Psychiatric drugs

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"From 1987 until the present, we saw an increase in the number of mentally disabled people from 3.3 million people to 5.7 million people in the United States. In that time, our spending on psychiatric drugs increased to an amazing degree. Combined spending on antipsychotic drugs and antidepressants jumped from around $500 million in 1986 to nearly $20 billion in 2004. So we raise the question: Is the use of these drugs somehow actually fueling this increase in the number of the disabled mentally ill?

When you look at the research literature, you find a clear pattern of outcomes with all these drugs -- you see it with the antipsychotics, the antidepressants, the anti-anxiety drugs and the stimulants like Ritalin used to treat ADHD. All these drugs may curb a target symptom slightly more effectively than a placebo does for a short period of time, say six weeks. An antidepressant may ameliorate the symptoms of depression better than a placebo over the short term.

What you find with every class of these psychiatric drugs is a worsening of the target symptom of depression or psychosis or anxiety over the long term, compared to placebo-treated patients. So even on the target symptoms, there's greater chronicity and greater severity of symptoms. And you see a fairly significant percentage of patients where new and more severe psychiatric symptoms are triggered by the drug itself."

Read the entire interview

(Ganked with thanks from this post on alobar's Lj.)

Comments

[littlebus.livejournal.com]

From the No Child Left Behind article:
An eligible child is one who has "been removed from child care, Head Start, or preschool for behavioral reasons or is at risk of being so removed" or "been exposed to parental depression or other mental illness."

Having worked in elementary schools I know enough about No Child Left Behind to know it is a Bad Idea. I had no idea it also included this gem. Because I have depression (managed, but still there) the government has the right to drug my children because they have been "exposed" to it? My partner is multiple (and a godsend), but the government has the right to drug my children because they have been "exposed" to it?

Every week I learn something new Bush and co. is up to and every week I like them less.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

That's right - if you've got a history of mental illness of any sort on your record, even temporary manageable depression, that can be used against you at any time, in any way. Your children can be drugged or otherwise 'treated' without your consent, or simply taken away from you; you yourself can be incarcerated, drugged and electrocuted without consent or due process - yeah, right here in the USA, Land of the Free.

This isn't paranoid fantasy, or "how things used to be back in the Dark Ages" - it's what actually happens to real people, and the older you get, the more likely it is to happen to you (http://www.stopshrinks.org/reading_room/re_shock/shocking_the_elderly.html). (Lots more documentation here (http://www.stopshrinks.org/reading_room/frame_docs/1st_idx_4th.html) if you want it.)

Bush & Co. didn't start any of this; it's what's been going on right along. All they've done is step up the pace a little.