• Share. Be Supported. Recover.

    We are a friendly, safe community supporting each other's mental health. We are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

  • Safety Notice: This section on Psychiatric Drugs/Medications enables people to share their personal experiences of using such drugs/medications. Always seek the advice of your doctor, psychiatrist or other qualified health professional before making any changes to your medications or with any questions you may have regarding drugs/medications. In considering coming off psychiatric drugs it is very important that you are aware that most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, sometimes including life-threatening emotional and physical withdrawal problems. In short, it is not only dangerous to start taking psychiatric drugs, it can also be dangerous to stop them. Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should only be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision.

Sixty Years of Placebo-Controlled Antipsychotic Drug Trials in Acute Schizophrenia: Systematic Review, Bayesian Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression of

F

firemonkee57

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
8,235
Sixty Years of Placebo-Controlled Antipsychotic Drug Trials in Acute Schizophrenia: Systematic Review, Bayesian Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression of Efficacy Predictors

Published by pubmed

CONCLUSIONS:

Approximately twice as many patients improved with antipsychotics as with placebo, but only a minority experienced a good response. Effect sizes were reduced by industry sponsorship and increasing placebo response, not decreasing drug response. Drug development may benefit from smaller samples but better-selected patients.

Sixty Years of Placebo-Controlled Antipsychotic Drug Trials in Acute Schizophrenia: Systematic Review, Bayesian Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression ... - PubMed - NCBI
 
F

firemonkee57

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
8,235
For me the problem is between those like Whitaker who largely see APs as bad, and those on the other side who overhype the effectiveness of APs.
The main issue for me is not that antipsychotics are bad, but that generally they are less effective than touted by those that strongly support the use of antipsychotics.
 

cpuusage

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
37,634
Location
Planet Lunatic Asylum
For me the problem is between those like Whitaker who largely see APs as bad, and those on the other side who overhype the effectiveness of APs.
The main issue for me is not that antipsychotics are bad, but that generally they are less effective than touted by those that support the use of antipsychotics.
A primary focus / treatment on drugging people for life is bad.

Have you read Whitaker's books & listened to his talks?

He's just presenting what the actual science / research / evidence bears out.

Same with Joanna Moncrieff, David Healy & many others.

Other than Breggin / Szasz et al, they're Not saying it's all bad, but they are pointing out the realities of it all, & calling for better treatment.

Why this is so outrageous to so many people is a bit of mystery to me in ways?
 
Last edited:

cpuusage

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
37,634
Location
Planet Lunatic Asylum
For me the problem is between those like Whitaker who largely see APs as bad, and those on the other side who overhype the effectiveness of APs.
The main issue for me is not that antipsychotics are bad, but that generally they are less effective than touted by those that strongly support the use of antipsychotics.
Given the realities of your life & treatment, i don't fully understand why you have been / are such an apologist / defender of it all?
 
F

firemonkee57

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
8,235
Given the realities of your life & treatment, i don't fully understand why you have been / are such an apologist / defender of it all?

Here we go again with the same worn out and false accusations. Seeing things through balanced lenses hardly makes me an 'apologist'/'defender' of any sort. Indeed it's such comments that serves to stifle intelligent discussion.
If I was an 'apologist'/'defender' I'd be unrestrained in my praise for antipsychotics. Instead I have been very open as to their limitations with regards to my own treatment. If I was an apologist/defender I would be hyping them to the nth degree instead of arguing that their effectiveness is overhyped.

There is a world of difference between something being ineffective and it being bad or evil(which is the line many MIA contributors take).

Of course you can argue what to do on account of their ineffectiveness, ie ramp up research into more effective antipsychotics vs placing a greater emphasis on psychosocial approaches. Alternatively you can pursue both things and tailor treatment to the individual.
 

cpuusage

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
37,634
Location
Planet Lunatic Asylum
Here we go again with the same worn out and false accusations. Seeing things through balanced lenses hardly makes me an 'apologist'/'defender' of any sort. Indeed it's such comments that serves to stifle intelligent discussion.
If I was an 'apologist'/'defender' I'd be unrestrained in my praise for antipsychotics. Instead I have been very open as to their limitations with regards to my own treatment. If I was an apologist/defender I would be hyping them to the nth degree instead of arguing that their effectiveness is overhyped.

There is a world of difference between something being ineffective and it being bad or evil(which is the line many MIA contributors take).

Of course you can argue what to do on account of their ineffectiveness, ie ramp up research into more effective antipsychotics vs placing a greater emphasis on psychosocial approaches. Alternatively you can pursue both things and tailor treatment to the individual.
On what basis & where do you disagree with the research / evidence / statistics / studies presented in the article that i linked to?

Whitaker has Never used the words Evil - simply best presented the evidence / research / science as he has found it.
 
Last edited:
F

firemonkee57

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
8,235
There is a tendency to cherry pick evidence to suit agendas. Whitaker is as guilty of that as anyone else. Whitaker tends to avoid/dismiss evidence as to the positive,albeit limited,effects of antipsychotics.
The idea that Whitaker is a 'pure' champion of those with mental illness(or whatever term you choose to use) is laughable in the extreme , and an insult to many people's intelligence.

Whitaker is just another person with opinions,albeit he's fairly articulate and charismatic, not some all knowing purveyor of the truth.

His article could have been a balanced assessment of the shortcomings of psychiatry with points made to support that position and offer realistic alternatives.
Instead it amounted to little more than blind criticism .

His information may well have been accurate as far as it went but it only gave us the part of the picture Whitaker wanted us to see.
I am not saying he is singularly guilty of this,as others are too,but guilty he is none the less.

The mentally ill need and deserve a better psychiatric system,of that there can be no doubt. However that will not be served by people like Whitaker taking a lop sided view of things.
 

cpuusage

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
37,634
Location
Planet Lunatic Asylum
There is a tendency to cherry pick evidence to suit agendas. Whitaker is as guilty of that as anyone else. Whitaker tends to avoid/dismiss evidence as to the positive,albeit limited,effects of antipsychotics.
The idea that Whitaker is a 'pure' champion of those with mental illness(or whatever term you choose to use) is laughable in the extreme , and an insult to many people's intelligence.

Whitaker is just another person with opinions,albeit he's fairly articulate and charismatic, not some all knowing purveyor of the truth.

His article could have been a balanced assessment of the shortcomings of psychiatry with points made to support that position and offer realistic alternatives.
Instead it amounted to little more than blind criticism .

His information may well have been accurate as far as it went but it only gave us the part of the picture Whitaker wanted us to see.
I am not saying he is singularly guilty of this,as others are too,but guilty he is none the less.

The mentally ill need and deserve a better psychiatric system,of that there can be no doubt. However that will not be served by people like Whitaker taking a lop sided view of things.
& i totally disagree with all that. i think the current mainstream biomedical psychiatric / pharmacological establishment are the one's who are cooking the books / engaging in a complete misrepresentation of the actual evidence.

Whitaker, as well as many others within all this area have constantly campaigned for a far better treatment of mental health.

Whitaker has also always acknowledged the role for a potential wise use of medication in cases to help alleviate suffering.
 

cpuusage

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
37,634
Location
Planet Lunatic Asylum
"Whether or not some psychiatric patients have brain diseases is irrelevant to the brain - disabling principle of psychiatric treatment. Even if some day a subtle defect is found in the brains of some mental patients, it will not change the damaging impact of the current treatments in use. Nor will it change the fact that the current treatments worsen brain function rather than improving it. If for example a patient's emotional upset is caused by a hormonal problem, by a viral inflammation, or by ingestion of a hallucinogenic drug, the impact of the neuroleptics is still that of a lobotomy. The person now has his or her original brain damage and dysfunction PLUS a chemical lobotomy."

Peter. R. Breggin
 

cpuusage

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
37,634
Location
Planet Lunatic Asylum
Whitaker is just another person with opinions,albeit he's fairly articulate and charismatic, not some all knowing purveyor of the truth.
& who is? The Established Biomedical Psychiatric / Pharmacological Industry? Please, be serious.

There surely must be areas within all this that are more true than others. Whitaker, as with many others, have simply provided, as best as possible the actual science, research & evidence as he has found it. Why is that such a problem? imo it's because it seriously threatens the current Establishment / Status Quo / treatment paradigm / orthodox understanding around all this area. How much within the area of psychiatry is about what the actual truth is of things? It's Not (imo).
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
M Dose increase after 3 years. Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 2
S Paxil Stopped Working After 6 years Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 4
S 19 years on Citralopam Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 6
N Sugary Based Med - Abilify - Boils Condiitons/Problems (over years) Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 9
S Ativan / Anxiety Med Side effects after Years of none. Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 3
E How do I start living after 20+ years of psych drugs? Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 7
J I have been taking zyprexa for 9 years.How to cut it off correctly? Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 2
C do antipsychotcs work even more years down the line? Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 10
P Tapering off of 3 mg of clonazapam after 13 years. Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 1
cpuusage Drugs linked to brain damage 30 years ago Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 2
F Remission, Relapse And Recovery Following Early Guided Discontinuation Of Antipsychotics Vs. Maintenance Treatment In FEP: Outcome At 7 Years Follow-U Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 3
F 50 Years of Data Confirm Benefit of Antipsychotics Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 2
F Placebo versus medication for psychosis Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 1
S Placebo Pills Psychiatric Drugs/Medications Forum 3

Similar threads

Top