Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal from Psychiatric Drugs E-Book

Peter C. Gøtzsche

• Herausgeber: Modern History Press
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021

Seitenzahl: 388

Beschreibung

This book is the collected images of Joanna Walitalo's first five years of woodburning artwork. Pyrography, the use of heat or fire to create an image, is an uncommon and sometimes under-appreciated media in the art world and commonly considered more of a craft. Joanna, like many other Midwest kids, was given a craft wood-burner when she was young, tried it once or twice, burnt herself and subsequently put it away. Many years later, she picked it up again, and this time stuck with it, pushing herself to create high detail, realistic artwork. Her professional background in biology, environmental policies and forestry led her to the idea of incorporating what she had learned about wood products into this unique art form, using her skills as an artist to spread the message of love, beauty and respect for the environment and our natural resources. The concept that all of her work is done on scrap wood builds an ethic of recycling into each piece of art.
The name J. Walitalo was chosen because it covers both James and Joanna, a husband and wife team. The Walitalos enjoyed this hobby, where they could work together, James preparing and finishing the wood on which Joanna does her artwork. "It is very satisfying to work together to create something unique and special, especially when I can do it with my best friend," Joanna reflects, referring to her husband James. No two pieces are the same because of the wood--each piece is a different size, species and grain. Sometimes it takes a while to find the right piece of wood for a particular image or to find the right image to fit a particular piece of wood. Each piece of art is done freehand, either drawing from life or from looking at reference photos.
"Joanna's vision is honest and straightforward. Walitalo loves wood, and she thoughtfully integrates the natural design of the various wood grains and knots within her rendering. Under Joanna's experienced craftsmanship, scraps of basswood, pine, curly maple, etc. become her partners in the creative process. Walitalo's drawings are a wonderful example of the artist uniting her life's passions with her perfect expressive medium."
--Michael Volker, Assistant Professor (Lecturer III) Painting and Drawing, Central Michigan University
"An extraordinary convergence of art, personal experience, growth and utilization of a renewable resource as a canvas. The narrative depicts and shares with the reader the thinking of the artist, her experiences in life and in her work. Joanna Walitalo has created a collection of artwork that utilizes pyrography to recognize people, nature and landscapes, and brought it to a single work that shares wood, nature and life."
--Andrew J. Storer, Dean, College of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Tech University
"Joanna Walitalo has an amazing capacity to recognize the personality of her subjects-both animal and human-and infuse that element into the finished piece. Using fine lines in either ink or pyrography, she brings forth the character of the time and place in her art. Her ethics of recycling wood that has either been rejected or has passed its time of usefulness as a product, lends heart and value to her work. This is an artist who loves, understands and values the natural world and can bring nature right into your home. Incredible!"
--Barb Rogers, Manager, Wildlife Recovery Association, and retired art instructor

Leseprobe

Praise forMental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal from Psychiatric Drugs

“Peter Gøtzsche’s new book meets patients’ need to get tools on how to deal with psychoactive drugs and, above all, not to start them. Gøtzsche is very clear about the role of GPs in medicalizing grief, misfortune, opposition, and bad luck. In this he finds the American emeritus professor of psychiatry and chairman of the DSM-III committee, Allen Frances, at his side. Both Gøtzsche and Frances have repeatedly stated that psychoactive drugs should not be prescribed by GPs because they lack experience in their use. And above all, unhappiness, grief, and bad luck are not signs of brain disorders, they belong to daily life.” Additionally, Gøtzsche reveals that most psychoactive drugs do not work—‘they might only achieve statistically significant differences compared to placebo, but that’s not what patients need.’”

—Dick Bijl, former GP, epidemiologist, and current president of the International Society of Drug Bulletins.

“Peter C. Gøtzsche wrote this book to help people with mental health problems survive and return to a normal life. His book explains in detail how psychiatric drugs are harmful and people are told how they can safely withdraw from them. It also advises on how people with mental health problems can avoid making a ‘career’ as a psychiatric patient and losing 10 or 15 years of their life to psychiatry. You will find precious material to help plan and accompany this process of liberation from psychiatry.”

—Fernando Freitas, PhD, Psychologist, Full Professor and Researcher at the National School of Public Health (ENSP/FIOCRUZ). Co-editor of Mad in Brazil

“In this work, addressed to people affected by the risk of being caught in the system of attention to mental health issues, Dr. Gøtzsche succinctly exposes, without beating about the bush, the damage caused by psychiatric medications, demonstrates that their widespread use is not based on evidence, which is mainly driven by commercial pressures that have nothing to do with the recovery of patients, and present safe ways to dispose of them, always gradually and under supervision of trustworthy people to minimize the syndrome of abstinence and successfully overcome all the difficulties that the process involves.”

—Enric García Torrents, writing for Mad in Spain

“Peter Gøtzsche has written a very personal account of his battle to get the institution of psychiatry to accept that its drugs are not the ‘magic pills’ they are made out to be. Every medical practitioner who prescribes them, and every person who takes them, should read this book and be warned.” –

—Niall McLaren, author of Anxiety: The Inside Story

Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal from Psychiatric Drugs:

A User’s Manual

Peter C. Gøtzsche

Institute for Scientific FreedomCopenhagen, Denmark

Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal from Psychiatric Drugs: A User’s Manual

Copyright © 2022 by Peter C. Gøtzsche. All Rights Reserved.

Cover photo: also by the author

ISBN 978-1-61599-619-3 paperback

ISBN 978-1-61599-620-9 hardcover

ISBN 978-1-61599-621-6 eBook

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, or stored in a retrieval system, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

Institute for Scientific Freedom

Copenhagen, Denmark

www.scientificfreedom.dk

[email protected]

Published by

L H Press, Inc.

5145 Pontiac Trail

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

www.LHPress.com

[email protected]

Tollfree 888-761-6268 (USA/Canada)

Fax [phone]

Distributed by Ingram (USA/CAN/AU), Bertram’s Books (UK/EU)

Contents

Index of Tables and Figures

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Chapter 1 - This Book Might Save Your Life

A Patient’s Psychiatric “Career”

Chapter 2 - Is Psychiatry Evidence-Based?

Are Psychiatric Diagnoses Specific and Reliable?

Psychiatry’s Starter Kit: Depression Pills

Do Patients Fall Ill Because of a Chemical Imbalance in the Brain?

Are Psychoactive Drugs Specific and Worthwhile?

Flawed Trials Have Led the Psychiatrists Astray

Suicides, Other Deaths and Other Serious Harms

Psychosis Pills

Depression Pills

The Pills that Destroy Your Sex Life are Called Happy Pills

Lithium

Antiepileptic Pills

Pills for the Social Construct Called ADHD

The Final Nails in the Coffin of Biological Psychiatry

False Information on Withdrawal from UK Psychiatrists

Use of Depression Pills for Children Dropped 41%

Number Needed to Treat is Highly Misleading

Electroshock

Chapter 3 - Psychotherapy

Chapter 4 - Withdrawing from Psychiatric Drugs

MIND Denmark Doesn’t Want to Help Patients Withdraw

The Psychiatric Guild Doesn’t Want to Help Patients Withdraw

The Cochrane Collaboration Doesn’t Want to Help Patients Withdraw

Guide for Drug Withdrawal

Support Persons

The Research Ethics Committee Killed Our Withdrawal Project

Tips About Withdrawal

List of Withdrawal Symptoms You May Experience

Dividing Tablets and Capsules

Forced Treatment: A Horrible Violation of Human Rights

Chapter 5 - Survival Kit for Young Psychiatrists in a Sick System

A Debate at the Annual Meeting of Swedish Young Psychiatrists

National Boards of Health Are Unresponsive to Suicides in Children

Censorship in Medical Journals and the Media

No Hope for Psychiatry: Suggestions for a New System

Patient Stories

Videos of Lectures and Interviews

About the Author

References

Index

Index of Tables and Figures

Fig. 2-1: Overview of Patient Participation in a Long-Term Follow-Up Study of Early Detection in Psychosis

Table 2-1: Causes of Death during the First 10 Years of Treatment

Table 2-2: Sertraline Trials in Adults

Table 2-3: Medications Dispensed to a 21-Yr-Old Student

Fig. 2-2: Percentage of Current Users in Denmark Who Redeemed a Prescription for the Same or a Similar Drug in Each of the Following Years After 2006

Fig. 2-3: Percentage of Current Users in Denmark Who Redeemed a Prescription for the Same or a Similar Drug in Each of the Following Years After 2007

Fig. 2-4: Number of Children on Depression Pills per Million

Fig. 4-1: Hyperbolic Relationship Between Receptor Occupancy and Dose of Citalopram in mg

Fig. 4-2: Hyperbolic Curve for Biweekly Dose Reductions

Table 4-1: Abstinence Chart for Psychiatric Drugs

Table 5-1: Drugs Prescribed to Silje

Table 5-2: Videos of Lectures and Interviews

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the thousands of emails I have received from patients and relatives describing the harms and abuses they have experienced in psychiatry and for the many interactions I have had with inspiring psychiatrists, psychologists, pharmacists and other professsionals, including Peter Breggin, Jane Bækgaard, James Davies, Magnus Hald, David Healy, Göran Högberg, Niall McLaren, Joanna Moncrieff, Luke Montagu, Klaus Munkholm, Peer Nielsen, Åsa Nilsonne, John Read, Bertel Rüdinger, Olga Runciman, Kristian Sloth, Anders Sørensen, Sami Timimi, Birgit Toft and Robert Whitaker.

Abbreviations

DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

EMA: European Medicines Agency

FDA: US Food and Drug Administration

SSRI: Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor

WHO: World Health Organization

1This Book Might Save Your Life

I have written this book to help patients, and when I decided to write it, one of my tentative titles was, “Listening to the voices of patients.” Most people I have talked to about mental health issues, be it my family, friends, colleagues, sports partners, filmmakers, gardeners, cleaners, waiters and hotel receptionists, have had bad experiences with psychiatry or know someone that have.

Coming from a background of being a specialist in internal medicine, which is entirely different, it slowly dawned on me how harmful psychiatry is. It takes years of close study to find out that psychiatry does vastly more harm than good,1 and my own research has contributed to revealing this.

My findings resonate closely with what the general public have concluded based on their own experiences. A survey of 2,031 Australians showed that people thought that depression pills (usually called antidepressants), psychosis pills (usually called antipsychotics), electroshock and admission to a psychiatric ward were more often harmful than beneficial.2 The social psychiatrists who had done the survey were dissatisfied with the answers and argued that people should be trained to arrive at the “right opinion.”

In early 1992, the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, in association with the Royal College of General Practitioners, launched a five-year “Defeat Depression Campaign.”3 Its aim was to provide public education about depression and its treatment in order to encourage earlier treatment-seeking and reduce stigma. Campaign activities included newspaper and magazine articles, television and radio interviews, press conferences, production of leaflets, factsheets in ethnic minority languages, audio cassettes, a self-help video and two books.4 When 2,003 lay people were surveyed just before the launch of the campaign, 91% thought that people with depression should be offered counselling; only 16% thought they should be offered depression pills; only 46% said they were effective; and 78% regarded them as addictive.3 The psychiatrists’ view on these responses was that, “Doctors have an important role in educating the public about depression and the rationale for antidepressant treatment. In particular, patients should know that dependence is not a problem with antidepressants.”

When challenged about the fact that the colleges had accepted donations from all the major manufacturers of depression pills for the campaign, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Robert Kendall, acknowledged that, “One of their major motives was the hope that an increased recognition of depressive illnesses both by the general public and by general practitioners would result in increased sales for them.”5 He didn’t say what the companies’ other major motives were. I doubt there were any. Money is the only motive drug companies have.

The psychiatrists embarked on their re-education campaign. But people were not easily convinced that they were wrong. A 1998 paper reported that changes were of the order of only 5-10% and that depression pills were still being regarded as addictive and less effective than counselling.4 Interestingly, 81% of the lay people agreed that, “Depression is a medical condition like other illnesses” and 43% ascribed depression to biological changes in the brain, but most people nonetheless ascribed it to social causes like bereavement (83%), unemployment (83%), financial problems (82%), stress (83%), loneliness/ isolation (79%) and divorce/ end of relationship (83%).4 Something didn’t add up.

My interpretation is that despite claims through many years, also long before 1992,1 that psychiatric disorders are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, the public is not so willing to accept this falsehood.

In 2005, Danish psychiatrists reported what 493 patients had told them about their depression pill treatment.6 About half the patients agreed that the treatment could alter their personality and that they had less control over their thoughts and feelings. Four-fifths agreed that as long as they took the drugs, they didn’t really know if they were necessary, and 56% agreed to the statement that, “Your body can become addicted to antidepressants.” The psychiatrists refused flatly to believe what the patients had told them, which they considered wrong, and they called them ignorant. They also felt that the patients needed “psychoeducation.” The problem with this was that the relatives shared the patients’ opinion.

“Educating the public” and “psychoeducation” so that they can arrive at the “right opinion” is what we normally call brainwashing. Particularly when what the patients and the public reported are more than just opinions; they drew conclusions based on their own experience and that of others.

It is not only in research that psychiatrists dismiss what their patients tell them, they also do this in clinical practice. Often, they either don’t listen or don’t ask the appropriate questions about their patients’ experience and history and therefore don’t find out that the current symptoms are very likely caused by trauma or severe stress, and not by any “psychiatric disorder.”

Please note that when I generalise, it does of course not apply to everyone. Some psychiatrists are excellent, but they are in a small minority. It is no wonder that the UK pre-campaign survey found that “the word psychiatrist carried connotations of stigma and even fear.”3 This is understandable, given that psychiatric drugs kill hundreds of thousands of people every year and cripple millions, physically and mentally.1

The term “psychiatric survivor” says it all in just two words. In no other medical specialty do the patients call themselves survivors in the sense that they survived despite being exposed to that specialty. They fought their way out of a system that is rarely helpful, and which many survivors have described as psychiatric imprisonment, or a facility where there is a door in, but not a door out.

In other medical specialties, the patients are grateful that they survived because of the treatments their doctors applied to them. We have never heard of a cardiology survivor or an infectious disease survivor. If you have survived a heart attack, you are not tempted to do the opposite of what your doctor recommends. In psychiatry, you might die if you do what your doctor tells you to do.

Many psychiatric survivors have described how psychiatry, with its excessive use of harmful and ineffective drugs, had stolen 10 or 15 years of their life before they one day decided to take the responsibility for their life back from their psychiatrists and discovered that life is much better without drugs. They often say that what woke them up was that they read some of the books about psychiatry by psychiatrists David Healy, Peter Breggin or Joanna Moncrieff, science journalist Robert Whitaker, or me.

There are thousands of personal stories by psychiatric survivors on the Internet, e.g. on survivingantidepressants.org. In many of them, people explain how they withdrew from psychiatric drugs, one by one, often against their doctor’s advice and often with great difficulty, because the drugs had made them dependent and because the psychiatric profession had failed totally in providing proper guidance about how to do it. The psychiatrists have not only been uninterested in tackling this immense problem but have actively denied its existence, as you have just seen and will see much more about in this book.

Mental health issues prevent you from living a full life and they go on in your mind. All patients should be offered psychotherapy, which is also what 75% of them want.7 However, this is not what they get, which shows once again that the psychiatric profession doesn’t listen to its patients. A large US survey of people with depression showed that 87% received depression pills, 23% psychotherapy, 14% anxiety pills, 7% psychosis pills and 5% “mood stabilizers” (a euphemism that the psychiatrists never defined, but they usually mean antiepileptic drugs and lithium, whose main effect is to sedate people).8

Most people have issues with their mental health now and then, just as they have issues with their physical health. There is nothing abnormal about that.

Throughout this book, I shall give advice based on the scientific evidence that I have good reasons to believe will lead to better outcomes than if my advice is ignored. But please note that whatever you do and whatever the outcome, you cannot hold me responsible. The information I provide is not a replacement for consultations with healthcare professionals but might empower you to engage in meaningful and informed discussions or to decide to handle the issues yourself. I shall start with a little advice and will give the background for it in the rest of the book:

1. WARNING! Psychiatric drugs are addictive. Never stop them abruptly because withdrawal reactions may consist of severe emotional and physical symptoms that can be dangerous and lead to suicide, violence and homicide.1

2. If you have a mental health issue, don’t see a psychiatrist. It is too dangerous and might turn out to be the biggest error you made in your entire life.9

3. Don’t believe what you are told about psychiatric disorders or psychiatric drugs. It is very likely to be wrong.1

4. Believe in yourself. You are likely right, and your doctor is wrong. Don’t ignore your hunches or feelings. You can easily be led astray if you don’t trust yourself.10

5. Never let others have responsibility for your life. Stay in control and ask questions. Avoid therapists that are positive toward psychiatric drugs.

6. Your spouse or parent might be your best friend or your worst enemy. They might believe what doctors tell them and might even see it to their advantage to keep you drugged.

Many of the stories I have received from patients have a common theme. The patients had no idea how dangerous it is to become a psychiatric patient and trusted their doctors, willingly following their advice, until they found out years later that their lives had been ruined.

What is particularly diabolic is that the psychological and physical deterioration often occurs gradually, and therefore passes unnoticed, like if you become nearsighted, which you don’t discover until one day a friend wonders why you cannot read a road sign close to you. The patients may even be grateful for the drugs they received, although it may be obvious to others that they have been harmed.

Gradual and unnoticed deterioration is not the only problem. A brain under chemical influence may not be able to assess itself. When the brain is numbed by psychoactive substances, the patients may be unaware that they can no longer think clearly or evaluate themselves. This lack of insight into feelings, thoughts and behaviors is called medication spellbinding.11,12 Medication spellbinding is usually ignored, both by patients and their doctors, which is surprising because we all know that people who have drunk too much cannot judge their ability to drive.

Here is a patient story that illustrates many of the common issues.

A Patient’s Psychiatric “Career”

In November 2019, I received an outstanding account from Stine Toft, a Danish patient I met when I lectured for “Better Psychiatry,” an organization of relatives to psychiatric patients.13 Stine was seriously harmed by psychiatric drugs; her life became endangered; and she suffered an excruciating withdrawal phase because she did not receive the necessary guidance. But she is doing well today, aged 44.

Stine gave birth to her second daughter in 2002 after a hard time with “all kinds of trials and hormone treatments.” In the aftermath, she wasn’t well. She was afraid of losing her daughter and of not being able to protect her well enough. Her doctor diagnosed her with depression, and she was told it was perfectly normal and that she should just take Effexor (venlafaxine, a depression pill) so that her brain would work again—possibly for the rest of her life, but at least for five years.

Her life changed markedly. She put on 110 lbs. (50 kg) and had several weird episodes that she didn’t understand. Once she wanted to dig a sandbox for her children, but she ended up putting an entire trampoline two feet into the ground by removing nine cubic yards (seven cubic meters) of soil with a shovel. She also knocked down a wall in the kitchen without warning and without being a craftsman in any way because she felt the family needed a smart conversation kitchen. One day during a job clarification process, she told the job consultant that she wanted to become a lawyer even though she is dyslexic and would never have been able to achieve this.

Stine saw a psychiatrist again, and 15 minutes later the case was clear—she had become bipolar. She was sent for psychoeducation and was told that her condition would definitely last for the rest of her life. She was trained in how to notice even the little things that confirmed that she was ill, and special care was taken to ensure that she took her medicines.

“They managed to put a massive fear in me,” Stine wrote, and she clearly identified herself with a sick person who had to tackle life in a certain way in order to survive.

Time passed and she ended up leaving her husband of 15 years. In 2013, she met her current husband, and he asked quite quickly “what the sickness was all about,” because he couldn’t see it. After a year and a half, she surrendered and agreed to make a small trial with a small withdrawal of the medication. He was happy for that because he had seen several times how disastrous it went when she forgot to take the medication. She once ruined a trip to a summer amusement park because she had forgotten to bring the medicines with her. As the day went on, she got worse and worse with headaches and vomiting; she was confused and just wanted to lie down and sleep until she got the drugs again.

Her medication list included Effexor, later switched to Cymbalta (duloxetine), Lamictal (lamotrigine) and Lyrica (pregabalin), two antiepileptics, and Seroquel (quetiapine, a psychosis pill). In addition, she was given medication for the adverse effects caused by the drugs and for her metabolic problem.

This is a dangerous cocktail. Depression pills double the risk of suicide, not only in children but also in adults,1,14,15,16,17,18 antiepileptics also double the risk of suicide,19 and both depression pills and antiepileptics can make people manic,18,19 which happened to her and resulted in an erroneous diagnosis of having become bipolar.

The withdrawal process took two and a half years, with her husband helping the best he could to make the process as gentle as possible. They did not understand it at the time, but discovered along the way, what the receptor saturation curve means, namely that you need to reduce the dose by less and less the further you come down. Extremely few doctors are aware of this,20 and most official recommendations are outright dangerous, e.g. they may say that you should reduce the dose by 50% every two weeks when you taper depression pills.21 Thus, already after two reductions, you are down to only 25% of the starting dose, which is far too quickly for most patients.

Stine’s life became endangered. She was scared to death that it would end badly and was often thinking about giving up. She introduced several pauses in the process. Thoughts of suicide were extremely pressing during the times when she tapered, because it was absolutely horrible.

Inexplicably, Stine had accepted that she obviously hated life and wanted to put an end to it. She is otherwise an energetic person who loves life and had never had suicidal thoughts until she started taking drugs, nor after stopping them. But the withdrawal process was completely “crazy,” and she often considered whether taking her own life would be more humane.

During withdrawal, she had some “wildly weird experiences.” On the good end, she took it upon herself several times just to listen to nature and the birds. It was a powerful experience, because she could not remember when she had last experienced this in the years she was “doped.” A little sadder were the other symptoms that came during withdrawal. The abstinence symptoms included dives that could easily be interpreted as depression, and during withdrawal of Lyrica, she was anxious and felt life was unbearable. One morning in the bath she began to cry, because just feeling the water on her body was something she had not noted for many years.

At this point in time, she became aware of two of my books about psychiatry1,22 and realized that everything she had experienced was well known and perfectly normal. It was really shocking to her to read about how it is normal practice to be exposed to the hell she had been through, but also liberating to discover that it is normal; that she probably wasn’t sick; and that there was nothing wrong with her.

By the end of the withdrawal, she had a strange experience where, for about half a year, she was almost crooked in her body. She constantly had a feeling of tipping to the left and had a hard time walking straight. During several periods, other muscle groups failed. When she once played a game where a stick is thrown after wooden blocks, her hand didn’t release the stick.

After withdrawal, things started to get better, and she wanted to work again, even though she had been out of the job market for many years and was on disability pension. She planned to take a business driver’s license and drive a taxi, but “Oh no, oh no! There was a big no from the police.” They sent a letter stating that her driver’s license was time limited and that she would need to provide documentation every two years that she wasn’t sick.

“The fact that they chose to throw an extra diagnosis after someone who is on depression pills is pretty terrible,” she wrote. “Today, I must renew my driver’s license every two years for that reason. But you wouldn’t imagine how hard it was to avoid that they took it away completely. When I contacted psychiatry because of my contact with the police, they first refused to see me—because I was well. So, I couldn’t get their help to prove I wasn’t sick and thus fit to drive. After intense pressure from me, my own doctor finally persuaded them to take me in for a talk and make a statement, which dryly noted that my ‘illness’ wasn’t active. I could have strangled them, because that means I’m still sick and, in the eyes of the police, one that needs to be monitored in future.”

Stine completely disagrees with the bipolar diagnosis. She never had manic episodes before starting on the medication, and never had them after she quit. But the diagnosis is glued to her for the rest of her life, although it is well known that depression pills can trigger mania and thus cause the psychiatrists to make a wrong diagnosis, confusing the drug harm with a new illness.

It is medical malpractice to make a new diagnosis, as if there is something wrong with the patient, when the condition could be a harm caused by the medication. Psychiatrists do this all the time.

Stine gave up the idea of becoming a taxi driver. She became a coach and went on studying to become a psychotherapist. She works with many different people and helps patients taper off their depression pills, with great success. They are reclaiming life and seeing it move forward. She knows it is important to support them when they withdraw so that they will not face the same troubles as she did. There are many thoughts and fears, and many people have difficulty defining themselves if they are no longer sick. The combination of tapering and therapy seems to have an extremely beneficial effect.

It is difficult to convince people that stopping their drugs is a good idea. Many passionately believe in them, because they have been told they are sick, and there is often great pressure from their relatives. Stine experienced herself what it means to stand alone with the withdrawal. Today, she no longer sees her family. They maintained the claim that she was ill and just needed to take her medication. This mistaken view is nourished by the fact that three-quarters of websites even today still falsely claim that people fall ill with depression because of a chemical imbalance in their brain (see below).23 If you believe in this bogus, you also believe that you cannot do without the medicine.

A few years ago, Stine bought the domain name medicin-fri.dk (medicine-free.dk) because she wants to provide information about taking drugs and their harms, in cooperation with others, as well as provide help and support for withdrawal.

Too few people know about the problems or have ever heard of them. Stine wants to change that and wants to make sure that she does not give incorrect advice and information. She therefore wrote to me and asked if I knew others who would like to join an organized network about these issues.

In addition to her daily work with clients, Stine lectures, but finds it difficult to “be allowed” to get the message out. She has lectured for Psychiatry in the Capital Region about being bipolar, which was easy, as everyone wants to see a sick person and hear her story. But a success story that calls the system into question is not interesting.

Stine is passionate about changing things and has, for example, established several self-help groups; lectured for the Depression Association; volunteered in the Red Cross; started groups for lonely people; and mentored young people.

She suggested to Better Psychiatry in her hometown that they invite me to lecture. They didn’t know who I was, and the chairwoman introduced the meeting by saying that if more money was allotted to psychiatry it would probably be okay. I started my lecture by saying I wasn’t sure this was a good idea. If more money came in, even more diagnoses would be made, even more drugs would be used, and even more people would end up on disability pension because they cannot function when they are drugged.24

Stine wants to lecture on the theme, “Surviving Psychiatry.” She finds it overwhelming to live a life that, after so many years on medication, she thought was completely out of reach. Although her past life was “foolishly handled by various psychiatrists and other well-meaning doctors,” she doesn’t want to mess it up by asking for access to her files. She would rather look ahead and inform others via websites and lectures about how harmful it is to blindly become medicated—often for no reason at all.

Stine is convinced that virtually none of her strange experiences during the 14 years she was drugged would have happened if she had not been given medication. Her memory suffered a severe blow, but it is improving.

She cannot understand why her doctors didn’t stop the drugging. Nothing could justify her massive drugging, and even when she gained weight from 155 to 265 lbs. (70 to 120 kg), the doctors didn’t respond, besides giving her medication to increase the metabolism, which was “completely nuts… extremely disabling in every conceivable way and in itself almost something they could give a depression diagnosis for, because it was a sad thing to expose your body to.”

Stine considers the system to be hopeless. The colossal overuse of psychoactive drugs produces chronic patients, often based on temporary problems,24 as I shall explain in the following.

2Is Psychiatry Evidence-Based?

Psychiatry was in a state of crisis in the United States in the middle of the last century because psychologists were more popular than psychiatrists.1 The psychiatric guild therefore decided to make psychiatry a medical specialty, which would make psychiatrists look like real doctors and delineate them from psychologists who were not allowed to prescribe drugs.

Ever since, massive propaganda, fraud, manipulations with the research data, hiding suicides and other deaths, and lies in drug marketing have paved the way for the illusion that psychiatry is a respectable discipline that provides drugs that cure patients.1,2,3,4

As explained in the first chapter, the “customers,” the patients and their relatives, do not agree with the salespeople. When this is the case, the providers are usually quick to change their products or services, but this doesn’t happen in psychiatry, which has a monopoly on treating patients with mental health issues, with family doctors as their complacent frontline sales staff that do not ask uncomfortable questions about what they are selling.

The family doctor is most people’s port of entry into psychiatry. This is where sad, worried, stressed or burned-out people address their symptoms. The doctor rarely allots the necessary time to inquire about the events that caused the patient to end up in this situation. The consultation often ends after a few minutes with a diagnosis, which might not be correct, and a prescription for one or more psychiatric drugs, although talk therapy might have been better. A study in the United States showed that over half the physicians wrote prescriptions after discussing depression with patients for three minutes or less.5

You might get a psychiatric drug even if there is no good reason to prescribe it for you, e.g. a depression pill for insomnia, problems at school, exam anxiety, harassment at work, marital abuse, break-up with a boyfriend, bereavement, economic problems, or divorce. This is also common if you see a psychiatrist.

In contrast to other medical specialties, psychiatry is built on a number of myths, which have been rejected so firmly by good research that it is appropriate to call them lies. I therefore warn you again. Most of what you have been told or will ever hear about psychiatry, psychiatric drugs, electroshock, and forced admission and treatment, is wrong. This has been documented in numerous research articles and books.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Here is some general advice, which will lead to better outcomes than if it is ignored:

1. It is rarely a good idea to see a family doctor if you have a mental health issue. As doctors are trained in using drugs, you will most likely be harmed. If not in the short term, then in the long term.

2. If you get a prescription from your family doctor for a psychiatric drug, don’t go to the pharmacy.

3. Find someone who is good at talk therapy, e.g. a psychologist. If you cannot afford it or if there is a long waiting list, then remember it is usually better to do nothing than to see your doctor.

4. Consider if you need a social counsellor or a lawyer. Doctors cannot help you with a broken marriage, for example, and pills won’t help you either.

Let’s have a closer look at what is wrong with current-day psychiatry. Psychiatrists claim that their specialty is built on the biopsychosocial model of disease that takes biology, psychology, and socio-environmental factors into account when trying to explain why people fall ill.

The reality is vastly different. Biological psychiatry has been the predominant disease model ever since the president of the US Society of Biological Psychiatry, Harold Himwich, in 1955 came up with the totally absurd idea that psychosis pills work like insulin for diabetes.9

It even seems to be getting worse. Fifteen years ago, some of psychiatry’s spokespersons were more concerned than today’s leaders about the dangers of being too close to the drug industry. Steven Sharfstein, president of the American Psychiatric Association, wrote in 2005:

“As we address these Big Pharma issues, we must examine the fact that as a profession, we have allowed the biopsychosocial model to become the bio-bio-bio model... Drug company representatives bearing gifts are frequent visitors to psychiatrists’ offices and consulting rooms. We should have the wisdom and distance to call these gifts what they are—kickbacks and bribes... If we are seen as mere pill pushers and employees of the pharmaceutical industry, our credibility as a profession is compromised.”12

Other statements were less fortunate: “Pharmaceutical companies have developed and brought to market medications that have transformed the lives of millions of psychiatric patients.” Sure, but not for the better.

“The proven effectiveness of antidepressant, mood-stabilizing, and antipsychotic medications has helped sensitize the public to the reality of mental illness and taught them that treatment works. In this way, Big Pharma has helped reduce stigma associated with psychiatric treatment and with psychiatrists.”

The treatments do not provide worthwhile effects, particularly not when their harms are considered as well, and the stigma has increased.4 But that’s how the psychiatric leaders fool people. A systematic review of 33 studies found that biogenetic causal attributions weren’t associated with more tolerant attitudes; they were related to stronger rejection in most studies examining schizophrenia.13 Biological pseudo-explanations increase perceived dangerousness, fear and desire for distance from patients with schizophrenia because they make people believe that the patients are unpredictable,13,14,15,16 and they also lead to reductions in clinicians’ empathy and to social exclusion.17

The biological model generates undue pessimism about the chances of recovery and reduces efforts to change, compared to a psychosocial explanation. Many patients describe discrimination as more long-lasting and disabling than the psychosis itself, and a major barrier to recovery.14,15 Patients and their families experience more stigma and discrimination from mental health professionals than from any other sector of society, and over 80% of people with the schizophrenia label think that the diagnosis itself is damaging and dangerous. Therefore, some psychiatrists now avoid using the term schizophrenia.15

Sharfstein admitted that, “there is less psychotherapy provided by psychiatrists than 10 years ago. This is true despite the strong evidence base that many psychotherapies are effective used alone or in combination with medications.” What a tragedy this is. This is not the progress we hear so much about.

Sharfstein couldn’t resist the temptation of playing the “antipsychiatry” card: “responding to the antipsychiatry remarks… one of the charges against psychiatry… is that many patients are being prescribed the wrong drugs or drugs they don’t need. These charges are true, but it is not psychiatry’s fault—it is the fault of the broken health care system that the United States appears to be willing to endure.”

Of course. All the harms psychiatrists cause by overdosing entire populations are NEVER their fault, but someone else’s.

Psychiatrist Niall McLaren has written a very instructive book with many patient stories telling us that anxiety is a key symptom in psychiatry.11 If a psychiatrist or family doctor doesn’t take a very careful history, they might miss that the current episode of distress, which they diagnose as depression, started as anxiety many years earlier when the patient was a teenager. They should therefore have dealt with the anxiety with talk therapy instead of handing out pills.

Niall has developed a standard way with which he approaches all new patients in order not to overlook anything important. It takes time, but the time invested initially pays back many times over and leads to better outcomes for his patients than the standard approach in psychiatry.

Niall has an interest in philosophy but has been met with extreme hostility when he challenged his colleagues by asking them what the foundation was for their biological model of psychiatric disorders. There is none. In his own words:11

“So we can forget biological psychiatry. Trouble is, an awful lot of people have an awful lot of money invested in giving biological treatments for mental disorder, and they won’t give it up without a fight. Worse still, there’s an awful lot of high-flying academic psychiatrists around the world who have invested their entire careers, and their egos (which is much worse), in claiming that mental disorder is biological in nature. They will fight tenaciously to save their jobs and their reputations. So we’re stuck with biological psychiatry for a while. Just because it has been proven wrong doesn’t mean it will fade away overnight. The value of biological psychiatry is that it isn’t necessary to talk to a patient beyond asking a few standard questions to work out which disease he has, and that can easily be done by a nurse armed with a questionnaire. This will give a diagnosis which then dictates the drugs he should have.”

Biological psychiatry assumes that specific diagnoses exist that result from specific changes in the brain, and that there are specific drugs that correct these changes, which are therefore beneficial. We shall look at these assumptions one by one.

Are Psychiatric Diagnoses Specific and Reliable?

Psychiatric diagnoses are neither specific, nor reliable.4,6,18,19 They are highly unspecific, and psychiatrists disagree wildly when asked to diagnose the same patients independently of each other. There are few such studies, and their results were so embarrassing for the American Psychiatric Association that they buried them so deeply that it required extensive detective work to find them.19 The funeral took place in a smoke of positive rhetoric in surprisingly short articles, given the importance of the subject. Even the largest study, of 592 people, was disappointing although the investigators took great care in training the assessors.20

Psychiatric diagnoses are not built on science but are consensus-type exercises where it is decided by a show of hands which symptoms should be included in a diagnostic test.18 This checklist approach is like the familiar parlor game, Find Five Errors. A person who has at least five symptoms out of nine is declared depressed.

If we look hard enough, we will find “errors” in all people. There is nothing objective and verifiable about this way of making diagnoses, which are derived from an arbitrary constellation of symptoms. How many criteria and which ones do we vote for need to be present to make a given diagnosis?

I lecture a lot for various audiences, both professionals and lay people, and I often expose people to the recommended test for adult ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).4,21 It never fails. Between one-third and one-half of the audience test positive. When I tested my wife, she scored a full house, which is six out of six criteria. Only four positive replies to the questionnaire are needed for the diagnosis. Once, when one of my daughters and her boyfriend visited us for dinner, we discussed the silliness of psychiatric diagnoses and to illustrate it, I subjected them to the test. My daughter scored five, like I did, and her very laid-back boyfriend whom I would never suspect would be positive, scored four. So, we were four people enjoying our dinner and company, all with a bogus psychiatric diagnosis.

My little exercise makes people realize how foolish and unscientific psychiatric diagnoses are. I always tell people that I am in the same boat as them and that they shouldn’t worry but be happy, as the song by Bobby McFerrin goes, because some of the most interesting people I have ever met qualify for the ADHD diagnosis. They are dynamic and creative and have difficulty sitting still on their chairs pretending they are listening if the lecturer is dull. Yet, the psychiatrists have had the barefaced impudence to tell the whole world that people with an ADHD diagnosis suffer from a “neurodevelopmental disorder,” e.g. the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) used in USA, and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) used in Europe both say this.

To postulate that billions of people have wrong brains is as outrageous as it gets.

One of the times I lectured for “Better psychiatry,” a woman in the audience said: “I have ADHD.” I replied: “No, you haven’t. You can have a dog, a car, or a boyfriend, but you cannot have ADHD. It is a social construct.” I explained it is just a label, not something that exists in nature, like an elephant everyone can see. People tend to think they get an explanation for their troubles when psychiatrists give them a name, but this is circular reasoning. Paul behaves in a certain way, and we will give this behavior a name, ADHD. Poul behaves this way because he has ADHD. Logically, it is impossible to argue this way.

I often joked during my lectures that we also need a diagnosis for those children who are too good at sitting still and not make themselves seen or heard in class. This became true, with the invention of the diagnosis ADD, attention deficit disorder, without the hyperactivity. From that day on, I have joked about how long we shall wait before we will also see a diagnosis for those in the middle, because then there will be a drug for everyone and the drug industry will have reached their ultimate goal, that no one will escape being treated.

The depression diagnosis isn’t much better. It is very easy to get this diagnosis even though you are not really depressed but just feel a little beside your usual self.4

Even the more serious diagnoses are highly uncertain. Many people—in some studies by far most of them – have been considered on revision to have been wrongly diagnosed with schizophrenia.4

Given this immense uncertainty, disagreement, and arbitrariness, it should be very easy to get rid of a wrong diagnosis. However, it’s impossible, and there is no court of appeal like in criminal cases. It is like in medieval times where people were condemned for no reason and with no possibility of appeal. As you will see in the section about forced treatment in Chapter 4, the law is routinely being violated, which we would not tolerate in any other sector of society.

It doesn’t seem to matter whether a diagnosis is correct or wrong. It follows you for the rest of your life and can make it difficult to get the education you dream about, a job, certain pensions, to become approved for adoption or even just to keep your driver’s licence.22,23 Furthermore, psychiatric diagnoses are frequently being abused in child custody cases when the parents get divorced.22 Even when the diagnosis is obviously wrong and the psychiatrist herself seriously doubted it when she made it, you cannot have it removed.23 It sticks to you forever, like if you were a branded cow.

Danish filmmaker Anahi Testa Pedersen made the film, “Diagnosing Psychiatry,”24 about my attempts at creating a better psychiatry and about her own struggles with the system. She got the diagnosis schizotypy, which is a very vague and highly dubious concept (see Chapter 5), when she was admitted to a psychiatric ward due to severe distress over a divorce. It was obvious that she suffered from acute distress and should never have had a psychiatric diagnosis or been treated with drugs, but at the ward they gave her Seroquel, a psychosis pill, and Lexapro, a depression pill. Anahi was deeply shocked to learn that even though she had voluntarily contacted the psychiatric ward, the doors were locked behind her. When she questioned her diagnosis at discharge, she was told: “Here, we make diagnoses!”22 The drugs doped her and made her indifferent, and she withdrew from them.

Another shock came eight years later when she received a letter from Psychiatry in the Capital Region. They wanted to examine her daughter. They believed that psychiatric disorders are inherited and that it is therefore likely that children of the mentally ill will also become ill.

Anahi became angry. Her daughter is well functioning, happy, healthy and has many friends. The summons came without her being asked about her course after discharge, or her daughter’s situation and well-being, and the letter stigmatized both her and her daughter. She phoned