Why do they continue to prescribe psychiatric drugs? What's behind it?

[lillo9546]

I can't understand why they keep prescribing antidepressants when there are so many people who are only worse off after ...

For what reasons are they doing it, besides the glaring fact of "research" and what are we doing as "guinea pigs" for progress?

[ChessieCat]

💲💲💲

 

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)

 

 

 

This book includes the history of psychiatric drugs:

 

Anatomy of an Epidemic:  Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Robert Whitaker

 

 

 

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

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

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  But analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect.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)

 

[vincent]

This might help to explain the forces at work

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9174558/

[ChessieCat]

On 12/24/2021 at 6:13 AM, lillo9546 said:

I can't understand why they keep prescribing antidepressants

 

I watched a video yesterday about food and discovered that some of the tobacco companies have bought major food companies.  They have found something else that people are addicted to and makes a huge amount of money for them.

[WilliamR]

On 12/23/2021 at 1:13 PM, lillo9546 said:

I can't understand why they keep prescribing antidepressants when there are so many people who are only worse off after ...

For what reasons are they doing it, besides the glaring fact of "research" and what are we doing as "guinea pigs" for progress?

$$$

[HugHK]

On 12/24/2021 at 3:13 AM, lillo9546 said:

I can't understand why they keep prescribing antidepressants when there are so many people who are only worse off after ...

For what reasons are they doing it, besides the glaring fact of "research" and what are we doing as "guinea pigs" for progress?

 

unpopular opinion: because for some people with major depression disorders or bipolar / schizophrenia, the meds can be lifesavers. 

 

Some on this forum report that the meds didn't really help in the first place, which is understandable as everyone is different and what might work for one may not work for the other. But out of the people I know personally, I'd say at least half found them to be a huge help when they needed it. In particular for myself and my cousin's wife for example, they worked great. 

 

The issue is withdrawal is entirely separate to the whether the meds are useful. Some who experience minimal withdrawal (just a few weeks for eg) will swear by these med and how they were great. I personally know many people like this. 

 

The main problems I have with the current system are that

 

1/ the level of awareness among doctors re withdrawal is harmfully low, with the obvious consequences we know.

2/ they are overprescribed, and should be a last resort option, rather than the number 1 option for anyone who goes to the GP experiencing various issues such as sleep, depression etc. 

 

 

[vincent]

The vast majority of  people now stuck on SSRIs should never have been prescribed them. It is criminal.

 

 

 

[HugHK]

On 5/17/2022 at 9:52 PM, vincent said:

The vast majority of  people now stuck on SSRIs should never have been prescribed them. It is criminal.

 

 

 

what makes you think they should not have been prescribed them, and what would you have done instead? magnesium supplements and herbal teas aren't necessarily going to get you out of depression / insomnia / whatever was the problem originally... Not saying psych meds aren't overprescribed but they do serve a purpose, regardless of the withdrawal experience that some of us have to suffer through. 

[ChessieCat]

On 5/21/2022 at 11:17 PM, HugHK said:

what makes you think they should not have been prescribed them

 

I think they should be used as an absolute last resort.  Unfortunately they seem to be used in many/most instances as a first response, or at least in the very early stages.

 

On 5/21/2022 at 11:17 PM, HugHK said:

what would you have done instead?

 

See this article for other options:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/gps-told-to-avoid-offering-antidepressants/ar-AAR0Vnk?ocid=msedgntp:

[HugHK]

On 5/24/2022 at 8:16 AM, ChessieCat said:

 

I think they should be used as an absolute last resort.  Unfortunately they seem to be used in many/most instances as a first response, or at least in the very early stages.

 

 

See this article for other options:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/gps-told-to-avoid-offering-antidepressants/ar-AAR0Vnk?ocid=msedgntp:

 

The problem with this rationale is another fundamental misunderstanding of mental health issues which is apparent in this sentence of the article:

Quote

 

If patients express no preference, the first option offered should be a group class in group cognitive behavioural therapy, the guidance suggests. 

The therapy focuses on trying to break a cycle of negative thoughts and beliefs.

 

 

essentially it embraces the cliche that mental health issues are due to negative thought patterns or 'being sad' because this and that happen (thoughts around specific events eg grief etc)

 

Honestly, the majority of people I know who have had break downs, are not attributed to negative thoughts around specific events etc... it just sort of happened. when I think about how much time I wasted suffering going to therapy to find the roots of my problems that didn't exist... I'm just as annoyed at that (a year wasted in 2019) than I am at the actual withdrawal itself (I should have done more research on the latter, and it's also mostly just bad luck which happens in life).

 

 

[Mark]

"Why do they continue to prescribe psychiatric drugs? What's behind it?"

-> MONEY, MONEY, MONEY
 

-> If psychiatrists dont prescribe those poison, they stop working because they don't know what do to else.

[Onmyway]

On 5/21/2022 at 7:17 AM, HugHK said:

what makes you think they should not have been prescribed them, and what would you have done instead? magnesium supplements and herbal teas aren't necessarily going to get you out of depression / insomnia / whatever was the problem originally... Not saying psych meds aren't overprescribed but they do serve a purpose, regardless of the withdrawal experience that some of us have to suffer through. 

Placebos achieve around 80% of the effect of ADs - it is very possible that your response was a simple placebo effect and the difference is likely due to patient unblinding during trials. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance - never been proven, impossible to prove. If ADs work, they work in a way we don't understand. You are basically throwing some chemicals at the brain and hoping that it will fix your problems. And then you go through 3-4 years of withdrawal/tapering. Cost-benefit analysis does not favor use of ADs at all. 

[Kaervin]

On 6/6/2022 at 10:10 PM, Onmyway said:

Cost-benefit analysis does not favor use of ADs at all. 

Considering that they take 3 to 6 weeks to "work" and they make you feel even worse until they make you feel "better", they are a horrible risk for severe depression. Going to the doctor, scared and frightened by the feelings of depression, and being told to take something that will make you feel even worse until it works sounds like a dangerous proposition. 

 

I think the reason they may work 'slightly' better than placebo is because they make you feel so much worse at first, that when you finally do adjust to it and the side effects go away, you take that as the medicine is 'working' because you feel so much better with the start up side effects dissipating.

 

Imagine having a headache on a pain scale of 4/10. Doctor gives you a med that he says will make you feel worse at first then better. Your headache goes to an 8/10 during startup and it hurts really bad. Eventually after a few weeks you drop back down to a 4 out of 10 and that feels so much better compared to 8 that you actually rate it as a 2 due to the contrast and positive outlook you now have that the med is working.

 

I think some people get into a more positive mindset when the startup side effects wear off because their dissipation seems like proof it is working and causes a positive feedback loop that makes you feel better. Sometimes belief alone can help depression go away, hence why placebos work for depression as well. Belief is reinforced by evidence, and the start up side effects subsiding feels like evidence.

 

My theory is 'poop-out' is when your body starts feeling the negative effects of longterm use. And you start noticing your lack of emotions or sexual side effects leading you back into a depression.

 

It is often stated that ssris are more effective with severe depression rather than mild to moderate. This makes sense as severe depression tends to come in short episodes and mild/moderate tends to be more long-term. I had a severe depression episode back in 04 right out of high school and transitioning into college. Couldn't eat, sleep, felt restless and suicidal. Then after about 4 to 5 weeks it started easing up and went away as I got used to the changes in my life. Had I started an AD, I would have attributed my recovery to them. This is just my own experience though. 

 

Maybe the pharmaceutical companies through research on severe depression noticed that an episode often lasts 4 to 8 weeks naturally in people and hence why that is the timeline they chose for their meds to work. Placebo effect may help pull people out of depression sooner. Who knows.

 

I am just rambling here. Kind of melancholic today and ruminating. I am not anti-medication, but anti-overmedicating. Cholesterol was a little bit high, so instead of asking if I would change my diet the doctor immediately wanted to prescribe a statin. There are more ways to get people healthy than just medication.

[Onmyway]

9 hours ago, Kaervin said:

 

This was absolutely true for me. The startup effects were so much worse that after they were over I realized my original anxiety was nothing in comparison. And the issue that had been causing he anxiety had been resolved. But I was stuck on the ADs for 19 years after. It's the perfect business.

[vincent]

22 minutes ago, Onmyway said:

This was absolutely true for me. The startup effects were so much worse that after they were over I realized my original anxiety was nothing in comparison. And the issue that had been causing he anxiety had been resolved. But I was stuck on the ADs for 19 years after. It's the perfect business.

Ditto

[HugHK]

On 6/7/2022 at 10:10 AM, Onmyway said:

Placebos achieve around 80% of the effect of ADs - it is very possible that your response was a simple placebo effect and the difference is likely due to patient unblinding during trials. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance - never been proven, impossible to prove. If ADs work, they work in a way we don't understand. You are basically throwing some chemicals at the brain and hoping that it will fix your problems. And then you go through 3-4 years of withdrawal/tapering. Cost-benefit analysis does not favor use of ADs at all. 

Now I definitely back altostratus' comment about accepting ADs don't work for some, which makes perfect sense. But this comment is just insulting. You're basically patronising me by telling me what I experienced was probably just placebo and I just don't know it, that I don't have the first clue on what helps me and what doesn't. I know for a fact that the medication worked in my case, in fact when I tried the med I was almost certain it wouldn't work just like the others, before I was proved wrong. For what it's worth, a friend who experienced similar insomnia to me initially had the exact same experience with an AD that solved the problem within a month.

 

At the end of the day, beyond personal opinions, the majority of the scientific evidence out there shows that, if ADs aren't necessarily helpful for everyone and have their load of unwanted side effects, many patients also find them very helpful, and it's not a total of 4-5 studies here and there that are going to jeopardise the mountains of evidence backed by science (hundreds, possibly thousands of studies).

 

If you want to disregard the majority of scientific consensus and wallow in conspiracy theories involving big pharma or whatever else, that's up to you. As far as I'm concerned, clearly the bitterness created by people's withdrawal experience has led some to lose touch with reality. Crusading over political matters isn't my thing. I also don't see how these theories help in the first place: being angry at the world or big pharma or governments or... isn't going to help with withdrawal. 

 

Anyway this is my last post on this particular topic, this conversation is going nowhere. 

[Kaervin]

1 hour ago, HugHK said:

I know for a fact that the medication worked in my case, in fact when I tried the med I was almost certain it wouldn't work just like the others, before I was proved wrong. For what it's worth, a friend who experienced similar insomnia to me initially had the exact same experience with an AD that solved the problem within a month.

That's the thing about the placebo effect though. For the patients that the placebo worked on, they would probably swear that whatever they were given was helping them. Who are we to question their experiences and say they weren't being helped by the sugar pills they were taking. They know their bodies better than anyone else. Since placebos can't technically cause side effects (except psychosomatic), they may be less effective than ADs because patients are often told that the start up effects are a sign that the medication is taking hold and they are also a reminder that the medication is in their system. So they wait/expect relief to follow. Again, I have no scientific basis to back my own theory up, but in my case I was so overjoyed that the startup effects were subsiding that my mental state improved because I felt my body had accepted the medication and that joy may have started me onto an emotional upward spiral out of depression.

 

It might not be a conspiracy theory of big pharma knowing they don't work at all and just wanting money. It may be that big pharma doesn't know exactly why they work, which they openly admit to even to this day. Even now 30 years later, even the brand name ssri websites say "It is thought that (insert ssri) works by". That is basically admitting that even after all the research, they still can't definitively say why they work for people.

 

There is a powerful mind-body connection when it comes to recovery from anxiety and depression. If a belief can get you out of depression, a belief and pattern of thought can get you into a depression as well. This isn't the case for everyone with mental illness as there are many external factors such as testable hormone imbalances (thyroid, testosterone) or undiagnosed issues with dairy, gluten, etc. I don't believe there is a test for low serotonin. So no amount of talk therapy is going to work for some forms of depression.

 

For many people, myself included, ssris/placebos were like the magic feather that Dumbo held on to. We believed it was making us fly and needed to hold onto that feather tightly as we were afraid to let it go.

 

In the end it is highly possible that a subset of depression sufferers may in fact benefit from the serotonin reuptake caused by ssris, but what percentage they make up is unknown.  What are the issues that will arise in raising serotonin beyond the normal homeostatic amount our brains have functioned with for 10s to 100s of thousands of years in people who are don't suffer a defiency in serotonin?

 

I will never fault anyone for going on an AD (that would be hypocritical). And I don't pretend to understand the full machinations as to why they are slightly better than placebo. But like you, I will continue to point out that they are overprescribed and the withdrawal syndrome is much worse than many in the medical establishment will own up to.

[Onmyway]

8 hours ago, HugHK said:

Now I definitely back altostratus' comment about accepting ADs don't work for some, which makes perfect sense. But this comment is just insulting. You're basically patronising me by telling me what I experienced was probably just placebo and I just don't know it, that I don't have the first clue on what helps me and what doesn't. I know for a fact that the medication worked in my case, in fact when I tried the med I was almost certain it wouldn't work just like the others, before I was proved wrong. For what it's worth, a friend who experienced similar insomnia to me initially had the exact same experience with an AD that solved the problem within a month.

Anecdotes do not prove anything. You and your friend's experience or mine individually are not proof of anything. There is a debate in the scientific community about whether ADs work. I

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30344-X/fulltext

 

8 hours ago, HugHK said:

 

At the end of the day, beyond personal opinions, the majority of the scientific evidence out there shows that, if ADs aren't necessarily helpful for everyone and have their load of unwanted side effects, many patients also find them very helpful, and it's not a total of 4-5 studies here and there that are going to jeopardise the mountains of evidence backed by science (hundreds, possibly thousands of studies).

And most of these studies are (ghost) written (for) by KOLs paid by pharma. Look at the end of said articles about conflicts of interest. In fact multiple KOLs paid by pharma commented on the article that said that withdrawal effects exist.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31230678/

 

Science is not some monolith that spews out truth. There are theories in science that get proven or disproven all the time. Science is the process. There were many 'scientific" articles about lobotomy or stomach ulcers being caused by stress. Science can often be wrong initially and is then corrected. Remember the four humors in medicine. Lucky you're still not being treated based on those theories. Look up Thomas Kuhn's work on the sociology of science. That's what's happening now with ADs -  correcting the 'scientific facts' that there are no withdrawal effects. Remember all those scientific articles that said oxicontin didn't cause addiction. Right. 

8 hours ago, HugHK said:

 

If you want to disregard the majority of scientific consensus and wallow in conspiracy theories involving big pharma or whatever else, that's up to you. As far as I'm concerned, clearly the bitterness created by people's withdrawal experience has led some to lose touch with reality. Crusading over political matters isn't my thing. I also don't see how these theories help in the first place: being angry at the world or big pharma or governments or... isn't going to help with withdrawal. 

 

Anyway this is my last post on this particular topic, this conversation is going nowhere. 

Whether you choose to be insulted or not by the fact that people in the placebo arm achieve 80% of the effect that people in the drug arm of the clinical trials achieve is up to you. I don't know if you had placebo effects but it is possible that anyone who takes drugs is actually getting better because of the placebo effects. All of the statements I made above are backed by scientific evidence. Look up the work of Irving Kirsch on the placebo effect and antidepressants. He works with FDA data. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/

 

Regarding the chemical imbalance myth, here is the former head of the American Psychiatric Association

https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/debunking-two-chemical-imbalance-myths-again

 

Here are some facts about psychiatric drugs.

https://cepuk.org/

 

 

[ChessieCat]

 

Peter Breggin, MD - What is Medication Spellbinding? Simple Truths About Psychiatry Vol. 3

[Altostrata]

14 hours ago, HugHK said:

Anyway this is my last post on this particular topic, this conversation is going nowhere. 

 

Very good decision, as this particular community is not the place to talk about how great psychiatric drugs are for people. People who are suffering from them are not going to be convinced about their general benefit (which, by the way, is not all that definite).

[vincent]

22 hours ago, HugHK said:

 

 

If you want to disregard the majority of scientific consensus and wallow in conspiracy theories involving big pharma or whatever else, that's up to you. As far as I'm concerned, clearly, the bitterness created by people's withdrawal experience has led some to lose touch with reality. Crusading over political matters isn't my thing. I also don't see how these theories help in the first place: being angry at the world or big pharma or governments or... isn't going to help with withdrawal. 

 

Not going to help profits either( and obscene amounts)

 

You have a naive view of how 'research' and big companies work.

 

May I ask why you joined this particular forum and what you hoped to get out of it?

[Onmyway]

23 minutes ago, vincent said:

Not going to help profits either( and obscene amounts)

 

You have a naive view of how 'research' and big companies work.

 

May I ask why you joined this particular forum and what you hoped to get out of it?

The funny/sad thing is the "scientific consensus" is that the withdrawal effects that @HugHKclaims he is experiencing simply do not exist. That consensus says that 'discontinuation' effects are short, mild and definitely not debilitating. That's why people are looking for support not from to their doctors but from an online forum. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Onmyway

[Shep]

On 5/17/2022 at 8:56 AM, HugHK said:

unpopular opinion: because for some people with major depression disorders or bipolar / schizophrenia, the meds can be lifesavers. 

 

This is often thrown out by psychiatry as a way of justifying their existence. Dr. Thomas Szasz referred to it as psychiatry's way of guarding their sacred symbol of so-called "schizophrenia" because it provides justification for locking up and marginalizing certain groups of people and individuals. 

 

As far as the drugs being "lifesavers" for the most severe conditions, Dr. Loren Mosher worked as head of "schizophrenia" studies at the National Institute of Mental Health and ran an experiment called the Soteria Project. He and his colleagues wrote a book:

 

Soteria: Through Madness to Deliverance 

 

This book details this government-funded research project, which was wildly successful. The reason it never went mainstream is because it threatened the hegemonic power of psychiatry, which is an adjunct of law enforcement. No other field of medicine is able to lock up people indefinitely (read Jim Gottstein's writings on his PsychRights website if you want to understand the full aspects of the legal side of this. Jim is a psychiatric survivor who became a lawyer and works to help free people from psychiatry.)

 

The reason Soteria was so successful is because it didn't rely on drugs to fix people but rather, it set up trusting relationships with non-medical caregivers and kept people connected in supportive relationships even after they left the Soteria house. 

 

These drugs can be useful at times, but only if the person taking them has informed consent - including knowing about the placebo effect, side effects including tardive dyskinesia and tardive dysphoria, dependency, and protracted withdrawal - and is in complete control over whether or not they take them. A benzo during a psychotic episode can be life saving because most psychosis comes from a period of insomnia. But long term, these drugs cause problems, especially if people are being messaged that these drugs are medications that fix something wrong with the brain. This has never been proven. 

 

And even for folks dealing with "major depression," we already know the outcomes are far better off of drugs. So for the people you know who are struggling with depression, if they've been struggling for years, it may be a case of "your drug is your problem." Depression before the antidepressant era was short lived and self-limiting (i.e. it resolves on its own without treatment). 

 

Long-term Evidence We Can’t Overlook Anymore: Anti-Depressant Outcomes

 

Now Antidepressant-Induced Chronic Depression Has a Name: Tardive Dysphoria

 

 

 

 

[Altostrata]

This is simply not an appropriate site to start an argument over "psychiatric drugs good or bad?" The topic upsets people and is unnecessary, since discussions about it take place in many other venues, including many books. 

 

Such as:

 

Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America  by Robert Whitaker

 

The Emperor's New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth by Irving Kirsch PhD

 

Mind Fixers: Psychiatry's Troubled Search for the Biology of Mental Illness by Anne Harrington

 

Desperate Remedies: Psychiatry’s Turbulent Quest to Cure Mental Illness by Andrew Scull