Treating mental illness with drugs creates a chemical imbalance

The Harmful Myth About the Chemical Imbalance Causing Psychiatric Disorders

“A psychiatrist I respect highly, who only uses psychiatric drugs in rare cases as an aid when he withdraws drugs his colleagues have instituted, has said that most people are depressed because they live depressing lives. No drug can help them live better lives. It has never been shown in placebo-controlled trials that a psychiatric drug can improve people’s lives — e.g., help them return to work, improve their social relationships or performance at school, or prevent crime and delinquency. The drugs worsen people’s lives, at least in the long run.” …

Read The Harmful Myth About the Chemical Imbalance Causing Psychiatric Disorders, on crossfit, June 24, 2019.

“Psychiatrists routinely tell their patients that they are ill because they have a chemical imbalance in the brain and they will receive a drug that fixes this. The truth is just the opposite. There is no chemical imbalance to begin with, but when treating mental illness with drugs, we create a chemical imbalance, an artificial condition that the brain tries to counteract. This means that you get worse when you try to stop the medication.”…

Read Psychiatry Gone Astray, on davidhealy, January, 21, 2014.

Image credit /jayfeldmanwellness.

Depression pills increase suicides in adults too

Newer-Generation Antidepressants and Suicide Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Re-Analysis of the FDA Database

“In this re-analysis of the FDA safety summaries, we found evi-dence that the rate of (attempted) suicide was about 2.5 times high-er in antidepressant arms relative to placebo. Our findings thus conflict with the work by Khan et al., who based their effect estimates on PEY rather than the number of patients. When haz-ards are not constant over time, PEY is inappropriate and may obscure a true adverse drug effect, since (attempted) suicide most-ly occurs shortly after treatment initiation and not during con-tinuation or maintenance phases [6, 9]. Adverse-event risk should therefore be calculated based on the number of patients exposed to treatments rather than PEY, and this is also the approach ap-plied by the FDA. Thus, when based on the number of patients randomized rather than PEY, the data presented herein suggest that antidepressants significantly increase the suicide risk in adults with major depression. Further research is required to establish whether the increased suicide risk observed in RCT generalizes to real-world practice, and we acknowledge that suicide attempts constitute just one aspect of a thorough risk-benefit evaluation.”

Read Newer-Generation Antidepressants and Suicide Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Re-Analysis of the FDA Database, on karger, June 24, 2019.

Image credit Ian Espinosa.

Avoid taking drugs unless they are absolutely necessary ; very few meds are indispensable

Trust me, I’m a doctor. Perhaps not…

“Most people let their doctor make the decisions for them, but the evidence tells us that we should be cautious. Doctors make many errors of judgment, and they get much of their information from the drug industry. They therefore use far too many drugs, often because they do not know better.

We live in a world that is so overdiagnosed and overtreated that in high-income countries, our medications are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. This has been demonstrated by several independent studies in Europe and North America. It has also been shown that medical errors, including incidents apart from drug-related errors, are the third leading cause of death even when only counting hospital patients’ deaths.”

Read Trust me, I’m a doctor, by Professor Peter C. Gøtzsche, on crossfit, June 16, 2019.

Image credit theguardian.

The Depression Pill Epidemic

The medicine drugs do not cure, lead to much harm, and should be avoided

“In some countries, including the United States, about 10% of the entire population is in treatment with depression pills. This is a tragedy. These drugs do not have relevant effects on depression; they increase the risk of suicide and violence; and they make it more difficult for patients to live normal lives. They should therefore be avoided. We have been fooled by the drug industry, corrupt doctors on industry payroll, and by our drug regulators.

Surely, many patients and doctors believe the pills are helpful, but they cannot know this, because people tend to become much better with time even if they are not treated. This is why we need placebo-controlled trials to find out what the drugs do to people. Unfortunately, virtually all trials are flawed, exaggerate the benefits of the drugs, and underestimate their harms.” …

Overview

  • Cold turkey in the placebo group
  • Lack of blinding
  • Irrelevant outcomes

continue reading The Depression Pill Epidemic, by Professor Peter C. Gøtzsche, on crossfit, June 4, 2019.

Cochrane HPV vaccine review not found to be ‘Trusted Evidence’

The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias

In May 2018, the Cochrane Collaboration published its review of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. The review primarily assessed the vaccines’ effect on precursors to cervical cancer. Cochrane has high standards for its reviews; however, there were important limitations in its HPV vaccine review, which we address in this paper.

Key findings

  • The Cochrane human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine review missed nearly half of the eligible trials
  • No included trial in the Cochrane review used a placebo comparator
  • The included HPV vaccine trials used composite surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer
  • The Cochrane review incompletely assessed serious and systemic adverse events
  • The Cochrane review did not assess HPV vaccine-related safety signals
  • Industry trial funding and other conflicts of interest
  • Cochrane’s public relations of the review were uncritical

Conclusion

Part of the Cochrane Collaboration’s motto is ‘Trusted evidence’. We do not find the Cochrane HPV vaccine review to be ‘Trusted evidence’, as it was influenced by reporting bias and biased trial designs. We believe that the Cochrane review does not meet the standards for Cochrane reviews or the needs of the citizens or healthcare providers that consult Cochrane reviews to make ‘Informed decisions’, which also is part of Cochrane’s motto. We recommend that authors of Cochrane reviews make every effort to identify all trials and their limitations and conduct reviews accordingly.

Read the author’s full paper on The BMJ.

On Twitter

 

Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial

Why the way we currently use psychiatric drugs does far more harm than good

Unfortunately, psychiatry has, to a considerable extent, abandoned the biopsychosocial disease model and now uses almost exclusively a biomodel, which means using drugs as the “solution” for all problems. This approach to psychiatry has failed to deliver what the patients want, and it has had serious consequences. Most patients don’t respond to the drugs they receive and unfortunately, the psychiatrists’ frustrations over the lack of progress often lead to institution of more drugs and higher doses, harming the patients further. There is no doubt that the way we currently use psychiatric drugs does far more harm than good. Psychiatric drugs are so harmful that they kill more than half a million people every year among those aged 65 and above in the United States and Europe. This makes psychiatric drugs the third leading cause of death, after heart disease and cancer. We could reduce our current usage of psychotropic drugs by 98% and at the same time improve people’s mental health and survival. There is nothing psychiatric patients fear more than forced treatment, and this is an important reason why having close contact with the psychiatric treatment system markedly increases suicides. According to a United Nations convention, forced treatment is a violation of human rights and must be banned, and empirical data have shown that a psychiatry without forced treatment is possible. Peter C. Gøtzsche, a professor in clinical research design and analysis, specialist in internal medicine, and founder of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, is a world leader in his field. His research and professional integrity enjoys great international respect, and this book will be published simultaneously with the Danish version. This is one of the most scientifically and academically substantiated indictments ever directed against one of the world’s largest and most powerful industries.

Why prescription drugs are now the third leading cause of death and the pharmaceutical manufacturers dominance of mental healthcare

James Moore interviews Professor Peter Gøtzsche, Nordic Cochrane Centre Director, 2017

James Moore was keen to talk to Prof. Peter Gøtzsche about his background in research, his views on antidepressant prescribing and how pharmaceutical manufacturers have influenced mental healthcare.

Overview

  • Professor Gøtzsche’s background in clinical trials within the Pharmaceutical industry.
  • How the pharmaceutical manufacturers were manipulating clinical trial data for their own gain.
  • How drug manufacturers have denied for more than 20 years that benzodiazepines and antidepressant drugs cause dependance.
  • How the UK drug regulator (MHRA) also denied this in 2003 at the same time that the World Heath Organisation reported that 3 antidepressants were in the top 30 list of drugs that create dependance.
  • That surveys of patients show that between 50% and 66% of those taking antidepressants experience dependance.
  • The similarities between the pharmaceutical industry and the tobacco industry.
  • That stopping an antidepressant suddenly can be very dangerous.
  • How prescription drugs have become the third leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer.
  • How pharmaceutical manufacturers have used their power and influence to the detriment of patient safety.
  • That the best science shows that there is no doubt that psychiatric drugs have killed millions of people over the years.
  • How psychotherapy is shown to reduce the risk of suicide but instead we prescribe pills that increase the suicide risk for all ages of patients.
  • That the chemical imbalance lie is still being propagated amongst psychiatrists even thought here is no scientific evidence whatsoever so support it.
  • How psychiatric drugs should be used for acute/emergency situations only.
  • That the medication centred approach of psychiatry does more harm than good.
  • How patients should avoid psychiatric drugs unless they are used for a very short time or that the patient really feels that they need them.
  • That when you look at the randomised controlled trials, there is a large risk of bias in these trials and that antidepressant efficacy has been overstated.
  • That the Cochrane Collaboration undertook the most rigorous meta analysis ever undertaken of 131 trials involving 27,422 patients taking SSRI’s, this analysis showed that antidepressants do not have any meaningful effects and their harms outweigh any benefits there might be.

Sources

How to eliminate the risk of the third leading cause of death

Dr Peter Gøtzsche’s views on prescription drugs

Video published on 1 April 2015 by John McDougall.

Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD is a Danish medical researcher, and leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He has written numerous reviews within the Cochrane collaboration.

Dr.Gøtzsche has been critical of screening for breast cancer using mammography, arguing that it cannot be justified; His critique stems from a meta-analysis he did on mammography screening studies and published as Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? in The Lancet in 2000. In it he discarded 6 out of 8 studies arguing their randomization was inadequate.

In 2006 a paper by Gøtzsche on mammography screening was electronically published in the European Journal of Cancer ahead of print. The journal later removed the paper completely from the journal website without any formal retraction. The paper was later published in Danish Medical Bulletin with a short note from the editor, and Gøtzsche and his coauthors commented on the unilateral retraction that the authors were not involved in.

In 2012 his book Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy was published. In 2013 his book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare was published.

How to reduce your risk of becoming a breast cancer patient by one third

Dr Peter Gøtzsche’s views on breast cancer screening

Video published on 1 April 2015 by John McDougall.

Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD is a Danish medical researcher, and leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He has written numerous reviews within the Cochrane collaboration.

Dr.Gøtzsche has been critical of screening for breast cancer using mammography, arguing that it cannot be justified; His critique stems from a meta-analysis he did on mammography screening studies and published as Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? in The Lancet in 2000. In it he discarded 6 out of 8 studies arguing their randomization was inadequate.

In 2006 a paper by Gøtzsche on mammography screening was electronically published in the European Journal of Cancer ahead of print. The journal later removed the paper completely from the journal website without any formal retraction. The paper was later published in Danish Medical Bulletin with a short note from the editor, and Gøtzsche and his coauthors commented on the unilateral retraction that the authors were not involved in.

In 2012 his book Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy was published. In 2013 his book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare was published.

Breast cancer screening not associated with a reduction in the incidence of advanced cancer

Mammograms tied to overdiagnosis of breast cancer

The current study offers fresh evidence linking routine screening to over-diagnosis of non-aggressive tumors because it compares outcomes over a single time period in two regions of Denmark – one that offered biennial mammography for women aged 50 to 69 and one that didn’t.

January 2017 Study Abstract

Background
Effective breast cancer screening should detect early-stage cancer and prevent advanced disease.

Objective
To assess the association between screening and the size of detected tumors and to estimate overdiagnosis (detection of tumors that would not become clinically relevant).

Design
Cohort study.

Breast Cancer Screening in Denmark: A Cohort Study of Tumor Size and Overdiagnosis, Annals of Internal Medicine, DOI: 10.7326/M16-0270, 10 JANUARY 2017.

Philips Mammography Truck, Brazil via philips_newscenter.

Setting
Denmark from 1980 to 2010.

Participants
Women aged 35 to 84 years.

Intervention
Screening programs offering biennial mammography for women aged 50 to 69 years beginning in different regions at different times.

Measurements
Trends in the incidence of advanced (>20 mm) and nonadvanced (≤20 mm) breast cancer tumors in screened and nonscreened women were measured. Two approaches were used to estimate the amount of overdiagnosis: comparing the incidence of advance and nonadvanced tumors among women aged 50 to 84 years in screening and nonscreening areas; and comparing the incidence for nonadvanced tumors among women aged 35 to 49, 50 to 69, and 70 to 84 years in screening and nonscreening areas.

Results
Screening was not associated with lower incidence of advanced tumors. The incidence of nonadvanced tumors increased in the screening versus prescreening periods (incidence rate ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.43 to 1.54]). The first estimation approach found that 271 invasive breast cancer tumors and 179 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions were overdiagnosed in 2010 (overdiagnosis rate of 24.4% [including DCIS] and 14.7% [excluding DCIS]). The second approach, which accounted for regional differences in women younger than the screening age, found that 711 invasive tumors and 180 cases of DCIS were overdiagnosed in 2010 (overdiagnosis rate of 48.3% [including DCIS] and 38.6% [excluding DCIS]).

Limitation
Regional differences complicate interpretation.

Conclusion
Breast cancer screening was not associated with a reduction in the incidence of advanced cancer. It is likely that 1 in every 3 invasive tumors and cases of DCIS diagnosed in women offered screening represent overdiagnosis (incidence increase of 48.3%).