Carolyn Gage
  • Home
    • Butch Visibility Project
    • Bio and Vitae
    • Endorsements
    • Production History
    • Catalog of Books and Plays
    • Online Essays >
      • Lesbian Culture and History Essays
      • Theatre Essays
      • Feminist Essays
      • Tributes/Obituaries
      • Reviews
    • Interviews >
      • Audio/Video Interviews
      • Print Interviews
  • Books and CD's
    • Gage Play Anthologies
    • Feminist Thought And Spirituality
    • Lesbian Theatre
    • CD's and DVD's
    • Anthologies with Other Authors
    • Journal Anthologies
  • Plays
    • One-Woman Shows >
      • The Second Coming of Joan of Arc
      • La Seconde Venue de Jeanne d'Arc
      • Joana Dark - a re-volta
      • Giovanna d'Arco - la rivolta
      • ВТОРОТО ПРИШЕСТВИЕ НА ЖАНА Д’АРК (Bulgarian tranlsation of The Second Coming of Joan
      • 贞德再临_中文 (Mandarin translation of The Second Coming of Joan of Arc)
      • The Last Reading of Charlotte Cushman
      • Crossing the Rapelands
    • Musicals >
      • The Amazon All-Stars
      • Babe! An Olympian Musical
      • How to Write a Country-Western Song
      • Leading Ladies
      • Women on the Land
    • Full-Length Plays >
      • The Abolition Plays
      • The Anastasia Trials in the Court of Women
      • AXED!
      • Black Star
      • Coming About
      • Esther and Vashti
      • The Goddess Tour
      • In McClintock's Corn
      • Sappho in Love
      • The Spindle
      • Stigmata
      • Thanatron
      • Ugly Ducklings
    • One-Acts >
      • Ain't Got No - I Got Life
      • The A-Mazing Yamashita and the Millennial Gold-Diggers
      • Artemisia and Hildegard
      • Battered on Broadway
      • Bite My Thumb
      • The Boundary Trial of John Proctor
      • Cookin' with Typhoid Mary
      • The Countess and the Lesbians
      • The Drum Lesson
      • Easter Sunday
      • Entr'acte or The Night Eva Le Gallienne Was Raped
      • The Evil That Men Do: The Story of Thalidomide
      • Female Nude Seated
      • The Gage and Mr. Comstock
      • The Greatest Actress Who Ever Lived
      • Harriet Tubman Visits A Therapist
      • Head in the Game
      • Hermeneutic Circlejerk
      • Heterosexuals Anonymous
      • Jane Addams and the Devil Baby
      • A Labor Play
      • Lace Curtain Irish
      • Lighting Martha
      • Little Sister
      • Louisa May Incest
      • Mason-Dixon
      • The Obligatory Scene
      • The P.E. Teacher
      • The Parmachene Belle
      • The Pele Chant
      • Planchette
      • The Poorly-Written Play Festival
      • Radicals
      • The Rules of the Playground
      • St. Frances and the Fallen Angels
      • Souvenirs from Eden
      • Starpattern
      • 'Til the Fat Lady Sings
      • Valerie Solanas At Matteawan
    • Short Short Plays >
      • 52 Pickup
      • At Sea
      • Black Eye
      • El Bobo
      • Calamity Jane Sends a Message to Her Daughter
      • The Clarity of Pizza
      • The Great Fire
      • Hrotsvitha's Vision
      • The Intimacy Coordinator
      • The Ladies' Room
      • Miss Le Gallienne Announces the New Season
      • On the Other Hand
      • Patricide
      • The Pickle Play
    • Dramatic Adaptations >
      • Amy Lowell: In Her Own Words
      • Brett Remembers
      • Deep Haven
      • El Bobo (one-act play)
      • El Bobo (short screenplay)
      • Emily & Sue >
        • Touring Production of Emily & Sue >
          • The Creative Team
          • Director's Vision
          • Adaptor's notes
          • Open Me Carefully
      • I Have Come to Show You Death
      • Speak Fully The One Awful Word
      • We Too Are Drifting (Screenplay)
    • Special Index: Plays That Deal with Sexual Violence Against Women and Girls
    • Special Index: Women's History Plays
    • Special Index: Romantic Plays with Happy Endings
  • Touring Work
    • Performances >
      • Lace Curtain Irish
      • Crossing the Rapelands
      • The Parmachene Belle (performance)
      • Calamity Jane Sends a Message to Her Daughter (performance)
      • Gage on Stage
    • Lectures >
      • Lizzie Borden and Lesbian Theatre
      • The Secret Life of Lesbians
      • Paradigms and Paradigm-Shifting
      • When Sex Is Not the Metaphor For Intimacy
      • Meeting the Ghost of Hamlet's Father
      • A Theatrical Journey Through Maine's Lesbian History
      • Tara and Other Lies
      • Teena Brandon's Inconvenient Truth
    • Workshops >
      • The Art of the Dramatic Monologue
      • Acting Lesbian
      • Interrupting Racism: A Workshop
      • Playwriting Techniques for Poets and Fiction Writers
      • Ugly Ducklings Workshop
    • Residencies
    • The Lesbian Tent Revival >
      • Testimonials
      • The Lesbian Tent Revival Radio Hour Podcasts
      • The Lesbian Tent Revival Sermon on Dying Well
      • Sermons for a Lesbian Tent Revival
      • Supplemental Sermons
      • Hotter Than Hell
      • The Synapse Pendant
    • Cauldron & Labrys >
      • A Brief History
      • Upcoming Productions
  • Calendar
    • Productions of Gage's Work and Appearances
  • Contact/Storefront
    • Privacy Policy
  • Blog

Leeches and Psychotropic Drugs Part Ten

1/3/2011

0 Comments

 
Picture

 !!!!  A note about this series: These are posted in backwards order (it's a website thing...), so PLEASE GO TO PART ONE (click here)  now to start the series. There is a link at the end of each one  that will take you to the next. Sorry for the inconvenience. !!!!!!

Okay… This is the final blog on Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs and the Astounding Rise of Mental Illness in America.


In 2003, there was an interesting hunger strike by six “psychiatric survivors” from MindFreedom International, a patients’ rights organization. It was a pretty simple hunger strike.  All they were asking was that the American Psychiatric Association, or the National Alliance on Mental Illness, or the Office of the Surgeon General provide scientifically valid evidence for the stories they were telling the public… i.e:

1)    Evidence that major mental illnesses are biologically-based brain diseases.

2)    Evidence that psychiatric drugs can correct chemical imbalance in the brain.

And then they made a reasonable request: That, if these organizations could not meet the request, that they admit to the public that they are unable to do so.

They never received any evidence, and, not surprisingly, none of the organizations made any public announcements. But the strikers did manage to get some press. I wish they had gotten more, and, as one of them noted in 2009, “I think it’s time for another hunger strike.”

Here’s the deal: Some of these drugs do alleviate symptoms in the short term, and there are some folks who stabilize over the long term on them. There is a use for them, as the author acknowledges, in the “psychiatry toolbox.” The problem appears to be a lack of honesty in how they are presented to the public. The public has a right to know:
  • That biological causes of mental illness remain unknown.
  • That drugs do not fix imbalances in the brain, but perturb normal functioning of neurotransmitter paths.
  • Long-term studies reveal that the medications worsen long-term outcomes.
  • That many people who experience deep depression can recover naturally and that long-term use of psychotropics is associated with increased chronicity.

Picture
If the public knew these things, there would be more focus on how to use these drugs judiciously and there would be more focus on alternative therapies that don’t rely on meds, or that minimize use.

The author spends some time visiting psychiatric facilities in Western Lapland. Here, patients are treated to something called “open-dialogue” therapy. The nurses, psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists have, for the most part, completed a three-year, 900-hour course in family therapy. According to psychologist Tapio Salo, “Psychosis does not live in the head. It lives in the in-between of family members, and of people. It is in the relationship, and the one who is psychotic makes the bad connection visible. He or she ‘wears the symptoms’ and has the burden to carry them.”

Wow. And, even though this practitioner is referring specifically to psychosis, I felt when I read those words that they potentially have much wider application. What if all the folks who bought into the myth of “chemical imbalance in the brain” were to switch over to an understanding that mental illness resides in the spaces between people… between family members, certainly… and friends, but also members of one’s church, classmates, co-workers, between a government and a people, and between other species and ourselves? What if we all took that seriously and began to put the focus on treating those relationships as if our sanity depended on it?

But let’s go back to this “open dialogue” in Western Lapland. Everyone goes to the first meeting with family and patient with the awareness that they “know nothing.” Wow. Really? Yes, really. Those 900 hours have trained them all to be “specialists in saying that we are not specialists.”  In fact, the therapists consider themselves guests in the patient’s home. If the patient runs off, they just ask them to leave the door open so they can hear the conversation.

There is no mention of antipsychotics in the first few meetings. If the patient begins to sleep better and bath regularly, and in other ways reestablish societal connections, the therapists see that the “grip on life” is strengthening and meds will not be needed. Sometimes benzodiazepenes are given short-term for anxiety or sleep problems, but when the problem goes away, the meds are stopped.

Yes, this process takes time. Sometimes up to five years. Teachers and prospective employers are asked to join the dialogue. The focus is on restoring social connections.

Picture
 Results? Since 1992 not a single first-episode psychotic patient has ended up chronically hospitalized. The spending is less than any other district in Lapland. Eighty-four percent of the patients had returned to work or to school, and only 20% were on antipsychotics. Families have come to trust the system and call for help at the first sign of psychosis… and, consequently, very few go on to develop schizophrenia.  They have had a 90% drop in new cases of schizophrenia since the early 1980’s.

 
What about alternative therapies for depression? 70% of depressed patients respond to an exercise program. In fact, general practitioners in the UK are writing prescriptions for exercise. And the side effects are fantastic: more strength, better cardiovascular function, lower blood pressure, better sleep, better sex, improved cognitive functioning. Oh, and studies have shown it is not wise to combine exercise with drug therapy.

Then there is the Seneca Center in California, a last-stop for severely disturbed kids. When a child enters the residential program, the question is not “What’s wrong with the kid?” but “What happened to them?” The Seneca Center also does something else interesting. As they chart the life history of the kids, they also chart the medication history… looking for how behavior may have changed after medication. Not surprisingly, these histories regularly tell of psychiatric care that has worsened behavior.  If they can see that a drug did not help, they don't prescribe it.They frequently detox the kids and institute behavior modification techniques to help the kids control their own behavior.

According to the program director, “… feeling in charge of yourself and being responsible for yourself is [sic] the central issue of their lives.” It’s about power. And power in relationships. They provide “mentors” for the kids, and the kids learn that it’s safe to form attachments.

The Seneca Center highlights a major issue in mental health today: The need for social and medical support for detoxing from prescription medications.

Picture
Whitaker ends his book talking about an organization in Alaska called PsychRights that mounted a public information campaign in 2002 with judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, and the general public about the outcomes for antipsychotics. The founder of this organization, Jim Gottstein, filed a lawsuit against the state in a forced-drugging case, and won a stunning legal victory in 2006. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled, “Psychotropic medication can have profound and lasting negative effects on a patient’s mind and body. These drugs are known to casue a number of potentially devastating side effects.”

Gottstein has moved on to filing lawsuits on behalf of foster children and children living in poverty. He likens these suits to Brown vs. Board of Education, hoping they will have a similar effect to that watershed lawsuit that ended segregation—in this case changing national attitudes about the drugging of children.

There’s no neat way to sum up these ten blogs. Obviously, I consider it an important book. As an activist, I have seen a country and a generation of activists become progressively more numb and more complacent. I have seen friends change personalities, stop moving forward. I have experienced the suicides and attempted suicides of friends and colleagues—four in this last year. As global warming advances, as resources become more scarce and economies more fragile, as social services are increasingly cut, and as the environment becomes more and more toxic, there has never been so great a need for awareness, for clarity, and—yes—alarm. It is a time for radical honesty, for confrontation of the conflict-of-interest when drug companies have so many financial ties to Congress, to doctors, and to medical schools. It is time for honest studies, for “open dialogue” on a national level.

What I take away from the book, and take most seriously, is a new understanding that mental illness resides in the spaces between people. I want to take responsibility for my part in the healing of that space.

Click here to go back to Part 1.

0 Comments

Leeches and Psychotropic Drugs Part Nine

1/2/2011

4 Comments

 
Picture
This is the ninth part of my very long blog on Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Robert Whitaker.

Today's blog is on childen… specifically the so-called rise of mental illness among children and young people. What appears to be on the rise is an ideology.

The first thing to understand is that  the prescribing of psychiatric drugs to children is fairly recent. Prior to 1980, very few young people were medicated for mental conditions.

As Whitaker’s book makes clear, it’s all about the story. In fact, no research has ever shown a chemical imbalance in the brain to be the cause of depression or schizophrenia. Research does show that long-term use of psychotropic drugs creates a chemical imbalance in the brain that can be permanent, leading to permanent dependence and disability. Okay.. but the story is this: "Wow!  Good thing you’re on meds, because look how ill you get when you try to get off them! That just PROVES what a terrible imbalance you had before you were diagnosed."  I suppose alcoholics and heroine addicts could try to spin their withdrawals the same way…

Picture
Anyway, same thing going on with the drugging of kids:  Spin. Story. Apparently millions and millions of kids who, in the benighted past, were considered bored, rambunctious, temporarily sad, introspective, or angry were (according to “the story”) actually suffering from mental illness that was biological in nature (the elusive “chemical imbalance of the brain” story puts in a pediatric appearance), and FORTUNATELY these kids are now being diagnosed and medicated, and the fact that their mental health is becoming worse and worse just shows what a great thing it is that they are now getting help!

Turns out, depression and mania have always been common among children.  At least, that's the story.

And, here, let me put in a word for my own reasoning capacities. I think there are many and excellent reasons for a decline in the mental health of children. For starts: nutrition. There’s a B-vitamin deficiency in the global food supply (result of depleted soil). Kids eat crap. We all know that. It’s pushed on them. And low-income families have little choice but to load up on high-carb, low-nutrient foods. If we treated our cars the way we treat our bodies, the engines would have seized up long ago. 

Then there is what some have begun to call Nature Deficiency Syndrome. It’s a pretty recent thing that a child can spend months, even years at a time in man-made environments without a day in nature. I think this has a severe impact on perspective, perceptions of reality, being right-sized, etc.  I think that being in nature has many effects on us that are still poorly understood.

And then there is the electronic media thing… staring at screens: TV, DVD’s, WII sports, Nintendo games, texting. We are learning reality from unreality. Not to mention that radiation thing.

Picture
And, seriously, WHAT are they watching for 5-8 hours a day? Porn and violence. There have been some hugely ignored studies documenting that children before the age of four register traumatic events they see on film as if these events were real. In other words, they actually develop PTSD from watching people get burned alive, blown up, eviscerated, raped, tortured, and murdered. I remember back in the 1950's, my brother developed a bunch of fear behaviors after seeing the movie "House on Haunted Hill." Which would be considered light-weight today.  Anyway, the research about pornography is equally conclusive and equally ignored: exposure to pornography desensitizes the viewer, impairing their capacity for intimacy, fostering an objectification of (usually) women. Oh, and it teaches rape.

Are children more restless, depressed, aggressive? I wouldn’t doubt it. Is it about chemical imbalance in the brain? Until there is one shred of research to support that theory, I’m going to go with “no.” Is it about how far we have removed ourselves from being an animal species among animal species?  Well, those folks who are actually creating environments to bring us back to that are getting good results.

But let’s get back to “the story.”  Children have been massively mentally ill all along… who knew? 

Let’s look at Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).  At the turn of the century, a doctor did identify hospitalized children with “violent outbursts… destructiveness, and a lack of responsiveness to punishment.” This was found to be associated with known brain injuries (meningitis, brain tumors, etc.) It was a rare condition.

Picture
In 1956 Ritalin went on the market as an alternative to amphetamines for treatment of narcolepsy. It was found helpful for treating these hyperactive kids who were hospitalized for brain injuries. But things didn’t really change until 1980, when ADD made it into the DSM for the first time (Diagnostic Statistical Manual), which, in cynical terms, determines what insurance will and won’t pay for. In 1987, ADD became ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). In 1991, ADHD became covered by an act of Congress, so that now children with the diagnosis were eligible for a range of special services.

What happened? Suddenly there were children in every classroom with this formerly rare, brain-disease side effect. Who was diagnosing? Mostly teachers, not doctors.  A study in 2009 showed that “only a minority of children with this disorder exhibit symptoms during a physician visit.” By 2007, one out of twenty-three children (4-17 years old) were being medicated for ADHD.  It’s called a brain disease, but, again, no research supports this finding. The neuroanatomy appears to be normal. The “chemical imbalance” thing is a drug-marketing claim, not science. Who needs facts when the story is so good?

Do the drugs “work?” Well, the children definitely become subdued, or, in clinical terms, there is a “reduction in movement and engagement with others.” In teacher language that would mean “stops fidgeting and talking to students during class.” In research language, other phrases have been used: “emotionally flat,” “reduced curiosity about the environment,” “socially withdrawn,” “little or no initiative,” “devoid of humor.”

Picture
What about the children?  Researchers have found a pervasive dislike for taking the pills among hyperactive kids. Seems that it’s not great for self-esteem. But what about academic performance? If the pills enhance the student’s ability to focus, then wouldn’t that enhance self-esteem?

Ritalin helps with focus on  routine, repetitive tasks, but it does not lend itself to creative problem solving or divergent thinking—both of which are necessary for critical thinking. Ritalin appears to be taking on a sinister tinge: The improvement is in classroom manageability, not academic performance.

And the long term?  Seems to be a growth suppressant (shorter, less weight). Symptoms worsen over time. Greater overall functional impairment.  Oh, gosh… Okay (deep breath): drowsiness, appetite loss, lethargy, facial and vocal tics, insomnia, headaches, abdominal pain, motor abnormalities, skin problems, liver disorders, sudden cardiac death, depression, apathy, anxiety, irritability, obsessive-compulsive disorder, mania, paranoia, hallucination…  reduced ability to experience pleasure. Yeah. Ritalin.

Moving on. By 2002, one in forty children were on anti-depressants. In 2004, the number of children killing themselves on these drugs was so alarming, the FDA started requiring the drug companies to include a warning label that describes the "increased risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts and behavior in children and adolescents given antidepressant medications." A warning. The drugs are still available, still prescribed, and young people are still killing themselves. Read my earlier blog on the failure of antidepressants… Or, if you have a strong stomach, go to the SSRI stories website.

In 1960, researchers were unable to find any cases of manic-depressive syndrome in children. By the late 1960’s, Ritalin began to be prescribed. Some children taking Ritalin began to exhibit manic behavior.  No surprise there. Any parent with a kid on Ritalin can tell you about the daily “crash.” The drug produces arousal followed by dysphoric symptoms. Daily. But this is the very cycle that doctors describe as bipolar!  Every child on a stimulant is a bit bipolar, and the risk of moving on to a full diagnosis is ever-present. Voila! Pediatric bipolar disorder was “discovered.”

As antidepressants began to be prescribed, the numbers rose even higher.  And here was the story: The antidepressants were not causing bipolar.. no, no, no!  They were simply unmasking the bipolar illness that was already there! In fact, by 1995, studies showed that one quarter of children and adolescents diagnosed and medicated for depression would convert to bipolar within two-to-four years.

To sum up: 400,000 children have arrived at bipolar via the ADHD doorway, with at least another half-million on the way through the antidepressant doorway. This is an iatrogenic epidemic, people. Iatrogenic. Look it up. And how bad off are these kids?  In 1987, there were about 16,000 psychiatrically disabled youth on SSI.  Twenty years later? 560,000.

And what about really young kids? About ten years ago, doctors began to prescribe psychotropic drugs to toddlers. In those ten years, the number of children under the age of six who are on SSI has tripled.

Whitaker goes on to interview some of the children who are on these medications. The stories are heartbreaking and also infuriating. What is most upsetting is that the doctors who are attempting to explore other treatment modalities in lieu of medication are finding they can’t get funding, and their work is not being published. 

The next blog will probably be the last… talking about these alternative methods for dealing with mental illness.

Click here to go back to Part 1.
Click here to go on to Part 10.



4 Comments

Leeches and Psychotropic Drugs Part Eight

12/27/2010

1 Comment

 
Picture
It was not my intention to write so many blogs on Anatomy of an Epidemic, but I have lost so many friends, acquaintances, and colleagues to this iatrogenic “epidemic,” I find that every time I want to skip a chapter, there is a nagging compulsion that haunts me until I include the material.

This was the case with Whitaker's chapter on bipolar. I had covered anti-psychotics, neuroleptics, antidepressants… and I just wanted to move on to conclusions. But my  conscience would not let me.

So, here we go: Robert Whitaker on bipolar...

He opens the chapter with a report on the 2008 American Psychiatric Association annual meeting, which he attended. Because of new disclosure guidelines, Whitaker was able to access information about some of the speakers. One example: Joseph Biederman of Massachusetts General who led the way in popularizing juvenile bipolar disorder received research grants from eight drug companies, was a “consultant” to nine of them, and served as a “speaker” to eight. The enmeshment between medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies has apparently become so routine and so widely accepted, no one thinks to ask if this connection might constitute conflict of interest. In fact, failure to have these connections is likely to call into question one's medical credentials. But that's another chapter.

Picture
The fact is this:  outcomes for bipolar have dramatically worsened since the “discovery” (read “accidental blundering onto questionably useful, but decidedly marketable side effects while developing drugs for other purposes”) of psychiatric drugs.  To what does “worsened” refer?  Increased chronicity, functional decline (as in "becoming disabled"), cognitive impairment, and physical illness… all of which, the author notes, can be EXPECTED to show up with patients taking the usual bipolar cocktail that often includes an antidepressant, a mood stabilizer, a bezodiazepine, an antipsychotic, and maybe a stimulant.

In the past, bipolar disorder was considered extremely rare. In 1955, the rate appears to have been about one in every 13,000. Outcomes were very positive. Whitaker cites a number of studies illustrating that about 50% hospitalized for mania did not have a recurrence. Seems that 70-80% used to end up “socially recovered”…  that is,  married, working, home-owning.  Okay, somewhat heterosexist and capitalist criteria, but at least they were not institutionalized, not on disability payments, not lying on the couch or in bed.

So, what’s the scenario today?  One in forty people are diagnosed as bipolar. WHAT? From one in 13,000 to  one in 40? And, no, that huge a difference can’t be explained just by saying that medicine has expanded the boundaries of the diagnosis. It has definitely done that, but there is obviously something more significant going on.

Okay… dirty little secret: Studies show that one-to-two thirds of patients hospitalized for bipolar episodes have abused (used?) illicit drugs… specifically stimulants, cocaine, marijuana, and hallucinogens. These weren’t all that popular and available until the 1960’s. So that's part of the epidemic.

But there’s something else…  The American Psychiatric Association in 1993 admitted that “all antidepressant treatments, including ECT [electroconvulsive, or "shock" therapy], may provoke manic episodes.”  In fact, 20-40% of patients diagnosed with depression convert to bipolar.  One study notes that 60% of bipolar patients turned that way after exposure to antidepressants. 

Even more sadly, withdrawing the antidepressant that produced the mania will not alter the condition. In other words, antidepressant-induced bipolar disorder is neither temporary or reversible.

Picture
And, yes, doctors (and keep in mind the tremendous amount of money that many receive from drug companies for endorsing their products) expanded the diagnosis. You no longer need to be hospitalized in order to get a bipolar diagnosis. You no longer need to have four days of “elevated, expansive or irritable moods.” You just need two. So now, 5% of the population is bipolar. But even that’s not good enough.  In 2003, the former head of the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) said that many folks can suffer from “subthreshold” symptoms of depression and mania. The new name is “bipolarity spectrum disorder.” 6.4% of American adults are apparently affected, and some optimistically declare that it’s more likely that  25% are somewhere on the bipolar spectrum! Talk about expanding markets!

Page after page after page of studies in Whitaker's book illustrate how the antidepressants destroy the symptom-free interludes, which, of course, destroys functionality. Frankly, it makes for depressing reading: “induction of mania,” “induction of rapid cycling,” “increase in number of episodes,” “chronic depression,” “cognitive impairment.” Finally, in 2008, the NIMH released their findings on bipolar treatment: “the major predictor of worse outcomes was antidepressant use, which about 60% of patients received.”

Let me just cut to the chase: In 1955 there were about 12,700 patients hospitalized for bipolar. Today, there are about SIX MILLION adults with the illness, and 83% are “severely impaired.”

And if you have loved ones, as I do, who have been diagnosed and who are on the usual drug cocktails for bipolar, then you can skip the narratives at the end of the chapter. I’m sure the stories will be familiar. Whitaker puts a human face on this tragedy, interviewing patients whose lives illustrate the stages of cognitive impairment and loss of functionality. The descriptions from those who have gotten away from the drugs and managed to survive are telling. One patient notes, “Honestly, it felt like I was waking up for the first time in five years… I had gotten back to being myself again. I felt like the drugs took away everything that was me.”

As terrifying and/or debilitating as episodes of mania or depression can be, it might be helpful for doctors to keep in mind the fact that longterm outcomes for both schizophrenia and manic-depressives are consistently better for patients who are not treated with psychiatric drugs.

Click here to go back to Part I.
Click here to go on to Part 9.

1 Comment

Leeches and Psychotropic Drugs Part Seven

12/26/2010

0 Comments

 
Picture
 “With psychiatric medications, you solve one problem for a period of time, but the next thing you know you end up with two problems. The treatment turns a period of crisis into a chronic mental illness”…

This quotation by a patient opens the tenth chapter of Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astounding Rise of Mental Illness in America.  This is the seventh part of a blog about the book.

The author offers an interesting exercise in logic: What if there was a virus that makes people sleep 12-14 hours a day, move slowly, and appear emotionally disengaged? What if this virus made blood sugar levels and cholesterol levels soar? What if patients with the virus were developing diabetes… especially children and young adults? And some were even dying from pancreatitis?  And then government studies were discovering that the virus was having these effects because it was blocking an astounding multitude of critical neurotransmitter sites in the brain:  dopaminergic, sertononinergic, muscarinic, adrenergic, and histaminergic?  And imagine that this virus was shrinking the cerebral cortex causing cognitive impairment…   Scary virus, no?  And then the author delivers the punchline: He has just described the effects of Eli Lilly’s best-selling antipsychotic drug Zyprexa.  And, yes, millions (including children) are taking it. And, yes, BILLIONS have been paid out and continue to be paid out in settlements by Lilly …

But Zyprexa continues to be sold. Why? Hold that question…

Picture
Let’s look at Prozac…  By the summer of 1997, the FDA had received thirty-nine thousand reports of  Prozac-treated patients committing horrendous crimes or killing themselves.  Consider that only 1% of cases get reported to the FDA.  Pretty scary, no?  Again, check out the SSRI Stories website.  And yet, anti-depressants continue to be prescribed in ever-increasing numbers.

What’s going on?  Whitaker unravels the mystery by connecting the dots between physicians (and the desperate desire on the part of psychiatrists to become “real” doctors with their own magic bullet drugs), and pharmaceutical companies, and medical schools, and the National Institute for Mental Health.  Nobody is specifically evil. Nobody is intending to unleash an iatrogenic epidemic of damaged brains on the American public. Folks are just doing business:  Doctors are telling patients what they want to hear (“We can fix you with a pill.”). Pharmaceutical companies are cultivating profitable and positive relationships with doctors, who are, after all, the real “point-of-sale” folks.

Medical colleges are eager to accept donations to fund research and research facilities. It’s understandable that these funds would be coming from the pharmaceutical companies, who have such a stake in research. And, the National Institute of Mental Health is, of course, staffed by the folks who have come out of these medical schools with the powerful connections that would get them into the loop of a government agency, and the agency, of course, is responsive to the cutting edge of research and the needs of the population… which are demonstrably for more pyschotropic drugs… And, my god, look at the burgeoning mental health problems this country has!  Good thing doctors, drug companies, med schools, and the government are all on the same page about working together on this thing…

Picture
Whitaker’s research for the book takes the reader down some of the back alleys, where we find the researchers who consistently find, over and over, that there were no such things as "chemical imbalances" in the brain causing mental health conditions… who are finding in study after study that these psychiatric drugs are causing permanent brain damage and drug dependencies. What happened to them? They were fired, demoted, censored, discredited, had their funding withdrawn, their positions revoked.  This was not the story that people wanted to hear. And this is still going on. (Good thing Scientologists don't believe in psychiatric drugs... Now anyone who questions the practice can be equated with Scientologists and believing in aliens!)

What’s going on?  Let’s follow some of the money…

Eli Lilly’s value increased nearly tenfold between 1987 and 2000.  The head of the psychiatric department at Emory received $960,000 from one drug company just to promote Paxil and Wellbutrin. In 2006, drug companies gave physicians in Minnesota $2.1 million dollars.  The totally accidental and random discovery of drugs that affect the brain and the very focused and intentional marketing of them has ushered in what amounts to a psychotropic Gold Rush.

And who pays the bill? In 2008, the US spent $170 billion on mental health services, which was twice as much as in 2001.  By 2015, the cost is estimated to be almost twice as high. About 60% of this is paid by the US government via Medicare and Medicaid. We’re all paying the bill.

But money is not the primary cost. The highest price is the cost to our mental health. Whitaker makes an argument that is difficult to refute that the current mental health epidemic in this country is an iatrogenic one.

The eighth blog on this issue will be focused on solutions. Stay tuned!

Click here to go back to Part 1.
Click here to go on to Part 8.



0 Comments

Leeches and Psychotropic Drugs Part Six

12/16/2010

3 Comments

 
Picture
This is the sixth part of a blog about Robert Whitaker’s book, Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America.

Okay… So this blog is about depression. And, of course, those “magic bullets,” the anti-depressants.

Some background: Community surveys from the 1930’s and 1940’s found fewer than one in a thousand people suffered an episode of clinical depression each year. And most of those who did, did not require hospitalization. In 1955, the disability rate from depression was one in 4,345 people. Oh, and it was a disease of the middle-aged and the elderly. Hold that thought.

Study after study from these years showed that folks with depression had great prospects for recovery via spontaneous remission… about half, in fact.   And folks recovering from depressive episodes had the same “capacity and prospects” in their work life as before the onset of the illness.  In other words, they were not being disabled by depression.

Picture
The first generation of anti-depressants got good press... for a while. But then the  National Institute of Mental Health noted that the more rigorous the controls for studies, the lower the improvement rates. Turns out that placebos were just as effective.

And then, in 1988, Prozac hit the market with a splash of publicity... for a while.  It turned out that the SSRI’s (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) were no better than the earlier generation of anti-depressants when compared with placebos.

But there was one area where anti-depressants were having a definite effect.... Patients on long-term anti-depressant use were experiencing depression as a chronic condition. Not only that, but a chronic condition they were stuck with, because when the patients tried to get off their meds, they would have hideous relapses of clinical depression, often accompanied by suicidal ideation.  Researchers referred to it as “rapid clinical deterioration.” And the longer the course of medication, the more serious  the relapse.

Picture
Yep… the anti-depressants were joining the neuroleptics and the benzodiazepines as psychiatric drugs proving to cause more serious conditions than those they purported to cure. And pretty much for the same reason: The drugs were introducing a chemical imbalance to the brain, and the brain was making drastic adjustments to compensate. These adjustments, over time, would become permanent, which is why withdrawal of the drugs had such disastrous consequences. The brain had now become permanently imbalanced.

But the investment in these "magic bullets" was enormous. In response to the evidence of harm, the medical establishment began to circle their theory wagons. They found a way to explain away the earlier, pre-1960 history of depression: Apparently, the reason so many depressed patients seemed to recover so easily in the past was because the doctors back then had inferior systems for describing and classifying mental illness. Depression, they insisted, is, and always has been, a chronic condition requiring medication... and any statistics that would contradict this must be invalid.  Why, all you had to do was look at how many patients relapsed when they went off their meds, to see how necessary the drugs are! 

So let me recap: Prior to the discovery of anti-depressants, depression was reported as relatively rare, and with good prospects of complete recovery. Children and young people hardly ever suffered from it. Today, one in ten people are diagnosed with depression as a chronic condition, and these folks can expect recurrences throughout their lives. In fact, two-thirds of patients treated with anti-depressants can expect recurrent bouts.  In one study, only 6% could expect remission.

In a 1995 study by the NIMH, patients who had been medicated for depression were likely to have become disabled. And children and young people? Today depression is the leading cause of disability for folks between the ages of 15 and 44.

And then, of course, there are the side effects: The SSRI’s can cause sexual dysfunction, suppression of REM sleep (which will cause psychiatric problems), fatigue, emotional blunting, and apathy. And…  impaired memory, impaired problem-solving ability, loss of creativity, learning disabilities.  All this for a short-term effect often little better than that of a placebo, likely to result in chronic depression, with possible disability.  Such a deal.

Picture
And here I am departing from a review of Whitaker’s book to take a sidetrip to a website called SSRI Stories.  This is not for the faint-of-heart: Here's their self-description: "This website is a collection of 4,300+ news stories with the full media article available, mainly criminal in nature, that have appeared in the media (newspapers, TV, scientific journals)  or that were part of FDA testimony in either 1991, 2004 or 2006, in which antidepressants are mentioned."

And the stories are doozies. For the reader's convenience, the website has categorized them by atrocity. Here's the list:

Soldier Cases
School Shootings / Incidents
Most Recent (Last 30 Days)
Workplace Violence
Celebrity Cases
Highly Publicized Cases
Won SSRI Criminal Cases
Women Teacher Molestations
Postpartum Cases
Murder-Suicides
Murders / Murder Attempts
Suicides / Suicide Attempts
Road Rage Cases

If you click on any of these, you can read the details about these cases, with links to corresponding journal or newspaper articles. Is the association with anti-depressants a coincidence? I mean, only people with depression and mental illness are prescribed the drugs, so is it fair to blame these crimes on pharmaceuticals?  Check out the narratives from family members, insisting that, prior to the use of medications, the person did not have suicidal ideation, mood swings, erratic behavior. Check out how many times drug companies have paid out claims on these cases... and you know that these settlements are not cheap.

Finally, the FDA has had to admit that the SSRI's are causing children and young people to take their lives, and labels now have to carry warnings about  increased risk of suicide among young adults aged 18 to 24. Clearly, the folks who run the SSRI Stories website see this as just the tip of the iceberg, and, at least to me, they make a compelling case.

So, since the anti-depressants have such poor efficacy and such gargantuan risks, why are so many people still taking them? In the US, by 2005, one in ten people were on anti-depressants. By 2008, there were 164 million prescriptions written for anti-depressants.

What the hell is going on? Stay tuned!

Click here to go back to Part 1.
Click here to go on to Part 7.

3 Comments

Leeches and Psychotropic Drugs Part Five

12/16/2010

1 Comment

 
Picture
This is the fifth part of a series of blogs in response to Robert Whitaker’s book Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America.

Whitaker reviews the scientific research to demonstrate that the psychiatric drugs were discovered by accident, and were not intentionally developed to treat mental diseases. The theory of a chemically imbalanced brain was put forward after these drugs began to be prescribed and, according to Whitaker, this theory has not been supported by studies. As he noted, researchers did not find chemical imbalances in the brains of mental patients, but these imbalances did turn up after use of psychiatric drugs.

PictureTardive Dyskinesia and Antipsychotics
Chapter after chapter, Whitaker examines the different drugs and the conditions they are purported to treat. In terms of schizophrenia, researchers conclude there is no good evidence that antipsychotics improve long-term schizophrenia outcomes. The evidence that they may worsen long-term outcomes turns up repeatedly over fifty years of studies, beginning with the first study by the National Institute of Mental Health.

As brain studies advanced, researchers could finally explain why the drugs made patients more vulnerable to psychosis in the long run. They could also explain why the drug-induced changes to brain chemistry made it so risky for people to go off their meds.  Doctors had looked at relapses as proof that the medications were fixing a problem. In fact, what these relapses were demonstrating was the damage done to the brain by the drug use. 

A high percentage of long-term antipsychotics users develop a condition called tardive dyskinesia (way scary... look it up), proof that the drugs are inducing brain dysfunction.  After the MRI was invented, researchers could prove that antipsychotics caused morphological changes in the brain, worsening symptoms and resulting in cognitive impairment.

Finally, evidence that long-term recovery rates for schizophrenia are higher for non-medicated patients turns up study after study. Only five percent of schizophrenia patients on long-term meds end up recovered. This is compared with rates of 65 percent and higher for non-medicated patients treated with progressive forms of psychosocial care.

Picture
Moving on to the benzodiazepines (Librium, Valium, Klonopin, Ativan, Lunesta, Ambien, Xanax, and many, many others...), Whitaker notes how, by the 1970’s, the public had identified this class of drugs as highly addictive.

The largest class-action suit against drug manufacturers (14,000 patients and 1800 law firms) was filed in the UK, claiming that patients were not warned about dependence or withdrawal when the drugs were prescribed. In 1979, the US Senate held hearings that prompted Edward Kennedy to note that these drugs had produced a “nightmare of dependence and addiction, both very difficult to treat and recover from.” The drugs were reclassified, causing a temporary drop in their use, but in 1981 Xanax went on the market, and the “benzos” continued to be the leading treatment for anxiety disorders. In 2010, formerly classified documents from a Medical Research Council (UK) meeting of experts emerged and revealed that the MRC was aware of research 30 years ago which suggested benzodiazepines could cause brain damage in some people similar to that which occurs from alcohol abuse, and they failed to follow-up with larger clinical trials.

The benzos are effective in short-term numbing  of anxiety, but clinical trials show that this efficacy fades after about six weeks. What happens in the brain is that the benzos impair the brain’s ability to properly inhibit neuronal activity. As Whitaker notes, the benzos amplify the chemical in the brain that is the “brake fluid” that slows down activity.  In response to the drug, the brain produces less “brake fluid” and decreases the density of the receptors for this chemical… which means that, over time "the brake fluid is low and the brake pads worn thin."  If the patient attempts to go off the meds, the neurons begin to fire at a helter-skelter pace, and the patient’s anxiety goes through the roof.

Picture
Canadian researchers found that the benzos lead to a fourfold increase in depressive symptoms, and a British researcher found that anxiety was increasing for many patients, and they were developing panic attacks and agoraphobia. French researchers found that 75 percent of patients on these drugs were “markedly ill to extremely ill… in particular major depressive episodes… often with marked severity and disability.”

And then there is the cognitive impairment: people having trouble focusing, remembering things, learning new material, solving problems. Interestingly, patients were often not aware of their reduced ability, which was evidence that their self-insight was also impaired. The benzos have proven to be a route to disability.

Summing up… in spite of the fact that government panels in both the US and the UK concluded thirty years ago, that the benzos should not be prescribed long-term, the prescribing goes on.

In the next blog, we’ll look at what Whitaker has to say about anti-depressants and bi-polar diagnoses…

Click here to go back to Part 1.
Click here to go on to Part 6.


1 Comment

Leeches and Psychotropic Drugs Part 4

12/12/2010

3 Comments

 
Picture
This is the fourth part of my blog on Robert Whitaker’s Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Riase of Mental Illness in America.

The previous blog explored the accidental nature of the discoveries of these so-called magic bullets, and this blog will examine how the tail of those discoveries came to wag the dog of scientific theory.

Whitaker notes how psychiatry was viewed very differently from other branches of medicine. Traditionally, the patient would lie on a couch as the psychiatrist led them back through the labyrinthine convolutions of their childhood or provided interpretations for their dreams. This was a far cry from the medical practitioner who diagnosed specific illnesses and prescribed scientifically formulated medicines to correct the condition. With the discovery of “magic bullet” antibiotics, the prestige of doctors rose considerably, and psychiatrists were eager to see their practice achieve the same degree of validation and popularity. If only there was some way to frame these accidentally-discovered drugs as disease-fighting agents!  

Picture
All they needed was a good theory, and that’s what they got: The Theory of the Chemically Unbalanced Brain.  Some mental illness is caused by brains that have too much of something, and other mental illness is caused by brains that have too little of something. Psychotropic drugs work by inhibiting the uptake or production of the thing of which there is too much … or else the drugs provide the thing of which there is too little.

A beautiful theory, easily understood by patients.

The hunt for chemical imbalances in the brain was as unsuccessful as the US hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Equally unfortunately, the failure of the hunt for these imbalances was as irrelevant to public policy as was the failure to locate the weapons of mass destruction. When the public is clamoring for action, and when there is a theory so perfectly tailored to justify said action… well, researchers can either get on the bandwagon or risk the stigma and obscurity reserved for party-poopers and whistleblowers.

The twin pillars of the Chemically Imbalance Theory were 1) the low serotonin hypothesis of depression and 2) the high-dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia. By the late 1980’s, research had shown both theories to be wanting. Whitaker cites hundreds of studies, and my blog in no way does justice to the thoroughness of his research into the testing done on these drugs. As a former founder of a publishing company that reported on clinical testing of new drugs, the author brings a level of professional expertise to his knowledge of the field and analysis of findings.

So… the researchers did not find the  Chemically Imbalanced Brain that would be healed by the administration of drugs that had been originally developed for other purposes.  But, in studying the psychiatric patients taking these drugs, they did discover something else. In the words of Whitaker:

"Prior to treatment, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, depression, and other psychiatric disorders do not suffer from any known 'chemical imbalance.' However, once a person is put on psychiatric medication, which, in one manner or another, throws a wrench into the usual mechanics of a neuronal pathway, his or her brain begins to function… abnormally.”

The chemical imbalance was turning up after administration of the drugs, and often it appeared to be permanent. Which raises the question: After fifty years of prescribing these drugs, what exactly have been the outcomes? 

Click here to go back to Part 1
Click here to go to Part 5



3 Comments

Leeches and Psychotropic Drugs Part Three

12/11/2010

0 Comments

 
Picture
I’m blogging my response to Robert Whitaker’s book Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs and the Rise of Mental Illness in America. In Part One, I explored the historical disconnect between popular support for a medical treatment and the fact that this treatment may be ineffective or even dangerous, with no supporting research. Part Two reviewed the statistics for the epidemic.

Today’s subjet is “magic bullets.”  Medicine does have some. Antibiotics and insulin are examples. Researchers identified a medical condition, like bacterial infection or insulin deficiency, and then they developed a medicine that would fix it… Antibiotics to kill the bacteria, and insulin to provide insulin.

Picture
The “magic bullets” of psychiatric drugs evolved from a very different process. It might be more apt to label them “stray bullets.” For example, Thorzine, the drug that, in the author’s words, kicked off the whole psychopharmaceutical revolution, had its origins in a search for a drug that would be toxic to malarial microbes. That search came to a dead end, but... all was not lost, because it was discovered that one of the compounds might be useful as an antihistamine in surgery.

Unfortunately, the blood-pressure-lowering side effect was causing patients to die, and so the application was discontinued. One doctor, however, discovered that the drug produced a “veritable medicinal lobotomy”—and a magic bullet was born. In the 1950’s, chlorpromazine (Thorzine) began to be administered to psychotic patients, and the drug that was rendering patients quiet and manageable spread like wildfire through the asylums. When a drug treatment becomes so widely prescribed, it is difficult to keep in mind that it is not treating any disease.

Thorzine is considered a major tranquilizer. How about the minor ones? Well, they also began with a search for something else. Scientists were looking for a drug that would kill the bacteria that  penicillin couldn’t zap, and to that end, they were isolating a compound found in disinfectants. Research showed that this compound produced temporary paralysis of muscles, but, what was even more interesting, is that the mice who were being experimented on, did not seem to be upset when they found themselves on their backs and unable to move. Their heartrate remained steady. They were not stressed. And, low and behold, meprobonate found its way to the market in 1955 as “Miltown,” and the race for anti-anxiety drugs was on.   Four years later, chlordiazepoxide made it to the shelves as “Librium.”

Picture
How about the magic bullet for depression? Same story: stray bullets. Hydrazine was developed during World War II as a fuel substitute. After the war, the drug companies snatched up the surplus to test the toxic properties for “magic bullet” potential. Two hydrazine compounds were found effective against the tuberculosis bacillus. Good news, but something interesting was happening to the patients to whom it was administered. They were being energized—dancing on their beds, even. By 1957, in spite of alarming side effects, iproniazid was being recommended for long-term use with depressed patients.

Meanwhile… back at the Amercian Medical Association ranch, things were changing. In the 1950’s the Food and Drug Administration took over the job of licensing and approving drugs, and most drugs became available by prescription only. The AMA was no longer the watchdog, but the exclusive purveyors, and by 1960, pharmaceutical ads in AMA publications were bringing in $10 million in annual revenue. The PR rush was on.  And as the miracle stories multiplied, the rhetoric began to shift.

Tranquilizers became “antipsychotics,” and muscle relaxants became “mood normalizers.” The psychic energizers were “anti-depressants.” The public began to view these as antidotes to specific disorders, and scientists were under pressure to come up with a theory about broken brains to support the "magic bullets" that were achieving celebrity status. 

Click here to go back to  Part One.
Click here to go to Part Four.



0 Comments

Leeches and Psychotropic Drugs Part 2

12/7/2010

1 Comment

 
Picture
This is the second part of a series of blogs about the book Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Robert Whitaker.

The book is by a man who founded a publishing company to report on the business aspects of clinical testing of new drugs… an “industry-friendly” enterprise. Baffled by studies suggesting the inefficacy of medications for patients with schizophrenia, he began an investigative journey that resulted in this book.

“Epidemic” is  a strong word. How does Whitaker support it? 

He starts by looking at the data for 1955, when the disabled mentally ill were primarily cared for in state and county mental hospitals. Today, these folks would typically be receiving SSI (Supplemental Security Income) or SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) payment, with many of them living in residential shelters or other subsidized living arrangements. 

Picture
In 1955, 1 out of every 468 Americans was hospitalized from mental illness. In 1987, 1 out of 184 Americans were receiving SSI or SSDI payment for disabling psychiatric conditions. The author concedes that this is an apples-to-oranges comparison, because the increase could be a result of the lowering of social taboos for seeking treatment for mental illness… but, the argument could also go the other way—that the 1987 statistics could be conservative, because they only include folks younger than 65 (older disabled patients are on Medicare and Social Security.) Okay… apples-to-oranges, because SSI and SSDI did not exist in 1955.

So let’s look at a more meaningful comparison, apples-to-apples. Let’s compare the number of folks on SSI and SSDI in 1987 to those in 2007.  Why 1987? Because that’s the year that Prozac was approved by the FDA. Twenty years later, the rate for folks disabled by mental illness was 1 in 76 Americans. That’s more than double the rate in 1987.

Whitaker asks us to go deeper. In 1955, comparatively few of the people disabled by mental illness were diagnosed with major depression or bipolar illness. By 2006, 46 percent of young people (18-26 years old) on psychiatric disability were diagnosed with an affective illness, and 8 percent with anxiety disorder. 

What about children? In 1987, pre-Prozac, only 5.5 percent of disabled children were diagnosed with psychiatric conditions. Twenty years later, that figure had changed to 50 percent. Today, mental illness is the leading cause of disability in children.  And here’s an interesting statistic: Between 1996 and 2007, the number of children on SSI for other reasons (cancer, developmental disorders) declined, while the number on SSI for mental illness more than doubled.  In other words, doctors seemed to be making progress in the treatment of other conditions, but losing some serious ground in combating mental illness.

Looking at these statistics, and especially those dating from the entry of Prozac into the marketplace, the author has the temerity to ask about the emperor’s new psychiatric clothes:

Could the current drug-based paradigm of care be causing this epidemic? In other words, is this epidemic iatrogenic in nature? (Etymology: Greek. iatros—physician, genein—to produce.)  Is the theory of the “broken brain” actually a broken theory?  Are the two decades of psychiatric drugging analogous to the two millennia of bloodletting—a pseudo-scientific practice rooted in the vulnerabilities of human nature, not medical science?

So here was Whitaker’s thinking: Since the general consensus is that millions of people are living better lives because of psychiatric medication, then surely the scientific literature should support this consensus with research into the biological disorders being treated and legions of studies reflecting the success of the new drugs.

In fact, the scientific literature tells an opposite story. 

Click here to go back to Part 1.
Click here to read Part 3.


1 Comment

Leeches and Psychotropic Drugs Part One

12/5/2010

0 Comments

 
PictureLeeches
Did you know that bloodletting was the most common medical practice from the first century AD until the nineteenth century—nearly two thousand years!—even though, in the majority of cases, the practice was harmful and even fatal to patients?

Wow.

Wouldn’t you think that in two millennia, people might have noticed that folks losing pints of blood got worse instead of better?

Actually, I’m sure they did. They would definitely notice when the patient died. So why the extraordinary longevity of such an obviously pernicious therapy?

The answer is simple: human nature. We are emotional, not rational creatures. And we are creatures of habit; our traditions die hard. And we are social animals; shunning by the herd will bring most of us back into line. 

Picture
Bloodletting was the accepted practice. The patient who challenged it, would be accused of malingering. The parent who refused it for their child would be perceived as negligent, or even malicious. The story is so strong, so rooted in human nature that it hijacks the  narrative: The patient who gets worse after bloodletting would have been even sicker without the procedure. The patient who eventually dies from loss of blood was going to die anyway, and the bloodletting came too late to save her.

Who needs science when there is a story as powerful as the story of blood gone bad, blood carrying humors which must be expelled? It is a graphic and compelling story—blood being such a dramatic metaphor for life. Blood is present at the birthing, present on the battlefield, emblematic of the transition to womanhood, and also emblematic of the manhood rite of wounding. Blood ties of kinship, blood feuds to the death. Blood as giver and as taker of life.

And then there is that human tendency to believe that it is better to do something than nothing. And bloodletting had the additional advantage of being quantifiable. Specific amounts of blood could be let at specific intervals. These could be recorded, charted, studied. There could be right ways and wrong ways for the letting-of-blood. Various techniques were developed, each with its own theory. But best of all, everyone has blood.

And, finally, there is an exchange of some sort going on. The bloodletter is receiving payment. The bloodletter is invested in promoting the practice, and the patient and the patient’s family have a disincentive in understanding that they have been hoodwinked… or that they might be responsible for enabling the harm or death of the one they loved. And then, of course, there is the lucrative cottage industry of leech-farming/ leech-harvesting.

Picture
Why am I telling you this? Because it might make it easier to swallow the fact that millions of people today are receiving a medically prescribed treatment that is making the majority of them much sicker, shortening their lives, and sometimes killing them… and there is absolutely no research to support the theory upon which these treatments are based.

In this case, the practice is only a few decades old instead of millennia, but the principle behind it is the same: human nature.

This blog is my response to reading Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker. The subtitle is “Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America."

The first thing that impressed me about this book was the story of the author’s involvement with the subject. He was not a counter-culture type guy. In fact, he had co-founded a publishing company to report on the business aspects of the clinical testing of new drugs. In his own words, “we wrote about this enterprise in an industry-friendly way.” Clearly Anatomy of an Epidemic is not “industry-friendly.” What changed?

Whitaker stumbled across a story about the abuse of patients in a research setting. He did a series of articles on the subject for the Boston Globe. In one of the stories, he reported on a study which had involved withdrawing schizophrenic patients from anti-psychotic medications. Since the medication for this disorder is likened to “insulin for diabetics,” the author questioned the ethics of a study that would deprive the patient of a medication supposedly known to be essential for their health.

In the course of researching this article, Whitaker ran across two findings that nagged at his conscience:

1)    In 1994, Harvard researchers announced that outcomes for schizophrenia patients has worsened since 1974 and were no better than they had been a century earlier… as in 1894.

2)    Two separate studies by the World Health Organization which found that schizophrenia outcomes were much better in poor countries like India and Nigeria, where only 16% of the patients were maintained on anti-psychotic medications.

The point of all this is that the author of the book was a solid believer in the conventional wisdom of modern psychiatry. He believed that psychiatric researchers had discovered biological causes for mental illness and that their findings had led to the development of a new generation of psychiatric drugs to “balance” brain chemistry. He was to discover that none of these assumptions were true.

Anatomy of an Epidemic is the story of his awakening.

Click here for Part 2.

0 Comments
    Picture

    Carolyn Gage

    “… Carolyn Gage is one of the best lesbian playwrights in America…”--Lambda Book Report, Los Angeles.

    SUBSCRIBE:
    To subscribe to the blog, scroll down and click on "RSS Feed". To subscribe to my newsletter, click here.

    Categories

    All
    Child Abuse
    Civil Rights
    Incest
    In Memoriam
    Interviews
    Lesbian Feminism
    Lesbian History
    Psychotropic Drugs
    Rape
    Reviews
    The Environment
    Women And Theatre
    Women's History

    Archives

    June 2022
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    July 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    September 2018
    June 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    July 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    August 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    October 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.