This page is the complete excerpt of Chapter 12 from my book, "Beat Depression the Drug Free Way - Getting Better by Breaking the Myths."
|
|
|
Chapter 12 - Drugs
The Drug Tale
"The similarities between street drug abuse and psychotropic prescription drug use are disturbing. Both types are toxic. Both can cause psychosis, damage the brain and other organs, and even cause death. And neither type of mind-altering drugs, legal or illegal, treats disease. It's important to recognize that the only significant difference between many prescription psychotropic drugs and street drugs such as "speed" and "downers" is that prescription drugs are legal."
--Neuro-psychiatrist Sydney Walker in "Dose of Sanity"
Throughout this book I have maintained a particular stance about medications that I believe has been in the best interests of persuading you (hopefully) to proceed with the reading and understanding of important myth-building factors in our culture. I have said that I am not particularly opposed to medication, but that I am appalled at the way in which the pharmaceutical companies have peddled their product through distorted and downright deceitful advertising.
This has been a true statement but one that does not reflect my personal and academic knowledge about the potential for danger and death that antidepressant medications hold. Nor does it speak to my personal feelings related to the issue. As an ‘affective psychotherapist’ I learned long ago that it does no good to appear – to those that I most want to help – to be a frenzied anti-medication lunatic. Yet, privately, I am one.
Bernays’ Propaganda and Depression
In Chapter Four – ‘Myths’ – and elsewhere throughout, I have given quite a thumping to the late Edward Bernays. Of course, as a marketing and public relations expert, the final use of his ideas does not lie on his shoulders but on the shoulders of those who have exploited his concepts about marketing to the mass ‘collective subconscious.’
In his excellent book (on another topic), “Cancer – Step Outside the Box,” Ty M. Bollinger writes;
The PR strategist for many campaigns that have in time proven to be harmful (cigarette smoking and water fluoridation, for example)… was none other than Sigmund Freud’s nephew Edward L. Bernays, known as the ‘Father of Spin.’ Bernays pioneered the application of his Freud’s theories to advertising and government ‘half truths.’ In his book ‘Propaganda’, Bernays argued that scientific manipulation of public opinion is the key. He stated, “A relatively small number of persons pull the wires which control the public mind.” The government’s fluoridation campaign was one of his most enduring successes.
How did he do it? His techniques were simple. Pretend there is some favorable research by using phrases like “Numerous studies have shown...” or “Research has proven...” or “Scientific investigators have found...” but then never really cite anything. Say it long enough and loud enough, and eventually people will believe it.
If anyone doubts you, attack their character and/or their intellect. On a side note, a few years later, Bernays helped popularize the notion of women smoking cigarettes. Not being one to turn down a challenge, Bernays set up the advertising format which lasted for almost fifty years ‘proving’ that cigarettes are beneficial to health. Bernays never strayed from his fundamental axiom to ‘control the masses without their knowing it.’ He believed that the best PR takes place when the people are unaware that they are being manipulated.
Can we not see a parallel to this outrageous practice taking place in the present building of the myths surrounding depression?
12.1 - Toxic Medication – Some Facts to Ponder
The desire to take medicine is perhaps the greatest feature that distinguishes man from animals.
- Sir William Osler
physician, professor of medicine
An old school friend, Callum, now a retired pharmacist, told me recently that after the birth of his first child, his wife had post-natal depression. When I said, ‘well, she was married to the right guy for her medication,’ he said, ‘no way was I going to give her any of that SSRI or tricyclic shit!’ Notwithstanding Callum’s ethics or moral stance in opposition to his profession, I would say…’the horse’s mouth has spoken.’
So, I hope you have started a shift away from sharing the modern dogma that has headed us down the road toward a ‘happiness by prescription’ myth – or at least I hope I’ve given you something to wonder and think about.
Truth or Dare
Throughout this book I have become gradually more direct – if not unswervingly direct, then by obvious implication – about my attitude toward the modern pharmaceutics industry and particularly that section of it dealing with brain chemistry and mood modification.
For the bulk of my career as a clinical affectologist I did not hesitate in talking to my clients about the dangers and lies surrounding, in large part, the information manufactured by those whose greatest focus and concern was money. In later years I have stopped this practice of ‘telling it like it is’ simply because most people did not seem to care. The information did not seem to register; or at worst, I came across sounding like some kind of conspiracy crank.
So my later approach with clients has been an early comment that I am opposed to over-prescription and know that in most cases antidepressants and mind medications do more harm than good. I tell my clients that I’m happy to leave it at that, but if they want to know more, then they must take responsibility for what I tell them. In truth, that’s a kind of dare. But the truth about psychotropic pharmaceuticals exists. Let’s look at a particular phenomenon surrounding truth.
In his incredibly economical prose, Cormac McCarthy writes in No Country for Old Men, a passage that sheriff Bell delivers as part of the overall story:-
…..stories gets passed on and the truth gets passed over. As the sayin goes. Which I reckon some would take as meanin that the truth cant compete. But I don’t believe that. I think that when the lies are all told and forgot the truth will be there yet. It don’t move about from place to place and it don’t change from time to time. You cant corrupt it any more than you can salt salt. You cant corrupt it because that’s what it is……………..I’m sure they’s people would disagree with that. Quite a few, in fact. But I never could find out what any of them did believe…….
I suspect there will be essays about that passage written in literature courses in schools and colleges the world over, but it’s enough here to say that it rings true when it’s used as a metaphor for the public disregard for the truth about psychotropic drugs. People just don’t seem to care. And that’s the dare. We dare to investigate. We dare to look deeper into what Big Pharma would prefer you to not know about their drugs. We dare to notice and reveal the Machiavellian ways that drug companies effectively use the Bernays Propaganda principles to make you sell drugs to yourself. We dare to be concerned about the percentages of dire side-effect outcomes with the millions who go along with the myth of ‘depression caused by chemical imbalance in the brain.’
The truths about the possible side-effects of antidepressants are all there to see if you allow yourself to see them. The dare – for you – is to take notice, think about possible consequences for you or anyone you love, and change your attitude to psychotropic drugs. The dare is not for you to necessarily ‘say no to drugs;’ the dare is for you to ‘say KNOW to drugs.’
And to further the meaning of the word ‘dare,’ later in this chapter I’ll be saying ‘how dare anyone drug children’ – who are incapable of informed consent – if there’s even a hint of possibility of damaging or fatal side-effects.
I offer here a link to a video produced by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) that overviews the psychotropic story. It is strident and shocking. That doesn’t mean it’s not true and concerning for you and me. It is Making A Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging. This link is to the ‘Introduction’. On the same page, go to the drop-down menu half-way down on the left to view the remaining chapters.If you watch this, you might notice that Dr David Stein, Professor of Psychology (Virginia State University) says of taking psychotropic medication, “you’re playing with fire!”
How (SSRI) Antidepressants Work
I will not present here the neuro-mechanisms of the older tricyclic antidepressants. They have been largely superseded by later more sophisticated drugs, the SSRI and SNRI types (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Selective Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors).
The theory behind how SSRI’s and other antidepressants elevate individuals’ mood states is based around the assumption that people who are feeling depressed have reduced levels of neurotransmitters, particularly serotonin and noradrenaline in the brain. Neurotransmitters are released from neurons (cells found in the brain and other parts of the nervous system) and act as messengers, passing signals between neurons. For example, when a nerve impulse arrives at a serotonergic neuron (also known as a pre-synaptic neuron), serotonin is released from the cell and diffuses through a space between two neurons, called the synaptic cleft. Serotonin then binds to specific serotonin receptors on a different neuron (post-synaptic neuron) producing a specific signal, impulse or effect. Serotonin is then released from its receptors and re-absorbed into the pre-synaptic neuron, or degraded by enzymes in the synaptic cleft.
When an SSRI is introduced into the body, it attaches itself (as a buffer/barrier) to the “re-absorbing” receptors on the pre-synaptic neuron, therefore enabling the serotonin to stay in the synaptic cleft for longer and has a greater chance of re-attaching to a serotonin receptor on the post synaptic neuron and generating further impulses/signals. This action creates (what we could call) a ‘flooding’ of serotonin in the synaptic cleft and the brain in general. The principle is identical for noradrenaline in SNRI activity.
The assumption that depression is ‘caused’ by this depletion of neurotransmitter leads to a subsequent assumption that if the depletion can be chemically changed by blocking its reabsorption into the neurological system, then the presence of the neurotransmitter in the brain can be elevated to ‘normal’ levels.
Put simply, through synthetic chemical means, the brain is flooded with serotonin, presuming that this excess in neurotransmitters relieves depressed feelings.
What’s Wrong with the Antidepressant Mechanism?
Plenty. Let’s venture into the realm of the mythological and say that the myth of chemical imbalance was not a myth at all. Let’s pretend for a moment that the chemical imbalance story is true. To put it another way, let’s SAY you are depressed because you don’t have enough serotonin (or noradrenaline) in your brain to allow for adequate synaptic firing – brain activity like thoughts and happiness.
So, let’s find a way to stop the neurotransmitter from being leached so quickly back into your system. We’ll introduce a synthetic chemical that blocks that action – ‘glugs up’ the docking mechanisms, so to speak. So, the reabsorption is significantly slowed, causing flooding of the brain with neurotransmitters. As a consequence, the synaptic processes fire up, causing a significant increase in brain activity. This increase ‘reads’ as an emergence from your sluggish, depressed and hopeless-feeling state of being. Your brain activates. More thoughts and more ‘alive’ mood results. Your whole self is more active, mentally, emotionally and physically.
This all sounds great on the surface, and this is the very thing that is the fuel to the Pharma spin doctors. The problem is that it is all synthetic, ad hoc and nothing short of a gamble, and brings with it some quite incredible hazards.
Without repeating many of the facts that are readily available to you as a result of my references later in Appendix III, I’ll summarize the issues here.
Blocking the reuptake (docking) post-synaptic receptors causes an increase in the volume of that particular neurotransmitter in the brain. This being the case:-
People don’t read the fine print. And if they do, there is a grave tendency to ignore the warnings. “it can’t happen to me; only a small percentage possibility of serious side effects; a larger percentage potential for mild side effects.” Is that a familiar refrain? All medications are packaged in a way that reveals side effect potential. Yes, the writing is small, but it’s there.
Again, this subject could indeed be the topic of a whole book. Others have written well on the negative and potentially dangerous – and sometimes fatal – outcomes of taking antidepressants and I will not do so here. I aim to briefly look at the philosophical question related to antidepressant side effects.
Below there is more than one reference to data sources you can visit that focus on antidepressant side effects, and I’ll let them do their job in informing you more fully, but before we go there, I want to highlight a few points that I think need underlining.
and worse still, a video of a 5 year old girl after only two days of medication, at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlVxv5ag0pQ&feature=related
There is a wealth of information available online should you wish to study more about adverse reactions (and I hope you do), in the meantime, here is a short list of useful sites:
http://www.freedomhealthrecovery.com/sideeffects.html
http://www.ssristories.com/index.html
http://www.news-medical.net/health/SSRI-Side-Effects.aspx
I’ll leave you with a comment written by a professional colleague, Dr Burton Seitler.
"Side effects," which are often referred to, and innumerable others have only recently begun to acknowledge, are much more than simply side-effects. They can no longer be regarded as mere side-effects, which implies that they are either rare or not too damaging, if at all. The fact is they are neither rare nor minimal.
It has finally been well-documented that many of such effects result in permanent damage, such as tardive dyskinesia, mania, suicide, homicide, to name a few things.
As I have written before, they are after-effects. They occur after taking medications, and they occur reliably in conjunction with taking meds. Can I say with confidence that there is a cause and effect connection? I cannot. However, I can say with great certainty that Columbine, Atlanta, Little Rock school shootings, etc, never occurred before the advent of psycho-active medications. As much as society has changed, there has not been sufficient change to explain the extent of such overt violence. Nothing explains it, except something that is an incredible disinhibitor: – psychotropic substances. If there is another force out there that is equally powerful, I fail to know what it is.
Why don’t People Care?
"All Truth passes through Three Stages: First, it is Ridiculed...
Second, it is Violently Opposed...
Third, it is Accepted as being Self-Evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
philosopher
Reading Schopenhauer’s quote might shed a little light on the issue of “do I care?” The answer is, “It takes time.”
The great puzzle and the challenge is that we human beings take the line of least resistance. It’s a puzzle because we should recognize that we are not making choices regarding what color to paint the kitchen wall, or what television show to watch; we are making choices that affect our health in sometimes very grave ways. It’s a challenge because it often results in those attempting to expose the lies and myths ending up being reviled and disparaged by the very people they are trying to help.
Here is a portion of an excellent piece written by Jonah Lehrer from the blog, The Frontal Cortex. It speaks of a human preference for an easy immediate result rather than a longer-term end result that requires some resilience and tenacity.
The Drug Tale
"The similarities between street drug abuse and psychotropic prescription drug use are disturbing. Both types are toxic. Both can cause psychosis, damage the brain and other organs, and even cause death. And neither type of mind-altering drugs, legal or illegal, treats disease. It's important to recognize that the only significant difference between many prescription psychotropic drugs and street drugs such as "speed" and "downers" is that prescription drugs are legal."
--Neuro-psychiatrist Sydney Walker in "Dose of Sanity"
Throughout this book I have maintained a particular stance about medications that I believe has been in the best interests of persuading you (hopefully) to proceed with the reading and understanding of important myth-building factors in our culture. I have said that I am not particularly opposed to medication, but that I am appalled at the way in which the pharmaceutical companies have peddled their product through distorted and downright deceitful advertising.
This has been a true statement but one that does not reflect my personal and academic knowledge about the potential for danger and death that antidepressant medications hold. Nor does it speak to my personal feelings related to the issue. As an ‘affective psychotherapist’ I learned long ago that it does no good to appear – to those that I most want to help – to be a frenzied anti-medication lunatic. Yet, privately, I am one.
Bernays’ Propaganda and Depression
In Chapter Four – ‘Myths’ – and elsewhere throughout, I have given quite a thumping to the late Edward Bernays. Of course, as a marketing and public relations expert, the final use of his ideas does not lie on his shoulders but on the shoulders of those who have exploited his concepts about marketing to the mass ‘collective subconscious.’
In his excellent book (on another topic), “Cancer – Step Outside the Box,” Ty M. Bollinger writes;
The PR strategist for many campaigns that have in time proven to be harmful (cigarette smoking and water fluoridation, for example)… was none other than Sigmund Freud’s nephew Edward L. Bernays, known as the ‘Father of Spin.’ Bernays pioneered the application of his Freud’s theories to advertising and government ‘half truths.’ In his book ‘Propaganda’, Bernays argued that scientific manipulation of public opinion is the key. He stated, “A relatively small number of persons pull the wires which control the public mind.” The government’s fluoridation campaign was one of his most enduring successes.
How did he do it? His techniques were simple. Pretend there is some favorable research by using phrases like “Numerous studies have shown...” or “Research has proven...” or “Scientific investigators have found...” but then never really cite anything. Say it long enough and loud enough, and eventually people will believe it.
If anyone doubts you, attack their character and/or their intellect. On a side note, a few years later, Bernays helped popularize the notion of women smoking cigarettes. Not being one to turn down a challenge, Bernays set up the advertising format which lasted for almost fifty years ‘proving’ that cigarettes are beneficial to health. Bernays never strayed from his fundamental axiom to ‘control the masses without their knowing it.’ He believed that the best PR takes place when the people are unaware that they are being manipulated.
Can we not see a parallel to this outrageous practice taking place in the present building of the myths surrounding depression?
12.1 - Toxic Medication – Some Facts to Ponder
The desire to take medicine is perhaps the greatest feature that distinguishes man from animals.
- Sir William Osler
physician, professor of medicine
An old school friend, Callum, now a retired pharmacist, told me recently that after the birth of his first child, his wife had post-natal depression. When I said, ‘well, she was married to the right guy for her medication,’ he said, ‘no way was I going to give her any of that SSRI or tricyclic shit!’ Notwithstanding Callum’s ethics or moral stance in opposition to his profession, I would say…’the horse’s mouth has spoken.’
So, I hope you have started a shift away from sharing the modern dogma that has headed us down the road toward a ‘happiness by prescription’ myth – or at least I hope I’ve given you something to wonder and think about.
Truth or Dare
Throughout this book I have become gradually more direct – if not unswervingly direct, then by obvious implication – about my attitude toward the modern pharmaceutics industry and particularly that section of it dealing with brain chemistry and mood modification.
For the bulk of my career as a clinical affectologist I did not hesitate in talking to my clients about the dangers and lies surrounding, in large part, the information manufactured by those whose greatest focus and concern was money. In later years I have stopped this practice of ‘telling it like it is’ simply because most people did not seem to care. The information did not seem to register; or at worst, I came across sounding like some kind of conspiracy crank.
So my later approach with clients has been an early comment that I am opposed to over-prescription and know that in most cases antidepressants and mind medications do more harm than good. I tell my clients that I’m happy to leave it at that, but if they want to know more, then they must take responsibility for what I tell them. In truth, that’s a kind of dare. But the truth about psychotropic pharmaceuticals exists. Let’s look at a particular phenomenon surrounding truth.
In his incredibly economical prose, Cormac McCarthy writes in No Country for Old Men, a passage that sheriff Bell delivers as part of the overall story:-
…..stories gets passed on and the truth gets passed over. As the sayin goes. Which I reckon some would take as meanin that the truth cant compete. But I don’t believe that. I think that when the lies are all told and forgot the truth will be there yet. It don’t move about from place to place and it don’t change from time to time. You cant corrupt it any more than you can salt salt. You cant corrupt it because that’s what it is……………..I’m sure they’s people would disagree with that. Quite a few, in fact. But I never could find out what any of them did believe…….
I suspect there will be essays about that passage written in literature courses in schools and colleges the world over, but it’s enough here to say that it rings true when it’s used as a metaphor for the public disregard for the truth about psychotropic drugs. People just don’t seem to care. And that’s the dare. We dare to investigate. We dare to look deeper into what Big Pharma would prefer you to not know about their drugs. We dare to notice and reveal the Machiavellian ways that drug companies effectively use the Bernays Propaganda principles to make you sell drugs to yourself. We dare to be concerned about the percentages of dire side-effect outcomes with the millions who go along with the myth of ‘depression caused by chemical imbalance in the brain.’
The truths about the possible side-effects of antidepressants are all there to see if you allow yourself to see them. The dare – for you – is to take notice, think about possible consequences for you or anyone you love, and change your attitude to psychotropic drugs. The dare is not for you to necessarily ‘say no to drugs;’ the dare is for you to ‘say KNOW to drugs.’
And to further the meaning of the word ‘dare,’ later in this chapter I’ll be saying ‘how dare anyone drug children’ – who are incapable of informed consent – if there’s even a hint of possibility of damaging or fatal side-effects.
I offer here a link to a video produced by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) that overviews the psychotropic story. It is strident and shocking. That doesn’t mean it’s not true and concerning for you and me. It is Making A Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging. This link is to the ‘Introduction’. On the same page, go to the drop-down menu half-way down on the left to view the remaining chapters.If you watch this, you might notice that Dr David Stein, Professor of Psychology (Virginia State University) says of taking psychotropic medication, “you’re playing with fire!”
How (SSRI) Antidepressants Work
I will not present here the neuro-mechanisms of the older tricyclic antidepressants. They have been largely superseded by later more sophisticated drugs, the SSRI and SNRI types (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Selective Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors).
The theory behind how SSRI’s and other antidepressants elevate individuals’ mood states is based around the assumption that people who are feeling depressed have reduced levels of neurotransmitters, particularly serotonin and noradrenaline in the brain. Neurotransmitters are released from neurons (cells found in the brain and other parts of the nervous system) and act as messengers, passing signals between neurons. For example, when a nerve impulse arrives at a serotonergic neuron (also known as a pre-synaptic neuron), serotonin is released from the cell and diffuses through a space between two neurons, called the synaptic cleft. Serotonin then binds to specific serotonin receptors on a different neuron (post-synaptic neuron) producing a specific signal, impulse or effect. Serotonin is then released from its receptors and re-absorbed into the pre-synaptic neuron, or degraded by enzymes in the synaptic cleft.
When an SSRI is introduced into the body, it attaches itself (as a buffer/barrier) to the “re-absorbing” receptors on the pre-synaptic neuron, therefore enabling the serotonin to stay in the synaptic cleft for longer and has a greater chance of re-attaching to a serotonin receptor on the post synaptic neuron and generating further impulses/signals. This action creates (what we could call) a ‘flooding’ of serotonin in the synaptic cleft and the brain in general. The principle is identical for noradrenaline in SNRI activity.
The assumption that depression is ‘caused’ by this depletion of neurotransmitter leads to a subsequent assumption that if the depletion can be chemically changed by blocking its reabsorption into the neurological system, then the presence of the neurotransmitter in the brain can be elevated to ‘normal’ levels.
Put simply, through synthetic chemical means, the brain is flooded with serotonin, presuming that this excess in neurotransmitters relieves depressed feelings.
What’s Wrong with the Antidepressant Mechanism?
Plenty. Let’s venture into the realm of the mythological and say that the myth of chemical imbalance was not a myth at all. Let’s pretend for a moment that the chemical imbalance story is true. To put it another way, let’s SAY you are depressed because you don’t have enough serotonin (or noradrenaline) in your brain to allow for adequate synaptic firing – brain activity like thoughts and happiness.
So, let’s find a way to stop the neurotransmitter from being leached so quickly back into your system. We’ll introduce a synthetic chemical that blocks that action – ‘glugs up’ the docking mechanisms, so to speak. So, the reabsorption is significantly slowed, causing flooding of the brain with neurotransmitters. As a consequence, the synaptic processes fire up, causing a significant increase in brain activity. This increase ‘reads’ as an emergence from your sluggish, depressed and hopeless-feeling state of being. Your brain activates. More thoughts and more ‘alive’ mood results. Your whole self is more active, mentally, emotionally and physically.
This all sounds great on the surface, and this is the very thing that is the fuel to the Pharma spin doctors. The problem is that it is all synthetic, ad hoc and nothing short of a gamble, and brings with it some quite incredible hazards.
Without repeating many of the facts that are readily available to you as a result of my references later in Appendix III, I’ll summarize the issues here.
Blocking the reuptake (docking) post-synaptic receptors causes an increase in the volume of that particular neurotransmitter in the brain. This being the case:-
- How does the prescribing physician judge the exact requirement that will create a balanced neurotransmitter presence and not result in over-flooding?
- An excess of serotonin will likely result in hyperactivity of the brain as the synaptic activity increases (because it can). That hyperactivity may then become part of a further diagnosis of bipolar disorder – previously known as manic-depression.
- Increased synaptic firing can manifest as hyper-anxious muscular activity such as constant physical agitation and what is known as akathisia.
People don’t read the fine print. And if they do, there is a grave tendency to ignore the warnings. “it can’t happen to me; only a small percentage possibility of serious side effects; a larger percentage potential for mild side effects.” Is that a familiar refrain? All medications are packaged in a way that reveals side effect potential. Yes, the writing is small, but it’s there.
Again, this subject could indeed be the topic of a whole book. Others have written well on the negative and potentially dangerous – and sometimes fatal – outcomes of taking antidepressants and I will not do so here. I aim to briefly look at the philosophical question related to antidepressant side effects.
Below there is more than one reference to data sources you can visit that focus on antidepressant side effects, and I’ll let them do their job in informing you more fully, but before we go there, I want to highlight a few points that I think need underlining.
- If you think that you will not develop a particular side effect, somebody in the mix has to. It’s a gamble. Some of the more serious and permanent adverse reactions can disable you for life. It’s OK to say, “it’s worth the risk,” but what if YOU are within the percentage potential victims and are one who develops a permanent condition?
- One of the problems of taking SSRIs is that they may reduce significantly your capacity for self-assessment. This may mean that you can develop an adverse reaction to your drug and be much less aware of that fact than you would if your cognitive functions were still intact and not neurologically hindered.
- My style of affective psychotherapy attracts more than its share of depression sufferers who recognize its benefits. Over many years of clinical work, I have seen many people whose drug-taking is obvious. There is very often an observable degree of listlessness (or sometimes the extreme opposite – agitation), particularly with those folk who are taking more than one medication. Added to this, many people have a reduced capacity to focus on the requirements of therapy.
- The major cause of the rise of ‘bipolar disorder’ in modern times is indeed, SSRI ingestion, as the synaptic boost creates rises in agitation of the brain function.
- My greatest fear is that someone I know will develop tardive dyskinesia, a neurological disease (yes, a real one) specifically caused by psychotropic medication. This tragic condition causes major and permanent spasms to develop, sometimes as facial tics and sometimes as ‘whole-body’ prolonged nerve paralysis. A mild, but sad, case of tardive dyskinesia can be seen at
and worse still, a video of a 5 year old girl after only two days of medication, at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlVxv5ag0pQ&feature=related
- Critics of SSRIs demonstrate that of all potential adverse effects, the most concerning are
- that the medication can actually cause a deeper state of depression,
- that there is a distinct potential for the advent or amplification of suicidal ideation, whether completed or not, and
- the possibility for the onset of violent behavior.
There is a wealth of information available online should you wish to study more about adverse reactions (and I hope you do), in the meantime, here is a short list of useful sites:
http://www.freedomhealthrecovery.com/sideeffects.html
http://www.ssristories.com/index.html
http://www.news-medical.net/health/SSRI-Side-Effects.aspx
I’ll leave you with a comment written by a professional colleague, Dr Burton Seitler.
"Side effects," which are often referred to, and innumerable others have only recently begun to acknowledge, are much more than simply side-effects. They can no longer be regarded as mere side-effects, which implies that they are either rare or not too damaging, if at all. The fact is they are neither rare nor minimal.
It has finally been well-documented that many of such effects result in permanent damage, such as tardive dyskinesia, mania, suicide, homicide, to name a few things.
As I have written before, they are after-effects. They occur after taking medications, and they occur reliably in conjunction with taking meds. Can I say with confidence that there is a cause and effect connection? I cannot. However, I can say with great certainty that Columbine, Atlanta, Little Rock school shootings, etc, never occurred before the advent of psycho-active medications. As much as society has changed, there has not been sufficient change to explain the extent of such overt violence. Nothing explains it, except something that is an incredible disinhibitor: – psychotropic substances. If there is another force out there that is equally powerful, I fail to know what it is.
Why don’t People Care?
"All Truth passes through Three Stages: First, it is Ridiculed...
Second, it is Violently Opposed...
Third, it is Accepted as being Self-Evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
philosopher
Reading Schopenhauer’s quote might shed a little light on the issue of “do I care?” The answer is, “It takes time.”
The great puzzle and the challenge is that we human beings take the line of least resistance. It’s a puzzle because we should recognize that we are not making choices regarding what color to paint the kitchen wall, or what television show to watch; we are making choices that affect our health in sometimes very grave ways. It’s a challenge because it often results in those attempting to expose the lies and myths ending up being reviled and disparaged by the very people they are trying to help.
Here is a portion of an excellent piece written by Jonah Lehrer from the blog, The Frontal Cortex. It speaks of a human preference for an easy immediate result rather than a longer-term end result that requires some resilience and tenacity.
|
THINKING ABOUT TOMORROW
The lure of instant gratification is hard to resist: when we want something, we want it right now. Of course, maturity and reality demand that we learn to wait, that we postpone our pleasures until tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. And so we stash money in our savings account, and forgo the SUV for the sake of climate change and don’t eat the entire pint of ice cream. We resist the tug of immediate delight for the sake of even more delight in the future. That, at least, is how we’re supposed to behave. The problems arise with a mental process known as delay discounting, which refers to our tendency to discount the value of a future reward as a function of its temporal distance. (Rewards that are farther away are discounted more heavily.) Consider this experiment led by Samuel McClure and Jonathan Cohen, which involved putting people in an fRMI machine and making them decide between a small Amazon certificate that they could have right away, or a slightly larger gift certificate that they’d receive in 2 to 4 weeks. Cohen discovered that these two options activated very different neural systems. When subjects contemplated gift certificates in the distant future, brain areas associated with rational planning, like the medial prefrontal cortex, were more active. These cortical regions urge us to be patient, to wait a few extra weeks for the bigger gain. On the other hand, when subjects started thinking about getting a gift certificate right away, brain areas associated with emotion (like the midbrain dopamine system and nucleus accumbens) were turned on. These are the cells that tell us to take out a mortgage we can’t afford, or run up a credit debt when we should be saving for retirement. All they want is reward, and they want it now. |
For the majority of us, opting for the immediate reward not only brings with it some form of chemically–induced masking of symptomatic discomfort, but it also means that we do not have to face the fact of self-responsibility and all the work that a new state of accountability entails.
It seems that people don’t care about the facts that are before their very eyes because the contract that they would have to make with themselves to bring about change is ‘just too hard.’
Addiction to Medicine and Withdrawal
The battle rages on. Arguments and debates heat up. Are antidepressants addictive? Are there any withdrawal problems? The psychiatric interests will of course answer ‘no, not really’ to both those questions. The anti-psychiatry and anti-drug proponents will of course say ‘yes and yes.’
There are many articles and papers available online that can shed light on the answers to these questions. I submit just a couple here and encourage you to search further should the subject be high on your list of concerns – and of course, if you are taking antidepressants, then the subject should be high on your list.
Are Antidepressants Addictive? (Psychology Today)
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2003-08-Psych-Today-Antidepressants-Addictive.htm
Withdrawal Side Effects of SSRIs (abc News)
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/withdrawal-side-effects-SSRIs-emerging.htm
If you have the ticker for it and want to learn more, there is a comprehensive site ‘Antidepressants Facts’ that you might like to explore. http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/
Here is an excerpt from that site, relating to withdrawal
|
Each person will respond differently to stopping serotonin boosters, or Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI's). Whilst some people experience mild side-effects when stopping the drug, others will have horrendous side-effects from just lowering the dosage, since the neural seroto(ni)nergic system in the brain has become dependent on the actions of the (SSRI) anti-depressant (blocking the re-uptake carried out by "transporter proteins" carrying "mis-fired" serotonin across the plasma membrane back into the synapse of the firing serotonergic neuron).
By stopping cold turkey, serotonergic activity will drop drastically. Hence withdrawal side-effects may appear such as electrical surges/shocks in the head (brain shivers) and/or body, pins and needles on the skin, feelings as being on the verge of losing consciousness, blackouts, short term memory problems, etc.. Above mentioned side effects refer to epileptiform activity, or electrical discharges, in the brain. When dosages are cut back, (withdrawal) side-effects are at least minimized. No one should stop taking their medication cold turkey, but anti-depressant use should be tapered off very, very slowly. |
In my practice, when asked about antidepressant withdrawal, I have always referred clients to the book, Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Medications, by Peter Breggin MD and David Cohen PhD. This book, while attracting vitriol from pro-drug professional and lay-people alike, does have a valuable and life-saving contribution to the care that one should take in slowly discontinuing antidepressant use.
You should ALWAYS discontinue drug use under the guidance of your doctor.
12.3 - Jane’s Story
We met Jane a little earlier on in the book. I am indebted to Jane for her willingness to tell her story for you. Allowing herself to be identified, as she has done, is courageous, but I will not supply her contact details in the interest of protection of her privacy. While it is true that Jane was a client of mine for my particular Af-x approach to emotion therapy, my intention in the telling of her story is purposely related to her experience of antidepressant withdrawal.
Jane is an architect living in Perth, Western Australia. You’ll read below that for twenty years she had not questioned either her physician’s diagnosis of depression or her dependence on antidepressant drugs. In the interests of this book, the telling parts of Jane’s tale are (1) that in the years of her taking antidepressants she gradually became listless and unable to work well – and often, ‘at all’ – in her chosen profession, and (2) that the process of withdrawal from antidepressants was long and arduous.
This letter from Jane was received two years before the writing of this book, and you will see from my comment following this, that things have changed even more for Jane in the intervening period to now.
You should ALWAYS discontinue drug use under the guidance of your doctor.
12.3 - Jane’s Story
We met Jane a little earlier on in the book. I am indebted to Jane for her willingness to tell her story for you. Allowing herself to be identified, as she has done, is courageous, but I will not supply her contact details in the interest of protection of her privacy. While it is true that Jane was a client of mine for my particular Af-x approach to emotion therapy, my intention in the telling of her story is purposely related to her experience of antidepressant withdrawal.
Jane is an architect living in Perth, Western Australia. You’ll read below that for twenty years she had not questioned either her physician’s diagnosis of depression or her dependence on antidepressant drugs. In the interests of this book, the telling parts of Jane’s tale are (1) that in the years of her taking antidepressants she gradually became listless and unable to work well – and often, ‘at all’ – in her chosen profession, and (2) that the process of withdrawal from antidepressants was long and arduous.
This letter from Jane was received two years before the writing of this book, and you will see from my comment following this, that things have changed even more for Jane in the intervening period to now.
|
I was first diagnosed with “clinical depression” as an 18 year old. Over the following 20 years I have more or less continuously remained under psychiatric care and treated with anti-depressants, often prescribed with other medication to increase efficacy.
The different doctors who have treated me have maintained that my depression falls clearly within the indicators for a “major depressive disorder”, attributing my depression to a “chemical imbalance in the brain” and treatable with ongoing medication. It was expected that the medication would be necessary for the rest of my life and a family history of depression, with my father and his brother also under medical treatment, adding further weight to the doctors’ diagnosis. I dutifully took the many types, combinations and dosages of medication prescribed for me; however I never found long-term relief from the depression. In fact, I have not found the path through depression to be so simple or the treatment with medication to be effective. Consequently, I have, over many years, sought alternate forms of treatment - cognitive behavioral therapy, psychotherapy, nutritional medicine and its many manifestations, even spirituality. Although these endeavors provided varying degrees of comfort and support, I still could not shake the depression sufficiently to attain the life I desired. For example, I could not maintain full time employment and frequently avoided situations where people would rely on me. About 18 months ago I embarked upon a huge shift in the direction of my treatment and have finally broken through the constraints of depression and the self-perpetuating cycle that is so much a part of this condition. The turning point came when I underwent Ian White’s Af-x therapy. This therapy, involving only three brief sessions during two only visits and prefaced with the very welcome directive that “this is not a talking therapy”, has undoubtedly been the most beneficial of any of the treatments I have received for depression in my 20 year journey. Following the Af-x therapy I experienced a subtle yet incredibly deep “shift”. I clearly remember a wonderful feeling of having been told some kind of secret. I have written of this time in my journal that I felt lighter, unshackled. I also felt optimistic. I found I was able to successfully undertake things in my work and home-life that previously would have remained incomplete. Friends commented that I looked and sounded refreshed. During the Af-x sessions, I talked to Ian White about his understanding and opinion on antidepressant medication. This was the first time I seriously contemplated the side effects of the medication, feeling that they may be doing more harm than good. Although I experienced somewhat of a breakthrough in my depression following the Af-x treatment, I remained on medication and under psychiatric care - twenty years entrenched in the “system” and its dynamics are hard to shake. I did discuss with my doctor my desire to withdraw from the medication and he responded positively, but encouraged me to maintain treatment until I had maintained a “good state” for 6 months and then commence a withdrawal programme. After six months had passed, I was again teetering on the edge of depression and after twelve months had passed I was actually taking higher doses of medication. For the first time, I attributed this “backslide” to my decision to not attempt a serious withdrawal of my medication. Because of the initial benefits, I decided to undertake additional Af-x sessions with Ian about 5 months ago. This time I was fully committed and prepared to begin immediate reduction of the medication with a view to complete withdrawal. Having completed these additional Af-x sessions I definitely notice a difference in my attitude and I am making good progress. I generally feel calmer, more confident and keen to accept self-responsibility. I find I can now view my journey through depression with fresh eyes. I am no longer lost in it. Much of this change, I attribute to an understanding of the power of the negative messages that I have previously received regarding depression. My aim is to be medication free and experiencing the “normal” ups and downs of life. I now have enough distance to see that I had become so sensitized to depression that there was no normal “down time” for me. I would go straight from feeling OK into a depressed and desperate state in one motion. Since completing the additional Af-x sessions, I am now able to accept the down times, knowing that they will pass. This alone is a huge achievement for me. In the past, desperate measures have been taken in desperate times. The ability to “pause” rather than “react” to the signs of troubled times approaching is helping me enormously. Although I am still under the review of a psychiatrist, my approach to this relationship has also changed. I am now making the decisions on how to proceed with my treatment based on how I am feeling, my past experiences and what I have personally learnt in researching medications and their side effects. I am receiving encouragement and support from this doctor, as well as continued support and advice from Ian White. I remain completely committed to withdrawal from the medication and it seems that each week that passes adds to my resources and confidence. It is difficult to clearly articulate the changes I have experienced since completing the Af-x therapy. Although there have been powerful realizations and insights, the overall experience has been on a more subtle but definite level. I have felt at times like little glimpses of sunshine have found their way through a very complex and dense web of resistance and that, in short, my life is blossoming. |
Jane is now back to being a fully productive architect after several years of discontinuation trials involving tapering off medications. She worked well with her sympathetic and understanding psychiatrist, and her latest communication with me was,
“All going well with me. No docs, no meds just ‘normal’ ups and downs.
I’m happy to report I am a shining example of your wise ways – happy and productive whilst “up against
the many pressures of a lot of architectural work.”
Jane’s journey shows us that it can sometimes be a real battle to withdraw from antidepressants; that it can often require the help and guidance of a doctor who honors the desire for a patient to discontinue medication. But it can be done, no matter for how long the medication has been administered.
You can find an excellent piece about taking care in withdrawal by Gianna Kali at
http://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/psychiatric-drug-withdrawal-for-beginners/
“Coming Off Psychiatric Medication” site at
http://www.comingoff.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
And a somewhat scholarly piece worth reading at
http://www.itmonline.org/arts/ssri.htm
“All going well with me. No docs, no meds just ‘normal’ ups and downs.
I’m happy to report I am a shining example of your wise ways – happy and productive whilst “up against
the many pressures of a lot of architectural work.”
Jane’s journey shows us that it can sometimes be a real battle to withdraw from antidepressants; that it can often require the help and guidance of a doctor who honors the desire for a patient to discontinue medication. But it can be done, no matter for how long the medication has been administered.
You can find an excellent piece about taking care in withdrawal by Gianna Kali at
http://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/psychiatric-drug-withdrawal-for-beginners/
“Coming Off Psychiatric Medication” site at
http://www.comingoff.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
And a somewhat scholarly piece worth reading at
http://www.itmonline.org/arts/ssri.htm
|
CORE POINT:
Never – repeat, NEVER – assume that it will be OK to go cold turkey on psychotropic drugs. Work with a caring doctor. If your doctor doesn’t honor and respect your wishes, find one that will. |
The Drugged Child
I make no bones about this issue. The gloves are well and truly off! More and more children, even young infants, are being misdiagnosed today as ‘having depression.’ They are being prescribed SSRI medications – drugs – and exposed to what may be a lifetime of neurological maladjustment.
Everybody knows about the enormous rise in children who are diagnosed ‘ADHD’ and the schoolyard drug solution, Ritalin. This book cannot address the Ritalin problem, but can briefly parallel that issue with the burgeoning ‘childhood depression’ problem.
Adults are susceptible to taking the risk of escaping any harm from antidepressants. The problem, as I see it, is that a parent who is on medication is far more likely to accept that a similar course of action is appropriate and safe for his or her child.
Not so!
The diagnostic criteria for children are much different from those for adults, but it’s natural that we become concerned for our children if and when there is a hint of them ‘having a disease.’ I hope that the bulk of this book creates a different outlook for you when it comes to assessing whether society’s myths should be passed along to your children as well.
My own view is that it is unconscionable for any professional to be in a position to ‘diagnose’ depression in a child, since the diagnostic criteria (for adults) are corrupt in any case. It’s unconscionable for any person to assume a position to judge the very unsound and vague demarcations between childhood psychological problems and normal mischievous, and often resistant, childhood behavior. It’s unconscionable for any professional to prescribe SSRIs or any other antidepressant for a child. In a greater philosophical debate, this could be called abuse; even neurological poisoning.
If we have established that there are very real potentials for medication to produce serious and perhaps long-term or permanent neurological damage, then the gloves are off. How dare any person easily drug a child?
In any moral sense, the principle of informed consent should offer the only path to the prescription and taking of potentially harmful drugs. By the end of this book, an adult is at least informed, whether or not he or she consents to continue with medication, but how do you inform a child? How do you take notice of whether they consent to taking drugs, even should they arrive at some understanding of the dangers?
How do you stand by and allow your child to ingest what we have shown are noxious substances, and what the grandfather of the pharmaceutical industry, Eli Lilly, states* are toxic?
*(“Any drug without toxic effects is not a drug at all.”)
|
CORE POINT:
Drug therapy is no therapy at all. In fact, it may turn out to be a permanent poisoning of your brain. Remember Colonel Eli Lilly: “they’re all toxic*.” They do NOT belong in a child’s diet. * Be LITERAL; toxic = poisonous, deadly, lethal, noxious |