YoungMinds ~ Kudos Where It's Due

 

Back in 2017, I highlighted how YoungMinds, the UK’s leading charity championing the wellbeing and mental health of young people, had posted a booklet on its website that claimed the following:

It’s rare for a mental illness to occur out of the blue, it usually builds up over time and comes to a point where people need professional help. The causes are wide  ranging and include a  chemical imbalance in the brain.  Medication can help to address chemical imbalances and make someone feel more ‘normal’"

I recently brought this to their attention and, surprisingly, they have addressed it. Not only have YoungMinds removed the content, they have issued an explanation and an apology. For that, I must give them kudos.

Their statement came via Twitter and reads:

We endeavour to ensure our information is accurate and in line with the latest science, and value feedback where it is not. On this occasion, it seems as though we did carry misleading information on our website, but it has since been amended. We apologise for any confusion.

— YoungMinds (@YoungMindsUK) October 27, 2022

This, to me at least, is a very positive move by the charity and, to my knowledge, it's the first time anyone has publicly apologised for once claiming mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance, moreover, medication can address that imbalance.

It's a start and, I believe, kids who use their services or visit their website will be safer for it.

I applaud this approach.

Bob Fiddaman

'Chemical Imbalance' FOIA - "Psychiatry adopted the 'chemical imbalance' term"

It took longer than normal but the MHRA have finally responded to a FOIA I sent to them earlier this year.

The request strove to seek information regarding SSRI patient information leaflets, moreover, the terminology written on them that pertains to a "chemical imbalance".

I asked the MHRA when the marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of five SSRIs changed the labelling and patient information leaflets with regard to any reference referring to a "chemical imbalance" and what was the reason/evidence for this change.

For those that don't know, a systematic umbrella review regarding the serotonin theory of depression was widely publicised in journals and the mainstream media. The review found there is no evidence to support the idea that depression is caused by disturbance of the brain’s serotonin system.

This is something I've known for quite a long time, I even raised this lack of evidence for supporting the 'chemical imbalance' theory in my 2012 book, 'The Evidence, However, Is Clear, The Seroxat Scandal'.

After the review, authored by Joanna Moncrieff, Ruth E. Cooper, Tom Stockmann, Simone Amendola, Michael P. Hengartner & Mark A. Horowitz, hit the mainstream news, many psychiatrists took to social media to announce that they've never believed the chemical imbalance was true.

I found this surprising given the blog, 'Demand Chemical Imbalance Redaction' highlights many psychiatrists who still publicly refer to mental illness being caused by a chemical imbalance. Adrienne Nagy, who is the board president of NAMI Athens, Ohio, for example, said in 2020, "What that means is education about mental illness. We're continually trying to educate the public to know that mental illness is an illness like any other illness—it's a biochemical imbalance in the brain. It's no different than diabetes or heart failure."

This wasn't just a throwaway comment from Nagy, this was actually publicised in The Post, an independent, award-winning student-run news publication on Ohio University’s campus.

If Nagy is telling students in a widely read campus publication that mental illness is a biochemical imbalance in the brain, then, to me, that suggests Nagy wants those students to believe that what she is saying is true and factual.

NAMI, by the way, is the acronym for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the USA's largest grassroots mental health organization.

So, back to the FOIA:

I asked the same question for all SSRI patient information leaflets (PILs)

The MHRA response throws up a rather interesting reply with regard to 'the psychiatry scientific literature'. Remember, most psychiatrists claim to have never used the 'chemical imbalance' theory when talking to patients.

Here's the MHRA response in full. You'll note that they are boxing clever here. They seem to be saying the term 'chemical imbalance' is rarely used in PILs but other references to imbalances and low serotonin are. They seem okay with that. They are also saying the terms used are for patients to understand the literature, which they suggest is 'complex'.

I don't know about you but being told I have a chemical imbalance, low serotonin or a disturbance of chemistry in my brain kind of tells me that my brain is broken and thus needs fixing. I think this would apply to anyone confronted with this terminology.

It appears, the MHRA are, indeed, suggesting scientific literature from the field of psychiatry adopted the 'chemical imbalance' term.

We all know who they adopted it from, right?

On the MHRA's summary response, let's take a closer look at what the PILs say:

1/ Cipramil "is a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) and belongs to a group of medicines known as antidepressants. These medicines help to correct certain chemical imbalances in the brain that are causing the symptoms of your illness"

2/ Escitalopram: "These medicines act on the serotonin-system in the brain by increasing the serotonin level. Disturbances in the serotonin system are considered an important factor in the development of depression and related diseases."

3/ Fluoxetine: "Everyone has a substance called serotonin in their brain. People who are depressed or have obsessive-compulsive disorder or bulimia nervosa have lower levels of serotonin than others. It is not fully understood how Fluoxetine and other SSRIs work but they may help by increasing the level of serotonin in the brain."

4/ Paroxetine: "Everyone has a substance called serotonin in their brain. People who are depressed or anxious have lower levels of serotonin than others. It is not fully understood how Paroxetine and other SSRIs work but they may help by increasing the level of serotonin in the brain."

5/ Sertraline: No mention of how and why they work but a strong warning of what they may cause.
"If you experience agitation, confusion, diarrhoea, high temperature and blood pressure, excessive sweating and rapid heartbeat. These are symptoms of Serotonin Syndrome."

Source - The electronic medicines compendium (emc) 

Bob Fiddaman

CHEMICAL IMBALANCE - PATIENT INFORMATION LEAFLETS FOIA TO MHRA

 

For the record, I emailed the MHRA earlier with the following request:

To whom it may concern,

According to UK legislation, [Regulation 267 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012] it requires that marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of UK MAs and article 126a authorisations inform the competent authority of all changes to the labelling and patient information leaflets which are not connected with changes to the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC).

With this in mind, I hereby request the following information:

1. When did the marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of citalopram change the labelling and patient information leaflets with regard to any reference referring to a "chemical imbalance" and what was the reason/evidence for this change.

2. When did the marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of escitalopram change the labelling and patient information leaflets with regard to any reference referring to a "chemical imbalance" and what was the reason/evidence for this change.

3. When did the marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of fluoxetine change the labelling and patient information leaflets with regard to any reference referring to a "chemical imbalance" and what was the reason/evidence for this change.

4. When did the marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of paroxetine change the labelling and patient information leaflets with regard to any reference referring to a "chemical imbalance" and what was the reason/evidence for this change.

5. When did the marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of sertraline change the labelling and patient information leaflets with regard to any reference referring to a "chemical imbalance" and what was the reason/evidence for this change.

Sincerely,

Bob Fiddaman

Finally, the Chemical Imbalance Myth Has Been Put to Bed

There is no evidence that depression is caused by lower levels or reduced activity of serotonin in the brain, according to a recent analysis of 17 previous studies. 

The analysis, carried out by Joanna Moncrieff, MD, a professor of psychiatry at University College London, and her colleagues, tells us pretty much what we've known all along. The chemical imbalance marketing myth has been used as an indicator that people need antidepressants.

The response to this analysis, by many psychiatrists at least, has been eye-opening.

The Science Media Centre (SMC), whom I've wrote about before on this blog, were rolling out their 'experts'.

Dr Michael Bloomfield, Consultant Psychiatrist and UKRI Principal Clinical Research Fellow, Translational Psychiatry Research Group Head, UCL, said:

"The findings from this umbrella review are really unsurprising. Depression has lots of different symptoms and I don’t think I’ve met any serious scientists or psychiatrists who think that all causes of depression are caused by a simple chemical imbalance in serotonin."

Bloomfield really needs to brush up on his research skills. Just two years ago, Adrienne Nagy, Board President of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), America's largest grassroots mental health organization, had this to say:

"We're continually trying to educate the public to know that mental illness is an illness like any other illness—it's a biochemical imbalance in the brain. It's no different than diabetes or heart failure."

Other examples of psychiatrists promoting the chemical imbalance theory can be viewed here.

Another SMC 'expert', Prof David Nutt, Edmond J Safra Chair and Head of the Centre for Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, seemed to be digging his heels in when reacting to the Moncrieff analysis with:

"It is only recently that we have developed the technology to measure serotonin release in the living human brain and in the first study of this type (currently under review) we did find decreased serotonin release capacity in people with depression. So, to dismiss the serotonin hypothesis of depression at this point is premature."

Nutt has, in the past, received grants and personal fees from Lundbeck and GSK and personal fees from Lilly, BMS, Otsuka, Servier, and Pfizer, the majority of whom market and manufacture SSRI's, the very same types of drugs promoted to correct a chemical imbalance. I think it's no coincidence that Nutt still wants to hold on to the serotonin hypothesis of depression.

The general consensus (from psychiatry) of this new analysis seems to be, 'So what, we've known all along that it was just a theory'. I think they're either missing the point or being deliberately obtuse.

Samei Huda, author and consultant psychiatrist, Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, went one further. 

Here's a screenshot of his tweet which implies Moncrieff and her colleagues have "right-wing associations."

Huda is well-known to members of the #PrescribedHarm community on Twitter, he is also well known for baiting Twitter psychologists and others with accusations of racism or right-wing associations, myself included.

I find his above tweet was specifically constructed to be inflammatory. Huda can be followed here. I blocked him a couple of years ago.

The point many psychiatrists, on Twitter at least, seem to be missing is patients have been sold a lie. Not one single psychiatrist has been able to answer the following, Is the patient, taking SSRIs, at risk or is increasing serotonin in the brain deemed safe?

These days, Twitter psychiatrists tend to block patient accounts who raise concerns, or even questions such as mine above.

The reaction has been eye-opening particularly when you contrast it with 'expert' reactions to the Cipriani 2018 study that claimed antidepressants work and are effective. Not only were 'experts' gushing over Cipriani's study, some were even calling for more antidepressants to be prescribed.

Professor Carmine Pariante, spokesperson for the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said of the Cipriani analysis "This finally puts to bed the controversy on antidepressants, clearly showing that these drugs do work in lifting mood and helping most people with depression."

A year later, Pariante was interviewed by BBC's Angela Rippon. According to Pariante, his team "chemically induce brain cells in test tubes to mirror the state of depression. Antidepressant medication  is then added". Furthermore, according to Pariante, "There is no evidence that we are over prescribing antidepressants, yes more antidepressants are prescribed today than 10 years ago but, in fact, most people who need antidepressants are not receiving an antidepressant."

Yes, he really did say this.

You can watch the full show, Truth or Scare, here.

The SMC's 'expert' reaction can be viewed here.

Bob Fiddaman

Celebrities Keeping The Myth Alive

Below is a list of celebrities who are keeping the myth of the chemical imbalance alive. Many of these celebrities are influential and their social media accounts have thousands, sometimes millions of followers.

Click on their names to see what they have said about the chemical imbalance.

Once you have gone through the list (if you can stomach it) ponder this:

Imagine if each of these celebrities retracted their statements and started to ask questions as to why they were led to believe in this myth. Further, imagine if these celebrities put their weight behind prescription drug-induced akathisia and suicides.

Most, if not all, can be contacted via their social media accounts.

Bob Fiddaman

Here's the list...

Celebrities

• Beverley Callard ~ is an actress who plays Liz McDonald on Coronation Street
• Bruce Springsteen ~ is an American singer-songwriter
• Candice Brown ~ is a British reality television personality
• Carol Vorderman ~ is a Welsh media personality
• Chamique Holdsclaw ~ is a former professional basketball player in the Women's National Basketball Association
• Chrissy Teigen ~ is an American model, television personality, and author
• Chyler Leigh ~ is an American actress, singer and model
• Colton Haynes ~ is an American actor and model
• Dawn Thandeka King ~ is a South African actress
• Demi Lovato ~ is an American singer, songwriter, and actress
• Denise Welch ~ is an English actress and television presenter
• Dr Chris Steele ~ is a British medical doctor and the resident doctor on ITV's This Morning daytime magazine show
• Gary Gulman ~ is an American stand-up comedian
• Gina Rodriguez ~ is an American actress, rapper and director
• Jessica Marais ~ is an Australian actress
• Jimmy Carr ~ is a British stand-up comedian and TV host
• John Thomson ~ is an English comedian and actor
• Keeley Hawes ~ is an English actress
• Linda Hamilton ~ is an American actress
• Munroe Bergdorf ~ is a transgender model and DJ
• Niall Breslin ~ is an Irish musician and former Westmeath Gaelic footballer and Leinster Rugby player
• Poppy Delevingne ~ is an English model and actress
• Royce White ~ is an American mixed martial artist and professional basketball player
• Ruby Wax ~ is an American actress and mental health campaigner
• Sarah Lancashire ~ is an English actress
• Sheryl Crow ~ is an American musician, singer, songwriter, and actress

For more influential individuals and organisations touting the chemical imbalance as truth, visit here.

Hashtag Backfires on Twitter

Wendy Burn: President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Twitter can be an effective resource for sharing research links, personal experiences and public opinions. It can also highlight the personalities of people with strongly held views.

On May 1st Hattie Gladwell, a journalist and columnist, tweeted the following:

At first glance, I perceived this tweet as just another tired attempt to try and silence those who've been harmed by pharmaceutical products and prescribers. It appeared Gladwell was trying to imply those who take pharma products marketed for mental health are, somehow, stigmatized by others. While I don't buy this PR spin, I do believe organizations and media work together to silence and stigmatize drug safety advocates and those who share their own experiences of prescribed harm. While I don't know if Gladwell and/or her publication is supported by pharma money/resources, her tweet actually sparked a Twitter storm that spotlights the black hole of dangerous prescribing.

Reading some of the replies made my jaw drop as people started posting the various drug cocktails they currently take. I've included a few examples below and have redacted the tweeters' names because some of these people likely didn't consider possible issues surrounding such public proclamations.

The below tweet was retweeted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists President, Wendy Burn. Burn didn't offer any warning regarding the cocktail of drugs this tweeter was taking.

Any patient concerned about the interactions of drugs they are taking can visit drugs.com, a database whereby a user adds the names of multiple drugs they are on to see if the drugs interact with one another. There are many similar databases available on the internet.

Here is what drugs.com reports about the interactions of Lithium, Quetiapine, Venlafaxine, and Mirtazipine:

Source

The tweeter thanked me for bringing this to her attention and said she would speak with her doctor.

Many other tweeters, from public health and safety advocates to those who support the pharma/psych industry, joined the conversation by using the hashtag, #ITakeMedsForMyMental Health.

The Royal College President continued to retweet those tweets she perceived to support her whilst dismissing those tweets about adverse effects. I suppose this is Burn's prerogative and I can't blame her for trying to support her own field.

However, several of her retweets are cause for concern. Many of her retweets were from patients who are taking several different drugs that have major interactions. Burn continued to retweet them and some members of the prescribed harm community perceived Burn's tweets to be an exercise in goading.

I implored Burn to stop as, I felt, she was putting patients in danger by not pointing out the dangerous interactions among some of the drugs these tweeters were taking. She ignored my request and continued retweeting.

One such retweet had me perplexed.

For Burn to retweet this after her college, back in August 2017, finally debunked the chemical imbalance myth, is astounding.

RCP reaffirmed this again in June 2018

Burn also retweeted, seemingly in support of Paxil, a product known as Seroxat in the UK and one that is currently the subject of litigation in London. Paxil cases have been won and settled in the US with regard to causing severe withdrawal problems, birth defects and even death!

Understandably, Burn came under a lot of fire for retweeting in support of a chemical imbalance, particularly after her own college has twice debunked this marketing ploy.

Burn took umbrage to the criticism and bizarrely tweeted the following:

Many people responded to Burn to ask why she thought trying to educate people regarding drug interactions could be deemed threatening. She never replied. Some 24 hours later, Burn blocked me and many others.

Understandably, her refusal to engage in critical conversations about adverse drug interactions has enraged many service users.

Burn is no stranger to controversy. Back in February 2018, she, along with fellow Royal College member, David Baldwin, came under fire for stating publically that, "We know that in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment."  (Image above)

This statement was in sharp contrast to a previous study ("Coming Off Antidepressants") carried out by the Royal College that showed at least 63% of respondents reported difficulties withdrawing from the SSRI drugs. 

When this was pointed out to her by drug safety advocate, James Moore, the college pulled the study from their website stating that it was "out of date". (Back Story)

Complaints were made to the college but they were quickly dismissed.

The Twitter controversy continues today and many are dumbfounded that the RCP president is not warning patients about the life-threatening drug interactions she is witnessing and then publicly communicating via her Twitter page.

In my opinion, the hashtag that started this debate was a good one. I don't believe people are being stigmatized because they take drugs, but the hashtag certainly publicized the serious problems posed by polypharmacy. This recent Twitter storm shows me that there is a lack of duty and care among many prescribers and their professional organizations.

Being blocked by Burn doesn't really bother me. But it does highlight how the president of RCP, and RCP itself, continues to put PR above patient safety.


Bob Fiddaman

Related

“what we believe in” by Peter J Gordon

Barends Psychology Practice: The Chemical Imbalance Debate

Located in Ljubljana, Slovenia, Barends Psychology Practice brings together an international team of licensed psychologists offering a range of treatments both face-to-face and online. Our peaceful, friendly practice is an ideal setting where you’ll feel safe and confident to explore your mental health and emotional issues.

Face to face therapy: 

First session is free of charge.

Individual session of 45 – 60 mins.: € 45

Couples session of 45 – 60 mins.: € 45

Online therapy fees:

First session is free of charge.

Individual session of 45 – 60 mins.: € 45

Couples session of 45 – 60 mins.: € 45

Here's what they say about depression and the chemical imbalance.

"...depression and depression symptoms can be caused and triggered by a chemical imbalance in the brains." (Source)

So, I asked for proof of this dangerous claim.

YOU GOT IT WRONG - Barends Psychology Practice (@BarendsTherapy) - https://t.co/sRsWVKDxlJ #ChemicalImbalanceMyth

— BOB FIDDAMAN 🔹 (@Fiddaman) July 15, 2017

All your article does is citing some professionals in the field who support your theory.. it's a pity you are fairly biased.

— Niels Barends (@BarendsTherapy) July 18, 2017

As I said before, show me the evidence that your claim is correct. The onus is on you. #StillWaiting

— BOB FIDDAMAN 🔹 (@Fiddaman) July 18, 2017

FYI: we are not a big fan of medication when it comes to most mental disorders, because there is much controversy about their effectiveness

— Niels Barends (@BarendsTherapy) July 18, 2017

So you use talk therapy to correct an imbalance in the brain? Isn' this akin to talking to a blocked drain in the hope that it will unblock?

— BOB FIDDAMAN 🔹 (@Fiddaman) July 18, 2017

(1/2) https://t.co/jFrTLPM3gF
As is mentioned on my website: it is likely a cause. Not the only one, but could contribute. I'd rather ...

— Niels Barends (@BarendsTherapy) July 18, 2017

make people aware of possible causes, instead of ruling out possible causes without having hard evidence (#stillwaiting).

— Niels Barends (@BarendsTherapy) July 18, 2017

An MD? You are basing your evidence on that of an an allopathic physician but refuting the evidence of professors? Is that your position?

— BOB FIDDAMAN 🔹 (@Fiddaman) July 18, 2017

I respect your opinion. I would like you to respect mine. I will not change my article based on experts quotes, I need articles. Thank you.

— Niels Barends (@BarendsTherapy) July 18, 2017

I'll respect yours if you can back it up with scientific proof. You have failed to do that. Science isn't in the habit of disproving myths.

— BOB FIDDAMAN 🔹 (@Fiddaman) July 18, 2017

In essence, Niels Barends, who is the owner of Barends Psychology Practice, wants proof that the chemical imbalance theory (he claimed) can be disproven. Isn't this like saying, I saw a tooth fairy last night and it's up to you to prove that I didn't?

Furthermore, Barends is claiming that he is not  a "big fan of medication" yet by touting the chemical imbalance nonsense he is showing his patients that they have something wrong in their brains. Remember, a chemical imbalance is, apparently, something that can be corrected by medication. Just pick up any patient information leaflet for any antidepressant if you don't believe me.

Barends Psychology Practice may or may not recommend antidepressant therapy. If they don't then how do they plan to change the apparent chemcal imbalance inside someone's brain?

This is basically like talking to a spirit level (pictured above) and telling it that you want the surface to be flat and not uneven.

A counsellor applying no logic is, in my opinion, a dangerous one.

Here's some constructive advice for all those who ply their trade at Barends Psychology Practice. It's an article from MastersInCounseling.org, an informational tool for students who may want to enroll in a program to obtain a master’s degree in counseling. The article, entitled, "Why Counselors Must Think Critically", highlights how there is a difference between personal opinion and reasoned thought, or critical thinking. Something, it appears, that Niels Barends is lacking in.

The aticle clearly states, "Critical thinking skills require not only a knowledge of logic, including how to avoid logical fallacies that lead to unsupported conclusions."

Enjoy sir.

Bob Fiddaman

Experts who Debunk the Chemical Imbalance Theory

 “Chemical imbalance? Well, it’s a shorthand term really, it’s probably drug-industry derived, I suppose. But it’s the idea that there are really abnormalities in the neurotransmitters … in our brains. And we don’t have the test, because to do it you’d probably have to take a chunk of brain out of someone, not a good idea. We have some blood tests that help a few things, such as lithium levels and other things we use for therapeutic drugs. But I agree, there aren’t any blood tests.” ~ Marc Graff, Psychiatrist and spokesman for the American Psychiatric Association

--

 “To date, studies have failed to demonstrate that people with the commonest psychiatric diagnoses have a brain-biochemical imbalance. The studies on all the main diagnostic categories of psychiatry are plagued by a significant problem: the people being tested have almost always already received psychotropic medication, so if there is a blood, brain or liver disorder, this may have been caused by the treatment. Physical tests on people diagnosed, but not yet treated, in the psychiatric system, would be the only way to find out if there were a difference between these people and the general public. This never happens, as most people first encounter a GP who, instead of asking for blood and other tests to demonstrate a psychiatric condition, simply prescribes a psychotropic drug or refers on to a psychiatrist.” ~ Craig Newnes, Clinical Psychologist

--

“Psychiatrists have no way of telling that someone has a chemical imbalance. The idea that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance is simply a hypothesis. There is no consistent evidence that there is any biochemical abnormality in people diagnosed as depressed. The idea has been promoted by drug companies and professional organisations, but the evidence base for it is almost non existent.”  Prof. Joanna Moncrieff

--

“There is no test for depression.  Our understanding of the brain is simply not sophisticated enough.”  ~ Dr Jim Bolton, Lecturer in Psychiatry, St. George’s Hospital, London

--

“There’s no biological imbalance. When people come to me and they say, ‘I have a biological imbalance,’ I say, ‘Show me your lab tests.’ There are no lab tests. So what’s the biochemical imbalance?” ~ Dr. Ron Leifer, New York psychiatrist

--

“If a psychiatrist says you have a shortage of a chemical, ask for a blood test and watch the psychiatrist’s reaction. The number of people who believe that scientists have proven that depressed people have low serotonin is a glorious testament to the power of marketing.” ~ Jonathan Leo, associate professor of anatomy at Western University of Health Sciences

--

“Despite the billions of pharmaceutical company funding in support of the chemical imbalance theory, this psychiatric “disease” model is thoroughly debunked. Diabetes is a biochemical imbalance. However, “the definitive test and biochemical imbalance is a high blood sugar balance level. Treatment in severe cases is insulin injections, which restore sugar balance. The symptoms clear and retest shows the blood sugar is normal,” Nothing like a sodium imbalance or blood sugar imbalance exists for depression or any other psychiatric syndrome.” ~ Joseph Glenmullen of Harvard Medical School

--

“First, no biological etiology [cause] has been proven for any psychiatric disorder…in spite of decades of research.…So 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.” ~ Edward Drummond, M.D., Associate Medical Director at Seacoast Mental Health Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire

--

 “Remember that 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.” ~ Psychologist Bruce Levine, Ph.D

--

“People are convinced that the origins of mental illnesses are to be found in biology, when, despite more than three decades of research, there still is no proof…The absences of any well‐defined physical causation is reflected in the absence of any laboratory tests for psychiatric diagnoses—much in contrast to diabetes and many other physical disorders.” ~ Charles E. Dean, M.D

--

“There are no tests available for assessing the chemical status of a living person’s brain.” ~ Elliot Valenstein, Ph.D.

--

“Patients have been diagnosed with ‘chemical imbalances’ despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and...there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like.” ~ Psychiatrist David Kaiser

--

“Biopsychiatrists have created the myth that psychiatric ‘wonder’ drugs correct chemical imbalances. Yet there is no basis for this model because no chemical imbalance has ever been proven to be the basis of a mental illness,” ~ Ty C. Colbert, a clinical psychologist.

--

“The whole theory was invented to push drugs. “The way to sell drugs is to sell psychiatric illness.” ~ Carl Elliot, a bioethicist, University of Minnesota.

--

“For the past twenty-five years, the psychiatric establishment has told us a false story. It told us that schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar illness are known to be brain diseases, even though—as the MindFreedom hunger strike revealed—it can’t direct us to any scientific studies that document this claim. It told us that psychiatric medications fix chemical imbalances in the brain, even though decades of research failed to find this to be so. It told us that Prozac and the other second-generation psychotropics were much better and safer than the first-generation drugs, even though the clinical studies had shown no such thing. Most important of all, the psychiatric establishment failed to tell us that the drugs worsen long-term outcomes.”  ~  Robert Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America

--

“The idea that depression is caused by low levels of serotonin and that certain antidepressants raise the levels of this neurotransmitter, is a myth.”  ~  Professor David Healy, professor of psychiatry and author

--

“The only biochemical imbalances in the brains of those who see a psychiatrist … are those that are put in there by a psychiatrist.”  ~  Peter R. Breggin, Psychiatrist & MD

--

“The world is engulfed in a mass delusion regarding depression.  The widespread belief that brain chemical imbalances are present in depression has no scientific basis.  In fact, this is a fixed belief that meets all the criteria of a mass delusion.  If you are one of the millions of people who believe that biochemical brain imbalances are known to occur in depression, then you too have become seriously misinformed.” ~ Dr. Terry Lynch - DEPRESSION DELUSION, Volume One: The Myth of the Brain Chemical Imbalance

--

“The one thing we do know is that the chemical imbalance theory - the theory that people get depressed when they don't have enough serotonin in their brain - we know that that's wrong.”  ~ Irving Kirsch, Associate Director of the Program in Placebo Studies and a lecturer in medicine at the Harvard Medical School

--

“Both depression and anxiety disorders, for example, are repeatedly described in the media as 'chemical imbalances in the brain,' as if spontaneous neural events with no relation to anything outside a person's brain cause depression and anxiety.”  ~ Siri Hustvedt, American novelist and essayist

YOU GOT IT WRONG - Priory

The aim of this blog is to highlight persons in the media who tout the chemical imbalance theory as a fact. It's highly unprofessional and misleading to do so and this blog demands that any statements relating to the 'chemical imbalance' myth should either be backed up with supporting evidence or redacted.

Where possible, each person featured on this blog has been contacted via Twitter, email, and/or Facebook and asked to redact their statements or provide supporting evidence.

Once supporting evidence has been shown they will be removed from this blog. Moreover, if they redact their original statements they will also be removed from this blog.

As you will see from these lists, many of the authors are household names and influence those who follow them. This has to stop. The chemical imbalance line was created by the pharmaceutical industry, moreover, Eli Lilly, who launched the first of the SSRIs, Prozac.

Those featured on this list need to do their research.

Bob Fiddaman (Author of the Fiddaman Blog)


Priory

(TWITTER)

(FACEBOOK)

Priory is the leading independent provider of behavioural care in the UK. The Group currently treats more than 70 different conditions through a nationwide network of over 450 facilities that support service user’s health, care, education and specialised needs.

Article ~ Depression treatment and help

Quote ~ “At the Priory we offer tailored depression treatment programmes for individuals, based on their medical history and personal experience. A specialist consultant will oversee your treatment, which will usually include a course of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and may also include medication to restore the chemical imbalance in your brain’s limbic system.”

Publication ~ Priory

Read what the experts say HERE

More here. New blog highlighting celebrities, health care professionals and other waks of life who claim that mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance...whilst offering no proof to support their claims.

Bob Fiddaman

Targeting Young Minds With Mythical Fairytales

I've found a cause for depression and other related 'mental health' issues. It came to me last night. I've cracked this age-old question.

I witnessed it myself, so I know it is concrete evidence.

Okay, so this is what happens.

Whilst a normal person is sleeping bad fairies visit and sprinkle bad dust on their heads. This destructive dust seeps into the heads and makes people have dark thoughts. These fairies are 6-inch creatures from the planet Zog; they are sent down as part of an intergalactic experiment created by more bad fairies who are higher in authority than the 'visitors'. Their leader, Major Larry Junk, created these 'bad dust' experiments in the 10th century and has been sending down visitors ever since. He was born in the late 950's and was great friends with Burchard of Worms, the bishop of the Imperial City of Worms, in the Holy Roman Empire. He died in the year 1025 but was resurrected a year later in 1026.

Of course, I have no proof of this, but you'll just have to accept it. Depression is caused by bad fairies sprinkling bad dust.

If you don't believe my fairy tale, here's another by YoungMindsUK

Compare my theory to the one touted by YoungMinds UK, a charity, according to their website, that, "champion the wellbeing and mental health of young people."

They claim, amongst other things, that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Not only do they know the cause of depression they also know a good treatment for it. They write...

There is help and treatment available for people with mental health problems. Usually, they’ll see their GP first, who’ll arrange for them to see a specialist like a psychiatrist, counsellor or psychotherapist. They’ll decide together on the best treatment for them. This can include:

Medication – these can help to address chemical imbalances and make someone feel more ‘normal’

So, the opposite of normal is abnormal, correct? So, in essence, YoungMinds UK are telling its target audience (children) that having a 'mental health problem' is abnormal, furthermore the person experiencing the 'mental health problem' is abnormal.

Major Larry Junk doesn't do that.

YoungMinds UK go much further than I do though. They have a health care professional who oversees all their claims and she, along with her colleagues, have checked all the claims made by Young Minds UK and found them to be factual. YoungMinds UK apparently doesn't understand that fairy tales are supposed to entertain children, not end their lives.

Their brochure specifically thanks "Dr Andrea Gnanadurai and her colleagues at the Child and Family Public Engagement Board, Royal College of Psychiatry for fact checking this booklet."

I disagree with Dr Andrea Gnanadurai and her colleagues because I know that depression is caused by bad fairies sprinkling bad dust.

Dr Andrea Gnanadurai (pictured below) holds a Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery. Safe to assume then that she knows a lot more than I, or indeed Dr Larry Junk, Head of the Intergalactic Bad Dust Fairies Operation Unit on planet Zog.

Dr Larry Junk is over 1000 years-old. Judging by Dr Andrea Gnanadurai's Twitter profile photo she is considerably younger. I tweeted her the following earlier...

@andreagee Can you provide me with evidence that backs up the claims that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance?

— BOB FIDDAMAN🐦 (@Fiddaman) July 10, 2017

Depression, they claim, is caused by a chemical imbalance and, according to them, is treatable with either talking therapy or medication, or indeed both.

I find this bizarre. If my drain was blocked, for example, would talking to it unblock it or would I need to pour a chemical into it to unblock it?

If a chemical imbalance was present in the brain then how would talking about it make it go away?

YoungMinds UK don't stop there. Their website is calling for 'Youth Activists' to raise awareness of mental health. They write...

If you’re aged 14 to 25 and have experience related to mental health – including caring for someone with a mental health problem – then you can apply to become an activist.

Amongst its partners are Heads Together, an initiative spearheaded by The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry. Other partners/supporters include the National Lottery, but gambling addiction doesn't seem to be addressed by YoungMinds UK.

On the subject of ADHD they claim, "Children under 5 shouldn't be given ADHD medication." So, okay if you are 5 years of age or older then?

Regarding a BMJ publication, 'Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment', YoungMinds UK offer the following...

This new report is very worrying and its very concerning that some clinical trials have been misreported or poorly designed. Children and their parents must have solid and comprehensive information about the effects that antidepressants can have, so they can make informed decisions about treatment.

Ironic considering their website claims medication "can help to address chemical imbalances and make someone feel more ‘normal." Apparently, YoungMinds UK is worried about misreported clinical trials, but they aren't worried about their own unproven claim regarding "chemical imbalance" marketing.

If YoungMinds UK can provide evidence that a; depression is caused by a chemical imbalance and b; antidepressants address a chemical imbalance, then, I'm sure, both children and parents will be able to make informed decisions about treatment.

The booklet, 'Young Minds: Mental Illness In Your Family', can be downloaded here.

I spoke with Major Larry Junk earlier, he told me that, just like his surname, the chemical imbalance claims made by Young Minds UK are 'junk science.'


Bob Fiddaman

What if We're Wrong About Antidepressants?

Sometimes it's good to step outside the bubble of one's opinion and venture into the bubble of another's. If more people and cultures would do this, the world would possibly be a much safer place.

So, what if we, as public health advocates, have been wrong about the lack of efficacy and safety of psychiatric drugs? Let's say for the sake of healthy argument, that we are wrong and antidepressants:

1. Are not addictive
2. Are easy to withdraw from
3. Are safe for children to take
4. Are used to rectify a chemical imbalance

What we are left with is the opposite of the 4 points above. By conceding them we are ignoring a hell of a lot of scientific evidence. (but hey, some people still think the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence showing it's not.)

1. We've been told by pharmaceutical companies and drug regulators that antidepressants are not addictive, they acknowledge that "some people" may find discontinuing from them "problematic" but, they claim, "Addiction is characterized by a number of different criteria which includes craving, which includes increasing the dose of drug to get the same effect, and a number of other features." However, the English dictionary describes it somewhat different. it states: a compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.

2. If drug companies and drug regulators play semantics over point one then point two can be backed up by their claims in point one. It has to because point two raises the issue of withdrawal within the meaning of the true definition of addiction. The medical definition of withdrawal is: A psychological and/or physical syndrome caused by the abrupt cessation of the use of a drug in an habituated person. The therapeutic process of discontinuing a drug to avoid the symptoms of withdrawal. There are many forums on the Internet where users of antidepressant drugs have sought help because they have had, or are having, extreme difficulty withdrawing. With pharmaceutical companies and drug regulators making claims that these are easy to withdraw (ahem, 'discontinue') from, these people, seemingly, have nobody else to turn to except fellow-users of these medications. Furthermore, drug companies and regulators  don't use the term, “withdrawal symptoms,” preferring instead to use, “discontinuation symptoms.”

3. Health care professionals still prescribe SSRI's to children, they do so 'off-label'. By doing this they are telling us that SSRIs are safe for children. I mean, who would give a child a dangerous drug if they thought it was dangerous for them, right? However, what's perverse about this is those same health care professionals have access to the product labelling which states, amongst other things, that there are warnings "about increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24."

4. When SSRIs first hit the market the manufacturers needed a selling point. They didn't just want those who were extremely depressed taking their drugs, they wanted to cast the net wider. This practice has continued throughout the years with new 'brain disorders' springing up, almost on a yearly basis. ADHD, OCD, and Bipolar spring to mind here. So, where did they spring from? Well, in a nutshell, they came from man, or rather a group of men. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the handbook used by health care professionals in the United States and much of the world as the authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders. Created in 1952, it listed 106 disorders. It's third edition listed 265 disorders and it's fourth edition listed 297 disorders. The current DSM, after coming under heavy fire regarding the labelling of normality, hasn't increased the number of disorders per se, instead they have added subtypes to the previous disorders. For instance, “caffeine intoxication” and “caffeine withdrawal” are now listed as a disorder in the latest edition of the DSM. So, too much coffee or Red Bull, in essence, means you have a mental disorder.

The 'chemical imbalance' was a marketing campaign by pharmaceutical companies, the first being Eli Lilly who sold and marketed Prozac. Over time, this theory has gained momentum and has become an almost accepted fact. Even today, despite the chemical imbalance theory being debunked as a marketing strategy, we see the product label making claims that "It is thought that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance, or depression may be caused by a chemical imbalance. Remarkably, there is not one shred of scientific evidence that supports this claim. It's called indoctrination. It happens all the time, yet we, take it on faith because we can't be bothered to do our own research or we put our faith in those who make these lavish claims. Here's a few instances of indoctrination.

1. Three Wise Men
We see them depicted on Christmas cards, we see our children play them in Nativity plays, we see endless books telling us about these three guys. Truth of the matter is, nowhere in the Bible does it specify there were three.

2. The Great Wall of China
Because of it's enormous structure you can see the Great Wall of China from space. I actually thought this one was true. Surprisingly, it's not visible from space, no single structure is visible from orbit. The visible wall theory was debunked after China's own astronaut, Yang Liwei, said he couldn’t see the historic structure. There was even talk about rewriting textbooks that support this theory. To date, that's not happened.

3. Bananas Grow On Trees
Another one that had me stumped, until I researched it. Bananas actually grow on herbs, a perennial herb; in fact, it is the largest of all herbaceous flowering plants.

4. Bats Are Blind
Another myth. Bats can actually see almost as well as humans. However, at night, their ears are more important than their eyes.

These are just four examples of how we, without researching, believe in facts that aren't facts at all.

Now, I'm betting that these four examples of untruths will be used in the pub or in quizzes. I'd bet all the money in my bank account that no such pub quiz would ever include the chemical imbalance myth though. Because many still believe it to be true despite having no evidence to prove it.

With the first four points covered, is it worth researching points 5 to 8?

5. Antidepressants do not cause psychosis
6. Antidepressants do not induce akathisia
7. Antidepressants do not cause people to self-harm
8. Antidepressants do not induce suicidal thinking and, almost definitely, do not induce completed suicide.

You can find Google here.

Bob Fiddaman

Prozac: Three Blind Mice

Three blind mice, three blind mice,

See how they run, see how they run,

They all ran after the farmer's wife,

Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,

Did you ever see such a thing in your life,

As three blind mice?

Most believe the author of Three Blind Mice was a teenager named Thomas Ravenscroft. The origin of the words, according to many historians, stem from Queen Mary I and her staunch Catholic beliefs. due to her violent persecution of Protestants, she was known as 'Bloody Mary'. The reference to 'farmer's wife' in Three Blind Mice refers to the huge estates she possessed. The 'three blind mice' were three Protestants convicted of plotting against Queen Mary I.  She did not have them dismembered and blinded as inferred in Three Blind Mice, she had them burnt at the stake! 

Ah, don't you just love the morals and ethics of religion! Even today we still see people being killed in the name of something that cannot be seen or heard. History shows that religious books have been responsible for many deaths, or rather the way religious scriptures are been interpreted. The Three Blind Mice rhyme has similarities to a recent study in Japan.

The study, sponsored in part by Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., involved mice pups bred to mimic the distinctive behaviors and brain abnormalities seen in autism. After inducing autistic traits, the mice were fed Prozac. The authors claim Prozac caused dramatic improvements in the animal's social interactions and communication patterns. The Prozac, which was administered through the mother’s milk for 19 days. Furthermore, according to the study, "newborn mice got a daily injection of Prozac in their first six days of life, the treatment appeared to restore normal vocalization patterns and reduce anxiety-like behaviors well into adulthood."

The study is littered with assumptions and seems to promote a chemical imbalance theory that both humans and mice allegedly have. The study doesn't seem to explain what was done to impair the animal's brain function. What it does claim is that Prozac improved the brain damage the researchers caused. 

It claims to show that Prozac cleared whatever was induced in the mice so, in essence, this could just possibly be one drug counteracting another drug.

The spin in this study is obvious. The authors have induced a series of brain abnormalities in mice pups then made claims that these abnormalities are almost identical to the abnormalities found in people with autism.

Here's the irony: Toxic exposures during pregnancy, such as the use of antidepressants, can disrupt brain processes before birth and shortly afterward. So, if antidepressants can disrupt the brain process before and after birth, why not treat that with, um, another antidepressant!

It must have been a slow news day at the Los Angeles Times whose health corespondent, Melissa Healy, ran with the study. Her article is littered with assumptions. She claims Prozac, "is thought to elevate mood and quell anxiety by increasing the availability of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the spaces between certain types of brain cells." I suspect her article is mainly a reprinted press release.

The key word here is "thought." Anything that follows it can, and should, be taken with a pinch of salt. It's clever marketing because our eyes are drawn to the science when, in actual fact, there is no science, it's just supposition.

Furthermore, the jounalist states, "Research on humans suggests that, during early brain development, those who will go on to develop autism have unusually low levels of serotonin in critical areas of the brain."

Now, here's a game for you all. What is the keyword in the above sentence?

Answers in the comments section or on my Facebook page please.

Science is an intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. This Japanese study has done none of that.

Don't you just love the morals and ethics of clinical trials and unscientific journalsm reporting!

Full study here.

LA Times article here.

Bob Fiddaman