Mad in America: Rethinking Mental Health

This week we interview Dr David Healy.  Dr Healy is an internationally respected psychiatrist, psychopharmacologist, scientist, and author. A professor of Psychiatry in Wales, David studied medicine in Dublin, and at Cambridge University. He is a former Secretary of the British Association for Psychopharmacology and has authored more than 200 peer-reviewed articles and 20 books, including The Antidepressant Era and The Creation of Psychopharmacology and his latest book, Pharmageddon, published in 2012.  David is a founder and CEO of Data Based Medicine Limited, which operates through its website RxISK.org, and is dedicated to making medicines safer through online direct patient reporting of drug side effects. In this interview, we discuss Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD) and Dr Healy’s novel and innovative approach to finding a cure. A recent email to Dr Healy starkly highlights the problem: I took X for 16 years without any side effects. Stopped 7 months ago and all hell broke loose. Some of the side effects I got in the first week after quitting are: no libido, cold testicles/penis, pain around penis and anus, tinnitus, erectile dysfunction, tingling, numbness...  Life is not very good these days. I am married with beautiful children. They have lost their father. If I can do anything to help, don't hesitate to get in touch. I would like to give you my biggest thanks for what you are doing and wish you all the best with the fundraising. In the episode we discuss: How Dr Healy came to set up Data Based medicine and RxISK.org. Why RxISK are focussing on Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD). That genital numbness can occur very quickly upon taking an ssri antidepressant and can also be triggered by drugs such as Roaccutane (isotretinoin) and Propecia (finasteride). What led to setting up the RxISK Prize. How people can get involved with the campaign. That it’s often people not involved with healthcare who get motivated to take action. How empowering it is to enable people harmed by pills to be part of the solution. To get in touch with us email: podcasts@madinamerica.com © Mad in America 2017

This week we interview Dr Gordon Warme. Dr Warme is a medical doctor specializing in psychiatry. He trained with Karl Menninger at the Menninger Clinic in the US and at Heidelberg University in Germany, and has been a faculty member at the Menninger Clinic, the University of Kansas, and has been an academic at the University of Toronto for 40 years. His most recent book, published in 2016 is Brain Evangelists: How Psychiatry Has Convinced Us to Believe in Its Far-Fetched Science and Dubious Treatments in which he blows the whistle on modern psychiatry, arguing that, in the long history of medicine, biological and chemical “abnormalities” in psychiatric patients have never been identified, and labels such as schizophrenia and depression are misleading metaphors that dehumanize patients. In the episode we discuss: How Dr Warme came to specialise in psychiatry. His experience of being trained by doctors who had a strong psychoanalytic approach. That Sigmund Freud wanted psychiatry to be scientific, but Dr Warme feels that this led Freud astray. The relationship between culture and psychiatric ‘disorders’. Watching, describing and talking as important therapeutic skills to develop. Dr Warme’s view of how drugs are used in psychiatry and that he hasn’t prescribed for many years. The Rosenhan Experiment. Where psychiatry is heading as a profession. To get in touch with us email: podcasts@madinamerica.com © Mad in America 2017

This week we interview David Mielke. David is a psychology graduate and teacher in a California high school who has become increasingly concerned about the number of children that he teaches that have a psychiatric diagnosis and how many are on psychiatric drugs. In this interview, we discuss David’s experiences as an educator and how teachers can empower students to have more confidence in themselves. In the episode we discuss: How David studied psychology and then came to be a teacher at Culver City High School in California. How an experience witnessing electroshock therapy made an indelible mark on his approach to educating. How David knew from interacting with his students that most often their struggles were because of difficult circumstances such as issues at home rather than brain diseases in need of diagnosis. How David has witnessed many of his students have internalised their diagnostic labels. The relationship between a psychiatric diagnosis and learned helplessness. The tensions that may arise between school policies and guidance, teachers and parents when a psychiatric diagnosis is involved. The power inherent in psychotherapy to connect with and support people in difficulty. To get in touch with us email: podcasts@madinamerica.com © Mad in America 2017 

This week on the Mad in America podcast we interview Olga Runciman.  Olga is an international trainer and speaker, writer, campaigner, and artist. She co-founded the Danish Hearing Voices Network and sees the role of the Hearing Voices Movement as post-psychiatric, working towards the recognition of human rights while offering hope, empowerment, and access to making sense of individual experiences.  Olga was a psychiatric nurse working in social psychiatry but today she is a psychologist and since 2013 she has had her own private practice in Denmark, working with people who have been labelled schizophrenic or psychotic. Olga is herself a psychiatric survivor and a voice hearer too. In this interview we discuss Olga’s professional and personal experiences of the psychiatric system and how she now helps and supports healing and recovery in others. In the episode we discuss: How Olga became a specialist psychiatric nurse in Denmark, believing at the time the reasons given for psychiatric diagnoses. How she came to see that there was little evidence or corroboration to underpin the diagnosis and treatment that she witnessed. How Olga was also a voice hearer, but kept this hidden from her psychiatric colleagues. How, when experiencing stress and trauma, Olga came to be admitted to a psychiatric ward, diagnosed as schizophrenic and treated with a cocktail of psychiatric drugs. Olga’s experiences of the antipsychotic drug Clozapine. How Olga came to stop her psychiatric drugs which she had been taking for ten years. Psychiatry’s story of hopelessness and chronic illness that is so often sold to patients. How Olga now views her work from a post-psychiatry perspective. Relevant links: Psycovery Olga’s posts on Mad in America  The Hearing Voices network International Institute for Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal  Postpsychiatry: a new direction for mental health  To get in touch with us email: podcasts@madinamerica.com © Mad in America 2017

This week, Mad in America editor Emily Sheera Cutler presents the first in a series of interviews that examine the many important issues around forced treatment and cognitive liberty. The series will examine philosophical, theological, and sociological perspectives on coercive treatment. In this first part, Emily interviews two well known and very respected academics and activists Bonnie Burstow and Nick Walker. Central to both Bonnie and Nick’s work is the concept of cognitive liberty or freedom and integrity of the mind. Early proponents of cognitive liberty have defined it as the right to control one’s own consciousness and be free from mind-altering drugs and technologies, as well as the right to use mind-enhancing drugs and technologies without facing legal consequences. Contemporary proponents of cognitive liberty have expanded the definition to include the right to experience and express each and every thought, feeling, state of mind, and belief as long as it does not harm anyone else. Both Bonnie and Nick describe cognitive liberty as the right to express oneself authentically. In this first episode, they get to the core of why so many human rights activists oppose forced treatment – it can interfere with people’s rights to be themselves. In this episode we discuss: How Bonnie became an antipsychiatry activist and scholar, and why she sees the institution of psychiatry as a human rights violation How Nick became a neurodiversity scholar through his involvement with the Autistic rights movement The difference between the neurodiversity paradigm, which views neurological, mental, and cognitive differences on the natural spectrum of human diversity, and the pathology paradigm, which assumes there is a right way or healthy way of being and to differ from it is unhealthy What it means for each person to have cognitive liberty and be able to express their own unique way of being and processing the world without repercussions How psychiatry curtails our cognitive liberty and freedom of mind by pathologizing difference to justify forceful and coercive measures The social model of disability, which states that people are disabled by lack of access and discrimination, not by medical conditions or internal deficits How the social model of disability intersects with neurodiversity and antipsychiatry but also falls short That Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) constitutes a human rights abuse against Autistic children, forcing and coercing them to act more normal and less different That other behaviour therapies and even humanistic therapies can be coercive as well That the autism industry profits off of the pathology paradigm, convincing parents there is something wrong with their Autistic children and that it is not okay to be Autistic, and their children need to be subjected to ABA and other “treatments” How antipsychiatry and neurodiversity intersect with feminism and queer studies Why it is necessary for educators to teach students “mad literacy” from an early age The importance of writing and publishing literature with accurate, positive representations of neurodivergent and Mad people How we can build communities in which people support one another through emotional distress without violating anyone’s autonomy or restricting anyone’s freedom Why the conventional notion of “suicide prevention” is problematic and can serve to take away people’s coping skills How the ideas of somatic therapy can help us support people in distress Relevant Links Bonnie Burstow Nick Walker Bonnie Burstow’s articles for Mad in America The Bonnie Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry Autonomous Press Throw Away the Master’s Tools: Liberating Ourselves from the Pathology Paradigm by Nick Walker Neuroqueer: An Introduction by Nick Walker The social model of disability vs. the medical model of disability To get in touch with us email: podcasts@madinamerica.com © Mad in America 2017 

This week, Mad in America’s news editor Justin Karter interviews Professor Michael O’Loughlin. Professor O’Loughlin is a college professor and researcher at Adelphi University on Long Island. He is a licensed psychologist and a psychoanalyst in private practice in New Hyde Park, New York. Dr O’Loughlin writes critically about the biomedical model of psychiatry and psychology and also has a deep interest in psychiatric rights and social justice issues. In 2015 as an editor he launched a book series entitled Psychoanalytic Studies: Clinical, Social, and Cultural Contexts, with Lexington Books.  In August 2017, with colleagues Dr. Awad Ibrahim (University of Ottawa), Dr, Gabrielle Ivinson (Manchester Metropolitan University), and Dr. Marek Tesar (University of Auckland), as series co-editors, he launched a book series, Critical Childhood & Youth Studies: Clinical, educational, social and cultural inquiry, to be published by Lexington Books. Professor O'Loughlin talks about his childhood experiences and how they influenced his narrative and conversational approach to psychological distress.  In this episode we discuss How Dr O’Loughlin’s early experiences growing up in Ireland led to a deep interest in social justice issues, particularly poverty and inequality. That as a young man in college he engaged in charity work and activism. How, more recently, he became interested in psychiatry when he was appointed as a lecturer in clinical psychology, but realised that there weren’t required courses on trauma or psychosis. That this led to teaching courses in intergenerational trauma and the way that our history shapes us as people. That Michael has engaged in autobiographical writing to understand the way that deprivations and injustices that he experienced had a formative impact on his own thinking and writing. That another course on madness and psychosis was perceived by clinical psychology students as radical, leading to a realisation that mainstream psychology is a very conservative discipline. How he became interested in interviewing psychiatric patients and telling stories that represented a diverse group of people and experiences of psychiatric services. That this led to a project at Fountain House in New York City to see if narratives could be reinforced and shared. That Michael does not himself use the terms mental illness or disorder because he feels that we need to be flexible and that even this terminology can be traumatising. How he has recently focused on creating spaces where participants can share their experiences and stories and it shouldn’t be a classification or categorization exercise. That he has found many that have experienced the psychiatric system have felt that the system impeded their recovery. That a collaborative team of Adelphi academics, Fountain House staff and Fountain House members will together publish research. That Professor O’Loughlin feels that psychology and psychiatry are traditional and reactive disciplines and that psychiatry has been driven by pharmacological concerns. How Michael’s work with children is grounded in his own childhood experiences and a sense that human beings need nurturing spaces and validation. That Michael is extremely disturbed about the medicating young children with drugs that are not known to be safe for them such as antipsychotic drugs. The unwillingness to understand that a child's distress has an origin and that we have a responsibility to engage with the child and create a space for them to communicate. How we define normality within such a narrow range that children find it very difficult to conform to society’s expectations. That there seems to be little room for a child in school, only room for a student. That psychoanalysis has tools to understand our emotions and experiences but also has tools to help understand societal drivers that may underlie psychological distress. The worry that talking therapies are being replaced by tick lists and categories and that we need to bring stories back into psychology. Relevant links: Michael O’Loughlin, PhD Psychoanalytic Studies: Clinical, Social, and Cultural Contexts Arthur Frank Kathryn Bond Stockton To get in touch with us email: podcasts@madinamerica.com © Mad in America 2017

This week I have had the honour of interviewing Dr Irving Kirsch. Dr Kirsch is Associate Director of the Program in Placebo Studies and lecturer in medicine at the Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He is also Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Plymouth and the University of Hull in the UK and University of Connecticut in the US. He has published 10 books and more than 250 scientific journal articles and book chapters on placebo effects, antidepressant medication, hypnosis, and suggestion. He originated the concept of response expectancy. His meta-analyses on the efficacy of antidepressants were covered extensively in the international media and influenced official guidelines for the treatment of depression in the United Kingdom. His 2009 book, The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth, was shortlisted for the prestigious Mind Book of the Year award and was the topic of 60 Minutes segment on CBS and a 5-page cover story in Newsweek. In this interview, we discuss Dr Kirsch’s research into the placebo effect and the efficacy of drugs used for depression. In this episode we discuss: How, as an undergraduate student, Dr Kirsch became interested in behavioural therapy but that he doubted the rationale behind these approaches That this led to an interest in beliefs that people had and research into the placebo effect How, while working at the University of Connecticut, his research into the placebo led to an interest in the efficacy of antidepressant drugs when compared to placebo How his work led to the surprising conclusion that, were antidepressant drugs were concerned, the placebo effect was so large that there was very little room for a meaningful drug effect How this changed Dr Kirsch’s views on antidepressant drugs entirely, causing him to ask whether the risks were worth the small benefit for depressed patients That a belief that a person has can affect their response to a drug either in a positive way (placebo) or in a negative way (nocebo) Dr Kirsch found that there are many conditions that can show a profound placebo effect including depression, anxiety, irritable bowel syndrome, pain, Parkinson’s disease and asthma  That the placebo tends to have a greater effect in conditions that have a large psychological component when compared to functional disorders such as diabetes That placebo can have an effect even if the patient knows that they are taking an inactive tablet and that part of this response is down to classical conditioning That Dr Kirsch is working on ‘open-label placebo’ which is being able to prescribe placebo to patients without deception That Dr Kirsch used to refer depressed patients for antidepressant treatments, but that his research made him a disbeliever when looking at the evidence of efficacy when compared to placebo How, when you give someone a new treatment, that often will counter feelings of hopelessness that characterise depressive experiences That in looking at this size of this effect, it made clear that the difference between placebo response and antidepressant response was so small that it was not clinically significant That even drugs with very different modes of action resulted in virtually identical responses in patients, for example, Tianeptine, which is an SSRE (selective serotonin reuptake enhancer) and decreases serotonin levels between neurons, this drug should make depressed people worse but instead, it showed the same efficacy as SSRI antidepressants How, when looking at the clinical trials used to demonstrate antidepressant efficacy, it became clear that the obvious nature of antidepressant adverse effects meant that trial participants would often “break blind” and they would know if they were in the active drug group or the placebo group, this would naturally influence the results of the trial That, in a small number of studies, an active placebo was used, which was a substance that mimicked the side effects of the active drug while having no clinical effect itself That in these active placebo studies, you were much less likely to get a significant difference between drug and placebo when compared to trials that used an intern placebo That the trials conducted by pharmaceutical manufacturers are designed to show their drug in the best possible light and so they do not use active placebo in their studies That Dr Kirsch feels that when conducting trials for drugs used for depression, patients should be asked early on in the trial whether they think they are in the active group or the placebo group and that this question would help ensure the trials were reliable How, when using the data from unpublished trials, the difference between placebo effect and drug effect was even smaller How Dr Kirsch was pleased that other researchers found his conclusions controversial because it meant that they were paying attention to the study and that others who have replicated the approach have found similar results That influencing clinicians to better balance risk vs benefit will take time and that we need to share the data and discuss the conclusions as much as we can to allow change to happen  That people do need help with depression and that there are many different interventions that are at least as effective as antidepressants but without the associated risk How we can’t infer that ‘off-label’ prescribing is effective until the studies have been undertaken for a particular disorder Relevant Links: Dr Irving Kirsch The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth (video) 60 Minutes: Treating Depression: Is there a placebo effect? (video) Antidepressants and the Placebo Effect Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration To get in touch with us email: podcasts@madinamerica.com © Mad in America 2017  

This week we have a very special guest for you, it has been my honour to be able to interview Dr. Peter Breggin. Dr. Breggin is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and former Consultant at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). He has been called “The Conscience of Psychiatry” for his many decades of successful efforts to reform the mental health field. His work provides the foundation for modern criticism of psychiatric diagnoses and drugs, and leads the way in promoting more caring and effective therapies. His research and educational projects have brought about major changes in the FDA-approved Full Prescribing Information or labels for dozens of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs. He continues to educate the public and professions about the tragic psychiatric drugging of America’s children. He has authored dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty books, including medical books and the bestsellers Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Prozac. His most recent three books are Guilt, Shame and Anxiety: Understanding and Overcoming Negative Emotions; Medication Madness: the Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Murder; and Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and their Families. As a medical-legal expert, Dr. Breggin has unprecedented and unique knowledge about how the pharmaceutical industry too often commits fraud in researching and marketing psychiatric drugs. He has testified many times in malpractice, product liability and criminal cases, often in relation to adverse drug effects and more occasionally electroshock and psychosurgery. A list of his trial testimony since 1985 is contained in the last section of his Resume on Dr. Breggin's website. Dr. Breggin has taught at many universities and has a private practice of psychiatry in Ithaca, New York. For a career as long and distinguished as Dr. Breggin’s we have decided to devote two episodes to hearing him speak. This first part covered Dr. Breggin's career, his views on psychiatry and psychiatric drugs and also recent developments with the trial involving Michelle Carter. Part 2 of the interview focuses more on recent events surrounding the trial and alternatives to psychiatric drugs. In this episode, we discuss: That Bristol County Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz sentenced Michelle Carter to a two-and-a-half-year term, with 15 months in jail and the balance suspended plus a period of supervised probation.  How Judge Moniz granted a defense motion to stay the sentence, meaning she will remain free pending her appeals in Massachusetts. That if Michelle lost all of her appeals in 2-3 years time, Michelle may be facing custodial time. That attempts to limit Dr. Breggin’s right to blog about the trial were stopped and the Judge’s final order in response to DA makes no criticism or censorship of Dr. Breggin That Dr. Breggin reviewed thousands of text messages between Michelle and her friends and between Michelle and Conrad Roy, but that one particular part of a text exchange formed the central plank of the case against Michelle. That Dr. Breggin is keen to show, through the Michelle Carter blogs, what is happening to our children when they become involved with psychiatry and psychiatric drugs That Dr. Breggin appreciates the suffering of the family of Conrad Roy because he kept hidden how bad his mental health difficulties were How Dr. Breggin also appreciates how Michele had been tormented and attacked by the press during the trial How the authorities went to extremes to exclude the role that psychiatric drugs may have played in the events surrounding Michelle and Conrad That Dr. Breggin has observed that many that he has helped that have been wounded by psychiatry, have shied away from becoming reformers themselves How, when working with clients, Dr. Breggin makes sure he takes the time to ensure that potential clients know who he is and how his approach differs to mainstream psychiatry That Dr. Breggin feels that the hostility towards those who question the use of psychiatric drugs has reduced over the last 10 to 20 years How Dr. Breggin feels that the psychiatric drugging of our children is tantamount to organised child abuse because the child cannot make a judgement for themselves That many children end up taking the drugs to please their parents That the drug that Michelle Carter was taking (Celexa/Citalopram) was not approved by the FDA for treating children That Dr. Breggin’s view is that emotional or psychological difficulties often are precipitated by childhood trauma That people often then react to the current world as if it were the world that they found traumatic and difficult as a child That good therapy has much in common with coaching in sport or certain aspects of religion or good teaching That all psychoactive substances, including psychiatric drugs, have a general effect on the brain and often this intoxication affects a persons ability to relate emotionally to family and friends How helping people with their mental health comes down to loving, caring, relationship, coaching and guidance That these principles have much in common with good religion or philosophy Relevant Links Peter Breggin’s personal website Peter’s blogs on Mad in America: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Michelle Carter Blogs and Archives The handwritten note from the DA to the Judge about stopping Dr. Breggin’s blog Judge’s Final Order in Response to DA Makes No Criticism or Censorship of Dr. Breggin Toxic Psychiatry Talking Back to Prozac Guilt, Shame and Anxiety: Understanding and Overcoming Negative Emotions Medication Madness: the Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Murder Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and their Families To get in touch with us email: podcasts@madinamerica.com © Mad in America 2017

This week we have an interview with Professor John Read. Professor Read worked for nearly 20 years as a Clinical Psychologist and manager of mental health services in the UK and the USA, before joining the University of Auckland, New Zealand, where he worked until 2013.  He has served as Director of the Clinical Psychology professional graduate programmes at both Auckland and, more recently, the University of Liverpool. He has published over 120 papers in research journals, primarily on the relationship between adverse life events (eg child abuse/neglect, poverty etc.) and psychosis. He also researches the negative effects of bio-genetic causal explanations on prejudice, the opinions and experiences of recipients of anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medication, and the role of the pharmaceutical industry in mental health research and practice. John is on the Executive Committee of the International Society for Psychological and Social Approaches to Psychosis (www.isps.org) and is the Editor of the ISPS’s scientific journal ‘Psychosis’. He also a member of the BPS’s Alternatives to Diagnosis working group. In this episode we discuss professor Read’s research interests and in particular, the science and evidence base for Electroconvulsive Therapy or Electroshock as its known in the United States. In this episode we discuss: How Professor Read became interested in psychology, partly because of difficulties in his younger years and he wanted to understand those experiences That his first experiences with patients in a psychiatric ward would be that people often wanted to share traumatic experiences, but that the psychiatrists didn't seem that interested That, by and large, mental health services around the world prefer to count symptoms and to medicate rather than to understand what has happened in a person’s life How John came to have an interest in and research the efficacy and safety of Electroconvulsive Therapy (Electroshock) That ECT is designed to induce a grand mal seizure and it started as a treatment for people diagnosed as schizophrenic That the justification in the 1940s was that schizophrenics did not suffer with epilepsy and epileptics did not suffer with schizophrenia, so psychiatry made the leap to inducing epileptic seizures as a ‘cure’ for schizophrenia That nowadays it is not used for people labelled as schizophrenic but it is most often used for treating depression How actually it is not the diagnosis that is the best predictor of who gets ECT, it’s age and gender Women aged over 60 are twice as often given ECT as men, and people over 60 are given it 2-3 times more often as those under 60 That the other rationale given for ECT treatment is the tendency for ECT to obscure traumatic memories because of memory loss That the science and evidence tells us that after 70 years there has never been a single study showing that ECT is better than placebo beyond the end of the treatment period That placebo in this sense is like sham surgery, the anaesthetic is given but not the electricity That during the treatment (usually 3-4 weeks and an average of 8-10 sessions) roughly a third of those treated gain some lift of mood but that even for this minority of responders, the effect wears off after a few weeks That this explains why some people will give anecdotal evidence that ECT saved their life and that they tend to have repeated treatments because they want the same life of mood That the method used to assess success of the procedure is most often a rating scale or a ‘clinical judgement scale’ and these methods are open to bias That there is not a single study that has ever shown that ECT can ‘prevent suicide’ when compared to placebo, the claims that it can are based on anecdotal evidence That Earnest Hemingway killed himself shortly after receiving ECT saying “it was a brilliant cure, but unfortunately we lost the patient” That there are temporary effects such as headaches after the procedure, but the enduring difficulties are often with memory loss which can be short term or longer term memories Roughly a third of people will have serious, debilitating and ongoing memory loss which is caused by the brain damage caused by ECT That the Guardian newspaper reported in April 2017 that ECT use was increasing in the UK but that their figures were wrong That a third of psychiatrists will use ECT, a third will only use it after other options have been explored and a third will not use it under any circumstances That ECT can get catatonic people moving and speaking but it is not difficult to artificially stimulate mood and it should not be seen as a cure That there haven't been any placebo controlled trials of ECT since 1985 and that was the last of only four that have ever been done that compared ECT with placebo after the end of treatment How the fact that we do not have any successful trials showing that ECT is effective should mean that psychiatry either puts effort into proper research or that the procedure should be stopped That John feels that eventually we will look back at ECT in the same way that we now view lobotomy, blood letting, rotating chairs and the like How the principle should be informed consent and that people should be able to get treatment that they feel will help them but only if they know fully the risks and benefits and if they have been offered alternatives There is a low but signifiant death rate from ECT, partly down to the general anaesthetic and partly due to cardiovascular failure because of the induced seizure but this death rate is never mentioned to potential patients That it is probably down to the placebo effect of having attention and a procedure that expectations are created and hope is raised That there is effort being put now into transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and people can actually shock themselves using this method That if we have large numbers of people walking round depressed, we really need to start asking questions about our society rather than trying to artificially eradicate those feelings That John’s view is that depression is largely cause by depressing things happening to people rather than because of depressive illness and assuming that we can identify the parts of the brain that are ‘diseased’ To get in touch with us email: podcasts@madinamerica.com © Mad in America 2017

This week we have an interview with Bobby Fiddaman. Bobby is a very well known author, blogger and researcher who has been writing about psychiatric drugs and the many issues involved for over 11 years. In 2011 he released his book, ‘The Evidence, However, Is Clear…The Seroxat Scandal’ which is a powerful and explosive account of his experiences taking and withdrawing from the antidepressant Seroxat.  He is a rockstar of the movement to expose the truth about psychiatric drugs, to many he is a hero and to some, he is an uncompromising agitator. His blog has been viewed over 2 million times and he is respected by many and also well known by the pharmaceutical regulators and many of the pharmaceutical manufacturers too.  I was keen to ask Bobby about his own experiences of the mental health system, his research and campaigning over the years and his relationships with the UK and US pharmaceutical regulatory bodies. In this episode we discuss: How, in the late 1990s, Bobby had health problems which made working difficult and this led to low mood and a doctor prescribing Seroxat (Paxil, Aropax, Paroxetine) How he felt that his moods and emotions were blunted by the drug and he recalls not feeling empathy or emotion That eventually his pay was stopped and he was retired on ill health grounds but by this time his financial position was difficult and he became divorced That Bobby took 21 months to wean himself off the Seroxat using a liquid form, going from 40 milligrams to 22 milligrams a day over 19 months That he then quit cold turkey, against doctor advice, because he just want to get rid of the stranglehold that the drug had on him How Bobby felt that his short term memory was affected by being on the drug That sometimes it is harder for friends and family to experience someone going through withdrawal, because they don't know what is happening to the person that they love That these experiences promoted Bobby to write his 2011 book, ‘The Evidence, However, Is Clear…The Seroxat Scandal’ How Bobby stumbled across an article by the investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle and that set the ball rolling with his own blog How Bobby’s blog started to cover the experiences of families who had experienced tragedy due to psychiatric drugs That the blog hosts guest writers so people can tell their own story in their own words How Bobby knows that the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the regulators are regular visitors to his blog That Bobby has been told that his blog makes GlaxoSmithKline ‘cringe’ and this is a measure of the impact of his work That Bobby feels that the manufacturers should just come clean and let the truth come out about the drugs, the clinical trials, the adverse effects and the withdrawal problems That many people don't understand that compensation and out of court settlements often just allow the truth to remain hidden How Bobby was present for the entire trial between Wendy Dolin and GlaxoSmithKline and was shocked by the behaviour of GSKs attorneys That the term ‘akathisia’ is not well known but is implicated in many suicides related to antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs That doctors need to listen to patients to understand the wide range of effects of the drugs That Bobby feels that the regulators, particularly the UK MHRA, should hang their heads in shame because they know about the problems with the drugs but do nothing in response That there is an incestuous relationship between the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the regulators How Bobby has had several meetings with the MHRA over the years, including meeting the CEO, but he feels that they meet to appease rather than take action in response to concerns That Bobby also set up a meeting between MHRA and Dr. David Healy  That the regulators are totally funded by the pharmaceutical industry How Bobby now highlights celebrities who promote the chemical imbalance theory of mental illness That social media has had a big impact on the ability of people to get together and share experiences and make their voices heard How the MHRA Yellow Card scheme is meant to work How, when you start asking questions about follow up, you find that no action is taken and the database of adverse events is worthless That nowhere on the labelling is a list of the benefits of antidepressant drugs That in order to make the drugs safer, we should listen to patient concerns That Bobby uses humour as a tool for getting the message heard How Bobby would like to encourage others to write about their experiences To get in touch with us email: podcasts@madinamerica.com   © Mad in America 2017