This advertisement was in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry volume 34 in 1995.
All of the aforementioned negative effects are inherent risks for people taking neuroleptic, or "antipsychotic" drugs. Neuroleptic drugs are approved by the FDA, and are prescribed more often "off-label," for non-FDA approved purposes, i.e.experimentally. Some, (for too many) of the off-label prescriptions are written to alter the behaviors of children; psychiatrists have been using neuroleptics to alter childrens undesirable behaviors since the fifties, if not the forties, yet still claim they have an inadequate data base, and don't know the "long-term effects" of using these teratogens on children. How is that even possible? Referring to this practice as "off-label" prescribing is misleading; it uses an inocuous benign term for what is in all reality, Human Experimentation as a Standard Clinical Practice.
Neuroleptic drugs are teratogens and are precribed much more often for non-FDA approved conditions or symptoms like maladaptive or disapproved of behaviors exhibited by children and adults. There is no way to truly assess treatment effectiveness without placing a value on the subjective experiences of the people being prescribed the drugs, or without diligently tracking adverse events; including the rates of disability and fatality. It is only by utilizing all of the relevant data, that it can be ethically determined whether neuroleptic drugs should even be considered a first-line treatment for any symptom of distress, or any psychiatric diagnosis---a consensus of educated opinions is NOT a sufficient, or an ethical substitute!
Prior to psychiatry adopting "standards of care" which recommend teratogenic drugs as a first-line treatment for any symptom or diagnosis, particularly when treating children, shouldn't there be substantive EVIDENCE which is verifiable, i.e. replicable? Psychiatry has psychotroic drug treatment algorithms and standards of care which are NOT supported by or based upon evidence that the drugs are safe, or evidence that the drugs are effective treatment for the conditions and symptoms or the people the drugs are being prescribed!---HOW did these recommendations became "Standards of Care" in the absence of ethical medical principles? In the Brave New World of psychopharmacology, the standards of care are lacking a grounding in ethical medical principles, which is why treatment proceeds and informed consent is barely paid lip-service. Psychiatric patients have their Human Rights violated as a matter of course with impunity by psychiatists and other professionals who adhere to the psychoharmacological dogmatic approach to distress regardless of it's cause, using practice parameters and treatment algorithms that are absent support of empirical evidence.
No solid evidence has been found that validates the brain disease hypothesis, no know pathology has been identified in any person alive or dead that is known to have caused the symptoms of any "mental illness." Conversely, there is ample definitive evidence that psychotropic drugs cause brain damage, neurological impairments, and other iatrogenic injuries. Children, whose brains are not yet fully developed are being treated with drugs which alter, i.e. damage, the brain's ability to function normally. it is well known that the human brain is not even fully developed until a person is in their early twenties, yet some states have passed legislation which basically offers children and teenagers little to no protection from a parent or guardian if they receive "mental health care." All psychotropic drugs alter brain functions, and the alterations are not a correction of a dysfunction; the alterations are evidence of drug-induced dysfunction.
Treatment compliance is often coerced by the prescriber claiming that the drugs prescribed are "necessary" and will correct a brain disorder, disease or chemical imbalance that is causing the sypmtoms. Now Psychiatrists are claiming this was merely a "metaphor;" which they further claim is "done for the patient's own good" to help the patient and their family understand how important taking the drugs is...so we are in effect required to suspend our disbelief and accept that to practice psychiatry, i.e. psychopharmacology, requires deceit; pseudologia fantastica. But we're supposed to be able to accept this deception because it's carried out by "medical" professionals?! Telling a lie in order to compel a person to do or not do something is FRAUD---it is unethical, it is entrenched and it is widely accepted!
Do not misunderstand me, children and adults do indeed have real valid complaints and symptoms which require intervention and assistance. However, to claim that psychosis, schizophrenia, ADHD, bipolar disorder, or anxiety. to name a few, are caused by a disease or defect when there has never been an underlying biological disease pathology identified makes the disease model and medical standard of care paradigm more than a mere "mythology." it makes such a claim that the patient has a neurobiological disease which REQUIRES treatment; a method used to manipulate patients and the general public's perceptions, and to commit fraud while everybody else just "goes along" with it...
The American people have a veritable mine field to navigate when considering mental health treament due to research fraud, Conflicts of Interest, and professionals who do not value medical ethics. Psychiatrists prescribe drugs for all types of human distress and have adopted treatment strategies that are implemented virtually universally. The treatment strategies are promoted through direct-to-consumer and direct-to-professional marketing campaigns funded by the drug industry, and disseminated through comercial advertisements, Continuing Medical Education, and by mental health advocacy groups as "a public service."
Historically, psychiatry has not considered complaints of patients about intolerable side effects seriously, if considered at all. Psychiatry has effectively taken both the pateint's choice and the pateint's voice away. This includes taking away the voices of parents who object to psychiatry's standards of care and the adverse effects of psychiatric treatment on their children. It is unethical for a professional to authoritatively determine that a patient's complaints can be dismissed because the professional believes the patient is complaining about the so-called, "tolerable side effects."
As a profession, psychiatrists and individual members of the APA "practice medicine" by manipulating and coercing patients and their family members into "treatment compliance." People in distress, and their families need honesty from a doctor and from all mental health professionals. A therapeutic relationship is based on mutual respect and trust. All humans deserve to have medical treatment that is grounded in ethical medical science, to have adequate, unbiased, accurate information provided about diagnoses given and treatments recommeded. People should be respected when they decline potentially harmful treatments
Psychiatrists claim to be treating "brain diseases," without proof of any disease. Doctors are not supposed to lie in order to "practice medicine" for pete's sake! I would like to know why it is not required for prescribers to report adverse events? It seems to me that doing so would inform clinical practice, and the development of Evidence-Based treatment standards... Can it be that psychiatry is not interested in real world outcomes? The real world outcome data would either support or refute claims of drug efficacy and safety. Is the failure to collect this relevant data an attempt to avoid the truth?
The data could potentially demonstrate that psychiatry is "saving lives" as some claim; or conversely, the data could effectively refute the belief system required to support the bio-disease paradigm of psychiatric care. The failure to collect real world outcome data is not an accident, or an oversight. It is patently obvious that psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry have a liability to avoid at any cost...
One can only reasonably conclude that proponents of bio-psychiatry who are vehemently defend psychopharmacology, and the coercion, deceit and manipulation which is now being denied, minimized or dismissed but still being practiced, have a lack of critical thinking skills, either an inability, or an unwillingness to be empathetic; which is exceeded only by a lack of insight and a lack of ethics.
ADVERTISEMENT FOUND AT bonkersinstitute.org
first posted January 26, 2011 as "Psychiatry is Not Yet Safe and Effective, or Medicine"