Critical Psychiatry Textbook, Chapter 16: Is There Any Future for Psychiatry? (Part Two)

15
1391

Editor’s Note: Over the next several months, Mad in America is publishing a serialized version of Peter Gøtzsche’s book, Critical Psychiatry Textbook. In this blog, he discusses how critics of psychiatry are silenced in top medical journals and in the media. Each Monday, a new section of the book is published, and all chapters are archived here.

Censorship in medical journals and the media

It is very difficult to get anything published in a psychiatric journal that the psychiatric guild perceives as threatening for their carefully pruned self-image and wrong ideas.8:151

A finger flicks a wooden meeple out of a row of themEditors of specialty journals are often on drug industry payroll and journal owners also often have too close relations to the drug industry.6-8,27,630

At the inaugural symposium for my Institute for Scientific Freedom in 2019, Robert Whitaker spoke about scientific censorship in psychiatry. He focused on two topics of great importance for public health: Do antidepressants worsen long-term outcomes? and What do we know about post-SSRI sexual dysfunction?631 None of 13 and 14 pivotal studies, respectively, about these subjects had been published in the top five psychiatric journals, which did not even appear to have discussed the issues.

The censorship in mainstream media is also pronounced. When my first psychiatry book had been translated into Swedish, I was interviewed by journalists from two major newspapers in Stockholm.8:152 They were very interested, but as nothing was published, I asked why. One journalist didn’t reply. The other said that her editor thought it would be too dangerous to explain to Swedish citizens that depression pills are dangerous, as they can cause suicide. Both newspapers were right-wing. In contrast, a third newspaper, Aftonbladet, popular with Social Democrats, allowed me to publish an article that filled the whole back page, with no censorship.

It is also very difficult to get critical documentaries on national TV, and if you succeed, you can be dead sure that the best parts have been removed, “so we don’t upset anyone or get too many complaints from the psychiatrists, the drug industry or the Minister.” And there is an untruthful voiceover telling the audience that “many people are being helped by psychiatric drugs.”8

It is difficult to publish relevant books, too.8 In one case, a former patient and a filmmaker came to film me for a documentary.632 The patient had an agreement with a book publisher about what she thought was a psychiatric success story. But psychiatry had stolen 10 years of her life and when I explained that she had been horribly harmed by her psychiatrists, which were very close to driving her into suicide with fluoxetine, she accepted my explanations. When her psychiatric “career” was no longer a success story but a scandal, the publisher backed out. Her drug list is one of the worst I have ever seen.8:154 It is a miracle she survived all this.

Another Norwegian filmmaker wanted to have me on the panel when her documentary, Cause of Death: Unknown,”633 had world premiere in 2017 at the Copenhagen documentary film festival (CPH:DOC). The cause of death was not unknown. The filmmaker’s sister was killed by her psychiatrist who overdosed her with olanzapine, which turned her into a zombie. The psychiatrist was so ignorant that he didn’t even know that olanzapine can cause sudden death. Such iatrogenic deaths are called natural deaths by the authorities.

I appeared in the film and my name was the only one in the announcement: Medicine or manipulation? Film and debate about the psychiatric drug industry with Peter Gøtzsche. Seven days before the film was to be screened, I was kicked off the panel under the pretence that the organisers couldn’t find a psychiatrist willing to debate with me. This was not the real reason. It turned out that the Lundbeck Foundation, whose objective is to support Lundbeck’s business activities, had provided a major grant to the festival. CPH:DOC never contacted me about it, even though I could easily have named several psychiatrists willing to debate with me.

I have described this scandal elsewhere.8:155 The panel discussion was a farce that protected the status quo and people in the audience became angry. It was deeply insulting to them to show a film about a young woman killed by Zyprexa without allowing any of those who had lost a family member in the same way to say anything. It was a brutal dismissal and a total prostration for Lundbeck.

Another recent instance of censorship involved Danish public TV. Independent documentary filmmaker Janus Bang and his team had followed me around the world for several years because they wanted me to play a central role in their documentaries about how awful and deadly psychiatry is. Janus ran into a huge roadblock and needed to compromise extensively to get anything out on TV. He broadcast three interesting programmes in 2019, The Dilemma of Psychiatry, but the public debate he so much had wanted to have major reforms introduced was absent. Drug exports are Denmark’s biggest source of income, and there were embarrassing, false voiceovers paying lip service to Lundbeck and the psychiatrists. And me? I wasn’t allowed to appear at all.

Journalists have told me that the reason Danish public TV doesn’t dare challenge psychiatry or Lundbeck is due to two programmes sent in April 2013.

I was interviewed for Denmark on Pills, which featured three patients. One was prescribed “happy pills” when she was 15 and suffered from massive harms. Another had lost his sex drive and shouldn’t have had the pills at all, as he was not depressed but suffered from stress. The third was a boy diagnosed with ADHD by a psychiatrist who had never met him.

Already the next day, the psychiatric empire stroke back. In a magazine for journalists, Poul Videbech said:634 “It’s a scare campaign that can cost lives. I know several examples of suicide after friends and family advised the patient to drop antidepressant medication.” Videbech com-pared this with journalists making programmes advising patients with diabetes to drop their insulin even though he, at the same time, fiercely denied that he believed in the myth about the chemical imbalance (see Chapter 4).

There were many commentaries to the article about Videbech in the magazine. One noted that it was interesting to see that there were virtually no tapering programmes in psychiatry and that people often ended up on lifelong medication.

One mentioned that she was a member of a large and diverse group of people who had warned for years against the uncritical use of drugs and had spent time on helping the victims, but every time they opened a debate on this topic, they were accused of not thinking about those who benefit from the medicines.

One wondered why we heard nothing from psychiatry about the suicides and suicide attempts the drugs cause: “…dismissed as non-occurring. Nevertheless, it was on the list of side effects in the package insert of the medication I received. And I felt the impulse on my own body. But I was told that it was my depression that was the trigger for suicidal thoughts and plans. The strange thing about that was that the impulse came shortly after I started on the drug … But the doctor and others involved concluded that my dose should be increased, which I luckily declined and I decided to taper off the drug on my own. That people change their personality totally—become aggressive and hot-headed, paranoid, etc.—is also dismissed.”

One noted that I was right that the media had been uncritical in their coverage of psychiatric drugs. He pointed out that many people had tried to warn against them for many years but had been silenced or fired from their positions from where they could reach the population.

This also happened to me which I wrote a book about.635 I updated it146 (freely available) because Janus Bang and I are currently making a documentary film about the affair, which we base on crowd funding (see scientificfreedom.dk/donate/).

Only four days later, journalist Poul Erik Heilbuth showed a brilliant 70-minute documentary, The Dark Shadow of the Pill. He documented in detail how Eli Lilly, GSK and Pfizer had concealed that their depression pills cause some people to kill themselves or commit murder or cause completely normal and peaceful people to suddenly start a spree of violent robberies in shops and gas stations they were unable to explain afterwards and were mystified about. The pills changed their personality totally.

Heilbuth had whistleblower Blair Hamrick in his film, a US GSK salesman  who said that their catchphrase for paroxetine (Paxil or Seroxat) was that it is the happy, horny and skinny drug. They told doctors that it will make you happier; you will lose weight; it will make you stop smoking; it will make you increase your libido; everybody should be on this drug. Hamrick secretly copied documents, and GSK was fined $3 billion in 2011 for paying kickbacks to doctors and for illegal marketing of several drugs, also to children.6:27

An editorial in one of Denmark’s national newspapers, Politiken, condemned the documentary in an unusually hostile fashion and called it “immensely manipulative,” “sensationalism,” “merely seeking to confirm or verify the thesis that the programme had devised as its premise,” and they called one of the well-argued experts a “muddled thinker.”

Two days after Heilbuth’s documentary, I debated with Lars Kessing on live TV about suicides caused by depression pills. Bits of this debate appears in the documentary, Diagnosing Psychiatry.636 Kessing totally denied the science and the drug agencies’ warnings, saying that we know with great certainty that SSRIs protect against suicide. He added that the risk of suicide is large when people stop SSRIs but failed to mention that this is a drug harm, as the patients go through cold turkey withdrawal.

Three days later, I was in a TV debate again with Kessing, this time about how we could reduce the consumption of depression pills. Kessing claimed that they are not dangerous. Lundbeck‘s director of research, Anders Gersel Pedersen, said that the most dangerous thing is not to treat the patients, and he claimed that the patients don’t become addicted but get a relapse when they stop taking the pills. Kessing claimed that perhaps only 10% of those who visit their family doctor are not helped by the medicine, quite a remark about drugs that don’t work (see Chapter 8).

When Kessing was asked by the interviewer how the consumption of pills could be reduced—no matter what he might think about its size—he didn’t answer the question. He said we knew for sure that there had been a rising incidence of moderate to severe depression over the past 50 years. I replied that we could not tell because the criteria for diagnosing depression had been lowered all the time during this period.

Kessing was wrong. Psychiatrists constantly tell me that the prevalence of severe depression has not increased.103 Most patients who get a diagnosis of depression live depressing lives, e.g. are married to the wrong person, have a bullying boss, a tedious job, or a chronic disease. It is not the job of doctors to try to get them out of this predicament and a pill won’t help.

I have experienced that when journalists react violently and go directly against the scientific evidence and the authorities’ warnings, it is almost always because they think the pills have helped them or someone close to them, or because a relative works for Lundbeck or is a psychiatrist. I have been exposed to many vitriolic attacks. It is sad that journalists throw everything they learned at journalism school overboard and explode in a cascade of rage and ad hominem attacks, but that can happen if you tell the truth about depression pills. You are attacking a religion and violating one of the most sacred taboos in healthcare.

In a radio debate, Mind’s National Chairman, Knud Kristensen, argued that some of their patients had said that depression pills had saved their life. I responded dryly that it was an unfair argument because all those the pills had killed couldn’t raise from their graves and say the pills killed them.

Robert Whitaker has provided a long list of important and large studies whose results were threatening to the psychiatric narrative and which were not mentioned in any US newspapers.5:307 When the WHO study came out (see Chapter 7, Part Three), the New York Times reported that “schizophrenics generally responded better to treatment in less developed countries.”5:311 This is highly misleading because any reader would think they were treated with psychosis pills, which they rarely were.

A few mainstream psychiatric journals have started to wake up to the disaster. A 2007 paper in the British Journal of Psychiatry stated that the research into biological mechanisms of mental and behavioural responses has failed to deliver anything of value to clinical psychiatrists and is very unlikely to do so in future,596 and a 2012 paper in this journal predicted that the current biology-based model will be ruinous to the profession due to its consistent failure to deliver.638

***

To see the list of all references cited, click here.

***

Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.

***

Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.

15 COMMENTS

  1. ” Most patients who get a diagnosis of depression live depressing lives, e.g. are married to the wrong person, have a bullying boss, a tedious job, or a chronic disease.”

    There’s the rub, most seriously distressed people have had awful things happen to them and have unpleasant lives. Psychiatry ignores and distracts from that.

    Report comment

    • yes, yes, yes. I started my journey off of anti-depressants after I’d had a series of big life events and losses and all my psychiatrist wanted to do for the ten minutes he stared at his computer was to shoot questions at me off a form. The only time he actually looked at me was when he invited me in (fifteen minutes late, although I was the first appointment of the day). He also mispronounced my name, although I’d been seeing him for at least five years by that point. Enough is enough. I’m grateful to him now for being the trigger that pushed me out of the grip of psychiatry and its pharmacopeia.

      Report comment

  2. What the psychatric establishment does could very likely be called correctly Fundamentalism.

    1.- Literal interpreation of the dogma of biological psychiatric.

    2.- A return to the fundamental priciples of biological psychaitry.

    3.- A missionary messianic zeal for practitioners.

    4.- A strong distinction of those inside and those outside the dogmas believing circle.

    5.- A rigid adherence to the principles of biological psychiatry.

    6.- Intolerance of other views.

    7.- Opposition to real science, scientific practice, and it’s principles: transparency, honesty, accountability, integrity, replicability, logical rational thinking, collaboration, etc.

    8. Totalitarian: “totalitarian, insofar as it seeks to remake all aspects of society and government on [mental health] principles.”

    9.- Consistent but non-uniform display of: “bigotry, zealotry, militancy, extremism, and fanaticism”.

    10.- “imposition of particular forms of [thinking] and … codes of conduct in violation of widely recognized human rights to [scientific] self-determination and [other[ freedom[s]…”

    So it could not only be a Cult, it could very likely be a Fundamentalist Cult.

    Report comment

    • And they use fear, even terror, to induce compliance on the population, individually and at large. Fearfull and scary propaganda, not just the typical happy people doing psychiatric drugs.

      “Danger to others”, “He’ll be homeless”, “He’s not going to finish school”, “He has to be cointained”, “She can’t be out on the street”, “She’ll never marry, she’ll be too unstable”, kind of quiet, sutile, rhetoric.

      And that rhetoric is vomited back even by legislators!. Who have institutional research resources and deal with less reputable folks. But even policepeople, teachers, academics, the works eat that rhetoric, despite: can you point to me it’s widespread propaganda in the media?.

      I think it’s propaganda of the third kind…

      And use hate against the victims, shared among those inside with pejorative expressions against their victims. Antipsychiatrist is one used against criticals/opponents.

      And they do propagate hate speech. But are self aware that could backfire, so it is used inconsistently too. They do self policing on damaging to the cult rhetoric. Like many cults do, like Nexium.

      So, more aligned with Terroristic Fundamentalist Cult.

      What I haven’t heard yet, is the old: “They need US!”. But that would be a bonna fide statement suggesting real danger to psychiatry.

      Report comment

  3. At the risk of pissing some people off here, a lot of this applies to the rehab industry and Alcoholics Anonymous as well. The success rate of AA which it notoriously is cagey about hovers at around 5 percent, and people who claim it works would have the same success in arguing that poverty does a good job of producing millionaires. Meanwhile the iatrogenic harms are pretty abundantly clear, as most of the tactics used in AA and the rehab industry are based on instilling terror and attacking shaming and coercively controlling users, all of which have been proven for a very long time to cause more harm than benefit. Not to mention many of the characteristics attributed to addicts like ‘denial’ have been proven to be a product of shame based interventions, whereas non judgmental therapeutic encounters don’t elicit the same defense. Plus there is widespread evidence of cult behavior and abuse like 13th stepping in twelve step communities. Most of the rehab industry is twelve step based which centers around forcing people to accept that they have an internal defect that only god can remove (science???), and labeling anyone who disagrees a ‘non compliant in denial’ if you use alcohol or drugs, or a ‘dangerous heretic who is killing people by voicing dissent’ if you don’t. Can you imagine, being labeled extra diseased for finding it odd that your behavior is a result of an unproven disease that can only be cured by…religion??? The same swirl of misinformation and fear based vitriol swirls around the addiction industry as it does the psychiatric industry. But the causes of alcohol and substance abuse are largely known at this point to involve psychosocial things like trauma, early abuse, poverty, etc., none of which are addressed in the rehab industry or disease model and all of which are perpetuated within it. I guess it’s the same with any industry that medicalizes ‘deviant behaviors’ associated with all too human suffering.

    Report comment

      • I could not agree more. I’ve been drug and alcohol free for 3 years now and free from AA and Al anon for that long. AA was highly iatrogenic for me. It’s a fusion of all the worst aspects of the disease model and the moral failure model, it simply says that your ‘moral failure’ of being constitutionally selfish, deluded and godless is a disease. Anyway, it took me a looong time to calm down from the ‘if you leave you WILL die, and this is the ONLY way to get sober, and any doubt you have is your DISEASE, and this would only
        Not work for you because YOURE failing the program.’ But others aren’t so lucky, AA’ers are know to use cult tactics and stalking when people try and leave or explore other options.
        Meanwhile any intervention based on coercion—the rehab industry thrives on it—shame and fear is bound to be highly iatrogenic. I only think that we are not doing the reasearch on 12 step iatrogenesis because of the same reasons psychiatric iatrogenesis is so understudied. The backlash and vitriol from those helped by such approaches or invested in them to control their family members is something you wouldn’t believe. ‘You’re killing people’ is a common one. The psychiatric people say the same thing about questioning antidepressants. There are a lot parallels.

        Report comment

  4. Dr. Gotzsche asks: “Is there a future for psychiatry?”
    Why should there be a future for a harmful “science of lies” (Thomas Szasz’s apt description) based on fallacious premises? One day, I hope, it will be relegated to the trash heap of history. like other cultlike doctrines such as phrenology.

    Report comment

  5. 12 Step groups away from any rehab are clusters and depends on the folks who are involved. Sometimes it works and sometimes not. According to AA orgs they are not out to make money. So check out their history and do a deep dive and how they started in Ohio. It was a method and tool.
    The rehab industry is just that an industry and I have just never felt comfortable. To get a client in at one time one would give them a six pack and say drink even though they had realsed they had isdues because to get insurance to pay for inpatient the blood level alcohol would have to be at a certain point. Talk about bizzare!
    And for some folks the culture around them was an issue. And the whole range from not just friends but other stuff. So three was a need.
    But trauma yes and again back in the day when abuse of all kinds was just not talked about the anonymity of the 12 steps provided something though again for some and grew up from a certain group and culture.
    The whole rehab and then psychiatric industry that has come to the be in the last forty to fifty years just not good and sometimes many more than not creates further trauma and meanwhile certain folks are living high off the so called hog.

    Report comment

    • An interesting case of the interrelated dynamics of MI and aggresive ways of trying to address addiction was reported in a prominent critical mexican newspapea:

      Social services are sending a lot of people without addiction or prominent, signifcant addiction issues to mostly unregulated facilites because of familial violence, abandonment, lack of familiar support and MI. That is, otherwise victims that fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of social services.

      The average cost per week of inhousing people is around 50dlls per week, room, board, etc.

      In some cases they send even minors, which by necessity, more when victims of things beyond addiction, require specialized care, and specialized environment. Some minors are even put in the same facilities with adults, without proper separatation between adults and minors.

      And I guess their educational and developmental needs are not addressed properly or at all, in closed addiction centers. And they can come into contact with people with addiction issues that belong to organized crime. So they can be coopted or recruited just by exposure to “unindicted”/unknown suspected criminals within said facilities.

      Without stigmatizing, adults that do have severe issues with addiction and inside those centers with withdrawal. And some, perhaps very few, are/have been either look-outs for organized crime, or alternatively small time drug dealers. Respecting the presumption of innocence, just it has to be balanced against the superior interest of the safety and well-being of those minors.

      Report comment

  6. My previous comment appears to have undergone moderation without the provision of explicit reasons. In light of this, I would like to reiterate my point, hoping it will meet the required guidelines. It is imperative for individuals to be informed about the various decision-making options available to them.

    Specifically, I had made a distinction between the roles of psychiatrists, which often differ from those of most other medical professionals. I emphasized the view that a physician should not possess the legal authority to enforce medication upon a conscious and non-consenting individual. It is important to note that individuals experiencing psychosis remain conscious and are capable of navigating their surroundings, albeit with certain challenges. I refrained from elaborating on potential solutions to this issue in my initial statement, which may have been the reason for moderation (maybe that did not relate to the topic on hand). It is essential to remember that a physician’s primary responsibility lies in healing rather than assuming roles that involve involuntary confinement or engaging in non-consensual medical procedures or injections on conscious subjects.

    I am trying to choose words and statements that speak to the mind not to heart because it is so confusing why my last comment was rejected.

    Report comment

LEAVE A REPLY