• TDS Moderators: AlphaMethylPhenyl | Eligiu | deficiT

Mental Health Psychiatric Treatments Debate vs trot out your medications bias and lemme at it

Have you seen any of us in favor of medication telling everyone else here to take medication?
It's mostly about "stay on your medication or risk dire consequences", or "if you have any symptoms, see your doctor".

There's simply no question that long term neuroleptic drug use causes neurological damage.

In my opinion, medication for any mental health issue should be the very last resort. If you want to really help someone in mental distress, help them by leaving no stone unturned in the quest to find out what has happened, neurologically. That takes a lot of work, research, and introspection. Neuroleptic drugs don't fix anything, they just cover up symptoms, and often cause the symptoms that they are supposed to alleviate.

I know of 4 people personally who developed psychosis from recreational drug use. If you ask any psychiatrist, they will say those people were "self-medicating". Most psychiatrists would be out of work if they didn't belief in medicating nearly every psychotic episode or mental health crises.
 
I mean, as we talked about previously, we simply don't know enough about the nervous system to know the exact physio-chemical causes of mental illnesses. Oftentimes though the mental source can be discovered if one is amenable to the rules of working therapy.

Natural and synthetic chemicals alike act as band-aids. For instance, weed has to be used regularly to improve mood.

I think I can follow some of what you're saying, though. You want people to be treated as individuals, and to have their treatment plan more tailored to their specific case.

However, I think you're speaking from a position of a very vague, absolutist idealist. You have a lot of criticisms of the system, and that's okay, but you never or rarely propose a specific plan that would be better (unless I missed a few posts, which I may have).
 
It seems to me that the medical industry largely just responds to the input they get from the general population (when it comes to psychiatric distress). People come in all the time and complain about how much their life sucks, how depressed and anxious they are, how alienated they are from their own existence. How are you supposed to respond to that, especially considering the fact that people want some sort of immediate relief NOW, not weeks from now, but NOW! I'm not a huge fan of psychiatric medicine (sedative hypnotics increasingly make me feel like a zombie) but I understand why they're prescribed. It's easier for a GP with a schedule to keep to just write a script than to break down every single thing the depressed patient is doing in regards to their mode of thought, their diet, etc.

Neuroleptics, on the other hand...those are serious, serious drugs. I don't think I'd ever willingly take them.
 
... we simply don't know enough about the nervous system to know the exact physio-chemical causes of mental illnesses....

I must say that I agree with everything you said in your post, except for your description of me personally.

I suppose that you could describe me as an idealist, since I dislike the current psychiatric profiles and like to focus on 'what could be'. There's probably no question that the changes I would like to see in the mental health profession may never happen in our lifetimes. But to suggest that I'm an absolute idealist, is going a bit too far, as a philosophical concept. I'm guessing that you would consider yourself to be a realist.

I think it would be impossible to describe a comprehensive plan that would work for everyone. Even if it were possible, compliance would be a problem for a whole host of reasons. For example, many posters on this site will tell you that without a doubt, they experienced a 'THC-induced psychotic episode'. They know that in order to stay free of future episodes, they will have to carefully monitor or even completely eliminate their ingestion of THC. That's it. It may be a simple solution, but whether they can, or will, or really need to is another story.

There is one treatment option that shows tremendous promise for treatment of a variety of mental illnesses, including "schizophrenia", "bi-polar", "PTSD","social anxiety" (all of which I consider psychologically damaging labels which are abhorrent and nearly useless). It is CBD oil - cheap, simple, effective and without noticeable side-effects. I think it's criminal that this remarkable substance isn't legalized and embraced world-wide for immediate use in mental health care facilities. I believe that the only reason it is not, is that it would do devastating damage to pharmaceutical industries.

In some cases psychosis may have been caused or exacerbated by a combination of things like a chemical neurotoxin in their environment, or a caffeine allergy, a brain injury, nicotine, alcohol abuse, malnutrition, dehydration, a virus, lack of exercise, lack of sleep, etc. In these cases it would obviously take a while to figure out what happened.

So for many people the exact cause of their psychosis is a bit of a puzzle. They may be convinced that stress was the cause of their psychotic break. Perhaps is was, indirectly. But what specifically caused it? Was is a stress-induced vitamin deficiency? Which vitamin? Research has shown that animals produce huge amounts of vitamin C as one of the biological responses to stress, and B complex vitamins are depleted also. Human beings are incapable of manufacturing vitamin C within their own bodies, unlike other animals. If the vitamin C is so necessary under stress, then what happens to normal neurological function when there is severe long term shortage? Perhaps the episode was a result of long term changes in the brain due to stress-induced cortisol damage? (See link).

Can these changes be fixed? if so, how? We won't ever know until scientists and psychiatrists really start looking, rather than being content with masking the symptoms.

The point I am trying to make is that in every case, there is a reason for a mental illness, or more aptly a neurological malfunction. The reason may not be easy to find, but 98% of the psychiatrists that I know about, will insist on medicating most mental illnesses, and not try to find the cause. In my opinion, that's a travesty. It should be a rare occurrence that patients must resort to medication. Hopefully, one day, we will see more valid research and have better answers for even the most difficult cases. So I think, in essence, we agree.
 
Good post Hilary. So much to learn about the human brain, yet so much money on the line. I also hope that some progress can be made. I agree that the Rx pad is quick to come out and I fear the long term effects for people who were prescribed early in life. It's hard to say which came first, the chicken or the egg in many cases.

At the same time I also understand that we have to work with what we have. Allowing patients to go unmedicated (untreated given our current system) can also be dangerous. The risk of suicide is too high in my opinion.

I doubt that I can find a psych doctor who will recommend unconventional treatment, but then again I think that's the point of your post.

One of my children is a neuroscience major graduating soon with a bs. She doesn't report anyone even talking about this subject, at least but at the undergrad level. So change in the field must be far in the future.
 
One of my children is a neuroscience major graduating soon with a bs. She doesn't report anyone even talking about this subject, at least but at the undergrad level. So change in the field must be far in the future.

Thanks for your post sliceofcake. Bravo to your daughter for her school work. She will be part of the revolution in the mental health career fields, I hope.

I thought you might be interested to hear of " the University of Vermont’s first medical cannabis course in the College of Medicine’s Department of Pharmacology, scheduled for the spring 2016 semester. It’s possibly the first academic program of its kind nationwide, but clearly needed as acceptance of marijuana for medical and recreational use continues to gain legal backing in more states and physicians and scientists seek more information about how it acts in the body."

This appears to be the first course on cannabis offered in a well-respected public univerisity that is concentrating on the pharmacological effects of cannabis, rather than just growing and selling. They expect to soon offer continuing education courses for physicians who want to know more about prescribing cannabis, or any of it's compounds.
 
Is it not highly possible that the extreme increase in kids diagnosed with ADHD,Aspergers and Autism is due to the prolific use of vaccinating infants from the the age of six months on wards. Concerning to say the least is the FDA/Pharma annually change the vaccination programs leaving zero time to calculate effects/response let alone long term effects. Yes the USA have it worse at present, I think the state make vaccination compulsory, UK is on the way though. My son was on the verge of death for two years after they fiddled around with the HIB combination vaccine and I have refused all vaccinations since. Professor Wakefield was witch hunted from the UK, thrown out of the Great Ormond St Hospital for his research and findings on the dangers of conjugate vaccines and the connection to autism. As for the mercury additives etc. Bombarding tiny babies immune systems with live diseases in one shot is madness. No wonder so many kids are suffering and now teenagers and adults. By the way anyone who suggests that children that are already showing signs of possible mental health problems be removed from their parents made a negligent, ignorant poorly thought out statement that I don't feel should have been posted. They should try lookng after a sick child 24/7.
 
Is it not highly possible that the extreme increase in kids diagnosed with ADHD,Aspergers and Autism is due to the prolific use of vaccinating infants from the the age of six months on wards. Concerning to say the least is the FDA/Pharma annually change the vaccination programs leaving zero time to calculate effects/response let alone long term effects. Yes the USA have it worse at present, I think the state make vaccination compulsory, UK is on the way though. My son was on the verge of death for two years after they fiddled around with the HIB combination vaccine and I have refused all vaccinations since. Professor Wakefield was witch hunted from the UK, thrown out of the Great Ormond St Hospital for his research and findings on the dangers of conjugate vaccines and the connection to autism. As for the mercury additives etc. Bombarding tiny babies immune systems with live diseases in one shot is madness. No wonder so many kids are suffering and now teenagers and adults. By the way anyone who suggests that children that are already showing signs of possible mental health problems be removed from their parents made a negligent, ignorant poorly thought out statement that I don't feel should have been posted. They should try lookng after a sick child 24/7.

Do you understand why Wakefield's paper was retracted from The Lancet?
 
I understand why they claimed Wakefield's paper was removed from The Lancet and if I held The Lancet in such high regard quite simply my son would have been dead by the age of 2 years old. Why do the Department of Health have a Vaccine Damage Unit when allegedly vaccines are safe? The emphasis on the subject was not intended to be just about Wakefield but the general irresponsibility of the vaccination programs. It is not until you and your children are directly effeted by it that you have no choice but to face the reality. Through ancient history the most effective form of attack is to undermine, disparage and make false allegations against your opponents. It still is. This matter is now closed as far as I am concerned, I have said what I needed to say and still have in my three bulging files a quite openly threatening letter from the Department of Health to basically shut the fuck up and go away.
 
I understand why they claimed Wakefield's paper was removed from The Lancet and if I held The Lancet in such high regard quite simply my son would have been dead by the age of 2 years old. Why do the Department of Health have a Vaccine Damage Unit when allegedly vaccines are safe? The emphasis on the subject was not intended to be just about Wakefield but the general irresponsibility of the vaccination programs. It is not until you and your children are directly effeted by it that you have no choice but to face the reality. Through ancient history the most effective form of attack is to undermine, disparage and make false allegations against your opponents. It still is. This matter is now closed as far as I am concerned, I have said what I needed to say and still have in my three bulging files a quite openly threatening letter from the Department of Health to basically shut the fuck up and go away.

I'm sorry something happened to your child. The study Wakefield did contained falsified evidence, other professionals couldn't replicate his findings, and he didn't declare financial interests that would bias him. Even then, the study was a poor one to prove anything, with a tiny sample size. The claim that vaccines cause autism mainly comes from his work, and no decent study provides any evidence for the link. The claim is based on nothing but fear-mongering and media hype, and kind of insulting - I'm autistic and have ADHD, and that's honestly such a potential tragedy to some people that the idea of life threatening illnesses are better (to repeat, there's absolutely no causal link at all, but just the idea that there might be is enough to put people off)? After the media hype around his study, vaccination rates declined and rates of measles went up (being declared endemic again after previously being under control), which is a tragedy. Whilst it's natural to not trust something like The Lancet, and the journal system is by no means perfect, solid peer-reviewed studies are some of the best sources we have when it comes to seeing whether something is true or not.
 
From the research I've done I'm pretty convinced that all Psychiatric drugs, with the possible exception of SSRI's, cause some permanent brain damage after long term use.

...


Neuroleptics: These are without a doubt the most damaging drugs in psychiatry, and arguably the most damaging drugs known to man. The risks of these drugs outweight the benefits in almost all cases. They shrink the human brain by up to 10%, cause Diabetes, reduce life expectancy, cause permanent brain damage and obvious movement disorders. They strip away your personality. It has been repeatedly proven that people who take these drugs have a worse prognosis than those who don't. Some would argue that the newer agents cause less severe brain damage, yet this advantage is counteracted by the tendency they have to make people obese and grow breasts. If you claim these drugs don't cause any lasting damage, then I dare you to take haloperidol or risperidone for a year and see what happens to your body and brain.

Your research clearly hasn't included reading the rest of the thread you're commenting on, because a number of people have identified themselves as being successfully medicated with antipsychotics long term. Your challenge has been met repeatedly by the people you're talking to.

've been taking antipsychotics since I was 19 and the side effects - which I have never denied exist - are 100% worth my current stable, high functioning and happy mental state. I and the others like me who take neuroleptics to remain healthy while working, studying and generally engaging in a functional manner with the world would emphatically deny that it has been "proved" that people on medication have a worse prognosis than those who don't - and I'd say that from an academic perspective as well as a personal one.

Is it not highly possible that the extreme increase in kids diagnosed with ADHD,Aspergers and Autism is due to the prolific use of vaccinating infants from the the age of six months on wards.

No. This is not supported by the scientific literature in any way.
 
Not trying to be ignorant here, but I don’t feel that reading the posts on this thread really constitutes any valid argument in favor of anti-psychotics. Sure there are some people who respond well to medication, (if you don’t count the side-effects), but there’s plenty of more recent research that shows people do better in the long run when they are not medicated for serious mental illness.

...I appreciate there may a fine line between using supplements & self-medicating in certain instances but certainly no-one should be advising someone to use supplements in place of seeking professional help where it is needed.

I agree with you that this is a very difficult, emotionally fraught subject. Many supplements and lifestyle changes are helpful for treating mental illness (i.e. CBD oil, omega 3's, B complex vitamins, sufficient sleep, exercise, etc.) There are certainly some problems with CBD - no standardized ingredients, insufficient scientific research, lack of quality control with the many products that are available. Also the FDA has sent warning letters to several suppliers for unsubstantiated claims.

While there have been a few scientific studies which showed standardized CBD compounds to be remarkably effective for schizophrenia and other mental illnesses, it is not effective 100% of the time. However, the biggest advantage that I can see, is that CBD oil has no significant reported side effects.

On the other hand, from what I've seen, a psychiatrist will often start off with prescribing drugs, which can and usually do cause some really serious problems from unanticipated side effects (plus many expected side effects). Some will even die from their medication.

My son is now completely disabled from an unwarranted shot of Invega Sustenna. He's miserable - can't work, attend school, and has a lot of trouble just communicating. We expect him to continue to feel bad for the next year. Now he's worried that he may never recover. I have yet to hear of anyone who completely recovered from their injections, after an initial bad reaction. But my son's psychiatrist (who we don’t see any more) just thinks he needs more drugs. The same thing happened to my youngest brother, except that he was forced to take the medication while in prison. The mother of one of my childhood friends committed suicide after starting anti-depressants. My friend and next-door neighbor suffered tremendously from the side-effects from an anti-anxiety drug. I helped her while she was trying to get off the medication. The thing that really seems to help her more than medication is music and exercise.

I am acutely aware that suggesting that someone not see a psychiatrist is a cardinal sin in the mental health profession. I suspect that we may be polar opposites on that position.

I am more of the opinion that a DSM diagnosis from a psychiatrist is a defamatory label with far-reaching consequences. It implies some biologic cause over which the client has no control. For example, someone with the label 'schizophrenia' will carry that label like a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives. Once a schizophrenic, always a schizophrenic, although maybe 'in remission'; once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic, or a 'recovering alcoholic, etc.

I therefore find it preferable to suggest treatment options that will probably be healthier overall and more effective in the long run. Many people believe their psychosis was a result of regular long term use of THC, the psychoactive component of marijuana. If CBD is the compound in marijuana that acts as a neuro-protectant and anti-psychotic, I think it would be irresponsible not to suggest that that CBD would be the most effective treatment.
 
Not trying to be ignorant here, but I don’t feel that reading the posts on this thread really constitutes any valid argument in favor of anti-psychotics. Sure there are some people who respond well to medication, (if you don’t count the side-effects), but there’s plenty of more recent research that shows people do better in the long run when they are not medicated for serious mental illness.



I agree with you that this is a very difficult, emotionally fraught subject. Many supplements and lifestyle changes are helpful for treating mental illness (i.e. CBD oil, omega 3's, B complex vitamins, sufficient sleep, exercise, etc.) There are certainly some problems with CBD - no standardized ingredients, insufficient scientific research, lack of quality control with the many products that are available. Also the FDA has sent warning letters to several suppliers for unsubstantiated claims.

While there have been a few scientific studies which showed standardized CBD compounds to be remarkably effective for schizophrenia and other mental illnesses, it is not effective 100% of the time. However, the biggest advantage that I can see, is that CBD oil has no significant reported side effects.

On the other hand, from what I've seen, a psychiatrist will often start off with prescribing drugs, which can and usually do cause some really serious problems from unanticipated side effects (plus many expected side effects). Some will even die from their medication.

My son is now completely disabled from an unwarranted shot of Invega Sustenna. He's miserable - can't work, attend school, and has a lot of trouble just communicating. We expect him to continue to feel bad for the next year. Now he's worried that he may never recover. I have yet to hear of anyone who completely recovered from their injections, after an initial bad reaction. But my son's psychiatrist (who we don’t see any more) just thinks he needs more drugs. The same thing happened to my youngest brother, except that he was forced to take the medication while in prison. The mother of one of my childhood friends committed suicide after starting anti-depressants. My friend and next-door neighbor suffered tremendously from the side-effects from an anti-anxiety drug. I helped her while she was trying to get off the medication. The thing that really seems to help her more than medication is music and exercise.

I am acutely aware that suggesting that someone not see a psychiatrist is a cardinal sin in the mental health profession. I suspect that we may be polar opposites on that position.

I am more of the opinion that a DSM diagnosis from a psychiatrist is a defamatory label with far-reaching consequences. It implies some biologic cause over which the client has no control. For example, someone with the label 'schizophrenia' will carry that label like a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives. Once a schizophrenic, always a schizophrenic, although maybe 'in remission'; once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic, or a 'recovering alcoholic, etc.

I therefore find it preferable to suggest treatment options that will probably be healthier overall and more effective in the long run. Many people believe their psychosis was a result of regular long term use of THC, the psychoactive component of marijuana. If CBD is the compound in marijuana that acts as a neuro-protectant and anti-psychotic, I think it would be irresponsible not to suggest that that CBD would be the most effective treatment.

Haven't tried CBD yet, going to give high CBD marijuana a shot first, but I agree with everything you said as someone with the label of schizophrenia.

Sometimes it angers me that a site like this and some of its users condone you for speaking out against antipsychotic medication use. Isnt the point of a community like this to offer all options to its users?

Ive been on antipsychotics for 10 years now and they have done nothing for me but make me feel hopeless.

Anyways Im glad your a part of this community Hilary, dont leave anytime soon. Hope your son recovers.
 
Haven't tried CBD yet, going to give high CBD marijuana a shot first, but I agree with everything you said as someone with the label of schizophrenia.

Sometimes it angers me that a site like this and some of its users condone you for speaking out against antipsychotic medication use. Isnt the point of a community like this to offer all options to its users?

Ive been on antipsychotics for 10 years now and they have done nothing for me but make me feel hopeless.

Anyways Im glad your a part of this community Hilary, dont leave anytime soon. Hope your son recovers.

Thank you for your kind words. It's especially thoughtful, considering you are not feeling well either. I am sorry you are going through this.

What I feel for my son is a pain that goes to the very core of my being. I have told him many times that I wish I could trade places with him. I believe that he will get over this, but it will be the hardest thing he's ever had to do.

Since you have been struggling with anti-psychotics I think you should be very leery of trying high-CBD marijuana. Most strains still have a considerable amount of THC, and THC has been implicated in causing psychosis. A good quality CBD product (which usually comes from industrial hemp) might be helpful and it is considered a fairly innocuous 'food supplement'. But a high CBD strain of marijuana (even if it is a standardized product from a dispensary) is another matter entirely. It is also another serious matter if you are suggesting stopping anti-psychotics and substituting your own treatment. I would feel partly responsible if it didn't go well. Getting off psychotropic drugs is no picnic. I'm not sure if it's a DYI project.

If you're interested, this is a site I like with a listing of alternative healthcare psychiatrists and facilities:
Safe Harbour Practitioners
 
Thank you for your kind words. It's especially thoughtful, considering you are not feeling well either. I am sorry you are going through this.

What I feel for my son is a pain that goes to the very core of my being. I have told him many times that I wish I could trade places with him. I believe that he will get over this, but it will be the hardest thing he's ever had to do.

Since you have been struggling with anti-psychotics I think you should be very leery of trying high-CBD marijuana. Most strains still have a considerable amount of THC, and THC has been implicated in causing psychosis. A good quality CBD product (which usually comes from industrial hemp) might be helpful and it is considered a fairly innocuous 'food supplement'. But a high CBD strain of marijuana (even if it is a standardized product from a dispensary) is another matter entirely. It is also another serious matter if you are suggesting stopping anti-psychotics and substituting your own treatment. I would feel partly responsible if it didn't go well. Getting off psychotropic drugs is no picnic. I'm not sure if it's a DYI project.

If you're interested, this is a site I like with a listing of alternative healthcare psychiatrists and facilities:
Safe Harbour Practitioners

Ive been smoking marijuana for a year, just havent tried a high CBD variant. I recently stopped smoking to find a job but will resume once Im situated.

I know well about psychosis from drugs but I love weed too much to stop. It makes me feel way better than any antidepressent could ever do.

I am always making sure I smoke a fair amount, never too much.
 
Ive been smoking marijuana for a year, just havent tried a high CBD variant. I recently stopped smoking to find a job but will resume once Im situated.

I know well about psychosis from drugs but I love weed too much to stop. It makes me feel way better than any antidepressent could ever do.

I am always making sure I smoke a fair amount, never too much.

I wish you good luck with your job search and all that you're doing to feel better.

Hopefully one day we will all be able to legally do the common sense things we need to to do to help ourselves and our loved ones feel better.
 
I have been backing up my claims, repeatedly.

Long-term Antipsychotic Treatment and Brain Volumes

Effects of long-term prolactin-raising antipsychotic medication on bone mineral density in patients with schizophrenia with schizophrenia

The dementia antipsychotic withdrawal trial (DART-AD): long-term follow-up

A Call for Caution on Antipsychotic Drugs

Does Long Term Use of “Antipsychotic” Drugs Result in More Disability, and More Psychosis?

Long-term Antipsychotics – making sense of the evidence


Antipsychotic Drug Side Effects
[h=1]Abilify Is Top-Selling U.S. Drug -- But New Reports Question Long-Term Antipsychotic Use, Cite Need for Personalized Services[/h][h=1]A psychiatrist thinks some patients are better off without antipsychotic drugs[/h]Anatomy of an Epidemic (A Case of Investigative Journalism)

I could go on and on with more links to data implicating the dangers of the long-term use of Psychotropic drugs. It’s surprising really, considering most drug studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies with a vested interest in showing the long-term efficacy of psychotropic drugs. So far, they have not been able to do that.

Opposing viewpoints may be found with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Psych Central, etc. One pro-drug blogger (i.e. Natasha Tracy, who is diagnosed with ‘bipolar disorder’) will even go as far as suggesting that brain shrinkage could be a good thing. Really?

Loss of Grey matter happens as a result of Schizophrenia not the meds as far as i know. Also not all anti-psychotics are created equal. While taking Haldol or Clopixol long term will no doubt result in some cognitive problems other anti-psychotics such as Clozapine and Quetiapine tend not to cause problems such as TD. In fact Clozapine doesn't cause EPS at all as it's not a strong D2 antagonist at all and may actually be neuroprotective. Quetiapine taken by itself seems to very rarely cause EPS at all because of it's weak affinity for the D2 receptor.

Basically it's high potency D2 antagonists like Haloperidol, Pimozide, Zuclopenthixol, Risperidone and others that cause problems such as high prolactin levels and EPS. Anti-psychotics with low or even virtually no affinity for the D2 receptor such as Clozapine and Quetiapine very rarely cause these problems. In either case leaving Bipolar disorder or Schizophrenia untreated is far worse then treating it with anti-psychotics. I have been on and off various anti-psychotics for over a decade and i have never had a serious adverse reaction to any of them. Even the older typical anti-psychotics such as Thorazine/Largactil, Methotrimeprazine and prochlorperazine have never caused me any problems and personally i would much rather put up with the minor side effects i get from these meds then put up with untreated Bipolar disorder. The only one i really hate taking is Risperidone as it tends to make me feel like a zombie when i get over 2mg's a day and it doesn't work great for my Bipolar anyway.
 
I have been backing up my claims, repeatedly.

Long-term Antipsychotic Treatment and Brain Volumes

Effects of long-term prolactin-raising antipsychotic medication on bone mineral density in patients with schizophrenia with schizophrenia

The dementia antipsychotic withdrawal trial (DART-AD): long-term follow-up

A Call for Caution on Antipsychotic Drugs

Does Long Term Use of “Antipsychotic” Drugs Result in More Disability, and More Psychosis?

Long-term Antipsychotics – making sense of the evidence


Antipsychotic Drug Side Effects
[h=1]Abilify Is Top-Selling U.S. Drug -- But New Reports Question Long-Term Antipsychotic Use, Cite Need for Personalized Services[/h][h=1]A psychiatrist thinks some patients are better off without antipsychotic drugs[/h]Anatomy of an Epidemic (A Case of Investigative Journalism)

I could go on and on with more links to data implicating the dangers of the long-term use of Psychotropic drugs. It’s surprising really, considering most drug studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies with a vested interest in showing the long-term efficacy of psychotropic drugs. So far, they have not been able to do that.

Opposing viewpoints may be found with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Psych Central, etc. One pro-drug blogger (i.e. Natasha Tracy, who is diagnosed with ‘bipolar disorder’) will even go as far as suggesting that brain shrinkage could be a good thing. Really?

Hey Hilary,

Thanks for your post. We appreciate our dedication to this forum, even if we don't always see eye-to-eye.

I'm going to offer a bit of what the other side might say in response to your sources. I can't figure out some of the quoting system so this will have to do for now.

Long-term Antipsychotic Treatment and Brain Volumes

They did say that the effect was subtle. But perhaps more so, simply having more brain doesn't mean more intelligence. We humans have tens of billions of more neurons at birth than what we have when we reach adulthood. This makes our thinking more tailored to our environment, and more efficient and productive. Bridging on this, do we know for sure that this subtle loss in volume is a loss of neurons that actually help us in life?

Effects of long-term prolactin-raising antipsychotic medication on bone mineral density in patients with schizophrenia with schizophrenia

As my fellow moderator stated, this study deals with those APs that are known for increasing prolactin.

Also, I think this study clearly missed an extraneous variable that confounds the findings. The men in the study averaged a bmi barely lower than obese, and the average bmi for the women falls into the obese category. Being too heavy promotes a myriad of physical illnesses. We know that APs tend to make people gain weight, so it's not surprising that a higher dose will usually lead to a greater weight. The study itself lists this as a limitation, in concert with cigarette use and inactivity. But the worst thing is that it had no control group. The study is a quazi-experiment at best.

The dementia antipsychotic withdrawal trial (DART-AD): long-term follow-up

First off, it's not surprising at all that people with a general lack of dopaminergic activity and who are very old and who are given drugs to further decrease dopaminergic activity tend to die sooner. As I recall, it's not medically sanctioned to do so. I don't think anyone who reads/posts on this thread also has Alzheimers...At least this one had a control group and a decent amount of participants (though they say the sample size was still too small).

A Call for Caution on Antipsychotic Drugs

I don't think very many people would disagree with this guy. Antipsychotics may be prescribed too freely. There are deceptive adds for them. They can have bad side effects. They shouldn't be prescribed for minor afflictions. But such is the story of the pharmaceutical juggernaut in general. Also, when it comes to being prescribed an AP or being prescribed a benzo, my reading points me to the former. It's important for me here to emphasize that this is one guy's opinion, not a study.

Does Long Term Use of “Antipsychotic” Drugs Result in More Disability, and More Psychosis?

Some guy's blog...lots of ambiguity

Long-term Antipsychotics – making sense of the evidence


I can somewhat agree with this...blog (though conducted by a psychiatrist affiliated with a prestigious university). If I remember correctly, not too long ago a study came out that basically surmised that people should be maintained on the lowest dose of their antipsychotic that still relieves their symptoms in order to recovered ideally. Higher doses, those that annihilate one's personality, lead to worse outcomes.

Abilify Is Top-Selling U.S. Drug -- But New Reports Question Long-Term Antipsychotic Use, Cite Need for Personalized Services

A journalist's blog...That is strikingly high percentage, but the article is centered around APs being prescribed off-label, not for the many of us in this thread who've been diagnosed as schizophrenic/bipolar.

Antipsychotic Drug Side Effects

Essentially all of which could be more tied to smoking, overeating, and laying on the couch glued to the television, and in no way involve a significant portion of patients who actually engage in recovery fully. Side effects are more likely to be experienced if one reads up on them.

A psychiatrist thinks some patients are better off without antipsychotic drugs

Key phrase: "a psychiatrist". How many psychiatrists think differently? Too many to count. Kudos for the call to work with patients to improve quality of life over simply medicating away everything. Just so you're aware, there is a shift away from the DSM towards more personalized treatment. I get that there should be more studies analyzing divergent treatment methods, but until those are done, best to stick with the program.

Anatomy of an Epidemic (A Case of Investigative Journalism)

An overview of a book. All but one relevant study offered took place in the 1990's.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to be ignorant here, but I don’t feel that reading the posts on this thread really constitutes any valid argument in favor of anti-psychotics. Sure there are some people who respond well to medication, (if you don’t count the side-effects), but there’s plenty of more recent research that shows people do better in the long run when they are not medicated for serious mental illness.

Again, as I said before, you're neglecting to define what you mean by "doing better in the long run". Are you talking about ongoing psychotic symptoms, or return of psychotic symptoms after remission? Or are you referring to side effects? Speaking from personal experience, I experience side effects that will absolutely shorten my lifespan and cause physical health concerns when I'm older, but if you're measuring quality of life as determined by mental health, I am overwhelming better off with my medication - I have not had symptoms for many years, am employed full time, am studying at university, and have been in a happy and successful relationship for over ten years. None of that would be possible if I wasn't medicated and I would probably be dead from suicide long before I got to experience any old age health benefits from not taking medication.

I would be extremely interested to see research that finds that people living with mental illness are better off long term in terms of quality of life related to mental illness if they don't take medication.

On the other hand, from what I've seen, a psychiatrist will often start off with prescribing drugs, which can and usually do cause some really serious problems from unanticipated side effects (plus many expected side effects). Some will even die from their medication.

Suicide is literally the leading cause of death for Australians aged 15 - 44 and among the leading causes of death for people in other age groups. The risk of death from medication side effects should definitely be a focus of R&D and people should be carefully monitored for risk factors when taking medication, but it just doesn't compare to the risk of death from untreated* mental illness.

* where "treatment" may or may not include medication

My son is now completely disabled from an unwarranted shot of Invega Sustenna. He's miserable - can't work, attend school, and has a lot of trouble just communicating. We expect him to continue to feel bad for the next year. Now he's worried that he may never recover. I have yet to hear of anyone who completely recovered from their injections, after an initial bad reaction. But my son's psychiatrist (who we don’t see any more) just thinks he needs more drugs. The same thing happened to my youngest brother, except that he was forced to take the medication while in prison. The mother of one of my childhood friends committed suicide after starting anti-depressants. My friend and next-door neighbor suffered tremendously from the side-effects from an anti-anxiety drug. I helped her while she was trying to get off the medication. The thing that really seems to help her more than medication is music and exercise.

So wait, your anecdotal evidence is relevant and appropriate, but that of people who are happy with their medication is "not a valid argument"? Methinks I detect a substantial confirmation bias.

I am more of the opinion that a DSM diagnosis from a psychiatrist is a defamatory label with far-reaching consequences. It implies some biologic cause over which the client has no control. For example, someone with the label 'schizophrenia' will carry that label like a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives. Once a schizophrenic, always a schizophrenic, although maybe 'in remission'; once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic, or a 'recovering alcoholic, etc.

I'm not going to argue that mental illness stigma doesn't exist - it absolutely does - but your statement that diagnoses are never revised is incorrect.

A diagnosis is simply an umbrella term for a collection of symptoms that have been observed to commonly occur together in a subset of the population and that have tended to respond to the same treatments in a majority of this population.

I therefore find it preferable to suggest treatment options that will probably be healthier overall and more effective in the long run. Many people believe their psychosis was a result of regular long term use of THC, the psychoactive component of marijuana. If CBD is the compound in marijuana that acts as a neuro-protectant and anti-psychotic, I think it would be irresponsible not to suggest that that CBD would be the most effective treatment.

I'm not anti-CBD, but I will wait to see efficacy data from appropriate clinical trials before suggesting that it's a worthwhile treatment to pursue - I certainly won't be suggesting that it's the "most effective" treatment with no appropriate litreview to back up that statement.
 
The last few moderator posts on this thread are a great illustration of a common complaint that I hear about this website. Many people have told me personally that the moderators make a concerted effort to smother any discussion that attempts to offer alternatives to the standard psychiatric treatments and standard psychotropic drug regiment.

I understand the regrettable need to have discussion forum rules that prevent posters from persuading patients to stop taking medication that their doctor prescribes. Like it or not, in our real world situation, these 'doctors' are the 'experts'. Never mind that what they do is basically educated guesswork, and they in fact do significant damage and create tremendous suffering rather than cure anything or promote healing, and they are only modestly successful with treating symptoms. Apparently that's good enough for most people.

I suspect the real problem is that if someone with a label of a mental illness stops taking their medication based on the recommendation of another poster and subsequently does something terrible, then some people will blame the poster who made the suggestion, and probably not the doctor who prescribed the medication in the first place. Never mind that the medication causes extreme suffering, and the patient is desperate to escape the pain and misery of the side effects of their meds.

The problem with that argument is that it doesn't take into account all the people who suffer tremendously and do terrible things because of their medication. Many victims of approved psychiatric treatment can simply no longer tolerate the way they feel.

I am disappointed that the site developers don't do more to monitor and ensure a more balanced representation among moderators. There appears to be an over abundance of moderators who vehemently support the current psychiatric model and actively attack dissenters rather than moderate discussions.

The moderators on this site, from my experience, attack and denigrate those who don't agree with them. That is not a definition of moderating a discussion. Here is the Webopedia definition of a moderator:
In online forums and other online discussion spaces the moderator has the authority to block messages deemed inappropriate or break the rules of that discussion space. Moderators generally try to keep users on topic and keep the discussion thread or chat room free of personal insults and derogatory comments.

I originally came to this site at a very difficult time - looking for some positive stories of people who were able to recover from their psychiatric drugging at the hands of so-called doctors who regularly violate their Hippocratic oath to first of all "do no harm".


It became very clear early on, that moderators on this site actively promote psychiatry and psychotropic drugs. I must apologize in advance if I offend anyone who is truly a dedicated volunteer and honestly believes in their treatment. But this recent activity has made me wonder if all of the moderators are really who they claim to be, and not simply paid bloggers from the sales and advertising departments of pharmaceutical companies.
 
Top