Responding to Claims that the Benefits of Antipsychotics Outweigh the Risks

Miriam Larsen-Barr, DClinPsy
63
3068

This morning I followed a Google Alert to an article in Medical News Today, which reviews the results of a new meta-analysis exploring the long-term outcomes of taking antipsychotic medication. The article confidently claims: Lieberman and team looked at clinical trials and neuroscientific data, and they found that the therapeutic benefits of antipsychotic medication far outweigh their side effects.  The journalist, Ana Sandoiu, goes on to quote Lieberman as stating that Anyone who doubts this conclusion should talk with people whose symptoms have been relieved by treatment and literally given back their lives.

For my doctorate research, I talked with 144 people who take or have taken antipsychotics and a third gave me these kinds of descriptions. Another third said quite the opposite, and I can hear them yelling at me to share their side of the story.

There is no citation or web link to the original paper so it is difficult to verify whether Sandoiu’s interpretation of the results or use of quotations is accurate to the researchers’ intent. But I managed to track down the abstract (Goff, Falkai, Fleischhacker, et al, 2017, in press1), which states: Little evidence was found to support a negative long-term effect of initial or maintenance antipsychotic treatment on outcomes, compared with withholding treatment. Randomized controlled trials strongly support the efficacy of antipsychotics for the acute treatment of psychosis and prevention of relapse.”

This doesn’t actually say they found that the benefits outweigh the costs. It says they did not find a negative long-term effect. It says they did find a positive effect on symptom reduction in the short-term. The grand claim may seem to be the obvious implication, but we cannot assume that statistical significance always translates into personal significance, and there are other relevant measures of recovery missing from the analysis so the weighing-up process is flawed. The subtleties have definitely been lost in translation. Instead we are offered an oversimplified shot at absolute truth that totally obscures individual variation, and invalidates the perspectives of those who report negative effects — the very people who tend to drop out of clinical trials and be lost to long-term follow-up.

The perspectives of people who take antipsychotic medication weren’t considered in this meta-analysis at all. Nor was the possibility that unmeasured psycho-social factors might account for the variation in outcomes these studies observed. People who take antipsychotic medications do not spend their lives sitting inside a vacuum passively receiving their experiences from chemicals in their brains. Social support, coping style, occupational activities and situational stressors are just as relevant to the outcomes of people who take antipsychotics as they are to any other group of people. If the research hasn’t controlled for these factors, and the vast majority has not, there is no way we can confidently declare that the benefits of antipsychotics universally outweigh the costs. From what I can see, the researchers did not actually make such a sweeping claim, but no one reading Sandoiu’s article will know this.

I’ve spent the last five years immersed in the antipsychotic research. As a whole this is a body of literature that seems obsessed with statistically proving the rightness or wrongness of taking antipsychotic medication. For every few studies that report a benefit to persisting with antipsychotics (Alonso et al., 20092; Haro, Novick, Perrin, Bertsch, & Knapp, 20143), there is an article that finds a long-term cost, or no difference at all (Harrow, Jobe, & Faull, 20124; Landolt et al., 20165; Wils et al., 20176; Wunderink, Nieboer, Wiersma, Sytema, & Nienhuis, 20137).

It is possible that each of the above is true for different people at different times, but the meta-analysis simply weighs in on the existing good-bad/right-wrong debate. It was likely predestined to reveal a benefit because problems with publication bias mean there are more studies with positive results than negative results to go into the meta-analytic pot. We need to shift towards looking at the within-group variation among those who persist long-term and among those who discontinue — this is where we will discover how to improve the recovery outcomes of both sets of people.

One of the major insights I took from the 144 people who answered my survey was that individual experiences vary and they are all valid. In my study, overall subjective experiences ranged on a continuum from life-saver” to hell” and every point between (Larsen-Barr, 20168). Around a third reported overall positive experiences such as A major relief from the monsters […] for me they have saved my life” and Helped me get through an unstable period of my life. And around a third of the participants reported mixed experiences such as, A short term help when needed then a burden and A double edged sword. They help me with my bad experiences but they also take away the wind in my sails.”

Another third reported wholly negative experiences such as, The worst experience of my life […] affected every aspect of my health and wellbeing. The therapeutic benefits certainly did not outweigh the costs for those who described the overall experience of taking antipsychotics as The ruin of my life or said they were Helpful to a point but […] robbed me of everything I value in myself as a person.

The claim that the benefits of antipsychotic medications conclusively outweigh the adverse effects just is not true for some people. It is true for others, and for some people it is true in the short-term and later stops being true. I look forward to the day we can stop debating which group of people really exists because they clearly all do. The only way to determine whether the benefits are outweighing the costs is to ask the individual experiencing them, and to keep asking over time. A quantitative meta-analysis cannot give us the answer.

Show 8 footnotes

  1. Goff, Falkai, Fleischhacker, Girgis, Kahn, Uchida, Zao, Lieberman, (2017). The long-term effect of antipsychotic medication on clinical course in schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, in press.
  2. Alonso, J., Croudace, T., Brown, J., Gasquet, I., Knapp, M. R. J., Suarez, D., & Novick, D. (2009). Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) and Continuous Antipsychotic Treatment: 3-year Results from the Schizophrenia Health Outcomes (SOHO) Study. Value in Health, 12(4), 536-543. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00495.x
  3. Haro, J. M., Novick, D., Perrin, E., Bertsch, J., & Knapp, M. (2014). Symptomatic remission and patient quality of life in an observational study of schizophrenia: Is there a relationship? Psychiatry Research, 220, 163-169. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2014.07.034
  4. Harrow, M. H., Jobe, T. H., & Faull, R. N. (2012). Do all schizophrenia patients need antipsychotic treatment continuously throughout their lifetime? A 20-year longitudinal study. Psychological Medicine, 42(10), 2145-2155. doi:10.1017/S0033291712000220
  5. Landolt, K., Rössler, W., Ajdacic-Gross, V., Derks, E. M., Libiger, J., Kahn, R. S., & Fleischhacker, W. W. (2016). Predictors of discontinuation of antipsychotic medication and subsequent outcomes in the European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial (EUFEST). Schizophrenia Research,in press. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2016.01.046
  6. Wils, R. S., Gotfredsen, D. R., Hjorthøj, C., Austin, S. F., Albert, N., Secher, R. G., . . . Nordentoft, M. (2017). Antipsychotic medication and remission of psychotic symptoms 10 years after a first-episode psychosis. Schizophrenia Research, 182, 42-48. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2016.10.030
  7. Wunderink, L., Nieboer, R. M., Wiersma, D., Sytema, S., & Nienhuis, F. J. (2013). Recovery in Remitted First-Episode Psychosis at 7 Years of Follow-up of an Early Dose Reduction/ Discontinuation or Maintenance Treatment Strategy: Long-term Follow-up of a 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(9), 913. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.19
  8. Larsen-Barr, M. T. (2016). Experiencing antipsychotic medication: from first prescriptions to attempted discontinuation. New Zealand, The University of Auckland

Support MIA

Enjoyed what you just read? Consider a donation to help us continue to produce content, provide up-to-date research news, offer continuing education courses, and continue building a community for exploring alternatives to the current paradigm of mental health. All donations are tax deductible.

$
Select Payment Method
Loading...
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.

Donation Total: $20.00

63 COMMENTS

  1. Thanks, Miriam. I’m in the 1/3 group for whom psych drugs did FAR MORE HARM than good….
    There’s a 4th group you’re ignoring here. The *DEAD*. Psych drugs HAVE KILLED people, but their lives – and their deaths – are not part of the medical record. You need to help me more widely publicize my current over-riding diagnosis.
    IATROGENIC NEUROLEPSIS.
    ….you do the math….
    ~B./

  2. This is a great article.

    And like I said here – https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/09/rejecting-the-medications-for-schizophrenia-narrative-a-survivors-response-to-pies-and-whitaker/

    I think we need to make it clear that these antipsychotic drugs are in no way medications targeting any specific disease process. They are simply general tranquilizers which dull the ability to think and feel (both good and bad things) in the same way that a tranquilizer does to any animal, such as the cattle and sheep that similar compounds are often used on. Their mode of action is no rarified or medical than that. So, for some people being tranquilized and having one’s fear and rage reduced to a tolerable level can be a desired thing, at least temporarily. For others, they make it hard to deal with problems in living, and/or have horrific side effects. What these drugs in no way to is treat a disease called bipolar or schizophrenia. Let’s be clear about that.

  3. Thank you for this article. Can we find your thesis?
    I have read the full paper and one reason why they rejected some papers from their meta-analysis or discounted the findings was due to drop out rates among those who stopped drugs. But the assumption of these researchers is that the drop outs likely had worse outcomes so it skewed results to show negative effects of the drug. This kind of implicit bias is not acknowledged in this paper. The conflation of short-term benefits and high relapse rate when drugs are stopped with good outcome is one of the biggest errors in the field and this paper does that in its original form in a more subtle way but in the press release in an overstated, triumphalist way. I find it ironic that a group who supposedly stands for the values of science would act in such a way. The paper also points how the mere admission of ties to Pharma does little to address the serious problems that COI and bias play in medicine.

    • I want to amend my comment above. It was pointed out to me that this paper is not a meta analysis. I also want to clarify my statement about the effect of drop outs. There are two studies cited (Schooler and Rappaport) where there is long term follow up of two groups who had been initially randomized to either drug or placebo. In these papers, the group that was initially on drug has a worse outcome. However, there was a much higher drop out rate in the placebo group during the initial phase and those drop outs were considered to have a poorer prognosis. With the Schooler paper, the authors are stating that the positive response to the drug allowed some individuals with a worse prognosis to get discharged thus skewing the results in favor of the placebo group. My point in my comment above is that while the authors may be correct, there remains room for doubt about their conclusions. As noted above, the conclusions are not that they have demonstrated improved outcome with drug rather that they fail to be convinced that drugs worsen outcome.
      I wonder how many of these authors entered the process of this review with a particular belief about the conclusions they would reach. Were there any among the eight who thought drugs worsened outcome? Did any of them change thier mind as a result of this process? I do not know them all but while there is geographic diversity among them I am not sure there is another kind of diviserity – that of perspective. I do not know but I wonder. I do not think this kind of review process can be entirely divorced from bias so bringing together individuals who enter the process with disagreement is worthwhile.

  4. Can anyone with access to the paper share the conflict of interest section? I’m curious if the stated COIs correspond to the ones I’ve found from web searches. All the authors save one appear to have financial ties (research funding, honoraria, speakers’ bureaus) to drug makers, especially those that make antipsychotics.

      • Jeffrey Lieberman, former APA President, well known well rewarded drug-pusher for the pharmaceutical industry. and Stalinist-style propagandist for modern psychiatry!
        You can discount that analysis. Thanks for information Sandra.But indeed
        it is not clear why if drop-outs had worse outcomes (as expected)
        that should skew studies to show negative effects of the drugs. ??
        Lieberman is no “scientist.” He recently wrote a book–an advertisement for psychiatric drugs that will lead many people to take these poisons with false expectations–thus undermining their chances of recovering from their distress, discouragement and crises.
        Bob Whitaker reviewed Lieberman latest book here: “In sum, Lieberman recounts a story of miracle drugs arriving in psychiatry in the 1950s and 1960s, which brought hope to the hopeless and enabled people struck by serious mental illnesses to live fairly normal lives. That is a story that of course provides great comfort to the psychiatric profession. But, alas, it is belied by the science that can be dug out from psychiatry’s own journals.”
        https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/03/shrinks-self-portrait-profession/
        I disagree with the conclusions of Larsen Barr but let me address that below.
        sf

  5. The benift/cost evaluation of antipsychotics is not the discussion that should take place. These substances are not medicine, they are toxic substances. Medicine are supposed to do no harm at all and toxics do harm per default. Doctors are lying when they call these substances medicine.

    Administering medication is a different thing that administering neurotoxins. The former should heal, the second is punishable as a torture crime.

    A patient might claim benefit, the doctor is punishable for using a toxin instead of a substance that cannot do harm.

  6. I’d call this an intriguing and much needed post. At least somebody is asking how people respond to neuroleptics. 1/3 think them beneficial, 1/3 have mixed feelings about them, and 1/3 see them as harmful and unhelpful. This is kind of like “recovery” rates, given conventional “treatment, where 1/3 “improve”, 1/3 stay about the same, and 1/3 “go downhill”.

    The next question is how other people react in some instances. Family members can be terrified of a relative “going off meds”. Sensational article after sensational article mentions some mental patient who committed an atrocity, and the tag line seems to be, he or she was okay when “on meds”, but he or she wouldn’t stay on them. I would hope this evidence would be able to counter, to some extent anyway, this kind of presumption and bias. There is often, and I know this from first hand experience, little or no outside support to be found for people wishing to come off neuroleptics.

    There is this research into how people actually feel about neuroleptic drugs, and there is Robert Whitaker’s investigation of long term studies. Ask people how they feel, and you’ve got the same problem you’ve got with eyewitness testimony. Regardless of what people say, they could be wrong, ergo, ‘to err is human’. The long term studies though say something that it is much harder to argue with. The only question there is when are psychiatrists themselves (Get a load of what Lieberman is saying!) going to start paying attention to the evidence itself, their evidence.

    • If you had asked me when I was poly-drugged whether the drugs helped I would have said firmly yes. I was drugged into oblivion, was convinced by my psychiatrist the drugs were saving my life and had no idea the extreme physical and emotional toxic effects were related to the psychotropics. When a neurologist screamed in my face that the psychiatric drugs were killing me then I had a clue (Seroquel induced Akathisia). I strongly doubt the patients filling out this questionnaire understood the ramifications of being on neuroleptics. And I’m saying that because I didn’t.

      • I believe that research would need to be done on the subject before such a sweeping statement could legitimately be made. Nature and time, I hear, can effect wonders. My view is that ceasing to use psych-drugs in itself would most likely improve outcomes, although perhaps not as dramatically as some people might desire. Open Dialogue, taking another approach, one that is less prone to use neuroleptics in excess, reportedly has a 80 % success rate. Take that, 33.3 %!

  7. First of all so called ‘anti psychotics’ should be called neuroleptics because the purpose of these drugs is to diminish what we can do uniquely as human beings namely to create, understand, love, reflect, and live consciously. We are blessed to be able to take our important place as part of the creative energy which continues to move the universe. Neuroleptics are capable of interrupting this universal energy when they are given to struggling people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    People who are labelled by psychiatry are given these drugs without informed consent and they are known to cause a chemical lobotomy. Many are forced to receive them for their own ‘good’. They do cause both ( typical and atypical) many torturous motor disturbances such as Tardive dyskinesia, Dystonia, Akatisia and Parkinsons. However because of their spell binding effects many people who experience these effects might not be even aware! I was one of them. Just like physical lobotomies these drugs can be a form of torture, assault and battery.
    It is a measure of our lack of mutual support and solidarity that some of us feel we have to resort to prescribing or consuming these synthetic, man made poisons. Let us encourage each other to feel the grace we all possess within us so we are able to overcome the trials we will find on our individual life journeys.

  8. These studies also generally fail to distinguish between SYMPTOM REDUCTION (usually the clinician’s goal) and QUALITY OF LIFE (usually the client’s goal). If you focus only on symptom reduction as an outcome measure, neuroleptics will be judged “beneficial,” at least in the short term. But if you look at quality of life measures, it appears that neuroleptics are at best of limited use, and more likely generally destructive. I think that’s where a lot of the conflict and confusion comes in – psychiatrists are often only concerned with making the “symptoms” go away, and frequently have little to no concern for long-term quality of life outcomes.

  9. I don’t think it is scientifically valid lumping all the drugs together under the description of “Anti psychotic”. Anti psychotic is not a chemistry word it replaced Neuroleptic for marketing purposes, Neuroleptic originates from the Greek word νεῦρον neuron “nerve” and λῆψις lepsis “seizure” in reference to its neurological effects.

    Beer wine and liqueur are all alcohol beverages containing ethanol but for example Seroquel and Zyprexa are two completely different chemicals that produce different effects both on them and during withdrawals.

    The fine print on all psychiatric drugs says “mechanism of action is unknown”.

    There are thousands of testimonials online from years of people writing in those forums about both those 2 drugs, negative testimonials about Seroquel are usually mild “Seroquel sucks, I did not like it” but Zyprexa stories are absolute hellish nightmares.

    I think we would all be doing a better service by taking on these so called anti psychotics one drug at a time.

    • I was on Seroquel and Zyprexa (not at the same time) and they obliterated me. I may never know which was the worst of the two but I ended up in the ICU with Seroquel Induced Acute Pancreatitis and my family was told I wouldn’t live.

  10. Great post, thank you. I found it fair and balanced.

    I’ve hesitated to jump into this thread because my feelings about antipsychotic treatment has varied over the years from believing they were helpful despite the extreme side effects to believing they are almost universally harmful. Until I learned that my “bipolar” hypomanic and dissociative symptoms were actually a result of the ssri’s I was being treated with (instead of addressing ongoing trauma), I did truly identify as having a brain illness and thought the antipsychotics were necessary medicine. Once I realized what had been done to me by the system, I still had difficulty grasping just how much cognitive function had been lost due to the treatments. A full year off these poisons now and I’m livid and incensed at how much damage was being done. I couldn’t even follow a conversation a year ago and therapy was useless because I would have to frequently ask to be reminded what the topic of discussion was. These neurotoxic drugs are simply tools of social control. I am willing to believe that they lessen severe distress in the very short term for some people (I suspect those on very low doses) but I have difficulty believing that they are ever truly beneficial, and I fervently believe that empowering depressed/psychotic people is far more effective in the long run.

  11. Hi Miriam,
    I responded to this article on the ISPS forum (www.isps-us.org) with a rant about how deadening symptoms over the short term has nothing to do with improving long-term functionality and quality of life. Similar to what Steve McCrea said. I thought you might like to see:

    ———-

    it’s worth pointing out that the main reason Jeff Lieberman is spinning the data like this is to maintain his (illusory) status as a doctor treating brain diseases, and to keep the cash coming in from the drug companies for his research. And when one defines what the “benefits” of antipsychotic drugs really are – keeping people quiet and dulling their feelings to the point they don’t bother themselves or anyone else – it all ends up looking pretty pathetic and awkward.

    I can’t resist mentioning here that in his recent TIPS paper, Jan Olav et al quoted Bola and Leucht as having proved “the undeniable efficacy of antipsychotics”. But again: the efficacy in doing what? The answer is keeping people quiet, compliant and tranquilized for a short period, and has nothing to do with understanding the patients’ experience or what they might want socially or vocationally in the longer term.

    As to the question of whether antipsychotic drugs make most people more functional in the long-term and help them to develop loving, trusting relationships… well, I think we can answer that based on our own experiences. Ironically, Jan Olav’s study answered that, too, because 10 years down the road more than 70% of the TIPS study’s patients in Norway were still drugged up and barely functional. So much for “undeniable efficacy”.

    While I know some people don’t like these blunt discussions, I think the worse attitude is when we cannot have an honest discussion about what drugs are actually doing (treating a disease process versus tranquilizing). Such a discussion, while painful and awkward for those giving the treatment, should include looking directly at the drugs’ impact on the brain, and how taking them is linked with functional and social outcomes (or not) in the long term… Again, the current discussions around “medications treating symptoms” have little or nothing to do with what is good for patients, and everything to do with the need to prop up the drug industry and maintain professionals in their privileged social positions. It’s really pretty embarrassing when you strip away the fake euphemistic language and look at what is actually going on. No wonder people in the field don’t want to talk about it openly. I’d be ashamed too, and I wouldn’t want to talk about it if my professional status and my ability to pay my mortgage and car payment depending on not upsetting the apple cart.

    This morning, I was driving near a private mental hospital here in DC, and was thinking the best thing that could happen in the short term for our mental health system here in Washington DC would be if all the mental hospitals burned to the ground. Because at least then for a year or two, until the facilities were rebuilt, patients would be spared from being locked up all day in a drugged-up haze, and the professionals would be spared from babysitting patients while doing absolutely nothing to understand their life situation… which to be fair is really not their fault either, because no one has taught them how to build a relationship with seriously distressed people, or even that doing so is possible.

    It is truly amazing the degree to which the disease model and drug-first treatment ruins professionals’ ability to engage and understand clients as people. In Washington DC, at this point, the “mental health treatment” at our DC public and private hospitals (I’ve seen the inside of both) has deteriorated to such a point that there can be no redemption, resurrection, or fixing of the system toward person-centered treatment at all. The voracious weeds of profit-seeking and group-self-delusion have so thoroughly choked the life out of mental health treatment here in DC that there is going to be no turning it around, probably not for decades or ever. That’s why it would be better to simply burn down our hospitals and give people a break, especially considering that most patients, and many professionals (some of whom I’ve talked to) hate being at these institutions. At least then it would be a year or two until the rent-seeking corporations rebuild the mental prisons so they can take in more poor people to drug.

    Ok, time to get back to real life.

  12. I strongly disagree with your conclusion, Dr Larsen-Barr–on scientific and ethical grounds. Although you do not mention Robert Whitaker’s name– he created this blog– your conclusion directly contradicts the implications of Bob’s surveys, and of the explicit conclusion he has drawn from them.. Dr Peter Breggin’s position is I think(I have not read him in a few years) at least as radical (compared to current practice) as Whitaker’s. You seem to be taking the Allen Frances’ position, what Frances calls “the middle way.”

    But the merit of your epistemological considerations do not abrogate the weight of the evidence–evidence of brain damage– indicating, as Whitaker has urged, the immediate necessity on humanitarian and ethical grounds of stopping and discouraging long term use of ‘anti-psychotic” drugs for all patients! (It is indicated also by Matt Stevensen above, but for some reason he seems to overlooked your conclusion.)

    You write,”The only way to determine whether the benefits are outweighing the costs is to ask the individual experiencing them, and to keep asking over time. ” No! This is a cop-out, superficially libertarian! Bob’s conclusion is not premature. If anything it is belated. Psychiatrists said quite bluntly when neuroleptics were first introduced in the mid-1950s that they produced a “chemical lobotomy.” Over and over this was said in the 1950s–in praise of the new drugs! We have long known about the ravages of tardive dyskinesia–even acknowledged by the APA in its mid-90s Task Force report. We know now about other iatrogenic effects of neuroleptics–thanks to Whitaker and Breggin.

    Your conclusion sounds fair and even libertarian —and obviously some in patients rights’ movement will applaud this position–but you are not doing patients any favor. The majority of patients are NOT well informed–unlike the psychiatric survivors who post on this blog. There is no informed consent. They are not informed about the risks of neuroleptics, the inevitable harm, and like most people they trust their “doctors”–the authorities. The information most of them will have will be given to them by liars and drug-pushers like Jeffrey Lieberman, former APA President–the same Lieberman you criticize. Patients who trust their doctors will claim the drugs help them (we know the power of the placebo effect) –but their satisfaction will not prevent them from experiencing the longer term effects of brain-damage, and the longer- term symptoms of complete social and vocational impairment.

    The small group of dissidents who post here cannot prevent the mental health colossus from continuing to push neuroleptics. But we can do our best to warn clients and advocate against anything other than very brief use of these drugs. (Other drugs are less toxic. and less discomforting.)

    Must we sit by and/or interview clients about whether they like the brain-damaging toxins their trusted doctors assure them are necessary for their recovery while another generation of patients’ lives– the lives of so called “psychotics”(and even infants now, allegedly at risk for psychosis)— are destroyed? Do we need yet another generation of guinea pigs before we admit that neuroleptics ruins lives? Whether you know it or not this is what you are advocating, Dr Larsen-Barr.

    Lieberman undertook this survey in an attempt to undermine the conclusions of Bob Whitaker whom he called on the radio a couple years ago ” a menace to society.” These drugs pushing psychiatrists are a menace to society.

    Whitaker writes about the middle way you and Frances propose, “Prescribe them to the right patients, because for these patients the drugs can be life-saving, but curb the overuse and polypharmacy…But, here’s the rub: the “middle way” he describes is not an evidence-based practice…It is not a practice that is informed by science that tells of drugs that induce a dopamine supersensitivity, which may increase the biological vulnerability to psychosis; or of science that tells of drugs that shrink the brain, with this shrinkage associated with worse negative symptoms and functional impairment; or of animal research that tells of why antipsychotics fail over time; or of science that tells of much higher recovery rates over the long term for unmedicated patients. Those are drug effects that are not immediately visible to the clinician, but rather are made known through the illuminating powers of science, and they pertain to those with “clear cut psychiatric disorders” too.”

    It is imperative that all critics of psychiatry do everything they can now, before it’s too late, to discourage long-term use of neuroleptics by ALL CLIENTS. I hope you will read Robert Whitaker’s work on this topic –or if you have a critique of his findings and/or conclusion then express it directly in an article here– and reconsider your own position.
    Seth Farber, Ph.D.
    http://www.sethHfarber.com

    • Not to mention that there is no objective way to even approach determining who the “right patients” are except by giving them the drugs and seeing what happens. And the claim that they are “life-saving” flies in the face of the horrific early death rates for those taking the major tranquilizers aka “antipsychotics.” I agree 100% – it is the responsibility of the medical and psychological professions to actively discourage the long-term use of these agents and to explore other options that are more likely to lead to a real improvement in life quality.

    • I was coerced into taking them as “major tranquilizers,” convulsing in the corner, they increased the dosage. Take them to your peril, a chemical lobotomy I’ve been bestowed; they do indeed give them to elephants. My life as a promising geologist was ruined once I submitted to the criminal cartel of a state hospital, where (I did not know) illicit street drug dealing was taking place. This whole argument, is inane. If you bludgeon someone on the head senseless and convince them they are “better,” they will believe it (if you bludgeon them hard enough). Far cheaper, but not very profitable (except to disable for the same reasons these drugs are used). What humane conceivable argument could be made for damaging a persons brain intentionally? I was “spellbound” for 30 years, I didn’t know it, until coming through a paradoxical Hell of withdrawal that would make the cruelest person blush, alone in my pain and suffering mostly. I hope Larsen-Barr will be spared, and yet I still live with the dammed consequences that Dr. Breggin elucidates (I saw him as a patient, his videos are more convincing, books are more than accurate about these neurotoxins). You propose academic arguments, I’m not your lab rat anymore. It’s all about power and manipulation, look to yourself. I will die a free man, and you, will glorify yourself again within a sick corrupt material society, profiting from the delusions and agony of human subjects. There is and never has been any reasonable or scientific (beyond poor middle school science) argument regarding DSM’s “mental disorders,” merely people emanating psychological reactions to physiological and psychological stress. What more is there to debate? Is deceiving people “for their own good,” remotely anything another human should entertain? Ruined by the deception of “psychology,” what a brutal idiotic waste of time and effort and ultimate detriment to our collective existence. We survivors suffer, die, while the prophesies of men like Aldous Huxley are alive and well. Only psychopaths profit and sustain from a world such as this.

  13. Psychology+Psychiatry =Mental Health System. It won’t be long, when Psychologists will start pre-scribing *meds* on large *scale* and their tolerance towards *illegal* drugs is main reason for middle or neutral *position* about use of psychotropic *meds*. Anyway I know who and why started with mind altering project for entire mankind and this trace leads only to one country. And this aren’t USA.

  14. ”The only way to determine whether the benefits are outweighing the costs is to ask the individual experiencing them, and to keep asking over time. A quantitative meta-analysis cannot give us the answer.”
    If you asked me this question while I was taking a neuroleptic I would not be able to answer it correctly because of the damaging cognitive effects of the neuroleptic. Also it is very clear to me now 17 years free from all prescription, synthetic drugs that when I was given neuroleptics for the first time short term that they actually caused some of the symptoms that I feared the most such as Akathisia and being completely unaware of many actions I was performing. I have read about them in my notes and it is hard to believe that it was actually me they were talking about. Sometimes also actions like falling on the ground, due to low blood pressure caused by their drugs, was viewed as if I was looking for attention!!
    On reflection of my whole life history and I am now approaching 70! I never displayed any unusual symptoms only when I was on psychiatric drugs!
    This is a subject you rarely hear discussed by doctors. It is a fact that the drugs can cause people to behave in anti social ways. Neuroleptics can cause terrible adverse effects even in short term.

    Show 8 footnotes

  15. To date, not one single person from any global drug regulatory agency has been able to tell me of the benefits of SSRIs. The same question should be asked of antipsychotics. As advocates we have, for many years now, focused on the risks of these types of meds, and rightly so. We seemed to have overlooked what is staring us in the face – ergo, what are the benefits of these drugs?

    11 years corresponding with the British drug regulator, the MHRA, and they still cannot provide me with one single benefit of SSRIs, kind of absurd given that drugs are granted a licence based on the benefit/risk ratio.

  16. FYi regarding your comment about Ana Sandoiu’s quotation of Lieberman. Her quotation is accurate and seems to have been Lieberman’s intent. Here is a link to a press release by Columbia University Medical Center, that has the quote: https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-05/cumc-boa050217.php

    Lieberman said in the press release:

    “The evidence from randomized clinical trials and neuroimaging studies overwhelmingly suggests that the majority of patients with schizophrenia benefit from antipsychotic treatment, both in the initial presentation of the disease and for longer-term maintenance to prevent relapse. . . . Anyone who doubts this conclusion should talk with people whose symptoms have been relieved by treatment and literally given back their lives.”

      • 25-30 years ago, Lieberman participated in “research” that sought “to deliberately provoke psychotic symptoms” in schizophrenic patients. He conducted methylphenidate challenge tests for more than a decade.
        Here is a sampling of three articles where Lieberman was a co-author of studies where methylphenidate was given to schizophrenic patients in order to activate psychotic symptoms.

        In a 1987 study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2886110), 34 stable outpatients receiving neuroleptic treatment were given an infusion of methylphenidate and then withdrawn from their neuroleptic medication. Three weeks after they were withdrawn from their psych meds, they were given another infusion of methylphenidate. Then the unmedicated patients were followed up for 52 weeks—or until they relapsed; in other words their symptoms returned.

        A 1994 study (https://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v11/n2/pdf/npp199440a.pdf) had a similar methodology, 41 stable patients receiving neuroleptic treatment were given an infusion of methylphenidate. They were also withdrawn from their neuroleptic meds and followed for 52 weeks, or until relapse.

        In a 1990 study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2236460), 38 patients who met the criteria for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were given an infusion of methylphenidate, followed by a regimen of standard acute neuroleptic treatment. This time the patients were individuals who were experiencing their first acute episode of psychosis. The methylphenidate produced an increase in psychopathology reflected by a worsening of their symptoms.

        Another 1987 article (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2884687) with Lieberman as a co-author was a meta-analysis of 36 studies that used psychostimulants (PS) in schizophrenia. The authors noted that non-amphetamine drugs like methylphenidate appeared to have a greater “psychotogenic potency.” In other words, they elicited a greater psychotic reaction than amphetamine drugs. “Approximately 40% evidence a psychotogenic response to PS administration in doses that are subpsychotogenic in normal’s.” Don’t miss the fact that Lieberman knowingly used a psychostimulant in his own studies that he knew would elicit a greater, more intense psychotic reaction than amphetamine drugs.

      • In 1998 Robert Whitaker co-wrote a series of articles on psychiatric research for the Boston Globe (the series was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service). The first installment of the series, “Testing Takes Human Toll” was published on November 15, 1998. In this article (http://web.archive.org/web/19991008230951/http://boston.com/globe/nation/packages/doing_harm/day1.htm), Whitaker and others described how beginning in 1972, psychiatric researchers used a variety of agents such as methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta), ketamine, and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) “to deliberately provoke psychotic symptoms in more than 1,200 schizophrenic patients.” In some cases, the level of psychosis experienced by these patients was called “severe.” Jeffrey Lieberman was one of those researchers. So Lieberman’s dislike of Whutaker goes back 20 years.