PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS: Cure or Quackery?

[Guest guest]

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/drugs.htm

 

Psychiatric drugs are worthless, and most of them are harmful. Many cause

permanent brain damage at the doses customarily given. Psychiatric drugs and the

profession that promotes them are dangers to your health.

 

ANTIDEPRESSANTS

The Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry/IV, published in 1985, says " The

tricyclic-type drugs are the most effective class of anti-depressants " (Williams

& Wilkins, p. 1520). But in his book Overcoming Depression, published in 1981,

Dr. Andrew Stanway, a British physician, says " If anti-depressant drugs were

really as effective as they are made out to be, surely hospital admission rates

for depression would have fallen over the twenty years they've been available.

Alas, this has not happened. ... Many trials have found that tricyclics are only

marginally more effective than placebos, and some have even found that they are

not as effective as dummy tablets " (Hamlyn Publishing Group, Ltd., p. 159-160).

In his textbook Electroconvulsive Therapy, Richard Abrams, M.D., Professor of

Psychiatry at Chicago Medical School, explains the reason for the 1988 edition

of his book updating the edition published 6 years earlier: " During these six

years interest in ECT has bourgeoned. ... What is responsible for this

volte-face in American psychiatry? Disenchantment with the antidepressants,

perhaps. None has been found that is therapeutically superior to imipramine [a

tricyclic], now over 30 years old, and the more recently introduced compounds

are often either less effective or more toxic than the older drugs, or both "

(Oxford Univ. Press, p. xi). In this book, Dr. Abrams says " despite

manufacturers' claims, no significant progress in the pharmacological treatment

of depression has occurred since the introduction of imipramine in 1958 " (p. 7).

In the Foreword to this book, Max Fink, M.D., a psychiatry professor at the

State University of New York at Stony Brook, says the reason for increased use

of electroconvulsive " therapy " (ECT) as a treatment for depression is what he

calls " Disappointment with the efficacy of psychotropic drugs " (p. vii). In his

book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, published in 1983, psychiatrist

Peter Breggin, M.D., asserts: " The most fundamental point to be made about the

most frequently used major antidepressants is that they have no specifically

antidepressant effect. Like the major tranquilizers to which they are so

closely related, they are highly neurotoxic and brain disabling, and achieve

their impact through the disruption of normal brain function. ... Only the

`clinical opinion' of drug advocates supports any antidepressant effect " of

so-called antidepressant drugs (Springer Pub. Co., pp. 160 & 184). An article

in the February 7, 1994 Newsweek magazine says that " Prozac...and its chemical

cousins Zoloft and Paxil are no more effective than older treatments for

depression " (p. 41). Most of the people I have talked to who have taken

so-called antidepressants, including Prozac, say the drug didn't work for them.

This casts doubt on the often made claim that 60% or more of the people who take

supposedly antidepressant drugs benefit from them.

LITHIUM

Lithium is said to be helpful for people whose mood repeatedly changes from

joyful to despondent and back again. Psychiatrists call this manic-depressive

disorder or bipolar mood disorder. Lithium was first described as a psychiatric

drug in 1949 by an Australian psychiatrist, John Cade. According to a

psychiatric textbook: " While conducting animal experiments, Cade had somewhat

incidentally noted that lithium made the animals lethargic, thus prompting him

to administer this drug to several agitated psychiatric patients. " The textbook

describes this as " a pivotal moment in the history of psychopharmacology "

(Harold I. Kaplan, M.D. & Benjamin J. Sadock, M.D., Clinical Psychiatry,

Williams & Wilkins, 1988, p. 342). However, if you don't want to be lethargic,

taking lithium would seem to be of dubious benefit. A supporter of lithium as

psychiatric therapy admits lithium causes " a mildly depressed, generally

lethargic feeling " . He calls it " the standard lethargy " caused by lithium

(Roger Williams, " A Hasty Decision? Coping in the Aftermath of a

Manic-Depressive Episode " , American Health magazine, October 1991, p. 20).

Similarly, one of my relatives was diagnosed as manic-depressive and was given a

prescription for lithium carbonate. He told me, years later, " Lithium insulated

me from the highs but not from the lows. " It should be no surprise a

lethargy-inducing drug like lithium would have this effect. Amazingly,

psychiatrists sometimes claim lithium wards off feelings of depression even

though, if anything, lethargy-inducing drugs like lithium (like most psychiatric

drugs) promote feelings of despondency and unhappiness - even if they are called

antidepressants.

MINOR TRANQUILIZER/ANTI-ANXIETY DRUGS

Among the most widely used psychiatric drugs are the ones called minor

tranquilizers, including Valium, Librium, Xanax, and Halcion. Doctors who

prescribe them say they have calming, anti-anxiety, panic-suppressing effects or

are useful as sleeping pills. Anyone who believes these claims should go to the

nearest library and read the article " High Anxiety " in the January 1993 Consumer

Reports magazine, or read Chapter 11 in Toxic Psychiatry (St. Martin's Press,

1991), by psychiatrist Peter Breggin, both of which allege the opposite is

closer to the truth. Like all or almost all psychiatric drugs, the so-called

minor tranquilizers don't cure anything but are merely brain-disabling drugs.

In one clinical trial, 70 percent of persons taking Halcion " developed memory

loss, depression and paranoia " ( " Halcion manufacturer Upjohn Co. defends

controversial sleeping drug " , Miami Herald, December 17, 1991, p. 13A).

According to the February 17, 1992 Newsweek, " Four countries have banned the

drug outright " (p. 58). In his book Toxic Psychiatry, psychiatrist Peter

Breggin, speaking of the minor tranquilizers, says " As with most psychiatric

drugs, the use of the medication eventually causes an increase of the very

symptoms that the drug is supposed to ameliorate " (ibid, p. 246).

PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS versus SLEEP: SLEEP DISTINGUISHED FROM DRUG-INDUCED

UNCONSCIOUSNESS

Contrary to the claim major and minor tranquilizers and so-called

antidepressants are useful as sleeping pills, their real effect is to inhibit or

block real sleep. When I sat in on a psychiatry class with a medical student

friend, the professor told us " Research has shown we do not need to sleep, but

we do need to dream. " The dream phase of sleep is the critical part. Most

psychiatric drugs, including those promoted as sleeping medications or

tranquilizers, inhibit this critical dream-phase of sleep, inducing a state that

looks like sleep but actually is a dreamless unconscious state - not sleep.

Sleep, in other words, is an important mental activity that is impaired or

stopped by most psychiatric drugs. A self-help magazine advises: " Do not take

sleeping pills unless under doctor's orders, and then for no more than 10

consecutive nights. Besides losing their effectiveness and becoming addictive,

sleep-inducing medications reduce or prevent the dream-stage of sleep necessary

for mental health " (Going Bonkers? magazine, premiere issue, p. 75). In The

Brain Book, University of Rhode Island professor Peter Russell, Ph.D., says

" During sleep, particularly during dreaming periods, proteins and other

chemicals in the brain used up during the day are replenished " (Plume, 1979, p.

76). Sleep deprivation experiments on normal people show loss of sleep causes

hallucinations if continued long enough (Maya Pines, The Brain Changers,

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973, p. 105). So what would seem to be the

consequences of taking drugs that inhibit or block real sleep?

MAJOR TRANQUILIZER/NERUOLEPTIC/ANTI-PSYCHOTIC/ ANTI-SCHIZOPHRENIC DRUGS

Even as harmful as psychiatry's (so-called) antidepressants and lithium and

(so-called) antianxiety agents (or minor tranquilizers) are, they are nowhere

near as damaging as the so-called major tranquilizers, sometimes also called

" antipsychotic " or " antischizophrenic " or " neuroleptic " drugs. Included in this

category are Thorazine (chlorpromazine), Mellaril, Prolixin (fluphenazine),

Compazine, Stelazine, and Haldol (haloperidol) - and many others. In terms of

their psychological effects, these so-called major tranquilizers cause misery -

not tranquility. They physically, neurologically blot out most of a person's

ability to think and act, even at commonly given doses. By disabling people,

they can stop almost any thinking or behavior the " therapist " wants to stop.

But this is simply disabling people, not therapy. The drug temporarily disables

or permanently destroys good aspects of a person's personality as much as bad.

Whether and to what extent the disability imposed by the drug can be removed by

discontinuing the drug depends on how long the drug is given and at how great a

dose. The so-called major tranquilizer/ antipsychotic/neuroleptic drugs damage

the brain more clearly, severely, and permanently than any others used in

psychiatry. Joyce G. Small, M.D., and Iver F. Small, M.D., both Professors of

Psychiatry at Indiana University, criticize psychiatrists who use " psychoactive

medications that are known to have neurotoxic effects " , and speak of " the

increasing recognition of long-lasting and sometimes irreversible impairments in

brain function induced by neuroleptic drugs. In this instance the evidence of

brain damage is not subtle, but is grossly obvious even to the casual observer! "

(Behavioral and Brain Sciences, March 1984, Vol. 7, p. 34). According to Conrad

M. Swartz, Ph.D., M.D., Professor of Psychiatry at Chicago Medical School,

" While neuroleptics relieve psychotic anxiety, their tranquilization blunts fine

details of personality, including initiative, emotional reactivity, enthusiasm,

sexiness, alertness, and insight. ... This is in addition to side effects,

usually involuntary movements which can be permanent and are hence evidence of

brain damage " (Behavioral and Brain Sciences, March 1984, Vol. 7, pp. 37-38). A

report in 1985 in the Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter indicates

courts in the United States have finally begun to consider involuntary

administration of the so-called major tranquilizer/antipsychotic/neuroleptic

drugs to involve First Amendment rights " Because...antipsychotic drugs have the

capacity to severely and even permanently affect an individual's ability to

think and communicate " ( " Involuntary medication claims go forward " ,

January-February 1985, p. 26 - emphasis added). In Molecules of the Mind: The

Brave New Science of Molecular Psychology, Professor Jon Franklin observed:

" This era coincided with an increasing awareness that the neuroleptics not only

did not cure schizophrenia - they actually caused damage to the brain.

Suddenly, the psychiatrists who used them, already like their patients on the

fringes of society, were suspected of Nazism and worse " (Dell Pub. Co., 1987, p.

103). In his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, psychiatrist Peter

Breggin, M.D., alleges that by using drugs that cause brain damage, " Psychiatry

has unleashed an epidemic of neurological disease on the world " one which

" reaches 1 million to 2 million persons a year " (op. cit., pp. 109 & 108). In

severe cases, brain damage from neuroleptic drugs is evidenced by abnormal body

movements called tardive dyskinesia. However, tardive dyskinesia is only the

tip of the iceberg of neuroleptic caused brain damage. Higher mental functions

are more vulnerable and are impaired before the elementary functions of the

brain such as motor control. Psychiatry professor Richard Abrams, M.D., has

acknowledged that " Tardive dyskinesia has now been reported to occur after only

brief courses of neuroleptic drug therapy " (in: Benjamin B. Wolman (editor), The

Therapist's Handbook: Treatment Methods of Mental Disorders, Van Nostrand

Reinhold Co., 1976, p. 25). In his book The New Psychiatry, published in 1985,

Columbia University psychiatry professor Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., alleges: " The

best way to avoid tardive dyskinesia is to avoid antipsychotic drugs altogether.

Except for treating schizophrenia, they should never be used for more than two

or three consecutive months. What's criminal is that all too many patients

receive antipsychotics who shouldn't " (Mentor, pp. 155-156). In fact, Dr.

Maxmen doesn't go far enough. His characterization of administration of the

so-called antipsychotic/anti-schizophrenic/major tranquilizer/neuroleptic drugs

as " criminal " is accurate for all people, including those called schizophrenic,

even when the drugs aren't given long enough for the resulting brain damage to

show up as tardive dyskinesia. The author of the Preface of a book by four

physicians published in 1980, Tardive Dyskinesia: Research & Treatment, made

these remarks: " In the late 1960s I summarized the literature on tardive

dyskinesia ... The majority of psychiatrists either ignored the existence of the

problem or made futile efforts to prove that these motor abnormalities were

clinically insignificant or unrelated to drug therapy. In the meantime the

number of patients affected by tardive dyskinesia increased and the symptoms

became worse in those already afflicted by this condition. ... there are few

investigators or clinicians who still have doubts about the iatrogenic

[physician caused] nature of tardive dyskinesia. ... It is evident that the more

one learns about the toxic effects of neuroleptics on the central nervous

system, the more one sees an urgent need to modify our current practices of drug

use. It is unfortunate that many practitioners continue to prescribe

psychotropics in excessive amounts, and that a considerable number of mental

institutions have not yet developed a policy regarding the management and

prevention of tardive dyskinesia. If this book, which reflects the opinions of

the experts in this field, can make a dent in the complacency of many

psychiatrists, it will be no small accomplishment " (in: William E. Fann, M.D.,

et al., Tardive Dyskinesia: Research & Treatment, SP Medical & Scientific). In

Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., says

this: " The major tranquilizers are highly toxic drugs; they are poisonous to

various organs of the body. They are especially potent neurotoxins, and

frequently produce permanent damage to the brain. ... tardive dyskinesia can

develop in low-dose, short-term usage... the dementia [loss of higher mental

functions] associated with the tardive dyskinesia is not usually reversible. ...

Seldom have I felt more saddened or more dismayed than by psychiatry's neglect

of the evidence that it is causing irreversible lobotomy effects, psychosis, and

dementia in millions of patients as a result of treatment with the major

tranquilizers " (op. cit., pp. 70, 107, 135, 146).

Psychiatry professor Richard Abrams, M.D., has pointed out that

" Tricyclic Antidepressants...are minor chemical modifications of chlorpromazine

[Thorazine] and were introduced as potential neuroleptics " (in: B. Wolman, The

Therapist's Handbook, op. cit., p. 31). In his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards

to the Brain, Dr. Breggin calls the so-called antidepressants " Major

Tranquilizers in Disguise " (p. 166). Psychiatrist Mark S. Gold, M.D., has said

antidepressants can cause tardive dyskinesia (The Good News About Depression,

Bantam, 1986, p. 259).

Why do the so-called patients accept such " medication " ? Sometimes they

do so out of ignorance about the neurological damage to which they are

subjecting themselves by following their psychiatrist's advice to take the

" medication " . But much if not most of the time, neuroleptic drugs are literally

forced into the bodies of the " patients " against their wills. In his book

Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., says

" Time and again in my clinical experience I have witnessed patients driven to

extreme anguish and outrage by having major tranquilizers forced on them. ...

The problem is so great in routine hospital practice that a large percentage of

patients have to be threatened with forced intramuscular injection before they

will take the drugs " (p. 45).

FORCED PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT COMPARED WITH RAPE

Forced administration of a psychiatric drug (or a so-called treatment like

electroshock) is a kind of tyranny that can be compared, physically and morally,

with rape. Compare sexual rape and involuntarily administration of a

psychiatric drug injected intramuscularly into the buttocks, which is the part

of the anatomy where the injection usually is given: In both sexual rape and

involuntary administration of a psychiatric drug, force is used. In both cases,

the victim's pants are pulled down. In both cases, a tube is inserted into the

victim's body against her (or his) will. In the case of sexual rape, the tube

is a penis. In the case of what could be called psychiatric rape, the tube is a

hypodermic needle. In both cases, a fluid is injected into the victim's body

against her or his will. In both cases it is in (or near) the derriere. In the

case of sexual rape the fluid is semen. In the case of psychiatric rape, the

fluid is Thorazine, Prolixin or some other brain-disabling drug. The fact of

bodily invasion is similar in both cases if not (for reasons I'll explain)

actually worse in the case of psychiatric rape. So is the sense of outrage in

the mind of the victim of each type of assault. As psychiatry professor Thomas

Szasz once said, " violence is violence, regardless of whether it is called

psychiatric illness or psychiatric treatment. " Some who are not " hospitalized "

(that is, imprisoned) are forced to report to a doctor's office for injections

of a long-acting neuroleptic like Prolixin every two weeks by the threat of

imprisonment ( " hospitalization " ) and forced injection of the drug if they don't

comply.

 

Why is psychiatric rape worse than sexual rape? As brain surgeon I.

S. Cooper, M.D., said in his autobiography: " It is your brain that sees, feels,

thinks, commands, responds. You are your brain. It is you. Transplanted into

another carrier, another body, your brain would supply it with your memories,

your thoughts, your emotions. It would still be you. The new body would be

your container. It would carry you around. Your brain is you " (The Vital

Probe: My Life as a Brain Surgeon, W.W.Norton & Co., 1982, p. 50-emphasis in

original). The most essential and most intimate part of you is not what is

between your legs but what is between your ears. An assault on a person's brain

such as involuntary administration of a brain-disabling or brain-damaging

" treatment " (such as a psychoactive drug or electroshock or psychosurgery) is a

more intimate and morally speaking more horrible crime than sexual rape.

Psychiatric rape is in moral terms a worse crime than sexual rape for another

reason, also: The involuntary administration of psychiatry's biological

" therapies " cause permanent impairment of brain function. In contrast, women

usually are still fully sexually functional after being sexually raped. They

suffer psychological harm, but so do the victims of psychiatric assault. I hope

I will not be understood as belittling the trauma or wrongness of sexual rape if

I point out that I have counselled sexually raped women in my law practice and

that each of the half-dozen or so women I have known who have been sexually

raped have gone on to have apparently normal sexual relationships, and in most

cases marriages and families. In contrast, the brains of people subjected to

psychiatric assault often are not as fully functional because of the physical,

biological harm done by the " treatment " . On a TV talk show in 1990,

psychoanalyst Jeffrey Masson, Ph.D., said he hopes those responsible for such

" therapies " will one day face " Nurnburg trials " (Geraldo, Nov. 30, 1990).

BRAIN-DAMAGING PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS ARE INFLICTED ON NURSING HOME RESIDENTS

These very same brain-damaging (so-called) neuroleptic/antipsychotic drugs are

routinely administered - involuntarily - to mentally healthy old people in

nursing homes in the United States. According to an article in the

September/October 1991 issue of In-Health magazine, " In nursing homes,

antipsychotics are used on anywhere from 21 to 44 percent of the

institutionalized elderly... half of the antipsychotics prescribed for nursing

home residents could not be explained by the diagnosis in the patient's chart.

Researchers suspect the drugs are commonly used by such institutions as

chemical straightjackets - a means of pacifying unruly patients " (p. 28). I

know of two examples of feeble old men in nursing homes who were barely able to

get out of their wheelchairs who were given a neuroleptic/antipsychotic drug.

One complained because he was strapped into a wheelchair to prevent his attempts

to try to walk with his cane. The other was strapped into his bed at night to

prevent him from getting up and falling when going to the bathroom,

necessitating defecating in his bed. Both were so physically disabled they

posed no danger to anyone. But both dared complain bitterly about how they were

mistreated. In both cases the nursing home staffs responded to these complaints

with injections of Haldol - mentally disabling these men, thereby making it

impossible for them to complain. The use of these damaging drugs on nursing

home residents who are not considered to have psychiatric problems shows that

their real purpose is control, not therapy. Therapeutic claims for neuroleptic

drugs are rationalizations without factual support.

SUPPOSEDLY " DOUBLE-BLIND " PSYCHIATRIC DRUG STUDIES ARE BIASED

Studies indicating psychiatric drugs are helpful are of dubious credibility

because of professional bias. All or almost all psychiatric drugs are

neurotoxic and for this reason cause symptoms and problems such as dry mouth,

blurred vision, lightheadedness, dizziness, lethargy, difficulty thinking,

menstrual irregularities, urinary retention, heart palpitations, and other

consequences of neurological dysfunction. Psychiatrists deceptively call these

" side-effects " , even though they are the only real effects of today's

psychiatric drugs. Placebos (or sugar pills) don't cause these problems. Since

these symptoms (or their absence) are obvious to psychiatrists evaluating

psychiatric drugs in supposedly double-blind drug trials, the drug trials aren't

really double-blind, making it impossible to evaluate psychiatric drugs

impartially. This allows professional bias to skew the results.

MODES OF ACTION: UNKNOWN

Despite various unverified theories and claims, psychiatrists don't know how the

drugs they use work biologically. In the words of Columbia University

psychiatry professor Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D.: " How psychotropic drugs work is

not clear " (The New Psychiatry, Mentor, 1985, p. 143). Experience has shown

that the effect of all of today's commonly used psychiatric drugs is to disable

the brain in a generalized way. None of today's psychiatric drugs have the

specificity (e.g., for depression or anxiety or psychosis) that is often claimed

for them.

LIKE TAKING INSULIN FOR DIABETES?

It is often asserted that taking a psychiatric drug is like taking insulin for

diabetes. Although psychiatric drugs are taken continuously, as is insulin -

it's an absurd analogy. Diabetes is a disease with a known physical cause. No

physical cause has been found for any of today's so-called mental illnesses. The

mode of action of insulin is known: It is a hormone that instructs or causes

cells to uptake dietary glucose (sugar). In contrast, the modes of action of

psychiatry's drugs are unknown - although advocates of psychiatric drugs as well

as critics theorize they prevent normal brain functioning by blocking

neuroreceptors in the brain. If this theory is correct it is another contrast

between taking insulin and taking a psychiatric drug: Insulin restores a normal

biological function, namely, normal glucose (or sugar) metabolism. Psychiatric

drugs interfere with a normal biological function, namely, normal neuroreceptor

functioning. Insulin is a hormone that is found naturally in the body.

Psychiatry's drugs are not normally found in the body. Insulin gives a

diabetic's body a capability it would not have in the absence of insulin,

namely, the ability to metabolize dietary sugar normally. Psychiatric drugs

have an opposite kind of effect: They take away (mental) capabilities the person

would have in the absence of the drug. Insulin affects the body rather than

mind. Psychiatric drugs disable the brain and hence the mind, the mind being

the essence of the real self.

 

 

THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included

representing psychiatric " patients " . His pamphlets are not copyrighted. You are

invited to make copies for distribution to those who you think will benefit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOWNLOAD AS PAMPHLET - Click on this link to download a file from which you can

print a copy of this article, " Psychiatric Drugs: Cure or Quackery?, " in

pamphlet form. You will need 8½ by 14 inch paper, a printer capable of

Hewlett-Packard Laserjet (PCL 5) emulation, and Corel WordPerfect for Microsoft

Windows 95/98. Printer capable of duplexing (i.e., double-sided printing) is

recommended. See printing instructions. Most Kinko's Copy shops in the USA and

Canada have the needed hardware and software, often including a duplexing

printer, to download and print pamphlets from this website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997 UPDATE:

The following is an excerpt from " What is Schizophrenia? " by William C.

Wirshing, M.D.:

.... 3. Coincident with this observed antipsychotic effect [of Thorazine] was a

curious neurotoxicity clinically indistinguishable from idiopathic Parkinson’s

disease. They [the drug's discoverers and developers] were, in fact, so

impressed with this correlation that they suggested to their colleagues that

patients be dosed to this 'neuroleptic threshold.' Thus, toxicity fell into a

lockstep with efficacy in the minds of all clinicians and basic researchers who

dealt with these molecules. The task that then fell to the basic researchers

and the medicinal chemists was, 'How does Thorazine work?' The short answer to

this question is that, even after a half century of toil, medical science is

still not quite sure. ... Unfortunately, even in 1997, there is no way to

screen a drug preclinically (i.e., in animal or other nonhuman models) for

antischizophrenic potency. It appears that the liability to get schizophrenia

is uniquely human. The liability, however, to manifest parkinsonism, on the

other hand, is shared by many mammalian species. Therefore, if the original

clinical observation linking neurotoxicity (the parkinsonism) and antipsychotic

efficacy was correct, then all one had to do is search for a molecule that

induced neurotoxicity in animals. When given to humans, this would not only

induce the neurotoxicity but would result in antipsychotic efficacy. And this is

what was done, over and over again-nearly 250 molecules have been elaborated in

roughly this fashion during the last half century. Said another way, these drugs

were discovered and developed because they produce neurotoxicity in animals.

This, therefore, is their primary effect. Clinicians exploit the fortuitous

co-occurrence of the side effect of antipsychotic potency. It should be no

surprise then that all available " conventional " antipsychotic cornpounds produce

neurotoxicity - this is what they were designed to do. ... 1) All conventional

antipsychotic medications not only shared antipsychotic potential, they also

shared neurotoxic liabilities - they are called, after all, 'neuroleptics,'

which roughly translates as 'neurotoxic.' ... So then, how does clozapine

work? Again, no one knows the answer. [emphasis added]

The author, Willian C. Wirshing, M.D., is an associate professor of psychiatry

at UCLA Medical School and director of the Movement Disorders Laboratory at the

Brentwood VA Medical Center as well as a member of The JOURNAL Advisory Board

and its medical editor.

 

1998 UPDATE:

The following statements are made by Michael J. Murphy, M.D., M.P.H., Clinical

Fellow in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; Ronald L. Cowan, M.D., Ph.D.,

Clinical Fellow in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; and Lloyd I. Sederer,

M.D., Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, in

their textbook Blueprints in Psychiatry (Blackwell Science, Inc., Malden,

Massachusetts, 1998):

Lithium:

" The mechanism of action of lithium in the treatment of mania is not well

determined. " (p. 57)

Valproate:

" The mechanism of action of valproate is likely to be its augmentation of GABA

function in the CNS [central nervous system]. " (p. 58 - underline added)

Carbamazepine:

" The mechanism of action of carbamazepine in bipolar illness is unknown. " (p.

59)

Antidepressants:

" Antidepressants are thought to exert their effects at particular subsets of

neuronal synapses throughout the brain. ... SSRIs [e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft]

act by binding to presynaptic serotonin reuptake proteins ... TCAs [TriCyclic

Antidepressants] act by blocking presynaptic reuptake of both serotonin and

norepinephrine. MAOIs [Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors] act by inhibiting the

presynaptic enzyme (monoamine oxidase) ... These immediate mechanisms of action

are not sufficient to explain the delayed antidepressant effects (typically 2 to

4 weeks). Other unknown mechanisms must play a role in the successful

psychopharmacologic treatment of depression. ... all antidepressants have

roughly the same efficacy in treating depression ... [Only] approximately 50% of

patients who meet DSM-IV criteria for major depression will recover with a

single adequate trial (at least 6 weeks at a therapeutic dosage) of an

antidepressant. " (p. 54 - underline added)

Comment by web-master Douglas Smith: Of course, about half of all

despondent or " depressed " people will feel significantly better in 6 weeks

without " medication, " too. What psychiatrists call " other unknown mechanisms "

is just the passage of time.

1999 UPDATES

See quotations in book review of Your Drug May Be Your Problem by Peter R.

Breggin, M.D., and David Cohen, Ph.D., published in 1999.

No Prescription for Happiness: Could it be that antidepressants do little more

than placebos? " by Thomas J. Moore, author of Prescription for Disaster, Boston

Globe, October 17, 1999.

2000 UPDATES

There is now evidence SSRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor)

antidepressants such as Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft cause brain damage: In his

book Prozac Backlash, published in 2000, Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical

instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, says: " In recent years, the

danger of long-term side effects has emerged in association with Prozac-type

drugs, making it imperative to minimize one's exposure to them. Neurological

disorders including disfiguring facial and whole body tics, indicating potential

brain damage, are an increasing concern with patients on the drugs. ... With

related drugs targeting serotonin, there is evidence that they may effect a

'chemical lobotomy' by destroying the nerve endings that they target in the

brain " (p. 8). He compares brain damage that seems to be caused by SSRI

antidepressants (including but not limited to Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft) to that

caused by neuroleptic/major tranquilizer drugs like Thorazine, Prolixin, and

Haldol. He presents evidence that the so-called selective serotonin reuptake

inhibitors are not selective for serotonin but affect other chemicals in the

brain, including dopamine. For more information about the book, including

excerpts, see the Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com websites.

" Most important, the myth of 'accurate diagnosis' severely narrows treatment

options for many psychiatric problems and has contributed to the excessive use

of medication prevalent in our country today. " Edward Drummond, M.D., Associate

Medical Director at Seacoast Mental Health Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire,

in his book The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

New York, 2000), page 6. Dr. Drummond graduated from Tufts University School of

Medicine and was trained in psychiatry at Harvard University.

" Nothing has harmed the quality of individual life in modern society more than

the misbegotten belief that human suffering is driven by biological and genetic

causes and can be rectified by taking drugs or undergoing electroshock therapy.

.... If I wanted to ruin someone's life, I would convince the person that that

biological psychiatry is right - that relationships mean nothing, that choice is

impossible, and that the mechanics of a broken brain reign over our emotions and

conduct. If I wanted to impair an individual's capacity to create empathetic,

loving relationships, I would prescribe psychiatric drugs, all of which blunt

our highest psychological and spiritual functions. " Peter R. Breggin, M.D., in

the Foreward to Reality Therapy in Action by William Glasser, M.D. (Harper

Collins, 2000), p. xi (underline added).

" All psychiatric drugs produce severe biochemical imbalances and related

abnormalities by interfering with the normal brain function. " Peter R. Breggin,

M.D., in his book Reclaiming Our Children (Perseus Books, Cambridge, Mass.,

2000), page 140.

" Suppressing Our Children's Signals

Suppose a group of children is standing on the shore of an island waving their

arms crisscross above their heads in the universal distress signal. Now imagine

that a 'hospital ship' spots the children and comes ashore. Suppose further

that the doctor orders the nurses to give the children Prozac or Ritalin to

abort their signals of distress. Now suppose the ship departs without finding

out why the children are alone on the island, where their parents are, what

dangers are surrounding them, or even whether whey want to be rescued.

" That of course sounds ridiculous. Yet in ways small and large this is

happening throughout the nation. Millions of children are desperately signaling

distress and doctors are sending them home with drugs that suppress their

ability to communicate their distress. "

Peter R. Breggin, M.D., in his book Reclaiming Our Children (Perseus

Books, Cambridge, Mass., 2000), page 142.

 

 

2001 UPDATE

U.S. News & World Report, a news magazine, referring to St. John's Wort, an

herbal preparation with supposedly anti-depressant properties, reports that

" Scientists are only beginning to understand how this popular mood-elevator

works in the body. " Amanda Spake, U.S. News & World Report, " Natural Hazards, "

February 12, 2001, page 43 at 46.

___________________________

A law firm has much revealing information about harm caused by Prozac and Zoloft

on its web site: http://justiceseekers.com. Click on the " Prozac/Zoloft

Information " link on the left edge of the page.

Protocol for Treatment of Benzodiazephine Withdrawal - by Prof. Heather Ashton,

D.M., F.R.C.P. - book by a professor at the University of Newcastle, School of

Neurosciences, Division of Psychiatry, about how to stop taking Xanax, Valium,

Halcion, Atavan, and similar drugs. Available for $20. For information contact

benzo or YDay548715 or Geraldine Burns, 3 Searle Road,

Boston, Massachusetts 02132.

Article critical of Prozac.

See also " Drugging Children with Ritalin to Curb Hyperactivity " - Antipsychiatry

Coalition webmaster Douglas A. Smith's commentary on a Time magazine cover story

titled " The Age of Ritalin "

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now