Hi there, while I appreciate your acknowledgement of the reality of psychiatric abuse, and your openmindedness on this issue, I have to assure you that not only are there *many* people who suffer from severe mental illnesses who do much better without psychiatric treatments (meaning these days drugs), but there is a lot of research showing that psych treatments can be the very thing that makes people ill.

I suggest you take a look at Pullitzer-nominated journalist Robert Whitaker's work. He wrote _Mad In America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill_. There is a great article on psych drugs by him at:
http://www.freedom-center.org/pdf/whitakercaseagainstneuroleptics.pdf

You may never have heard of Whitaker's work because he is suppressed by the pro-pharmaceutical atmosphere we currently live in.

I would also suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Hearing Voices movement in the UK -- where thousands of people use self-help groups to manage hallucinations by challenging the orthodox psychiatric approach and listening to and engaging with them. Many do much better without medication.

Our advocacy group Freedom Center, which was recently honored with an AAPD national disability advocacy nomination for our co-founder's work, does not take an anti-medication stance. We take a pro-choice stance. But pro-choice based on accurate information and availability of access to options and alternatives. For all the people who you say you are convinced psychiatry was the only way, we would ask the following:

1. Did they get accurate information about the risks of the drugs they were given, or were pharmaceutical companies and doctors suppressing that info? Tardive dyskinesia, tardive akithesia, increased susceptibility to psychosis, risk of chronic illness, neuroleptic malignancy syndrome, rebound syndrome, liver/kidney failure, diabetes, suicidality, damage to pregnancy... pharmaceutical companies are actively suppressing the dangers of their drugs. And do people get the accurate info on the placebo (sugar pill) effect, and the fact that psych drugs often do no better than placebos in trials (and trials where they don't do better have been suppressed by pharm companies)?

2. Did they get accurate information about the speculative nature of diagnostic labels, or were they fed misinformation that mental illness is biologically and genetically caused by chemical imbalances? There has never been any proof of that, and even the US Surgeon General and APA themselves acknowledge the causes of mental illness have not been determined. The role of trauma, nutrition,and cultural/social/economic factors has consistently been downplayed by a pro-biology bias trying to turn a quick profit (pharm companies have more lobbyists in DC than any other industry). And it is an absolute fallacy to assert that psych drugs work by 'correcting chemical imbalances.' There have never been any proven imbalances except those created by the drugs themselves - which work like street drugs, tranquilizing or stimulating. Neuroleptics are even used in zoos to quiet animals.

3. Were they given information about the effectiveness of alternative treatments? Have you heard the story of Soteria House, which showed non-medication, social support treatments for psychosis as resulting in better outcomes than medication? Read about it at www.moshersoteria.com. Did you know that England, citing risks of pharm drugs out of control, is now promoting talk therapy as a priority over medications considered too risky and ineffective? Do you realize that Canada and Europe don't have the direct to consumer pharm drug advertising that is driving the massive consumption in the US?

We work with many psychiatrists and psych professionals who are progressive, and we don't consider ourselves 'anti-psychiatry.' From your post you sound it is a choice between being anti-psychiatry OR recognizing that people feel helped by psych treatments. Our group validates everyone's experience and accepts people taking or not taking meds. (And clearly, surrounded by pro-psychiatry advertising, it is easier to believe your doctor and the treatments and run with the crowds than to be critical and swim upstream.)

The question is, Are people getting accurate info? No, they are being manipulated by a corrupt industry and science. Do they have access to treatment options? No, it's one size fits all and you can get pills after a 10 minute interview but good luck getting your insurance to cover nutrition, exercise, holistic health or psychotherapy. Are are psych treatments currently being pushed safe? The answer is no, mainstream drug treatments are a big problem in and of themselves that damage many people's lives.

I have friends who are helped to not be manic by Depakote or not flip into psychosis by Abilify. Does recognizing that fact mean I have to be "pro-psychiatry?" No. If I support them making hard choices in a pharm-dominated society, I am not being pro-psychiatry. I acknowledge the serious dangers of these drugs, I acknowledge the fact that pharm companies lie to promote their products, I acknowledge the fact that much better options aren't being made available.

It doesn't have to be either/or. What it does need to be is a honest assessment of the scientific and medical corruption behind modern US psychiatric treatments, beyond the conventional wisdom of the US media, doctors, and pharm companies that have almost completely preempted the discussion of mental illness (and managed to dismiss people like me as lunatic fringe, though the science is on our side).

As far as diagnosis goes, I am happy whenever someone finds a tool to heal. If defining yourself as a mental illness label, or an alcoholic, or a trauma survivor is a useful tool for illuminating patterns and taking your suffering seriously, and getting support from others, that is great. The problem is that these labels are *imposed* on other people without any honest information about their speculative, subjective nature. The fraudulent science of the DSM needs to be exposed. Take a look at Harvard feminist Paula Caplan's work, she actually sat on DSM publication committees and saw the voting and politics at the heart of this pseudo-scientific enterprise. There is also the huge risk that the labels themselves involve: stigma, the self-fulfilling prophecy of seeing yourself as a mental patient, the red-herring of not looking into obvious issues such as trauma and poverty and instead seeing it as "all in your disordered brain," and the risk of buying into the false belief that "I have a biological illness and must take medication" (the latter one is the main reason the number of diagnostic categories grows every year and the number of people diagnosed mentally ill is climbing: market expansion for drug companies).

You seem to have an intelligent approach to these issues. It's a relief to read someone take a more careful look at an area usually driven by rigid polarization, and I am happy to continue this dialog on or offline, and happy to provide you with more of the scientific information suppressed by pharma companies (take a look for example at the British Psychological Society -- hardly a fringe group -- report Recent Advances in Undertanding Mental Illness" at http://www.freedom-center.org/pdf/britishpsychologicalsocietyrecentadvances.pdf). And again I appreciate your acknowledgement of the abuse many have experienced (not just lower class people) in the mental health system.

But you need to look a lot deeper into the real risks of psych treatments, a lot deeper into the fraud of diagnostic categories, and get outside the US-centric perspective that is so pharma-dominated. You need to get beyond your own 'either/or' thinking and realize that being honest about the dangers of psych treatments and the fallacies of psych propaganda does not mean invalidating the experiences of people who use psych drugs in ways they feel are helpful.

Psych treatments nearly killed me. It was only when I got off the drugs and started exploring things on my own, my madness and my schizophrenia diagnosis, that my life got better. That is the experience of many people, though you may not hear about us in the current pro-psych atmosphere.

Wow. Thank you so much for your considered, articulate response, Will. It's so rare that someone engages this subject without anger. It's great.

I'm very interested in everything you say, especially the non-medication approach. I utilize that approach now because, though I do take meds, they don't necessarily take away ALL hallucinations. So I just deal with the ones I have left. I understand that there are lots of people out there who do the same kind of thing, but I guess I've rarely seen it work long-term. But I'm certainly going to do more research, per your suggestion.

I should clarify one thing: When I talk about psychiatric treatment, I am not just talking about drugs. In my opinion, top-flight psych treatment involves care of both the brain and the mind. I don't include 10-minute pill-pushing consultations are adequate psych treatment. In fact, they're nothing but big-pharma promos. The only psych treatment I endorse is a sophisticated assessment of the *whole* person, including life circumstances. My psychiatrist spends an hour with me each week, and we rarely talk about meds. Usually we talk about what's happening in my life and how I'm managing. This is the kind of treatment that I endorse.

I'm aware of the misinformation doled out in the DSM, by the APA, etc. I myself was given ECT without any acknowledgment that I might have memory problems afterward. Years of my life vanished; it was horrible. Still, I wouldn't advocate an outright ban on ECT because, as you say, everyone responds differently.

I will do more research and return to this topic—which is of crucial importance—often.

Everyone: Keep those cards and letters coming!

Hi Will,

If you read this, could you share the steps you took, after getting off your meds, that helped you control your schizophrenia, in more detail?

I haven't been able to go through all the links you provided in too much detail, so if it is already described in one of them, could you pinpoint which one?

Most of what you said makes a lot of sense. But I was just thinking, perhaps one reason why no one would ever refer to themselves as "anti-opthomology" is because there is no legal authority whereby an opthomologist can force you to accept their services whether you want to or not. The free market works with opthomologists because the only way they can have paying customers is to convince people to voluntarily patronize them - and the bad ones will be less likely to have people come to them than the good ones will.

great post liz.

I’d like to share briefly the current, ongoing tale of a good support system provided by the often-maligned insurance industry. (Maligned because in medical care we humans of the 21st century have come to expect caring and efficacy and a bottom line that actually contains the well-being & thereby reduction of the very consumer-base that is insurance’s only source of revenue, of its very existence).

So: an abbreviated history of my physical illness, which in the *whole person* framework includes mental illness.

- insulin dependent diabetes mellitus as a teenager, 4 decades ago (no family history known, but hey! everything has to start SOMEwhere, right?)

- about 35 years later I had become depressed but didn’t know it. I blamed it all on my longtime, increasingly ‘brittle’ (insulin-sensitive) diabetic metabolism.

A family friend, a psychologist-family therapist, spotted it in its rather advanced state & got me into some professional help right away. Although I’m certain that it saved me from suicide, that experience with a psychiatrist (introductory dose of SSRI and some talk appointments) was either wrong or just inadequate and things went rapidly downhill as I quit making appointments and ‘confidently’ quit the meds.

Part of our own failing was the inability or unwillingness of my spouse and me to learn about and critically assess this new condition in my health. We, or certainly I, didn’t know: was I acting strangely because I was slipping into another acute depressive episode or was my much more familiar insulin-dependent life? Until it became really disabling I kept chalking it up to diabetes.

Another lucky intervention came when a close family member visiting from far away saw my state and got me linked up with CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) and they put me through a rigorous diagnostic procedure and therapist matchup. This evidence-based logic worked wonders for me - it reeked of clarity and purposefulness! A life raft (with a searchlight and a rudder) in my sea of molasses. I was to be the motor and the captain (NOTE: these are literary allusions of the moment, not referents during therapy!! GRIN).

And thus the ‘label’ ACUTE CHRONIC DEPRESSION was announced and it helped immensely. I now read about depression, about the SSRI drug families and mechanisms, about the newer combination therapeutic approaches, the ‘case studies’ told by sufferers, and the range & balance from the marvelously varied internet. Without CBT and the internet’s information, I feel sure I would have assumed that it was I who was failing rather suddenly, despite the evidence of a successful and happy life which included four decades of superbly managing my voracious life-partner - my ‘juvenile’ diabetes.

This was far better care. So different from that first year with the psychiatrist! I was treated like a whole person - I got a referral to a psychiatrist MD who prescribed a different drug, after having me undergo more diagnostic questionnaires & interviews and after communicating with my CBT therapy team. This drug + therapy combo (SSRI + cognitive behavioral therapy) worked well for me.

So now it is time for some comparison between my life of diabetes management and of depression.

IDDM is much more mechanistic - the insulins today combined with the ‘instant’ BG meters make physiological corrections immediately available if one is prepared / equipped and trained in the basic glucose metabolism physiology.

SOCIAL
When in social situations (at work, home, in a movie, wherever) IDDM is ‘easy’ to deal with. “I can’t go the the meeting/drive the car/answer the phone just now because I’m checking my glucose/dosing some insulin/having a low ...”. Treat, recover, move on. The label meant everything: simply mention it and people widely form an idea of how to interact that is usually quite appropriate. And it gives me a teaching opportunity on behalf of diabetes education.

DEPRESSION is far more difficult - weeks transpire between onset and response to a change in meds or other therapy modification, to the degree that the ‘label’ is absolutely useless, in my view, in helping on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis. The label works over the longer view, and mentioning it doesn’t really give others knowledge of how to behave with me.

SOCIAL
When you’re walking around or in your office or home no-one knows you are horribly depressed unless it is one of those under-the-covers episodes. And even if you can respond to self-diagnosis (Oh, I’m slipping into real trouble; need to step back and realize I didn’t make this happen; it is not my ‘fault’) you may be unable to get out of that hole on your own.

With Type 1 diabetes no label is needed internally, because the physiologic response is both readily apparent and immediate.

MEDICAL CARE

IDDM enables you to call the endocrinologist or non-MD diabetes care professional and discuss problems or adjust dosage or combinations of insulins on the phone and know insurance will cover it, or that those few minutes of expert advice may be freely given. A diabetes emergency virtually always is safely treated by administration of glucose (by mouth or by glucagon shot) which anyone can do if so informed - wristbands, medallions, wallet cards and even signs on the bus instruct anyone that this is absolutely the safe route to follow if there is even a suspicion of diabetic hypoglycemia.

MENTAL ILLNESS of course is the forlorn stepchild. Is it typical for a distressed patient to *only* have a suicide prevention number to call in an analogous emergency? Does any average person know the safe way to ‘administer life support’ to the suicidally depressed person? No, they don’t, and even worse - the label ‘mentally ill’ doesn’t yet help them to do any better than the lack of it does. The argument voiced by earlier posters doesn’t address the critical need for a socially-understood ‘label’ in the societal embracing of those with and those directly affected by this disease of mental illness.

WHOLENESS + WELLNESS
Now, the good news (and I want to mention a proprietary program now). Out of the blue one day I got a call from Personal Choice’s Health Connection nurse. This is a ‘health maintenance’ program for subscribers with chronic illnesses. Perhaps my records with them clued them in that I might find use in this service, or perhaps I had checked a box on a billing statement or something.

It worked for me, and has continued to work. My ‘health connection’ knows what I said or did or faced in our prior call so there is seamless continuity. The caller either calls at a specific time or interval, or I call them and ask for my HC. One can imagine that this could become either onerous or so unengaging that it is specious. But if it isn’t working then I can change it in any way: cancel, reschedule, choose a different HC, increase the time per call or shorten the interval between calls.

It is almost like talk therapy, almost like a caring parent, almost like an understood social rule (e.g. no jaywalking in busy city streets, shouting wildly in the mall, no diving into the garbage can at the school cafeteria for that uneaten roll). It is a conversation between equals - one of mutual respect: I respect the remoteness & inability of the HC nurse to act like one of my doctors and my HC respects my need to manage without the HC program at any point I choose.

So in the psychiatry-pharmacology vs. anti-psychiatry debate this demonstrates a win for both, together, when stitched with humanity in between. Science really tries to develop useful tools, alternative therapists try to match society’s demand for scientifically-consistent procedures. Mechanisms like progressive health insurers or governments foster *whole person* well being when they suit any case without incurring too great a cost.

I think the “pro-psych” atmosphere is actually what the public came to demand after centuries of snake-oil salesmen giving home remedies a bad name (for the sake of profit). So now it is the job of holistic therapies to convince society that the new shysters have to be set aside. We can do it, too! In recent years American med schools have come to require holistic medicine classes, to mandate courses in communication and ‘bedside manner’. Big insurers are initiating new programs like Health Connection and are covering more ‘preventive’ care just as they tighten their drug formularies to reduce costs. Maybe these are little indicators of an improved delivery of healthcare.

Hi Liz,
I am sorry I came on your site so harshly. I now appreciate your promotion of information and dialogue. I am anti-opthmology because of what those guys did to my vision by making me wear glasses. I am anti-psychiatry because of what those guys did to my eyes and my visions with their medicines. I now wear glasses only to drive - otherwise I am happy in my near-sighted world. I would never willingly take psychiatric drugs - I still maybe plagued by demons at times, but am not at all compromised by them, only made stronger.
I am now working to promote the 26th Annual Bastille Days Celebration/Declaration of the Mental Patients Liberation Alliance (in New York State). The Alliance will be camping out and holding a vigil on the lawn of the state Capitol in Albany for nine days. The focus this year is on the issues of children. Some people will be fasting to call attention to and to stop the use of shock treatment on children. Mail me or bastilledays06@yahoo.com for details. Post here about the use of electro-convulsive treatment (ECT, shock) on children.
Much gratitude to Liz from making this discussion possible.
You are beautiful - be well,
george ebert
Sterling, New York

I just bought Robert Whitaker's Mad in America last night. I'm very eager to read it. Thanks to Will for the suggestion.

This is a good thread, the civility is refreshing and gives hope for mutuality; we have common ground, we all want the same things. Mad In America was my reckoning, took me a year to get through it, my family stories are on those pages, reading and remembering and putting it together was for me, a baptism in fire, an onslaught, left me shook for days.

Anyways, right. Good book, good thread, take care and kind regards.

I am anti-anything (systems, professions, religions) that promote normality versus abnormality in human beings. Consider the historical repercussions of such arbitrary, impossible determinations! Certainly, society can dictate which behaviors violate the human and civil rights of its members and take action to remedy those violations. We have a Constitution, Bill of Rights, legal and criminal justice systems (inadequate though it may be) in place for that purpose.

Any of us may have variances to our biological make-up, personality differences, results of life experiences or environment, or who knows what - that we would wish away, if possible, or choose to alter through a myriad of means...or NOT! It is wrong for others to label such variances as disease. To coerce and mandate (through legislation) that those variances be altered, is an unconscionable affront to our most basic human rights.

I am pro-choice - willing and informed choice. I oppose the monopoly that the psychiatric industry has wielded over society and mental health systems. I do not accept that my brain is diseased because it functions differently than someone elses. Such an arbitrary determination! Such determinations vary throughout history and will continue to do so. The fact that homosexuals are no longer labeled mentally ill is only one, recent example.

Discussing what "works" in assisting ourselves and others to live happy, productive, self-determined lives is one thing. Labeling people sick to allow them to be forcibly "assisted" is quite another - social control should be limited to criminals.

This discussion has touched on many vital aspects of the "mental illness" theory and controversy - does it exist, must people have medical-modeled treatments to live a meaningful life, what are alternatives to that medical model, and more. I see the fundamental question as: who has the right to answer these questions FOR me?

What a great discussion! Whitaker definitely takes us to a new level. Maybe we can have a trans-state conversation about it on July 13 as many of us, here in New York will be sitting on the East Lawn of the State Capitol to cause attention to children's issues from stigma and "mental health" screenings to restraint, seclusion and shock.

There is a petition at Petition Spot to ban the use of shock (ECT) on children for both public and private practitioners.

There are over 425 signatures and hope many more will sign on.

Some of us will also be fasting for Bastille Days from July 8-16 on the East Lawn of the State Capitol building in Albany, NY to cause attention to the issue. This is a great way to support the fasters and make a difference.

Please consider signing it:

www.petitionspot.com/petitions/stopshock

Another really easy way to support the effort is to pass this information on to your network.

The scary thing is that many people think that these issues will not affect them. The fact is that in New York State, the government is planning on having nearly 400,000 more children "screened" for "emotional disturbance" every year with the single largest increase in public "mental health" dollars - ever - $62 million! We are starting to see its effect as it translates into form letters being rolled out by providers for vaguely described services that ask for "consent to bill."

For sure, the future is here - with an investment in telepsychiatry - Jetsons here we are. Restraint. Seclusion. Pharmeceuticals. Aversive shock "therapies" Shock Treatment (electroconvulsive treatment) while all along young people are being misdiagnosed, mismedicated, mistreated and mostly misunderstood. I could go on, but, these are things children should be dealing with? Please help us get the word out!
Hope and Humor ~~10e

Hi, Liz. In response to Will's comments about no biological basis to mental illness: 1) The antipsychiatry crowd always sites the Surgeon General's report out of context. 2) Here's a PubMed link to a biological study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12130784&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

There's many more where that came from.

We need the antipsychiatry movement to keep psychiatry quasi-honest. I hope you guys continue to carry on in the spirit of the late and great Loren Mosher, but please use him as a model for utmost integrity. The same old Thomas Szasz sohpistry is not going to win friends and infuence people.

It wasn't until I was given a diagnosis—a label—that I was able to get the help I needed.

For me getting the Dx meant I didn’t receive Treatment-I was Dxed with BPD. It had only been on the books for 2 – 3 years. I was one of the first Dxed with this in the city I live in. Horrible. I got no treatment bar abuse and lock up. They Drugged me and locked in me cell for 3 months. I left New Zealand for 9 years-was the fear.

I asked at the time what BPD was-They said “You don’t wanta know” WOW. I was 21, never been in psy Ward before.

Now-2006- I have been re labed. Most lee with Anxiety Disorders. I get wonderful treatment. I am with Anxiety Disorder unit-they see my “issues” as Trauma induced. The psychologist I have is Top Rate.he see”s me as person not label. We work well together. Ive not seem a Psy for 3 years. I connect with this man. He cares and sees ME as more than a bruch of stricky note labes
.

Pre This I was seem as BAD not Mad. HAH

Pre 1992 in NZ there was No way a psy or committed person could complain. I was held against my will-terrible abuse happened with in psy Ward.

Also the psychiatric industry seems too go threw labels like clothing. .one year iam this label-next they have widen it.bipolar –they say I had manic attack-now I understand that it was PTSD
Put me in a psy Ward and the PTSD kicks in-so many triggers.

Umm I just wanted to post some thing-Ive enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks.

Please excuse spelling mistakes-Spell checker not all its cracked up too be.

It wasn't until I was given a diagnosis—a label—that I was able to get the help I needed.

For me getting the Dx meant I didn’t receive Treatment-I was Dxed with BPD. It had only been on the books for 2 – 3 years. I was one of the first Dxed with this in the city I live in. Horrible. I got no treatment bar abuse and lock up. They Drugged me and locked in me cell for 3 months. I left New Zealand for 9 years-was the fear.

I asked at the time what BPD was-They said “You don’t wanta know” WOW. I was 21, never been in psy Ward before.

Now-2006- I have been re labed. Most lee with Anxiety Disorders. I get wonderful treatment. I am with Anxiety Disorder unit-they see my “issues” as Trauma induced. The psychologist I have is Top Rate.he see”s me as person not label. We work well together. Ive not seem a Psy for 3 years. I connect with this man. He cares and sees ME as more than a bruch of stricky note labes
.

Pre This I was seem as BAD not Mad. HAH

Pre 1992 in NZ there was No way a psy or committed person could complain. I was held against my will-terrible abuse happened with in psy Ward.

Also the psychiatric industry seems too go threw labels like clothing. .one year iam this label-next they have widen it.bipolar –they say I had manic attack-now I understand that it was PTSD
Put me in a psy Ward and the PTSD kicks in-so many triggers.

Umm I just wanted to post some thing-Ive enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks.

Please excuse spelling mistakes-Spell checker not all its cracked up too be.

Hi all,

I am very glad this discussion has become so dynamic and engaged. I really hope that everyone can keep an open mind and be ready to change your views, because this has been an either/or debate for too long and it is not helping people to heal.

(BTW, there is a ton more info about all this and our work at www.freedom-center.org. We are successful as volunteer peer advocates because we welcome both people taking and not taking psych drugs, and we alert people to the dangers of the drugs, and offer alternatives including free yoga and acupuncture and support groups -- all on a shoestring budget as volunteers. We know firsthand how difficult these dillemas are, and we respect people's choices to take the drugs if they want to.)

Society is being pushed into believing the pharmaceutical companies because people suffering from madness seem to get helped by their drugs. The reality is you don't have to make a choice between "either I am anti-psychiatry or pro-pharmcaceutical." You can instead face the facts of the fraudulent medicine and corrupted science, realize how the drugs actually work and how they don't work, and make a decision on their usefullness for you given the availability, or lack of availability, of options and alternatives, and some accurate information about what the issues are really all about.

I know many people who have been long term diagnosed with severe mental illness living full lives without drugs. Non-drug options DO exist and DO work -- though not everyone has access and opportunity to use them. Which is a real problem, because the drugs have massive risks, including brain damage, organ toxicity, diabetes, and chronic illness. We desperately need to ensure that everyone have access to non-drug alternatives, and be helped to get off psych drugs if they want to -- public medical policy desperately needs to change, and there are signs it is slowly starting to happen. (Psychiatry is kind of the last holdout against the common-sense switch a lot of society is making to holistic health.)

As for some of the comments, I am not quoting the surgeon general out of context -- I actually think the context actually backs up my point nicely, that no causality of biological brain abnormality has ever been established. I'm not trying to cause trouble here, please let's not turn this into a court of law. I am just pointing out that many, many people fall into the "It's my brain. It's abnormal. I must take meds.' line of reasoning. This not only cuts off alternative ways to heal, but obscures the serious dangers, including chronic illness, presented by the drugs themselves. This is exactly how my mom got on prozac -- she told me one day "I went to the doctor, and it was decided I have a chemical imbalance, and need to be on medication." That belief and statement from her docs is false. That is my point, not semantics.

The point I am making is not about the meaning of the phrase 'biological basis' of mental illness, whatever 'basis' means. (There is a biological "basis" to *everything*, even your computer -- designed by animals, biological). The point is not to start to spin out into semantic back and forth and linguistic hair splitting (it's amusing to see how the establishment mental health industry does just this with their 'biopsychosocial' jargon, which basically means, 'We're not sure, but please include the drugs!').

The point I want everyone to understand is simple: don't believe pills are the only answer or that you need them to correct brain abnormalities or that they are safe. Science doesn't support these beliefs, regardless of how often you hear them in drug ads. There has never been a brain disorder chemical imbalance shown consistently in cases of mental illness. Not even a 'necessary but insufficient' cause, as is claimed by the spin about 'predispositions' and 'vulnerabilities.' It's all conjecture -- backed up by huge profits. There has never even been a baseline established for so called 'normal' levels of neurotransmitters! I am diagnosed with schizophrenia. My brain is normal. Science has never proven otherwise. The brain is massively complex. Trying to claim I am biologically or genetically abnormal is an affront to my humanity with disturbing resonance to naziism.

Check out John Horgan, Discover magazine writer, who wrote an excellent debunking of the hubris of neuroscience: _The Undiscovered Mind: How the Human Brain Defies Replication, Medication, and Explanation_.

For example, people with schizophrenia have been shown to have high, low, medium levels of dopamine -- same as people without schizophrenia. Nothing conclusive has ever been reached, and never will. This is an industry, remember, that came up with the Dopamine Theory of schizophrenia by working backwards from the sedating effects of neuroleptic drugs -- if the drugs sedate people with schizophrenia, and the drugs affect dopamine, then they must have a dopamine imbalance. Seriously, this is the logic they used, check out Robert Whitaker's book. Which means that all of you out there who manage your anxiety with alcohol at night must have alcohol deficiency, or something!

This is also an industry that gave the inventor of lobotomy a Nobel Prize, by the way. Keep that in mind anytime some doctor tells you the risks of psych drugs are 'worth it' given the risks of psychosis -- that is exactly the logic of lobotomy. It is the same either/or impasse that ignores the urgent need for recognizing **alternatives** to toxic drugs that do work. Yes you will meet people who say electroshock helped them. What other options, really, were they given? What kind of accurate information were they given on the risks?

My conclusion from studying this issue is that shock should be banned, it causes too much harm and there are too many other alternatives that are not being pursued. (Check out this article about the first successfull suit against electroshock for causing memory loss -- and consider a moment what memory loss might mean to you, losing your personality and self hood.)

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/07/08.php

To illustrate this dilemma: I was pressured into getting electroshock therapy when I was locked up in the hospital. They said it was the treatment of last resort because they had tried everything else. Meaning they had tried all other drugs. I didn't do electroshock, and when I got out of the hospital a western MD (not a holistic one, mind you) gave me allergy tests and concluded I had allergies to chocolate and milk. I asked him what the signs of an allergic reaction were, and he said many things, including anxiety, depression, fatigue, confusion! Every single meal in the hospital I ate chocolate milk. Every meal. So much for 'trying everything' and 'treatments of last resort.'

The point I am trying to make is very simple: if you want to use psych drugs to treat mental distress, do it for sound reasons, don't buy into pharma and psychiatric propaganda that you are treating known chemical imbalances by correcting them. *That* is the point of the discussion, not getting into semantics. The reality is that many, many people think they are 'correcting their chemical imbalances' because they have been told this by corrupted science and pill company advertising. If drugs for schizophrenia are correcting chemical imbalances, why are they used by veterinarians and in zoos to calm wild animals? Because the innovation of these drugs was not treating mental illness abnormalities, their innovation was calming people without putting them to sleep - by chemically disabling higher brain functioning (originally neuroleptics were favorable advertised as chemical lobotomies!).

The fact of the neurotransmitter theory failure is evidenced by the growing interest in a completely new line of research -- hormones. The morning after pill is being pushed as an anti-depressant now, and it has no role in the neurotransmitters we are supposed to believe cause mental illness. Zero. Again, this is not to say that psych drugs or even the morning after pill might not make you feel differently, certainly messing around with your hormones is going to affect your mood! Only that the way these drugs make you feel differently is not by fixing your abnormal brain and correcting imbalances that have been shown to be the cause of your distress. These drugs create imbalances they way any psychoactive drugs create imbalances. Prozac functions chemically in the brain similar to oral cocaine.

The anti-depressant craze is thankfully starting to wane, as people realize not only are these drugs not correcting their imbalances, they don't even help with depression much really (placebo studies, many suppressed by the industry, show this) -- and they have huge risks, including suicide. Leading docs in the medical establishment in England also recently said talk therapy is the preference over pills for depression and schizophrenia -- that's right, a stunning rebuke to the 'biological causality' line in a country with a national health service less bought and sold by the pharma companies: Check out:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1800776,00.html?gusrc=rss

As for the Science 2002 article, I encourage people to take a look at it. I have not analyzed the study but it is like a mountain of such studies pouring out over the mainstream, full of words like 'associated with' that offer nothing conclusive. Authors frequently have financial ties to pill companies, the results are skewed...all of the scandals we are hearing about more and more these days. Take a look at the Alliance for Human Research Protection at http://www.ahrp.org/ for a detailed examination of all the evidence emerging about the corrupted science driven by pill company profits.

I'm pretty busy with a number of things in my life, so I and haven't got time to do the debunking job other writers do. Take a look at Elliott Valenstein, award winning neuroscientist has done in his excellent book _Blaming The Brain_. His credentials as a world-reknowned and award winning neuroscientist are even more impressive than Robert Whitaker's as a Pulitzer-nominated journalist. Take a look at Valenstein's book and tell me the brain has ever been isolated and proven to be the biological cause of mental illness. It's not going to happen.

In the mean time, let's stick to the issue at hand-- what is the best way to help people, and what are the FACTS about these issues that are being distorted and suppressed on the profit motive. The only reason I debunk the biological causality argument is because of the IMPLICATIONS of the argument, implications which are completely wrong:

1. you always have to take meds to get better
2. meds correct brain abnormalities
3. you are genetically inferior, probably shouldn't have kids
4. you're ill forever and always need meds

Even the New York Times, which I was recently quoted in, is coming around to the conclusiion that No, this is not how schizophrenia works. Take a look at:

Revisiting Schizophrenia: Are Drugs Always Needed? at http://www.freedom-center.org/pdf/NYT3-21-06AreSchizophreniaDrugsAlwaysNeeded.pdf

A study not mentioned in the NYT article is Soteria House, an experiment which showed non-drug approaches have better outcomes than drug approaches for schizophrenia. The house lost its funding b.c it threatened the pharma dogma. You can read about it here:

http://www.moshersoteria.com/

One of the reasons we created the Freedom Center is to share stories about how people get off meds and manage their madness without. Not everyone can or should pursue going off meds, but we all have the right to hear these stories and decide for ourselves. For me, I had to deal with a number of things:

1. get off sugar and caffeine
2. get off food allergens including milk and gluten.
3. get into yoga and meditation
4. see holistic health providers including acupuncturists and a homeopath
5. start to deal with the trauma and violence in my past
6. connect with other people who shared my experience
7. validate my spiritual beliefs and non-ordinary states of consciousness.

As for the trauma and violence, recognizing this does not mean blaming the parents or anyone, it means facing facts about how devastating violence can be, and recognizing that perpetrators -- who are often parents -- are usually victims themselves. After being crowded out by the "it's biological" profit wave, research is starting to come back around to this obvious and clear connection between trauma and schizophrenia: Check out
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060614120625.htm

This is not to say that what helped me will help everyone. One size does not fit all and I am not 'anti-psychiatry,' because I have friends who are radical psychiatrists who agree with my work and because I know and respect many people who make the hard decision to take psych drugs. But I do wish I had been given options and accurate info before taking psych drugs, which were harmful to me and which have some lasting negative effects on me. I came out of the system with more trauma from the restraints and lockup and drugs than I went in, and my healing work was doubled -- deal with my madness AND deal with the impact the system had on me.

I hope this discussion has been helpful for people. It always seems to start to get into a back-and-forth about science or whatever. That's really not what it's about -- all the accurate science is there for you to read, and if you still want to argue, I guess that is your choice. I really hope people get my main message, which is that my life, as someone who has gone through hell with a schizophrenia diagnosis, was made worse by the mental health system, and we need to create alternatives based on sound science and effective treatments. Right now the show is run by pharmaceutical profiteering and corrupted science, and people are being harmed, not helped.

My issue is Zyprexa which is only FDA approved for schizophrenia (.5-1% of pop) and some bipolar (2% pop) and then an even smaller percentage of theses two groups.
So how does Zyprexa get to be the 7th largest drug sale in the world?

Eli Lilly is in deep trouble for using their drug reps to 'encourage' doctors to write zyprexa for non-FDA approved 'off label' uses.

The drug causes increased diabetes risk,and medicare picks up all the expensive fallout.There are now 7 states (and counting) going after Lilly for fraud and restitution.

--
Daniel Haszard

I've been seeing a Psychoanalyst for almost 2 years and it has done nothing but help me. I feel like being uncomfortable with the name of your particular illness, which are very specific, with specific symptoms, that have been tested over and over gain to the point of absurdity is rediculous and all the more reason to consult a psychiatrist to see, why, exactly, you are so uncomfortable with a name. I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, and have since then been taking Lithium which is the most stigmatized of all psyciatric drugs. It has helped me SO much, and my psychoanalyst really tries to dig and find the reason why i got this way. It's very frustrating to me when people try to devalue psychiatry as a pseudo-science, because there is no idealism held by it that hasn't been tested empirically. (except, perhaps, some of the crazy Jungian Personality Theories)

I'm glad people here are reading Bob's book. He's a great guy, but is quite humble. He always tells people to "learn for themselves" and not trust random information thrown at them...

It's not so much that those with mental illness are helped by medication-it's that people with MI don't lobby for/demand BETTER medication/treatments.

We need not limit our medical imagination to a pill. There are so many ways to treat disorders. Wouldn't it be great if instead of taking an anti-depressant, an anti-psychotic, and a mood stabilizer for most of your life (or an indeterminate amount of time) you could get a one time treatment, or take a supplement, or do anything less invasive with less side-effects?

It's not as if psychiatric medicine has NO side effects and works for EVERYONE. Helps some, neutral for others, hurts some. Not the greatest review in the world no matter what your sources or belief system is.

I say that the MI community (or mental wellness) gets together and demands BETTER research to develop BETTER treatments.

When it comes down to it, being on medication or getting invasive treatments for life is pretty awful, no matter what you are being treated for.