Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Comments by Anonymous2016

Showing 49 of 49 comments.

  • Since there is a drug test, you can probably bet your bottom dollar that they can check whether the peer is med complaint, pretty easily. Step out of line and the first thing probably will be to prove that the individual is taking their meds. Seeing that the drugs are mostly lobotomizing, yes, the individual is selling their soul in my opinion.

    Secondly the position screams, yes, I am a mental patient and you can see that by my job title, no need to enforce HIPA. So maybe $1.00 above minimum wage is worth the price? I don’t think so. Yes they need the money, but is it worth the price?

    I am sorry but I’m going to have to agree to disagree.

  • I am just hoping it is continuing. It is 1982, at the height of the anti-psychiatry movement. I think Prozac hit the market in 1987. I know Xanax hit in 1981. There doesn’t look like any current data.

    Without legitimacy and the MD to sell the drugs, psychiatry as a whole will contract and end. That’s my hope. Unfortunately it a misled wish but, a wish at least.

  • Maybe this is the point. The stigma has passed onto the MD itself so that’s why MD are choosing not to enter the profession. I’ve read in articles that they are having problems recruiting for psychiatrists but have never seen any statistics. I think this is just like Amway, recruit more people into the system because maybe they are losing recruitment numbers on the MD side and just need warm bodies? Just a thought. God I hope so. Haven’t they ruined enough lives?

    And just think you get to go to work every day admitting that you got pulled into this pyramid scheme of how many different drugs can I consume before I’m lobotomized?

    By the way, anyone know the statistics?

  • Of course, this will be for the regulations that they deem fit. And what would those be? Well since Pharma is going to be sponsoring this MHA certification, we all can read between the lines on this one.

    The latest statistic is that 90% go off medications. Well a lot I suspect will return to normal and figure out that the drugs don’t work so how does the industry combat that? Hire peer counselors to make sure everyone TAKES THEIR MEDS! Imagine the addition to the bottom line profit on this little boondoggle.

    Reminds me of the Nazis hiring or recruiting Jews as officers to round up the masses in the Ghettos for shipment to the camps. I can hear the sales pitch to take these jobs, “But they pay X an hour!” You just have to sell your soul!

  • I would also not be surprised if you get more positive outcomes than negative, if any negative at all. Since there is a diagnosis for the “patient” that does not believe she was not helped but harmed. It is well documented that the way to appease and “get out of the hospital” is to go along to get along. It would be interesting after this positive case that you speak of starts having medication switched and increased dosages and new diagnosises, how she feels after say, a decade has passed and she finds herself unproductive.

    And of course the response from the doctor, to the effect of she’ll be back. Well no wonder, given that these drugs have withdrawal effects to the magnitude of 10X than the original episode. That doctor would have to look in the mirror and see how many years of education, experience and income being flushed down the toilet.

    The scientific basis for this is sub par by any scientific standard. They break all rules of the scientific method and statistical analysis, again and again and most of quickly apparent. So now we have the chemical imbalance debunked although 95% of the population has no clue that that is an urban legend, if you will. Now we move into the scarier realm of genetics which doctors have ascertained and made a basis for diagnosing a new patient. And even that avenue looks like there is no possibility but they are selling it nonetheless, and their patients swallowing it whole because of the MD at the end of the person’s name. Too bad common sense doesn’t come into it. Since the last statistic I heard on the mapping of the genome gave us 2000 possibility of mental illness. To identify that would be like winning one of those state lotteries where you pick 7 numbers from a lot of 50, about 40 times. And the odds are, that you would more likely get killed by a vending machine.

    From that I’m concluding is that the problem is one of sociology. If you put a person in extreme poverty struggling to make ends meet because we live in an oligarchy, then that’s just life. Yes a homeless person will not get the proper amount of sleep and be fully rested and yes, sleep deprivation will lead to psychosis. Violence will occur when a mother cannot afford to feed her baby but has to resort to crime and whatever violence that crime leads too. We in polite society wonder “how can you get to the point of hurting another human being” and to push it far from ourselves. We chalk it up to “mental illness.

    So the point it comes to is, it seems not to be a medical issue. It has been looked at, for too long and the “business” of pharmacology has become too big for us to look for another solution. The drugs they have can only shut off or turn on one item at a time, say serotonin or dopamine. There are too many functions that are controlled by dopamine, sleep regulation, goal seeking, sexual function and on and on for that to be a solution and they say so. But how much harm is it causing? Plenty. One is too many. Unfortunately, the doctors are just the salesmen in this equation. The real harm is the drugs. They have no business being in circulation.

    They are a safety hazard to the public at large.

  • “It is necessary for psychiatrists, mental health professionals, and policymakers to question how best to deal with the virtual explosion of information on the Internet, where such unscientific, biased, and unethical information is readily available.”

    I find this quote extremely interesting. If the drugs are so effective, why aren’t all trial data published? Why can’t we see what percentages of patients have side effects and to what extent. Why can’t we see redacted data from trials every time a drug is mentioned? Can it be that data and real data could be formulated? How about lawsuits on drugs, can we outlaw non-disclosure agreements if psychotropics are so effective?

    Why do these situations exist if the drug companies have nothing to hide? If these medicines are so great, why do we never hear about the percentages of people that are relieved of symptoms?

    We don’t even see practical evidence in the marketing. we are inundated with commercials. Don’t you think they have paid for enough avenues? It’s nice to hear another side since it seems to be common belief among many. It’s not really clear cut even in diagnosis, I mean the DSM is opinion based and voted on. That’s not really clear cut and dry by any form of the imagination.

  • And you fail to mention that fact that there are no laws that all trial data be public. All side effects need to be stated with a percentage as required by the scientific method, in the conclusion of the report. Doctor’s should be required to state these percentages. Notice I’m not saying parts per million, which should be a given in the pharmaceutical industry.

    We’ve already been blown out of the water with the financial disclosures that now can be hidden since the new 21st Century Cure Act was passed. No more following the money.

    And as far as I can tell Shaun, you’ve shown me no studies or declared any statistical data.

    Please SHOW me the numbers. You seem to have a lot to of opinions though. I am personally finding that insulting because you are on the side that has to prove to me that your product works, not the other way around.

    And I find it disrespectful, talk is cheap. Show me ALL the data.

  • Dear Ms. Aurora,

    How about drug watch database? There was an instance where Vyvanse was given to a 10 year old, I believe. That little girl gave it to a 3 month old and then continued to suffocate her. It was found by an IT individual whose son had a bad reaction to a psychotropic. You can go listen to the whole interview on Breggin.com and his newscast archives. Quite frightening. And then when he sued for the file under the freedom for information act, it was redacted from the database.

    I’d say that was a life taken too soon.

  • All therapy is basic manipulation from what I’ve studied. Make yourself the expert and then lecture to the patient. It’s nothing more than a pavlov’s dog experiment. Not many can administer this kind of therapy without becoming manipulative. The professional needs empathy and listening skills which are hard to find.

  • Yes but the doctor is the one that should be telling you about the side effects and be responsible for knowing the percentages for each side effect, which should be stated in all conclusions in the drug trials. I’ve never heard any statistics from any of the so called “patients”. I’ve only heard that kind of data from whistle blowers from the pharma industry and people who have been present at the lawsuits against some of the trials of these pharmaceutical drugs.

    The pharmacist will just give you a list.

    The doctor will then blame the side effect on the patient saying it’s the “illness” which has never been scientifically proven.

  • I’ve already sited the articles for the fact that 25 years ON AVERAGE is taken off each individual life. Yes you can have your outliers you recall, want to go through your family history. But overall given the mean, 25 years on average are taken off any individual that takes psychotropics. Take for instance, Carrie Fisher who died at 60 and the average lifespan is 81. Well, I guess you can say she lived on 4 years of borrowed time, according to the statistics.

    Please refer to the USA article and the consequential study. There is also a study from the New York Times, if you want to check out the “conservative” news source. They are both listed on Google.

  • Oh I don’t. Well then do tell me exactly what I do need to evaluate experiments and please be specific. I don’t know how to design studies or experiments. Well, what do I need to evaluate them.

    So my education is sorely lacking is the mathematical field. Okay then, well do tell me what the criteria of level of mathematics that I do need.

    I had no idea that I was so ignorant.

    Do tell……..

  • ECT is not harmful? Where did you get your electrical engineering degree? You don’t think it’s harmful, go ask an electrician. They’ll tell you they feel extreme pain and then euphoria when they get zapped.That’s the brain cells dying. It’s common sense, same as getting drunk. I’m sure you can try to rewire your house if you feel like it. You’ll get what I mean.

    I’ve seen the studies and I’ve set up experiments myself. I know how to play with the statistics and how those studies are run. Yes, I’ve seen the studies and ECT has not done a damn thing to help get closer to eliminating depression. If it did, everyone would be running out to get a battery and trying to complete the circuit. That’s life, sometimes it just stinks. Read some Shakespeare.

  • Shaun f, Princess Aurora and shook,

    You know the game bullshit. I call bullshit:

    You have never seen coercion in any form it seems but you know what a 27-10 is but nope, no one has ever been forced to take drugs against their will. No one it seems, has ever complained to you that the drugs don’t work and that you have a compliance issue with your patients. All of them seem to lead VERY productive lives and for-filling family live. That just seems wonderful, doesn’t it. Does it seem too good to be true. You bet it is and from the Pence scores from the psychotropics alone, an idiot can figure it out since most of them are at about 5 to 6 when to be effective, they are supposed to be at about a 15. And that’s from the Cochrane Institute if you have any questions on that.

    That tells me one thing. Princess Aurora seems to be a statistical anomaly. She thinks it works just great. In fact, she’s the most productive person ever to exist. She also has never had to bear the normal 10 years of finding the right medication. You know the one that they let every patient know when they lure them into their web. Nor do they tell you about the 10 year span if you take these drugs that you will most likely become permanently damaged by said treatment. Again, read Whitaker’s book, it’s enlightening.

    And then we have Shook, who seems his agenda is to sell the ECT treatment. Oh yea, where can I sign up? I need some brain damage. Any electrician will tell you that getting shocked is a bad thing. Since when do you listen to a field of medicine that thinks it knows about electricity because it knows how to plug in a lamp. This is the same area of medicine that is trying to sell Ketamine for depression, has investigated LSD, and approved drugs that can only turn on or shut off one serotonin or dopamine while everyone knows that there are many different things controlled by those two chemicals. Let’s take dopamine, it controls the reward center, sexual pleasure, monitors sleep cycles, higher learning functions, etc and all the drugs do is one thing, turn it off. Does anyone see a problem with this method? It’s like trying to do heart surgery with a spoon. Could it get the job done? it’s possible. Is it probable? Well no. And then the doctor is surprised when they don’t work or don’t show efficacy.

    And the whole sad part of the matter is the most evident statistic that we see here. That life span is shortened by 25 years for patients like Carrie Fisher. She was 60. Too bad the average lifespan is 81. Yes, she said how great her treatment was and so do a lot of other celebrities and I believe they are forced to or paid to. It’s obvious to everyone here but the three of you.

  • Truth, I have to say, this is the most insightful statement I’ve read in a long time.

    “our previous comment puzzled me. So WHY are all these people who are leading HAPPY and FULFILLING lives because they are drugged (“medicated”) spending their valuable but as Aurora said “perhaps shortened lives/time seeing a “therapist”? To chat about how happy and fulfilling their drugged lives are?”

    I have to say, very profound and very true. Thanks for that

  • i am replying here because there is no reply link to your answer to me because you asked about the violence data. You need to read Dr. Peter Breggin and his paper on “Suicidality, Violence and Mania caused by Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI’s)” 2003. This was distributed to each of the members of the FDA advisory committee. I would also recommend his book “Medication Madness”. Thomas Moore has also done extensive work in this area but I have not read his papers. Mania is evident in 4-6% of the population and this is greatly underestimated. Mania is where the problem starts in my estimation.

    As far as your “test” that you mention, it is classified as “genetic testing” in all the pharmaceutical information given with the test. Check and see for yourself. Again, a loophole about that test is that it is not a medication and that’s probably why there are no statistics available for it’s efficacy. Testing would probably be categorized with ECT as a process and therefore, no efficacy testing needed. Convenient for your field, wouldn’t you say.

  • It is enzyme testing that you refer to but I’m sure in your circle they refer to it as genetic testing and that is Eugenics. The testing of whether it is passed on through the genes of the next person. This does not work because it has no correlation of mental illness from one generation to the next. Scientists have already looked into this theory. They are teaching you the lingo, which I have stated earlier, worries me. Pardon me for being specific and taking apart your statements:

    “My clinic is now able to do genetic testing to determine what medications are likely to be best metabolized by the individual, and I think this is a step in the right direction. I get why many clients do not feel comfortable taking medications. This is an issue for both MH and physical health treatments. People simply don’t like to take daily meds.”

    There is no validity in the testing itself and this is the next MARKETING PLOY that has been put out into the public. Yes I do know the testing exists and I am well aware of it but until I see the testing, raw data, correlation coefficients or patient feedback then I will not consider this a science. I I have already addressed this. You are trying to medicalize a problem that has no medical basis to begin with. Remember we have blood tests, PET SCANS and MRIs for a reason.

    And I have a real problem with you saying that you were helped by Benzos. They are highly addictive. If you have taken them, and you buy into this medical model, I can only assume that you are on anti psychotics or mood stabilizers by this point because that’s what doctor’s will prescribe to alleviate the symptoms of withdrawal. If that is the case, I wish you luck because you are going to need it.

    There is no study that shows long term usage or usage at all by psychotropics that are repeatable or one offs, and that is why the FDA only needs 2 studies to approve a new drug and they only have to be 4-8 weeks. Our disability rolls prove otherwise, so does the improvement of mental stability in third world countries. Now that is really sad.

    Want to hear another story that you might find amusing. We have this new heart medication we’re putting through trials. Trouble is, is that they are having heart attacks in large percentages. The good news is that the main side effect is about 99% in all patients. They get boners that can last up to 4 hours. Wanna guess what drug that is? And yes, that’s a true story and it’s been documented.

    And yes, I have a problem with psychotropics. They cause violence and I have to send my kid to school every day hoping that one of those kids, who might shoot up the school because of a side effect, don’t. It should have been taken off the market but instead, is redacted in most court documents to cover up the liability that truly exists. The numbers of silent bombs out there are staggering.

  • Shaun f,

    Some of your comments really worry me. Eugenics, really? The genome has been found to have at least 2000 possible factors in the strain and most scientists say that narrowing them down to eliminating any possibility of defining mental illness is essentially zero. This has been thrown out with the Nazi’s and it should remain so. This is about as accurate as the chemical imbalance that they try to market to the general public. I am concerned that Eugenics are the new marketing tool to a segment of the population that barely understands science and the statistics that must follow. You, clearly need to educate yourself in this area. Doctors have enough to learn but they have been blindsided and their nature is to claim that they know everything. Might makes right and it makes it much easier to defend against lawsuits. Take a look at lawsuits and the ever changing “Standard of Care” and you will see what I mean.

    The drugs themselves are dangerous and do not have any beneficial effect and this has been proven again and again. Please follow the money and I suggest you do some research on how these drugs are approved and how the scientific method should be followed. You will clearly see it is not followed and that the FDA has no real teeth to prevent the approval of new drugs. This is most evident in the drug Chantix where the black label is in the works of being removed that it causes violence. You will notice, f you look into some of the work Thomas Moore has done, that it has a higher incident of violence than any other antidepressant. It would be just common sense to see that the occurrence of this factor is higher because it is a “smoker cessation” drug and not considered for a so called “mentally ill” patient. The claims are taken more seriously because of the type of patient. In the so called “mentally ill” patient, it should be seen as a return to the “illness” and not seen as a side effect of the drug itself.

    As far as people returning to your clinic, I would contribute that to withdrawal effect which are substantial. It looks along the same overall effect of an alcoholic and the chance of the patient dying is also a distinct possibility. What’s even more interesting is looking at some of the side effects of the drugs they prescribe. The side effects alone, almost guarantee that you will be diagnosed because you will be “exhibiting” more behavioral oddities that are listed in the DSM and there you have your proof. Iaotragenic but proof, no less. Take a look at the side effects of Invega if you should happen to want to educate yourself and then take a look at the DSM and the definition of schizophrenia. It’s quite amusing, really.

    As far as the 27-10, I suggest you look at some of the data and the court filings on that. They, themselves are a joke and the psychiatrists have been caught in lies to “ensure” the treatment of the patient. They will administer medications. They don’t make money if they don’t. There is no way to fight these involuntary commitments and that is the point. It seems you have no experience with this.

    I suggest you read a little more and do some research on your field, especially how statistics are totally absent from any marketing tool that pharma uses. You will need to follow the money, as they say. I would suggest some books that have been written from whistle blowers from the industry. They are quite enlightening. But beware, you may be questioning everything from that point, including statins, chemotherapy drugs and any other so called, number forming recognition of “disease.

    In other words, follow the money.

  • Good to know, thanks. I heard one woman who tried to cancel her health insurance while she was there but because they would not let her leave, she couldn’t do it unless it was in person. Maybe there would be a way to do it legally beforehand so that the system wouldn’t be so happy to take you because let’s face it, if there’s no incentive to get paid there’s no chance they are going to force you into treatment.

  • I absolutely agree to block the bill that supports the spending spree for Pharma and I will again have my representatives on speed dial at that point. And oldhead, we do need to thank you for all your work. I know I’ve thanked you before but it should be said again. So thank you!

    I was also thinking of individual rights and how one can protect themselves once this is passed. It seems likely it will go through. We had no opposition for the other bill and each representative gets about $429,000 each from Pharma lobbyists as of now. That figure is going to increase because instead of 240 million, they are increasing it to 340 million for lobbyists.

  • There has got to be a way legally that one can protect themselves from this new legislation. This is nothing but financial blackmail and subsidies for the pharmaceutical industry. Being able to be sequestered and forcibly drugged or hospitalized without one’s consent could lead to bankrupting that person. The number one reason for going on welfare is inability to pay for medical services.

    There has got to be a way around this, such as refusing to sign anything. You will need to sign a slip of paper so that the hospital can bill you and without it they can’t hold you financially responsible. There has got to be loopholes around this atrocity of a bill. We just have to find it’s Achilles heel, if you will.

    I don’t know but we are going to need legal help to fight against this.

  • Sera,

    Thank you for writing this article. I have enjoyed this whole series immensely although I refuse to read any articles by the Boston Globe and have hidden the newspaper stash at work several times. I love the style of your writing, and it is your wit that can cut through any situation which makes it even more of a pleasure to read.

    I’m surprised you even followed the series through to the end. And yes, they do have benefactors that they are catering to, the pharmaceutical companies. They might have just put at the bottom of the articles “Brought to you by Ely Lily or GSK. You can see the bias in the articles they write about the pharmaceutical companies although you can’t get an exact number for the amount of advertising that they take in from them so I wouldn’t even consider them a reliable news source for this subject. They might piss off the wrong customer. The terrible thing is, is that we will no longer get reporting for the sake of getting the truth out. Even Obama gave an interview and said that financial help should be given to our news media because for a democracy, accurate and truth are needed to be the watchdog of our society. And he’s right. This is just another ad for pharma.

    I can remember Nealy giving a speech at a conference and that he had been interviewed and asked for data on violence caused by psychotropics. He was livid that it was never aired. I guess the advertisers got their way with BBC and CBS. Jt’s a shame we are even losing our news media in this oligarchy. Don’t have a lobbyist, then you don’t get heard.

  • Katinka,

    I loved your book and it was extremely compelling. I read it in one sitting. And it mirrored my life almost to a T. Except that it ended up costing me my marriage. First I felt raped by psychiatry. and then by the court system and my ex husband. I didn’t realize how many basic human rights that would be taken away when labeled. And the worst part is that there is nothing I can do to prove otherwise: no blood test, MRI, CAT or PET scan. It’s like trying to prove that you’re not ugly. How do you do that beyond a shadow of a doubt? Being on an SSRI I felt like I was in a dream and detached from what was going on. They later put me on ADHD medication and it also sent me into such a mania, I felt my body was on fire and I just wished I could jump out of my skin to get away from the feeling.

    I have now been drug free for about 3.5 years. I am looking for a job while I work part time. It hurts to be underemployed and not utilizing my education. It also hurts to face the stigma that you face in day to day situations. People and sometimes the ones close to us are condescending and treat you as though you are not human. I am piecing my life back together and it has not been easy. One day I will get there. At least I made it out without too much damage.

    Anyway, I found your story inspiring and hope I do as well as you did. And again, thanks for your contribution.

    Dr Peter Breggin was spot on when he made the comment, going to see a psychiatrist can literally ruin your life.

  • I apologize but I am taking Donald Trump as an example. I am just trying to poke fun at the scientific methods of the DSM. He just happens to be the focus of the debate and the ADA has stepped in to claim that diagnosis should not be done on a public figure. I believe the story was published in the Washington Post.

    I just find it laughable since I believe diagnosis is like calling someone a name, or insulting them, take for instance, calling them ugly.

    And you are right, there will be people that will DEFINITELY vote for him, in fact, I think the latest poll is 38% if I’m not mistaken.

  • Dr Hickey, I always love reading your posts!

    Are we all in agreement that Trump is a “wack job”?

    Everyone in agreement, please raise your hand. The ayes have it.

    Doesn’t that sound familiar? Just replace your favorite symptom in place of “Trump” and symptom of your favorite diagnosis for “wack job” and you have the DSM committee meeting.

    Very, very scientific.

  • Awesome article and you bring up some great points. By the way, thanks for the laugh about antidepressants being found in most tap water. The thought of people dancing in the street and your final line of “Oh Happy day!” made me laugh so hard, I almost cried.

    When I think of Lieberman, I think of Melange reborn. Who would think of trying to induce psychosis on schizophrenic patients? I could only think of it in the context of a horror movie. As far as Murphy, well it does not surprise me about the increasing money coming from Pharma. With Sandy Hook and the parents suing for the medical information to be revealed that was redacted, they are protecting their revenue stream. Pharma needs this hidden. As far as patients not taking their medication, they are not stupid. The stuff just doesn’t work.

    My question is why isn’t the data speaking for itself? That the medication can cause violence, brain damage and premature death. I just don’t understand it.

  • Chrisa,

    I don’t mean to be sarcastic but how’s that working for you? Eleven years is a long time. Don’t you think things should be better, well data shows it doesn’t get better. Maybe you need to try a different approach. Pharmaceutical companies don’t care about making things better they care about sales. AOT will just deny a human being their constitutional rights and does the same thing for farmers that farm subsidies, more revenue. And guess what, it will contribute to permanent disability. Data proves it. You might want to do your homework. The path you are taking is only making the situation worse. Homelessness can cause mental health problems, not the other way around.

    You may not want to hear it but you might need to change your approach. Good luck.

  • Bruce,

    Thanks for a thought provoking article. Whenever discussing any statistic from Whitaker’s book or giving advice to people who ask for it on certain forums, I always get attacked by the Scientology angle even though I only try and quote anything from a reputable source. This diminishes the argument. It has to be statistical, thoroughly logical and the scientific method, totally transparent to hit home. I can’t understand why the drugs can’t be determined destructive. I would like to see any patient taking an antipsychotic get life insurance. I don’t think it’s possible. Surely the data that the actuaries are obtaining can be exposed.

    I do believe the scope does need to be opened up. There is a clear indication that statins are also causing damage and that needs to be exposed. Unfortunately the toxicity of the drugs given to psychiatric patients are much higher.

    I am very suspicious of Allen Francis and his attendance of the ISEPP. All I see is that he is trying to infiltrate the movement to see what it has and that he does it for his own selfish purposes. His hands are dirty and he has taken payoffs from Pharma before. He cannot be trusted. I feel he’s just using the adage of “keep your fiends close and your enemies closer”.

    Good luck with this Bruce and keep on fighting. I just wish the Murphy Law was not an issue. That just shows the ignorance of the general public.

    Thanks again.

  • So that means if it helps (evidence proves otherwise) that it helps 1 in 1000, but causes mania in 8.1% (this won’t include the people that were hospitalized and determined that their diagnosis was not depression but bipolar and isn’t that hysterical) that could possibly cause violence. We should just put up with the school/mass shootings. Love the logic. By the way, exercise gets rid of depression better than pills.

  • Steve and Deeo42,

    Thanks for your replies. I especially love the quote, ” “the conspiracy may make the tyrant afraid and his excessive reaction may make him even more hated which will spell the end of his illegitimate rule”. I was hoping that Allen Francis even attempting to be at the ISEPP meeting being an indication of his fears that our opinion might have some teeth to it and he’d better make friends with the enemy.

    And I don’t understand how Healy can justify ECT. Being a former engineer and getting shocked accidentally, I have to tell you, it’s not a pleasant experience. You can feel elated after. The same feeling you get if you drink too much. You can just feel the brain cells dying. I can’t imagine this non-directed use of electricity actually helping anyone but to ultimately cause brain damage.

    Steve,

    They have to ignore the material and cough it up to the anti-psychiatry/Scientology rhetoric. Anyone who reads Whitaker has to have respect for the amount of work and research that it took to back up his theories. I’m just flabbergasted at the denial.

  • Stephen,

    This gives me hope. I guess it resembles a child behavior, “deny, deny, deny. I will not get in trouble.” It’s nice to know you’ve actually cornered them into admitting they know the research. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall listening to those conversations taking place.

  • Michael, thank you for such a thought provoking article. This opinion is never heard from your side of the aisle and you should be commended on how brave you are to stand your ground. Unfortunately, the truth is not something the mainstream wants to hear right now and it’s amazing the amount of psychiatrists who don’t know about Breggin and Whitaker’s work. I find that people who expose the truth are the ones who are crucified especially when there is pharmaceutical money at stake. Do you think this is how Galileo felt? I guess this has to go the same route of cigarette companies, only after the amount of deaths are just staggering. Maybe the Murphy Bill is the beginning of the end, we’ll see. The problem is that this is just sad to watch.

  • Although, I think your work is fantastic, it messes with the revenue stream that now exists. The APA and the UK are more interested in the IL-6 receptor theory with a, wait for the punchline, drug that effects IL-6 neurotransmitter. Too bad the science didn’t follow first with I don’t know, verifiable statistics, but alas, that’s the situation where we find ourselves in, again.

    I heard Ketamine for depression is also a new poster child for psychiatry. That should fit into Pharma’s income possibilities quite nicely since the side effect most associated with this street drug is psychosis. We’ll skip the bipolar diagnosis completely and go straight to the schizophrenia diagnosis. And since those are probably the level of drugs that cause the most brain damage, 10 years to create disability will be left in the dust. We’ll be doing it in half the time.

  • First of all, this is one great piece you have written and I think it hammers home a lot of points. I hope if you don’t mind me adding my own. I would love to challenge the Boston Globe team in going to see a psychiatrist and see if they can get out of the office without a prescription. In fact, I’m willing to bet that it will probably be around 99% that will leave with a diagnosis.

    So I’m not surprised that all the accused are diagnosed. The American public needs to rationalize why people do horrific things and need to push the situation as far away from them as possible; hence, they create the stigma for their own protection. There will never be a physical marker to determine who is mentally ill or not because that would limit the amount of customers that the pharmaceutical companies can acquire. And the stigma puts another level on top of this that the customers suffer in silence. Not many will write in and of course they won’t. I’m not surprised the response is generally congratulatory on the article.

    The other thing that bothers me is the story telling part of this story. Talk about fiction. The reporter should retire and write a book. To write from only one side of the story is, in my opinion, biased. Did the reporter look into what happened for the gentleman to be where he is now. I think I can guess. Some horrible fate fell upon him like a life event that any normal human being found intolerable then led him to take medication, which of course, didn’t work. The dose was increased or more dangerous drugs were prescribed. After a while, he was hooked on them and can’t get off. And with each prescription, his diagnosis changes to something different, his behavior becomes more erratic and to another higher level. The doctor ignoring the side effects of the medicines and saying it’s because of his disorder. He escalates from depression to bipolar to schizophrenia in this pyramid scheme of prescriptions and at some point the damage is done. His brain is damaged permanently from the prescriptions and has no choice but to forcibly take some kind of psychotropic.

    And then we have a consumer of psychotropics and the pharmaceutical company for life.

    And all just a pyramid scheme with one underlying object, the almighty dollar.

    By the way, I do plan to write to the Boston Globe but I need to let this sink in a bit and really think about what I’m going to write. As far as readership, I will never buy this paper again.

  • Thank you for writing this. It’s so thought provoking. And I love how most of your talks you go straight into the numbers and fact based data. All I can say is bravo. But the one thing we do need is 1000 more like you, that are formulating scientifically based arguments and that aren’t former patients. As you said in your article, it’s so easy for the psychiatrists to commit perjury. It’s easy enough to do in a commitment hearing and they do it all the time.

    I just wish we could get this data out to the general public. It’s a shame. And the situation is now going to get worse with the Murphy Bill moving forward. The law will now require forced psychotropics that don’t work and cause brain damage. Absolutely fabulous.

  • I have to respectfully disagree with the article. I believe the only way to change the system is to take Pharma down. The only system that would be able to perform such a task would be the court system. Prove the medication, diagnosis and anything to do with psychiatry has nothing to do with science but everything to do with marketing. With the new caps on tort lawsuits, I don’t even think it’s possible. The only way to change the system would be lawsuits that add up to so much, that the liabilities from lawsuits ends up on the 10K of the company, where the auditor issues an “on going concern”. Do that and you take it to the highest levels of the company. There’s no where to hide.

    Take down a company and they will have to change the whole system, starting with the worst offender in this whole equation, the FDA. Psychiatrists, who have to overlook the obvious facts to operate, are only the salesmen in this system. They are lovingly called “drug whores” by Pharma and it has been stated in several whistle blower exposes on Pharma.

    We have to attack the efficacy of the drug and moreover, the damage it can cause.

    And there is strength in numbers.

  • Hey Bob,

    How many times have you gone over the Harrow study and pulled it apart in front of this crowd. The next time they ask to do this, ask them to bring the raw data of the FDA drug study from the drug they prescribe most in their practice.

    Somehow, I don’t think you’ll get it and it’s amazing they are not criminally or civilly liable from the side effects that some of these drugs THEY prescribe.

    And yes, I agree with the previous poster. This is insane.

  • So am I correct in assuming that correlation coefficients were found to be statistically significant but it was blown off because it does not show causation? Okay, so what now? Numbers don’t lie. People do and only to protect their own self interests.

    They are afraid that you are going to put them out of business is what they are afraid of, my father always told me “they don’t kick dead dogs”. And their bedfellows, “the pharmaceutical companies” are starting to show some pretty risky behavior in obtaining more revenue. Recently off label selling and getting fined for it for one example. I even saw something on the TV news that pregnant women have an app now to diagnosis depression. Where this is heading is scary. It’s already been shown that psychiatry tries to gather prestige of a medical doctor and shake off the label of “quack”. They have a long way to go and if they think that the pharmaceutical company will help them to find a biological marker for mental illness, that would fly in the face of their and limit the amount of consumers that the pharmaceutical companies can obtain.

    Before you even read the study you have to ask a million questions before you even read it. Who sponsored it, is it ghost written, was the raw data provided, where did you find the patients, how did you qualify the patients, what were they taking before the study, when did they stop. The list goes on and on It’s exhausting and insulting to any dignified scientist who respects the scientific method.

    The only way that these doctors will have their comeuppance will be when their bedfellows screw up. And the time is coming but it will not include mental patients, the suit will deal with their families. Let’s face it, mental patients are easy to disqualify in court. If you don’t believe me ask one of us about divorce or custody. Our rights are automatically taken away.

    I also find it amusing that they throw in the fact that there are dissatisfied patients and how we are a thorn in their side. My question to them is “Can you show me the satisfied ones?’

  • Peter, again thank you for a thought provoking article. I loved your book “Medication Madness” and was both riveted and disturbed by the information in the book, especially when it introduced the Prozac trial data. We are back to archaic experiments, I’m afraid. I am appalled at Lieberman and his Mengele experiments on producing psychotic breaks in schizophrenia patients. And here again, I hear the Nazi reference again.

    Again, we have manipulation of data and the statistics. There doesn’t seem to be any science behind this facade. It’s amazing they’ve lasted this long, the pharmaceutical companies, the psychiatrists and the whole mental health establishment. I heard they are going to redo a drug trial called 329. I don’t have much faith in the effort, because I have seen and done statistical manipulation as a student. The trick is to throw out the data at the beginning. But this was to prove Newton’s laws and the law’s of physics and nobody is debating whether they are true or not. Those experiments are repeatable.

    Robert Whitaker, who wrote Anatomy of an Epidemic, a book of which I adore and I have a deep respect for his research efforts. I love all the statistics and layman explanations of the anatomy and all the lessons needed to understand how to “pull apart this issue”, believes he can discuss and prove that the drugs have no efficacy to change the system by talking to the doctors. Unfortunately, to admit this, the doctor’s themselves will have to admit they have been fooling themselves all along and have to bite the hand that feeds them. Give up their means of making money and survival, not to mention the years, blood sweat and tears to get an MD and build a practice. How will they pay off their student loans?

    So let’s change the system. How do you accomplish such a task? Well, history proves that it has to be evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that the pharmaceutical companies are acting in a way that harms the patient. But they are supposedly all crazy. A lawsuit full of crazy people, even though no court of law should be able to verify that science exists behind this industry. Change the way the FDA is run and funded? The pharmaceutical basically use our regulatory systems to train their future employees. The psychiatrists are looked at, as the sales force and a very indentured group to say the least.

    So Peter, give us your advice. How to we slay Goliath? Especially since they are the one controlling all the money? 330 billion dollars a year in revenue is a lot of money; never mind, what they already have in equity on the balance sheet.

    Also, on another note, I would love to know how many people were in the Prozac drug study and which phase, if you would be so kind? The one where Ely Lilly took 6 of the 12 suicides and relabeled them “emotional liability”