David Healy: Let them eat Prozac.

[Guest guest]

ISIS Press Release 11/08/08

---------------------------

 

The Depressing Side of Medical Science

**************************************

**************************************

 

Prof. Peter Saunders reviews David Healy. Let Them Eat

Prozac. New York University Press, New York and London.

2004. Hardback ISBN: 0-8147-3669-6, £23.95. 368pp.

(Paperback £12.95)

 

Anti-depressants, anyone?

-------------------------

 

Anti-depressants are among the most profitable drugs

produced by the pharmaceutical industry. In 2005, the last

year for which there are full data, 170 million

prescriptions for antidepressants were filled in the USA

[1].

 

In Let Them Eat Prozac, David Healy, professor of psychiatry

at Cardiff University and an acknowledged expert in

psychopharmacology, shows how the efficacy of the drugs has

been very much exaggerated and their dangers very much

played down. He also describes the lengths to which the

industry has gone to promote the widespread prescription of

anti-depressants and to avoid responsibility for their side

effects.

 

You may have heard of Healy because of what happened in 2000

[2]. He had been appointed as a professor of psychiatry at

the University of Toronto, but just before he was to take up

the post, he gave a lecture in which he discussed some

concerns about anti-depressants and pointed out that there

had been no research into how to minimise the risks. The

University withdrew its offer, and while it has consistently

denied this was due to pressure from the pharmaceutical

industry, it is hard to imagine any other reason. Healy sued

the University for breach of contract, libel, and breach of

academic freedom. In the end a mediated settlement was

reached and the University repaired the libel by appointing

him a visiting professor [3].

 

That was not, however, his first clash with the

pharmaceutical industry. The book begins with a brief

history of the development of selective serotonin reuptake

inhibitors (SSRIs), including what was for me the surprising

fact that depression has only been a major recognised

condition since antidepressants were developed. Before that,

only about one person in ten thousand was thought to suffer

from what was then called melancholia; now it is one in ten.

Presumably because of this, the discovery of antidepressants

was not considered at the time to be a great breakthrough.

It was also recognised right from the beginning that

antidepressants might lead to suicide. That was not a reason

for not developing them, and it does not mean that

psychiatrists should never prescribe them, but it’s

something that both researchers and clinicians should keep

in mind far more than they have done. 

 

The road to scepticism

----------------------

 

Healy describes how he gradually became more and more

concerned both with the evidence that antidepressants are

less effective and more hazardous than was generally

recognised and also with the attitude of the industry, which

singularly failed to deal with his concerns, and was

consistently either ignoring evidence or interpreting it in

a way that put the drugs in the best possible light. For

example, they would draw attention to a result that showed

one drug was more effective than a competitor without

mentioning that neither was better than a placebo.

 

Healy describes cases in which he was called in as an expert

witness and found himself observing, and experiencing, the

great pressure that the drug companies are willing to deploy

to defend their profits. These are fascinating stories and I

would have enjoyed them if they had been episodes in a novel

by John le Carré rather than about real life.

 

Control of the scientific media and suppression of data

----------------------

 

As the title implies, this is essentially a book about anti-

depressants and especially about Lilley’s Prozac. Healy

points out, however, that much of what he describes is not

confined to psychiatry. He describes how control of the

scientific media makes it possible for companies to build up

a bandwagon in one area while others remain neglected. In

the 1960s, for example, there were two competing views on

the most important factors in preventing heart attacks. One

was that blood lipid levels were the key, and this has led

to the development of highly profitable drugs for reducing

them. The other hypothesis, that high levels of homocysteine

(an amino acid in the blood) were important, was largely

neglected until quite recently. The homocysteine hypothesis

has the advantage (or the disadvantage, if you are a

pharmaceutical company) that it suggests a range of dietary

treatments rather than a drug [4].

 

Read the rest of this article here

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TDSOM.php

 

 

" It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the treatment

ofchronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run against so many histories

of littlechildren who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated and

who, in the severalyears that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I

couldn't put my finger onthe disease they have. They just weren't strong. Their

resistance was gone. They wereperfectly well before they were vaccinated. They

have never been well since. " ---Dr. William Howard Hay

 

 

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now, on

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html/