The anti-Depressant fact book, What your Dr. Wont tell you about SSRI's

[COUNTRYBUMPKIN]

The Anti-Depressant Fact Book
What Your Doctor Won't Tell You
About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and Luvox
Perseus Publishing - Cambridge, Massachusetts
copyright 2001, paperback
by Peter R. Breggin, M.D.

reviewed by
Douglas A. Smith

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book because it says so clearly and
convincingly what I have believed for a long time about the myth of
biologically caused depression and about so-called antidepressant drugs
and so-called electroconvulsive "therapy" (ECT).

Of the idea of biologically caused depression, the author, psychiatrist
Peter Breggin, says "It is a mistake to view depressed feelings or even
severely depressed feelings as a 'disease'" (p. 14) and "There is still
no reason to define grief, dejection, or melancholia as a 'disease'
simply because it is severe or lasting" (p. 19). He says "...in
psychiatry, none of the problems are proven to originate in the brain"
(p. 169) and that "Depression is never defined by an objective physical
finding, such as a blood test or brain scan.

... Attempts have also been made to find physical markers for
depression, the equivalent of lab tests that indicate liver disease or a
recent heart attack. Despite decades of research, thousands of research
studies, and hundreds of millions of dollars in expense, no marker for
depression has been found" (pp. 18 & 22).

Of the theory behind the so-called SSRI or selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitor "antidepressants" Dr. Breggin says "In reality, science does
not have the ability to measure the levels of any biochemical in the
tiny spaces between nerve cells (the synapses) in the brain of a human
being. All the talk about biochemical imbalances is sheer speculation
aimed at promoting psychiatric drugs. ... science has almost no
understanding of how the widespread serotonin system functions in the
brain. Basically, we don't know what it does." (pp. 21 & 42).

Of drugs used to "treat" this nonexistent disease called depression he
says "The term 'antidepressant' should always be thought of with
quotation marks around it because there is little or no reason to
believe that these drugs target depression or depressed feelings" (p.
14).

He says "Impairing our emotional awareness and our intellectual acuity
with psychoactive drugs such as SSRI antidepressants [including Prozac,
Paxil, and Zoloft] tends to impede the process of overcoming depression"
(p. 26).

About the foolishness of the beliefs of most people about psychiatric
drugs he says:

Overall, we're a rather sophisticated citizenry with a fairly high index
of suspicion about the products we buy and the corporations that
influence our lives. But something happens to us when we are dealing
with companies that make prescription medicines. Perhaps it's the aura
of FDA approval. Perhaps it's the passage of these drugs through the
trusted hands of our physicians. Perhaps it's the cleverness of the ad
campaigns. Perhaps we just can't believe that anyone would sell poison
as if it were a miracle cure. [p. 2]

That's right: He said "poison." Psychiatric drugs are poisons. In a
chapter titled "Damaging the Brain with SSRI Antidepressants," Dr.
Breggin says "the evidence is piling up that SSRIs cause permanent brain
damage" (p. 3.

Let's stop concealing or minimizing this truth as we do when we call
psychiatric drugs "medications" or say they are merely "ineffective" or
"harmful" or even "neurotoxic." Lawyers trying to defend us from
outpatient commitment laws (as they are called in the USA) or laws
authorizing "community treatment orders" (CTOs) (as such laws are called
in Canada) should stop accepting the terminology of those advocating
forced psychiatric drugging.
Lawyers trying to defend us from forced psychiatric drugging should not
go into court and say the so-called patient should not be ordered "to
take his medication."

Because psychiatric drugs are poisons, and because most that are
administered by force cause permanent brain damage, lawyers representing
people threatened with forced psychiatric drugging should tell it like
it is and say, "Judge, the question presented for your decision today is
whether my client should be ordered to swallow poison - poison that is
known to cause permanent brain damage."

Letting advocates of forced psychiatric treatment get away with calling
brain-damaging poisons "medications" is hurting our cause. It has been
said: Whoever controls the language controls the perceived reality of
those who have it. Let's not let the advocates of forced psychiatric
"treatment" and those who would persuade gullible people to take harmful
drugs win because they use deceptive semantics.

In the Introduction Dr. Breggin reveals why pharmaceutical companies
would do something as evil as hoodwink people into believing poisons are
in fact miracle cures. He says: "In the previous year [1999], Prozac had
generated more than one-quarter of the company's [Eli Lilly & Company's]
$10 billion in revenue" and that "Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil are among
the top-selling drugs in the United States, with total sales exceeding
$4 billion per year" (p. 1).
We apparently can't expect pharmaceutical companies to bypass enormous
profits just because the drugs they sell are hurting people.

Throughout this book Dr. Breggin points an accusing finger at the USA's
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is given the responsibility of
keeping harmful drugs off the market in the USA. After reviewing how the
FDA had to accept misleading, manipulated data to approve SSRI
antidepressants as safe and effective, and after reviewing the harm done
by these drugs, he says "If the FDA had been more responsible, these
continuing tragedies could have been avoided.

... When I began my review of FDA documents as a medical expert in
product liability suits against Eli Lilly and Co., I was shocked and
disillusioned by what I found. Until that time, I had not fully
confronted the willingness of the FDA to protect drug companies, even at
the cost of human life." (pp. 78-79).

He says "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has forsaken its
watchdog role. Instead, FDA officials climb like puppies into the laps
of drug company executives who might some day hire them at enormous
salaries" (p. 181).

One of the reasons I like this book is in it Dr. Breggin is as bold as
he has been in any of his previous books when describing the
pseudoscience called biological psychiatry and the harm done by its
so-called treatments. For example, speaking of psychiatric drugs he says
-

"If a drug has an effect on the brain, it is harming the brain.

Science has not found or synthesized any psychoactive substances that
improve normal brain function.

Instead, all of them impair brain function.

... antidepressants are typically prescribed in doses that cause a wide
variety of adverse effects in most patients and significantly harm a
great many people" (p. 168).

"FDA approval by no means indicates that a drug is truly effective. ...
the combined efforts of the drug company and the FDA could not come up
with even one good study that unequivocally supported the value of
Prozac in comparison to placebo" (p. 151).

"Overall, the results suggest that placebo is actually much better than
an antidepressant" (p. 145).

"If anything, as I've already indicated, antidepressants worsen severe
depression and suicidal tendencies" (p. 170).

"Nothing reinforces depression more than having your brain befuddled by
psychiatric drugs, unless it is having your mind befuddled by false
ideas about the biological or genetic origin of your suffering" (p.
189).

"Lithium, for example, is a toxic element that suppresses over-all brain
function..." (p. 125)
"There are so many potential hazards involved in taking SSRIs that no
physician is capable of remembering all of them and no patient can be
adequately informed about the dangers without spending days or weeks
reviewing the subject in a medical library" (p. 107).
Of electroconvulsive "therapy" (ECT) he says -


"Damaging the brain to impair brain function lies at the heart of all
the physical treatments in psychiatry. Shock and lobotomy are merely the
most egregious examples" (p. 155, italics in original).
He deplores "the willingness of psychiatry to defend its treatments no
matter how obviously damaging to the brain" (ibid).

"In my clinical and forensic experience, patients and their families are
never told the truth about how dangerous shock is; otherwise they would
not consent to it.

Shock advocates tend to tell patients that memory loss is temporary and
surrounds the treatment time only, when in reality the memory loss can
wipe out years of educational and career knowledge.

... Nurses, teachers, and other professionals may never again be able to
function in their jobs. Like head injury patients from other causes,
such as automobile accidents and lighting strikes, general mental
function is often impaired for the rest of their lives.

Advocates [of ECT] ignore this by chalking it up to the patient's
'mental illness.'" (pp. 160-161).


"Electroshock treatment causes brain damage and, in my clinical
experience, can cause lasting depression" (p. 141). This of course is in
contrast to psychiatry's claim that by some unknown means ECT relieves
depression.

"The question is not 'Does shock treatment cause brain dysfunction and
damage?' A series of shocks to the head sufficient to cause convulsions
will always produce brain dysfunction and damage. The real question is
'How completely can a person recover from shock?'" (p. 162).

Advocates of shock claim that newer methods make it safer. ... Instead,
it's more dangerous. ... modified ECT requires the use of higher amounts
of electrical charge than were used in the early animal experiments that
showed brain damage and cell death" (p. 163).
"In my clinical experience, the brain damage [caused by
electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT] makes people feel more hopeless and
resentful, and hence more suicidal" (p. 164).

"Several state legislatures have passed laws banning shock treatment for
children. It's now time to ban it for adults a well" (p. 165).
This book is a fairly short (200 page), recent (2001) book that neatly
summarizes many of the best arguments against biological psychiatry. I
recommend it highly.

[kimmee]

I personally think this book is a little drastic and overboard - but as with everything - you can read it consider it and extract what makes sense to you.
Since this was written we have discovered through gene mapping and brain scanning that depression is in fact a disease - that is a biologically based malfunction (actually the terminology is "misfiring") and they are on the right track with SSRI 's they just aren't there yet . This book also sights several instances where SSRI's were used to treat MAO needs with disastrous effects and the book never mentioned that little technicality (that it was the wrong prescription for the situation and not that it was just plain a bad drug overall - as they implicated - I had to do further research to discover this). If you want some foundation for black and white this all "isn't" try studying about Bi-Polar disorder and just see how far off they can get - you can also keep in mind that in my time and psychiatric history I have been diagnosed as Bi-polar and then personality disorder and then major depressive with Anxiety NOS (not otherwise specified) then Bi-polar two which is actually the same thing as personality disorder but they discovered it was chemical and not behavioral and now finally I am back to Major depressive disorder with anxiety ( but I will not take xanax). I come from a long line of depression and bi-polar disorder - to hear them indicate it is not a disease is very infuriating - It is all a learning game and we are not able to precisely pinpoint - I don't want to die but I am uncomfortable with my depression so if they can study with me then maybe they can figure this out before my babies or my grandbabies (or yours) have to suffer!!! Thats what its all about , folks!!

[kimmee]

I am really surprised that none else has any thoughts on this book / article - this one kind of irked me yet the other article caught all the attention - this article was basically the foundation for the other.

[Michelle]

Originally posted by kimmee
I am really surprised that none else has any thoughts on this book / article - this one kind of irked me yet the other article caught all the attention - this article was basically the foundation for the other.

Oh I have thoughts about it ...but I don't have the time to refute each point, and I don't really think it would matter anyway.

Now stop trying to , kimmee!

[kimmee]

Originally posted by Michelle  
Now stop trying to , kimmee! [/B]

Actually I just thought it was very interesting - Lynn knows I love her to death - and  she also knows I am not taking issue with her - I just think it is important for people to read and question before they agree with things!! It's also important to hear from the people who have been there done that so you can make a sound opinion!!