AWARE not upfront on drug funding

by K Sun Mar 20, 2005 00:47

This story is typical of the anti-scientific, romantic nosense that comes from large sections of the psychology community. That serotonin and dopamine (two of our most important mood inhancing chemicles) is lacking, and that cortisol (stress inducing hormone) is in huge excess in those suffering from deppresion is a proven fact. What is more, while many anti depressants have proven to encourage suicidal behaviour in a fraction of cases, they are in huge numbers of cases the only thing giving quality of life to those suffering from mental trauma. While i do not believe medication should just be thrown at those suffering from deppresion as an easy answer (a practice all to common), they do undoubtably play a roll. To say that they are "mind disabling" is irresponsable crap. While i commend the poster for exposing what is surely a currupt practice by AWARE, he should next time try better picked language.

by toneore Sun Mar 20, 2005 07:50 toneore at eircom dot net

Can you tell me what AWARE have done wrong? Their funding is none of your business. Personally, if drug companies are putting up money to help AWARE, then good for them.

by sean Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:23

Thanks K and Toneore for responding to my posting.

First of all, I have to say again that it is only a theory that depression is caused by low levels of serotonin, as it is similarly only a theory that ‘schizophrenia’ is caused by an excess of dopamine. The brain contains many different neurotransmitters and they all interact with each other in incredibly complex ways.

There are no physical objective medical tests (brain scans, blood tests, etc) that can establish whether a person is suffering from a disease called depression related to low levels of serotonin. It is not as you say K ‘a proven fact’. We have simply no idea as to what is a neurochemically-balanced brain against which an imbalance can be measured and corrected by pharmaceutical means.

You should understand that the serotonin hypothesis is one that is perpetuated by the manufacturers of the SSRI’s (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) simply because it is in their financial interests to do so. Each of these drugs is worth several billion annually to the companies involved. Psychiatrist whistleblower, Peter Breggin has exposed in recent years how Eli Lilly, who manufacture Prozac, covered up the results of their clinical trials which showed how their drug damaged serotonin receptors in the brain. It is therefore correct to say that these drugs and others cause brain dysfunction. You may be aware that Glaxo SmithKline has recently admitted that they covered up the fact that their drug Seroxat could make people suicidal –both in under 18’s and over.

You are wrong to say that many people find these drugs helpful. Initially they may find them helpful because of a stimulant effect but people do become dependent on these drugs, another fact which the companies have tried to cover up. As paradoxically as it may sound they end up becoming more depressed and experiencing increased agitation.

People when they attempt to withdraw from them experience what is sometimes referred to as acute discontinuation syndrome or rebound effects where there is an over reactivity of serotonin system. People therefore do find it very difficult to withdraw and can often experience a worsening of the very symptoms (and others) which took them to the doctor in the first place. The alleged efficacy of these drugs must therefore be questioned by people a great deal more.

Hope that helps.

by Michael Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:41

I think what s/he's saying is that it's corrupt (or at least unethical) for an NGO to accept funding from corporations which have a particular agenda in the mental health business. If they are taking money from these corporations they should say so clearly.

by K Sun Mar 20, 2005 16:07

The poster is correct to say that deppresion is a hugely complex issue. Often medicating mental health problems is like cooking, try a couple of different things and hope it works. The psychology community really dont know why SSRI' s and other drugs such as lithium work in cases of depression. But the fact is they do work in huge numbers of cases, and far greater then any placebo. SSRI's are not addictive and people do not become dependent on them. It really is so irresponsable to say otherwise. Medication for depression really has come so much further from the days of prozac. I would like to add that anti depressants do not address the root causes of depression. Studies have shown that relapse is far more likely to happen where medication is solely used as a aid to recovery. Proper psychotherepy is highly important for full depression recovery. What medication does do though is act as a painkiller, addresing the symptoms (but not allways) of depression rather then the cause. This way medication has helped to keep thousands alive during a torturous ordeal. A good discussion could be had on the vast profits anti depressant medication makes for big business, the complete lack of mental health funding by the government, and the increasing rate of suicide amoungst people. It is a danming inditment of capitalism that deppression effects upto 20% of all young people. The mind is not independent of the brain and is only a product of those chemicle reactions within the brain, any serious study of mental ill health must keep this as a bottom line.

by sean Sun Mar 20, 2005 16:57

Well K I don’t believe that depression is actually that complex an issue.

There are a number of points here. You say that ‘medication’ addresses the symptoms rather than the cause. This is not what the manufacturers of SSRI’s say though. The idea that these drugs help to correct chemical imbalances is simply speculation –it is propaganda from the biological psychiatric complex.

The drugs actually prevent higher cognitive functioning and blunt a person’s awareness.

Psychiatry takes the most complicated creation in the universe, the human brain, and instructs people to ingest drugs in the hope that this will somehow improve its function. What in reality is happening is that it is causing brain dysfunction, a fact which the pharmaceutical companies have tried to cover up.

Cardiovascular problems, toxic psychosis, mania and delirium are all associated with anti –depressants.

there is no doubt that they cause dependency. Many people experience heavy sweating, nausea, tremors, inc. anxiety and agitation, loss of appetite and other problems when withdrawing from these drugs. It is true to say that the cholinergic system rebounds when a person withdraws from them

Lithium does not correct any imbalance. In fact lithium raises the white blood cell count. Often the false analogy is made with diabetes and insulin when talking about lithium. Lithium is not found naturally in the body.

You say ‘Medication for depression really has come so much further from the days of Prozac’. What do you mean by this? It is still heavily prescribed as is seroxat.

by john williams Sun Mar 20, 2005 19:09 johnwrites03 at yahoo dot co dot uk

It is a valid question and Aware should confirm how much ,if any, money was received from drug companies.

John Williams

by the divided self Sun Mar 20, 2005 23:38

Yes I think the point was not so much an accusation of corruption as such, but more of a lack of transparency. If there is nothing to hide why can't they disclose the funding ?

by k Mon Mar 21, 2005 09:25

The poster is going to have a hard time arguing against the benefit medication has brought to millions in these circumstances. The side effects described of withdrawel from anti depressant medication are correct. However these are also the side effects that are experienced during the start of usage and often during usage aswell, although only in a minority of cases. You cant judge a medication by its side effects. Chemo therepy for cancer makes your hair fall out yet it is not judged on this basis. Mood is essentially a balance of chemicles in the brain. During puberty and a womans menstrual cycle mood is significantly altered due to a change of chemicles in the brain. An exstacy user will often have feelings of depression for upto a week after usage, this is because seretonin is burnt up during a high. The gland that preduces serotonin can be so damaged from constant exstacy use that irrevocable depression sets in. I think all this is really an aside to the fact that millions have reported the benefits medication has given them during depression.

by sean Mon Mar 21, 2005 19:26

Hi K I can see we are not going to agree.

There are a number of points that you need to understand. Anti-depressants have anticholinergic effects. This means that the anti-depressants block acetylcholine which is a neurotransmitter – one of the brain’s chemical messengers. Given that this neurotransmitter helps with concentration and certain nervous system activities you can see how they can cause problems. You should be able to see how this creates an imbalance instead of correcting an alleged one. This same neurotransmitter also helps control the functioning of the heart, blood vessels, digestive and urinary tract among others. This explains the effects of the drugs such as dry mouth, blurred vision, confusion, constipation among others- not terribly effective medicine given that the drug companies say that their drugs help to correct a brain chemical imbalance which they believe is related to a real disease called depression.

You can see how withdrawal can cause all these unpleasant and distressing effects because the cholinergic rebounds, hence dependency can and does occur. If the drugs genuinely had medicinal value and were treating a real illness we could excuse the ‘side effects’. That is not the case though. many people experience these adverse effects.

You should remember that once we were told by the medical profession that drugs like Valium did not cause dependency- that didn’t turn to be true. Similiarly we were told that the neuroleptics did not cause dependency – untrue as well.

You make the point about the dance drug and brain chemistry. In that case you should be able to see how the stimulant effect of anti-depressants can cause rebound and worsening symptoms

Finally could you explain to me what you meant by writing: ‘Medication for depression really has come so much further from the days of Prozac’ given that it is one of the most heavily prescribed 'anti-depressants?'

Making such a statement would lead me and I am sure many others to question just how knowledgeable you are on this subject.

by ME Mon Mar 21, 2005 21:32

While Breggin makes some good points regarding the side efffect of meds his credibility is seriously questioned in The Power To Harm by John Cornwell. This is the story of the Wesbecker trial. Joseph wesbecker was on Prozac when he shot 20 people and then himself. Victims sued Eli Lilly and while Lillly do not come out smelling of lilies Breggin does not look very good either.

by sean Mon Mar 21, 2005 21:53

Breggin has done great work in exposing the corruption of Eli Lilly and other companies. The reality is these companies lie about their 'anti-depressants' and neuroleptics claiming that they help to redress a brain imbalance believed to be related to real diseases.

Prozac it is true has been related to explosive violence.

Breggin has also been falsely accused of being involved in scientology.

The truth of what he says and writes is hard for people to accept given the pervasiveness of psychiatric propaganda and its state support.

For anyone wishing to withdraw from anti-depressants I suggest they get his book 'Your drug may be your Problem'.

It is excellent, detailed and enlightening.

by k Tue Mar 22, 2005 13:09

The poster is perfectly correct to challenge my knowledge on the subject. Unlike him im not or never have been a student of pshychology. But id be willing to put bets hes never suffered the torture of serious deppresion. If he had he wouldnt prance around the issue of the millions of people that have been given hope and reason to live by medication. Only someone on the sidelines can list all those side effects which considering the alternative for people on them are very very minor and give medication the thumbs down on that basis. The side effects that he lists are in a minority of cases and are very easy to live with in comparison to deppresion.

by sean Tue Mar 22, 2005 13:36

Hi K,

First of all I would like to say that if someone wishes to take an 'anti-depressant' then I would defend their drug to take such a drug.

My problem lies in the fact that the pharmaceutical companies distort the truth and lie in relation to these products. There needs to be much greater transparency on their part and also state mental health organisations like Aware.

I am self taught and very well aware of the harm psychiatry and its 'treatments' can cause.

The rebound effects of these drugs can cause serious adverse effects; dependency can and does occur therefore. These drugs as I said blunt a person's awareness. Inflicting brain dysfunction on yourself in order to profit the pure greed of liars is not the way to move forward in your life and to understand and make sense of mental suffering.

by ME Tue Mar 22, 2005 19:51

Read John Cornwells book the power to harm. Make up your own mind about Breggin. He writes a lot of truth but gilds the lilly too. It is true drug companie care only for money but some people need help and if drugs provide some help no one ha theright to deny it bu yest they should be told

I know ofsomeone who had a lot of psychiatric treatment and she can now function. What is best her stuck at home in bed, in torture in a hospital or able to work. So she may have damage later in life So might anyone who drinks every weekend

And whileBreggin does expose corruption I winder if his therapy is free and if he can talk people out of psychosis. His institute of psychiatry is reported to be no where as big as he infer and has only one part time employee

by sean Tue Mar 22, 2005 20:22

There is no harm in you having misgivings about Breggin. That is fair enough and you should test them out. From what I have read about him and his books he strikes me as a very compassionate man who has helped many people. He has been ostracised by his profession and will never go anywhere within the psychiatric industry .

I believe he has taken a courageous stance in speaking out about the serious health damage that psychiatric drugs cause and the lies of the drug companies.

I believe he has done this because he genuinely cares for the ‘mentally ill’.

What a contrast to the vast bulk of psychiatrists who promote and prescribe brain damaging drugs to their ‘patients’ in the full knowledge that they are inflicting great damage to healthy brains and bodies.

I believe in all sincerity that the vast bulk of the psychiatric profession do not genuinely care about their 'patients' and the effects their drugs have on the 'patients' health.

Do you believe they genuinely care?

by sean Thu Mar 24, 2005 14:18

There is one final point and clarification on this issue that I would like to make. In relation to the individual donations mentioned I was not asking Aware for a list of the names of those individuals who gave this money to Aware.

I was simply asking them to tell me whether any of this money came from individuals with links or associations to pharmaceutical companies who manufacture 'anti-depressants'.

They refused to simply answer yes or no.