Tag Archives: Depression delusion

Prescribed drug dependence: psychiatry’s appalling response to alarming research findings

Leave a reply

(NB: This article cannot be seen as giving specific medical advice to any individual.This article should not be taken as advising any person to make any change in their psychiatric medication.)

For three decades, it has been clear to me that governments and the public alike have made – and continue to make – a very serious error in trusting mainstream psychiatry with the emotional and mental health care of the general public. 

Mainstream psychiatry has fooled the public – and perhaps themselves – into believing that (a) they are the most expert professionals in mental health, and (b) their primary interest is the public good. 

Neither of the above is true.

Most mainstream psychiatrists have a grossly inadequate understanding of the emotional and psychological worlds of the masses of people they claim to understand, in addition to their exaggerated and frequently deluded view of the brain and claimed (but scientifically unverified) brain abnormalities.

MAINSTREAM PSYCHIATRY IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

THE MAIN PRIORITY OF MAINSTREAM PSYCHIATRY IS NOT THE PUBLIC WELLBEING. 

THE MAIN PRIORITY OF MAINSTREAM PSYCHIATRY IS MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING ITS OWN POSITION AT THE PINNACLE OF THE GLOBAL MENTAL HEALTH PYRAMID.

GOVERNMENTS OWE IT TO THE PUBLIC TO INITIATE INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES INTO MENTAL HEALTH, INCLUDING THE WIDESPEAD ASSUMPTION THAT PSYCHIATRY SHOULD LEAD THE WAY IN GLOBAL MENTAL HEALTH.  

IT IS HIGH TIME THAT GOVERNMENTS THAT BACK PSYCHIATRY’S DOMINANT POSITION IN GLOBAL MENTAL HEALTH WOKE UP TO THESE REALITIES. 

Over the years, I have come across dozens of examples of psychiatry’s incompetence, ignorance, bias, delusional thinking, and cunning.

Yet another classic example of this occurred in October 2018.

 

Background:

As I described in my 2018 Kindle book publication ‘Prescribed Drug Dependence’, mainstream psychiatry has systematically underplayed the drug-dependency potential of the substances they prescribe so frequently and with such enthusiasm and conviction.

Based on people’s experiences of taking the substances, it has been clear to me for the past twenty years that the much-promoted SSRI antidepressants frequently cause drug dependence and withdrawal problems.

Because it would reflect very badly on psychiatry to be seen as prescribing substances that – like illicit street drugs – regularly cause drug dependence and withdrawal problems, mainstream psychiatry has vehemently and consistently resisted significant withdrawal problems being associated with the substances we call SSRI antidepressants. 

 

New research

Research on antidepressant drug withdrawal effects was published in October 2018 by British psychologists John Read and James Davies: Read-Davies research 

 

These were the key findings of this research:

More than half experiencing withdrawal effects; almost half of those experiencing withdrawal describing them as ‘severe; withdrawal effects commonly lasting several weeks or months.

These are very significant findings.

To those of us who have been honest about the withdrawal problems caused by antidepressants, these findings come as no surprise. 

The media reaction to this research:

Because these results are so signficant – and perhaps because the vast majority of psychiatrists and GPs have been rubbishing people’s concerns about antidepressant drug dependence and withdrawal problems for three decades – these research were picked up by mainstream media:

 The Mail:

The Guardian:

The Times:

The Independent:

Sky News:

BBC News:

News of this research reached Denmark:

So, the mainstream media rightly took this research very seriously. 

 

What about mainstream psychiatry? What was psychiatry’s reaction to this research?

 Wendy Burn, President of the Royal College tweeted, ‘Good to see more research in this important area’, a rather underwhelming reponse to the Mail’s headline, ‘Doctors must wake up to patients hooked on depression pills’:

Wendy Burn’s comment – ‘Good to see research in this important area’ seemed disingenuous to me.

I replied directly to Royal College of Psychiatrist’s President Wendy Burn.  In my tweet, I ensured that the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Simon Wessely (the previous President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists) and Carmine Pariante, a prominent spokesman for the Royal College of Psychiatrists were notified about my tweet:

In my tweet, I was making the point that this research came not from the prescribers of these substances – psychiatrists and GPs – but from two very conscientious psychologists.

I was also asking an important if rather obvious question: Why were psychiatrists not undertaking such research, given that drug prescribing comes under their remit and responsibility?

Wendy Burn is quite active on Twitter, generally posting tweets and retweeting many times a day. So is Carmine Pariante and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Simon Wessely is also quite active on Twitter. Though notified about my tweet by me, not one of them bothered to reply.

I looked through the tweets and replies sent by Dr. Wendy Burn over the following days. I found just two tweets – or rather, retweets; Wendy Burn apparently did not see this research as important enough to comment further.

I believe that Wendy Burn’s true position – and the position of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, of which she is currently president, the college’s most senior representative – reveals itself in the two tweets – out of the hundreds of tweets about this antidepressant withdrawal research – that she chose to retweet.

Wendy Burn’s first retweet, in which the author plays down the signficance of antidepressant withdrawal and dependence, instead using the favoured medical term, ‘discontinuation syndrome’ rather than the more truthful ‘withdrawal syndrome’:

Wendy Burn’s second retweet was of a tweet in which antidepressant drug dependence is downplayed: 

 

The President of the Royal College of Psychiatry’s ambivalent reaction to these research findings – findings that essentially point to a major public health issue of doctor-initiated prescribed drug dependence – contrasts sharply with her often-expressed enthusiasm for ideas and notions that coincide with the ideology of psychiatry, the hoped-for desire of mainstream psychiatry for mental health problems to be fundamentally seen as biological, such as this one: 

There is no indication to suggest that the Royal College of Psychiatrists intend to take this research seriously.

The American Psychiatric Assocation’s reponse:

News of this research spread to the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). This was picked up by the American Psychiatric Association , who tweeted:

UK psychologist John Read, one of the two main of this research, was magnanimous in his response to this tweet by the American Psychiatric Association:

Within hours however, the American Psychiatric Association deleted their own tweet:  Some people on Twitter had the foresight to take screenshots of the American Psychiatric Association’s tweet:

 

This screenshot illustrates that the American Psychiatric Association’s tweet is now unavailable:

John Read then asked the American Psychiatric Association directly why they removed their tweet:

The American Psychiatric Association did not reply to John Read.

Nor did they reply to others who also asked the American Psychiatric Association to explain why they deleted their own tweet hours after publishing it:

A survivor of psychiatry – Twitter handle @angpeacock1111 – correctly describes how important this sequence of events is:

 

Why would the American Psychiatric Association delete this tweet and refuse to explain why?

This is an example of the duplicity and cunning that is endemic within mainsteam psychiatry globally. 

Clearly, someone within the American Psychiatric Association felt it approriate to respond and tweet about this important research.

It would appear that this decision to flag this decision was subsequently – a few hours later – overrided by more powerful voices within the American Psychiatrric Association, arrogant and poweful voices that also felt that the public did not deserve an explanation for their radical change of mind in relation to their tweet about this research.

Agreeing with this research – as they did in their tweet – would raise serious questions about the correctness of prescribing these substances to vast numbers of people. 

The unexplained removal of this tweet had nothing to do with the public interest, and everything to do with prioritising the image of psychiatry and the American Psychiatric Association. 

Prescribed drug dependence: such a major issue, consistently swept under the carpet by psychiatric drug prescribers

Why did it take two psychologists – John Read and James Davies – to carry out this research?

Where are the prescribers of these SSRI antidepressant substances – psychiatrists and GPs – doctors who have reassured the public for decades that there are no signficant withdrawal problems associated with these substances?

Why have the enthusiastic prescribers of these substances – psychiatrists and GPs – who have continually informed the public that there is no need to worry about withdrawal problems, not carried out research such as this decades ago, before these drugs were unleashed upon an unsuspecting and trusting international public?  

Why are the prescribers not on top of this issue, taking the lead – as any responsible profession would – in relation to the substances they prescribe so widely? 

Why do the prescribers seem to want to know little or nothing about the major issue of prescribed drug dependence, as evidenced by the underwhelming response of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the American Psychiatric Association to this important new research?

Mainstream psychiatry’s refusal to take such findings seriously and address the issues that arise inevitably leaves the vast numbers of people who experience severe antidepressant withdrawal problems alone, unsupported, virtual outcasts, leaving these people with little option but to support each other as best they can, through internet and other groups.

This is yet another scandal.

How many more scandals will mainstream psychiatry be allowed to get away with by our governments, who have ultimate responsibility for the health and welfare of nations’ citizens?

When will governments do what they should have done decades ago – initiated an independent inquiry into mental health, including the practice and ideology of psychiatry, which falsely informs the public that its practices are scientifically valid and trustworthy??? 

Or will governments merely continue to wrongly assume that psychiatry is the ultimate source of mental health knowledge, wisdom and leadership, a deluded position that bears no relation to the facts?

Thirty years in this field has taught me that it is a waste of time trying to encourage mainstream psychiatry to drop its biases.

Change will only come when forces outside of mainstream psychiatry join and insist upon an independent review of how emotional and mental health is understood and addressed. 

Dr. Terry Lynch.

https://doctorterrylynch.com/courses/

Drug companies abandon psychiatry

Leave a reply

Did you know that many major drug companies have either ceased their involvement in psychiatric research altogether or considerably reduced their involvement?

This is not a development that reflects well on psychiatry, which is why it has received so little publicity.

But it is a profoundly significant development, for a number of reasons. Not many years ago, psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry were cosy bedfellows, “partners”.

Not any more.

I wrote about this development, why it has happened, and its major significance, in my 2015 book Depression Delusion: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance, foreword by Robert Whitaker.

To receive a free extract about this major development, subscribe to my newsletter updates through the form at the end of this blog. You can unsubscribe any time you like.

Best wishes,

Terry.

Dr. Terry Lynch.

Physician; psychotherapist; best-selling mental health author; provider of recovery-oriented mental health service; member of Expert Group on Mental Health Policy (2003-6) that formulated A Vision for Change, Ireland’s official mental health policy document.

 

Psychiatry’s precarious position – between a rock and a hard place

Leave a reply

What exactly is psychiatry’s place in the world of mental health? 

Proponents of mainstream psychiatry – including the majority of psychiatrists and GPs – have for over 50 years persuaded both themselves and the majority of the general public that psychiatry’s place at the pinnacle of the mental health pyramid is entirely justified.

 But, is psychiatry’s “expert” position in mental health really justified?       

Actually, if the truth be told, psychiatry occupies a very precarious position, sitting somewhere between neurology and neurosurgery on one side, the medical specialities that treat known brain disorders, and the various so-called “talking therapies” on the other side. Maintaining this position into the future greatly depends upon the general public continuing to be misled regarding psychiatry’s actual position and place in mental health.

Between a rock and a hard place: psychiatry’s actual position in mental health

If you would like to understand psychiatry’s actual position, and the great deception of the general public that has been going for decades regarding psychiatry’s position, download a FREE extract from my 2015 book, Depression Delusion: the Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance –  foreword by Robert Whitaker, described as “truly remarkable” by psychologist Dr. Phil Hickey in his review of this book on the Mad in America website in 2015 – simply by subscribing to my newsletter updates at the end of this blog (from which you can unsubscribe at any time).

Best wishes,

Terry.

Dr. Terry Lynch,

physician, psychotherapist, author, recovery-oriented mental health provider

https://doctorterrylynch.com/                                                                        info@doctorterrylynch.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US psychologist Dr. Paula Caplan PhD’s praise for my 2015 book “Depression Delusion Volume One: The Myth of the Brain Chemical imbalance”

Leave a reply

Dr. Paula Caplan Ph. D. is an American clinical and research psychologist and social justice and human rights activist. I first came across Paula and her work about 20 years ago. At that time, I was rapidly losing faith in my medical training in mental health. I was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the medical approach to human distress, including the whole medical approach to psychiatric diagnosis, which made progressively less sense to me the more I critiqued it. Back then, I was grateful to find principled mental health professionals like Paula Caplan and Peter Breggin.

Paula Caplan’s CV is impressive.  She was previously professor of psychology, assistant professor of psychiatry and head of the Center for Women’s Studies at the University of Toronto. She has received much recognition for her work including an Eminent Woman Psychologist award in 1996 from the American Psychological Association, a 1995-96 Presidential Citation for Contributions as Chair of Sexism in Diagnosis Task Force, and a Distinguished Career Award in 2008 from the Association for Women in Psychology.

Paula Caplan was a consultant to two committees appointed by the DSM-4 Task Force’s lead psychiatrist Allen Frances to adjudicate on what should be included in the DSM-4 which was published in 1994. As she subsequently explained, Paula Caplan resigned from these committees on principle:

“I resigned from those committees after two years because I was appalled by the way I saw that good scientific research was often being ignored, distorted, or lied about and the way that junk science was being used as though it were of high quality . . . if that suited the aims of those in charge. I also resigned because I was increasingly learning that giving someone a psychiatric label was extremely unlikely to reduce their suffering but carried serious risks of harm, and when I had reported these concerns and examples of harm to those at the top, they had ignored or even publicly misrepresented the facts. I wrote about what I learned from my insider’s position in my book, They Say You’re Crazy: How the World’s Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who’s Normal (Caplan, 1995).” http://freakoutcrazy.com/category/paula-caplan/ 

I have not yet have the pleasure of meeting Paula, though I’m sure that our paths will cross, given our shared passion for truth in mental health. We have been in regular contact over the years.

I am delighted that Paula felt it appropriate to write the following about my new book Depression Delusion Volume One: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance on the Stop Psychiatric Diagnosis Harm Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/PLAN.T.Alliance/  (posted 24th October 2015):

“I just finished reading Dr. Terry Lynch’s phenomenal, compelling, scrupulously argued book, Depression Delusion. It is clearly written and hard to put down. It is encyclopedic in that he seems to have read every claim ever made about depression being due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, and he does all the work for us — citing each of these appalling quotations and then walking us step by step through their failures of logic and the stunning lack of evidence behind them. This book is not to be missed! If your library doesn’t have it, urge them to order it right away, and make sure you are first on the list to get it.”

For more information on my books, visit my website https://doctorterrylynch.com/ , where you can download two free chapters, one from each of my most recent books, Depression Delusion and Selfhood.  

 

Depression diagnosis: If you think the diagnosis of depression is scientific, think again

Leave a reply

Many people are under the false impression that the diagnosis of depression is solidly grounded upon scientific principles.

What follows is a passage from my new 2015 book Depression Delusion Volume One: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance: 

“Science plays no part in the diagnosis of depression. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) lists nine criteria which psychiatrists have decided provide evidence of depression. Neither laboratory investigations nor physical findings specific to depression receive a mention in any of these nine criteria.

Criterion 1 describes the mood in a major Depressive Episode as ‘depressed, sad, hopeless, discouraged’, or ‘down in the dumps’, feeling ‘blah’, having no feelings or feeling anxious, irritability, and bodily experiences such as aches and pains.

Criterion 2 refers to loss of interest or pleasure, including a loss of interest in hobbies.

Criterion 3 describes changes in eating habits, either an increase or a decrease in appetite or weight.

Criterion 4 refers to sleep disturbance such as insomnia or oversleeping.

Criterion 5 describes bodily expressions of distress including ‘agitation, e.g. the  inability to sit still . . . or retardation e.g. slowed speech, thinking or bodily movements’.

Criterion 6 refers to decreased energy, tiredness and fatigue.

Criterion 7 includes a ‘sense of worthlessness or guilt, unrealistic negative evaluations of one’s worth’, and ‘guilty preoccupations or ruminations’ about the past.

Criterion 8 describes people’s reported ‘inability to think, concentrate or make decisions’, appearing ‘easily distracted’, or ‘memory difficulties’.

Criterion 9 speaks of ‘thoughts of death, suicide ideation, or suicide attempts’.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders asserts that a diagnosis of a Major Depressive Episode can be made when the severity and duration of a person’s mood meets Criterion 1 and the person is experiencing four of the remaining eight criteria.

In my book Beyond Prozac: Healing Mental Distress (2001, 2004 {UK} and 2005), I questioned many aspects of the diagnostic approach to depression, including the following:

Why did the American Psychiatric Association select five criteria as the magic figure? What is the difference between a person who meets six criteria—and is therefore diagnosed as having a Major Depressive Episode and needing antidepressant treatment—and one who meets four criteria, and therefore receives no psychiatric diagnosis or treatment? Why five criteria? Why not three? Or seven? How valid are these criteria? [i]

Nine years later in his 2010 book Unhinged: The Trouble with Psychiatry—A Doctor’s Revelations about a Profession in Crisis, American psychiatrist Daniel Carlat asked similar questions and went one better. Carlat interviewed Robert Spitzer, lead psychiatrist of the DSM-3, the 1980 edition of the DSM in which this approach to depression was first set out as the way to diagnose depression. Here is an extract from that interview: [ii]

Carlat: How did you decide on five criteria as being your minimum threshold for depression?

Spitzer: It was just consensus. We would ask clinicians and researchers, “How many symptoms do you think patients ought to have before you would give them a diagnosis of depression?” And we came up with the arbitrary number of five.

Carlat: But why did you choose five and not four? Or why didn’t you choose six?

Spitzer: Because four just seemed like not enough. And six seemed like too much.

Carlat commented that ‘Spitzer smiles mischievously’ as he uttered the last sentence above. This is the quality of the “science” upon which the diagnosis of depression is based ” (end of quote).

“The arbitrary number of five”, “It was just consensus”, “four seemed like not enough”, “six seemed to much”–does this rationale fall within your definition of science?

Not for one second am I questioning the realness of these experiences and behaviours, but I most certainly am questioning the medical profession’s interpretation of these experiences and behaviours.

[i].   Terry Lynch, Beyond Prozac: Healing Mental Distress, Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books, 2004, p. 103.

[ii].   Daniel Carlat, Unhinged: The Trouble with Psychiatry—A Doctor’s Revelations about a Profession in Crisis, London: Free Press, 2010, pps. 53-4.

Podcast: Dr. Terry Lynch, guest on The Peter Breggin Hour, 7th Oct 2015.

Leave a reply

For a quarter of a century, I have been a big fan of US psychiatrist Peter Breggin and his tireless work to change global mental health from a system based on falsehoods and flawed science to an approach based on truth, real science, empathy and humanity.

My relationship with Dr. Peter Breggin has grown from first seeing him on Irish television 25 years ago and reading his classic book Toxic Psychiatry to being an ally and comrade in the vitally important struggle to redress the global understanding of and approach to emotional and mental health. I contributed a comment or two and an endorsement to Peter’s important 2012 book Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Families. Peter wrote a wonderful endorsement of my 2015 book Depression Delusion Volume One: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance, referring to my book as “an inestimable service to humanity”.

I was pleased to be Peter Breggin’s guest on his weekly radio show, The Peter Breggin Hour, on 7th October 2015. Here is a link to the podcast of our conversation:

http://drpeterbregginshow.podbean.com/e/the-dr-peter-breggin-hour-%E2%80%93-100715/

We discussed many topics including my new book  Depression Delusion Volume One: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance and why I wrote it; a better way to understand depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), eating disorders; antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs; psychiatry; psychiatric diagnoses; brain chemical imbalances; counselling and psychotherapy; recovery; and many other important themes.

I was previously Peter’s guest in 2012. During our conversation both Peter and I agreed that we would not leave such a long period of time before we chatted again on his show.

 

Antidepressant prescribing is out of control. Why?

Leave a reply

The prescribing of antidepressant drugs is now out of control. Antidepressant drug prescribing has risen year-on-year for two decades or more. Almost 60 million antidepressant prescriptions are now written annually in Britain, equivalent to one prescription a year for every UK man, woman and child. The inexorable rise in antidepressant prescribing has similarly continued in virtually all developed – and many developing – countries.

Counselling and psychotherapy is “prescribed” far less that antidepressants by mental health doctors – psychiatrists and GPs (family physicians) – despite counselling’s proven effectiveness in the treatment of depression (see NICE guidelines).

This major discrepancy cannot be explained by antidepressants perhaps being far more effective treatments for depression than counselling. Studies have found that the difference in effectiveness of antidepressants and active placebo is not clinically significant. (An active placebo is a substance that has no direct effect on the condition itself but does cause some effects, so the person knows they have taken something, as opposed to an inert or inactive placebo, which does not cause any effects at all).

Psychiatrists and GPs repeatedly tell us that the major discrepancy between antidepressant prescribing and other modalities is down to economics – to underfunding. This claim is not the whole story, far from it. The fundamental problem is not a funding issue at all; it is the mindset that drives mental health health services, and the priorities that arise from that mindset.

This mindset is largely the creation of those who lead mental health – psychiatrists and GPs, mental health doctors, society’s appointed foremost experts on depression. These doctors like to see depression as an illness, as fitting primarily into their familiar model of illness. It is therefore second nature for doctors to prescribe, since that is what doctors are trained to do. Their indoctrination into the medical system begins the first day they enter medical school.

This is a deluded view. Depression does not fit into medically-accepted definitions of disease. In his excellent book The Body Keeps the Score, psychiatrist Bessel Van der Kolk correctly states that depression is a form of learned behaviour.

There is an obvious cognitive dissonance about counselling for doctors. Counselling does not easily fit into the disease model as a “treatment”. It is not prescribed as a treatment for medical conditions generally, rather as a support for the person in dealing with their disease, but not as a treatment in itself. Therefore the idea that counselling can actually be a treatment in itself is a great deal more challenging for doctors to get their head around than prescribing.

Many doctors do in time become comfortable with the idea of counselling as a “treatment”, but by then, the horse has bolted. Most doctors have little training in counselling, don’t really understand it, don’t know how to practice it. So counselling remains somewhat “out there” for many doctors, whereas prescribing antidepressants is very much within their worldview, their personal toolkit, their modus operandi.

I have not heard any doctors calling for a cap on antidepressant prescribing in order to make more funding available for other therapies and approaches such as counselling. I am not suggesting that counselling is the only other valid option to antidepressants.

In my next book, working title Depression: Its True Nature (expected publication date April 2016), I will set out a far more accurate way of understanding depression than that provided by the medical model.

This understanding will present quite a challenge to the established medical view.

If you would like to be informed of developments regarding my next book and other updates, you can sign up for updates at my website https://doctorterrylynch.com/ and receive two free chapters, one from each of my two most recent books, Depression Delusion Volume One: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance and Selfhood: A Key to the Recovery of Emotional Wellbeing, Mental Health and the Prevention of Mental Health Problems.

 

 

Dr. Terry Lynch is Dr. Peter Breggin’s radio show guest on 7th Oct 2015.

Leave a reply

 

I have had a long association with American psychiatrist and author Peter Breggin. His classic book “Toxic Psychiatry” was transformative for me in my search for truth in mental health, and contributed to my ceasing to work as a typical GP in 2000 to find a better way of understanding and working with people experiencing emotional and mental health problems.

Since then, we have become friends and comrades in the drive for paradigm change in mental health, from a  biologically-dominated paradigm that is severely flawed both logically and scientifically, to a paradigm that is grounded upon people’s experiences (rather than upon doctors’ interpretation of them); that first seeks to make sense of experiences and behaviours rather than reflexly set out to medically pathologize them; that recognises that recovery is not only possible, but a human right.

I will be Peter’s guest on his radio show, The Peter Breggin Hour, on Wednesday 7th October 2015, starting 4 pm Eastern time (9 pm Irish/UK time). Here is a link to the live show:  http://www.breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=285

Among other things, we will be discussing my new book Depression Delusion Volume One: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance, which Peter has described as “an inestimable service to humanity”. As President John F. Kennedy once said,

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

The show is live, a podcast will be available shortly after the show.

Here is a link to my interview on Peter’s show  on 26th September 2012. This turned out to be an interesting and wide-ranging conversation on mental health, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, recovery, etc. http://drpeterbregginshow.podbean.com/2012/09/

 

 

 

 

Brain chemical imbalance misinformation on official Alberta Canada government website MyHealth.Alberta.ca

Leave a reply

According to their website, MyHealth.Alberta.ca “was built by the Alberta Government and Alberta Health Services to give Albertans one place to go for ‘health information they can trust’” (emphasis theirs). The site reassures readers that the information on the site is correct, up to date, and written for people who live in Alberta, Canada.

So, here we have an official, government-backed website that ensures its visitors that they can totally trust the accuracy of the site’s content. Pretty convincing. Well, here’s one piece of misinformation – actually, three, the misinformation is repeated three times – that seems to have slipped through their net.

On MyHealth.Alberta.ca’s “Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIS) and Borderline Personality Disorder”, the following unequivocal statements appear (italics mine): “Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) balance brain chemicals called neurotransmitters. Balancing these brain chemicals can relieve symptoms of borderline personality disorder. Symptoms include feeling grouchy or angry, acting without thinking (being impulsive), and depression” https://myhealth.alberta.ca/health/pages/conditions.aspx?hwid=ty6909&

Clicking on the “neurotransmitters” hyperlink on the site brings up the following (italics mine):

“Neurotransmitters are chemicals produced by the nerve cells in the brain that send messages back and forth across the space between the cells (synapse). When the normal balance of these neurotransmitters is upset, headache, depression, or other mental health problems may develop.The neurotransmitters that are believed to play a role in mental functioning are serotonin, norepinephrine, dopamine, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). Current as of: November 14, 2014. Author: Healthwise Staff. Medical Review: John Pope, MD – Pediatrics & Donald Sproule, MDCM, CCFP – Family Medicine & David A. Axelson, MD – Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.”

Now, I have just written a book entitled “Depression Delusion Volume One: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance”. I spent 3 years researching that book. The truth about brain chemicals and borderline personality disorder is identical to that concerning brain chemical imbalances and depression, and it is the following:

Contrary to popular belief, there are no identified brain chemical imbalances in depression or any other psychiatric diagnosis, borderline personality disorder included.

So, here we have an official government site making false claims about the existence of brain chemical imbalances and borderline personality disorder. The above passages, quoted directly from the MyHealth.Alberta.ca’s website, contain 3 false claims (those I put in italics in the above passages).

These claims are false because no chemical imbalances have been scientifically and reliably identified in borderline personality disorder, no more than they have in depression. It appears from the site that this (mis)information has been passed as accurate by two medical doctors, one of whom specialises in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

This really matters. MyHealth.Alberta.ca’s inclusion of this misinformation means that thousands of site visitors will erroneously conclude that brain chemical imbalances are a scientifically identified and known feature of borderline personality disorder. This is simply not true.

So, let’s sum up: Official government site; accuracy in all information promised; three untrue statements about chemical imbalances and borderline personality disorder, validated as correct by two doctors including one psychiatrist.

That’s not okay by me, but this does illustrate why I wrote “Depression Delusion Volume One: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance” (I will address borderline personality disorder in a future book).

I wrote that book because it is clear that the majority of the Western world has bought into the false notion that chemical imbalances are a known feature of psychiatric diagnoses including depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders and borderline personality disorder. This false notion has been disgracefully used by drug companies and the medical profession to persuade millions of people worldwide that there is a scientific biological legitimacy underpinning the prescription of antidepressants and other psychiatric medication. In this book, I explain why convincing the public that this falsehood is a known “fact” has been extremely important to drug companies and the medical profession.

 MyHealth.Alberta.ca should immediately remove these three pieces of misinformation from their website. They should inform their readers that they have done so. They should apologise for misinforming their many readers. I will send the information on this blog to feedback@myhealth.alberta.ca today. If I receive any feedback from them, I will let you know.

Thanks to Anika for drawing my attention to this.

Terry.

 

 

 

Video of Dr. Terry Lynch, “Depression Delusion: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance” book launch 08th Sept 2015, hosted by Mindfreedom Ireland.

Leave a reply

Time for new beginnings in mental health. The launch of my third book, Depression Delusion Volume One: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance  took  place on 08th September 2015, hosted by my old friends at Mindfreedom Ireland. Patrice Campion and I discussed many issues relating to mental health and my new book. There was considerable audience participation during the launch. We covered a range of issues including depression, suicide, what depression actually is, the brain chemical imbalance falsehood, psychiatry’s lack of biological evidence, the paradigm change that is so urgently needed.