Monday, March 20, 2023

Comments by Anonymous2016

Showing 100 of 139 comments. Show all.

  • You are talking about psychiatry. The DSM has nothing to so with science or scientific fact. You are talking about defining the human mind and defining it and how it should act. You will have to say goodbye to a lot of behaviors and things society enjoys. Eistein would be locked up. Steve Jobs labeled a mad man. Do not even begin to discuss art: Picasso and Van Gough will never be tolerated in the future. In Politics, there will have to be an override for abhorent behavior. And the last will be humor and sarcasm, because everything will be scrutinized and may be taken out of context. I don’t even think Orwell could have dreamed up what we face but he came pretty close. Too bad 1984 might be a novel that would not be able to be published in the future. Wow, pretty bleak. I think I might run away to Mexico.

  • I applaud your list Bonnie and if it can ever come to fruition I would love to see it done. I have a couple of more things to add though. The other problem is an economic one. So many homeless, drug addicts and those in prison are forced on medications. It becomes quite the problem since the side effects from the drugs will either prohibit them from making good decisions,render them unable to function or get out of their situation entirely, or could lead to violence. Especially the homeless, they are forced to seek mental health services as a prerequisite to getting help. I was often told this in the hospital. If you don’t adhere to the regiment of “prescribed” outpatient programmed care when you leave the hospital we will not be able to help you with housing etc. I fortunately did not need these services. We need to stop this and making mental health services required to seek social services. This is causing most of the problems of the homeless. We give them these toxins and after awhile they are unable to function or “help themselves” get out of their situation.

    When will this merry go round to stop. We are causing more need for “services” by allowing the “requirement’ of taking these toxins to get “economical help” which should be given without strings. That’s the only thing I ask be added to the list.

  • Sera,

    My problem is not with “pill shaming” and ignoring it. Excellent point! And as far as I can see, Aunt Psychiatry is correct on how this all came about. I guess the “Stigma campaign” isn’t working. A lot more people are sharing their stories of what happens in the mental health arena.

    My problem is with not seeing that the drugs are the problem. There can not be informed consent ever. The FDA and the drug companies have the FDA drug trial data along with privatized adverse effects list and the true percentages of all the side effects and that includes the suicide percentages, and accurate details of how data points were not included in the data set. Without transparency, informed consent is an illusion. Let’s face it, these toxins are the problem. The side effects create the serious mental illnesses. A side effect of mania ruined my life at one point and I hope to save as many lives as I can to never experience what I did and what the public doesn’t know is that anyone can experience this. The risk does not equal the reward and reward in this case is also an illusion. Do I believe that withdrawal treatment should be free. You bet. They caused the problem. They should fix it. Do I believe that people should have disability, yes and more resources to help them live and get it from Pharma, they caused it. They should pay.

    We’re going to have to agree to disagree.

  • I have been holding off on commenting. But Sera, in what way is the field level anyway? As a pill shamer, I get called that a lot and get ganged up on,on social media. It’s usually in the same breath that stigma is used. I have long since reiterated that “I am shaming the psychiatrists”. The patients have nothing to do with it, they are doing what their doctor tells them to do. And as far as I’m concerned, “SHAME ON THEM”. They’re well aware of the hidden risks and the percentages. All they need is 25 patients to figure out what the major problems are with the drugs we’re discussing. The more we learn about these drugs and the more studies and BAKED studies that come out, the more dangerous these psychotropics get. We’re talking exponential growth on psychotropics. Ambilify is at 7 billion dollars a year.

    You say I can’t just say “all drugs are bad”. They are!

    The studies and the situation we have, right now proves this. Why shouldn’t I say all drugs are bad. And don’t give me the “withdrawal” and some can’t come off. I know this and I believe the doctors should fix what they have started and totally screwed up.

    And the only way you stop this epidemic, is stop new prescriptions and demand that doctors fix the problem they started by getting a gentle process for withdrawals. We need the money funneled into societal issues: violence ignored, poverty, not enough good paying jobs, affordable housing, not mind altering drugs so they don’t recognize that the patient is not to blame for their own problems but it is one of a society’s wealth distribution.

  • I agree psychiatry is there to “blame the individual” instead of look at societies ills as a whole. More jobs are lost to technology and there are a lot more jobs that are not likely paid living wages. The joke is, of course there are plenty of jobs out there, I have 3 of them. The income equality is skewed so heavily now that it is mimicking the point when revolutions take place. And I am not suggesting it here either just stating what I’ve read about income inequality and the skirmishes that have occurred at the levels we’re approaching. There is always a tipping point and it has happened time and time again. The rich just make the rules. They have enough money to ensure it stays in their hands.

    Does antidepressants dull the senses? I’m sure it does. The fact that they are highly addictive and have grave adverse effects which just happen to be symptoms of more deadly diagnoses are an ancillary benefit. This is all about money, prestige and keeping it in the hands or Pharma, and the psychiatrists, their sales force. The marketing for stigma, “seeking help”, drug ads and the suicide lines are genius if you look at them from strictly a business sense. How many people are lured in just by the insecurity that “they are good enough” or that their dire situation is their own fault. It’s so freeing. Oh I have an illness and this is why I am not “successful” enough, or cannot sustain in the current economic climate. It can be intoxicating. And they end up on this roller coaster and lose years of their lives. I know I have.

    My concern is that we are turning the tables on the GPs. How many prescriptions are distributed by GPs versus sending them to a psychiatrist? If that were the case, psychiatrists would not be so sought after. Most of the cases I’ve heard of, is that they are referred to counseling and the counselor usually talks them into accepting a prescription. Are GPs to blame or is it the psychiatrists that refused to demand that the FDA hand over the data from the drug trials along with the adverse effects and their percentages. I would love to see some numbers on how many GP are handing out psychotropic prescriptions vs psychiatrists and the break down. And I would disqualify the ones that are antidepressants and prescribed off label like incontinence and it’s actually an antidepressant. That would just muddy the waters.

  • Rachel,
    I agree with you 100%. She has never taken the drug and don’t know what they do. The drug companies will not give you the data from the drug trials and for good reason. Not everyone who’s harmed by these drugs speaks up for fear of reprisal and being labeled, “well of course, they’re mentally ill so you really cannot take them seriously”. And good for you getting off the toxins! Congratulations! I think this crap should be banned under the heading “a safety hazard” because they are.

  • I think that was Facebook and the anti-vaxers but I may be mistaken. Twitter has not done any editing of any of us that I’m aware of but that could change. I’m sure you can report a tweet but we keep it to the facts and ask the hard questions. We pull apart all studies and tell off psychiatrists how much money they have taken from pharma, how the studies from the FDA and the data are unavailable, and if they think it’s prudent to prescribe when that data has not been released. We have some doctors that chime in with us.

    Will it stop? Maybe, but until then we’ll keep talking until someone listens.

  • Sera, I was unclear. I thought I was just restating your frustration and stating why we can’t change our story and have a thank you list as in the Oscars . If we don’t make them uncomfortable, they win and nothing changes. I totally agree with you that we can’t change the narrative. They are in total control and think that nothing will change. Not if we yell loud enough.

  • Sera,
    I respect you for coming out and telling your story. But here’s the thing. How do you you learn anything from it if it’s not the truth and the bare and brutal truth. The fact is, we will never learn by sugar coating anything. It’s just not done that way and we’ll never change anything. The truth is uncomfortable and so is making change, one cannot be done without the other.

    For me, I have to live in the shadows. My profession or current job would not allow full disclosure of what happened to me by me believing the con of what we know as psychiatry. I am brutal and sarcastic on social media and above all brutally honest. I am a warning of what can happen to one who believes in the lies that this profession has sold and marketed to the public and I as a fool, swallowed it hook. line and sinker. I believed what the public now does that all problems with mental patients is that they stop their medication and that’s where the trouble begins. I never read any of the studies. I could have and it would have saved me a lot of grief. I wish I had heard of Mad in America before I got conned. And so my story is not one of doctors or therapists being my hero. Could I ever tell my story? Maybe someday but it will be brutal and it will name names and tell awful truths. The ending hasn’t been written yet and I am shooting for the stars on how much I can turn this story around.

    Until such time, I will continue to be “in psychiatry’s face” on twitter. To be the best troll I know how to be while teaming with the other activists and spreading the word that there is such thing as “life after psychiatry” and that it can be good once you turn your back on the current paradigm.

    Did I write that out loud? I guess I did.

    Well Sera, keep doing what you’re doing. We enjoy your articles so much here. And thanks again for making me feel like I have a close friend in the trenches.

  • So you would gladly give up another memory like your wedding day, or the birth of your child? How about the ability to read? How about your knowledge to earn income? These are actual examples: Sue Cunliff used to be a doctor and can no longer practice or another who has lost the memories of ever meeting and falling in love with her husband, another poor soul I have met. You cannot select what memories get erased.

    Or better yet how about this: may I suggest Logotherapy. Please read “Man’s search for Meaning” by Victor Frankl. It shows you how to change your prospective on your “bad memory”. Wouldn’t you rather select a memory and how to look at it than leave up to chance what memories electricity erases. What I find disturbing is that you agree that this “bad” memory is gone but argue that permanent brain damage has not taken place. The thing is that they do not monitor any cognitive abilities after ECT because it would definitively prove that brain damage is what takes place and it is permanent.

  • At 140 Volts and in seconds, electricity causes tears in your brain. That was the testimony for the last lawsuit by an engineer from MIT against an ECT manufacturer mentioned on this website. When is tears in your brain a good thing is what I need to know because the ECT equipment electricity range is between 260 Volts to 460 Volts. I can’t see what good can become of damaging one’s brain.

  • I can’t believe they make money off people going through hard times or living with trauma that the authorities missed and “didn’t do their job in the first place”. We are talking about a pill that was “crap” in 1997 and they had a team at Ely Lily to try and market this to the masses. The original group just wanted to scrap it and call it a day but they named it Prozac and sold it. They sold us the “chemical imbalance theory” and billions of dollars were made. Viraprim wrote this in his book. And even joked that he bribed Sweden to sell this “crap”. And here we are debating whether Davies and Read are correct or not in their study when the numbers clearly say they is “right” in their analysis. How do you show perfect science to prove an abomination of the scientific method when proving antidepressants are effective to begin with? How about using common sense?

  • Don’t get me wrong! I have nothing but ultimate respect for anyone that gets out of this system alive, gets off the drugs and can live outside this destination “disability”. But to work for the same system who wronged you in the first place, and gave you a fake label to ostracize you from society, it just legitimizes the whole system.

    And Sasha went and obtained an MSW or is in the process of one. My college roommate did that and it’s no joke. But now you’ve limited your capacity of income by the system that ostracized you in the first place from society and you think you’re going to get fair treatment? Good luck with that.

    Your best bet is to try to get income from outside the system and get to the point where you are earning enough to shun the system in the first place. Then you can organize and fight against “the belief system” that this seems to perpetuate.

    They can determine your fate, income and future possibilities. That’s looks like Stockholm syndrome to me.

    And let me apologize now for anyone who is offended by this post.

  • You will always be looked down upon in this system. And you’re employed by this marketing ploy that doesn’t have a shred of scientific backing whatsoever. And how do you fight a beast like this? You join it? Your punishment is being dished out to you already in spades.

    Even if you succeeded in getting a medical degree from a prestigious enough university, you still wouldn’t be taken seriously. Look at Kirsch and his meta analysis and he came from Harvard.

    I don’t get this whole concept. Maybe you can explain this to me because I always have trouble with this.

  • The thing that’s interesting to note is that all age categories decreased for this study after the black box warning, not just under 18 and I finally get an answer how they got the age of 24 into the black box warning. As far as I’m concerned, this black box warning should be “for all ages” according to the graph.

    No one ever discusses it these days. Only one commented in the Washington Post article discussing children and the anxiety of attending school. Her daughter committed suicide after taking this crap. She brought up the black box warning.

    We need to take this off the market and stop the debate. It’s a public safety hazard for all, not just children. Unfortunately no one’s listening.

  • Rachel,

    This puts it all in a nutshell.

    “I’m very angry. I never would have taken street drugs to cope with my problems. By lying to me about a non-existent chemical imbalance they tricked me into going against my conscience and turned me into an addict.”

    I’m glad you made it out and you should be angry. They not only wasted precious time. They talked you into helplessness. And all in the name of greed. It should be illegal.

  • No offense but this is how I see it:

    I think that the medication is the one variable you have to get rid of, if you ever want a dialogue between professionals and patients to be on an equal basis. They are destroy any connection there would be between patient and doctor or therapist. The main concern is to get the medication correct and they don’t give a damn what circumstances the individual is facing. And the directive is, “well if you want help with homelessness, being poor, having no job, having no support system you can fall back on, take your meds, show up to all therapy sessions, be a good little patient and maybe we can help you down the road.”

    To me that’s blackmail. I’ve seen and heard from these patients and they can’t possibly hold jobs on most of the medication prescribed. They are forced on disability. When the medication gives the side effects that would scare the living daylights out of anyone, they are told to go to the emergency room. There you go! Let’s rack up another 50 to 100K of inpatient treatment to their already miserable existence. And here comes another diagnosis or an additional diagnosis to cover up the incompetence of the whole system and of course more medication or more powerful ones.

    Oh well, there is some solace, in ten years the medication will lead to brain damage and they will need to be on it. To bad they won’t have the ability to take care of themselves but hey, that’s life in “mental illness”.

  • I think it’s self evident but NYT is not going to bite the hand that feeds them. The last article had a very powerful commenting section and it was all the professionals coming out in droves. The article caused a stir for maybe 15 minutes and many have tried to extend that time, to much dismay. We are talking about a 330 billion dollar in 2016 business that has expand to a 450 billion dollar business in 2018. And how many jobs are created from that. It would put us in the worst depression the world has ever seen if money were to be pulled out and I would assume psychotropics are a huge amount of the “bigger” pie.

    Take antidepressants, 23 Billion in 2014 to 18 Billion in 2018 with a -1.25 CAGR. It’s still a huge market. And this is a market that has reached maturity. Just Ambilify is 7 Billion in revenue alone. I applaud your efforts but the wheels of capitalism will crush you. This reminds me of tobacco and how many years did it take to get rid of that market after we learned it caused “deaths” and complete havoc with people’s lives. I can still remember the ads where doctors recommended certain brands.

    Please don’t get me wrong but I would love to see this work.

  • I don’t understand what you are calling childhood abuse. His father was an automotive executive that traveled extensively and his mother was a stay at home mom. What trauma are you speaking of? From his biography, his mother was his rock because it was a traditional lower upper class lifestyle that most would have experienced. He also said his sense of humor came from his mother. It was a pretty normal childhood for that demographic.

  • I think we are in the same line of thought, just different ways to abolish it.

    My contention is to get rid of the psychotropics and then you get rid of the side effects which will cause the 90 percent of the involuntary commitment. Then it will be easily abolished.

    As far as freedom and rights, you need to get rid of the labels and the DSM and insurance codes. That gives us the right to segregate. If abolished we get rid of the main tool used to discard a person’s rights by diagnosis.

    The benefits are endless. Rights are restored to these unfortunate individuals going through a hard time. And we get to put a magnifying glass for medications, giving us better health care.

  • Steve and James

    By not debating the “Psychiatry saved me” ideology us going to make you into another “NYT” comment section where they have thousands of comments and one or two dissenters yelling from the top of the rafters “that you need to look at this” and the data doesn’t suggest that and it is the “placebo” effect that you feel mostly.

    That and a select amount of MDs that say we’re all nuts and that they are absolutely no “withdrawal effects” from psychotropic medication and it is “life saving”. Just reading the comments section, I would be hesitant to even comment.

    And James, I think you might want to reread the comment section that article about “getting off antidepressants again from NYT and take it in. I’m pretty surprised you even mentioned NYT with your recent involvement in the RSC debate. I would have least expected from you, given your experiences.

    And so this becomes the Pharma party line?

  • Still the medications are a safety matter and should be dealt with and taken off the market. As far as locking anyone up, it’s not profitable and that’s why they don’t do it anymore. The public needs to be educated about what does to the brain and body, just like cigarettes. We have always had the “have” and the “have nots” and institutionalization was just a way to separate the two.

    If it is exposed what the drugs do, the medical doctors get their comeuppance that is a long time coming. It takes away the “magic” curtain and their power. The chemical imbalance and even the genetic theory, which is much more dangerous. gets put to bed. And then our financial markets correct themselves from this “robbing” of our medical dollars.

    If we want Medicare to still exist and be solvent 200 years from now, it needs to be done and this “snake oil mentality” stopped. Nevermind that we will have to compete with another world economy and it’s citizens, that doesn’t buy this “Mental Health System” and has it’s citizen’s in tact and without brain damage.

  • Get rid of the medications and you get rid of the need to commit. Side effects causes most of the hospitalizations to occur begin with, never mind the withdrawal symptoms, which is another piece to the puzzle.

    If you were to consider the crimes committed when on these psychotropics, they are a safety hazard for all concerned, included the person on them. Let’s not bring into this, the mass shooters, Columbine, Cruz, Michele Carter, Andrea Yates and all the rest of the news stories, in which, you know would otherwise be impossible to imagine unless the psychotropic drugs were involved. You know it as you read the story.

    It this were a car, it would have been taken off the market or recalled immediately. Next take away the insanity plea. The lawyer hit the nail on the head. The legal system and psychiatry would then be separate and powerless. You have to tear it down to imagine something new.

  • The sad truth is that these toxins kill. And a great portion of those who take medication are convinced they are “better” due to the placebo effect. I don’t think we can get rid of involuntary commitment without getting rid of the drugs. The side effects cause that to be necessary. Mania turning a depression into bipolar. Akathesia or psychosis turning the patient into a schizophrenic.

    Once you’ve worked in the system, you know how to “spot” what medication that person is on, it’s not hard. Follow the side effects. What would work? Who knows? But it’s not working now.

    Watch a person ruin their life, see a psychiatrist (And I’m not talking about the ones here – they’re only a few and even they can’t see the whole picture) They’re rights destroyed. Their marriages in shambles. Child custody lost. Freedom taken away. Careers destroyed. And debt galore, when that hospitalization bill shows up. Just take a look at the Surviving Antidepressants website and take a look at the relationship thread, SSRI divorces. It’s hard for your heart not to break reading these stories.

    It’s hard to justify not abolishing it, starting with the meds. But how do you do that?

  • Well google it and most of the articles will label it as a psychedelic. And as far as determining efficacy by the patients’ reaction to the drug. That’s how we go here and in so much trouble. Do you think they’re going to publicize the amount that have a psychotic break from taking the drug?

    You can’t back into the science. You have to have a correlation between the chemical or lack thereof and depression, or this just won’t work.

  • The Brain always compensates or is destroyed. This would be similar to overcompensation of serotonin and the increase of the D2 receptors if I’m not mistaken.

    But it comes at a peculiar time. Pharma can market this and it deters from the mass shootings and the celebrity suicides that already had therapeutic medications in their bloodstreams. Read between the lines, antidepressants were already being utilized. This will also increase the need for anti psychotics, which sell so well.

  • I just don’t understand how the new drug “ketamine” is going to work. If it did work for depression, everyone would have been cured from the introduction of the street drug and everyone would be taking it. Okay for a person dying. They won’t have to live if the 60 minutes of psychosis or dissociation side effect occurs and becomes permenant for the first 60 minutes of taking the drug.

    Again, Pharma and the doctors are backing into the solution and not finding a correlation between glutamate and depression. And the only observation, but they look so peaceful. So would they if you gave them heroin too but that won’t cure depression.

    Are doctors really this stupid?

  • Sarah,

    While I like the model guideline and scientific study on what works and what doesn’t, I think we’re putting the cart before the horse. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs comes to mind every time I read a theory on how to make life more bearable. Like you, I have mostly tried to stay away from this issue because it seems unsolvable at times, kind of like taking down the tobacco industry. There are a lot of jobs at stake and the MH industry has become an industry that can be also categorized as “Too big to fail”. So while I admire that some of those in the psychology field have “drawn a line in the sand”, it still doesn’t inspire me that they will change, especially in the US where Pharma is king and the second most important industry besides banking and finance.

    If we were talking about maybe boycotting filling prescriptions from medical doctors until we were given the actual drug trial data, published and unpublished, that would grab my attention. I have my doubts about this effort on the psychologists. It just seems a way to side step liability. They are the gatekeepers and have to diagnose usually first to bill the insurance company.

  • I had to take the bait. But did you see the coverage on Mariah Carey? Every newspaper and morning show had it on and then a breakdown of what bipolar is, and how this is the break thru for the end of stigma. Some articles had the NIMH links and drug ads. This should be an increase in about 10% for bipolar medication. The thing is, you know she was on some kind of drug, either illegal, antidepressant or ADHD medication, given the way she was acting. it was full blown mania. I wouldn’t be surprised if people got the money from Pharma to pay her for the article. That was the most spectacular PR job I’ve ever seen.

  • The only way to prove your hypothesis would be to take psychotropics off the market and then monitor the long term effects. And see how much “learned helplessness” adds to the equation.

    But unfortunately another factor would have to be taken out. The brain damage already caused by the toxins or drugs prescribed. You’d literally have to wait till everyone died who took psychotropics since 1 out of 5 have taken something in their lifetime.

    This theory of yours would be extremely hard to quantify.

  • “Because of the drastic changes these neurotoxins impose on the brain and mind, many victims require hospitalization and treatment lasting long after the offending drug is out of their system.”

    My theory is that the side effects are so bad (such as mania), one has to be hospitalized to stop the side effect from occurring. They then use a powerful sedative to knock you out. And therefore creating a nice “little” bill for the insurance company to pay for, blaming your defective brain, all the while, it was the side effect of the pharmaceutical company drug the whole time that started this roller coaster ride. Everyone wins on profiting off of a side effect that should have gotten the drug taken off the market decades ago.

    Although I do believe that permanent brain damage does occur after taking these toxins for a long time. I think it was in the book “Anatomy of an Epidemic” that stated 10 years in one of the studies. I don’t recall the source though.

  • Frank, you might also consider….

    1a) When supply and demand of high enough wages are persistently high, increase the supply of people that will live in groups in a small place and live with less by allowing more H1B visas, and therefore increase the price of education in this country to compete with the new work force and decrease overall wages for jobs requiring higher levels of education.

  • I disagree with using any antipsychotic for hallucinations. You are essentially training the brain to rely on this “toxin” to recover instead of using a couple benzos to maybe take them down a little. They shut off the dopamine production in the brain and have been shown to shrink it. This can’t be good in any dose. Doctor’s will never utilize this drug in small quantities. The profit is too great not to fall into the trap of increasing the revenue of this drug. Like LSD, make it illegal and stop the production of it. It causes atrophy of the brain, Andreasen and Ho.

  • Science is self evident. If the drug works, you know immediately and the condition is halted or the illness eliminated. The problem is that a two study approval with no independent researchers and the lure of a great job in pharmaceutical after a stint with the FDA is too much of an opportunity to give up.

    Unfortunately a lot of the drugs being launched are being questioned with the amount of years we are currently losing off the average life span. We’ve lost many years off the last two years of data.

  • The 18% is probably the mania kicking in and then they get out at 8 weeks before the patient becomes completely delusional or stops taking the drug completely or ends up being hospitalized.

    The side effects are the most reliable part of these prescriptions. Take a look at Viagra and it’s launch if you don’t believe me. It was first introduced as a blood pressure pill. Oops!

  • I’m not talking a liberal arts degree. A lot of the displaced workers are IT, engineering, MBA, biology and degrees you wouldn’t think would be unemployed. Unfortunately some of the networking groups that I’ve attended would really make you reconsider that statement. It’s scary to hear some of the elevator speeches. A lot of the new jobs created are not necessarily for the educated.

  • Exactly, the lobbyist for the AMA and the APA is going to fight this tooth and nail because it threatens future business. unless involuntary becomes the new norm. Who in their right mind is going to subject themselves to being outed for seeing a mental health professional? I personally get a kick out of the stigma articles and find them quite entertaining.

    I still think you said it best though. Thanks for that.

  • Unfortunately Pharma won’t allow this view to be ever heard. It’s a trillion dollar business. They make 30.1% profit margin. They are THE number one advertising for television, online and all other media outlets. This view will be discussed and torn apart. The public is calling for either gun control or HIPPA to be public so they can identify the crazy people (NRA PR rep’s words, not mine). Neither will ever happen. Both lobbies are extremely powerful.

    The only solution that I’ve heard that might work would be armed guards to protect the schools like they do in Israel to cope with terrorists.

    The public likes the idea that there are mentally ill people in the society. They have someone to be superior over, if they don’t have other means to claim superiority by wealth or education. You can sling it at anyone as an insult. Can’t ever be proven wrong. It’s the perfect insult. And the rest who love their drugs, well they’re addicts by whatever means that it has happened.

  • They say that mania is the doorway to akathesia and if that is true the figures are frightening. The latest figures from the New York Times is that it happens between 4-65%. Dr Breggin has thrown out the figure that 80% of bipolar patients experienced mania on an antidepressant. A patient will never tell a doctor, they are too condescending and blame it on the illness. The patient simply stops taking the drug or continues the prescription and then enters and exits the “revolving door” so many doctors speak of, in their lectures.

  • I can only conclude that this is in response to the Florida shooting in which he had obtained mental health services and people are once questioning the validity of these services. We in the US have been inundated with news about Mental Health, stigma and how there is no correlation on mental health and violence. It’s an all out media blitz. I’m also assuming that some are pulling back on mental health services. This I can only assume given the PR. We had a major study out published by The Lancet of all organizations:

    Of course they don’t have a link to the original study, that would show how shoddy the statistics or methods are.

  • Wow, Pies has dizzying intellect. Phil, love your articles. As always, I always look forward to reading something that you have written and this one is a doozey. It’s just been too long since the last article. I guess I’m just too stupid Phil and just a mere mortal who has no medical degree and just can’t understand the difference between a quack, 10 minute consult and prescribing the very medication that adjusts the very chemical imbalance that they say “does not exist”, nor have they ever promoted it and this bio bio bio crap he’s talking about. I’m just TOO dumb. It couldn’t ever be blamed on the fact that “shit happens” and this is normal to life as we know it. How could we be so obtuse to think that an individual going through a horrific trauma could have anything to do with unwanted behavior? And I guess he’s going to keep this scientific methodology to himself since he clearly never is going to document “what should be done”.

    Alas, I have been reminded that I am but a mere mortal again. At least Pies is good for a laugh!

  • I did not mean to push “disability denial”. I do believe that some cannot cope when they cannot find a way to make it in our capitalist system and believe in a “universal income” for all. If there weren’t so many tax loopholes for the rich, take setting up a shell corporation in another company as a way to avoid taxes. We had a flat tax for everyone. We would have enough money to support a universal income and then you wouldn’t have to worry about surviving or having to take toxic drugs from doctors who have no idea what kind of side effects these toxins have.

    I am glad he got support but I would rather have seen him supported without the hoops that have to jumped through to get enough income to survive.

  • I hate to place blame but there are many people in the US today that can’t keep a job or have to string several jobs together and work ungodly hours to make ends meet. The really sad matter also stands that many of these individuals are highly educated and have many skills. It can be soul crushing. A lot of the jobs created nowadays are service, low paying, mostly part time and let’s not discuss the health benefits that are offered at these kinds of jobs.

    It’s not your son’s problem. It’s a problem we have with the economic system that is set up right now. It demands we spend loads of money to educate ourselves, borrow all kinds of money and then the system refuses to pay enough to survive, never mind to pay back the loans to get educated in the first place.

    It’s not like it used to be in your generation. Things have changed and they are now blaming the individual for not surviving and making money off the stress caused.

  • Yes too bad some have seen to make money off sociological issues and try to fix it by blaming it on the individual. For shame, trying to abolish a system that ignores the real reason people suffer.

    I take offense to the “wild eye frothing comment” also. To say that I am not without logic and ability to read the numbers that are apparent when reading drug trials, putting up with the data mining,witnessing the ignorance of the scientific method or any other unbiased method of analyzing results, I can’t help but take personally.

    Until you’ve seen family members enter this system one way and come out transformed, you’ll never be able to walk in my shoes. Let’s just agree to disagree, politely.

  • The whole mental health system is the epitome of futility. The only successful outcome is to disable the patient for good so we should we consider abolishing it, I don’t see any other way. The same can be said about technology. We all move on and find our way in the new system. At some point you have to realize that what you’re doing isn’t working and you have to “just start over”. You’re not going to find a solution holding on for dear life to the system you have. It just doesn’t work.

    At some point you have to realize that the system we have is like a religion or a legal system. It’s just not based on science. The only thing that can come out of those kinds of systems that are not up to par, are atrocities and that’s exactly what’s going on in this area of commerce.

    You’re telling me doctor’s can’t find other jobs. You’re telling me that drug companies cannot redirect capital to other areas. You’re telling me that people are addicted and cannot be weaned off these medications.

    I think it’s not only possible but necessary. Too many human beings have been destroyed.

  • Data mining, huh? How come this doesn’t surprise me. I would love to see if the clinical data and paper for this new high blood pressure threshold, never mind the financial disclosures of the doctors who wrote the paper. Oh yea, that isn’t required. Did anyone fail to mention in the paper that the actuary tables have now lost 7 years of lifespan on all age groups? But I should realize I should just LISTEN TO MY DOCTOR ANYWAY because he’s a doctor. And they know EVERYTHING! How stupid of me!

  • I wish this could be the case but 1 out of 10 businesses fail and if any of your analysis in your business plan is flawed, it can go south really quickly, not only that but you NEED capital to start ANY kind of business. Not one bank is going to give you money without substantial proof and that means a long start up period, to prove it’s viable.

    That’s the main reason the rich stay rich. They are the one’s doing the loaning and the hurdles are high, which means usually bringing them into ownership of the business.

  • Because the NRA and anyone who has been labeled mentally ill or disabled is fighting for one common goal, rights.

    Right to bear arms against tyranny.
    Right to not be discriminated against.
    Right to the pursuit of happiness. (And I’m sure this could include the right to try to make a living, keep a roof over our heads and obtain and be able to afford healthcare that doesn’t include “evidence based solutions” but “results based solutions”

    We’ve all had the right to privacy compromised by the Patriot Act. Do you think your medical information cannot be obtained? How truthful is it represented?

  • I have an idea. Let’s all join the NRA (survivors and their relatives) and make a public vow not to buy guns. That’s what they are afraid of. They think we’ll all go nuts and buy a gun when the data shows otherwise. No matter how much data we show them that the pharmaceuticals cause brain damage and anesthesia, they’ll never listen. And that the percentage of violence is lower than the public at large.

    The elite want to take guns out of the public’s hands. Let’s join their cause.

    And as far as Will’s idea, I mean no disrespect but I just don’t understand. Yes, we need to balance income disparity and solve sociological aspects of what causes human stress. A third party candidate would have just as much issue as the current president and the republicans getting things done in Congress and the Senate and they have all the power.

  • Will,
    I just don’t understand how this is going to effect the money flow. That’s what we’re talking about, isn’t it? So how does the “electing the president effect us?”. Money talks, [email protected]#$% walks, so I’ve been told. So how does your suggestion get us from A to B? I just don’t get it. And yes, I read the previous article on following the money. Electing a President does not effect the bottom line of “changing the system” He does not effect the oligarchy or the money that is fed into the system by way of lobbyists.

    If we effect the money going into the system, we can effectively change the system?

    Is this what you’re trying to say?

  • “Spread the word Tinkerbell.” Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh!

    I have a suggestion for next year, change it to:

    “No it’s not your imagination, the world sucks sometimes Day”

    And I suggest forums with names such as,

    “Yes Virginia, there are no real full time jobs that allow you to pay your bills, put a roof over your head and put food on the table. Time to stop blaming yourself”

  • Great article Noel, very insightful.

    I’ll take note with this passage and also add,

    “Folks who get labelled as mentally ill also tend to be anti-authoritarian and do not accept the insane world we live in as one to be accepted or adapted to. They don’t quite fit in. To claim that not fitting in, refusing to abide by societal norms, or rebelling, even in the most unhealthy ways, against society is disease is actually, in fact, arrogance.”

    I believe you need to be arrogant to jump off the incurable train of what mental health and getting off the toxins that are so addictive. Trying to reduce the dosage and titrate is nearly impossible without a manufactured liquid form. You have to go against a medical doctor. One of the most highly trained professions that anyone can become. It takes courage to stand up to the medical profession and be “arrogant” or as the root of the word explains “to claim for oneself”. To finally risk going through the withdrawal symptoms and being thrown back into the system. And most of the toxins’ side effects include psychosis which will require more aggressive treatment and a more deadly diagnosis. You then risk AOT or worst yet ECT, or being held in a hospital forever.

    Thank god for arrogance.

    Thank you also for putting a link to the article. I have to say that it was one of the most thought provoking comment sections I’ve ever read through. I do have to say though, I felt bad for the newbie psychiatrist that kept arguing with the very knowledge poster. She just couldn’t come up with any statistic, point to any physical malady or identifiable defective gene. The more she argued the more desperate she got. It was like watching a child learn there was no Santa Claus. To be duped into spending and financing all that education cannot be a good feeling after that argument. I really felt bad for her.

  • But you forgot one main point, to make money you have to have money and this is why the rich stay rich. If you are one of them, you have the network to pull you out of whatever snafu that you got yourself in. It’s the ones without the safety net that are most at risk. President Trump is one of those. He believes he was born into that position and no matter what, he is entitled to keep his position. And he does through countless bankruptcies. Yes they do sell some to the middle class but those who partake just don’t talk about it.

    You have to admit that the system is rigged and everyone knows it. If you find yourself in the living paycheck to paycheck which was the last taxpayer propping up of the banks, then you will see that is the reason there has been no wage increases since the 1970’s. Welfare doesn’t exist and if you find yourself “homeless”, the only choice you have will to take these toxins, declare yourself incapable and make the pharmaceutical companies rich to get any help. And this is why the labor participation rate continues to go up and more people stay on the sidelines. This is the only way they can survive. Either that or earn less and lock yourself into that paradigm of a continuous cycle.

  • I’d like to take a stab at this. I believe it is income inequality and that we, as Americans look to blame the individual for not surviving when we live in an oligarchy. It is a social problem not an individual problem. Once compounded with extra stress which is already present with just surviving, we lose the ability to meet our basic needs as in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, clothing, food, a sustainable and affordable place to live. Most cannot sustain the physiological base needs. No one ever gets to the safety level. That’s how we live our lives.

    Ask yourself how many people can’t sleep at night because they wonder if the current situation is precarious. A high percentage of people can’t scrape $600 together for an emergency. Welfare is gone and there is no such thing as a safety net. Only part time jobs are available. Statistics say that there hasn’t been a wage increases since 1970. Yet the 1 percent, increase their net worth at a steady pace.

    Psychiatry exists because it creates a revenue stream off of society’s ills. Blame the individual for their predicament and market the hell out of that narrative.

  • Dr Breggin,

    Great article again and thank you for your contribution. I would like to join you in removing medication prescribing for anyone under 18, please just inform us on how to do this because that seems to be the wall that prevents us from accomplishing this task.

    Too bad the mainstream media will not tell the truth about this issue. But you are more than correct, those Pharma advertising dollars would disappear fairly quickly for anyone who dared to publish your articles.

    But the endgame that I would like to see, is that all psychotropics be banned. They are a public safety issue and do not benefit the patient at all.

  • This epidemic is just another revenue stream for psychiatry. All I can hear is DUAL diagnosis center in the back of my brain. They will now have another reason to pass psychotropics out in mass. One of my neighbors daughters was a heroin addict and the little cocktail they had her on was pretty impressive. Do not pass go, do not pay 200 dollars, go directly to a bipolar II diagnosis, all set with an antidepressant, mood stabilizer and of course the best yet, an antipsychotic.

    This will end up being a boondoggle for the pharmaceutical industry and the psychiatrists. Sell Narcan to keep them from overdosing, sell them psychotropics to keep them off opioids. My only question, which is worse?

  • You wash my back, I’ll wash yours. For the police to go against the narrative is an admission to the fact, that they’ll give up the power to order a 5150. If “medication spellbinding” was brought out as a condition to the public, they give up the only tool in the toolbox for social control. They won’t bite off their nose to spite their face.

    As far as Katie Rayburn, I’m not surprised. If you were to get in the national news and the narrative changed, she could as well kiss that judgeship goodbye. Wouldn’t that be a shame?

    Thanks for the article, as always, I enjoy your articles. It’s too bad that the authorities overlook what the medication does to the patients and the public safety issue it presents. I just read that the New York Times states that manic behavior has been stated between 4 percent to 65 percent of all patients.

    They really need to take this stuff off the market!

  • You know what!! Pharma has made me rethink how to do experiments entirely. The next time I do an experimentation on gravity. I’m going to blow away the competition. I am going to state the laws, you know Sum of the forces, F=ma crap, and I’m just going to ask the object, be it ball, rock or whatever, “So tell me, did you feel a force close to 32.2 ft/sec^2 or 9.81 m/sec^2 as I dropped you?” That’ll do it. My correlation will be SO near to one!

    It will be spectacular. I’ve got to sell this! I’m a genius. I’ll change engineering as we know it. What do you know? I think I’ll apply to NASA. I’m gonna be rich!

    What do ya think?

    Haven’t they figured out that putting lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. And unless they can state some correlation between some measurement of serotonin and depression. It ain’t gonna work. Oh that’s right, we don’t need to state what we’re testing in the abstract. We don’t have to use the scientific method. Why bother?

  • Sera,
    Thank you for another thought provoking article and the examples you have given of stigma are all just heart wrenching and a dose of truth. Unfortunately, there is about 350 million reasons that the lobbyist hold that keep the merry go round moving. Can you imagine the economic disaster if this area of medicine was eradicated? My thoughts on that, unfortunately, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. I would hope to enjoy seeing that one day. Only then if it’s destroyed and shown scientifically it doesn’t work will we ever get something that does.

    In some respects, I hope they do succeed with getting the president with a diagnosis. I would love to see a congressional hearing on it for all the world to see. How annoyed do you think he might become then? Can you see his lawyers pick apart the basis for psychiatry and diagnosis?
    “So you mean to tell me that the chemical imbalance theory is incorrect? But that’s all you do, is prescribe drugs that exasperate the problem, and are in fact, not in the best interest of the patient?” It would never happen but it’s fun to imagine. Taking the whole industry to the wood shed.

    Between the government adding to the disability rolls because of psychiatry and psychotropic drugs and the public safety issues that these toxins cause, I can’t see where this ends. Especially with the Michelle Carter trial and what is going on with the DA trying to silence Dr Breggin and the bill that was presented last Friday to require Trump to have a mental assessment, the question still remains, how does the general public not know about this?

    And more importantly, do they care?

    They will when they come for them next. Earnings must always increase, which mean revenues have to, and only then will they expand too far.

  • “According to the researchers, only 20 randomized, controlled trials of ketamine for depression exist—and of these, most were “proof-of-concept” studies that used only a single dose and did not include follow-up. Altogether, these studies included 430 participants exposed to ketamine. Especially distributed across 20 studies, this number is considered very small when attempting to draw significant, generalizable conclusions about efficacy.”

    And one offs are considered science or worst yet, an experiment? And 1 suicide out of 430 participant with mostly one dose? My next question is how many doses did the participants have to take overall? Did anyone consider this a public safety risk? Dr Littrell brings up a fantastic point and the most anticipated side effect of this drug is psychosis. I would love to see the error band on that side effect, never mind what P comes out to or worst yet, what the confidence intervals are for psychosis.

    I am really wondering what the Murphy Act has/has on this approval process. I know that a lot were concerned about the new FDA guidelines and public safety. Does anybody know what the new guidelines are?

  • I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree about the scientific method. The method that I was taught required an unbiased measurable evidence. For the scientific method to work, it needs to be repeated and repeatable. Psychiatry lacks this. We don’t require them to use, say quality of life factor (QOL) which would be much more telling than some questionnaire that the psychiatrist asks each participant.

    One such experiment and study example comes to mind. I was discussing this on a public forum about what methods they use to study social issues. One social worker told a story about a study conducted by a doctor for homelessness. The participants were then asked to fill it out. The social workers pointed to the two acceptable answers for the participant to answer, or not receive services to help them get housing. And this scientific study came with a healthy government grant. Questionnaires and observable behaviors that can be interpreted differently by one administrator to the next would never be acceptable in what I was taught as the scientific method.

    While I agree science does not start like that and is not developed like that. I do think the scientific method is an excellent way to test the validity of what is a theory or self evident to begin with, to later become proven after many iterations.

  • Your article brings up some really good points. And dogma is extremely hard to prove wrong once it’s been ingrained into whatever political system that exists whether it be in an industry, public policy, our court system, or in our social system. The thing about psychiatry is that they are not following the scientific method of true science. They have developed their own and it has a major flaw. It cannot be proven invalid. There is no way to prove a hypothesis wrong by following the new rules which they have set out. I did not come up with this theory but another scientist did. I wish I could give you the link but I didn’t bookmark it. It’s too vague. Look at Stephen Hawkins work, his doctoral thesis was the big bang theory. His next project was to prove himself wrong. That’s true science. It’s repetition.

    One of the leading scientist from Ely Lilly was interviewed and actually stated that you have to leave the scientific method behind in pharmaceuticals and what you learned in school, is no longer valid. And I personally think McClaren’s medical journal published paper, Psychiatry is Bull$!&$ where it proves that psychiatry is not pseudoscience at all, is I think, in essence, an expose to how ridiculous the scientific method of psychology and psychiatry is. It’s basically calling out, “prove me wrong” but given the method, it’s too vague and can never be debunked.

    Psychiatry is not science in the mental health field. It’s called marketing.

  • They never use the scientific method. They’ve created their own. It’s called the Scientific Method of Psychiatry and Psychology and the problem is that nothing can be proven wrong. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is funded by the industry itself. They will gain a lot in revenue in inpatient enrollment by following this study. I think one of the posters here at MIA have figured out if they can arrest a homeless person and get them involuntarily committed, we’re looking at basically about a million dollars that are billable for that one unfortunate customer.

    They completely ignore how the week wash out period have proved that these drugs look like they have a 30% efficacy. What a joke! And they forget one part of the scientific method, repeat-ability before anything is implemented.

  • Samruck, you bring up an excellent point that dealing directly with trauma is an area that “therapy” seems to be missing. And this is one of my main criticisms of this method. They do not take into account that and the sociological aspects of life itself. I have, literally had a friend that was seeing a therapist and she had extreme difficulty in finding a job, despite her education and a lot of the solid experience she has. Well, she came to me and we talked and I broke apart the numbers of unemployment, how they’re calculated and also the broke down the labor participation rate and what’s going on there. Anyway to make a long story short, she complained to me about her therapist only looking at her ability to get a job and to “pull herself up by her bootstraps” looking at it as “her issue” and not looking at the big picture. When she confronted her new therapist about what she had learned about “the economics” of it, and her new found information, she was told to ignore the news articles on unemployment and the economy.

    I think we’re too much of a society of “what’s wrong with you that you’re having so much difficulty” and the blame game ensues instead of looking at the reality and how to deal with it. Trauma is one of those issues which should be dealt with on how to “prevent” it from happening again. Reinvent the system so that children aren’t abused or their chances of experiencing trauma become smaller.

    There is also a sociological issue. We need to look “big picture” instead of just trying to tell the individual that they need to change what they do only. And it is getting worse. Trying to change the system has gotten more difficult. I have another friend that son was protesting and now is facing 25 years in jail. We can’t even demonstrate anymore. And I just thank god, he wasn’t 5150’d.

  • Lauren

    First off, I’m sorry you had to go through this ordeal. It was a hard article to read but a familiar story unfortunately.

    Although you are right in the fact that you are part of the upper class and can prove it can happen to everyone, there is a problem with the information that you have been fed over the years. There are two theories that have been sold to the public that have no scientific backing. One is the chemical imbalance regarding a connection between serotonin and depression and also, dopamine and psychosis which there is no significant correlation. Drugs are the only solution and since drugs do one thing, like a faucet, it turns on a chemical or shuts it off, that’s all it does. And since say serotonin takes care of fight or flight response, sleep regulation, sexual functions and half a dozen other jobs, you’re introducing havoc into the system. It’s like trying to use a spoon to do heart surgery. Is it possible; anything is possible. Is it probable; well, no. What you felt is called medication spellbinding and the placebo effect. You might want to check out Irving Kirsch’s work.

    The other is the genetic predisposition, which has about the same probability. They have not identified it and one researcher said there is no possible way it will ever be identified and that was from the Boston Globe. There are over 2000 possibilities from another source, which is like playing a nine figure lottery 40 times over with one ticket. The equivalent probabilities would be astronomical. These are the two stories that are marketed to the general public which do not have any proof given the rules of the scientific method. In fact, they have formulated what is called the “Psychology and Psychiatry Scientific Method” rules. The problem with this method is that no theory can ever be disproved. The guidelines are too vague.

    You might want to stick around and educate yourself. I would start first with Whitaker’s book, Anatomy of an Epidemic and then look at Peter Breggin’s Medication Madness. They have no medical basis for doing what they do, and that fuels the narrative they demand to be supported by the court system. If you expose the truth, then the system becomes powerless. And please know that these drugs they sell are highly toxic, highly addictive and only lead to more diagnosis as you ascend the psychiatrist’s label pyramid.

    I wish you all the luck with your endeavor and do hope you stick around to offer your perspective on things.

  • 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 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.