Thank you, Melissa, for asking. I've cut and pasted some previous answers which are suitable to answering your question. A lot of what's presented below is based on people who are already on prescribed medications. First, I'll list some of the things that can go wrong on lithium treatment, and the 2ndly please allow me to share with you my answer to a previous question because the relevant information also applies to all of our prescribed medications. Further below I've also listed advocacy support groups who also found prescribed medications to be of no therapeutic value to them and you may find it interesting to hear what they have to say.
LITHIUM (anti-psychotic) TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS:
(The list of toxic effects is not a complete list.)
AUTONOMIC TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS OF LITHIUM INCLUDE:
Cycloplegia (blurred vision); xerostomia (abnormal dryness of mouth).
CARDIOVASCULAR TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS OF LITHIUM INCLUDE:
Lithium may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Data from Lithium birth registries suggest an increase in cardiac and other anomalies, especially Ebstein's anomaly. Lithium is excreted in human milk; breast-feeding should not be undertaken during lithium treatment due to possible hazards to child. Other toxic effects include: Cardiac arrhythmia (abnormal heartbeat); hypotension; peripheral circulatory collapse.
NERVOUS SYSTEM TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS OF LITHIUM INCLUDE:
Confusion; stupor; coma; slurred speech; epileptiform seizures; blackout spells; vertigo (reeling sensation as if about to fall); incontinence of urine or feces (lacking normal voluntary control of excretory functions); dizziness; sleepiness; psychomotor retardation; acute dystonia (jerking of body or body parts including protrusion of the tongue, discoloration, aching and rounding of the tongue); downbeat nystagmus (rapid involuntary oscillation of the eyeballs).
DERMATOLOGIC TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS OF LITHIUM INCLUDE:
Drying and thinning of hair; alopecia (hair loss or baldness); anesthesia of skin; exacerbation of psoriasis (chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by recurring reddish patches covered with silvery scales); xerosis cutis (abnormal dryness of skin, eyes, or mucous membranes); chronic folliculitis (inflammation of a hair follicles).
GASTROINTESTINAL TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS OF LITHIUM INCLUDE:
Anorexia; nausea; vomiting; diarrhea.
NEUROMUSCULAR TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS OF LITHIUM INCLUDE:
Ataxia (incoordination); tremor; twitching; muscular weakness; hyperactive deep tendon reflexes; muscle hyperirritability (fasciculation (twitching) & abnormal contraction-relaxation movements of whole limbs); choreo-athetotic (between slow and jerky) movements.
THYROID TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS OF LITHIUM INCLUDE:
Euthyroid goiter and/or hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid gland) including myxedema (dry skin and swellings around lips and nose as well as mental deterioration) accompanied by lower T3 and T4. Iodine 131 uptake may be elevated, & paradoxical hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid) have been reported.
URITOLOGIC TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS OF LITHIUM INCLUDE:
Albuminuria (excessive albumin protein in urine); glycosuria (abnormal high level of glucose sugar in urine); oliguria (abnormal small amount of urine production); polyuria (excessive passage of urine). Chronic lithium therapy may be associated with diminution of renal concentrating ability, occasionally presenting as nephrogenic diabetes insipidus, with polyuria (excessive passage of urine) and polydipsia. Morphologic changes with glomerular and interstitial fibrosis and nephron-atrophy also associated with lithium tranquilizers.
EARLY SIGN OF KIDNEY DAMAGE IS WHEN KIDNEYS LEAK SMALL AMOUNTS OF A PROTEIN CALLED ALBUMIN INTO THE URINE & WITH MORE DAMAGE THE KIDNEYS LEAK MORE PROTEIN. THIS PROBLEM IS CALLED PROTEINURIA OR ALBUMINURIA. MORE AND MORE WASTES BUILD UP IN BLOOD AND DAMAGE GETS WORSE UNTIL KIDNEYS FAIL LEADING TO EVENTUAL DEATH.
ELECTROCARDIOGRAM CHANGES TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS OF LITHIUM INCLUDE:
Reversible flattening; isoelectricity; inversion of t-waves.
ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM CHANGES TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS OF LITHIUM INCLUDE:
Diffuse slowly, widening of frequency spectrum; potentiation; disruption of background rhythm.
OTHER LITHIUM TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS INCLUDE:
Diarrhea; vomiting; fatigue; lethargy; weight loss; tendency to sleep; headache; cutaneous ulcers; leucocytosis (abnormal increase of white blood cells); edematous swelling of ankles or wrists; metallic taste; transient hyperglycemia (abnormal high amount of glucose sugar in blood); thirst; transient scotoma (a blind or dark spot in the visual field); excessive weight gain; transient electrocardiographic & electroencephalographic changes; diffuse nontoxic goiter with or without hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid gland) including myxedema (dry skin and swellings around lips and nose as well as mental deterioration); generalized pruritis (severe itching) with or without rash; polyuria (excessive passage of urine) resembling diabetes insipidus; dehydration; giddiness; tinnitus (ringing in the ears); worsening of Organic Brain Syndrome (any of various disorders of cognition caused by permanent or temporary brain dysfunction and characterized especially by dementia). A report has been received of development of painful discoloration of fingers and toes and coldness of the extremities within one day of starting treatment of lithium. Mechanism through which symptoms (resembling Raynaud's Syndrome) developed is not known.
DRUG INTERACTIONS TOXIC EFFECTS COMBINED WITH LITHIUM INCLUDE:
The combined use of lithium and Haloperidol (Haldol) may produce Encephalopathic Syndrome (characterized by weakness, lethargy, fever, extrapyramidal symptoms, tremulousness and confusion); leucocytosis (abnormal increase of white blood cells); elevated serum enzymes; followed by irreversible brain damage.
EXTRAPYRAMIDAL SYNDROME TOXIC SYMPTOMS OF LITHIUM INCLUDE:
Tremor; dysarthria (slurred speech); parkinsonism; shuffling gait; drooling; muscular rigidity; Tardive Dyskinesia Syndrome as involuntary and irregular muscle movements usually in the face; agitation; tonic spasm of the masticatory (chewing) muscles; retrocollis (posterior neck spasms); torticollis (neck muscle spasms, twisting of the neck and unnatural position of the head, wryneck); akathisia (motor restlessness characterized by muscular quivering, inability to sit still, and intense anxiety at the thought of sitting down); aching and numbness of the limbs; tight feeling in throat; oculogyric crisis (spasmodic turning of the eyeballs in the sockets into a fixed position usually upward that persists for several minutes or hours); akinesia (loss of normal motor function); hyperreflexia (twitching); trismus (lockjaw, prolonged spasm of jaw muscles, gnashing of teeth); dystonia (jerking of body or body parts including tongue protrusion, discoloration, aching and rounding of the tongue); opisthotonus (abnormal bridging or arching of spinal cord);
motor restlessness. Extrapyramidal toxic effects may persist after discontinuation of treatment .
LITHIUM OVERDOSE:
THE TOXIC LEVELS FOR LITHIUM TRANQUILIZERS ARE CLOSE TO THE THERAPEUTIC LEVELS. NO SPECIFIC ANTIDOTE FOR LITHIUM POISONING IS KNOWN.
Question posed:
"Should i stop taking prilosec?
I've been taking prilosec for just 5 days. My acid reflux got somewhat better but i am getting major headaches. It's the headache that's disturbing me more than the acid reflux. Should i stop taking prilosec? It's clearly a side effect from the medication. Also, are there any supplements i can take instead of medication for acid reflux? Let me know asap!"
Thank you for asking. You are correct that it is a toxic side effect of the medication. The key word here is "toxic" side effect which our medical establishment generally don't like to use but sometimes do. Under any other natural circumstances when a person eats something in nature which produces toxic effects such as headaches, and/or vomiting, and/or nausea, and/or diarrhea, and/or parkinsonism, and/or muscular weakness, and/or liver failure, and/or respiratory distress, and/or blurred vision, and/or dry mouth usually simultaneously with urinary retention, etcetera, the person usually has the common sense to stop eating the poison. (In the case of urinary retention the body is unable to rid the body of toxins which builds up to have a detrimental affect upon the central nervous system which then results in any variety of so-called toxic side effects.) However, under somewhat unnatural circumstances, a person may continue eating the toxins when prescribed and ordered to do so by their physician. The choice is yours but the most I can readily suggest is to do an exhaustive search on the web for natural remedies for treating acid reflux as well as perhaps read a book by Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn called "Confessions of a Medical Heretic". He used to be the Chairperson of Illinois Medical License Board, taught medical school, and ran a hospital among other things. You may or may not find it worth while what he has to say about medications but keep in mind he was one of the top experts who taught other experts. Fair warning though, at first he's nearly impossible to believe but he does tell the honest truth. Again, the final decision is yours, I can only say what I would do if I were in your situation and I would opt to stop eating the toxins and seek out some other treatment that doesn't produce poisonous side effects. I wish you well and thanks again for asking. Tsark out. (Certified Nurse's Aide)
ps.
I just took a look-see at your profile page and read your other posting. It's only of my personal opinion that the medication was likely unnecessary as practically everyone experiences acid reflux occasionally which is generally nothing to be concerned about. Plus, you stated that the stuck feeling in your throat immediately went away when you ate something to wash it down. Furthermore, common sense dictates it was the so-called "slightly" larger than usual lunch/dinner that you ate 2-3 hours before the stuck-in-the-throat feeling occurred which caused the symptoms and I'm presuming it only happened once following that larger than usual meal. Therefore, I'm ruling out the notion of acid reflux altogether unless you can tell me it's been continuously happening a lot more than just that one time after that larger than usual meal?
For the sake of convenience and reference, here's what you've stated in your other post: “I just recently started college so I decided to cut down fatty foods and eating at night. I exercise 4-5 times a week now. I always had issues with bowel movement. So this particular week I decided to add more fiber in to my diet. This is kind of gross I guess but I had bowel movement every day of this week. I even had three yesterday and two so far today. I would usually have 2-3 bowel movements a WEEK. Yesterday I came home for the weekend and a slightly larger than usual lunch/dinner. About 2-3 hours after the meal I started to feel like there was something stuck in my throat. I decided to eat something to get it down. The stuck feeling in my throat is gone but now I feel like my breathing is restricted. I feel pressure on my chest. It's not painful...just really uncomfortable. I think it's mild case. Does my diet, bowel movement, and drinking water with lemon everyday have to do with the discomfort? Should I go see a doctor? I'm a bit scared even though it does seem mild.“
Based solely on the little amount of information given, I'm under the impression that your body's usual routine underwent a number of slightly drastic changes in a relatively short time of period, namely the cutting down of fatty foods, along with addition of more fiber to your diet, along with the cutting down of eating at night, and along with exercising 4-5 times a week. These changes in routine wouldn't normally be a problem when done individually or done gradually and done in moderation but too much of too many changes all combined together and done in too soon of a condensed time period could've had an affect on your body's metabolism until the body naturally adjust itself to the abrupt changes. I doubt the cutting down of fatty foods affected your changes in the bowel movement but the addition of fiber is of course greatly suspect. It sounds like you had over-dosed on fiber which caused the increase in number of bowel movements per day, or in other words your body naturally sensed the over-dose and so your body naturally took care of the problem by getting rid of the excess fiber. And having daily bowel movements every day is normal for a lot of people and there's nothing abnormal about it especially when most people eat on a daily basis. The cutting down of eating at night should likely prove to be healthier for you than otherwise. However, the exercising of 4-5 times a week may or may not have put too much of a slight stress upon your body if that's what you started off with instead of say 2-3 times a week to gradually build up stamina before increasing to 4-5 times a week. Or in other words, “moderation” is the key. As for the time when the stuck feeling in the throat went away but was immediately followed by a feeling of pressure upon your chest along with a feeling as though your breathing was restricted was more than likely due to the larger than usual lunch/dinner you ate that day and especially because it was only just a mild case. Sounds rather normal to me, that is, it's of my personal opinion that your change in reduced diet had of course reduced the size of your stomach and therefore when you had that so-called "slightly" larger than usual lunch/dinner your shrunken stomach had actually interpreted the meal as EXTRA-larger than usual lunch/dinner which caused the uncomfortable symptoms, which of course, were more pronounced than usual. As for drinking the water with lemon every day, there's nothing unhealthy about that, per se, but there is one concern depending upon the strength of the mixture because the citric acid in the lemon when consumed on a daily basis for any lengthy period of time tends to eat away and wears out teeth enamel, but again, depending upon the strength of the solution. A strong solution on a daily basis for a lengthy time period has the potential to drastically eat away at the enamel to the point where the teeth becomes overly sensitive due to lack of enamel. In summary, the cause of the changes in the number of bowel movements points directly to the addition of the amount of fiber added to your diet. The cause of the stuck in the throat feeling and pressure in chest and the sense of restricted breathing points directly to having eaten an (extra)-larger than usual lunch/dinner particularly because your stomach had shrunk due to the reduction of consumption within the changes of your diet routine.
Unless you can specify that you've still been having complications of any of these ills symptoms that were already mentioned, then for the life of me, I'm not convince at all that there's anything wrong with you. Unless you can tell me that enough complications have been consistently re-occurring to you during this past week-and-a-half to have made you consider the notion of going to an emergency room for a visit then I have to say that based on what little information that's given within your two posts I'm incline to think that the only medical condition that you have that warrants any true concern is a condition that a lot of medical students too often tend to share. They tend to over-diagnose themselves even though there's really not much of anything to diagnose but in the end they convince themselves of having all sorts of medical problems even though in physical reality they're physiologically just fine and healthy. Aside from what you've said so far, is there anything more by way of physical ailments that you can share with this forum that has also been giving you pain or problems?
Please feel free to email me via Yahoo via my profile page should you wish to do so if this post closes and if you still have later concerns which you might want to share. Again, thank you for asking. Tsark out.
pss.
Generally speaking, you're safest bet is to wait until you know for 100% certainty that you have a medical condition which warrants a visit to an emergency room, or else otherwise the odds in the percentage in the risk of being over-diagnosed by a visit to the general practitioner's office sky rockets. Common sense dictates that you would be the very first to know if there's anything seriously wrong with your body long before anybody else would know about it. As for the Prilosec to reduce the acid content of the stomach, you could've safely achieved essentially the same purpose by lowering the PH level in the stomach through taking baking soda but without the toxic side effects. (By the way, me thinks that the "pressure on the chest area" and feelings of "restricted breathing" likely occurred because perhaps you swallowed a little too much in order to wash down the "stuck in the throat" feeling, which was a little too much to swallow on an already still-full stomach, hence the reactionary ill symptoms from an already still-full stomach?) For a number of decades prior to the days of "modern medicine" pretty much nearly all household medical cabinets held two items to treat most common ailments, baking soda and apple cider vinegar. One is a base and the other is an acid. The base raises the PH level and the acid lowers the PH level. In stark comparison here's a list of the toxic effects associated with the ingestion of Prilosec:
(The list of all the toxic effects listed below associated with Prilosec is only a partial list and not a complete list)
Headache
Diarrhea
Acid Regurgitation (acid reflux)
Abdominal Pain
Nausea URI
Dizziness
Vomiting
Rash
Constipation
Flatulence
Cough
Back Pain
Asthenia (abnormal loss of strength)
Body As a Whole: Allergic reactions, including, rarely, anaphylaxis (see also Skin below), fever, pain, fatigue, malaise, abdominal swelling
Cardiovascular: Chest pain or angina, tachycardia, bradycardia, palpitation, elevated blood pressure, peripheral edema
Gastrointestinal: Pancreatitis (some fatal), anorexia, irritable colon, flatulence, fecal discoloration, esophageal candidiasis, mucosal atrophy of the tongue, dry mouth, stomatitis. During treatment with omeprazole, gastric fundic gland polyps have been noted rarely. These polyps are benign and appear to be reversible when treatment is discontinued.
Gastro-duodenal carcinoids have been reported in patients with ZE syndrome on long-term treatment with PRILOSEC. This finding is believed to be a manifestation of the underlying condition, which is known to be associated with such tumors.
Hepatic: Mild and, rarely, marked elevations of liver function tests [ALT (SGPT), AST (SGOT), glutamyl transpeptidase, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin (jaundice)]. In rare instances, overt liver disease has occurred, including hepatocellular, cholestatic, or mixed hepatitis, liver necrosis (some fatal), hepatic failure (some fatal), and hepatic encephalopathy.
Metabolic/Nutritional: Hyponatremia, hypoglycemia, weight gain
Musculoskeletal: Muscle cramps, myalgia, muscle weakness, joint pain, leg pain
Nervous System/Psychiatric: Psychic disturbances including depression, agitation, aggression, hallucinations, confusion, insomnia, nervousness, tremors, apathy, somnolence, anxiety, dream abnormalities; vertigo; paresthesia; hemifacial dysesthesia
Respiratory: Epistaxis, pharyngeal pain
Skin: Rash and, rarely, cases of severe generalized skin reactions including toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN; some fatal), Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and erythema multiforme (some severe); purpura and/or petechiae (some with rechallenge); skin inflammation, urticaria, angioedema, pruritus, photosensitivity, alopecia, dry skin, hyperhidrosis
Special Senses: Tinnitus, taste perversion
Ocular: blurred vision, ocular irritation, dry eye syndrome, optic atrophy, anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, optic neuritis, double vision
Urogenital: Interstitial nephritis (some with positive rechallenge), urinary tract infection, microscopic pyuria, urinary frequency, elevated serum creatinine, proteinuria, hematuria, glycosuria, testicular pain, gynecomastia
Hematologic: Rare instances of pancytopenia, agranulocytosis (some fatal), thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, leucocytosis, and hemolytic anemia have been reported.
I'll share with you a little known secret about modern medications that our doctors tend to know about but of course mainstream society doesn't. Practically all or nearly all of our prescription medications can produce the toxic side effects identical to the ailments there are used to treat. For example, if you do the research you'll find that the medications most often used to treat for Parkinson's disorder also includes parkinsonism as one of its toxic side effects. Likewise, the list of toxic side effects associated with the use of our prescribed medications that are used to treat for Alzheimer's include Alzheimer's itself. If you look back at the top of the list for Prilosec you'll notice that one of the toxic side effects of Prilosec includes acid regurgitation which is another way of saying acid reflux, that's what I'm talking about. If you name it and you dig deep enough you'll find this is true for at least nearly all of our modern medical drugs. Furthermore, if you dig deep enough you'll eventually discover and reach the same conclusion that nearly all of our prescribed medications happen to share approximately 170+ of the same toxic side effects. That's how come you'll notice many of our prescription drugs advertise in our mass media that's used to treat for different types of ailments tend to share the same toxic side effects such as loss of taste, dry mouth, diarrhea, etcetera. We just can't squeeze in all of the 170+ potential toxic side effects into each and every commercial because that's just not practical. This knowledge I speak of is not hidden and is out there in the open for anyone to look at but of course most people won't bother to look. As for the double-blind test studies it's also a little known secret that the tests also include a cross-over of the test subjects, that is, some of the test subjects who were given the medication will later get switch over to the group who takes the placebos. If not for the cross-over, then practically nearly 100% of the Prilosec group would be the only ones listed as having some degree of headaches, dry mouth, blurred vision, muscular atrophy, diarrhea, constipation, etcetera. If not for the cross-over then only the group that's said to take the medications would show symptoms of having all of the toxic effects whereas the placebo group would show to have zero toxic effects because sugar pills absolutely do not cause headaches, dry mouth, blurred vision, diarrhea, liver failure, respiratory distress, etcetera. But if you look at any comparison tables you'll notice that it always appears as though sugar pills can also produce these toxic effects. There's a good sane practical good reason to explain these discrepancies within our medical establishment but then we get into the topics of human evolution and global population constraints along with sexual genetic evolution and what-not.
Anyhows, just let me know if you left something out and if there's more information you need to share, for instance, you mentioned that you've "always had issues with bowel movement" but then you neglected to elaborate exactly what do you mean by "always" and what specific issues are you talking about? Therefore, I don't know if you've only "thought" that you've always had issues with bowel movement without actually having any or if you've truly been suffering from real problems with bowel movement? I'm inclined to think that you've only "thought so" or else I would have expected you to have immediately clarified what the issues are from the get-go and yet you chose not to elaborate any further than to give a brief vague mention of it? See what I mean?
Lastly, you were sane on deciding that the headaches were more of a problem than the acid reflux itself and therefore not worth taking the Prilosec anymore. Some people would have blindly opted to put up with the severe headaches in order to getting rid of the milder symptoms of acid reflux.
I wish you well. Tsark out.
psss.
It's not a big deal but I thought I'd mention something before this post closes because I keep thinking just maybe you'd like to know? When you wrote the sentence: "Also, are there any supplements I can take instead of medication for acid reflux?" I believe you meant to use the word "substitute" instead of the word "supplement". A "supplement" is something added to a treatment to replace a deficiency caused by the initial treatment, for example, when people take prescribed "water pills" to treat for fluid retention (edema, swelling, bloating) the prescription "water pills" have the reputation of depleting crucial potassium levels in the body, therefore, potassium pills are also taken as a "supplement" to make up for the deficiency of potassium caused by the "water pills". And another thing, although Prilosec reduces the production of stomach acid whereas baking soda with water merely changes the PH level, the baking soda neutralizes the acidity of the acid so even if there's some regurgitation the contents of the regurgitation is no longer caustic or corrosive and therefore it doesn't burn the wall lining of the food pipe and does not give that stuck-in-the-throat feeling. In other words, that stuck-in-the-throat feeling was the corrosive burning effect that the stomach acid had on the wall lining of the esophagus (food pipe). But one needs to regulate just the right amount of baking soda to use. Common sense says start off with a small amount first and then slowly increase amount if needed in order to avoid over-dosing on the baking soda.
Tsark out.
Source(s):
Confessions of a Medical Heretic.
Physician's Desk Reference.
RxList.com
Cut and pasted from previous answers:
Depending upon how long you've been on psychiatric medications I suggest you slowly reduce your intake over a length of weeks or months so as to avoid causing your metabolism from going to shock because it's possible to end up with Tardive Dyskinesia Syndrome (TDS), a central nervous system disorder that's only caused by using pharmaceutical psychiatric drugs but can occur upon sudden dis-use of psychiatric medications if stopped abruptly all at once. Considering your question is under the category of Mental Health I'm inclined to presume you have been psychiatrically labelled. You may or may not perhaps find solace in investigating any of the following socio-psychological advocacy websites in lieu of the side-effects to our pharmaceutical psychiatric medications.
NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH CONSUMERS SELF-HELP CLEARINGHOUSE
http://www.mhselfhelp.org
ANTIPSYCHIATRY.ORG
http://www.antipsychiatry.org
STOPSHRINKS.ORG
http://www.stopshrinks.org
PSYCHIATRIC SURVIVOR ACTION ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
http://www.icomm.ca/psaao
MAD PRIDE IN UK
http://www.ctono.freeserve.co.uk
THE SOCIETY OF LAINGIAN STUDIES
http://laingsociety.org
And F.Y.I., here are some quotes from professional socio-psychological advocates which you may or may not find useful to your own casefile. Some people may pay heed to these expert advocates while most may find them outright disturbing and too repulsive to accept because it goes against the grain of our general given propaganda, as the best kept secrets are those that most people reject as true.
--- QUOTES --- [My Note: Quotes pertaining to schizophrenia can be equally applied to all the functional psychoses.]
RONALD DAVID LAING, psychiatrist, author of Sanity, Madness, and the Family:
"SANITY OR PSYCHOSIS IS TESTED BY THE DEGREE OF CONJUNCTION OR DISJUNCTION BETWEEN TWO PERSONS WHERE THE ONE IS SANE BY COMMON CONSENT."
ALLEN J. FRANCES, psychiatrist, former chairperson of Duke University Medical Center and a contributing editor of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV):
"PSYCHIATRY’S CLAIM THAT MENTAL ILLNESSES ARE BRAIN DISEASES... IS NOT TRUE. THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE DIAGNOSTIC TESTS TO CONFIRM OR DISCONFIRM THE DIAGNOSIS OF DEPRESSION... THERE IS NO BLOOD OR OTHER BIOLOGICAL TEST TO ASCERTAIN THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF A MENTAL ILLNESS, AS THERE IS FOR MOST BODILY DISEASES. IF SUCH A TEST WERE DEVELOPED... THEN THE CONDITION WOULD CEASE TO BE A MENTAL ILLNESS AND WOULD BE CLASSIFIED, INSTEAD, AS A SYMPTOM OF A BODILY DISEASE." [My Note: Our psychiatrists' “bible” is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) but the functional psychoses are based solely on symptoms and moot or ambiguous invented labels which can periodically change at any time. Our DSM book is not hard science but a book of invented opinions which primarily functions for psychiatric iatrogenocide and therefore whatever is considered in our current DSM book as a functional psychosis today might not necessarily be regarded as an illness at all in our next edition, for example, debates continue on whether alcoholism and/or obesity should be classified as mental illnesses or not?]
NATHANIEL BRANDEN, psychologist and author:
"THERE IS NO GENERAL AGREEMENT AMONG PSYCHOLOGISTS AND PSYCHIATRISTS ABOUT THE NATURE OF MENTAL HEALTH OR MENTAL ILLNESS - NO GENERALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS, NO BASIC STANDARD BY WHICH TO GAUGE ONE PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE OR OTHER. MANY WRITERS DECLARE THAT NO OBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS CAN BE ESTABLISHED - THAT A BASIC UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE CONCEPT OF MENTAL HEALTH IS IMPOSSIBLE."
BRUCE LEVINE, psychologist and author:
"NO BIOCHEMICAL, NEUROLOGICAL, OR GENETIC MARKERS HAVE BEEN FOUND FOR ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER, OPPOSITIONAL DEFIANT DISORDER, DEPRESSION, SCHIZOPHRENIA, ANXIETY, COMPULSIVE ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE, OVEREATING, GAMBLING, OR ANY OTHER SO-CALLED MENTAL ILLNESS, DISEASE, OR DISORDER."
ANDREW C. SMITH, psychiatrist and author:
"THERE IS EXCELLENT RESEARCH AND WELL FOUNDED KNOWLEDGE ON FAMILIAL AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON THE COURSE OF SCHIZOPHRENIA, and on causes of relapse, if not yet on the original vulnerability and onset of disturbance." [My Note: Our “socio-psychological model” has been continuously observed, perceived, noted and charted as an established model by psychoanalysts since the early 1800's but greatly overlooked because of the necessity of our prevailing iatrogenic “medical model”.]
RONALD DAVID LAING, psychiatrist, author of Sanity, Madness, and the Family:
"Specifically, no attempt is made to present a comprehensive theory of schizophrenia. No attempt is made to explore constitutional and organic aspects but this is clearly because the theory is one of interpersonal and familial processes, as well as wider issues of the sanity, or alienation, of society at large. THE EXPERIENCE AND BEHAVIOR THAT GETS LABELLED SCHIZOPHRENIA, IS WITHOUT EXCEPTION, A SPECIAL STRATEGY THAT A PERSON INVENTS IN ORDER TO LIVE IN AN UNLIVABLE SITUATION. He/she cannot make a move, or make no move, without being beset by contradictory and paradoxical pressures and demands, pushes and pulls, both internally from him/herself and externally from those around him/her." [My Note: There's a website in Dr. Ronald David Laing's honor called the Unofficial R.D. Laing Website, now in the care of The Society of Laingian Studies. In the 1960's Dr. Ronald David Laing was responsible for having done a 5-year experimental program which proved a 100% success rate for curing the condition known as schizophrenia by providing a mentally healthy and nurturing living environment. After the 5-year-test period the funding approval to the continuance of the test project had to be denied and the project was terminated permanently due to his 100% success rate. The main criterion for entering Dr. Laing's experimental program was that every patient had to agree they would NOT use any type of pharmaceutical drugs whatsoever whether it be any psychiatric drugs or any other pharmaceutical medications, hence, in conjunction with a stress-free living environment then a 100% success rate for curing functional psychoses is, of course, to be expected. A similar study with similar results was done by beloved Dr. Loren Mosher in 1971 through 1983 called Soteria Project.]
U.S. CONGRESS OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY:
"RESEARCH HAS YET TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC BIOLOGICAL CAUSES FOR ANY MENTAL DISORDER."
E. FULLER TORREY, psychiatrist and author of Surviving Schizophrenia:
"THE PERSON WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA IS NOT REALLY SICK, BUT MERELY ACTING IN A CRAZY WAY TO ENSURE HIS/HER SURVIVAL BECAUSE OF THE PRESSURES OF THE FAMILY AND/OR SOCIETY. SCHIZOPHRENIA IS NOT REALLY A DISEASE, RATHER IS IT JUST AN IDIOSYNCRATIC WAY OF THINKING AND BEHAVING. SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A REASONABLE REACTION TO AN UNREASONABLE SOCIETY AND AS A LABEL FOR SCAPEGOATING THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE DIFFERENT. SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A MYTH, A SANE RESPONSE TO AN INSANE WORLD, EVEN A GROWTH EXPERIENCE. THE MOST WIDESPREAD POPULAR THEORY ABOUT THE CAUSE OF SCHIZOPHRENIA IS THAT IT'S CAUSED BY STRESS. THIS HAS BEEN TRUE SINCE THE EARLY YEARS OF THE LAST [19TH] CENTURY AND CONTINUES TO BE TRUE."
JOSEPH BERKE, psychiatrist and author:
"LONG BEFORE I EVER HEARD OF MARY BARNES, I HAD BEGUN TO REALIZE THAT WHAT IS COMMONLY CALLED 'MENTAL ILLNESS' IS NOT AN 'ILLNESS', OR 'SICKNESS' (ACCORDING TO THE PREVAILING MEDICAL-PSYCHIATRIC USE OF THE TERM), BUT AN EXAMPLE OF EMOTIONAL SUFFERING BROUGHT ABOUT BY A DISTURBANCE IN A WHOLE FIELD OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE FAMILY. IN OTHER WORDS, MENTAL ILLNESS REFLECTS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN A DISTURBED AND DISTURBING GROUP OF PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN INTERNALIZED IN AND BY A SINGLE PERSON. MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, A PERSON DIAGNOSED AS MENTALLY ILL IS THE EMOTIONAL SCAPEGOAT FOR THE TURMOIL IN HIS/HER FAMILY OR ASSOCIATES, AND MAY, IN FACT, BE SANEST MEMBER OF THIS GROUP."
[My Note: Mary Barnes was a patient of Dr. Laing's and later became famous described as 'an ambassador for Laing' and co-authored a book with Joseph Berke who was the resident psychiatrist. She also became a respected artist painting evocative works based on her experiences and died in 2001.]
S.R. HIRSCH and J.P. LEFF, psychiatrists and authors:
"THE PARENTS OF THE SCHIZOPHRENICS ARE MORE OFTEN PSYCHIATRICALLY DISTURBED THAN THE PARENTS OF OTHER CHILDREN, thinking allusively, and living in very unhappy marriages; and THE MOTHERS ARE MORE OFTEN OF SCHIZOID PERSONALITY THEMSELVES."
ALFRED M. FREEDMAN and HAROLD I. KAPLAN, authors of Textbook of Psychiatry:
"OTHERS HAVE DESCRIBED THE MOTHER OF THE POTENTIAL SCHIZOPHRENIC AS AGGRESSIVE, REJECTING, DOMINEERING, AND INSECURE, AND THE FATHER AS INADEQUATE, PASSIVE, AND INDIFFERENT. Elsewhere in the literature these fathers have been depicted as directly threatening, assaultive, or brutal or as overwhelming the child. IN CONTRAST TO THOSE MOTHERS WHO ARE DESCRIBED AS EITHER SUBTLY OR OVERTLY REJECTING, OTHERS ARE SAID TO BE FUSSY AND OVERPROTECTIVE, PERPETUATING THE SYMBIOTIC UNION."
THEODORE LIDZ, psychoanalyst and author:
"NONE OF THE MARRIAGES SEEMED NORMAL OR HEALTHY AND ALL WERE MARKED BY A SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF MARITAL SCHISM (OPEN FIGHTING) OR MARITAL SKEW (COVERT FIGHTING). The parents' marriages are skewed by the domination of the mother, whose often highly unusual and odd way of communicating becomes accepted in the family, covering underlying conflict; or schismatic, with more obvious conflict between emotionally separate parents, and complex involvement of the child in the conflict. The involvement of the children is thought to be stressful and mystifying for them; boundaries between people, between sex roles and between generations are more blurred than in most families; and the children who become schizophrenic patients fall into distorted perception, thinking and behavior in response, albeit inappropriate response, to an alarmingly disturbed family situation... . . . SCHIZOPHRENIC REACTIONS ARE A TYPE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM SOCIAL INTERACTION, AND THE THOUGHT DISORDER IS A SPECIFICALLY SCHIZOPHRENIC MEANS OF WITHDRAWAL. THE SCHIZOPHRENIC PATIENT ESCAPES FROM IRRECONCILABLE DILEMMAS AND UNBEARABLE HOPELESSNESS BY BREAKING THROUGH THESE CONFINES, I.E. THE MEANINGS AND LOGIC OF HIS/HER CULTURE, TO FIND SOME LIVING SPACE BY USING HIS/ HER OWN IDIOSYNCRATIC MEANINGS AND REASONING."
LYMAN WYNNE, psychoanalyst and author:
"PSEUDOMUTUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN FAMILIES OF SCHIZOPHRENICS IN WHICH THERE IS AN OUTWARD APPEARANCE OF GENUINENESS BUT MUCH COVERT ANIMOSITY BENEATH THE SURFACE. UNUSUAL AMOUNT OF FRAGMENTED THINKING IN COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN THESE FAMILIES. WHILE APPEARING HARMONIOUS TO THOSE OUTSIDE THE FAMILY, IN FACT HARBORS DEEP GULFS BETWEEN MEMBERS, AND IRRATIONAL DISTORTED MODES OF COMMUNICATION THAT FRAGMENT THE THINKING OF THAT MEMBER OF THE FAMILY WHO BECOMES SCHIZOPHRENIC."
THOMAS SZASZ, psychoanalyst and author:
"SCHIZOPHRENIA IS MERELY A RATIONAL RESPONSE TO AN IRRATIONAL FAMILY. SCHIZOPHRENIA IS NOT A DISEASE AT ALL BUT MERELY AN ADAPTATION. Not all psychiatrists are out to drug, rehabilitate, and to mold us into being conformists to this insane society. Psychoanalytic and family interaction theories of schizophrenia have been very important in the United States since the turn of this [20th] century, but in recent years, they have gradually lost adherents because of the lack of any supporting data. THE ONE THING ON WHICH VIRTUALLY ALL PSYCHOANALYSTS COULD AGREE WAS THAT THE SOURCE OF PSYCHIC TRAUMA THEORETICALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA WAS THE INTERACTIONS OF THE CHILD AND THE PARENTS."
HARRY STACK SULLIVAN, psychoanalyst and author:
"Schizophrenia is caused by parental rejection."
GREGORY BATESON, psychoanalyst and author:
"PSYCHOANALYTIC AND FAMILY INTERACTION THEORIES ATTRIBUTE THE CAUSE OF SCHIZOPHRENIA TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THE MOTHER AND FATHER. AS SUCH THEY GENERATE GUILT AND BLAME WITHIN THE FAMILIES. THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS GUILT AND BLAME IS ENORMOUS AND HAS LED TO DEPRESSION, DIVORCE, AND EVEN SUICIDE. IT HAS BEEN IATROGENIC ANGUISH (PHYSICIAN-CAUSED), WHOLLY GENERATED BY THE PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSION. . . .SCHIZOPHRENIA RESULTS WHEN CHILDREN ARE PUT INTO IMPOSSIBLE HEADS-I-WIN-TAILS-YOU-LOSE SITUATIONS BY THEIR PARENTS. The double-bind. The parents is said to issue ambiguous instructions repeatedly, but they cannot be obeyed because at the same time they are contradicted by other instructions, in a different mode of communication, such as body language. THE CATEGORY 'PSYCHOSIS' HAS NO UNIFORM FOUNDATION AS IN SOMATIC PATHOLOGY NOR ANY MORE OBJECTIVE ASPECT OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY TO MARK ITS DISTINCTION FROM OTHER COLLECTIONS OF PSYCHIATRIC SYMPTOMS. IT IS THUS A TERM DIFFICULT TO USE WITH PRECISION. THE FUNCTIONAL PSYCHOSES, SCHIZOPHRENIA AND MANIC-DEPRESSIVE [BI-POLAR] DISORDER, LACK A RECOGNIZABLE NEUROPATHOLOGY. FOR THE ORGANIC PSYCHOSES THE CENTRAL PROBLEM IS THE CAUSE OF THE PATHOLOGIC CHANGES. BUT FOR THE FUNCTIONAL PSYCHOSES THE CENTRAL PROBLEM IS CONSISTENT DIAGNOSIS. THE CRITERIA FOR THEIR DIAGNOSIS ARE THEIR SYMPTOMS ALONE. THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE TESTS VERIFYING A DIAGNOSIS. . . . . . SINCE THEY LACK A RECOGNIZED NEUROPATHOLOGY AND ARE BY DEFINITION INEXPLICABLE AS RESPONSES TO EXPERIENCE, THERE ARE NO COMPREHENSIVE ETIOLOGIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THESE DISORDERS. THERE IS NO NEUROPATHOLOGY OR CONSISTENT PATHOPHYSIOLOGY THAT CAN BE OBSERVED TO DEVELOP WITH THE PROGRESSION OF THE DISORDER THAT MIGHT GIVE SOME HINT OF CAUSATION. AN APPROACH TO A CONSIDERATION OF ETIOLOGY HAS TO BE MORE CIRCUITOUS AND THE OPINIONS DERIVED HELD WITH SOMEWHAT LESS ASSURANCE THAN IS TRUE OF OTHER CLINICAL ENTITIES. The genetic constitution has been decisively demonstrated to be one of the causes of schizophrenia. The risk of schizophrenia increases with the closeness of genetic relationship to a schizophrenic patient. A genetic vulnerability for schizophrenia is necessary, but not sufficient. It must be combined with certain life experiences that need not be common for genetically identical individuals. The experiences of being raised by a cold and distant mother, or of receiving insistent, simultaneous but incompatible directions from the parents, or of simply LIVING IN A DISHARMONIOUS FAMILY INCAPABLE OF PROVIDING A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR PSYCHOLOGIC GROWTH HAVE ALL BEEN CONSIDERED CAUSES OF SCHIZOPHRENIA. A crisis of identity as been proposed by exponents of existential psychiatry. THERE IS NO COMMON PATHOLOGIC FEATURE OF BRAIN DISORDERS THAT COULD BY IMPLICATION BE THE FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA."
PSYCHIATRY TODAY (2001) Magazine:
"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT UNHAPPINESS OR STRANGE BEHAVIOR (E.G. "SCHIZOPHRENIA") IS CAUSED BY BRAIN DISORDERS."
PETER BREGGIN, psychiatrist and author:
"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER IS CAUSED BY A BIOCHEMICAL IMBALANCE."
ANTONUCCIO et al., Psychiatric Times Magazine, 12:8 Aug 2000:
"ALTHOUGH A PHYSICIAN MAY TELL A PATIENT THAT A CHEMICAL IMBALANCE CAUSES THEIR DEPRESSION, THE PHYSICIAN WOULD BE HARD-PRESSED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM. THERE IS NO TEST AVAILABLE THAT WOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY PATIENT HAS A BIOLOGICAL DEPRESSION, AS OPPOSED TO ANY OTHER TYPE, OR EVEN THAT SUCH BIOLOGICAL DEPRESSIONS EXIST."
DAVID KAISER, M.D., Northwestern University Hosp, Chicago, IL; author of Psychiatric Medications as Symptoms:
"PATIENTS HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH CHEMICAL IMBALANCES DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO TEST EXISTS TO SUPPORT SUCH A CLAIM, AND THAT THERE IS NO REAL CONCEPTION OF WHAT A CORRECT CHEMICAL BALANCE WOULD LOOK LIKE. . . .Today’s patients, discontented, unhappy, fragmented and confused by an increasingly frantic, alienating and violent society, come to psychiatrists for help, only to have their illusions shored up by an increased dose of a technologic fix. They are told they have illnesses that are biologic and can be fixed, instead of being allowed to speak about their unhappiness, to speak about how difficult it is to be a human being, to speak about their suffering, because human beings have always suffered and always will. To believe that we can conquer depression, despair, anxiety with modern technology is the height of hubris and bad faith, a mere childish fantasy, unworthy of any thoughtful person who has their eyes open to human history and modern culture. . . .MODERN PSYCHIATRY HAS YET TO PROVE THE GENETIC/BIOLOGIC CAUSE OF ANY MENTAL ILLNESS. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT STOP PSYCHIATRY FROM MAKING ESSENTIALLY UNPROVEN CLAIMS THAT DEPRESSION, BIPOLAR ILLNESS, ANXIETY DISORDERS, ALCOHOLISM, AND A HOST OF OTHER DISORDERS ARE IN FACT PRIMARILY BIOLOGIC AND PROBABLY GENETIC IN ORIGIN, AND THAT IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL ALL THIS PROVEN. THIS KIND OF FAITH IN SCIENCE AND PROGRESS IS STAGGERING, NOT TO MENTION NAIVE AND PERHAPS DELUSIONAL."
EDWARD DRUMMOND, M.D., Associate Medical Dir., Seacoast Mental Health Center, Portsmouth, NH and author:
"NO BIOLOGICAL ETIOLOGY HAS BEEN PROVEN FOR ANY PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER IN SPITE OF DECADES OF RESEARCH. . . . DON'T ACCEPT THE MYTH THAT WE CAN MAKE AN 'ACCURATE DIAGNOSIS.'
. . . NEITHER SHOULD YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR PROBLEMS ARE DUE SOLELY TO A 'CHEMICAL IMBALANCE.'"
FRED BAUGHMAN, M.D. and author:
"WHETHER OR NOT ADHD, OR ANYTHING ELSE, IS A DISEASE CAN BE ANSWERED WITH A SIMPLE 'YES' OR 'NO'. NO KNOWN PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER IS A BONA FIDE DISEASE HAVING A PROVED, DEMONSTRATED PHYSICAL ABNORMALITY, NOT EVEN A 'CHEMICAL IMBALANCE.' . . . A YOUNG FATHER ASKED HIS SON’S PSYCHIATRIST WHY RITALIN WAS NECESSARY. THE PSYCHIATRIST RESPONDED: “IT’S FOR HIS ‘CHEMICAL IMBALANCE.’" THE FATHER ASKED: “SHOW ME THE LAB WORK SHOWING THE ABNORMALITY". THE PSYCHIATRIST HESITATED, KNOWING THERE WAS NO LAB WORK, THERE WAS NO ‘CHEMICAL IMBALANCE', THERE NEVER IS, THEN SAID: “YOU’LL HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT". THE FATHER, NOT SATISFIED, SAID, “I WANT THE RESULTS, NOW". THE PSYCHIATRIST, FLUSTERED, RESPONDED, “TAKE YOUR BOY AND GET OUT OF MY OFFICE"."
ELLIOT VALERSTEIN, PH.D. and author:
"CONTRARY TO WHAT IS OFTEN CLAIMED, NO BIOCHEMICAL, ANATOMICAL OR FUNCTIONAL SIGNS HAVE BEEN FOUND THAT RELIABLY DISTINGUISH THE BRAINS OF MENTAL PATIENTS."
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, 1998:
"WE DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT, VALID TEST FOR ADHD, AND THERE IS NO DATA TO INDICATE THAT ADHD IS DUE TO A BRAIN MALFUNCTION."
LOREN MOSHER, M.D., former Chief, National Institutes of Health Center for the Study of Schizophrenia and author:
"THERE ARE NO EXTERNAL VALIDATING CRITERIA FOR PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSES. THERE IS NEITHER BLOOD TEST NOR SPECIFIC ANATOMIC LESIONS FOR ANY MAJOR PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER. IS PSYCHIATRY A HOAX AS PRACTICED TODAY? UNFORTUNATELY THE ANSWER IS MOSTLY YES."
ROBERT S. MENDELSOHN, M.D., a former chairperson of Illinois Medical Licensure Committee, former associate professor at University of Illinois Medical School, former director of Chicago's Michael Reese Hospital, former national medical director of Project Head Start, formerly the author of a nationally syndicated column as "The People's Doctor," and author of CONFESSIONS OF A MEDICAL HERETIC: "MODERN MEDICINE'S TREATMENTS FOR DISEASE ARE SELDOM EFFECTIVE, AND THEY'RE OFTEN MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE DISEASE THEY'RE DESIGNED TO TREAT. THE DANGERS ARE COMPOUNDED BY THE WIDESPREAD USE OF DANGEROUS PROCEDURES FOR NON-DISEASES. . . . Clinic's accomplishments last year [1978]: 2,980 OPEN-HEART OPERATIONS, 1.3 MILLION LABORATORY TESTS, 73,320 ELECTROCARDIOGRAMS, 7,770 FULL-BODY X-RAY SCANS, 210,378 OTHER RADIOLOGIC STUDIES, 24,368 SURGICAL PROCEDURES. NOT ONE OF THESE PROCEDURES HAS BEEN PROVED TO HAVE THE LEAST LITTLE BIT TO DO WITH MAINTAINING OR RESTORING HEALTH. . . .YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF ALL THE DRUGS FOR WHICH THE SIDE-EFFECTS ARE THE SAME AS THE [USAGE] INDICATIONS. THIS ISN'T AS RARE AS YOU MIGHT THINK. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU READ THE LIST OF INDICATIONS FOR VALIUM, AND THEN READ THE LIST OF SIDE-EFFECTS, YOU'LL FIND THAT THE LISTS ARE MORE OR LESS INTERCHANGEABLE. UNDER THE INDICATIONS YOU'LL FIND [IT'S TO TREAT FOR]: ANXIETY; FATIGUE; DEPRESSION; ACUTE AGITATION; TREMORS; HALLUCINOSIS; SKELETAL MUSCLE SPASMS. AND UNDER THE [TOXIC] SIDE-EFFECTS [YOU'LL FIND VALIUM CAN CAUSE]: ANXIETY; FATIGUE; DEPRESSION; ACUTE HYPEREXCITED STATES; TREMORS; HALLUCINATIONS; INCREASED MUSCLE SPASTICITY. . . . ONCE YOU'VE EXPOSED YOURSELF TO ALL THIS INFORMATION, YOU HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO TAKE THE DRUG. Again, don't trust your doctor's decision. Even if you can get him to admit to the side-effects, he'll most likely discount them by saying they occur only in a small percentage of cases. You also might get that impression from the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR) or any other book you consult. Like a game of Russian Roulette, for the person who gets the loaded chamber, the risk is 100%. But unlike the game, for the person taking a drug, no chamber is entirely empty. EVERY DRUG STRESSES AND HURTS YOUR BODY IN SOME WAY. . . . MOST OF ALL, YOU SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU CAN REFUSE TO TAKE THE DRUG. IT'S YOUR HEALTH THAT'S AT STAKE. If you read things that make you not want to take the drug, first of all confront the doctor with the information. Through cajolery, badgering, or some process of persuasion, you should convince the doctor that you really want to avoid the drug. As in all confrontations with doctors, his reaction may tell you more than you bargained for. You may once and for all recognize that his opinion is no more valid than yours. . . . IF ON THE BASIS OF YOUR COMPLAINTS OF SIDE-EFFECTS, OR BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO TAKE A CERTAIN DRUG AT ALL, YOUR DOCTOR PRESCRIBES ANOTHER DRUG, MAKE SURE IT'S NOT THE SAME SUBSTANCE WITH A DIFFERENT BRAND NAME. THE DOCTOR MAY HIMSELF BE IGNORANT, OR HE MAY BE TRYING TO PUT ONE OVER ON YOU."
DSN-IV (DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF N-O-R-M-A-L DISORDERS):
"Psychiatry is a very dangerous disorder, and often resistant to reason. Further, the prognosis is quite poor, with the disorder usually lasting for decades, and recovery very rarely complete - often, the best recovery that can be hoped for is a remission into the retired state. Thus, in many cases, the best thing to do with psychiatrists is to simply avoid them."
--- UNQUOTES ---
MY COMMENTS:
I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR ANYONE TO TAKE ANY VIOLENT ACTIONS TOWARDS OUR MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT EVEN IF YOU'VE BEEN PHYSICALLY INJURED BY OUR MEDICAL PROFESSION OR IF SOMEONE DEAR TO YOU HAVE BEEN A VICTIM OF OUR IATROGENOCIDE. IF YOU'VE BEEN HURT IN ANY WAY FROM MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND YOU FEEL YOU MUST AT LEAST DO SOMETHING TO RETALIATE IN SOME FORM, THEN I PROPOSE YOU TAKE YOUR CHANCES THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM EVEN THOUGH YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING A COURT CASE WOULD BE SLIM, BUT ONCE IN A GREAT WHILE SOME PEOPLE DO WIN.
When Dr. Mendelsohn wrote in his prelude to Chapter 1, "MODERN MEDICINE'S TREATMENTS FOR DISEASE ARE SELDOM EFFECTIVE, AND THEY'RE OFTEN MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE DISEASE THEY'RE DESIGNED TO TREAT", and when he wrote in Chapter 2, "“YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF ALL THE DRUGS FOR WHICH THE SIDE-EFFECTS ARE THE SAME AS THE INDICATIONS [USAGE]", it was his polite way of saying that during the past several hundred years we modern humans have already well charted all the real diseases on earth there is for us to know about although most of us will refuse to believe this, and furthermore Dr. Mendelsohn is saying it's the toxic side-effects in our pharmaceutical medications that functions highly for iatrogenocide but of course it's a natural tendency for most of us to reject what he warns us about because we tend to assume that we know more about the medical profession than he did. In truth, during the past several hundred years our family species have pretty much identified the etiology of every real ailment to exist as well as its real causes when there is no etiology. In other words, anyone who is willing to take the serious time to do a thorough research will always inevitably without fail will find that practically all of our pharmaceutical medications share the same identical toxic side-effects as the symptoms of the so-called diseases of which they are used to treat when it comes to treating so-called diseases of which is it commonly "believed" to have no known etiology or causative germ, "believed" to have no known causes and "believed" to have no known cures for. For example, the toxic side-effects of medications used to treat Parkinson's happens to be parkinsonism and this holds true whether it be of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, breast and prostrate and lung cancers, leukemias, functional psychoses, and the list goes on and on which explains how come there is not a single death certificate in the history of Hawaii which lists the cause of death as due to cancer, nor to diabetes, nor Alzheimer's, nor AIDS, etcetera, but rather most often the cause of death is listed as due to “Secondary Infection” after a prolonged weakened immune system that was over-taxed by our pharmaceutical medications. For example, a syndrome by strict definition is merely a set of symptoms which mimics a disease in the absence of any disease, however, one of the toxic side-effects of most of our pharmaceutical medications includes the possibility of coming down with the ailment known as akathisia which is motor restlessness characterized by muscular quivering plus the inability to sit still and anxiety at the thought of sitting down, and one of the first signs at the beginning of acquiring akathisia could very easily be what's now been recently labeled as Restless Leg Syndrome of which of course is generally "believed" to have no known etiology or causative germ, "believed" to have no known causes and "believed" to have no known cures for, because a syndrome is only a set of symptoms in the absence of any disease in the first place but there's a mighty big difference between "believing" something in contrast to "knowing" something. In situations where a person is not previously on medications but may have the psychosomatic inclination to think that they may have Restless Leg Syndrome and in turn seeks medical help may stand the chance of getting diagnosed and treated for Restless Leg Syndrome but will unwittingly fail to realize that our pharmaceutical medications given to them for the treatment of a syndrome in the absence of any disease, will have the potential of producing akathisia as a potential side-effect and it will no longer be a psychosomatic situation for them afterall. And if the person willingly continues to adopt a long term usage of our pharmaceutical medications then it's only a matter of time until it can and will over-tax their immune system particularly when they might happen to switch to a more potent medication or perhaps ingest "cocktails" of combined medications which in-turn only strengthens the likelihood of ending up with any number of toxic side-effects, however, they'll more than likely "disbelieve" it's another toxic side-effect in favor of "believing" that they caught a whole 'nother disease of which is it also "believed" to have no known etiology or causative germ. Whether it be in terms of months, or years, or decades, sooner or later they're all good candidates for being another one of our iatrogenic statistics as long as they "believe" it's good for them to continue eating the toxins which produces toxic side-effects, hence, iatrogenocide is not only a necessity but is one of our most well best kept secrets ever invented by us humans because most of us tend to reject the plain truth and sometimes outright angrily so, but then to each their own because we each have the right to "believe" whatever we want to "believe-in" even if and when it can kill us. Ironically, even though most anti-psychiatry advocates are fully aware that our psychiatric pharmaceutical medications are designed to do more bodily damage rather than cure, we still have the gut tendency to reject the same notion holds equally true within the rest of our medical specialties as well, go figure? Under any other natural normal circumstances whenever someone eats something in nature to end up suffering the ill toxic effects of diarrhea, and/or blurred vision, and/or lost of taste, and/or upset stomach, and/or headaches, and/or loss of motor control, and/or bone pain, and/or hallucinations, etcetera, the person usually without fail will have the natural given common sense to stop eating the darn poisons, however, when it comes to our prevailing necessary medical propaganda, many will prefer to “believe” in our medical established propaganda even when it's obviously killing them, as many would rather die having blind faith than living a life “knowing” a harsh truth which happens to hold no room for blind faith, hence, the best kept secrets are those that most people have the tendency to automatically reject as true, just as it was designed to be out of harsh necessity.
However, I can agree with the short-term use of certain pharmaceutical medications wherever it just might happen to be applicable particularly for short term usage since all substances can have some degree of its therapeutic value, but too much of anything is not good as moderation is the key. Aside from that and in regards to Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn's statement that, "Every drug stresses and hurts your body in some way", he, of course, was referring to pharmaceutical drugs, however, I can think of at least three different natural drugs that are considered to have no toxic side-effects when they are said to be smoked or chewed in therapeutic dosages, but when ingested, natural opium is known to have some degree of unpleasant non-fatal gastric side-effects, and also has withdrawal side-effects after habitual use. If we don't count addiction or death-by-overdose as a toxic side-effect, then we're talking about natural opium and not pharmaceutical forms of opium that is considered non-fatal and to have no toxic side-effects. Opium addicts in otherwise good physical and mental health whose drug needs are met are thought to experience no debilitating physiological effects from their addiction in contrast to our synthesized (i.e., human-made) pharmaceutical medications ...but speaking of addictive drugs...
DEATHS ATTRIBUTED TO ADDICTIVE DRUGS IN UNITED KINGDOM 1990 to 1995:
1,810 deaths -- BENZODIAZEPINES (Valium, Xanax, Halcion, Ativan, etcetera.)
676 deaths -- METHADONE (Methadone is a synthesized [i.e.,human-made] prescription heroin-substitute.)
291 deaths -- HEROIN (Heroin is synthesized from morphine which is the principal alkaloid derivative of opium.)
It's my guess all three figures are likely underestimated. AND THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY that heroin is safer than methadone, or that methadone is safer than benzodiazepines. What these figures do suggest is that a lot more people are using benzodiazepines than methadone or heroin even though all three of these human-made drugs are associated with toxic side-effects including “death“ which is viewed, considered, and held within our pharmaceutical perspective as nothing more than a potential “side-effect”. Likewise, it's of no coincidence that acetaminophen which currently happens be our most popular of our non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and found in over 200 over-the-counter products is considered to be our most common fatal cause of drug-induced liver failure but if & when a different NSAID medication becomes more popular in treatment for mild pain and inflammation then we can expect it to becoming the newest most common cause of drug-induced liver failure instead of acetaminophen. In regards of how to safely get off benzodiazepine psychiatric medication addiction such as Valium and Xanax so as to avoid the neuro-motor disorder of TARDIVE DYSKINESIA SYNDROME, or perhaps to avoid the possibility of eventual kidney or liver failure leading to “death” as a side-effect, a website Benzo.org.uk offers further suggestions on discontinuation therapy of benzodiazepines which is to reduce intake a little at a time in order to avoid crippling withdrawal reactions.
Another drug usage considered to have no toxic side-effects when smoked in therapeutic dosages is cannabis, that's marijuana. But as with anything else, too much of anything is not good and an overdose of cannabis is known to cause temporary mild cases of dizziness, vertigo, and even nausea and/or vomiting, and sometimes potentially inhaling improperly can cause a sudden drop in blood pressure commonly referred to as having a euphoric 'rush' which may or may not lead to temporary loss of consciousness, and furthermore, overdosage may also slow down reaction times, therefore, as with alcohol, smoking cannabis while driving a vehicle may not be the safest thing to do. Depression after chronic usage of cannabis or even serious depression may or may not result as a withdrawal symptom following discontinuation, however, chronic abuse can weaken the immune system just like how chronic abuse of any other potent substance taxes the immune system over time, but otherwise no deaths that I know of has yet to be attributed to cannabis usage, nor to cannabis abusage, nor to cannabis overdosage, but I do suspect some fatal car crashes were likely the result of cannabis over-intoxication. Most cannabis users agree that moderate usage can work well at alleviating symptoms of depression without toxic side-effects very much unlike our pharmaceutical anti-depressants. I further believe chewing unprocessed coca leaves directly off the cocaine plant is also said to have no toxic side-effects either. Interesting to note nature makes it so simple for us to germinate seeds in the ground to grow three kinds of different medicinal herbs which have no toxic side-effects and yet all 3 naturally occurring plants are considered illegal in most but not all places around the world, but it does make a lot of sense in iatrogenic terms. Having said that, in all practicality most of our pharmaceutical medications tend to share the same possibility of afflicting over 170 different toxic side-effects although in most of our medical literature a person is not likely to presented with all 170+ different potential side-effects.
And lastly, I have to partially disagree with Dr. Gregory Bateson on his statement where he writes: “The genetic constitution has been decisively demonstrated to be one of the causes of schizophrenia. The risk of schizophrenia increases with the closeness of genetic relationship to a schizophrenic patient.“ Although I agree humans come from humans, I conclude genetics have nothing else to do with the adaptation-reaction condition labelled as schizophrenia. I think he mistakenly linked genetics with the condition only because the risk of the condition may have appeared to him to increased with the closeness of genetic relationship to a schizophrenic patient. I concur his error had do with the fact that most people get raised by their genetic parents, but otherwise the condition referred to as schizophrenia has nothing to do with the genetic constitution itself which is how come he was so quick to slightly cover himself by also adding, "...a genetic vulnerability for schizophrenia is necessary but not sufficient and must be combined with certain life experiences that need not be common for genetically identical individuals." His statement erroneously implies that the adaptation reaction-condition called schizophrenia supposedly cannot occur if the child happens to be adopted and if not genetically related which I think is absurd, hence, the notion of genetics being linked to so-called mental illness was illogical back then, is still irrational today, and will continue to always be equally far-fetched as space alien abductions, ghosts, gods, goblins, or any other forms of illogical superstition which many of us readily buy into. I'm not sure if Bateson himself actually believed what he wrote regarding the genetic constitution because I wonder if maybe he only wrote it just to appease mainstream, or in other words most of his quotes substantiates our “socio-psychological model” except for that fraction where he's promoting our prevailing “medical model” with that genetic nonsense? That is, I keep wondering if maybe the reason Bateson tried to bring up the absurd notion of genetics was if maybe he wanted to try and alleviate some of the stress he might've been receiving from mainstream for having promoted our “socio-psychological model” over our mainstream “medical [iatrogenic] model” and so maybe he caved-in a little otherwise it seems to me it's way out of his character for him to have played the genetic card?
HOW TO AVOID TAKING PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS:
For those of who might happen to be in a socio-psychological situation of your own and don't know what to do to stop those around you from constantly pressuring you into taking prescribed medications even though you do not want to take it, the best suggestion I can offer you that works is for you to pretend taking the medications and keep it a secret to yourself. When the doctor hands you the medications, be polite and accept it from the doctor then pretend to take your medications every day and anytime anyone asks you how are you doing on your medications simply smile and say you're doing quite well with your medications and politely thank'em for asking. Your situation will quickly improve a lot better instead of trying to insist to others that you don't want to take the prescribed medications because of the painful toxic-side-effects. You'll find when in the wilds and under certain conditions, cheating or pretending can be of the best strategy. Here on jungle-earth if they believe you are taking your prescribed medications then they will be so happy about it and they will stop stressing you over the prescribed medications and stop bugging you about it. Even if you don't like telling a lie, I know it may sound ridiculous but under these circumstances pretending has shown to be the best overall policy for everyone's peace of mind. Even if you find yourself in the confines of a psychiatric institution because your family put you in there, the vast majority of the time it's nearly always done on a voluntary basis as opposed to being court-committed, that is, at some point in time during the intake procedure an applicant is needed to sign a document which states the applicant is entering the facility on a voluntary basis and therefore has the privilege to leave voluntarily. If you HAVE NOT been court-committed but were signed in by another family member then it means you are there on a voluntary basis but sometimes family members and staff may or may not try to pretend as if they have same legal power as court authority in order to trick a patient but it's still based on a voluntary entry. In actual practice most patients in psychiatric hospitals entered voluntarily and can therefore leave voluntarily but very few patients knows of this Federal, State, & hospital policy. If you find yourself in a psych ward because of family pressure to put you in there, you'll also find it better to fake taking the prescribed medications and everybody will leave you alone about it as long as you keep pretending that you're taking the prescribed medications, particularly if it's in pill form, just hide it between the upper gums and upper lip but act like you swallowed the pill with a gulp from the water or juice they handed you then say thank you to them because if you speak and say thank you it'll look all that more convincing to other patients as if you swallowed the prescribed medications. The staff will secretly know whether or not you're taking the prescribed medications because they'll be able to see it from your behavior. When patients do not show any signs of toxic-side-effects and not complaining about burred vision, dizziness, etc., it means these people aren't ingesting the toxic substances but as long as you pretend to take the pill things will go a lot smoother for you, however, the moment you blab the truth to anyone including to other patients that you're faking then it'll be all your fault when people start stressing you out all over again for not taking your prescribed medications, and then the next time they might start giving it you in liquid form or by injection but it'll be your fault for not keeping it a secret to yourself. At that point, you may exert your legal right to leave the institution.
HOW VOLUNTARY PATIENTS CAN LEAVE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL "AGAINST MEDICAL ADVICE" :
The vast majority of psychiatric patients enter the facility on a voluntary basis as opposed to being court-committed. That means you can leave if you want to but most patients don't know this secret. The vast majority of voluntary patients believe they need the doctor's permission and/or perhaps their family's consent in order to legally leave a psychiatric hospital but by law the decision for voluntary patients to leave early is up to the voluntary patient themselves. Many patients who want to leave do not know they have an easy legal way out because the staff and other family members will often do everything they can to convince the patient that the patient has no choice except to remain in the hospital and cannot leave until the doctor decides when the patient can leave but that's only pure scare tactics to trick the patient into taking medications. The key to getting out of a secured or locked psychiatric hospital is to complain non-violently out loud and be obnoxious as you want and grumble up a storm that you “want to leave A.M.A., now.” which stands for “Against Medical Advice”. Sometimes it may take up to 4 full hours of non-stop yakking your head off that you “want out A.M.A. right now!” before staff finally gives in and calls the doctor to come in so that he can sign the discharge papers for you. Until then staff will lie every which way for hours just to try and convince you that you cannot leave and that you have no choice but to stay and have to take the medications for your own good, but all voluntary patients who enters the facility on a voluntary basis can leave voluntarily if they want to and the staff secretly knows this. The trick to getting out is to grumble, grumble, grumble non-stop and non-violently out loud you “want to leave against medical advice right now!” and don't stop grumbling non-violently out loud until the doctor comes to sign your discharge papers. It's that simple to get out unless you exhibit violent tendencies which would give them the excuse they need to keep you there against your free will and keep you drugged on prescribed medications. Every psychiatric hospital has a patient handbook and in every patient handbook it specifies that the hospital cannot force psychiatric drugs upon patients who are non-violent and who are of no danger to anyone, however, some places will routinely break Federal law and force-inject medications upon patients against the patient's free will in deliberate violation of hospital policy guidelines. If staff tries to break the law by force-injecting medications upon you then keep demanding to see a copy of the patient handbook until they give you a copy and then point it out to them in the patient handbook where it says the hospital is not allowed to force medications upon patients when the patient is not a danger to themselves nor a danger to others and loudly remind the staff so everyone around can clearly hear you that the rule is also Federal law as well as a hospital rule and regulation policy.
Melissa, may I recommend Doctor Robert S. Mendelsohn's book "Confessions of a Medical Heretic". He tells it like it is that modern medical practice is not what most people think it is but he neglected to mention that there's a good sane reason for culling our family species through the use of prescribed medications. In short, it's the lesser of two evils, so-to-speak, since we have the potential to out-breed our own global food supply. And again, Melissa, thank you for asking such a relevant question. Tsark out.