Psychiatrist Blows The Lid On Antidepressants

[Guest guest]

http://www.rense.com/general65/lid.htm

 

 

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

 

 

 

Disclaimer

 

Email This Article

 

 

 

 

MainPage

http://www.rense.com

 

 

This Site Served by TheHostPros