Do Antidepressants Save Lives?

 

I find the whole 'antidepressants saved my life' thing quite strange. I'm sure some think this to be true but what leads them to this conclusion? How do they know they wouldn't be alive right now if it wasn't for taking medication? To question this one is seen as a 'pill-shamer' or accused of stigmatizing.

Now, on the other side of the fence we have those who have been harmed by antidepressants. The 'lucky' ones are alive to tell their stories, many have died as a result of the antidepressant inducing suicide. This is plain to see and one doesn't need to assume if this or that may happen. It's already happened. 

There are physical signs of antidepressant harm too, Akathisia and other central nervous system injuries are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to compiling a list of injuries that antidepressants can cause.

So, why does there seem to be a push back whenever anyone on social media chooses to describe their personal experiences of antidepressant harm?

Why are stories like this met with "they work fine for me", "they help millions of people world-wide", "they saved my life"?

Antidepressants can cause a lack of empathy, and what I see playing out here is people, who genuinely believe antidepressants help them, are refusing to acknowledge the harm antidepressants have caused others.

The 5 Empathy Skills:

To see the world as others see it, or perspective taking.

To be non judgemental.

To understand another person's feelings.

To communicate your understanding of that person's feelings.

Mindfulness (paying attention)

So, whenever I read anything on social media from someone harmed by antidepressants and this is followed with replies such as 'they saved my life' - I'm reminded of how antidepressants can remove the 5 empathy skills (above) - I know, because whilst taking Seroxat (Paxil) most, if not all of the 5 empathy skills, didn't exist in my world. It was only after withdrawing (19 month taper) empathy came flooding back.

Antidepressants are designed to blunt emotions and a lot of what we see on social media from those taking them shows that design is working. I see very little of the 5 empathy skills from those who oppose people posting about antidepressant harm. Shouting how they save lives doesn't help the person posting about the harms caused.

This whole area has been massively emphasized, of late, by COVID vaccine injuries. Many of those who opted to take the jabs will skip past the horrific injuries caused by the jab that are posted on social media on a daily basis. If they are not skipped, they are answered with the classic, "all drugs/vaccines carry a risk." Again, this does not help a mother or father wanting support because they now have a child suffering, for example, myocarditis, or a brother or sister distraught at losing a family member as a result of an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

I'm not aware that the COVID vaccine strips people of empathy but there's a very high percentage of people who have taken the jabs who show a complete lack of empathy.

Like antidepressants, or rather people that take them, we see the same scenario playing out with regard to the 'life-saving' comments.

"If it wasn't for the vaccine, I'd be a lot worse", or "the vaccine saved my mother from dying".

Again, people who claim this are speaking of possible future events, just as people who make the same claim with antidepressants.

This does nothing for those harmed or those grief-stricken.

I'm almost certain, in fact I'll bet my left nut on it, that this post will be picked up on Twitter by those firmly in the "antidepressants saved my life" camp and I'll be accused of either pill-shaming or stigmatizing ~ I can live with that, even though it's not true, because, as I mentioned above, I am well aware that antidepressants kill empathy.

As for the professionals who make the 'saves lives' claims, they have a possible ulterior motive. If you take away antidepressants then psychiatrists are only left with their communication tools and from what I've witnessed on social media platforms, particularly Twitter, communication skills are severely lacking in this field.

Finally, if you are taking an antidepressant and you believe it is keeping your head above water, that's great. I'm genuinely pleased for you. One, however, would need a time-travelling DeLorean to predict that without them you'd be dead.

Bob Fiddaman

The Mental Health "Stigma"

Two news items of interest were sent to me over the past few days, both, it would seem, are aligned with one another.

First off, let's take a look out the worn out phrase that lots of mental health specialists and even celebrities seem to trawl out every 5 minutes or so.

The mental health stigma

This from the Mental Health Commission in Australia, I plucked the first one that appeared in a Google search, all mental health foundations say pretty much the same.

Three out of four people with a mental illness report that they have experienced stigma. Stigma is a mark of disgrace that sets a person apart. When a person is labelled by their illness they are seen as part of a stereotyped group. Negative attitudes create prejudice which leads to negative actions and discrimination.

There's not a day goes by when we hear the calls of organizations or celebrities calling for an end to mental health stigma. Canadian writer and actress, Mary Walsh, is one such celebrity.

Walsh is a spokesperson for Bell Let's Talk, an organization that has, according to their website, "Committed over $100 million to support a wide range of mental health organizations, large and small, from coast to coast to coast."

Bell Media is Canada’s premier multimedia company with leading assets in television, radio, out-of-home advertising, and digital media. Bell Media owns 30 local television stations led by CTV, Canada’s number 1 television network.

Today, Today, Bell will donate 5¢ more to mental health initiatives for every:

• Text message sent
• Mobile & long distance call made
• Tweet using #BellLetsTalk
• Share of the Facebook image

That's a very generous offer given that the figure could run into the millions of dollars.

I'm in agreement with them to a certain extent. Yes, we should talk about mental health but the subject matter shouldn't be what more can they do to help depressed people, it should be what harm are they doing to depressed people.

BellLetsTalk, however, seem to back up their stigma claims with some "facts", of which there are many. Here's a few...

In Canada, only 1 out of 5 children who need mental health services receives them. - CMHA

Mood and anxiety disorders impact an estimated 22% of the Canadian population. - CMHA

Suicide accounts for 24% of all deaths among 15-24 year-olds and 16% among 25-44 year-olds. - CMHA

CMHA stands for the Canadian Mental Health Association, their homepage shows one of their principle sponsors to be Lundbeck, manufacturers and marketers of such drugs as Celexa (citalopram) and Lexapro (escitalopram) - which leads me nicely to the second news item that was sent to me this week.

Yesterday the New York Times (NYT) ran a feature regarding an apparent influential government-appointed health panel who have called for women be screened for depression during pregnancy and after giving birth.

Their claims, according to the NYT, "comes in the wake of new evidence that maternal mental illness is more common than previously thought; that many cases of what has been called postpartum depression actually start during pregnancy; and that left untreated, these mood disorders can be detrimental to the well-being of children."

The panel gave its recommendation, which was published in the journal JAMA, a “B” rating, which means depression screening must be covered under the Affordable Care Act.

In the NYT feature a woman/mother is quoted, seemingly to support the call for "maternal mental illness."

Melissa Mead, 30, of The Dalles, Ore, tells the NYT that shortly after her son Brady’s birth, she experienced postpartum depression, anxiety and O.C.D. In her own words she "cried continually, barely slept, rarely left home and was scared to death that my baby was going to suffocate."

Hello!

Isn't this a normal response to giving birth, isn't this just a motherly instinct?

The NYT goes on to say that...

After a year, she saw a psychiatrist for talk therapy. When her second son, Emmett, was born, and she had more symptoms, including fearing that she would stab herself with a kitchen knife, Ms. Mead tried several medications until one worked. She now volunteers for Postpartum Support International.

Several medications until one worked? Are we led to believe that some of them didn't work? Shock, horror, you mean some antidepressants don't work?

Mead is now a volunteer for Postpartum Support International (PSI), an organization whose purpose it is to increase awareness among public and professional communities about the emotional changes that women experience during pregnancy and postpartum.

In 2015 the PSI and Tree of Hope Foundation held their Annual Conference. The conference theme was "Planting seeds of hope: overcoming stigma, increasing options and embracing innovative treatments."

Ah, there's that word - "treatments."

Because the NYT featured a woman's story to support the calls for more screening for women with "maternal mental illness", I thought I'd throw in a story about the kind of treatments used to treat mothers during pregnancy.

Lundbeck's Celexa (citalopram) is one such treatment.

Back in 2013 Scottish mom, Cheryl Buchanan, wrote a guest post for this blog. It was with regard to the birth defects caused to her unborn child. Cheryl aborted her child at 23 weeks after being told that the fetus had severe abnormalities which meant she was incompatible with life.

Cheryl has been at loggerheads with Lundbeck regarding the death of her baby girl.

Scans had detected a series of anomalies in her unborn child, namely...

• Diaphragmatic hernia or eventration
• Long bone immobility
• Cystic hygroma 
• Unilateral cleft hand
• Microgynathia

Cheryl had been taking Lundbeck's citalopram prior and during her pregnancy.

Lundbeck carried out an assessment of Cheryl's claims and forwarded their findings to the MHRA.

Lundbeck, as far as I am aware, also use the World Health Organisation "causality categories".

Here's what they found.

• (Foetal death in utero) - drug related - possible
• (Pulmonary hypoplasia) - drug related - possible
• (Diaphragmatic hernia) - drug related - possible
• (Hand deformity) - drug related - possible
• (Skin laxity) - drug related - possible
• (Skin swelling) - drug related - possible
• (Drug exposure in utero) - drug related - possible

The actual documents can be viewed here.

Now, I'm sure many people get the cold shoulder treatment when diagnosed (labelled) with a mental illness - but is there really a stigma attached to it?

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that there is more of a stigma attached to people like Cheryl Buchanan speaking out against the use of antidepressants during pregnancy - people like Cheryl are deemed irresponsible for taking the stance that she has - normally by healthcare professionals and those who wish to believe that antidepressants are safe during pregnancy.

You want facts?

During the citalopram animal reproduction studies it was shown that citalopram has been shown to have adverse effects on embryo/fetal and postnatal development, including teratogenic effects resulting in in decreased embryo/fetal growth and survival and an increased incidence of fetal abnormalities (including cardiovascular and skeletal defects) (Source FDA)

Meantime, more calls for screening women for mental health illnesses is being touted in the widely read New York Times. If you think the pharmaceutical companies, including Lundbeck, aren't behind this latest push then think again.

Both stories call for more help with the stigma associated with mental illness, of course they do - Big Pharma have something to sell and they want you in their corner helping them push their drugs on unsuspecting mothers.

Bob Fiddaman