Topic : 11/23 Schizophrenia

I originally posted this as a reply to someone who was arguing that the disorder is actually posession...  I too believe that there is another dimension that our senses don't always permit us to see.  I have nightmares mostly every night, and very often something in my dream will happen in real life - it's scary, but very intruiging.   Just the other night, I had a strange dream and Richard Dean Anderson appeared - I said ' hey you're McGuiver'  The next morning on the way to work I heard on the radio that one of our soldiers was killed in Afganistan - his last name was McGuiver and was from my province (Canada).  This happens so often that I can't ignore it anymore...  Here's my original post - I'd like to talk to you more about the psychic connection if you would: 

  

"While I don't believe that schitzophrenia is posession, it does make me wonder about the areas of the brain that are affected.  The fact remains that there is some 80% of our brain that we don't even use.  Could it be possible that people who suffer from this disorder are actually tapping in to some other, yet to be understood, portion of their brain that allows them to see the world differently?  We should be studying their experiences with a view to determining to what extent they are able to communicate differently and experience the world from a different perspective than most of us do.  I always think that the way we see the world is limited by our developed senses.  If evolution is still working (and no, I don't want to debate creationism vs. evolution because I have no soap box to stand on), then is it not possible that these people are simply seeing another dimension of the world around us?  We see the world the way our eyes allow us to see the world.  It's only one perspective.  Try explaining to a fly that the way he sees the world is not the way it actually is...  a fly's eye is dramatically different than ours, and he experiences the same world we live in, in a totally different way.   

    

I too suffer from some sort of MH issue.  I was first diagnosed with Post-partum depression, and possibly anxiety order.  But I have also seen distorted images, especially pictures of my children - I see their little faces decomposing, and it is very, very disturbing.  I also hear voices telling me that the kids would be better off without me, and that I am only causing them harm.  I feel a deep self-loathing, and often have the desire to harm myself.  Logically, I know that I'm a good mom, and that they are happy and healthy and well cared for.   

    

I have also had this fear for years:  I'm most afraid of my own imagination.  I'm so afraid of turning a dark corner in the house and imagining that I see something and it would scare me so badly that I would go completely insane or my heart would stop.  Crazy!  Glad to see that people are finally talking about these things.  Thanks Dr. Phil for raising the issue. " 

TRENTON, N.J. — The maker of a popular medicine for schizophrenia has notified doctors that it minimized potentially fatal safety risks and made misleading claims about the drug in promotional materials. 

Janssen Pharmaceutica Products sent a two-page letter to the health-care community this week to clarify the risks of Risperdal, the leading drug used to combat schizophrenia and other types of psychotic disorders. 

The letter stems from a directive issued last year by the Food and Drug Administration, which told several makers of anti-psychotic drugs to update their product labels. 

Janssen complied in November 2003, but the FDA determined that the company's promotional materials still minimized the risk of strokes, diabetes and other potentially fatal complications. 

The Miami Herald reported Saturday that a handful of boys in Florida developed lactating breasts after taking Risperdal, first marketed eight years ago. 

Eli Lilly & Co. Settles 8,000 claims against co. involving Zyprexa Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 Zyprexa and two other atypical (newer) antipsychotics cause diabetes 50 percent more often than older drugs. The FDA is in bed with the big drug companies. In Britian and Japan consumers get more protection. Breaking News Eli Lilly and Co. said late Thursday, June 9, 2005 that it has entered into an agreement in principle to settle about 8,000, or 75%, of the claims against the company related to its schizophrenia medication, Zyprexa. The agreement involves claimants who asserted they developed diabetes-related conditions from their use of Zyprexa. The popular schizophrenia drug Zyprexa has been linked to serious side effects including diabetes, hyperglycemia and other blood sugar disorders. The FDA has asked Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of Zyprexa, to add a new warning to the drug, warning patients of these side effects. In a recent study, Zyprexa and two other atypical antipsychotics that are used to treat schizophrenia were found to cause diabetes 50 percent more often than older drugs. Last year, Britain's Medicines Control Agency warned that several patients taking Eli Lilly's top selling drug Zyprexa (used to treat schizophrenia) had developed diabetes-related complications. In the Medicine Control Agency's Current Problems newsletter, the regulatory body said that the antipsychotic drug "can adversely affect blood glucose." Forty reports "of hyperglycemia (elevated blood sugar), diabetes mellitus, or exacerbation of diabetes have been received in the UK. Four were associated with ketoacidosis and/or coma including one with a fatal outcome," according to the newsletter. "The precise mechanism of this suspected adverse drug reaction has not yet been elucidated and is currently being investigated further. This follows an emergency report issued in April 2002 by the Japanese Health and Welfare Ministry to Eli Lilly Japan KK concerning side effects of Zyprexa after the deaths of two diabetic users of the drug. It said seven other patients had lost consciousness or become comatose after taking the drugs in the last 10 months. The Japanese Ministry said no new diabetes patients should be treated with the drug and ordered Eli Lilly to warn doctors to closely monitor diabetics already on the medication. A paper written in late 2001 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry reports the FDA has been alerted 19 case reports of diabetes associated with the use of Zyprexa. Of the 19 patients seven had newly diagnosed hyperglycemia. The sugar disorder developed within a week of taking Zyprexa in two patients and within six months for eight others. One patient ultimately died of necrotizing pancreatitis, a condition in which cells in the pancreas die. On April 11, 2005, the FDA announced that older patients with dementia who are given antipsychotic medicines are far more likely to die prematurely than those given dummy pills, federal drug regulators said Monday. The warning adds to growing worries about the safety of the widely prescribed drugs. The Food and Drug Administration said that it would now require manufacturers of the medicines to place black-box warnings, the agency's most severe, on the labels of all the drugs. Zyprexa and Symbyax from Eli Lilly, Risperdal from Johnson & Johnson, Seroquel from AstraZeneca, Abilify from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clozaril from Novartis and Geodon from Pfizer are all affected by the warning.

This does not seem to be said enought! 

  

We are not our illness! We have a condition that has a name! We are people first! 

  

Treat the person not the illness! 

http://wm.kinodigital.na-central.speedera.net/wm.kinodigital.na-central/surfnetmediagroup/010209/Armen091405.wma 

  

Copy and paste the entire link above to listen to the radio broadcast. 

  

It features a Federal whistle blower and you can read about his particular bad fortune for exposing the corruption in the Pharmaceutcal Industry in this PDF document at the below link. 

  

http://psychrights.org/Drugs/AllenJonesTMAPJanuary20.pdf 

In this page you'll find links to articles and critical documents on biological-psychiatry. Biological-psychiatry's official theory describes psychological or personal problems as having a biological origin caused by genetic or chemical 'imbalances' to be corrected by drugs and other interventions like Electro-Convulsive Therapy [ECT] or insulin shock. These widely used but controversial methods in official medicine have been for many years amply invalidated, showing clearly that they are absolutely unscientific, that they tend to alienate patient's rights, are unable to solve the problems presented, are dangerous for one's health, and are submissive to pharmaceutical companies. The need for a drastic reduction in the power of the medical-chemical-industrial lobby is an important task to ensure that all people have the right to positive mental health, and to re-direct science's energies towards therapeutic practices which are focused upon the social and familial systems which are generating the personal suffering, instead of upon erroneous and misguided efforts to eliminate symptoms of social distress generated in individuals.  

  

http://www.oikos.org/antipsicen.htm 

Albuquerque, New Mexico
April 29, 2002

 

with indented and italicized responses by Antipsychiatry Coalition webmaster Douglas A. Smith    

  

Millions of Americans, millions, are impaired at work, at school, or at home by episodes of mental illness.  Many are disabled by severe and persistent mental problems.  These illnesses affect individuals, they affect their families, and they affect our country.  

  

"Mental illness" is an erroneous concept, and not only because it is a semantic impossibility.  An "illness" or "disease" is physical.  "Mental" means non-physical.  As psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey wrote in his book The Death of Psychiatry in 1974 (before he joined the ranks of biological psychiatrists): "The very term ['mental disease'] is nonsensical, a semantic mistake.  The two words cannot go together except metaphorically; you can no more have a mental 'disease' than you can have a purple idea or a wise space" (Penguin Books, p. 36).  Similarly, there can no more be a "mental illness" than there can be a "moral illness."  The words "mental" and "illness" do not go together logically.  Mental "illness" does not exist, and neither does mental "health."  These terms indicate only approval or disapproval of some aspect of a person's mentality (thinking, emotions, or behavior).

As many Americans know, it is incredibly painful to watch someone you love struggle with an illness that affects their mind and their feelings and their relationships with others. We heard stories today in a roundtable discussion about that -- what the struggle means for family.  

  

Many if not most people forced into psychiatric "treatment" (or mistreatment) are forced by others in their family.  The notion that families necessarily do what is best for their "loved ones" is a myth.

Remarkable treatments exist, and that's good.  Yet many people -- too many people -- remain untreated.  Some end up addicted to drugs or alcohol.  Some end up on the streets, homeless.  Others end up in our jails, our prisons, our juvenile detention facilities.  

  

Psychiatry's treatments are indeed remarkable - remarkably bad, and remarkably harmful.  Neuroleptics (also called major tranquilizers), tricyclic and SSRI antidepressants, electric shock treatment, and psychosurgery, all cause brain damage.  Many people don't behave as they are expected to and become homeless or violate the law and are put in prisons of one sort or another, but none deserve the harm inflicted on them by psychiatry's modern biological "therapies."

Our country must make a commitment: Americans with mental illness deserve our understanding, and they deserve excellent care.  (Applause.) They deserve a health care system that treats their illness with the same urgency as a physical illness. (Applause.)  

  

Our country must make a commitment: a commitment to the liberty of all law-abiding Americans.  Americans who are called mentally ill who do not violate the law in any way deserve liberty the same as everyone else.  We must stop using mythological conceptions such as mental illness to justify incarcerating law-abiding but eccentric or annoying people, or people who choose to live differently than we would like them to, in the prisons we call mental "hospitals."  We must begin a new era of tolerance towards people who are weird or different or emotionally troubled or obnoxious but who do not violate the rights of others.

To meet this goal, we've got to overcome obstacles, and I want to talk about three such obstacles this morning.  The first obstacle is the stigma, the stigma that often surrounds mental illness -- a stigma caused by a history of misunderstanding, fear, and embarrassment.  Stigma leads to isolation, and discourages people from seeking the treatment they need.  Political leaders, health care professionals, and all Americans must understand and send this message: mental disability is not a scandal -- (applause) -- it is an illness.  And like physical illness, it is treatable, especially when the treatment comes early.  

  

The stigma that comes with receiving psychiatric treatment is a legitimate and powerful reason everyone who wants to live a good life in the future would be well-advised to avoid it.  It also is a legitimate and powerful reason we should not encourage other people to seek psychiatric "help" and should not force it on them.  Since so-called mental illness has no biological cause and is not a true illness, it cannot be "treated."  The assertion that early mental health treatment is particularly effective is a myth that is used to persuade people who are not in severe distress to nevertheless patronize mental health professionals who need patients to earn profits.

Today, new drugs and therapies have vastly improved the outlook for millions of Americans with the most serious mental illnesses, and for millions more with less severe illnesses.  The treatment success rates for schizophrenia and clinical depression are comparable to those for heart disease.  That's good news in America, and we must encourage more and more Americans to understand, and to seek more treatment.  

  

Today's psychiatric drugs are a disaster that have brought an epidemic of neurological disease on psychiatric patients, including dementia and movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia and dystonia and other consequences of their both neurotoxic and generally toxic nature.  Psychiatry's electroconvulsive "therapy" and psychosurgery damage the brain even more quickly.  The so-called anti-anxiety drugs or minor tranquilizers (benzodiazepines) cause addiction and severe withdrawal reactions without effectively alleviating the emotional reactions such as anxiety that motivated their use in the first place.  Urging people to seek these "therapies" is stupid and outrageous.  Perhaps psychiatric treatment is indeed as effective, or as ineffective, as treatment for heart disease, since heart disease is the #1 killer of Americans, which it wouldn't be if treatment for it were particularly effective.

The second obstacle to quality mental health care is our fragmented mental health service delivery system.  Mental health centers and hospitals, homeless shelters, the justice system, and our schools all have contact with individuals suffering from mental disorders.  Yet many of these disorders are difficult to diagnose.  This makes it even harder to provide the mentally ill with the care they need.  Many Americans fall through the cracks of the current system.  Many years and lives are lost before help, if it is given at all, is given.  

  

People who fall through the cracks of this system are the lucky ones.  Psychiatric "help" is not helpful - and when imposed involuntarily is oppression disguised as benefaction.

Consider this example -- and for the experts in the field, they will confirm this is a story which is often times too true: a 14-year-old boy who started experimenting with drugs to ease his severe depression.  That happens.  This former honor student became a drug addict.  He dropped out of school, was incarcerated six times in 16 years.  Only two years ago, when he was 30 years old, did the doctors finally diagnose his condition as bipolar disorder, and he began a successful program, a successful long-term treatment program.  

  

A "diagnosis" of so-called bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness, like most in psychiatry, is largely arbitrary.  In this case, it means someone's excitement or enthusiasm and, at other times, sorrow exceed the range of emotions that is acceptable to other people.  As with all other psychiatric diagnoses, no biological basis for so-called bipolar disorder has been found, and there is no biological test for bipolar disorder or any other so-called mental illness.
      The most frequent treatment for this supposed disorder is lithium.  Lithium is a toxic chemical that slows all aspects of thinking.  It was discovered by accident in 1949 by psychiatrist John Cade who found it made guinea pigs tame and docile and lethargic.  He experimentally found it has the same effect on people.  Dr. Cade didn't know why lithium works, and today we still don't know.  Taking lithium may impair a person's thinking enough to prevent him from doing things he shouldn't, but this benefit comes at the expense of the cognitive slowing and physical lethargy that is the primary effect of the drug.  It can be compared with keeping a person chronically intoxicated.  In psychiatry, keeping a person who tends to behave in socially unacceptable ways on such a drug is called "a successful long-term treatment program."

And to make sure that the cracks are closed, I am honored to announce what we call the new Freedom Commission on Mental Health.  It is charged to study the problems and gaps in our current system of treatment, and to make concrete recommendations for immediate improvements that will be implemented -- (applause) -- and these will be improvements that can be implemented, and must be implemented, by the federal government, the state government, local agencies, as well as public and private health care providers.  To chair the commission, I've selected Michael Hogan.  Dr. Hogan, I appreciate your coming, Michael.  (Applause.)  Dr. Hogan has served as the Director of the Ohio Department of Mental Health for more than ten years, and is recognized as a leader in this profession.  He has been focused, as a state official, on how our mental health system works, and how it doesn't work.  I look forward to the Commission's findings.  I look forward to their proposals.  I look forward to making progress and fixing the system, so that Americans do not fall through the cracks.  (Applause.)  

  

Calling this committee the Freedom Commission on Mental Health is reminiscent of George Orwell's concept of newspeak in his novel 1984 in which words invert the truth.  The job of this Commission will be to study how to get more Americans into mental health care.  Current mental health care in America is a system in which those who don't submit willingly are forced into "therapy," including involuntary "hospitalization," forced drugging of hospitalized patients (and of others through outpatient commitment laws) and involuntarily administered electroconvulsive "therapy."  Why call this committee the Freedom Commission on Mental Health?  It is unlikely this Commission will be studying ways to give people the freedom to refuse so-called mental health care.  The opposite is more likely to be the case.  This Commission, or committee, will no doubt be composed of mental health professionals who will recommend measures that will benefit them rather than people who become psychiatric patients.  It's like appointing group of health care quacks to study and report on health care quackery, or appointing a group of businessmen to study how to get more people to patronize their businesses - or, in this case, how to not only persuade but when necessary force people to be customers whether they want to be or not.

The third major obstacle to effective mental health care is the often unfair treatment limitations placed on mental health in insurance coverage.  (Applause.)  Many private health insurance plans have developed effective programs to identify patients with mental illnesses, and they help them get the treatment they need to regain their health.  But insurance plans too often place greater restrictions on the treatment of mental illness than on the treatment of other medical illnesses.  As a result, some Americans are unable to get effective medical treatments that would allow them to function well in their daily lives.  Our health insurance system must treat serious mental illness like any other disease.  (Applause.)  And that was Senator Domenici's message to me at the Oval Office.  (Laughter.)  And it was Nancy's message when we had them up for dinner.  (Laughter.)  And I want to appreciate the fact that they have worked tirelessly on this problem.  (Applause.)
      I have a record on this issue.  As the Governor of Texas, I signed a bill to ensure that patients who critically need mental health are treated fairly.  Senator Domenici and I share this commitment: health plans should not be allowed to apply unfair treatment limitations or financial requirements on mental health benefits.  (Applause.)
      It is critical that we provide full -- as we provide full mental health parity, that we do not significantly run up the cost of health care.  I'll work with the Senator.  I will work with the Speaker.  I will work with their House and Senate colleagues to reach an agreement on mental health parity -- this year. (Applause.)  

  

First of all, it is incorrect to refer to "mental illness and other medical illnesses."  By "medical illness" what you really mean is "physical illness" or "biologically caused illness."  There is no convincing evidence any so-called mental illness is a "medical" or "physical" or "biological" illness, so it is misleading for the President of the United States to announce publicly that it is.  See Does Mental Illness Exist? for evidence supporting this argument.  Second, there is no such thing as people being "unable to get effective medical treatments [for mental illness] that would allow them to function well in their daily lives."  The reason is all of psychiatry's "medical" treatments disrupt normal brain function rather than promoting or improving it.  Psychiatric "treatment" is harmful except for common-sense counselling (pretentiously called "psychotherapy") that can be done as well by sympathetic, nonprofessional, untrained people as by professional "psychotherapists" such as psychiatrists and psychologists.
      Laws forcing insurance companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to pay for so-called mental health care are wrong for several reasons.  First, such laws make more money available for forced "therapy" and therefore promote the violation of human rights in America.  I recall more than 30 years ago when a fellow involuntary patient who seemed entirely normal to me told me he was convinced the reason he was being kept in the psychiatric ward of the hospital against his will was his being there enabled his doctor to get a check from his health insurance company every week.  Like many of us, he was probably subjected to involuntary commitment until his mental health insurance benefits ran out and there was no longer a financial incentive for the "professionals" to keep him in the hospital.  Equal benefits for mental health care will promote and prolong such abuses of human rights.  This should not be permitted in a nation like the United States of America where freedom is touted as the reason for American patriotism.  Second, health care insurance companies and HMOs should not be forced to pay for health care quackery, or harmful treatment.  They should not be forced to pay for anything that is not bona-fide health care.  Psychiatry is not health care; rather, it is social control disguised as medical treatment.  Psychiatry - particularly biological psychiatry - is health care quackery, and it hurts rather than helps people.  Counselling ("psychotherapy") about how to live one's life may be helpful but is not health care.  The third reason is freedom of contract: Some people - myself included - would like to be able to have health care insurance that does not include psychiatry or any kind of "mental health" coverage.  We should not be forced to choose between buying health care insurance that includes psychiatric coverage we do not want or forgoing health care insurance altogether.  A fourth reason the proposed legislation is wrong is it is federal legislation.  The U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government authority in this area.  The Tenth Amendment reserves those powers not granted to the federal government to the states or to the people as individuals.

We must work for a welcoming and compassionate society, a society where no American is dismissed, and no American is forgotten.  This is the great and hopeful story of our country, and we can write another chapter.  We must give all Americans who suffer from mental illness the treatment, and the respect, they deserve.  (Applause.)  

  

For once, I agree.  However, being a welcoming and compassionate society where no American is dismissed or forgotten and in which so-called mentally ill people are given the treatment and respect they deserve means something different to me than it does to you, Mr. President.  To you these words mean subjecting every troubled or troublesome American to psychiatric "therapy."  To me those words mean respecting the right of all Americans, that is, all law-abiding Americans, to freedom and autonomy, including those we (erroneously) think of as mentally ill.  Yes, we do need to write another chapter in American history, a new and very different one.  The violation of human rights in America goes all the way back to colonial times, for example, the Salem witch trials in 1692, and the hanging of Mary Dyer in Boston Common in 1660 because "She was caught preaching Quakerism in Massachusetts" where that religion had been banned (according to the State Library of Massachusetts web site) ; she is now considered a martyr for religious freedom, and a statute of her sits in front of the Massachusetts State House (the state capitol building) a short distance from where she was executed.  The violation of human rights in America continued with the kidnapping of black people in Africa who were brought to America as slaves.  It continued during World War II when Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps in the U.S.A.  It continues today with the imprisonment (forced "hospitalization") and forced drugging and involuntary administration of electric shock treatment to law-abiding but so-called mentally ill people, and the use of torture such as four and five point physical retraints, which have not just tortured but killed hundreds if not thousands of psychiatric patients in America's mental hospitals and psychiatric wards.  Yes, we need a new chapter in American history in which we give real meaning to our political rhetoric about America being a land of freedom.  We need a new chapter in American history in which we start living up to our image of ourselves - our image of America - as a shining example of human rights to the rest of the world.

The full text of the President's speech is available from www.whitehouse.gov.
 

one thing that helps my husband is that when he is hearing things or seeing things is to look at our dog, pwecious, a shih-tzu--if she's not reacting, then he is pretty certain that it is a hallucination. 

Not only does she give unconditional love, someone to care for that cannot care for herself, she is gives him a helping hand with assessing reality.  She barks at every bug she sees, and every noise she hears, so if she doesn't react, then he doesn't worry as much as he trusts her judgement. 

Pets are wonderful things at helping combat depression and at giving a sense of well-being.  Animals can sense, smell, see and hear things we can't--so they are a good judge of when something isn't right- 

R. Adams 

Chemical imbalance is a simplification of the language sometimes used by drug companies [1] in the United States in advertising and consumer literature for psychoactive drugs after deregulation of pharmaceutical advertising. The term has its origins in the 'chemical hypothesis', which refers to a simplification of the series of hypothesised neurochemical changes thought to partially underly mental illness. This term is most often used by groups critical of the pharmaceutical treatment of mental illness [2]. 

  

Chemical imbalance theory is not a scientific theory, but refers to the lay conception of a theory generated by the use of the term 'chemical imbalance'. Current research in neuroscience does indicate roles for changes in the operation of neurotransmitters in the brain, and changes in neurons and neural structure in the pathophysiology of mental illness, but current models are more complex than simple chemical balances/imbalances. Causality (i.e. whether neurotransmitter changes cause mental illness or whether mental illness affects neurotransmitter levels) is uncertain. 

  

Changes in levels of neurotransmitters and other neural level phenomena are hypothesised to be the underlying psychopathology for certain mental illnesses, notably clinical depression and schizophrenia. In 1965, Joseph Schildkraut hypothesized that depression was associated with low levels of norepinephrine in the brain, and later researchers thought serotonin might be the culprit.[3]] Initially, relatively simple changes in the level of these neurotransmitters were thought to be found in individuals with depression. However, advanced findings began to fine tune the more simple explanations. For example, certain drugs used to treat depression were found to change the levels of neurotransmitters for several days, but then return to normal, well before any effect was observed on the depressive episode. Such findings implicate more complex mechanisms, such as changes in neurotransmitter production, transmission, re-uptake, and neural sensitivity. 

In addition to depression, changes in levels of neurotransmitters have also been implicates in anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder (manic depressive disorder), schizophrenia, and Parkinson's disease. As well as changes in serotonin and norepinephrine, dopamine systems have also been considered. 

  

So, while all biology is essentially chemical in nature, rather than being caused by simple chemical imbalances, mental illness is now widely recognized to be caused by complex and, in many cases, as yet unknown factors. 

  

Critics of the claims by pharmaceutical companies that their drugs 'correct' chemical imbalances in the brain contend drug treatments, intended to alter neurochemical processes by manipulating neurotransmitter levels, are neither an efficacious nor scientifically sound method for improving mental health, noting the enormous number of different chemicals and their unknown interactions. Moreover, critics assert, the psychiatric establishment assumes patients having a ‘mental illness’ must have a ‘chemical imbalance’ in their brain, as subjective diagnostic checklists are used in lieu of actual medical tests. This may not be so relevant to more recent graduates, who should be aware of the current state of neuroscience research. 

  

Even if neurological and neurochemical differences are associated with certain behaviors, the practice of pathologizing these behaviours has been questioned. Because neural mechanisms imply a physiological pathology underlying mental illnesses, they appear to justify the use of medication in treatment. Critics argue that the legitimacy given to medication by neural mechanisms can lead to an over-reliance on medication. Similarly, the perceived efficacy of medication as a treatment implies an underlying neural mechanism. A further issue is the extent to which research into neural mechanisms and the efficacy of medication is funding by pharmaceutical companies, who have an obvious vested interest in the use of medication. 

The chemical imbalance theory, according to critics, is routinely presented as ‘fact’ so often it has become widely accepted as fact, despite having been challenged repeatedly.  

  

The Pfizer drug company has been promoting Zoloft for years with saturation marketing, in print, on television, and on the radio, starring a miserably depressed ovoid creature. The ads assert mental illness may be due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, and that "Zoloft works to correct this imbalance." Without mentioning its own name, Eli Lilly urges viewers to seek treatment for depression, and to visit their website, DepressionHurts.com, because "Many researchers believe depression is caused by an imbalance of naturally occurring chemicals, serotonin and norepinephrine, in the brain and the body." 

  

According to Jaelline Jaffe and Jeanne Segal, "The misconception the commercials foster is that the brain somehow develops a chemical imbalance and the result is depression, occurring in a single directional process. In fact, the relationship between brain chemistry and experience is a two-directional phenomenon: Life experience affects brain chemistry at least as much as brain chemistry affects life experience. The 'chemical imbalance' hypothesis is not wrong. It's just not entirely correct." 

  

Psychiatric diagnostic practices in the United States have come under sharp criticism for reliance upon the chemical imbalance theory rather than actual medical testing. For example, in a Florida psychiatric hospital study from the 1980s, one hundred patients diagnosed with a mental illness were subsequently given a complete medical exam, after which it was discovered nearly half of the patients’ psychiatric problems were secondary manifestations of an undiagnosed medical problem.[4] Most, if not all hospitals in the United States currently require a medical exam be done on all patients admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit. The author of the study, psychiatrist Mark Gold, remains a strong advocate that addiction and psychiatric disorders are rooted in complex chemical imbalances and effective treatment is available from various drug treatments, whether voluntary or involuntary, an opinion that he shares with the majority of the medical community. 

Further controversy is engendered by the links between some critics of psychiatry and the Church of Scientology. While Anti-psychiatry is not equivalent to Scientology, Scientology maintains several organizations like the Citizens Commission on Human Rights which have been outspoken critics of the biological basis of mental illness, sponsoring websites critical of "chemical imbalance" [5][6]. There may exist a conflict of interest as Scientology advocates and sells an alternative and expensive non-pharmacological treatment known as Dianetics. 

  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_imbalance_theory 

  

Doctors Speak Out Against "Chemical Imbalance"

http://www.geocities.com/ss06470/index.htm 

 

 

 

 

 

. 

. 

There is no evidence that any psychiatric or psychologial disorder is caused by a biochemical imbalance. - Peter Breggin M.D. 

  

http://www.breggin.com/ 

  

First, no biological etiology has been proven for any psychiatric disorder (except Alzheimer's disease, which has a genetic component) in spite of decades of research.  ...  So don't accept the myth that we can make an 'accurate diagnosis.'  ...  Neither should you believe that your problems are due solely to a 'chemical imbalance.' - Edward Drummond, M.D., Associate Medical Director at Seacoast Mental Health Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire 

  

http://www.mindpub.com/art270.htm 

  

...those who take these drugs, and their children who take them, are being transformed. - Fred A. Baughman Jr., M.D. Neurologist  

  

http://www.adhdfraud.com/commentary/7-22-02-4.htm 

  

I am constantly amazed by how many patients who come to see me believe or want to believe that their difficulties are biologic and can be relieved by a pill. This is despite the fact that modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness.
However, this does not stop psychiatry from making essentially unproven claims that depression, bipolar illness, anxiety disorders, alcoholism and a host of other disorders are in fact primarily biologic and probably genetic in origin, and that it is only a matter of time until all this is proven. This kind of faith in science and progress is staggering, not to mention naive and perhaps delusional.
- Dr David Kaiser, M.D. Psychiatrist 

  

http://www.psy-relitherapy.com/html/biologic.htm 

• News
• Contact
• Definitions
  • NLP
  • DHE
  • Hypnosis
  • Trance
  • Unconscious Mind
• Skills/Models
  • Anchoring
  • Calibration
  • Rapport
  • Nominalisations
  • Photographic Memory
  • Toxicity
  • Zero Balancing
  • Parts
  • Self-hypnosis
  • Outcomes
• Techniques
  • Amnesia
  • Imprinting
  • Rapport
• Common Problems
  • Allergies
  • Weight Loss
  • Smoking
  • Break Habits
  • Serotonin
  • Panic/Anxiety
  • Placebo Effect
• Reviews
  • Grinder
  • Baffa
  • Bandler
  • Altfeld
  • Nick Kemp
  • Books/audio/video/links
• Consulting

Text size –+R