Image courtesy of Hole Ousia
Professor David Nutt (above) says modern antidepressants are ‘probably the safest drugs ever made
Nothing grinds my teeth more than false information, moreover sloppy journalists who allow selective quotes into the mainstream media from both professionals and the layperson.
Today I was alerted to an article that appeared in the online edition of The Metro. The headline says it all, "I might not be here without them’: Photos help fight the stigma of antidepressants".
Today I was alerted to an article that appeared in the online edition of The Metro. The headline says it all, "I might not be here without them’: Photos help fight the stigma of antidepressants".
The stigma line is thrown around anytime a patient harmed by antidepressants voices an opposing opinion about them. I've been researching them for 16 years during which time I've met fellow safety advocates, none of whom have ever lambasted or ridiculed anyone for taking their prescribed tablets.
Do I think they are dangerous? Yes, I do.
Do I think they are over-prescribed? Yes
Do I think the dangers of taking them are downplayed? Yes
This does not make me, or anyone else for that matter, a critic of those who take antidepressants. I am, however, baffled at some of the responses I see on social media whenever the bad side of antidepressants is debated. 'Pill-shamer', 'antipsychiatry' and, more recently, 'white privilege' are labels that are thrown at the #PrescribedHarm community on Twitter.
The Metro article features an initiative called the #ShowUsYourMeds Project. At first glance all seems fine, if posting selfies of yourself with medication is your thing.
Do I think they are dangerous? Yes, I do.
Do I think they are over-prescribed? Yes
Do I think the dangers of taking them are downplayed? Yes
This does not make me, or anyone else for that matter, a critic of those who take antidepressants. I am, however, baffled at some of the responses I see on social media whenever the bad side of antidepressants is debated. 'Pill-shamer', 'antipsychiatry' and, more recently, 'white privilege' are labels that are thrown at the #PrescribedHarm community on Twitter.
The Metro article features an initiative called the #ShowUsYourMeds Project. At first glance all seems fine, if posting selfies of yourself with medication is your thing.
The project, according to The Metro, was launched by Emma Dalmayne "to make people realise they’re not alone but also to dispel a number of myths and misconceptions about antidepressants."
Dalmayne, who is the CEO of Autistic Inclusive Meets, a not-for-profit organisation created by autistic people to enable families with autistic children, talking of some of the experiences people have shared with her said, "A lot of them say they get a lot of crap for taking medication, from relatives, from mates. They say they shouldn’t be taking meds, that they could be out getting exercise and doing yoga." She added, "You can only get up and go outside and do yoga if you’re able to cope with getting out of bed. I think people believe that they will be addicted to them or that they will be a placebo, we know that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance."
I've some news for Emma Dalmayne, depression is not caused by a chemical imbalance. She has been misinformed, by whom I don't know. If by chance she reads this I urge her to contact the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) to ask 'is depression caused by a chemical imbalance?' She may be gobsmacked at their answer.
I have nothing against Dalmayne or any of those who have posted photos of themselves with their meds, some of whom are on different cocktails, many of which that raise red flags when taken together. I doubt very much if they are aware of this though. (See 'Same Campaign, Different Name' below)
This is fake news and gives people the wrong impression that they have something wrong inside their head, they don't, not physically anyway.
An article about mental health and depression wouldn't hold any clout if it didn't feature a quote from a key opinion leader. Step forward Prof. David Nutt, himself a members of RCPsych, who speaks in spectacular fashion:
I have nothing against Dalmayne or any of those who have posted photos of themselves with their meds, some of whom are on different cocktails, many of which that raise red flags when taken together. I doubt very much if they are aware of this though. (See 'Same Campaign, Different Name' below)
This is fake news and gives people the wrong impression that they have something wrong inside their head, they don't, not physically anyway.
An article about mental health and depression wouldn't hold any clout if it didn't feature a quote from a key opinion leader. Step forward Prof. David Nutt, himself a members of RCPsych, who speaks in spectacular fashion:
"There are people who don’t want to believe that you can be mentally ill, they like to label everything as a social stigma. They’re a minority but they’re a very loud minority. There are ‘people who believe that you can have a mental illness but they say that they’re psychological rather than physiological and therefore you don’t need to use drugs to treat them, of course there’s some truth in that many people can be helped by psychological treatment but many can’t. There are people who have been on medication treatments who have withdrawal reactions coming off or sometimes funny reactions coming on and these people have become a very vocal group.When you look at the evidence, antidepressants are extremely safe, they’re probably the safest drugs ever made. Most people don’t have problems and most people get enormous benefits from them."
Let me just read that one line again:
"When you look at the evidence, antidepressants are extremely safe, they’re probably the safest drugs ever made."
This is an outrageous statement to make and people, after reading his claim, may be persuaded to take them without first doing their own research, of which I have over 16 years of experience.
This is an outrageous statement to make and people, after reading his claim, may be persuaded to take them without first doing their own research, of which I have over 16 years of experience.
Nutt is no stranger to controversy. In 2009, Nutt was sacked from his Government drug adviser position after claiming that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
A year later, Nutt co-authored a paper that appeared in the Lancet where he claimed that alcohol was 'more harmful than heroin'.
Maybe he was trying to even the playing field on his previous claim that alcohol was more dangerous than ecstasy and LSD, or maybe he just doesn't quite have his finger on the pulse regarding the dangers of drugs, be they prescription drugs or street drugs.
His comment in the Metro regarding antidepressants being the safest drugs ever made was left unchallenged by the journalist James Hockaday. This is shoddy journalism. Maybe Hockaday should ask Nutt for the evidence he claims exists. Maybe, at the same time, Hockaday can ask Nutt why he did not declare his conflict of interests in the article. History shows that Nutt has received a pretty penny from antidepressant manufacturers GSK, Pfizer, Lilly and Lundbeck, to name but a few.
I doubt Hockaday will challenge Nutt, maybe he witnessed Nutt's response (attack) to journalist Peter Hitchens back in 2011 where he accused the respected journalist of 'baseless alarmism’ about drugs.
It seems a tad strange, to me at least, that Nutt is seemingly worried about the 'very loud minority' who are trying to raise awareness regarding the dangers of antidepressants. It is these people who are often stigmatised by RCPsych members, maybe because they've had it their way for far too long and they don't want anyone, especially former patients, rocking their very lucrative boat.
His comment in the Metro regarding antidepressants being the safest drugs ever made was left unchallenged by the journalist James Hockaday. This is shoddy journalism. Maybe Hockaday should ask Nutt for the evidence he claims exists. Maybe, at the same time, Hockaday can ask Nutt why he did not declare his conflict of interests in the article. History shows that Nutt has received a pretty penny from antidepressant manufacturers GSK, Pfizer, Lilly and Lundbeck, to name but a few.
I doubt Hockaday will challenge Nutt, maybe he witnessed Nutt's response (attack) to journalist Peter Hitchens back in 2011 where he accused the respected journalist of 'baseless alarmism’ about drugs.
It seems a tad strange, to me at least, that Nutt is seemingly worried about the 'very loud minority' who are trying to raise awareness regarding the dangers of antidepressants. It is these people who are often stigmatised by RCPsych members, maybe because they've had it their way for far too long and they don't want anyone, especially former patients, rocking their very lucrative boat.
Same Campaign, Different Name
The #ShowUsYourMeds project isn't new.
Last year Hattie Gladwell, a journalist and columnist, tweeted the following:
This particular hashtag was picked up by former president of RCPsych, (See Hashtag Backfires on Twitter) Wendy Burn who, seemingly, took great delight in retweeting various Twitter users cocktail of drugs. Burn didn't offer any warning regarding the cocktail of drugs this tweeter was taking.
Here's what drugs.com reports about the interactions of Lithium, Quetiapine, Venlafaxine, and Mirtazipine:
If I had the time and/or energy I'd take a look at the #ShowUsYourMeds Project selfies with drugs. I'm sure there will be many taking cocktails that have dangerous interactions, interactions that the uploader may not have been warned about. The onus is on them to do their own research, any advice offered by me and other members of the #PrescribedHarm community is met with name-calling by many of the Twitter psychiatrists. (See The Pill Shaming Myth)
The Metro's article, along with Nutt's outrageous disinformation*, can be read here.
Bob Fiddaman
*“Misinformation” vs. “Disinformation”: Get Informed On The Difference
Bob Fiddaman
*“Misinformation” vs. “Disinformation”: Get Informed On The Difference
No comments: