The Anti-Psychotic Myth Exposed?

Psychminded.com ^ | 4/2/08 | Adam James

[dmz]

She was taken off of the anti-psychotics when she was no longer psychotic. They are not part of her regular medications.

Her pyschoses were a direct result of not taking bipolar meds.

[bdeaner]

So she was on them for a short time? Like a month or two? If so, that might explain why she never developed any of the side effects that happen with long-term, chronic use of these medications ("long term" meaning longer than 3-6 months).

Have you ever seen a person with severe akithesia caused by anti-psychotic drugs? It's got to be the closest thing on earth to a living hell. It develops in a very large porportion of people who take anti-psychotic drugs over a long period of time--the risk increasing exponentially with every year the person is on the medication. So, I am glad your mom is off the anti-psychotics -- probably weaned from them after they were no longer needed. They worked for her, which is great, and now she is not at risk, because she is functioning without them. That's a happy ending. Awesome.

[bdeaner]

Check out this article on drug reps. Not to beat a dead horse on the drug rep comment earlier -- I admit it was an inflammatory statement -- but it's hard for me to construe a job like this as anything remotely more noble in profession than a prostitute. How do these people live with themselves everyday?

[agrace]

Doctor spends a year marketing Effexor part time for Wyeth

Long but very revealing.

[Tidbit]

I see that you failed to address the substance of my reply which is your off-putting style of posting. You do yourself no favors in making your case using all caps (which is considered cyber-shouting) and all that bolding for emphasis.

Using the phrase "what your problem is" in conversation and referring to somebody as "dude" isn't the most gracious or intelligent manner in which to make a point.

You could be absolutely correct, but if your replies make you look like an ass, who gives a rat's bum what you say?

[bdeaner]

I see that you failed to address the substance of my reply which is your off-putting style of posting.

In my recent reply, I did not use bold letters or capital letters, as you requested. What do you want from me? You still haven't addressed the substance of the critique, only the rhetoric.

[bdeaner]

Thanks for the link to this article. I’ll check it out.

[bdeaner]

GREAT ARTICLE!!!

By the way, do you know about Daniel Carlat's blog? See here. AWESOME.

[bdeaner]

GREAT ARTICLE!!!

By the way, do you know about Daniel Carlat's blog? See here. AWESOME.

[agrace]

Didn’t know he had a blog - I simply stumbled upon that article months ago doing research. Thanks much for the link!

[gusopol3]

The stuff is being handed out like candy now to kids and the aged even when no seriou

hyperbole , since I've been admonished that I can't call it what it is. The article contains the paragraph that was scrubbed by the moderator, you are misinforming Freepers across the board that psychiatrists have some recourse to administer meds forcibly. This is a ...hyperbolic statement.

[gusopol3]

when the environment was peaceful.

it's a fine approach, just throw away the key to the real world. Also, hope that you can maintain a staff for long periods of time that will not become abusive or exploitative , maybe it would work by paying them a lot of money. But I read what bdeaner said, he minimizes the illnesses, to say anything else is...hyperbole.

[gusopol3]

It's got to be the closest thing on earth to a living hell.

a propagandist's statement from someone who has displayed very little knowledge.How many other medical conditions could I possibly list? Many strokes obviously are far worse, and in spite of your continual theme of arrogant, ignorant doctors who never discuss med problems with patients, your statistics are incredibly overblown. You're incredibly gullible to believe them and deceitful to try to slip them into the discussion under the cover of your self proclaimed superior knowledge. There's a Ph.D. named Roberts at Johns Hopkins, undoubtedly a prestigious university, who publishes extreme statistics about Iraq War casualties, defends them and has many supporting citations. All are working off the same agenda. Just so with yourself, your sheepskin is cut of the same cloth.

[gusopol3]

The only disorder that has any historical link with the VERY outdated concept of dementia praecox is schizophrenia, and that description, from Kraplein, is of a particular kind of psychosis that is hebephrenic and progressively degenerative in nature

just amazing the level of arrogance and deceit that you attempt here. To quote one of many possible citations, Buchsbaum and Hazlett in Neurobiology of Mental Illness , ed. Charney and Nestler, Oxford ,2004, p.855-56:"Dementia praecox, an early name for schizophrenia and the gradual appearance of deficits in executive function and memory with progressive impairment in social or occupational function, certainly characterizes many patients with schizophrenia." That is, the concept of Dementia praecox is in no regard limited in the way you describe. You've read DSM , that's the extent of your knowledge.

[bdeaner]

I'm going to ignore the ad hominem remarks. At least you have something, a citation, this time -- at least some attempt to support your opinion -- rather than nothing but ad hominem remarks.

Unfortunately, your quotation fails to support your charges that I mischaracterized daementia praecox. The Charney and Nestler quotation supports my above statement on Dementia praecox: Notice they say "many" but not "all" schizophrenics fit Kraepelin's description of dementia praecox, which is precisely what I said! So, bizarrely, you accuse me of arrogance and deceit, then go on to support this personal attack by citing a quotation that states exactly the same thing I said -- which by your logic, would make you arrogant and deceitful I guess.

In your original statement, you conflated the two conditions -- assuming that dementia praecox is the same condition as schizophrenia. It is not. I explained to you the fact that Dementia praecox only explains some individuals with schizophrenia -- those who are hebrephrenic and whose condition is degenerative, which is exactly how Kraepelin described it. MANY cases of schizophrenia, per DSM-IV criteria, do not fit this description. The symptoms described by Kraepelin are a sub-set of the category of schizophrenia -- and not really, techically a sub-set, because it is an outdated concept that has long been invalidated -- which is why Eugen Bleuler developed a new categorical definition, which is "schizoprenia" as we know it today.

The framers of the DSM dropped the dementia praecox diagnosis, because it was not valid -- there were all kinds of problems with Kraepelin's model. That's why they adopted Bleuler's "schizophrenia" designation instead as the diagnostic category of choice.

Students pay a lot of money to hear me teach them this history. I know what I'm talking about. You can quote the history books, and you'll find nothing that contradicts what I have said. But, if you think you can, sure, give it a stab. So far, you have struck out.

[bdeaner]

you are misinforming Freepers across the board that psychiatrists have some recourse to administer meds forcibly.

No, I never said that psychiatrists are forcibly medicating people. You are putting words in my mouth.

[bdeaner]

But I read what bdeaner said, he minimizes the illnesses, to say anything else is...hyperbole.

Describe to me where and how I minimize "the illness." I have minimized nothing.

[gusopol3]

The alternatives? Moncrieff - like her fellow psychiatrists in a group called the Critical Psychiatry Network - asks services to look seriously at non-drug approaches, such as the Soteria Network in America. She believes psychiatrists such as herself should no longer have unparalleled powers to forcibly detain and treat patients with anti-psychotics. Instead, they should be “pharmaceutical advisers” engaging in “democratic drug treatment” with patients. Psychiatrists should be involved in “shared decision-making” with patients, and would have to go to civil courts to argue their case for compulsory treatment. "Psychiatry would be a more modest enterprise” writes Moncrieff, “no longer claiming to be able to alter the underlying course of psychological disturbance, but thereby avoiding some of the damage associated with the untrammeled use of imaginary chemical cures.”

Sorry . I thought you posted the article.

[gusopol3]

Dementia praecox, an early name for schizophrenia

[bdeaner]

a propagandist's statement from someone who has displayed very little knowledge.

You blow a lot of air, but there is no substance to your arguments--it's all just personal attacks. When you attempt to refute my facts, you end up supporting my original statements. That doesn't give you much credibility when it comes to judging my credentials.

Now, your latest fit is apparently aimed at my statement that akathisia is like a living hell. Those are not my terms. That is how the condition is described by the patients themselves, in published case studies (e.g., here). And that's exactly how it appears to the outsider, too, watching the poor person who is experiencing what has been described as "internal torture." This condition does not have a natural cause. It is caused by anti-psychotic medication. That's a fact that cannot be disputed. Look it up yourself.

See for example, the British Medical Journal, which published a review on akathisia:

Akathisia (Greek "not to sit") is an extrapyramidal movement disorder consisting of difficulty in staying still and a subjective sense of restlessness. It is a recognised side effect of antipsychotic and antiemetic drugs but may also be caused by other widely prescribed drugs such as antidepressants. It is a difficult condition to detect reliably and may present unexpectedly in a variety of clinical settings. The patient's behaviour may be disturbed, treatment may be refused, or the patient may be suicidal and be mistaken for a psychiatric problem. We report three cases seen in the psycho-oncology service which improved when the offending drug was discontinued.

So are you going to suggest the British Medical Journal is part of this so-called conspiracy you claim I represent?