'Anatomy Of An Epidemic': Could Psychiatric Drugs Be Fueling A Mental Illness Epidemic?

A few years ago, while writing an article about the merits of psychiatric medications, I looked at whether the number of adults receiving a federal disability payment due to mental illness had significantly changed since 1987, which was the year that Prozac was introduced. Our society's use of psychiatric medications, of course, has soared since that time, and here's what I discovered: The number of adults, ages 18 to 65, on the federal disability rolls due to mental illness jumped from 1.25 million in 1987 to four million in 2007. Roughly one in every 45 working-age adults is now on government disability due to mental illness.

This epidemic has now struck our nation's children, too. The number of children who receive a federal payment because of a severe mental illness rose from 16,200 in 1987 to 561,569 in 2007, a 35-fold increase.   >Complete interview<

About "Mad in America"

Promotional video with Author Robert Whitaker about Mad in America produced by Open Paradigm Project. >Robert Whitaker's introduction<

Overselling the Science of ADHD

Jonathan Leo, Ph.D.

October 22, 2013

The New York Times has a new essay on ADHD titled, "The Not-So-Hidden Cause Behind the ADHD Epidemic" which explores the various reasons for the increased diagnosis of ADHD. The author, Maggie Koerth-Baker, starts off with the usual alarming epidemiological data, and then lays much of the blame for this on the medical and education professions. For an article that acknowledges that many people have been unnecessarily treated and that a large number of kids are unlikely to have any biological differences warranting a medication, it is interesting that Koerth-Baker acknowledges that she herself has a diagnosis of ADHD and has taken medication. This would seem to be the pot calling the kettle black, but her take on this is that, in contrast to the millions who have been given a false diagnosis, she has been correctly diagnosed by her doctor.

The author makes some good points about the upside of the diagnosis such as students getting increased tutoring and time allowances on tests, a recognition of different learning styles. However, it is a bit ironic that in an article looking to find the cause of the increased rate of the ADHD diagnosis she has inadvertently provided an article which exemplifies the problem. When it comes to discussing the biology of ADHD she has left her readers with false notions about the science of ADHD. In her brief discussion of brain imaging, chemical imbalances, and genetics she has so over-simplified these topics that they are just not representative of what scientists know. In short, when it comes to the science of ADHD the author has made statements that would probably trigger warning letters by the FDA if they appeared in advertisements, yet they appear in the New York Times                                    .>Completer report<

Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Health Care

Peter Gøtzsche, MD

 

September 9, 2013

 

There are many good books about the crimes in the drug industry and the widespread corruption of the profession to which I belong; doctors. I had therefore promised myself that I would not write one. But two things in particular made me change my mind in the summer of 2012.

 

In 2007, PhD student Anders Jørgensen and I applied for access to trial protocols and clinical study reports for two slimming pills at the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Our request was flatly denied with the excuse that the documents could not be released because it would undermine commercial interests. We complained to the European ombudsman, and he agreed with us that these documents did not contain commercially confidential information. When, after 3 years, the agency was still completely resistant to our arguments and those of the ombudsman, he accused the EMA of maladministration. This caused the EMA to change its stance completely. Its director left the agency to consult for drug companies, and the new director introduced a far-reaching openness policy in accordance with the ombudsman’s wishes and in accordance with the principles on which the EU are based.

                                                        >Complete report<

My Story and My Fight Against Antidepressants

David Fox

October 12, 2013

My name is David Fox, and I am a registered Psychologist living in Sydney, Australia. In the past five years, I’ve focused predominantly on counseling people with anxiety, depression and a range of other issues. I was also on antidepressants, myself, until a few months ago. I’d like to share a bit about what happened to me after being placed on these medications, and how I successfully got off. Until recently, I was embarrassed to talk about my personal experiences publicly, as I’m a professional who specializes in anxiety and depression. Today, medication free, I feel better than ever before, and I am now on a mission to help my current clients get off medications, and to inform others through my writing about the dangers and pitfalls of starting antidepressants. This has not been an easy story to share as the stigma of depression and anxiety disorders remains strong, but I feel compelled to do so, in the hope that it will help others. >David's Story<

The Rise of the Psychopharmaceutical Industry 1987-2010

by Mary Beth Ackerly,MD. Robert Whitaker’s brilliant book Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America asks a simple question.Why , if psychiatric drug treatments are so efficacious, has the number of people on disability for mental illness more than tripled in the last 25 years? Most doctors and researchers answered this question by stating that the numbers have increased simply because we are diagnosing more people with mental illness. In response to this stereotyped dismissal of his data, Robert began to do more research on the efficacy of known psychiatric treatments. And then, while poring through the psychiatric scientific literature on treatment effectiveness for the last fifty years he found an even darker question beginning to emerge. “Is it possible that psychiatric drugs are actually making people much worse?” Could it be that far from “fixing broken brains” the drugs being offered actually are worsening, and even causing, the very illnesses they claim to heal? 1987 can be considered ground zero for the new era of psychopharmacology. Prozac had just been introduced and was being widely advertised to the psychiatric profession, as well as to the general public, as a new safer antidepressant. Many people became aware that a chemical imbalance of serotonin might be causing their depression, and begged for the drugs. In one notable Newsweek article a woman stated that in case of nuclear war it would be the first thing she grabbed for. As a young psychiatric resident I was proudly confident that the treatment of psychiatric illness was being revolutionized and that we could all look forward to a world where severe depression, anxiety and mania no longer crippled and ruined human lives. WRONG!! It should be apparent to many that despite the incredible profiteering of the pharmaceutical industry off of psychiatric illness that depression and anxiety are still rampant in this country. If psychiatric medications worked the way the are supposed to, and they way the drug companies and psychiatric industry tells us they do, why are so many people still severely depressed and anxious. At the start of the psychopharmacological “revolution” when it became popular to blame all illness on “imbalanced brain chemistry” the percentage of bipolar patients who could return to work was 85 percent. Now it is less than thirty percent. Certainly the introduction of the SSRI’s (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) revolutionized the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry. In 1987 about half a billion dollars were spent on psychiatric medications, by 2010 the figure is closer to 40 billion!!! So if the number of adults diagnosed as mentally disabled has tripled its not because they weren’t exposed to the medication. Actually in children the disability figures are far more frightening. In 1987 there were less than 20,000 severely mentally disabled children, now there are almost 600,000. That is a 30 fold increase. Part of that is due to the diagnosis of autism, while more is due to the even newer diagnosis of bipolar disorder in children which has increased 40 fold in the last 10 years! Most frightening are the numbers of children under six receiving SSI which have tripled over the last ten years to more than 65,000. UNDER SIX!!! How can this possibly be . Were psychiatrists twenty years ago oblivious to the plight of these severely disabled children. I can assure you, from my experience that is not true. Rather it seems that drug companies have discovered another very profitable market in young children and are busy pushing their drugs, in particular the atypical antipsychotics, onto children with the newly diagnosed pediatric bipolar disorder. However our leading psychiatrist assure us these drugs are safe and they are paid amply by the drug companies to certify this safety. How can anyone possibly predict the longterm impact of a major tranquilizer, used to subdue agitated and psychotic adults, on a five-year old brain ? Those studies have not been done. From these sobering statistics the author then goes on to answer the following questions about longterm results with psychiatric medicines. Does antidepressant usage make it more likely that you will become disabled. Are bipolar patients better off than they were 40 years ago? When the National Institute of Health studies the long-term outcome of children treated for ADHD did they find stimulants provided any benefit. And most startlingly of all, to anyone who has been indoctrinated in the current medical thinking that psychiatric patients are always better off on medications, he asks an unthinkable question – are recovery rates for schizophrenics better with or without medication? In addition Robert Whitaker chronicles the stories of many of the people who have been diagnosed and treated for depression and bipolar disorder and treated with many different types of psychiatric medication. In fact although some parts of the book where he examines scientific evidence may seem a bit heavy going her more than makes up for that by interweaving the stories of many psychiatric patients whom he has personally interviewed. My favorite was the story of a young women named Kate diagnosed with schizophrenia. Years on meds had left her partially disabled unable to work or have a relationship. After 10 years she began to decrease her meds and is now married and working a full-time job. She has not had a relapse. She feels her time on antipsychotic medication kept her from learning skills on how to deal with emotions, emotions which she felt were completely numbed by psych meds. She says of herself now – I am a completely different person. This story leads into one of the most interesting parts of the book for me. It seems that if you are schizophrenic and living in India or Nigeria you chances of a good outcome are far higher than if you live in the US where everyone is medicated. The fact seems astonishing, and World Health Organization repeated the study, but found the same thing – that living in an undeveloped country where meds are scarce but patients are cared for by the community assures a much better prognosis for schizophrenia. However Whitaker also quotes several studies done in the US from the late seventies that also showed similar results, that young adults suffering a first episode of schizophrenia who were not medicated showed significantly better outcomes in terms of subsequent relapse. Later in the book he details the current treatment of schizophrenia in an experimental clinic where drugs are rarely prescribed. Again the findings are similar that patients there have much better long-term outcomes than other Finnish schizophrenics who are routinely medicated. I admit to being somewhat naïve as a young doctor. Even in the 80’s there were always people demonstrating at APA conventions against the “brain killing and mind numbing effects of drugs”. I, like many of my colleagues, dismissed them as either angry ex patients or Scientologists. I thought that the fact that drugs companies paid psychiatric professors to do their research was not a big deal. Again WRONG! The last chapters of Anatomy of Epidemic tallies up the enormous profits the drug companies, and certain psychiatrists, have made off the reinvention of psychiatry as biological psychopharmacology. He details how the growth of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual from DSM 2 to DSM 4 has fueled the growth of diagnosing more and more Americans as having a psychiatric illness which requires pharmacological treatment and suggests that this was a necessary preparation for “building the market” for the drug companies wares. Now most scientists would absolutely bristle at the suggestion that their passion to finally make psychiatry a real science was actually a ploy to help the drug companies remarkably expand their profits. Yet there is no doubt that the expansion of the definitions of psychiatric illness, which now has one in every eight Americans taking a psychotropic medication , has been exceeding profitable. Drug company sales of psychotropic medication went from about half a billion in 1987 to over 40 billion dollars in 2008. Atypical antipsychotics, once reserved for the most severely ill patients, are now the top revenue producer for drugs companies, helped by the psychiatric professions willingness to prescribe them to even two-year olds. Dr. Biederman, the psychiatrist most associated with leading the way to using antipsychotics for children by popularizing pediatric bipolar illness, personally received 1.6 million dollars from 2000 to 2007, as well as procuring another 2 million for a pediatric pathology department at Mass Gen hospital. He is a designated KOL by the drug companies, which means a Key Opinion Leader. That means what he writes and says is usually followed by other psychiatrists. In a recent deposition he was asked his rank at Harvard Medical School. Full professor he replied. What’s above that asked the attorney. GOD, replied Dr. Biederman. Truly that is a response worthy of a KOL. This is not the book of a disgruntled patient who is angry at the system. It is the carefully researched and documented expose of a multibillion dollar industry that affects the lives of a least a quarter of the population. It is also an engrossing read, and an accurate depiction of the lives of people who are afflicted with these illnesses. I would recommend it to anyone who has ever used, or had a family member use, psychiatric services or been given psychiatric medication.

Amazing Victory for Mental Health Activists: NIMH Director Accepts Ideas Once Seen as Radical

Bruce Levine, Ph.D.

It is an amazing victory for mental health treatment reform activists and Robert Whitaker. On August 28, 2013, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) director, Thomas Insel, announced that psychiatry’s standard treatment for people diagnosed with schizophrenia and other psychoses needs to change.

After examining two long-term studies on schizophrenia and psychoses, Insel has come to what was previously considered a radical conclusion: in the long-term, some individuals with a history of psychosis do better off medication.

Insel finally recognizes what mental health treatment reform activists and investigative reporter Robert Whitaker have been talking about for years—the research shows that American psychiatry’s standard treatment protocol has hurt many people who could have been helped by a more selective and limited use of drugs, and a more diverse approach such as the one utilized in Finland, which has produced the best long-term outcomes in the developed world.

Like many treatment reform activists and Whitaker, Insel does not completely reject the use of medications, but instead calls for a more judicious use of them. Insel concludes:                                    >Complete Report<

Taking “Anti-Psychotics” When You Are Not Psychotic

Sandra Steingard, M.D.

September 8, 2013

The Wunderink study has been discussed here in other blogs (here,  here, and here). In brief, using a randomized control design, Wunderink found that in adults diagnosed with a psychotic disorder continuous use of neuroleptics was associated with worse functional outcomes than  intermittent use.  Higher doses were associated with worse outcomes than lower ones.

These days neuroleptic drugs are widely promoted to treat depression and they are often used “off-label” to treat behavioral problems in children.   They are among the most widely prescribed drugs; given that “schizophrenia” affects 1% of the population, it is clear that many individuals – adults and children – who do not have this diagnosis are prescribed these drugs.

Is the Wunderink study relevant to those who do not experience psychosis?                                                                                                    >More of Dr.Sandra Steingard's report<

Angel of Mercy

An angel of mercy or angel of death is a rare type of criminal offender (often a type of serial killer) who is usually employed as a caregiver and intentionally harms or kills persons under their care The angel of mercy is often in a position of power and may decide the victim would be better off if they no longer suffered from whatever severe illness is plaguing them. This person then uses their knowledge to manufacture the death of the victim. As time goes on, this behavior escalates to encapsulate the healthy and the easily treated

One theory to explain this particular type of serial killer is the Neutralization theory. Developed by sociologists Gresham Sykes and David Matza, it explains that criminals understand right from wrong. In order to neutralize their actions, criminals will develop new perceptions to mitigate the circumstances of their crimes.In this case, the killer might claim that he or she was helping the victim by easing their pain.