My Take on Panorama's 'The Antidepressant Story'

 

On Monday, June 19, the BBC's flagship current affairs programme, Panorama, broadcast the long-awaited, and much anticipated 'The Antidepressant Story'.

Living, as I do, in Central America, it's difficult to watch British TV, especially live broadcasts. With the help of a useful app, however, I didn't fret too much.

While most of Britain settled down at 8pm on Juneteenth, the time difference here meant a 2pm viewing here for me.

I watched with my partner, who also has an interest, given her daughter died at the hands of antidepressants.

Many, reading this, will know I've been banging the drum for over 16 years regarding the safety and efficacy of SSRIs so watching this hour-long special saw me (internally) go through a range of emotions. It's only now, some three days after it aired, that I'm able to write about it.

My main focus has always been about the withdrawal effects of SSRIs and also their propensity to induce suicidality. Although 'The Antidepressant Story' covered the withdrawal issue they never delved into the suicide link. I totally understand why as this has been covered four times (brilliantly) by the Panorama team during the first ten or so years of the 2000's (Links at the foot of this post)

I watched with interest as they covered PSSD. For me PSSD is a confusing acronym, at first glance it looks like PTSD, an invented disorder that promotes the use of psychiatric drugs. If an experienced old fella like me, who's researched these SSRIs for many years, finds this confusing, I have to wonder if the same can be said about the general public?

The two acronyms are very different though.

PSSD is Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, a condition caused by the use of one or more serotonergic antidepressants that persists despite the cessation of antidepressant treatment. PTSD is Post-traumatic stress disorder, an apparent "mental health" condition that's triggered by a terrifying event.

Although I agree many suffer when recalling terrifying events, I refuse to give it a mental health label. PTSD first appeared in 1980 in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-lll) published by the American Psychiatric Association, a manual used by psychiatrists, such as the ones who appeared (for balance) in 'The Antidepressant Story', namely Wendy Burn and Prof David Nutt. More about them later. 

The Antidepressant Story kicks off with Audrey Bahrick, a patient who tells her story about reading about Prozac and its beneficial properties. She was going through a sticky patch at the time and thought Prozac would give her the lift that she needed. After taking it, Bahrick felt "confident and energized", adding, "I loved being on Prozac."

Another patient, Trish Matthews, also tells her story. Trish was training as a nurse in the 1990's and found the pressure of training whilst trying to manage her homelife, she became stressed and struggled to manage her daily life. She went to her doctor and was prescribed an antidepressant. She believed, after reading various articles, that her stress was brought on by a chemical imbalance. 

Drug company adverts, such as the one below, were flooding TV stations across the US and New Zealand (The only two countries that allow Pharma Drug To Consumer advertising)

It wasn't long before those adverts turned to print so other nations, such as the UK, could read about an apparent serotonin deficiency and how to treat it.

It was genius marketing by the drug industry but it was pure fiction, a fiction that was lapped up by the likes of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and its members. They never once questioned it. They could now prescribe en masse and give a reason, albeit fictional, why they were prescribing.

The chemical imbalance myth has been debunked so many times over the years. That I'm still writing about it baffles me. It's ingrained in society, moreover in rooms with pens and prescription pads. It's cult-like and many who are hanging on to this claim are part of that cult.

Back to Bahrick and Matthews

As the show progresses we learn that Audrey Bahrick and Trish Matthews both started to experience the dark side of the SSRIs they were prescribed.

"I was immediately sexually numb, within a day (of taking Prozac) my genitals were numb", Bahrick said.

Trish Matthews had been taking her prescribed SSRIs for 18 months and felt she was now better so decided to cease taking them. This is when her problems began. "Within 24 hours I felt absolutely dreadful", she thought her 'depression' was coming back. She rang her doctor who told her, "you have to go back on them."

Withdrawing from SSRIs can mimic the symptoms of why you were put on them in the first place. Prescribers are, largely, unaware of this as are those who take them.

Dr Mark Horowitz, a trainee psychiatrist, who also features in the show, was diagnosed with depression at the age of 21. 15 years later he tried to come off and experienced insomnia, panic attacks, dizziness, anxiety and low mood. He has not been taught about these effects of SSRIs at medical school or in psychiatry training. Horowitz, when reading the academic literature available to him, found that psychiatrists and academics at the institution he had studied at and others like them around the world had little helpful to say about withdrawal effects from antidepressants, they recommended stopping the drugs over 2 to 4 weeks, and reported that the symptoms were mild and brief. To date, Horowitz is still taking his medication.

Joanna Moncrieff, a practising professor of psychiatry and a part-time academic and author, says she was skeptical about these new antidepressants from the start. "My interest has always been in the role of drug treatment and whether they're as beneficial as we are, usually, led to believe that they are."

Pfizer, who are never out of the news these days, are briefly featured in the show. The Panorama team obtained a 'secret document' that showed how Pfizer execs wanted to play down the withdrawal issue. They also wanted to include claims about the chemical imbalance being a fact, they were declined by drug regulators but the chemical imbalance somehow made its way into the patient information leaflets that accompany SSRIs. With trickery, using wordplay, companies like Pfizer could set the 'chemical imbalance' promotion rolling by putting its main message amongst words like 'it is thought' or 'it may be'. Moncrieff was shown the document by the Panorama team, her reaction said it all, "Oh, my gosh".

Moncrieff has been instrumental in trying to debunk the chemical imbalance theory and in 2022, along with Benjamin Ang and Mark Horowitz, published a paper in the Science Direct Journal that found the field of psychiatry bears some responsibility for dissemination of the theory of the chemical imbalance  and associated antidepressant use.

This paper caused outrage amongst many leading psychiatrists and they took to Twitter not only to refute the findings but to target Moncrieff personally. I've watched it all unfold via my own Twitter account - it still continues today.

The Balance

As I mentioned previously, for balance Panorama asked two psychiatrists onto the show. The pharma conflicted Prof David Nutt and the former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Wendy Burn.

As was expected both made claims that could not be backed up with evidence. Nutt opted to go down the emotive route with, "antidepressants have saved the lives of many hundreds of thousands of people”.

I find this claim astonishing and am bamboozled that it's rarely challenged by mainstream media or, indeed, programme makers such as Panorama.

As I wrote on Twitter, "If I believed listening to the Dixie Chicks whilst going through severe Paxil withdrawal saved my life, would this actually prove that the Dixie Chicks saved my life?"

Of course it wouldn't.

There is no scientific evidence that antidepressants save lives. Too many people are scared to challenge the narrative because many patients who believe this to be true will get emotional and throw hissy fits on social media platforms. Trust me, I have friends who think they or their kids' lives were saved by SSRIs. I cannot debate with them as it causes them obvious distress. 

Nutt knows this. He seems to be playing the system here, it's clever deception. Appear to have concern and show support whilst dismissing the likes of the patients that appeared in the show and millions of others who have suffered the darker side of SSRIs.

Burn didn't fare much better. Fidgeting throughout her (edited) interview, Burn said she personally regrets that severe and long-lasting withdrawal wasn't recognised sooner. "I can't really explain why it took so long, perhaps partly because of the overlap between relapse and withdrawal...I don't know, I can't really explain it."

What Panorama didn't show the public, because they probably didn't know, is an interview Burn did with Equally Well back in 2020. She told them that "when she was first trained she was told not to tell patients about side effects as it might dissuade them from taking medication."

The BBC didn't push Burn on why she has blocked or muted so many patients on Twitter who have reached out for help regarding withdrawal and PSSD issues.

Burn offered a personal apology on the show but it reminded me of Alan Partridge publicly apologising to Norfolk farmers. "If there's anybody watching who has gone through withdrawal and it wasn't recognized then I'm very sorry."

You'll notice she was making a personal apology here and not one on behalf of The Royal College of Psychiatrists, whose members with Twitter accounts are some of the most vile human beings I've come across regarding those injured by SSRIs. That's another blog though.

All in all, I thought the one-hour special did the job, it got the message across and, as predicted, infuriated many Royal College members on Twitter. Their anger was aimed at the apparent bias of the show. At no point did they show any empathy whatsoever to those harmed by the very same drugs they write prescriptions for. Targeting their cultish beliefs was deemed, it seems, unacceptable.

Psychiatry is in a mess but I can't let General Practitioners (GPs) off the hook here either. For too long now, GPs have ignored the SSRI withdrawal and PSSD issues as have the British Drug Regulator the MHRA. This needs to change, and it needs to change right now!

I sat down with the MHRA 15 years ago to discuss the SSRI withdrawal issue, back then I had no Facebook or Twitter support groups to help me, nor did I have any interest from the BBC or any other network channel. I made the visit alone and sat with the, then, chief executive of the MHRA, Kent Woods, their Head of Pharmacovigilance Risk Management, Sarah Morgan, and their Communication Manager, John Watkins.

I thought I'd struck gold, sadly that wasn't the case. The problem still exists today and many patients who are prescribed these drugs will, no doubt, go through what I did, what the patients in the show did, and what many millions of people worldwide are having to endure.

With that said, if you want to become an advocate for SSRI safety, it comes at a price. Members of the Royal College of Psychiatry have labelled me 'a conspiracy theorist', a 'far-right sympathizer', a 'misogynist', amongst many other labels designed to keep me quiet. It's straight from the pharma playbook, folks!

I'm not alone, many other SSRI safety advocates have had their fair share of crap thrown at them as they strive for answers, many of whom who have lost loved ones due to SSRI induced suicides.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists were 'royally' kicked in the nuts with this Panorama offering. It's going to get a lot worse with the insults, the accusations, the muting and the blocking. Cults don't like their belief system tarnished.

Bob Fiddaman

Watch the 'The Antidepressant Story' on BBC IPlayer here.

Outside the UK, watch here

Previous Panorama SSRI coverage

The Secrets of Seroxat

Emails From The Edge

Taken On Trust

The Secrets Of The Drug Trials

The Pill Shaming Myth

There seems to be a new Goebbels-type saying doing the rounds, it's picking up momentum and it's often used as a line of defence when one speaks out about the dangers of SSRIs, or any psychiatric drug for that matter. I don't know who coined the term but it's not only being used by patients, it's also being used by healthcare professionals and The Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Pill Shaming

I had to go to the Urban Dictionary to find out more about this term.

The action or practice of making mocking or critical comments about people who take medication.

Pill shaming is most-often directed at people who take/endorse taking psychotropic medicactions as part of a mental health relapse-prevention/recovery plan. As with fat shaming, pill shaming achieves little other than frustrate and humiliate individuals who may already be feeling self-conscious and vulnerable..

Those who indulge in pill shaming are often ideologically driven (eg: scientologists), but sometimes they're just ignorant fools. Since 2013 the act of pill shaming is sometimes called-out on Twitter with the hashtag #pillshaming.

In my 11 years of research, I have not met one single person who has ever mocked or been critical of another person who has decided that medication is their best course of action. Not one.

One would have thought with the line of work that I do that I would have met many.

Maybe the mothers I've spoken to over the years who have lost children to SSRI-induced suicide, or maybe those who have lost loving partners or even surviving siblings of those who have lost a loved one to SSRI induced suicide.

The answer is still no. Not one of the above mentioned has ever, to my knowledge, "pill-shamed."

So, if I've never met anyone then where are these so called 'pill shamers'?

It was a question I put to Consultant Clinical Neuropsychologist, Annie Hickox on Twitter after she had tweeted the following:

It's 2017! Shaming people who take antidepressants is to shame all those with mental health problems. One in four of us. https://t.co/AAHAJZmnGr

— Annie Hickox (@dranniehickox) September 3, 2017

Her tweet was in response to an article President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Wendy Burn, had earlier tweeted:

Antidepressants work, so why do we shame people for taking them? | Mark Brown https://t.co/J73k3HFqoS

— wendy burn (@wendyburn) September 3, 2017

With this in mind, I asked Hickox if she could give me an instance of this "shaming". She tweeted back to me the following:

Sorry, I have to head to work. Have a nice day!

— Annie Hickox (@dranniehickox) September 4, 2017

I understand that people have to work. I was, however, surprised to learn that for the next two hours Hickox continued to tweet and retweet on her page. Maybe she found the question I put to her too difficult to answer, or maybe, she just didn't have any examples of instances where pill shaming had occurred?

The term pill shaming has often been used against me for speaking out regarding the dangerous side of antidepressants, normally followed by "they save lives" or "you're a conspiracy theorist."

I talk about this in a recent podcast I did with James Moore via the Mad In America website. You can listen to it here.

I do hope Wendy Burn and her colleagues at the Royal College of Psychiatrists tune into it too.

And Consultant Clinical Neuropsychologist, Annie Hickox. They might learn a thing or two and may just start listening to patients rather than throwing labels around.

Coming later this week is a blog post about the Guardian article both Burn and Hickox were promoting on Twitter. The Guardian, it appears, were stifling voices in the comment section of the article. More on this later in the week. In the meantime, here's the article.

Bob Fiddaman

The Prognosticator Pariante

Earlier this week the British tabloid, The Evening Standard, ran with an article that posed the question, Why are prescriptions of antidepressants at an all-time high?

Finally, I thought, evidence to show why antidepressant prescriptions have risen by 92% in the UK over the last ten years.

Alas, I was wrong. The article rolled out the standard fare and it appeared that the column inches were given to two members of the Science Media Centre (SMC). You can read about the SMC here.

A day later, another British tabloid, this time The Guardian, rolled out an article from Mark Brown, this one was entitled, Antidepressants work, so why do we shame people for taking them?

Leading the push to increase the 92% increase in prescriptions for antidepressants was none other than Swedish professor of pharmacology, Elias Eriksson who, in the past, has been on advisory boards and/or received speaker's honoraria from Eli Lilly and H Lundbeck, both of whom, you've guessed it, promote and manufacture antidepressants. Swedish friend and fellow investigative journalist, Janne Larsson, who has been researching Eriksson for years, told me, "You should know that his next target is children; to make a “reanalysis” of the studies on antidepressants done by the companies, to show that the pills are “safe and effective” also for children and that the claims about increased suicidality are completely wrong."

Today, however, I wish to concentrate on the Evening Standard article because it throws up yet another popular myth from the field of psychiatry.

Last month the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) ran a disastrous PR campaign via Twitter, this coming after the BBC had aired A Prescription For Murder. The RCP, it seemed, wanted to orchestrate the general consensus that Panorama was scaremongering when they dared to point out that an antidepressant called Zoloft could have been implicated in the slaying of cinema goers in Aurora, Colorado (2012).

Spearheading this initiative was, amongst others, Carmain Pariante and Wendy Burn, both of whom have strong connections to the RCP and SMC. It was an initiative that backfired as hundreds of people, concerned about the side effects of antidepressants, pushed questions at them. In the end, they were forced to concede that the chemical imbalance theory, that they had been promoting for many years, was now something that they no longer agree with. No apology, no explanation as to why they ever promoted this nonsense, just a tweet...

So, with one myth busted what do they, the RCP do? Well, they create another one, once again offering no proof whatsoever. They, after confessing that they no longer supported chemical imbalance theory wrote this...

So, the story of Hansel and Gretel and the mysterious hut made of sweets continues. Hansel and Gretel, although I say so myself, is a good analogy to use here - they too were duped into believing the mysterious hut was everything they could wish for, what kid wouldn't like to see a hut made of sweet tasting candy, right? They were basically lured into the hut by the wicked witch who, in some versions of the old fairy-tale, was a cannibal.

Now, I'm not suggesting for one minute that Wendy Burn and Carmain Pariante are your modern day versions of the wicked witch or, indeed, cannibals, but the antidepressants they, seemingly, promote are aimed at the public in pretty much the same way of luring (making false promises).

You see, for many years people have questioned where depression comes from. Logical people will tell you that it's more than likely down to circumstances in your life, you know, financial woes, relationship problems, work related stress, etc.

The pharmaceutical industry, along with the field of psychiatry don't know why people get depressed, nobody does. So, to sell a pharmaceutical product one has to create a problem that it can cure or, as with the case of antidepressants, stabilize. That's why the chemical imbalance theory was born and, as you can see above, later (much later) officially thrown out of the pushchair by the RCP.

However, with one myth gone they had to create another - let's face it, without antidepressants a good 80% of psychiatrists would be unemployed. So, along comes the 2017 version of the chemical imbalance, in that antidepressants increase new brain cells. You see, anyone can say pretty much anything about the human brain because it's an organ that has been studied by the medical establishment for many years, they have guessed, second guessed and created theories because, well, because if they look at the workings of the brain on a rat and then treat that rat with a chemical then that treatment will, more than likely (they claim) work on the brain of a human.

So, is it possible to actually create new brain cells? There are many who claim that this is, indeed, is a possibility. However, those that make these claims outside of the incestuous industry do so by offering the fruits of mother nature.

Blueberries, dark chocolate, Omega-3 fatty acids, turmeric, and green tea are also said to create new brain cells, as is sex. To my knowledge, none of the above carry any risk of suicide or any withdrawal problems.

If it's true that these natural products can create new brain cells then why is Pariante jumping on the back of mother nature and now claiming that antidepressants do the same? The Evening Standard article quotes him:

"The action of antidepressants is more complex than that and involves stimulating the birth of new brain cells and regulating stress hormones."

Nowhere in the article does Pariante offer any evidence to back his claim. Why would he? For years people like him continued to tout the chemical imbalance nonsense - for years he, just like many others, refused to budge, resulting in millions of prescriptions to unsuspecting members of the public who were told by their general practitioner that they had something chemically wrong going on inside their brains...but fear not, there is a product on the market that can correct it.

The latest creation of new brain cells myth will, no doubt, go unanswered for many years, is it true, isn't it true? It doesn't really matter whether it is or not, at least not to the likes of Pariante et al. He just needs something in place to deflect the reasons why he and his colleagues duped so many people for years.

Just like the witch did to Hansel and Gretel.

Bob Fiddaman

Making Sense About Science Media Centres

I'm worried.

I feel kind of deflated.

I've been blogging for over 11 years and met with many people, most of whom have lost loved ones to antidepressant-induced deaths. I've watched blogs come and go, campaigners who had a fire in their bellies slowly fade away because sometimes it all can get to be too much.

Earlier this week I was alerted to a post on David Healy's popular blog regarding the Science Media Centre. (SMC) I'd never heard of them before so read Healy's 'Honey I Shrunk the Shrinks' with great interest.

As a writer and researcher, I rarely take one post at face value. I always research the subject in question. During my research of the SMC, I became increasingly concerned that this is something we should all be looking into. To say it's alarming is an understatement.

The SMC is like something you would read in a Dan Brown novel. It's the type of organisation that one sees pop up on their daily news feeds on Facebook, usually accompanied by a link that directs you to websites that claim the earth is flat or man has never walked on the moon, you know the type.

What's different about the SMC, however, is they don't hide what they do, nor do they hide who funds them.  Maybe this is a purposeful act, one that shows the minorities that SMC has muscle?

Without naming all their financial backers (there's too many, past and present) I've picked out some of those that cause me great concern.

Present funders include:

Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN)
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) Limited
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)
British Pharmacological Society
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP)
AstraZeneca
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)

Previous funders include:

Daily Express
Eli Lilly & Company
Institute of Mental Health
Mental Health Foundation
Mental Health Research Network
Mental Health Research Network Cymru
News International Ltd
Pfizer Limited
Rethink
Scottish Mental Health Research Network
World Health Organisation (WHO)
Wyeth

There are many more pharmaceutical companies that are or have funded the SMC. I've just focused on those that market and manufacture antidepressants.

So, who exactly are the SMC?

They were formed in 2000 after the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's third report on "Science and Society." This report claimed there was a better need for more experts in the field of science to offer expert information in the media.

So, why should we be worried?

Well, one doesn't have to go too far back to see an example of the SMC in action, in fact, we only have to go back a couple of weeks to July 26, 2017, just one day before Panorama's 'A Prescription For Murder' was shown on British TV screens. The eagerly awaited programme was dismissed as 'scaremongering' and 'stigmatizing' 24 hours before it aired. The MHRA and the RCP (highlighted above) took to Twitter on the morning of the 26th.

RCP tweets included:

#BBCPanorama claims irresponsible and unfounded. Scaremongering title alone shows real stigma people taking #antidepressants face.

and

More #antidepressant prescriptions=more people getting help. Not more potential murderers. Don't stigmatize people needing help #BBCPanorama 

Whereas the MHRA tweeted:

SSRIs have been used to effectively treat millions of people worldwide & like all medicines, the safety is continually monitored.

More on the MHRA later.

All above board and predictable, one would think, until you dig deep into the SMC and what it is they actually do. It all becomes clear when you read their blurb:

The Science Media Centre’s ultimate goal is to facilitate more scientists to engage with the media. We provide support for scientists to engage with the media when their area hits the headlines, offering expertise of a team with over 10 years’ experience in science media relations. We have an ever expanding database of experts and have strong connections with UK universities, industry, learned societies and scientific institutions.

The SMC also runs off-the-record brainstorms to discuss how the scientific community can effectively coordinate its media relations on controversial issues within science. Occasionally the SMC will run subject-focused advisory sessions in anticipation of big controversial stories.

No surprise then that stories appeared in the British media before and after the airing of Panorama. Most, if not all, the articles featured an "expert" who claimed Panorama was stigmatizing and scaremongering. They were also stating that drugs, such as sertraline, which was heavily featured in the programme, do not cause people to go out and commit murder.

In defence of all these claims I, along with Kristina Gehrki, wrote a blog post entitled 'Panorama: Prescription For Stigma?' It proved to be popular and was shared many times on social media, particularly in the first 24 hours.

Around 8 hours after I went live with my co-written piece, MQ, a mental health website, ran with an eerily similar headline, 'A Prescription For Stigma: Why Evidence Matters.' The article was written by Ed Sykes who, coincidently, is Head of Mental Health and Neuroscience at the Science Media Centre.

In not supporting Panorama's efforts to increase awareness, Sykes wrote something quite striking:

The main evidence the programme seemed to be giving us, alongside the case studies, was the result of a Freedom of Information request to the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA). The MHRA is responsible for many aspects of healthcare, including a Yellow Card system that records all the bad side-effects linked to any drugs. The Panorama team informed us that their investigation had unearthed 28 cases linking antidepressants to murder and 32 to murderous thoughts. The show did point out that these were just reports, not conclusions that the drugs had caused murder. But what they failed to mention was that these reports to the MHRA can be made by anyone. You or I could go on their website right now and make a report, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was a medical professional who reported it or that the report was supported by strong evidence. 

What Sykes, in his efforts to play down the 28 cases linking antidepressants to murder, failed to mention is the follow-up that the MHRA do when they receive a Yellow Card report. It was a question I put to them back in 2015. Their reply was the bog-standard game of semantics they have played with me for the past 11 years or so, further, they asked for payment to release the information. You can see the correspondence here and here.

Ed Sykes really should have done his homework before throwing out the 'correlation does not equal causation' line.

Before finishing my introduction to the SMC, I'd like to congratulate Prof. Sir Mike Rawlins, former Chairman of NICE (highlighted above) who, a month ago, was honoured by the Queen for his services to the safety of medicines, healthcare and innovation.

Oh, something else: Prof. Sir Mike Rawlins is the current Chairman for the MHRA. Prof. Sir Mike Rawlins also sits on the Board of Trustees at, you've guessed it, the Science Media Centre.

Now, who was it that coined the term 'revolving door'?

Bob Fiddaman

Psychiatrists Launch Antidepressant Withdrawal Video

Want to know how to get off antidepressants?

Dismiss this 'educational' video, it appears as if it's been put together by people who really haven't a clue what they are talking about.

The video, as far as I can make out, is a result of an online survey carried out by The Royal College of Psychiatrists. I'm almost certain that I took part in the survey but can't actually remember? Six years of Seroxat (Paxil) use kind of kills memory cells.

Watch the video. My comments are beneath.

"Antidepressants help many people." - How many? How do they help them? Describe, in detail, how they act on the brain and, furthermore, how that action helps 'lift' depression, anxiety etc.

"After overcoming depression some find coming off antidepressants quite difficult." - Some? How many exactly, what are the figures? In any event, how does one know one has overcome 'depression' if the antidepressants are designed to make consumers feel like they aren't depressed?

(Paraphrasing) - "They might find their depression returns." - How do they know this, how do they know whether it's a return of the depression or whether it's a side effect of withdrawal?

"Deciding when to stop is really important, talk it over with your doctor first." - Herein lies a major problem. Dr's have been told by pharmaceutical companies and medicine regulators that these drugs are safe and effective. They have also been told that, despite there being warnings of antidepressant-induced suicide, these feelings only occur in a small number of people and, it's not the drug, it's the 'underlying illness'.

"If you've had one episode of depression it's best to stay on your antidepressants for six months to a year after you feel better." - Yes, they really do advise this but don't go into any detail as to why? So, in essence, they are telling us that despite feeling better carry on taking your antidepressant for a further 6 months to a year. So, if you have a clean bill of health, carry on taking something that will give you no benefit at all, right? To use an analogy, treat your headache with paracetamol and once the pain goes away continue taking paracetamol for 6 months to a year (despite you not having headaches anymore.)

"If you stop too soon, your depression is more likely to come back." - Ah, I see. So, by taking tablets to treat depression, even though your depression has cleared, it appears The Royal College of Psychiatrists are now claiming antidepressants 'prevent' further episodes of 'depression'? - Since when have antidepressants been used to help prevent the illness, I thought they were prescribed to help with depression and not prevent it? At this rate, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, would like to see us all on antidepressants, even though we have no depression.

"If your problems have been going on for sometime, your doctor might advise you to stay on antidepressants for longer." - So, if you have been taking antidepressants for a year or so and your problems still exist then the antidepressant is still working but it needs time to 'kick in', right? How many other drugs that have been licensed get such a carte blanche?

"Most people don't have troublesome side effects when coming off antidepressants, but some do." - Figures, what are the figures? Is this statement based on 8-12 week clinical trials or is it based on the post-marketing surveillance of these drugs?

"Most people said that their symptoms lasted up to six weeks." - This figure seems to be based on the online survey carried out by The Royal College of Psychiatrists. For transparency, it would be beneficial to see these figures produced by The Royal College of Psychiatrists.

"Talk to your doctor, they can help you make a plan, when to stop, how quickly to reduce the dose and who to contact if you have any problems." - So, doctors have had specific training in antidepressant withdrawal? How much training, who trained them? Who do doctors suggest you contact if you are having withdrawal problems?

"You may have some physical symptoms or your depression may return." This is really quite comical. On one hand you may have physical symptoms of withdrawal but it could be your depression returning. The doctor, who remember has had limited training regarding antidepressant withdrawal will, more than likely, tell you to restart. Once you do your withdrawal symptoms will magically disappear. Here's the rub, folks, your doctor will tell you that you was experiencing a return of the illness and not antidepressant withdrawal symptoms. Round and round you go.

"Ask your friends and family for support and maybe take some time off work." - Those same friends and family will not know anything about drug withdrawal - yes, they may spot signs of suicidality but won't make the connection that it could be the drug causing the suicidal feelings - they will assume, just as many doctors do, that it's the 'underlying illness'.

"Reduce your dose slowly, this helps to reduce symptoms." - Symptoms of what? How slowly. Where's the guidance here?

"Stay in touch with your doctor throughout the process." (of reducing) - I agree with this statement to an extent. However, this can be impractical for many people and they may send an email to their doctor or phone them. Doctor's then will have to make a decision to either continue the reduction process or, as in the case of Natalie Gehrki, increase the dosage. Natalie's story is here & here. Again, what training have doctors had to spot signs of worsening depression opposed to worsening symptoms of drug side-effects?

"Keep a diary of your symptoms and doses." - Have you ever tried writing when going through severe withdrawal? I could barely lift a pen, let alone write.

"Be prepared to stop the reduction or increase the dose as necessary." - Why? Is this due to the drug causing the symptoms or a return of the illness?

--

So, The Royal College of Psychiatrists have skipped over the most important issue surrounding antidepressants - suicidal thoughts, actions and completion. There is no reference to the condition of akathisia, a condition caused by prescription medications, in particular, antidepressants.

Here is a video, that is also animated, it was created by MISSD,  - it tells you all about akathisia.

So, after watching these two videos, who would you like to seek more advice from? The Royal College of Psychiatrists, who, it appears, are giving us more questions than answers, or MISSD, a non-profit organization dedicated to honoring victims of prescription drug induced akathisia by raising awareness and educating the public?

Bob Fiddaman