I wrote a short review of this book awhile back.  Now that I have finished reading it, I am offering my thoughts on the book.

Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker is a very disturbing book, and should be a must read for anyone who is, or has someone in their family, taking psychiatric medicine. If I was still taking an anti-depressant, I would most likely would have ceased taking them after reading the first 150 pages of this book.

For those of you that read my post on Manufacturing Depression you know that I was very disappointed in it.  My primary concern with Manufacturing Depression was that it the author failed to support his arguments with adequate empirical evidence.  Anatomy of an Epidemic is everything that Manufacturing Depression could have been.

I almost kind of wished that I did not read this book.  I first went on anti-depressants when I started teaching public high school.  The stress from the job was killing me.  Soon after having a panic attack that lasted from the time I got home from work on Friday until Sunday night when I completed all of the work, which was the cause of my worrying, I went to see a psychiatrist who diagnosed me with depression.  I was prescribed an anti-depressant, which I would take for over five years. While I was on anti-depressants  I cycled a lot--some weeks were really good, and some were really bad, but I believed, as I was led to believe, that the anti-depressants were helping.  That without them I would be doing a lot worse.

I would not see a psychologist until after losing my last (third) teaching job.  My relationship with my first psychologist was short lived due to moving back to my wife's and my home town. Once back in Gloucester, I quickly found a new psychiatrist, but would not seek out a new psychologists until after I had a mental breakdown and was admitted to a hospital.  When I was admitted to the hospital I had been on anti-depressants for over three years.

Over the years I have come across researched that suggested that exercise was as effective or more effective than anti-depressants.  And, based on my own experience I believed this to be true.  I am also someone that has no delusions about the purpose of big corporations--profits, profits, profits.  The reason that the pharmacology companies do not develop drugs for third world diseases is that there is no money to be made in them.  You cannot sell drugs to people who do not have money to feed and cloth themselves. However, I guess I was also naive in believing that pharmacology companies' avarice would be held at bay  by physicians and government agencies.

If I had not read this book, I would of continued to believe that my long battle  and subsequent defeat of depression was aided by the various drugs that I digested.  Now, I am angry and  wondering if the drugs did  a lot more harm than good.

Let me start off by stating that the author often notes that there are individuals out there for which drugs (he focuses on depression [including bi-polar], anxiety, ADHD, and schizophrenia) have helped, but that they are in a very small minority.

The general question that the author wishes to answer with his investigation is why, despite the development of "magic bullets"--drugs what will cure individuals of brain diseases, has there been a dramatic increase in psychological disorders, which has been coupled with an ever increasing influx of Americans on disability due to these disorders.

There are two three basic types of evidence that the author uses to makes his case.  I am going to focus on the anti-depressants, but the information can be applied to any of the drugs used for the disorders that I mentioned above.

First, trials of antidepressants show that they are not better than a placebo, and the scientists skew the information, or create a study that is not scientifically sound.  One example that the author provides as evidence is a study on the effectiveness of Prozac for children.  This particular study was prefaced by two pre-studies. In the first study,  children were given a placebo for one week.  Any child that showed signs of improving was excluded from the final study.  In the second pre-study, children were given Prozac for one week, and any child that showed signs of improvement was placed in the final study.  So, the final study was stacked to show results which would prove that Prozac performed better than a placebo.  Despite, their efforts to rig the study, Prozac still barely performed better than a placebo.

Over the years researchers have combed through the studies that were presented to the FDA in an effort to gain approval for their various drugs.  And, they have found again and again that the pharmaceutical companies have distorted that evidence which they provided to the FDA.  Why the FDA has not discovered this on its own is not really discussed by the author, but I find it very disturbing.

Second, the author goes back in time.  Prior to the introduction of magic bullet drugs (Before Prozac, which is one of many now available SSRIs, there were MAOIs and tricyclic) there were a lot less people that were characterized as depressed.  Since the introduction of anti-depressant magic bullets the number of Americans on SSI (Supplemental Security Income) and SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) increased dramatically. Before the appearance of "magic bullets" depression was considered a minor disorder and most individuals that were diagnosed with i fully recovered through therapy, and never went through another episode.

Third, the author presents compelling evidence that the cause of the massive increase in mental disabilities in the United States is a result of the drugs.  When trials of drugs are done, the trials are usually short term--six weeks.  Those that take that drugs for a short period of time are usually not the ones that have problems with them. the problems arise with the patients that are on these drugs for extended periods of time.  I was on anti-depressants for over three years when I was admitted to a hospital for a mental breakdown.  Research on the effects of extended use of anti-depressants is disturbing.  One review of literature showed that the manifestation of bi-polar is five times greater for those taking anti-depressants than those not taking anti-depressants.  Taking anti-depressants increases the likelihood that a patient will have recurring episodes of depression, and the longer a patient is on the drug the greater the chance.  The reason for these poor results is that the drug alters the way that a brain functions.  You will have to read the book to get a full grasp of this, but what I mean by alter is that the drugs do not make the brain  work properly.  Rather,  they change that way that your brain works.  In layman's terms they are f*&king up your brain.

You may be wondering why this happening.  Why has no one exposed this before.  The answer that the author provides, and he offers plenty of examples to back up his claim, is that there are forces that are working to keep the truth from the "consumers."  That's how the drug companies view us--consumers--and just like the fast-food industry's desire for us to not know what we are really putting in our bodies, the drug companies work hard to hide the truth. The author relates several stories of scientists  whose careers were ruined because they dared suggest that the drugs that they are prescribing were doing much more harm than good.  Some psychiatrists are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to be spokespersons for the drug companies.  And, who would not trust a doctor.  You know, the ones that take the Hippocratic Oath, that do no harm thing.

As I suggested at the beginning, I urge you to not take my word, and get a hold of this book and read it.

Enjoy life,

Peter