Psychiatrist Blows The Lid On Antidepressants

[Guest guest]

Psychiatrist Blows

The Lid On Antidepressants

By Jon Rappoport

NoMoreFakeNews.com

5-27-5

 

 

For the past year, I've been receiving communications from a practicing American

psychiatrist, who has an office in the southeastern US. He sees patients

privately and also works at a large hospital. Increasingly, this man has been

expressing doubts about the drugs he has been prescribing.

 

Now, he has blown the lid off his own profession, and it appears he is ready to

switch careers or become an alternative practitioner.

 

Here is an excerpt from our recent conversation:

 

Q: Why do you doubt the drugs?

 

A: They're toxic and injurious.

 

Q: Which ones?

 

A: All of them.

 

Q: And in particular?

 

A: The antidepressants. Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, and so on. They are not showing,

on balance, good results, and patients have been experiencing adverse effects.

 

Q: Such as?

 

A: Sleeplessness, nightmares, erratic behavior, highs and lows, crashes,

attempts to commit suicide, exacerbated depression, violence, dramatic

personality changes.

 

Q: Why do you think this is happening?

 

A: To be honest, I don't know. But my sense is, in general, that the drugs

interfere in unpredictable ways with various neurotransmitter systems. I also

believe they can work extreme changes in blood sugar levels and electrolyte

levels. You know, it's not hard to create these effects with chemicals. The body

is not able to integrate them in its normal functioning. I would compare it to

suddenly setting up all sorts of roadblocks and detours and forced lane changes

on a busy highway. You will get big trouble.

 

Q: Have you tried to communicate your concerns to colleagues and medical groups?

 

A: For a short time, I did. But I was given the cold shoulder. I got the

distinct feeling I was being treated like some wayward child who had his facts

all wrong.

 

Q: Who do you blame for this drugging catastrophe?

 

A: At the moment, everybody. The doctors, the drug companies, the FDA, the

psychiatric teaching institutions, even the press. And at some point, patients

are going to have to take responsibility and not follow the orders of their

doctors.

 

Q: Do you believe that doctors should cut back and give the drugs to some people

and not others?

 

A: That sounds good, but there is no way to know what effects the drugs will

cause in any given individual, especially as time passes. Even in the short

term, I have seen some frightening things.

 

Q: Do you believe the profession of psychiatry has made some kind of overarching

deal with the drug companies?

 

A: Yes. The drug companies are everywhere. They stick their noses into

everyone's business.

 

Q: What lies about the drugs have you had to purge from your own mind?

 

A: The main one is that they're some kind of miracle breakthrough. Another one

is that I can rely on the judgments and certifications of the FDA. We're playing

Russian Roulette out here. It's a very dangerous situation.

 

Q: Do you believe that some of the school shootings have resulted from children

being on the antidepressants?

 

A: I didn't, until one day a sixteen-year-old patient of mine showed up for his

appointment with a 9mm hand gun. Then I began to comb back through reports on a

bunch of those shootings. I can tell you, it focuses the mind to see a young

patient sitting across from you---you've put him on an antidepressant and now

he's talking about " a new day " and he takes the gun out of his pocket and lays

it on a table next to him by the Kleenex. You think to yourself, " I may have

created a killer and his first victim could be me. " People want to outlaw all

guns. I'd start with the drugs.

 

Q: How about the diagnosis of depression itself?

 

A: I've come to realize that you can't do an interview with a patient and then

come out with a shorthand assessment. It's wrong. It reduces all sorts of

problems down to a label, and then you have your official gateway into the

drugs.

 

Q: Your colleagues think you're over-reacting?

 

A: I think I'm under-reacting. I think we have an epidemic on our hands, but it

has nothing to do with mental disorders. It has to do with the chemicals we're

facilitating.

 

Q: This boy with the gun---were you able to talk him down?

 

A: I spent two hours with him that day. I told him he was having a reaction to

the drug. At first, it made no sense to him. He was on a manic sort of ride.

That really scared me---that I couldn't make him see what was happening to him.

He was in the middle of an episode and he couldn't stand outside it. Finally, he

eased up a little. He began to weep in my office. It wasn't really crying. Tears

just ran down his cheeks while he was talking. He didn't seem to notice them. He

had almost stopped being human. He was a...creature. He was on a mission of some

kind. His view of the world had totally changed. In his mind set, destruction

was the only course of action.

 

Q: And then?

 

A: He calmed down a little. I was afraid to ask him for the gun. He just picked

it up and put it back in his pocket. After he left, I called his mother. She

went home from her job and met him. I had asked her to call the police but she

wouldn't. Later, she told me she sat and talked with him for a long time and

then he handed over the gun. It was a very tense situation. I had her remove the

bottle of pills from her medicine cabinet. Then I had to follow up. I weaned him

slowly from the drug. It took two months. He finally sort of returned to being

the person he was. Even then I wasn't sure he'd be okay. He was definitely

addicted to the drug. Luckily, I didn't cut him off suddenly. He might have

killed people during the withdrawal cycle.

 

Q: Did you continue to see this boy as a patient?

 

A: I did a nutritional assessment with the help of a doctor who is very good

with that. We found the boy was having strange reactions to certain soft drinks

that have speed-type boosters in them. We gradually weaned him off them. Then we

discovered he was reacting to dyes and other chemicals in junk food. So we had

to change his diet. That wasn't easy.

 

Q: He was addicted in several ways to chemicals.

 

A: That's right. There was peer pressure for him to keep eating junk. All his

friends did. They called him weird for going off the food they were eating every

day. Finally, I discovered that, five years before I saw him, he'd been on

Ritalin for a year. You know, for ADHD. He'd been driven into depression by

that. He basically felt, at eleven, that his life was over. All paths and

interests were closed to him.

 

Q: How is he now?

 

A: Much better. But he's not all the way back.

 

Q: Do you think there is permanent brain damage?

 

A: I don't know. He's now living outside the US with his father. I get reports

once in awhile.

 

Q: How does he feel about his own experience?

 

A: He wants it to be an example to other families.

 

Q: You didn't go into medicine to deal with this.

 

A: No. In school, my ideals were high. But I allowed myself to be led down the

garden path. I fell for the sales pitch. I'm telling you, this is not a good

situation. We are a society on the brink. Something has to be done.

 

Q: How do you feel about Bush's mental health screening program for all

children?

 

A: All in all, it may turn out to be the worst thing he's done as president.

It's just a tip of his hat to his pharmaceutical supporters. But the

consequences---if this plan gets rolling---will be devastating.

 

Q: Is there some underlying principle at work here? Some paradigm that everyone

is accepting that is putting us into a bad situation?

 

A: You know the answer to that. It's the combination of easy diagnosis plus the

drug fix. The pill craze for everything. Take a drug and everything will work

out. I see it as the classic street-drug promotion. Feel good. Take this drug

and you'll feel different and better. Combine that with the basic immaturity of

most people and you have the interlock. Why work out your problems and strive to

have the life you want when you can arrive at the best destination with a pill?

I'd take this a step further. If you stacked up all the tranquilizers and

antidepressants, for adults, next to, say, marijuana, as a way of dealing with

stress, I'd say that a very modest amount of a mild marijuana would be more

successful than all those other drugs at the levels they're normally prescribed.

If I were forced to recommend one or the other, I'd go with the marijuana. And

I'd say the drug companies know this. Which is one reason why, in the US, the

enforcement on marijuana has been stepping up. But

again, you're always dealing with an individual. Each person is different. I've

seen people who react very badly to pot. It affects them like a psychedelic.

 

Q: You're saying the science behind the antidepressants is false.

 

A: Absolutely. Judging by the effects of the drugs, it has to be. It may sound

good and proper. All the right words are used. But I don't care about that

anymore. I go by results. My eyes have been opened.

 

Q: Then why are the drug companies pushing these drugs?

 

A: I'm not an expert to speak to about that. Certainly there is the profit

motive. But I think there is also the myth of progress.

 

Q: What do you mean?

 

A: That myth states that technology must keep making advances. It's the legend

of forward motion. If technology is to be seen as good, it has to keep turning

out better advances---otherwise something is wrong. And there can't be anything

wrong.

 

Q: It's like a hectic race.

 

A: Yes. If you stop, you might fall down. Secrets might be exposed. Shortcomings

might show up. So you have to keep pushing. You have to keep saying you're doing

better and better. I'm sure you can see where this gets you. You make new

mistakes to cover up old mistakes. You become careless. You lie. You hire

promotion people to tout your work. You keep the whole thing rolling forward, no

matter what. That's where we are.

 

Q: And you were carried on that wave.

 

A: For many years. But now I've stopped.

 

Q: Is it uncomfortable?

 

A: Not so much anymore. But at first I was very upset and angry. I was blaming

everyone but myself. I felt like I was in chains, that my whole education and

career were at stake. And I was my career. What else did I have? Getting off the

boat was quite difficult. I had every advantage this society has to offer. I

was---

 

Q: The expert.

 

A: Yes. That's a powerful feeling. People come to you with questions and you

have the answers. If you don't, then you're thrown down in the pit with everyone

else. Part of being a doctor is being above the pit, out of the problem. You're

the solution. You don't want to fall. And the only thing that keeps you from

falling is what you've learned. Your knowledge. When you see that that's based

on lies, you don't know what to do. It's like being a priest and realizing that

everyone gets to the far shore by his own means. You don't want to let go of the

doctrine that put you on the pulpit.

 

Q: So what would a new paradigm look like?

 

A: For mental health? We have to get rid of all the old classsifications and

disorders. We have to let all that sink into oblivion. That was wrong. That was

largely fantasy.

 

Q: It was a story.

 

A: We told it, and now we have to stop telling it. Because we've ended up

intervening in people's lives in a very pernicious way.

 

Q: Part of the story necessitated that kind of intervention.

 

A: Yes. And, not to take myself off the hook, but people want that kind of

story, as you say. They want that " expert story. " They want someone else to come

in and tell them what to do and what to think and what drug to take.

 

Q: Why do you think that is?

 

A: Because people have taken the easy path. They have opted for what I would

call a flat version of reality. If they started adding dimensions on their

own---

 

Q: They would be forced to tell their own story.

 

A: In the terms you're using, yes. That's what would happen.

 

Q: And how would society look then?

 

A: Much different. Much more risky, perhaps, but much more alive. Psychology and

psychiatry don't allow for that kind of outcome. All mental disorders are

constructs. They're named by committees, as I'm sure you know. They're a form of

centralized pattern. In this context, the word " shrink " is very appropriate.

That's what we've been doing. Shrinking down the perception of what reality and

the mind are all about.

 

Q: Can you imagine what would happen if the lid were taken off?

 

A: I work with that idea every day now.

 

Q: And how does it look?

 

A: More and more appealing.

 

http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=2631

 

 

http://www.blueaction.org

A politician is a man who will double cross that bridge when he comes to it

http://babyseals.care2.com/