DR. MERCOLA Offers Alternatives to Antidepressants

Below is an excerpt from Dr. Mercola’s elaboration on an interview with Dr. OZ, scheduled to air today. Mercola says the program allows only brief “sound bite”- like responses, so he’s expounding on the info in his newsletter found at this address online: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/04/dr-mercola-on-the-dr-oz-show.aspx?e_cid=20120104_DNL_art_1

I’ve followed Mercola for years, and my research agrees with most of what he presents, particularly the info below on antidepressants. I’m reproducing this section of the article, because it relates to the subject of this blog and also provides non-drug approaches to treating depression.

Beginning of quoted excerpt:

Antidepressants

When it comes to the use of antidepressant medication, Dr. Oz is still in somewhat of an allopathic mode—the idea that for nearly every disease or symptom there is a pill that will likely cure it. The conventional approach to treating depression is to prescribe an antidepressant (or two). I firmly believe that antidepressants do more harm than good in most cases of depression.

Dr. Oz seeks to apply natural alternatives like St. John’s, SAMe, or tryptophan in lieu of more hazardous antidepressants, but while such supplements are certainly safer, and sometimes effective, you’re still not treating the underlying cause of depression. Some will argue that if you’re low in serotonin, you might benefit from some tryptophan. But while this may indeed help, you’re still not addressing the reason for why you’re low in serotonin. There are reasons for that, and once you eliminate the root cause, you won’t have to take pills of any kind… I think it’s really crucial to address these underlying issues.

As for antidepressants, there’s startling evidence and countless research studies that strongly suggest antidepressant drugs simply do not work. Meanwhile, every year, psychiatric drugs kill an estimated 42,000 people—that’s an astounding 12,000 more people than commit suicide due to depression.

Rooting Out the Causes of Depression

There are a number of very powerful strategies to address depression. One that has been proven more effective than antidepressants in a number of studies is exercise. Exercise not only relieves depressive symptoms but also appears to prevent them from recurring. Unfortunately, since no one is going to be making tens of billions of dollars on encouraging you to exercise, it has not received the amount of funding for studies that antidepressant drugs have received. However when the studies are performed, exercise continually comes out on top, demonstrating benefits above and beyond what antidepressant drugs can achieve.

Three key mechanisms appear to be that exercise:

Improves insulin receptor sensitivity
Regulates serotonin and norepinephrine, two key neurotransmitters in your brain, and
“Switches on” genes that increase your brain levels of galanin, a neurotransmitter that helps lessen your body’s stress response

Your diet is another key factor that must be addressed. There are well-documented studies showing that animal-based omega-3 fat (DHA) is very useful. I’m a firm believer in krill oil, which is far more effectively absorbed than fish oil. You also want to make sure to optimize your diet, meaning removing sugars, grains and processed foods, and replacing them with healthy fats. Why is your diet so important for your emotional and mental health?

The Gut-Brain Connection that Can Help Explain Many Cases of Depression

One of the reasons that dietary changes work is because it helps alter your gut flora in very beneficial ways. The beneficial bacteria in your gut have a profound influence on your health, including your mental health. They produce substances that your body needs. And, your gut actually produces more serotonin than your brain does!

Your gut is frequently referred to as ‘the second brain,’ and when you consider the fact that the gut-brain connection is recognized as a basic tenet of physiology and medicine, and that there’s no shortage of evidence of gastrointestinal involvement in a variety of neurological diseases, it’s easy to see how the balance of gut bacteria can play a significant role in your psychology and behavior as well. With this in mind, it should also be crystal clear that nourishing your gut flora is extremely important, from cradle to grave, because in a very real sense you have two brains, one inside your skull and one in your gut, and each needs its own vital nourishment.

Last but certainly not least, is finding a skilled psychotherapist who can help you work through some of the contributing emotional challenges. But optimizing your physiology with the physical approaches mentioned is probably the best marriage of an approach that has a high likelihood of success.

Here’s additional information everyone should read… whether they’re experiencing depression, or have a friend or loved one who is trying to deal with it, or just want to be better informed about antidepressants and depression.

Please Don’t Visit This Type of Doctor Unless You Absolutely Have to
They Cause 40,000 Deaths a Year – But They’re Handed Out Like Candy
Why Antidepressants Don’t Work

End of quoted excerpt from full article found here:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/04/dr-mercola-on-the-dr-oz-show.aspx?e_cid=20120104_DNL_art_1

MISLEADING REPORTS AND NEWS HEADLINES ABOUT ANTIDEPRESSANT USE DURING PREGNANCY PUT UNBORN AT RISK

MISLEADING REPORTS AND NEWS HEADLINES ABOUT ANTIDEPRESSANT USE DURING PREGNANCY PUT UNBORN AT RISK

SHORT VERSION:

Headlines following a 2007 CDC study examining the effects of antidepressants on the developing fetus were grossly misleading.

One in the June LA Times read: “Small Link Found Between Antidepressants, Birth Defects.“ The Times sums up as follows: ” ‘The take-home message is that we are talking about very small risks’….” But ask Dr. Peter Breggin what he thinks, and he doesn’t mince words, as evidenced by the title of his July, 2007 report in the Huffington Post:

“Pregnant Mothers Should Not Take SSRI Antidepressants”

Breggin, a psychiatrist who previously taught at Harvard and worked for the National Institute of Mental Health (NAMI), now conducts a private practice in Ithaca, NY. Breggin says the CDC study in question showed “…several severe birth defects were doubled or nearly tripled in frequency when SSRIs were taken in the first trimester. This, combined with the other known toxic effects of SSRIs, including brain damage and dysfunction,” he adds, “make these drugs contraindicated in pregnancy.”

Breggin discusses specifics of the CDC study (Alwan et al., 2007), along with another, associated with Boston University (Louik et al., 2007).

CDC results summary:
“‘Anencephaly–birth without a forebrain–showed a 2.4 times greater occurrence in women who had taken SSRIs in the first trimester.'”
“Omphalocele–babies born with organs outside the body–was found to be present 2.8 times as often in the SSRI-treated mothers compared to the control group.”
“Craniosynostosis–the premature closing of one or more sutures or fibrous joints knitting the bones of the infant’s skull–showed 2.5 times more prevalence in infants exposed in utero to SSRIs.”

Boston University results summary:
Found an “…association between sertraline (Zoloft) and both omphalocele and septal defects in the heart, and between paroxetine (Paxil) and right ventricular outflow tract obstruction defects of the heart.”

Breggin says Louik, whose study was funded in part by Paxil’s maker GlaxoSmithCline, made repeated statements to the press “…reassuring people, in effect, not to worry. And it was Louik’s comments, adds Breggin, that were responsible for the downplaying of risks in headlines that followed.

A survey of website commentary on this issue confirms Breggin’s complaint that expectant mothers are being misled. They are being advised to continue antidepressants while pregnant on the basis that depression has hazards of its own. However, I found none of these sources advising mothers of alternative treatments for depression (and other psychiatric or behavioral symptoms) like those found at the Brain Bio Centre, online, for one. I found no mention of screening those suffering with depression for the nutritional deficiencies or other physical causes of depression. Furthermore, Breggin notes, the hazards of depression “…pale in comparison to the upheaval that will befall new mothers, fathers and the extended families of the children who are born with profound birth defects.”

Of additional concern is new research (Robert Whitaker’s for one) showing that use of antidepressants, particularly long-terms use, is known to exacerbate depression and even cause suicide – the main concern of those advocating continuing SSRI use during pregnancy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/pregnant-mothers-should-n_b_57270.html

LONG VERSION:

Headlines following a 2007 study examining the effects of antidepressants on the developing fetus were grossly misleading. One for the 28 June LA Times read: “Small Link Found Between Antidepressants, Birth Defects,” with further misleading statements to follow within the text. While admitting the “higher risk of developmental problems…” and the life-threatening status of those effects, it adds that “…the defects are rare and normally occur in no more than one in 2,500 births,” failing to point out that the study is not dealing with normal, non-drug, conditions. [emphasis added] The Times sums up its downplaying of the risks as follows: ” ‘The take-home message is that we are talking about very small risks,’ said UC San Diego epidemiologist Christina Chambers, who has studied the effects of antidepressants but wasn’t involved in the new research.”
But ask Dr. Peter Breggin what he thinks about these opinions, and he doesn’t mince words, as evidenced by the title of his July, 2007 report in the Huffington Post:

“Pregnant Mothers Should Not Take SSRI Antidepressants”

Breggin, a psychiatrist who has taught at Harvard and worked for the National Institute of Mental Health (NAMI), now conducts a private practice in Ithaca, NY. Breggin says the CDC study in question showed “…several severe birth defects were doubled or nearly tripled in frequency when SSRIs were taken in the first trimester. This, combined with the other known toxic effects of SSRIs, including brain damage and dysfunction,” he adds, “make these drugs contraindicated in pregnancy.”

Breggin’s article goes on to discuss the specifics of the CDC study, (Alwan et al., 2007) along with another, associated with Boston University (Louik et al., 2007).

CDC results summary, according to Breggin:
“‘Anencephaly–birth without a forebrain–showed a 2.4 times greater occurrence in women who had taken SSRIs in the first trimester.'”
“Omphalocele–babies born with organs outside the body–was found to be present 2.8 times as often in the SSRI-treated mothers compared to the control group.”
“Craniosynostosis–the premature closing of one or more sutures or fibrous joints knitting the bones of the infant’s skull–showed 2.5 times more prevalence in infants exposed in utero to SSRIs.”

Boston University results summary, according to Breggin:
Found an “…association between sertraline (Zoloft) and both omphalocele and septal defects in the heart, and between paroxetine (Paxil) and right ventricular outflow tract obstruction defects of the heart.”

Breggin says Louik, whose study was funded in part by Paxil’s maker GlaxoSmithCline, made repeated statements to the press “…reassuring people, in effect, not to worry. She made no mention of other birth defects and neonatal problems associated with SSRI antidepressants.” And it was Louik’s comments, adds Breggin, that were responsible for the downplaying of risks in headlines that followed.

Another deceptive side of this misleading response to the 2007 studies is the overshadowing of serious SSRI risks to neonates found and reported two years earlier. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2006 warned pregnant women to avoid taking Paxil and also expressed concern over any antidepressant usage during pregnancy, after an FDA public advisory reported that congenital malformations, particularly of the heart, were increased by use of Paxil during the first trimester.

Breggin lists a number of other adverse effects on the fetus, shown to be associated with the mother’s use of antidepressants. These include delayed bone development (ossification), as many as 30% of newborns experiencing withdrawal symptoms, and an increased risk of newborns developing persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN), the latter estimated to occur “…six times more frequently in children exposed to SSRIs after the twentieth week of pregnancy.” Because PPHN makes it difficult for children to get enough oxygen into their lungs, it results in “’significant morbidity and mortality‘(Food and Drug Administration, 2006).”

“Withdrawal reactions,” explains Breggin, “confirm that the brain of the fetus has been bathed in SSRIs and that is has suffered significant functional changes.” He adds that “Serotonin is intimately involved in the development of the brain in utero and SSRIs inhibit normal brain cell development (Norrholm and Ouimet, 2000).”

Adding to all these serious concerns over damaging effects of antidepressants on the developing embryo, is an alarming report of increased use of SSRIs during pregnancy, jumping from “5.7% in1999 to 13.4% in 2003 (Seward, 2007).”

Breggin says the headlines and reports following these studies were “carefully calculated to mislead and obfuscate.” They further, he adds, “…flew in the face of evidence linking SSRI exposure during pregnancy to increased birth defects and the additional evidence of SSRI toxicity in the developing brain.” The CDC’s press release, Breggin says used intentionally misleading language in saying the study “’found no significant increase in the risks for the majority of defects assessed…’” [emphasis added]. However, Breggin clarifies, he’s never heard of any drug that affects the “majority” of defects.

A survey of website commentary on this issue confirms Breggin’s complaint that expectant mothers are being misled. They are being advised to continue antidepressants while pregnant on the basis that depression has hazards of its own. However, I found none of these sources advising mothers of alternative treatments for depression (and other psychiatric or behavioral symptoms) like those found at the Brain Bio Centre, online, for one. I found no mention of screening those suffering with depression for the nutritional deficiencies or other physical causes of depression. Furthermore, Breggin notes, the hazards of depression “…pale in comparison to the upheaval that will befall new mothers, fathers and the extended families of the children who are born with profound birth defects.”

Of additional concern is new research showing that use of antidepressants, particularly long-terms use, is known to exacerbate depression and even cause suicide – the main concern of those advocating continuing SSRI use during pregnancy.

In fact,“ adds Breggin, “the new FDA labels for antidepressants specifically warn about SSRI-induced suicidality in youth and in young adults, the very group most likely to become pregnant (Food and Drug Administration, 2007). Now we know that the SSRIs not only threaten to cause the death of the mother through suicide but the death of the child as well through lethal birth defects.”

Though CDC and others advise expectant mothers to speak with their doctors about SSRI use during pregnancy, the misinformation CDC has perpetuated will no doubt affect the way doctors, in turn, advise their patients.

In conclusion Breggin suggest a number of alternatives to drugs for dealing with depression, including exercise, therapy (including family therapy), and support groups.
Though Breggin does not mention the orthomolecular and other nutritional approaches, many have found these and other physical therapies helpful, if not completely curative.

Breggin says no one should blame the parents if their children suffer birth defects. However, if a mother has taken an antidepressant, which, he says, increase “…her risk by 240%, we must hold responsible the doctor who prescribed it, the drug company who manufactured and falsely promoted it, and the medical establishment that covers up and minimizes the drastic hazards associated with these toxic chemicals, including risks to adults, children and the unborn.”

To see Dr. Breggin’s complete article, go to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/pregnant-mothers-should-n_b_57270.html

Help Withdrawing from Psychotropic Drugs – Plea to Doctors

I haven’t posted in a while. As I don’t use this site to earn money, I must work at other projects in order to survive. However over-drugging of psychotropic medication is now, finally, in the news – even the mainstream media – because the Gov’t Accounting Office (GAO) has finally begun investigating the over-drugging of Foster Children. Hopefully this initial effort will spread to the forced- and over-drugging of adults and our local social services/gov’t agencies’ roles in this American form of a holocaust – what I see as extension of the old Eugenics Program.

More on this investigation in a future post. This current one is borrowed from Beyond Meds (with permission) and is a plea to doctors to not only become aware of the ill effects of over-drugging and polypharmacy, but also a plea for them to learn the skills to help patients safely wean off these drugs.

Below is the post, unedited.

A plea to prescribing physicians and psychiatrists: please help us heal

Beyond Meds

Alternatives to psychiatry
A plea to prescribing physicians and psychiatrists: please help us heal
December 4, 2011 By giannakali

Thanks to Rossa at Holistic Recovery from Schizophrenia, who highlighted some of the below paragraphs from the Irish Examiner.

The plea to MDs comes after the excerpt.

The article is about the need for patients to be made aware of the dangers of psychiatric drugs. These paragraphs highlight what Dr. Browne said to the Irish newspaper:

Speaking to the Irish Examiner, Dr Browne, now a counselling psychotherapist, said there is so much evidence about the dangers of psychiatric drugs that it cannot be ignored.

“I think it is going to force change, but that means breaking the power that big pharma has over doctors who get perks for prescribing the drugs,” Dr Browne said.

“Psychiatry has all the power and unless we get this message through to them it is very difficult to see how things will change. But I feel sorry for psychiatrists because all they can do is prescribe medication, but there is an urgent need to look at different ways of doing things.

“You do find the odd psychiatrist who is willing to engage and I am trying to talk to them,” he said.

“We don’t have alternatives in place for people and drugs are damaging long-term. We need to treat people as humans and not patients who have a long term sickness. And we shouldn’t call what we do ‘treatment’. There is no way I can say to a person ‘I will treat you and make you better’. I can only guide the person. They themselves have to do the work.”

Dr Browne said 60%-80% of his work is helping people to slowly get off drugs. “At the moment I can’t keep up with the numbers of people trying to come and see me.

The article ends with that final statement which I have bolded because the fact is there is a huge niche opening up for psychiatrists and other prescribing physicians who want to take the opportunity. People want and desperately need COMPETENT professional help in coming off of psychiatric drugs. We need prescribers to make the transition easier.

This is an invitation for prescribing doctors to think about stepping up to the plate and perhaps even undoing some of the harm they’ve maybe helped cause.

This is not to be taken lightly. Many people come off meds with relative ease. Some of us, though, become crippled with iatrogenic illness. You will need to educate yourselves. Once you start making it be known that you can help — those of us who’ve been seriously and gravely harmed will start appearing on your doorstep. Most doctors never see (or recognize) us because once they deny our reality those of us who understand what has happened to us don’t hang around to be further abused. The doctors then move forward believing we don’t exist and spread that dangerous misconception to other doctors. It creates a treacherous world for those of us who are very ill with nowhere safe to go.

Please, it’s time that doctors learn how to help us. Some of you have unintentionally helped create the iatrogenesis that is now limiting our lives so much more than any “mental illness” ever did. Please start helping us heal now. We need you.

Some of what I’ve learned about psychiatric drug withdrawal with links to additional resources here: Withdrawal 101.

I suggest everyone reading this post, email a copy to all the doctors you know.

If you’re a blogger feel free to copy, paste and publish this too.

Chapter 168: Cat Out of the Box- WRITING ON THE WALL – Mainstream Media Reports Trend Away From Psychotropic Drugs

Finally, and I think thanks to Robert Whitaker, the mainstream media can no longer ignore the overwhelming concerns about the decades-long trend of over-prescribing psychotropic drugs, as well as, additionally, looking for more and more excuses (trumped up diagnoses) to prescribe them. This time, apparently, Duke’s former chief of psychiatry, Dr. Allen Frances, is calling into question new conditions the DSM-V draft is trying to label as mental illness, one of which is binge eating.

Below links to a video with Frances debating APA’s head Schatzburg on some of these new diagnoses, and Frances has also criticized the proposed DSM-V in the article linked below the video:

http://ondemand.duke.edu/video/22221/duke-doctor-allen-frances-on-p

Though I don’t agree with a lot in the former DSM (IV) which Frances Chaired, at least he is finally saying enough — he appears to be saying the proposed DSM -V is out of control.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress

Not only has this issue started showing up among more and more dissenters within the medical community, it is now even becoming a business concern, evidenced by the recent article in Forbes Magazine.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/07/19/investing-for-a-backlash-against-psychopharmacology/
Forbes, citing Whitaker’s work, for one, is now suggesting investors put their money in diabetes and MS drugs. (What a bunch of nice guys they are – ready to exploit any illness as long as it makes investors a buck) Next thing you know we’ll be seeing trans fats (known to cause diabetes) increased again in foods, except hidden under different ingredient names, and of course psychotropic drugs, themselves, have already caused enough diabetes, it won’t matter if their sales decline, because we already have enough diabetics to please most of Forbes new investors.

Though I’m glad Frances is speaking out about DSM-V extremes, certainly he’s not going far enough, and I’m guessing he still sips on ASA’s Kool-Aid, even if he’s stopped gulping it for now.

Below is more of what I’d like to see discussed:

I’d like to know if anyone is considering the following issues regarding the DSM-V:

Are there categories/diagnoses relating to: neurotoxic exposure, drug reactions, vitamin deficiencies, nutrient deficiencies, food additive poisoning, all of which can present with symptoms on DSM’s “mental illness” list. A
Most doctors treating those affected with these so-called illnesses wouldn’t dream of screening for any of the above before prescribing neurotoxic drugs that often cause serious, even deadly reactions. Not much money in that approach.

For years I researched the use of pesticides use in schools and colleges, examining hundreds of material safety sheets and other fact sheets (by independent researchers) on the pesticides used. Up until 1999, Dursban, a neurotoxin, among other things, was widely used. I learned that pesticide applicators (men, knowing the dangers) came on Monday’s and sprayed this persistent nerve poison in buildings with closed windows and left without airing out these buildings before students arrived and breathed the fumes and touched the settled particles. Often classrooms were sprayed while students were present.

I also learned that the subsidiary of the company that made this poison also made Ritalin.

After 1999, when Dursban (a cholinesterase inhibitor) was banned for use indoors, schools began using pyrethroids, often paired with the liver poison, piperonyl butoxide, which worked synergistically to make it harder to detoxify the permethrin. Both of these, as well as the petroleum solvent base of these formulas, are neurotoxic (brain & nerve poisons).
In the 1980s perfumes, which were previously made from mostly natural ingredients, became formulated with mostly synthetic petroleum-based ingredients.

Our world became inundated with chemical exposures and while one or two might not be a problem, the combination of assaults the average person (with children more vulnerable) experience daily has increased dramatically since WWII.

So why should it be any mystery to anyone that, exacerbated by the dye/pesticide derivative drugs being used to treat symptoms of chemical poisoning, more and more people are experiencing symptoms of neurotoxicity?

On top of these assaults on our brains and bodies, our foods are no longer providing the nutrition needed to help the bodies maintain working immune systems or for optimal function of the P450 systems.

And as Dr. Thomas Gualtieri has pointed out in his book on brain injury, as have many others, that often symptoms mimicking so-called mental illnesses, listed in the DSM, are caused by vitamin or nutrient deficiencies.

Can someone please tell me why there should not be a blanket screening and investigation of all physical causes of “mental” symptoms BEFORE anyone adds yet another toxic assault to these often already toxic bodies (ie psychotropic drugs)?

Certainly mental hospitals in America and psychiatric units of other hospitals do not do this screening and, not only do they NOT do this type of screening, they try to make anyone who suggests it appear mentally ill themselves.

Anyone who looks into what is going on – the conflicts of interest, the unwillingness to consider physical causes, and the unwillingness to treat with anything other than cruelty, condescension, and drugs should know that this is about the pharmaceutical industry’s influence on those who are setting the criteria for diagnosis and treatment.

This is not rocket science. This is greed.

Now about the binge-eating “diagnosis.” This goes back to poor nutrition in our foods – as well as additives like MSG that can affect appetite. It has to do with the pervasiveness of corn syrup and the corruption involved in allow packaging to say “zero trans fats,” when the product still contains .5 gr of trans fats PER SERVING.

Furthermore antipsychotics cause very rapid weight gain and affect appetite and metabolism so dramatically that one taking these drugs commonly gain as much as 40 lbs or more in 2 months. Not only do the hospitals over-drug patients, but they also fail to offer optimal nutrition. Only very rare and very expensive treatment facilities even consider serving organic foods, avoiding corn syrup, msg, and aspartame, as well as added dyes. Mental hospitals, out to make profits, wouldn’t dream of this. They seem not interested at all in curing anyone of anything.

Not only are our foods inundated with chemicals that cause weight gain and adversely affect metabolism, liquid forms of drugs like Risperdal, contain Aspartame – a brain poison which is exposed for what it is (as well as Donald Rumsfeld’s involvement in getting it on the market) in a documentary called “Sweet Misery.” Aspartame is made by Monsanto, which is partnered with drug companies that make antipsychotics.

And another thing. Permethin, one of the pyrethroids commonly sprayed for pest contro, is shown to adversely affect the thyroid gland. And I can think of few things that have more impact on weight than a malfunctioning thyroid. Instead of labeling people mentally ill, perhaps we should be giving better thyroid tests and ban volatile pesticide spraying except in emergencies. But that too would not promote profits for the chemical/pharm industry.

So, my hope is that courageous doctors with influence, like Dr. Frances, and especially Dr. Peter Breggin and Grace E Jackson, will start making the connection to the conflicts of interest that surround this racket of labeling just about any condition as a mental illness, treatable by the chemical/pharmaceutical industry.

More later – will edit tomorrow – up way too late.

Chapter 167: More Evidence of Risks of Psychotropic Drugs — Antipsychotics in Particular

This article from Dr. Mercola re-emphasizes Dr. Peter Breggin’s concerns about over-drugging Veterans returning home with stress, anxiety and insomnia. As I’ve documented many times in this blog, sedatives, especially Halcion/Triazolam, meant to aid sleep, end up backfiring and making insomnia worse, and in some cases, especially with Halcion, worse effects like psychosis, violent reactions, and amnesia can occur.

Mercola’s article also lists a number of adverse reactions related to antipsychotics like Risperdal and Abilify. I’ve seen these reactions in a loved one after just a few weeks on the drugs. And as Grace E Jackson and others have documented with proof, these drugs cause lesions on the brain.

Here’s Mercola’s article:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/03/drugs-found-ineffective-for-veterans-stress.aspx?e_cid=20110903_DNL_art_2

Chapter 166: Why We Don’t Need Halcion, Antipsychotics, or other Brain-Damaging Drugs

Because there is a better way. We only have to let the people know the facts, and let them decide. We must STOP suppressing treatments that are not promoted by the pharmaceutical industry. Our system must integrate alternatives to drug treatments and our Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance companies must be required to pay for these treatments. Below is info on Finland’s successful Open Dialogue treatment. The Youtube trailer is a great and brief summary, and below it are statistics on how well this program is working. There is no excuse for the United States to continue to ignore what works and what is the safest and most compassionate way to help those suffering distress.

Again, please support my petition to Bring Robert Whitaker’s research to light in N.C. and start your own for your own state or region. America needs to hear what he has to say, and it must have this discussion sooner or later, so why not now?
http://www.change.org/petitions/north-carolina-public-radio-invite-robert-b-whitaker-to-speak
and Kingsley Knight’s petition to allow Whitaker to respond to an opinion printed in the NY Times supporting antidepressants
http://www.change.org/petitions/a-petition-to-nyt-requesting-an-opportunity-for-robert-whitaker-to-respond-to-dr-peter-kramer

Judi Chamberlin

http://spiritualrecoveries.blogspot.com/2006/05/dr-jaakko-seikkula-open-dialogue.html

http://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/finnishopendialogue/

Other treatment options are also being suppressed – like Abram Hoffer’s work with Orthomolecular treatment and info found on the Brain Bio Centre’s website.

165: Bring Robert B Whitaker to North Carolina WUNC!

Please sign the petition to get the media discussing the facts about psychotropic drugs – their dangers, their ineffectiveness – and how the pharmaceutical industry, like the tobacco industry is and has been creating an epidemic of illness and getting away like the thieves they are.

http://www.change.org/petitions/north-carolina-public-radio-invite-robert-b-whitaker-to-speak

IT IS PAST TIME FOR THIS DISCUSSION, NPR!

Chapter 163: Petition for Open Discussion — Exposing Psychiatric Drug Myths

The Halcion hoax is just one example of how the pharmaceutical industry, the press, and many so-called experts have supported the myths about psychotropic drugs, covering up and/or distorting the facts about their lack of efficacy and safety.

The NY Times just published an op-ed by Peter Kramer supporting the grand myth and likely speaking for the pharmaceutical industry to counter backlash over Marcia Angell’s recent reviews of Whitaker’s and others’ books shedding light on the subject (New York Review of Books June/July 2011).

Below is a request to sign a petition requesting that the NYT publish Robert B. Whitaker’s response to Kramer’s distortions. PLEASE SIGN AND PASS ON. THANKS!

“I have helped create a petition entitled, “A Petition to the NY Times requesting an opportunity for Robert Whitaker to respond to Dr. Peter Kramer” and wanted to invite you to add your names.

The issue is this: Last Sunday, the New York Times pubished on the front page of its review section an article authored by Dr. Peter Kramer, “In Defense of Antidepressants.” This unsubstantiated article contained misinformation and misinterpretation of studies. It was designed to marginalize critics of unwarranted medication usage for mental distress, and to reassure readers that the drugs are safe and effective. This article has been widely circulated, and became the most emailed article of that date.

Everybody has a right to an opinion. But it is incumbent upon the world’s leading newspaper to provide balanced coverage of opposing viewpoints, especially on such a controversial issue. This petition is to ask the NY Times to provide comparable space for a rebuttal.

Robert Whitaker has written an excellent rebuttal, which we would like the NY Times to reproduce within its own pages. You can read it here:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mad-in-america/201107/the-new-york-times-defense-antidepressants-0

Our goal is to reach 1,000 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/a-petition-to-nyt-requesting-an-opportunity-for-robert-whitaker-to-respond-to-dr-peter-kramer

Please consider posting this on facebook and forwarding this to any friends who might have interest.

Thanks for the support!

Mark”

Here is the article published in Nature Genetics

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.886.htmlx

Chapter 162: The Times Are A Changin’ : Rethinkin’ the Chemical Cure and Mental Illness Labels

Here’s a start:

http://cooperriis.blogspot.com/2011/02/oregon-leads-way-psychiatrists-and.html

And even better, Marcia Angell, in two most recent NY Reviews of Books has highlighted Whitaker’s and others’ exposure of the myth of the chemical cure – the exaggerated efficacy and safety of psychotropic drugs and the hoax behind the labeling of mental illnesses to fit a pharmaceutical “solution.”

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/?pagination=false

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/

The winds are changing and hopefully they’ll form a hurricane of reform before this season is over.

Chapter 158: Many Reasons NOT to Use Antipsychotics

Excerpts from affidavits by Robert Whitaker, Grace Jackson, and Toby Watson:

Whitaker:
“In summary, the research literature reveals the following:
a) Antipsychotics increase the likelihood that a person will become chronically ill.

b) Long-term recovery rates are much higher for unmedicated patients than for those who are maintained on antipsychotic drugs.

c) antipsychotics cause a host of debilitating physical, emotional and cognitive side effects, and lead to early death.”

Jackson:
“Risperidone is an inhibitor of mitochondrial function and an inducer of oxidative stress. Through these cellular effects, risperidone then disrupts the structure and function of the cardiac, endocrine, hepatic and neurological systems……risperidone is unique among the newer ‘antipsychotic’ drugs in terms of its potential to elevate prolactin. In some studies, hyperprolactinemia has occurred in as many as 90% of the risperidone patients…… hyperprolactinemia has been repeatedly linked to cardiac disease…….”

“Second, even at typical or ‘ordinary’ doses (D2 blockade of 60-80%), risperidone induces Parkinsonian side effects at a rate which equals or surpasses the so-called traditional or conventional neuroleptics….”

“Third, the real-world risk of tardive dyskinesia due to risperidone is significant….”

Researchers have “…documented a statistically significant relationship between exposure to neuroleptics and a two-fold higher likelihood of severe neurobehavioral decline” and have “…discovered that the initiation of neuroleptic therapy was associated with a doubling of the speed of cognitive decline…” of patients with dementia.

“Evidence from neuroimaging studies reveals that old and new neuroleptics contribute to the progressive shrinkage and /or loss of brain tissue…………and induce a significant reduction in total brain weight and volume, with prominent changes in the frontal and parietal lobes.”

“Not surprisingly, this damage has been found to contribute to the induction or worsening of psychiatric symptoms, and to the acceleration of cognitive and neurobehavioral decline.”

Studies Showing non-drug or limited drug treatments are superior in outcomes:

Bockoven Study: “The investigators concluded that medications were associated with higher numbers of relapsing patients, and a higher number of relapses per patient.”

Vermont Longitudianl Study:
“A subsequent analysis revealed that all of the patients with full recoveries had stopped pharmacotherapy completely. (In other words, compliance with antipsychotic drug treatment was neither necessary, nor sufficient, for recovery.)”

Michigan State Psychotherapy Project:
“The poorest outcomes occurred among the chronically medicated, even when drugs were combined with psychotherapy.”

Colorado Experiment:
“After ten months of experimentation, the researchers made the following discovery: compared to ‘treatment as usual’ (neuroleptics and supportive therapy), the recipients of intensive psychotherapy experienced lower recidivism (fewer re-admissions after discharge) and lower mortality.”

Soteria Project: “The Soteria cohort [involving minimal use of drugs] outperformed the hospital control group (94% of whom received continuous neuroleptic therapy) by achieving superior outcomes in terms of residual symptoms, the need for re-hospitalization, and the ability to return to work.”

Agnew State Hospital Experiment: “The best outcomes, in terms of severity of illness, were found among the patients who avoided neuroleptic therapy both during and after hospitalization.”

Finland – Needs Adapted Approach: The patients receiving the Needs Adapted Approach, in contrast to the group receiving treatment as usual experienced “…fewer days of hospitalization, more patients without psychosis, and more patients with higher functioning. These outcomes occurred despite the fact that the Needs Adapted group consisted of more patients with severe illness…and longer durations of untreated psychosis, and despite the fact that 43% of the Needs Adapted subjects avoided antipsychotics altogether (vs. 6% of the controls.)”

In “…what has evolved to be known as the Open Dialogue Approach, the Finnish clinicians have achieved the following five-year outcomes for first-episode, non-affective psychosis: 82% rate of full remission of psychotic symptoms, 86% rate of return to studies or full-time employment, and 14% rate of disability”

“The results of the Finnish experiment stand in stark contrast to the results of the prevailing American standard of care, which currently features a 33% rate of lasting symptom reduction or remission; and, at most, a 40% rate of social or vocational recovery. ”

Watson:
A 1960s NIMH study found that “Drugs that were effective in curbing psychosis over the short term were making patients more likely to become psychotic over the long term.”

A 1970s NIMH trilogy of studies found that , “In each instance, patients treated without drugs did better over the long term than those treated in a conventional manner. Those findings led NIMH scientist William Carpenter to conclude that ‘antipsychotic medication may make some schizophrenic patients more vulnerable to future relapse than would be the case in the natural course of the illness.'”

In the 1970s two Canadian researchers wrote that “‘Neuroleptics can produce a dopamine supersensitivity that leads to both dyskinetic and psychotic symptoms.”

In the 1990s “…several research teams reported that antipsychotic drugs cause atrophy of the cerebral cortex and an enlargement of the basal ganglia….In other words , they found that the drugs cause morphological changes in the brain that are associated with a worsening of the very symptoms the drugs are supposed to alleviate.”

In 1994 the Vermont study found that a third of its “…cohort had recovered completely, and that ll who did shared one characteristic: They had all stopped taking antipsychotic medication. The notion that schizophrenia needed to stay on antipsychotics all their lives was a ‘myth,’ Harding said.”

World Health Organization studies show patients in poor countries, with 16% regularly maintained on antipsychotics had better outcomes overall than countries like the U.S. where 61% of patients were regularly maintained on antipsychotics.

In 2007 researchers at the University of Illinois Medical School “…found that 40% of those who refused to take their antipsychotic medications were recovered at five-year and 15-year followup exams, versus five percent of the medicated patients.”

“In addition to making patients chronically ill, standard antipsychotics cause a wide range of debilitating side effects. Specifically:”
Tardive Dyskinesia
Akathisia
Emotional Impairment
Cognitive Impairment
Increased incidence of blindness, fatal blood clots, arthythmia, heat stroke, swollen breasts, leaking breasts, obesity, sexual dysfunction, skin rashes, and seizures, early death.

Concerning new vs old antipsychotics:
In 2000, a team of English researchers at the University of Oxford concluded that “‘There is no clear evidence that atypicals are more effective or are better tolerated than conventional antipsychotics.'” In 2005, an NIH study concluded the same.

Researchers in the British government who had previously found that patients on the old neuroleptics had a “‘very poor’ quality of life,” concluded in 2007 that patients on the old drugs had a better quality of life than on the new antipsychotics.

Watson concludes:
a) “Antipsychotics increase the likelihood that a person will become chronically ill.
b) Long-term recovery rates are much higher for unmedicated patients than for those who are maintained on antipsychotic drugs.
c) Antipsychotics cause a hot of debilitating physical, emotional and cognitive side effects, and lead to early death.
d) The new ‘atypical’ antipsychotics are not better than the old ones in terms of their safety and tolerability, and quality of life may even be worse on the new drugs than on the old ones.
e) Being diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder, such as Schizophrenia, does not indicate there is a biological disease or true medical illness, and it does not indicate that a person suffering needs to be medicated…..psychiatric medication as an intervention is a way to control behavior, thoughts, or feelings in lieu of physical restraint. It is not treatment. Finding the true reason and underlying meaning within the persons suffering however, is treatment of the person.