Mad in america

doctors have a problem with a depressed person they want to help...
15 minutes...person depressed..antidepressant yes...but then potential serious side effect.
antidepressant no....then possible suicide....then possible malpractice lawsuit...
the doctor today is under tremendous stress....300-400 doctors each year kill themselves.

i bring this up because we as the patient need to be aware of the positives and negatives
of taking a drug...and also how long to stay on the drug....and how to stop a drug

Are you mad at the industry, or does it just suck to have to take meds?

i have a lot of anger at the drug companies..
i have a lot of anger at doctors who drug persons that don't need it..
i don't like seeing my psychiatrist..
i don't like taking drugs..
i don't like having a mental illness..
i don't like the way people treat each other
i don't like all the money being made off of sickness..
i don't like all the ignorance and denial that i see..
i hate the stigma...

im glad you asked

I have not read this thread expect for the first post but I do at all like or trust the site Mad in America. The reason is that I have seen Robert Wittaker and Peter Breggin totally misrepresent what the authors of a real scientific study said and concluded. I have seen it often enough for me not to go to that site.

It's interesting how much condemnation, venom, hostility is directed at whistle blowers like Whitaker, Breggin, Mercola, etc. And when I say interesting, I mean terribly disturbing.

Not saying they are perfect or without their own bias and conflicts of interest. But these are some of the few lone voices going against the grain, and standing up to an industry (pharma) whose sales exceeded $1 trillion dollars worldwide in 2014. And suggesting more humane, more natural, less toxic, less lethal ways of dealing with health challenges.

But yea keep attacking them instead of listening to their message, and maybe one day we will live in a world where there is no choice in healthcare at all, and where pharma ads emanate from every source 24/7.

I am no fan of Big Pharma at all and realize they have the FDA in there back pocket. I have read Peter Breggin extensively, Mad in America, and have watched many lectures by them. Lots of statements I have read on Peter Breggins site I find outlandish. What turns me off is when someone purposely mis represents the results of a peer reviewed study published in a well respected journal to further an agenda. I lose trust then.

It is not a matter of me not listening to their message and considering it. I have spent a lot of time reading it and considering it.

I am not saying their voices are not valuable and their view is a valid as mine or yours. It's just a site I don't go to anymore for my reasons. I don't want to debate it though.

hello jwrt----we can have a good discussion....I talked personally to whitaker and breggin....I didn't get the feeling that they were dishonest...I think they are seeing the bad side of drugs and there is a bad side...I saw it when taking care of my patients....but I want to keep an open mind and look everywhere for more help for depression...much of the system of health care stinks...because the patient comes last....I saw it with my own eyes...

I know I'll get slammed for this....but what the hell.

Do people really think that pharmaceutical companies simply manufacture drugs??

I am just wondering at (what seems to me to be) ignorance of the process.

What else do they do besides make and sell drugs? And when I say sell I mean the entire marketing process including millions spent on ads and all those pharma reps who interrupt my doctor and his staff causing me to have to sit in his waiting room even longer and the millions of dollars spent lobbying congress and FDA execs. Oh and applying for government subsidies for research costs.

I know that at a personal level Fetzima is by far the most effective antidepressant I have ever taken. It isn't a cure all or perfect but in the last two years it has improved the quality of my life by a huge margin. It is not a new class as it is an SSNRI but it works for me. I believe it was a Japanese Company that patented it. Maybe they were bought by big pharma...I don't know. Company name - Actavis. I don't know how it came about but I am grateful.

There is also the recent example of Sovaldi. Over a 90% success rate in CURING Hep C. To me that is a miracle in drug research. The price in highway robbery no doubt about it but I saw a bunch of Blue Cross execs on C Span talking about how much money that drug was saving them. They were paying the big bucks for treatment. Wait until you see what happens in the next 5 to 10 years in cancer treatment or what has already happened.

Take the example of childhood leukemia. In the 60's the survival rate was 10%. Now it is over 90%. How did that happen???

Childhood Leukemia Survival Rates Improve Significantly

Nothing is black and white and I agree with keeping an open mind and seeking whatever might work. Empathetic Therapy, Meditation, whatever. I have been practicing meditation for 20 years.

Can you give an example? I am curious what precisely people are objecting to re: Breggin other than his basic position. And if you consider he and Whitaker to be illegit, then who's left to dissent against the tidal wave of drug pushing?

And given the outlandish claims made by pharma, APA, AMA, doctors, psychiatrists on a daily basis, seems Breggin and Whitaker are much closer to truth than anyone else.

i dont know much about mad in america, but it sounds like a cause i would sign up for simply because i was a drugged up cash cow for the mental health system for 5 years of my life and i have always felt like the mental health system was a complete sham but nobody ever listened to me - i always said that the mental health system didnt become an 88 billion dollar industry by helping people, they intend to keep people going in circles but nobody listned to me but im glad to see a website/organization saying the same things i have been saying all these years, and the insults and treatment i received were degrading and inhumane - and at the end of the day that hospital is still considered one of the top 10% in the US...

I don't believe that because many of us have found relief from drugs produced by Big Pharma and prescribed by the conventional medical establishment that we should defend them mindlessly. Where is the critical thinking in that? Is it because it causes too much cognitive dissonance that you (and many others) are viewing contrary information, studies, peer-reviewed research, critiques by industry professionals as quackery and so easily dismissed? I'm sorry but that just isn't rational. Add to this that the medical research community is currently in turmoil because so much at the published research in medical journals has been falsified. Be cautious with the studies held so dearly to support your position(s). I keep this mind as well.

Before you attack me as attacking you for being irrational, please let me acknowledge that each individual views various things with irrationality because we, as humans, have emotions. We attach a lot of emotion to values important to us. Me, you, everybody. So, I get that. I want to be clear that I am speaking of irrationality as it relates to an evaluative thought process.

I guess I'm still having difficulty understanding how so many of us on this forum get so indignant over alternative approaches addressing depression? Or, why one refuses to see the failings of our current medical paradigm? If it can't be acknowledged then it will never improve. Feeling sick? Bring on the leeches . . .

I just read an interesting article yesterday on BBC.com entitled "The Man who studies the spread of ignorance" (1/06/16) and this thread IMMEDIATELY came to mind. Quote, "Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion."

Rather thought provoking, IMO.

talking about drug use and help....I worry about adding abilify to an antidepressant...and I don't like drug ads on tv...

Little turtle, I'm sorry that you have had these experiences. But I also think that you are an academic and even if you still suffer it should be possible for you to find an approach for self help so that your life can be a bit better. Have you looked into CBT or DBT?

thanks 47---good idea....I am just feeling very angry at this time about a lot of things...I hate seeing all the suffering .....

I take Abilify, it really works for me. I started taking it before I saw any ad so I wasn't influenced by that. Also, it's not an anti-depressant really, it's a drug that helps improve the anti-depressant(s) that someone is on.

One example would be his theory of "spell binding"/ anosognosia.

No scientific data whatsoever to support it in my view.

Another is his view that there is nothing biological or genetic about schizophrenia. Or any mental illness for that matter.

I do not like how they paint an entire area of medical science and all the people that work in it as being corrupted by big pharma. I don't have a problem with dissenting voices but sometimes have a problem with the political tactics used when it comes to pushing any agenda by any group.

I don't buy the assertion that all diagnosis in the DSM are made up by the psychiatric community to serve pharma. You can't convince me that in my case MDD/ Anxiety/ Bi Polar II is made up or that in my case does not have a very large genetic component.

Bottom line is that I am for us being educated on the realities of corruption in the drug industry. The side effects drugs can have. Using a risk vs. benefit equation in our our own individual situations. Advocating strongly for each other and ourselves for better treatment (no matter what type) and more research.

In the end the only question that matters is -"what works for you." and not judging each other on what may work for one does not work for the other.

I guess I am trying to caution (including myself) against black and white thinking.

I am aware that big pharma has a technique of finding a property of a chemical and then making up a 3 letter disease to fit that property and then marketing it. That doesn't mean however that there are not very real diseases that can be treated very effectively with drugs. I tend to look at the whole body of western medicine and drug research and the progress made while also realizing all the problems it has.

In the same way just because I may not like Breggin or go to mad in america doesn't mean I don't agree with a lot of what they have to say.

Lots of grey areas in mental health because it is so little understood and in my opinion we get short shrift in research dollars, awareness, services and therapy available, legal system, etc etc.

At this point I put most of my faith in the university system when it comes to research and studying therapies other than drugs like meditation or acupuncture or whatever. I realize pharma has influence with universities too. I have never bought the argument that oncologist and drug companies don't want to find a cure for cancer because there is no money in cure. I just don't buy it and find it insulting.

I don't think I am defending "Big Pharma" at all. I don't understand where any of your post has come from. I am not attacking anyone and I don't think you understand my position. I don't see how you could given that I have only typed out a few sentences.

Agree with JWRT 100%, well said. I don't have much time to contribute as a struggling student myself.

JWRT: Wow! I didn't know that Breggin thinks " that people with schizophrenia bring the symptoms on themselves because of “cowardice” or “failure of nerve.”" That's awful!

I also find the argument that people aren't looking for a cure for cancer because they want to make money off it, insulting. Especially as someone who has had cancer. I find that very insulting to my doctors/nurses/etc who save my life.

To sum it up (with regard to how I see it):

I think the pro- vs anti pro-antidepressants is only one of many dimensions in the Mental Disorder picture. I still think it might be confusing for people new to depression to feel that they have to find out if they are pro- or anti-.

What is much more appropriate, the way I see it, is to understand the scientific world with regard to health in general. Heart and lung diseases have high positions at the «market», while Mental Disorders have not been among those who were regarded as being important enough. Only 300 years ago people were locked into the «Mad-houses» far away in the countryside. Those who could afford it (in England) traveled to see them after church time on Sundays. They paid their tickets just as we do when we go to a Zoo and they experienced probably the same: «Look at that girl in the chains, isn't she funny?» - «Mum, dad, come here, looook, this one is clapping his head, ha, ha, ha.»

There were little hope of being helped before Sigmund Freud came with his theories about the unconscious in the beginning of 1900. I don't say that his methods were and is best. I'm looking at when in the history of SCIENCE they began to be interested in Mental Disorders. From the click around Freud some of his «disciples» departed (because they didn't find his methods good enough) and found alternatives that have developed until this day.

So it is in the scientific field. One sees that a particular treatment is of help to, as an example, 60% of the population with a specific disorder. Some scientists want to help the other 40% and start developing ideas and hypothesis about how that can be, just as it was in Freud's days.

To receive money from the «health-basket» to do scientific research on their field they have to demonstrate that their scientific approach deserves it better than, as an example, the scientist around the corner who wants to do a research on cancer.

So yes, let us be clear that there is a money problem. Those who are best in promoting their design wins.

Where would you have put your money if you were rich and wanted to invest them in health? If one had a loved one who died in cancer, I suppose that that person would have given their money to cancer research. If a beloved ant had died in suicide, I suppose that the millionaire would have given it to research in the mental health field. Some would have put them in the Psychofarmaca Industries, some in the alternative medication, while others would bring them into research on different psycho-therapeutic methods (talking therapies).

We are always talking about money and earning money either if we are talking about the Psychofarmaca Industries or the «Herbs and teas» Industry. They will clap their hands in the alternative meds industry if people stop to use psychofarmaca.

In that perspective it would be a good thing to have the historical approach to lean on. What could a person with a severe depression expect 50 years ago? Probably electroshock therapy as it was given in the old days. Some got severe damage for life after that. Because of scientific interest and people willing to pay the researchers we have a better approach called Electroconvulsive therapy today. Still there are people that might have side effects, but through science one has found a better way to administrative the “schocks” and one has become better to elect the right patients for that method.

It is only about 30 years ago since the SSRI-s came on the marked. It was a huge advance at that time because more people could be helped, complete or to some degree. Still some had side-effects ...

Do you understand what I am trying to tell by thinking historically? The patients at the English hospitals sitting in their cells to the amusement of others would have wondered what we were talking about if they could see this discussion. So it will be in the future. May be the day we lie on our death bed, a relative will inform us from that day's News Paper (before we die) about a new promising treatment method that is superior to all other methods for exactly the problem nobody could help us with. May be some of us will die with a bitter smile that day , while others will clap their hands and say: “I'm so happy for those who come after me”.

I don't know if I have explained myself good enough, but what I have tried to say, is that it is of no use to be emotional about if antidepressants works or not. Some will have to try different pills before they find the one who helps. Others will do well because of talking therapy only. If somebody wants to buy alternative meds they are free to do so. Whatever they chose somebody will earn money on them.

What we have to understand when we seek treatment is that we will be given the best options that are available at this time. Really?

Well there are GP's that grab to the prescription pad too easily. People are different and it might happen that one doesn't click with one's therapist, but it is no reason to run away if there is one topic one doesn't understand with the therapist that one usually likes. To be in therapy has it's ups and downs before the treatment really works. Besides there is no guarantee that one will be 100% cured. Some will have to work the rest of their lives to prevent relapse ...

There are no guarantee for being 100% cured from physical illness either.

There are lots of scientific works that shows a link between different different physical diseases and depression. A link between them does not tell what came first and last. May be we future studies will show us how to make use of such information. If they find that out ten years after we are dead, we cannot raise from the grave and say: “What did I say”?

Before Freud, as we started with, there were many who had the same thoughts as him, but it was him that developed the theories into something useful at that time. So it will be in the future too. We might have had clever thoughts, but they will not be used by the world at this time in the history of the Mental Disorders.

Today the scientists know that people might be diagnosed with depression and have an undiagnosed personality disorder. They work on developing clinical tools to be able to set proper diagnoses, so that more and more people can get as proper and effective treatment as possible.

So what?

I think that we shall be happy about how far science has come in our days (I don't mean smiling through depressive tears). We live in this time period and have to use that as best we can (I'm not pointing with my moral finger).

I think that if people are aware of were we stand today they will use their “inner powers” to adjust as best they can even if they are only “half-helped”. There is so much to live for even if that is difficult to see when one is deeply depressed. Set goals and work for them, one by one, if you are well enough to work on goal setting ...

A friend

Agree 100%, Catlady. That type of statement shows ignorance to the extreme.

Regarding cancer cures, I am sitting here as a non-surgical testament to my Oncologist, Radiographers, Nurses, Chemo Nurses and Researchers who cured me of colorectal cancer in 2013. I was discharged, with minimal elevated risk of recurrance last year.

Dave.

"To dismiss it out of hand adds nothing to the discussion" is condescending. I read widely and I am enrolled in a Bachelor of Human Sciences. It has exposed me to hundreds of books, not just Whittaker's book. I understand it has made an impression on you.

Doctors work is based on the best information available from research and there are thousands around the world with research papers and clinical experience, who by the way completely disagree with Breggen's assessment of Ritalin. If you are asking who else has as much credibility you have not looked.