Would you take antidepressants again after your withdrawal experience?

[Marko1]

I realized psycho-pharmacology is an industry and each industry is aimed at expanding, growing, earning money. It is a huge system that includes laboratories, pill makers, pharmacies, hospitals, doctors, contractors, lawyers etc. It is worth adding that it is not volunteering but it is pure economic dependency network. Each economy collapses if it does not grow. Economic increase is fundamental condition for system to keep on. Hence, it is nobody’s interest not to offer you a drug/medicine if you ask for it. It is nobody’s interest to honestly inform you about dark side of antidepressants or anxiolytics. Honest information about many side-effects, difficult withdrawal symptoms is something that could affect our decision not to take antidepressants or anxiolytics. Hence, honest information is an enemy of the psycho-pharmacology system. If too many people would decide not to take drugs because of their dark side it could lead to the system decrease and further on it could be the beginning of the system collapse. Have you heard about David Rosenhan experiment? This experiment is a proof that nobody (neither doctor nor pharmacology) is capable of telling you for sure if you are mentally ill or not. It is like tea-leaf reading. You go to a psychiatrist and you can hear you are depressed or psychotic or anxious and you start to identify yourself with the diagnosis. You are depressed and should be cured because somebody else said so. Have your psychiatrist checked level of serotonin in your brain? No – because it is not possible. Your psychiatrist posits a thesis that your level of serotonin may be low on basis of what you told him. So you take the drugs because the system assessed you should. And you believe it despite David Rosenhan laughed this system down during his experiment. In my opinion the psycho-pharmacology system is not fully responsible and honest and this is why we should be responsible for our own decisions and our own health as well.

[Bluewisp]

You are right for the money. And the industry probably hides some parts to not give bad image to drugs. But I think that the major problem is that they mostly ignore the mountain of problems and the height of this mountain that occur during, and after taking drugs. Not enough research. Also, psych patients are taken rarely seriously, which make them easy to lose all revelance. Then, drugs are evaluated for a precise goal, and I doubt that we spend time evaluating negative effects as long as they don't involve organ damage or measurable direct sign that it endanger life. So the industry itself ignore most of its own drugs, how they work, as humanity still ignores much like the brain work. Also, drugs are the only tool that doctors have, otherwise it goes to psychology and it's not their work. The chemical imbalance is probably false too, it's more than a theory. We can measure serotonin etc but not without killing someone to do it, and it would not give answers. If there is a chemical imbalance present, drugs simply shuffle the chaos, giving a better or a worst result, totally random because bodies are all differents. I consider those drugs extremely dangerous, because they can lead to death indirectly by all what they cause on long term, and change you in a totally false mindset, for example causing a deep depression when you never known any like this, or causing terror attacks in the night when you never had any. Not mentionning the emotionnal killing that ruin lives. Still I would use drugs for people already too near death, the risk would be better than dying, to save them. But for a short period only. A last resort tool, and they would be positive. But as they are given like candies, they ruin lives. I would never take any again, and I would never had if I would have been aware of what would happen. I will never give any to my kids too, and discourage everyone to use them, at the very exception of someone near death already or someone understanding all the risks and willingly wanting to put an end to a horrible initial state after having tried everything else. Damage is underestimated, as consequences, and doctors have no idea how to get people out of the drugs correctly.

[ChessieCat]

3 hours ago, Bluewisp said:

And the industry probably hides some parts to not give bad image to drugs.

 

Gwen Olsen was a pharmaceutical representative for 15 years:

 

Interview:  Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher (51 minutes Gwen Olsen - ex pharmaceutical representative)
 

Video:  Ex-Big Pharma Rep:  We’re Trained To Misinform -The Drugs ARE Dangerous (6 minute video)
 

Video:  Ex-Big Pharma Rep:  Manipulating Doctors to Sell More Drugs (10 minute video)

 

Video:  Irving Kirsch:  Emperor's New Drugs:  Antidepressants and the Placebo Effect (1 hour 20 minutes)

(Very interesting video by Irving Kirsch.  The researchers had to file Freedom of Information to get the data from all the trials conducted.  Also see below)

 

I posted this on my own website:

 

Shocking Discovery - Approval Criteria Used by the FDA

Antidepressants and the Placebo Effect by Irving Kirsch (link to full article)

Abstract:

Antidepressants are supposed to work by fixing a chemical imbalance, specifically, a lack of serotonin in the brain.  Indeed, their supposed effectiveness is the primary evidence for the chemical imbalance theory.  But analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect.  Some antidepressants increase serotonin levels, some decrease it, and some have no effect at all on serotonin.  Nevertheless, they all show the same therapeutic benefit.  Even the small statistical difference between antidepressants and placebos may be an enhanced placebo effect, due to the fact that most patients and doctors in clinical trials successfully break blind.  The serotonin theory is as close as any theory in the history of science to having been proved wrong.  Instead of curing depression, popular antidepressants may induce a biological vulnerability making people more likely to become depressed in the future.

Excerpt:

How Did These Drugs Get Approved?
....
The FDA requires two adequately conducted clinical trials showing a significant difference between drug and placebo.  But there is a loophole:  there is no limit to the number of trials that can be conducted in search of these two significant trials.  Trials showing negative results simply do not count.  Furthermore, the clinical significance of the findings is not considered.  All that matters is that the results are statistically significant.
....
(NB:  emphasis in abstract and excerpt are mine)
 

[Mutfael]

Sorry, I am not good at English ... Doctors know but delude themselves and lie to themselves and try to believe it .. The psychiatrist If the doctor told you that psychiatric medications cause long-term side effects, I would not find a clinic open now !!  The doctor will close his clinic and work as a bread seller on the roadside !!