‘Successes’ of anti-psychotics.

The following information is taken from Robert Whitaker’s “Psychiatry Defends Its Anti-psychotics: A Case Study In Institutional Corruption”, available on his “Mad In America” website.

In the Leuch meta-analysis of 28 ‘anti-psychotic’ drug trials (2009) — one of the largest ever — it was found that only 1 in 6 subjects (supposedly undergoing ‘psychosis’ for the first time) responded positively to it, even according to their psychiatrists.

And yet, if anybody knows anything about these drugs its that they are extremely toxic with a host of euphemistically called ‘side-effects’. According to Harrow (2007), the foremost study comparing ‘schizophrenics’ taking anti-psychotics long term and those not, the recovery rate of the latter (those not taking them) was 40%, compared to only 5%, for those taking them. In addition, those not taking them had far better scores on cognitive tests, less anxiety, fewer ‘psychotic’ episodes, and more enjoyment.

Furthermore, the decline in functionality the drugs cause goes hand in hand with indisputable biological harm. As Robert Whitaker says, “There is evidence from multiple researchers, in the U.S. and abroad, that antipsychotics shrink the brain, and that this shrinkage is dose related. The same neurotoxic effect can be seen in studies of rats and monkeys, and in those animal studies, the shrinkage cannot be attributed to the disease.” And as Joanna Moncrieff noted in her blog in response to Lieberman’s article, there “are no studies that show progressive brain changes in people diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis in the absence of antipsychotic treatment.” Despite its proven correlation with general dysfunction, the “experts” hypothesize that drastically shrinking their brains is actually good for people diagnosed with ‘schizophrenia’! — And we’re the crazy ones!

The drugs also wreak havoc on the subjects dopamine systems, blocking receptors and thereby causing an over-growth of them. This explains the rate of ‘psychotic’ episodes among those withdrawing from ‘anti-psychotic’ drugs, along with the vastly inferior long term outcomes of those who stay on the drugs compared to those who come off them.

And yet, the ‘experts’ (Joseph Lieberman, et al), concluded in accordance with the standard protocol, in spite of all these, that ‘anti-psychotics’ should remain the universal treatment for first-time psychosis, along with a ‘maintenance’ dosage as standard practice until they die. —

Mortality rates associated with anti-psychotics.

People treated with these drugs die at least 15 to 20 years earlier than average, whether it be from increased suicide risk, other sudden death, like heart attack, or via various serious chronic illnesses they are known to cause, such as diabetes and cancer. WHO found that schizophrenia outcomes were much better in poor counties, like India and Nigeria, where only 16% or patients were maintained on anti-psychotics, and culture more supportive.

Science speaks. In April of 2015, Dr. Richard Horton, the chief editor of the prestigious medical journal the Lancet made the following public comment – “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn toward darkness. — Richard Horton, “What is medicine’s 5 sigma?” The Lancet, 11 April 2015.