often referred to as SSRI’s, but they are slightly different chemically. However, the drugs all carry similar side effects and warnings….

The top sales pitch for SSRI’s has been the “chemical-imbalance-in-the-brain” myth. “There is no evidence whatsoever that depression is caused by a biochemical imbalance,” says Dr. Peter Breggin, one of the world’s leading experts on psychiatric drugs and author of the new book, “Medication Madness.”

People take for granted pronouncements such as, “You have a biochemical imbalance,” and “mental disorders are like diabetes,” he explains in the book. “In reality,” Dr. Breggin writes, “these are not scientific observations – they are promotional slogans, so adamantly repeated in the media … that people assume them to be true … Reluctant patients by the millions are pushed into taking drugs by doctors who tell them with no uncertainty that they need medication.”

While Dr. Breggin’s view is still in the minority, anti-SSRI sentiment is gaining traction — thanks in large part to the questionable actions of drugmakers.

At the moment, all eyes are on Paxil maker GlaxoSmithKline due to reports that the company is under investigation by the US Department of Justice, as well as the Senate Finance Committee … The report that led to the investigation … was submitted by Dr Joseph Glenmullen, a Clinical Instructor in Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and author of “The Antidepressant Solution” and “Prozac Backlash: Overcoming the Dangers of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Other Antidepressants with Safe, Effective Alternatives”…

The report shows that Glaxo knew in 1989, long before Paxil was FDA approved, that people taking the drug were 8 times more likely to engage in suicidal behavior than people given a placebo, or sugar pill. Now, it stands to reason that even the most depressed person would decline to take Paxil if given these facts. Also, parents certainly would decline if they were told about the risks.

Dr Glenmullen explains that, by submitting what he refers to as “bad” Paxil numbers to the FDA, Glaxo was able to avoid adding a warning about suicide to the label when the drug was approved…

As Charles Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee puts it: “Essentially, it looks like GlaxoSmithKline bamboozled the FDA.” And this may only be the beginning, as Big Pharma’s marketing practices — including paying off academic researchers and physicians — come under closer scrunity.

As the Glaxo scandal unravels, the public will learn that other antidepressant makers such as Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Wyeth and Forest Laboratories are equally guilty … Shrinks on the take are so addicted to industry money that it’s impossible to embarrass them … Overall, estimates indicate that the drug industry spends $19 billion annually on marketing to physicians in the form of gifts, travel, meals and other consulting fees…

The scary part is, even though all this scrutiny may cost Big Pharma by reducing the overprescribing of SSRIs, the families affected by suicides or other SSRI-related tragedies may never get their day in court — if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Wyeth in the Wyeth v. Levine case now before the court.

Expect those numbers to continue climbing. Last week, the FDA approved the drug as an add-on treatment for adults with major depressive disorder. The drug is to be used in conjunction with commonly prescribed anti-depressive therapies, including the SSRIs Lexapro, Prozac, Paxil CR, and Zoloft.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to consumers about placing orders for prescription drugs over the Internet, saying that recent cases have shown that what was delivered is not what was ordered and is putting people in hospital. In a release, the FDA said it has become aware that a number of Americans who placed orders for specific drug products over the Internet (Ambien, Xanax, Lexapro, and Ativan), instead received a product that, according to preliminary analysis, contains haloperidol, a powerful anti-psychotic drug…

The FDA said laboratory analysis of the misrepresented tablets is ongoing, but preliminary analysis indicates they contain haloperidol, the active ingredient in a prescription drug used primarily to treat schizophrenia. FDA learned about the mislabeled and potentially dangerous products after their recipients complained to a US pharmaceutical manufacturer. The origin of the tablets is unknown but the packages were postmarked in Greece.

Here we go again: the FDA using the actions of a few rogue players to issue a broad-brush warning about Internet pharmacies. This is nothing new; the FDA is clearly in the pocket of Big Pharma and does its bidding at every turn.

Were the actions of these rogue pharmacies inexcusable? Absolutely. Does this have anything to do with licensed international pharmacies with verifiable third-party accreditations? No — absolutely not.

Would the FDA warn American consumers to not shop at the corner Walgreens because of what happened in San Antonio recently? No — in fact, they do very little to inform the consumer in such cases.

At eDrugSearch.com, we believe the best way to empower the consumer is to provide you with the information you need to make good decisions. And that includes making sure you know that we only allow safe, licensed pharmacies in our database.

As for the FDA’s agenda? We’re reminded of what Merrill Goozner told us in our recent chat with him:

I always find it curious that free traders are worried about the safety of drugs imported from Canada, but not lettuce from Mexico. I suspect Canada’s system for protecting its consumers against unsafe drugs is far superior to Mexico’s system for protecting consumers against contaminated food.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?