PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS:
Cure or Quackery?
by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.
Psychiatric drugs are worthless, and
most of them are harmful. Many cause permanent brain damage at the doses
customarily given. Psychiatric drugs and the profession that promotes them
are dangers to your health.
ANTIDEPRESSANTS
The Comprehensive Textbook of
Psychiatry/IV, published in 1985, says "The tricyclic-type drugs are
the most effective class of anti-depressants" (Williams & Wilkins,
p. 1520). But in his book Overcoming Depression, published in 1981,
Dr. Andrew Stanway, a British physician, says "If anti-depressant drugs
were really as effective as they are made out to be, surely hospital admission
rates for depression would have fallen over the twenty years they've been
available. Alas, this has not happened. ... Many trials have found that
tricyclics are only marginally more effective than placebos, and some have
even found that they are not as effective as dummy tablets" (Hamlyn Publishing
Group, Ltd., p. 159-160). In his textbook Electroconvulsive Therapy,
Richard Abrams, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry at Chicago Medical School,
explains the reason for the 1988 edition of his book updating the edition
published 6 years earlier: "During these six years interest in ECT has
bourgeoned. ... What is responsible for this volte-face in American
psychiatry? Disenchantment with the antidepressants, perhaps. None has
been found that is therapeutically superior to imipramine [a tricyclic],
now over 30 years old, and the more recently introduced compounds are often
either less effective or more toxic than the older drugs, or both" (Oxford
Univ. Press, p. xi).
In this book, Dr. Abrams says "despite
manufacturers' claims, no significant progress in the pharmacological treatment
of depression has occurred since the introduction of imipramine in 1958"
(p. 7). In the Foreword to this book, Max Fink, M.D., a psychiatry professor
at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, says the reason for
increased use of electroconvulsive "therapy" (ECT) as a treatment for depression
is what he calls "Disappointment with the efficacy of psychotropic drugs"
(p. vii). In his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, published
in 1983, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., asserts: "The most fundamental
point to be made about the most frequently used major antidepressants is
that they have no specifically antidepressant effect. Like the major tranquilizers
to which they are so closely related, they are highly neurotoxic and brain
disabling, and achieve their impact through the disruption of normal brain
function. ... Only the `clinical opinion' of drug advocates supports any
antidepressant effect" of so-called antidepressant drugs (Springer Pub.
Co., pp. 160 & 184). An article in the February 7, 1994 Newsweek
magazine says that "Prozac...and its chemical cousins Zoloft and Paxil
are no more effective than older treatments for depression" (p. 41). Most
of the people I have talked to who have taken so-called antidepressants,
including Prozac, say the drug didn't work for them. This casts doubt on
the often made claim that 60% or more of the people who take supposedly
antidepressant drugs benefit from them.
LITHIUM
Lithium is said to be helpful for
people whose mood repeatedly changes from joyful to despondent and back
again. Psychiatrists call this manic-depressive disorder or bipolar mood
disorder. Lithium was first described as a psychiatric drug in 1949 by
an Australian psychiatrist, John Cade. According to a psychiatric textbook:
"While conducting animal experiments, Cade had somewhat incidentally noted
that lithium made the animals lethargic, thus prompting him to administer
this drug to several agitated psychiatric patients." The textbook describes
this as "a pivotal moment in the history of psychopharmacology" (Harold
I. Kaplan, M.D. & Benjamin J. Sadock, M.D., Clinical Psychiatry,
Williams & Wilkins, 1988, p. 342). However, if you don't want to be
lethargic, taking lithium would seem to be of dubious benefit. A supporter
of lithium as psychiatric therapy admits lithium causes "a mildly depressed,
generally lethargic feeling". He calls it "the standard lethargy" caused
by lithium (Roger Williams, "A Hasty Decision? Coping in the Aftermath
of a Manic-Depressive Episode", American Health magazine, October
1991, p. 20). Similarly, one of my relatives was diagnosed as manic-depressive
and was given a prescription for lithium carbonate. He told me, years later,
"Lithium insulated me from the highs but not from the lows." It should
be no surprise a lethargy-inducing drug like lithium would have this effect.
Amazingly, psychiatrists sometimes claim lithium wards off feelings of
depression even though, if anything, lethargy-inducing drugs like lithium
(like most psychiatric drugs) promote feelings of despondency and
unhappiness - even if they are called antidepressants.
MINOR TRANQUILIZER/ANTI-ANXIETY
DRUGS
Among the most widely used psychiatric
drugs are the ones called minor tranquilizers, including Valium, Librium,
Xanax, and Halcion. Doctors who prescribe them say they have calming, anti-anxiety,
panic-suppressing effects or are useful as sleeping pills. Anyone who believes
these claims should go to the nearest library and read the article "High
Anxiety" in the January 1993 Consumer Reports magazine, or read
Chapter 11 in Toxic Psychiatry (St. Martin's Press, 1991), by psychiatrist
Peter Breggin, both of which allege the opposite is closer to the truth.
Like all or almost all psychiatric drugs, the so-called minor tranquilizers
don't cure anything but are merely brain-disabling drugs. In one clinical
trial, 70 percent of persons taking Halcion "developed memory loss, depression
and paranoia" ("Halcion manufacturer Upjohn Co. defends controversial sleeping
drug", Miami Herald, December 17, 1991, p. 13A). According to the
February 17, 1992 Newsweek, "Four countries have banned the drug
outright" (p. 58). In his book Toxic Psychiatry, psychiatrist Peter
Breggin, speaking of the minor tranquilizers, says "As with most psychiatric
drugs, the use of the medication eventually causes an increase of the very
symptoms that the drug is supposed to ameliorate" (ibid, p. 246).
PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS versus SLEEP:
SLEEP DISTINGUISHED FROM DRUG-INDUCED UNCONSCIOUSNESS
Contrary to the claim major and
minor tranquilizers and so-called antidepressants are useful as sleeping
pills, their real effect is to inhibit or block real sleep. When
I sat in on a psychiatry class with a medical student friend, the professor
told us "Research has shown we do not need to sleep, but we do need to
dream." The dream phase of sleep is the critical part. Most psychiatric
drugs, including those promoted as sleeping medications or tranquilizers,
inhibit this critical dream-phase of sleep, inducing a state that looks
like sleep but actually is a dreamless unconscious state - not sleep. Sleep,
in other words, is an important mental activity that is impaired or stopped
by most psychiatric drugs. A self-help magazine advises: "Do not take sleeping
pills unless under doctor's orders, and then for no more than 10 consecutive
nights. Besides losing their effectiveness and becoming addictive, sleep-inducing
medications reduce or prevent the dream-stage of sleep necessary for mental
health" (Going Bonkers? magazine, premiere issue, p. 75). In
The Brain Book, University of Rhode Island professor Peter Russell,
Ph.D., says "During sleep, particularly during dreaming periods, proteins
and other chemicals in the brain used up during the day are replenished"
(Plume, 1979, p. 76). Sleep deprivation experiments on normal people show
loss of sleep causes hallucinations if continued long enough (Maya Pines,
The Brain Changers, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973, p. 105). So what
would seem to be the consequences of taking drugs that inhibit or block
real sleep?
MAJOR TRANQUILIZER/NERUOLEPTIC/ANTI-PSYCHOTIC/
ANTI-SCHIZOPHRENIC DRUGS
Even as harmful as psychiatry's
(so-called) antidepressants and lithium and (so-called) antianxiety agents
(or minor tranquilizers) are, they are nowhere near as damaging as the
so-called major tranquilizers, sometimes also called "antipsychotic" or
"antischizophrenic" or "neuroleptic" drugs. Included in this category are
Thorazine (chlorpromazine), Mellaril, Prolixin (fluphenazine), Compazine,
Stelazine, and Haldol (haloperidol) - and many others. In terms of their
psychological effects, these so-called major tranquilizers cause misery
- not tranquility. They physically, neurologically blot out most of a person's
ability to think and act, even at commonly given doses. By disabling people,
they can stop almost any thinking or behavior the "therapist" wants to
stop. But this is simply disabling people, not therapy. The drug temporarily
disables or permanently destroys good aspects of a person's personality
as much as bad. Whether and to what extent the disability imposed by the
drug can be removed by discontinuing the drug depends on how long the drug
is given and at how great a dose.
The so-called major tranquilizer/
antipsychotic/neuroleptic drugs damage the brain more clearly, severely,
and permanently than any others used in psychiatry. Joyce G. Small, M.D.,
and Iver F. Small, M.D., both Professors of Psychiatry at Indiana University,
criticize psychiatrists who use "psychoactive medications that are known
to have neurotoxic effects", and speak of "the increasing recognition of
long-lasting and sometimes irreversible impairments in brain function induced
by neuroleptic drugs. In this instance the evidence of brain damage is
not subtle, but is grossly obvious even to the casual observer!" (Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, March 1984, Vol. 7, p. 34). According to Conrad
M. Swartz, Ph.D., M.D., Professor of Psychiatry at Chicago Medical School,
"While neuroleptics relieve psychotic anxiety, their tranquilization blunts
fine details of personality, including initiative, emotional reactivity,
enthusiasm, sexiness, alertness, and insight. ... This is in addition to
side effects, usually involuntary movements which can be permanent and
are hence evidence of brain damage" (Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
March 1984, Vol. 7, pp. 37-38). A report in 1985 in the Mental and Physical
Disability Law Reporter indicates courts in the United States have
finally begun to consider involuntary administration of the so-called major
tranquilizer-antipsychotic- neuroleptic drugs to involve First Amendment
rights "Because...antipsychotic drugs have the capacity to severely and
even permanently affect an individuals's ability to think and communicate"
("Involuntary medication claims go forward", January-February 1985, p.
26 - emphasis added).
In Molecules of the Mind: The
Brave New Science of Molecular Psychology, Professor Jon Franklin observed:
"This era coincided with an increasing awareness that the neuroleptics
not only did not cure schizophrenia - they actually caused damage to the
brain. Suddenly, the psychiatrists who used them, already like their patients
on the fringes of society, were suspected of Nazism and worse" (Dell Pub.
Co., 1987, p. 103). In his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain,
psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., alleges that by using drugs that cause
brain damage, "Psychiatry has unleashed an epidemic of neurological disease
on the world" one which "reaches 1 million to 2 million persons a year"
(op. cit., pp. 109 & 108). In severe cases, brain damage from neuroleptic
drugs is evidenced by abnormal body movements called tardive dyskinesia.
However, tardive dyskinesia is only the tip of the iceberg of neuroleptic
caused brain damage. Higher mental functions are more vulnerable and are
impaired before the elementary functions of the brain such as motor control.
Psychiatry professor Richard Abrams, M.D., has acknowledged that "Tardive
dyskinesia has now been reported to occur after only brief courses of neuroleptic
drug therapy" (in: Benjamin B. Wolman (editor), The Therapist's Handbook:
Treatment Methods of Mental Disorders, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1976,
p. 25). In his book The New Psychiatry, published in 1985, Columbia
University psychiatry professor Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., alleges: "The
best way to avoid tardive dyskinesia is to avoid antipsychotic drugs altogether.
Except for treating schizophrenia, they should never be used for more than
two or three consecutive months. What's criminal is that all too many patients
receive antipsychotics who shouldn't" (Mentor, pp. 155- 156).
In fact, Dr. Maxmen doesn't go far
enough. His characterization of administration of the so-called antipsychotic/anti-schizophrenic/major
tranquilizer/neuroleptic drugs as "criminal" is accurate for all people,
including those called schizophrenic, even when the drugs aren't given
long enough for the resulting brain damage to show up as tardive dyskinesia.
The author of the Preface of a book by four physicians published in 1980,
Tardive Dyskinesia: Research & Treatment, made these remarks: "In
the late 1960s I summarized the literature on tardive dyskinesia ... The
majority of psychiatrists either ignored the existence of the problem or
made futile efforts to prove that these motor abnormalities were clinically
insignificant or unrelated to drug therapy. In the meantime the number
of patients affected by tardive dyskinesia increased and the symptoms became
worse in those already afflicted by this condition. ... there are few investigators
or clinicians who still have doubts about the iatrogenic [physician caused]
nature of tardive dyskinesia. ... It is evident that the more one learns
about the toxic effects of neuroleptics on the central nervous system,
the more one sees an urgent need to modify our current practices of drug
use.
It is unfortunate that many practitioners
continue to prescribe psychotropics in excessive amounts, and that a considerable
number of mental institutions have not yet developed a policy regarding
the management and prevention of tardive dyskinesia. If this book, which
reflects the opinions of the experts in this field, can make a dent in
the complacency of many psychiatrists, it will be no small accomplishment"
(in: William E. Fann, M.D., et al., Tardive Dyskinesia: Research &
Treatment, SP Medical & Scientific). In Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards
to the Brain, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., says this: "The major
tranquilizers are highly toxic drugs; they are poisonous to various organs
of the body. They are especially potent neurotoxins, and frequently produce
permanent damage to the brain. ... tardive dyskinesia can develop in low-dose,
short-term usage... the dementia [loss of higher mental functions] associated
with the tardive dyskinesia is not usually reversible. ... Seldom have
I felt more saddened or more dismayed than by psychiatry's eglect of the
evidence that it is causing irreversible lobotomy effects, psychosis, and
dementia in millions of patients as a result of treatment with the major
tranquilizers"(op. cit., pp. 70, 107, 135, 146).
Psychiatry professor Richard Abrams,
M.D., has pointed out that "Tricyclic Antidepressants...are minor chemical
modifications of chlorpromazine [Thorazine] and were introduced as potential
neuroleptics" (in: B. Wolman, The Therapist's Handbook, op. cit.,
p. 31). In his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, Dr.
Breggin calls the so-called antidepressants "Major Tranquilizers in Disguise"
(p. 166). Psychiatrist Mark S. Gold, M.D., has said antidepressants can
cause tardive dyskinesia (The Good News About Depression, Bantam,
1986, p. 259).
Why do the so-called patients accept
such "medication"? Sometimes they do so out of ignorance about the neurological
damage to which they are subjecting themselves by following their psychiatrist's
advice to take the "medication". But much if not most of the time, neuroleptic
drugs are literally forced into the bodies of the "patients" against
their wills. In his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain,
psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., says "Time and again in my clinical experience
I have witnessed patients driven to extreme anguish and outrage by having
major tranquilizers forced on them. ... The problem is so great in routine
hospital practice that a large percentage of patients have to be threatened
with forced intramuscular injection before they will take the drugs" (p.
45).
FORCED PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT
COMPARED WITH RAPE
Forced administration of a psychiatric
drug (or a so-called treatment like electroshock) is a kind of tyranny
that can be compared, physically and morally, with rape. Compare sexual
rape and involuntarily administration of a psychiatric drug injected intramuscularly
into the buttocks, which is the part of the anatomy where the injection
usually is given: In both sexual rape and involuntary administration of
a psychiatric drug, force is used. In both cases, the victim's pants are
pulled down. In both cases, a tube is inserted into the victim's body against
her (or his) will.
In the case of sexual rape, the tube is a penis. In the case of what could
be called psychiatric rape, the tube is a hypodermic needle. In both cases,
a fluid is injected into the victim's body against her or his will. In
both cases it is in (or near) the derriere. In the case of sexual rape
the fluid is semen. In the case of psychiatric rape, the fluid is Thorazine,
Prolixin or some other brain-disabling drug. The fact of bodily invasion
is similar in both cases if not (for reasons I'll explain) actually worse
in the case of psychiatric rape. So is the sense of outrage in the mind
of the victim of each type of assault. As psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz
once said, "violence is violence, regardless of whether it is called psychiatric
illness or psychiatric treatment." Some who are not "hospitalized" (that
is, imprisoned) are forced to report to a doctor's office for injections
of a long-acting neuroleptic like Prolixin every two weeks by the threat
of imprisonment ("hospitalization") and forced injection of the drug if
they don't comply.
Why is psychiatric rape worse than
sexual rape? As brain surgeon I. S. Cooper, M.D., said in his autobiography:
"It is your brain that sees, feels, thinks, commands, responds. You
are your brain. It is you. Transplanted into another carrier, another
body, your brain would supply it with your memories, your thoughts, your
emotions. It would still be you. The new body would be your container.
It would carry you around. Your brain is you" (The Vital Probe:
My Life as a Brain Surgeon, W.W.Norton & Co., 1982, p. 50-emphasis
in original). The most essential and most intimate part of you is not
what is between your legs but what is between your ears. An assault
on a person's brain such as involuntary administration of a brain-disabling
or brain-damaging "treatment" (such as a psychoactive drug or electroshock
or psychosurgery) is a more intimate and morally speaking more horrible
crime than sexual rape. Psychiatric rape is in moral terms a worse crime
than sexual rape for another reason, also: The involuntary administration
of psychiatry's biological "therapies" cause permanent impairment
of brain function. In contrast, women usually are still fully sexually
functional after being sexually raped. They suffer psychological harm,
but so do the victims of psychiatric assault. I hope I will not be understood
as belittling the trauma or wrongness of sexual rape if I point out that
I have counselled sexually raped women in my law practice and that each
of the half-dozen or so women I have known who have been sexually raped
have gone on to have apparently normal sexual relationships, and in most
cases marriages and families. In contrast, the brains of people subjected
to psychiatric assault often are not as fully functional because of the
physical, biological harm done by the "treatment". On a TV talk show
in 1990, psychoanalyst Jeffrey Masson, Ph.D., said he hopes those responsible
for such "therapies" will one day face "Nurnburg trials" (Geraldo,
Nov. 30, 1990).
BRAIN-DAMAGING PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS
ARE INFLICTED ON NURSING HOME RESIDENTS
These very same brain-damaging
(so-called) neuroleptic/antipsychotic drugs are routinely administered
- involuntarily - to mentally healthy old people in nursing homes in the
United States. According to an article in the September/October 1991 issue
of In-Health magazine, "In nursing homes, antipsychotics are used
on anywhere from 21 to 44 percent of the institutionalized elderly... half
of the antipsychotics prescribed for nursing home residents could not be
explained by the diagnosis in the patient's chart. Researchers suspect
the drugs are commonly used by such institutions as chemical straightjackets
- a means of pacifying unruly patients" (p. 28). I know of two examples
of feeble old men in nursing homes who were barely able to get out of their
wheelchairs who were given a neuroleptic/antipsychotic drug. One complained
because he was strapped into a wheelchair to prevent his attempts to try
to walk with his cane. The other was strapped into his bed at night to
prevent him from getting up and falling when going to the bathroom, necessitating
defecating in his bed. Both were so physically disabled they posed no danger
to anyone. But both dared complain bitterly about how they were mistreated.
In both cases the nursing home staffs responded to these complaints with
injections of Haldol - mentally disabling these men, thereby making it
impossible for them to complain. The use of these damaging drugs on nursing
home residents who are not considered to have psychiatric problems shows
that their real purpose is control, not therapy. Therapeutic claims for
neuroleptic drugs are rationalizations without factual support.
SUPPOSEDLY "DOUBLE-BLIND" PSYCHIATRIC
DRUG STUDIES ARE BIASED
Studies indicating psychiatric
drugs are helpful are of dubious credibility because of professional bias.
All or almost all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic and for this reason
cause symptoms and problems such as dry mouth, blurred vision, lightheadedness,
dizziness, lethargy, difficulty thinking, menstrual irregularities, urinary
retention, heart palpitations, and other consequences of neurological dysfunction.
Psychiatrists deceptively call these "side-effects", even though they are
the only real effects of today's psychiatric drugs. Placebos (or sugar
pills) don't cause these problems. Since these symptoms (or their absence)
are obvious to psychiatrists evaluating psychiatric drugs in supposedly
double-blind drug trials, the drug trials aren't really double-blind, making
it impossible to evaluate psychiatric drugs impartially. This allows professional
bias to skew the results.
MODES OF ACTION: UNKNOWN
Despite various unverified theories
and claims, psychiatrists don't know how the drugs they use work biologically.
In the words of Columbia University psychiatry professor Jerrold S. Maxmen,
M.D.: "How psychotropic drugs work is not clear" (The New Psychiatry,
Mentor, 1985, p. 143). Experience has shown that the effect of all of today's
commonly used psychiatric drugs is to disable the brain in a generalized
way. None of today's psychiatric drugs have the specificity (e.g., for
depression or anxiety or psychosis) that is often claimed for them.
LIKE TAKING INSULIN FOR DIABETES?
It is often asserted that taking
a psychiatric drug is like taking insulin for diabetes. Although psychiatric
drugs are taken continuously, as is insulin - it's an absurd analogy. Diabetes
is a disease with a known physical cause. No physical cause has been found
for any of today's so-called mental illnesses. The mode of action of insulin
is known: It is a hormone that instructs or causes cells to uptake dietary
glucose (sugar). In contrast, the modes of action of psychiatry's drugs
are unknown - although advocates of psychiatric drugs as well as critics
theorize they prevent normal brain functioning by blocking neuroreceptors
in the brain. If this theory is correct it is another contrast between
taking insulin and taking a psychiatric drug: Insulin restores a
normal biological function, namely, normal glucose (or sugar) metabolism.
Psychiatric drugs interfere with a normal biological function, namely,
normal neuroreceptor functioning. Insulin is a hormone that is found naturally
in the body. Psychiatry's drugs are not normally found in the body. Insulin
gives a diabetic's body a capability it would not have in the absence of
insulin, namely, the ability to metabolize dietary sugar normally. Psychiatric
drugs have an opposite kind of effect: They take away (mental) capabilities
the person would have in the absence of the drug. Insulin affects the body
rather than mind. Psychiatric drugs disable the brain and hence the mind,
the mind being the essence of the real self.
THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is
a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric "patients".
His pamphlets are not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for distrubution
to those who you think will benefit.
1998 UPDATE:
The following statements are made
by Michael J. Murphy, M.D., M.P.H., Clinical Fellow in Psychiatry, Harvard
Medical School; Ronald L. Cowan, M.D., Ph.D., Clinical Fellow in
Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; and Lloyd I. Sederer, M.D.,
Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, in
their textbook Blueprints in Psychiatry (Blackwell Science, Inc.,
Malden, Massachusetts, 1998):
Lithium:
"The mechanism of action of lithium
in the treatment of mania is not well determined." (p. 57)
Valproate:
"The mechanism of action of valproate
is likely to be its augmentation of GABA function in the CNS [central
nervous system]." (p. 58 - underline added)
Carbamazepine:
"The mechanism of action of carbamazepine
in bipolar illness is unknown." (p. 59)
Antidepressants:
"Antidepressants are thought
to exert their effects at particular subsets of neuronal synapses throughout
the brain. ... SSRIs [e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft] act by binding to presynaptic
serotonin reuptake proteins ... TCAs [TriCyclic Antidepressants]
act by blocking presynaptic reuptake of both serotonin and norepinephrine.
MAOIs [Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors] act by
inhibiting the presynaptic enzyme (monoamine oxidase) ... These immediate
mechanisms of action are not sufficient to explain the delayed antidepressant
effects (typically 2 to 4 weeks). Other unknown mechanisms must
play a role in the successful psychopharmacologic treatment of depression.
... all antidepressants have roughly the same efficacy in treating depression
... [Only] approximately 50% of patients who meet DSM-IV criteria for major
depression will recover with a single adequate trial (at least 6 weeks
at a therapeutic dosage) of an antidepressant." (p. 54 - underline added)
Comment by web-master Douglas
Smith: Of course, about half of all despondent or "depressed" people
will feel significantly better in 6 weeks without "medication," too. What
psychiatrists call "other unknown mechanisms" is just the passage of time.
Say
NO To Psychiatry!
Back
to Main SNTP Page
|
|
|
|
Pursuing
Truth in all subjects... |
|
©Gene Zimmer 1999 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED |
|
|