But if you are really upset, maybe you need some "meds."
We live in a distressing world that has lost its bearings, its values. You might even say that our society is fundamentally psychotic. We are surrounded by folks clinging to archaic, often dangerous, religious fantasies in desperate attempts to ward off the meaninglessness that would otherwise pervade their lives. In this context, those of us who cannot engage in the delusional incantation of childish fairy tales are left without comfort in the face of genuine horrors, horrors like 9/11, inevitable nuclear proliferation, war, the continuing population explosion, environmental disaster, the obscenely (and increasingly) skewed concentration of wealth leading to global slavelization, ongoing genocides, the coming epidemics, etc. On top of this—or maybe because of it—many of us have lost our sense of community, belonging, and meaning.
You may need to install or update your Adobe Flash Player to view many of the videos on this site.
But, we are told, if we are depressed than maybe we suffer from some kind of chemical imbalance in our brains. All we have to do is tweak our neurotransmitters, and "Voilà!" Our supposedly biochemically imbalanced serotonin system can be corrected, eliminating our mental "illness," our "dis-ease." No need to feel bad; we can medicate away any undue, emotional discomfort. No fuss, no mess. No need even to take action and fix the problem. To paraphrase the old M&M commercials, "Distress melts in your mouth! Not by your hand."
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a
profoundly sick society. ——J. Krishnamurti
Indeed, everyday we are offered drugs that can turn off our healthy nervous system's painful cry in a dehumanizing and threatening world. And we call these drugs "medicines." That's right. Medicines! What's the difference between them and the opiates like heroin? Because these drugs don't make us dopey and, in fact, enable us to keep working when we might otherwise collapse, they are "good" drugs. As Aldous Huxley foresaw, there would one day be government sanctioned drugs that enable us to turn off our normal human responses and accommodate ourselves to life in a world that we continue to make less and less livable. But if you take your meds, you can ignore the problems and continue to function.
[P]sychiatrists and psychologists refuse to entertain the idea that society as a whole may be lacking in sanity. They hold that the problem of mental health in a society is only that of the number of 'unadjusted' individuals, and not of a possible unadjustment of the culture itself.
——Erich Fromm, M.D.
However, as with drugs like heroin, cocaine, and alcohol (the "bad" drugs) that are also often used to blot out aspects of Reality, the prescription drugs that can alleviate distress can also cause terrible problems, problems that are often worse than what they were prescribed to solve.
And in any case, chemicals that enable you to ignore the warning signs of real problems are not medicines; they are dangerous drugs!
Yes, there may be times when our normal responses are overwhelming and temporarily dampening them may be helpful. The prescription drugs may enable us to function in a crisis that would otherwise be overwhelming. Under extreme stress, they may be able to help prevent a breakdown or erratic behavior that might make a bad situation worse.
But we all know that that is NOT how the prescription drugs are generally used. They are marketed as a cure for a mental "illness" and they are typically prescribed for open-ended periods of time. That is, using them has become "a way of life" for many, many people.
Though the empirical evidence (presented or linked to on this page) shows that
more people would fare better without neuroleptic drugs, and that (given their dangerous side effects) most people should not be kept on them for very long, withdrawal from neuroleptics can be destabilizing and dangerous. The human body adjusts or becomes accustomed to drugs that are taken regularly. Abrupt withdrawal from such drugs and other substances can cause problematic reactions, e.g., DT's when withdrawing from alcohol and convulsions when withdrawing from barbiturates. Just so, withdrawal from the regular use of psychiatric drugs can pose serious dangers. If you are taking such drugs and wish to withdraw, it may be very important to obtain guidance from folks who know how to do so safely. Here is a link to an informational web site put together by people who have gone through (or supported those who have gone through) withdrawal from psychiatric drugs.
Excerpted from "The Truth about "Schizophrenia": Loren Mosher and Bob Whitaker visit Zuzu's Place."
For more information about the full-length movie, click here.
22 March 2004 - A few months after filming the video above, the Food and Drug Administration confirmed the concerns that the speakers were raising. The FDA issued warnings for the popular antidepressants, saying the drugs could invoke suicidal tendencies among patients taking them.
The agency asked [politely?] the makers of 10 of the drugs to include the new warning in packaging materials.
The agency's investigation focused on children taking the drug. But the new warning applies to both children and adults taking the medications, FDA officials said. The agency said it wasn't clear the drugs led to suicide. [The pharmaceutical companies the FDA oversees provide half of the FDA's budget! How can they be clear about anything?] The drugs of concern are all newer-generation antidepressants: Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Celexa, Remeron, Lexapro, Luvox, Serzone and Wellbutrin.
[A few months after the FDA's warnings, Dr. Loren Mosher passed away from an illness that had not started to produce symptoms at the time the video was made.]
In case you still think we are exaggerating, consider this CBS News report
08 February 2008
From New Scientist Print Edition
An inappropriate analysis of clinical trial data by researchers at GlaxoSmithKline obscured suicide risks associated with paroxetine, a profitable antidepressant, for 15 years, suggest court documents (897kb, requires Acrobat Reader) released last month. Not until 2006 did GSK alert people to raised suicide risks associated with the drug, marketed as Paxil and Seroxat.
An analysis of internal GSK memos and reports, which were released to US lawyers seeking damages, suggests that the company had trial data demonstrating an eightfold increase in suicide risk as early as 1989. Harvard University psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen, who studied the papers for the lawyers, says it's "virtually impossible" that GSK simply misunderstood the data - a claim the company describes as "absolutely false".
Glenmullen's report rests on documents obtained by lawyers in Los Angeles, who are bringing around 30 cases against GSK linking suicides and suicide attempts to the use of Paxil. The report was under seal at a district court in Sacramento, California, until 18 January, when the judge agreed to make parts of it public.
Several pages from the report were withheld by the judge, but Chuck Grassely, a Republican senator for Iowa, wrote to GSK on 6 February asking that the missing sections be made public.
"With new questions about when GlaxoSmithKline knew about risks for suicidal behavior compared to when it let the public know about those risks, it seems like it'd be in the drug maker's best interest to provide every bit of information about this issue," said Grassely. "At this point, any sense that more information is being withheld only leads to more suspicion about what went on and what still might be going on. The public has a right to know what there is to know about this and other drugs."
The analysis focuses on the "washout" phase preceding a trial, when subjects stop taking most or all medications to avoid confusion with results from the trial itself. Because the washout occurs before patients randomly receive either the drug or the placebo control, adverse events during this time can't be attributable to the trial and so are seldom if ever included in final results.
However, GSK researchers submitting data on Paxil to the US Food and Drug Administration in the late 1980s and early 1990s included suicides and suicide attempts from the washout period in the results for the placebo arms of trials, but not from the Paxil arms. Glenmullen alleges that these extra "placebo" suicides negated suicides attributed to Paxil in the trials, making the drug appear safer than it really was. He says that if the washout results had been excluded, the data would have showed that Paxil increased eightfold the risk of suicidal behaviour in adults.
GSK spokeswoman Mary Anne Rhyne says inclusion of the washout data "was intended to present the full picture of events that occurred in all phases of the clinical trials - starting from the time patients were enrolled, before they were randomised." She says that even without the washout data, Paxil still came out as safe as the placebo in this trial. She accused Glenmullen of incorrectly analysing the data to reach the opposite conclusion, but didn't respond to a request for numerical proof that Glenmullen's verdict was wrong.
Glenmullen suggests that the FDA would have acted differently had the use of the washout data been made more explicit. Rhyne says that material still under seal shows the FDA to be fully aware of how the washout data was being used. But Glenmullen quotes Martin Brecher, the FDA official who reviewed Paxil's safety, as agreeing during a pre-trial hearing that the use of the washout data was "scientifically illegitimate."
Independent researchers say it was wrong to use washout data as GSK did. "I can't imagine circumstances in which it would be appropriate," says Bruce Psaty of the University of Washington in Seattle.
"But," you say, "Surely this fraud by GlaxoSmithKline was an aberration, right? MY doctor uses 'evidence based medicine' to treat ME."
The "evidence" your doctor relies on, unbeknownst to your doctor who was taught to trust the scientific research published in academic journals, is now just as contaminated. Here are some more examples of serious misconduct surrounding the research generated by Pfizer, and Eli Lilly, and AstraZeneca, and Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca. And those are just examples of their misconduct that we know about, i.e., that they have been caught for.
Surprise, surprise, surprise. Oh goodness! What a shock.
It turns out that the doctor (Joseph Biederman, M.D.) featured in the video on the right is guilty of fraud. Biederman "pioneered" the toxic drugging of millions of little children for "bipolar disorder." While he was doing this, he received 1.6 MILLION dollars from drug companies, and lied about it. In fact, his revelation, while under congressional investigation, of the previously undisclosed 1.6 million is also a lie; the records reveal that he apparently received considerably more money!
Here's just one example. Federal rules require researchers studying a drug to disclose earnings from the company that makes the drug if they received more than $10,000 from that company. So Biederman, who in 2000 had a grant from Eli Lilly to study their drug, Strattera, told the congressional investigators that he received less than $10,000 from Lilly that year. Therefore, he did not have to tell Harvard or his research subjects about the conflict in interest. Lilly however, reported that they had paid him more than $14,000 that year.
More Manufacturing Mental Illness &
the Magical Medical Invention
of Minimal Brain Disorder.
Here you can view the earlier
birth of a pharmaceutical market: Ritalin 1970 and Cylert 1975
Unfortunately, Big-Pharma is able to punish whistleblowers who expose their wrongdoing! For example, consider the case of Jim Gottstein who is under attack from one of the biggest corporations in the world. Having spent close to three hundred thousand dollars to defend himself, he is still being threatened with loss of his license to practice law, massive civil penalties, and possibly jail. Jim needs our help!
Sometimes, Only Court Jesters Are
Allowed Prime Space in the Public Square
from which to Speak the Truth.
Given the information on this page that documents the dangers of anti-
depressants, we cannot help but wonder if Robin's suicide was caused, in part, by psychiatric drug (mis)treatment. We may never know.
In any case, rest in peace Saint Robin. We miss you already.
(Warning: Like Chris Rock, above,
his "prescription" is not very polite) (Click the image to view the video.)
As The World's First Open Source Religion, the Way of Yo teaches us to take the perceptions and reactions of other divine humans as indications of our progress (or lack thereof) toward our goal of creating the clearest possible expression of the Truth, as revealed by Yo (Reality). So, if you have any thoughts, suggestions, or comments regarding this page—or any other aspect of Yoism—please send us a message via email. After registering as a user, you can click the "add new comment" button above to leave a specific comment on this or any page that you want other visitors to be able to read. (For comments that are not about a specific page, please use the email option.)