http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Breggin
A large portion of Breggin's work concentrates on the iatrogenic effects (negative side effects) of psychiatric medications, arguing that the harmful side effects typically outweigh any benefit. Breggin also argues that psychosocial interventions are almost always superior in treating mental illness. He has argued against psychoactive drugs, electroshock (ECT), psychosurgery, coercive involuntary treatment, and biological theories of psychiatry.
According to Breggin, the pharmaceutical industry propagates disinformation which is accepted by unsuspecting doctors, saying "the psychiatrist accepts the bad science that establishes the existence of all these mental diseases in the first place. From there it’s just a walk down the street to all the drugs as remedies". He points out problems with conflicts-of-interest (such as the financial relationships between drug companies, researchers, and the American Psychiatric Association). Breggin states psychiatric drugs, "...are all, every class of them, highly dangerous". He asserts: "If neuroleptics were used to treat anyone other than mental patients, they would have been banned a long time ago. If their use wasn't supported by powerful interest groups, such as the pharmaceutical industry and organized psychiatry, they would be rarely used at all. Meanwhile, the neuroleptics have produced the worst epidemic of neurological disease in history. At the least, their use should be severely curtailed."[26]
In his book, Reclaiming Our Children, he calls for the ethical treatment of children. Breggin argues that the mistreatment of children is a national (U.S.) tragedy, including psychiatric diagnoses and prescription of drugs for children whose needs were not otherwise met. He especially objects to prescribing psychiatric medications to children, arguing that it distracts from their real needs in the family and schools, and is potentially harmful to their developing brains and nervous systems.[27]
[edit]Criticism of ADHD and Ritalin
The New York Times has labeled Breggin as the nation's best-known Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) critic. As early as 1991 he sardonically coined the acronym DADD, stating, "...most so-called ADHD children are not receiving sufficient attention from their fathers who are separated from the family, too preoccupied with work and other things, or otherwise impaired in their ability to parent. In many cases the appropriate diagnosis is Dad Attention Deficit Disorder (DADD)". Breggin has written two books specifically on the topic entitled, Talking Back to Ritalin and The Ritalin Factbook. In these books he has made controversial claims, such as "Ritalin 'works' by producing malfunctions in the brain rather than by improving brain function. This is the only way it works".[28]
Together with Fred Baughman, Breggin testified about ADHD to the United States Congress. In Congress Breggin claimed "that there were no scientific studies validating ADHD", that children diagnosed with ADHD needed "discipline and better instruction" rather than psychiatric drugs, and that therapeutic stimulants "are the most addictive drugs known in medicine today."[29] Baughman and Breggin were also the major critics in a PBS Frontline TV series about ADHD entitled 'Medicating Kids'.[30] In an interview during this time period he referred to ADHD as a fiction. This increased critical attention to Ritalin resulted in the Ritalin class action lawsuits against Novartis, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and CHADD in which the plaintiffs sued for fraud. Specifically, they charged that the defendants had conspired to invent and promote the disorder ADHD to create a highly profitable market for the drug Ritalin. All five lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn before they went to trial.
Breggin has been very critical of psychologist Russell Barkley's work on ADHD claiming that he exaggerates the benefits of stimulants and minimizes their hazards.[31]
[edit]Criticism of SSRI antidepressants
In the early 1990s, Breggin suggested there were problems with the methodology in the research of SSRI antidepressants. As early as 1991 in Talking Back to Prozac, he warned that Prozac was causing violence, suicide and mania. Breggin elaborated on this theme in many subsequent books and articles about newer antidepressants. In 2005, the FDA began requiring black box warnings on SSRIs, warning of an association between SSRI use and suicidal behavior in children,[32] and later extended it to young adults. New general warnings were added along with the aforementioned black box warnings.[citation needed] These warnings confirmed many of the adverse effects first emphasized by Breggin in Toxic Psychiatry with specific mentions by the FDA of drug-induced "hostility," "irritability," and "mania".[citation needed][improper synthesis?] In 2006, the FDA expanded the warnings to include adults taking Paxil, which is associated with a higher risk of suicidal behavior as compared to a placebo.[33]
In contrast to Breggin's Talking Back to Prozac, which was largely ignored by the press on its release,[citation needed] Prozac Backlash, a critique of SSRIs by Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen was widely praised by high-profile media sources.[34] Breggin complained about this in a subsequent book, The Antidepressant Fact Book:
"Glenmullen's (2000) scientific analysis of how SSRIs can cause suicide, violence, and other behavioral aberrations is essentially the same as my earlier detailed analyses... my hundreds of media appearances, and my testimony in court cases that Glenmullen also had available. Glenmullen also interviewed my wife and coauthor Ginger Breggin for his book and was sent research documents from our files that he was otherwise unable to obtain. Disappointingly, in his book, Glenmullen literally expurgates our contribution, never mentioning my origination of the ideas he was espousing and never acknowledging my efforts.... Nonetheless, his book provides a service...."[35]
Glenmullen has never countered Breggin's assertion and they both presented at the annual conference (in Queens, NY in 2004) of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology. Breggin continues to voice his respect for Glenmullen's work.[citation needed][relevant? – discuss]
In 1994, Breggin said that Eli Lilly and Company (maker of the antidepressant Prozac) attempted to discredit him and his book Talking Back to Prozac by linking him to the Church of Scientology and labeling his views as "Neo-Scientology."[36] Breggin denied any connection to Scientology.[36] Breggin later clarified that he was still in agreement with some of CCHR's anti-psychiatric views, supporting Tom Cruise's public stance against psychiatry.[37]
[edit]Criticism of ECT
Breggin has written several books and scientific articles critical of electroconvulsive therapy. He claims that "...the damage produces delirium so severe that patients can't fully experience depression or other higher mental functions during the several weeks after electroshock". He was one of nineteen speakers at the 1985 NIH Consensus Development Conference on ECT. The Consensus panel (of which Breggin was not a member) found that ECT could be a useful therapy in some carefully defined cases.[38]
[edit]Expert witness
In South Carolina, Breggin testified on behalf of Peggy S. Salters, a psychiatric nurse who sued her doctors and Palmetto Baptist Hospital after ECT left her incapacitated in 2000. A jury found in favor of her and awarded her $635,177 in actual damages.[39]
Breggin testified as an expert witness in the Wesbecker case (Fentress et al., 1994), a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac. Ultimately, the jury found for Eli Lilly. Breggin later claimed that this was because the plaintiffs and defendants had secretly settled behind closed doors.[40]
Breggin alleges that pharmaceutical manufacturers, particularly Eli Lilly, have committed ad hominem attacks upon him in the form of linking him to Scientology campaigns against psychiatric drugs. Breggin acknowledges that he did work with Scientology starting in 1972, but states that by 1974 he "found [himself] opposed to Scientology's values, agenda, and tactics", and in consequence "stopped all cooperative efforts in 1974 and publicly declared [his] criticism of the group in a letter published in Reason."[41] Breggin has also stated that he has a personal reason to dislike Scientology: His wife, Ginger, was once a Scientologist,[41][42] and when they first met she was urged by other Scientologists to have no association with him because he was not also.
In 2002, Breggin was hired as an expert witness by a survivor of the Columbine High School massacre in a case against the makers of an anti-depressant drug. In his report, Breggin failed to mention the Columbine incident or one of the killers, instead focusing on the medication taken by the other, "...Eric Harris was suffering from a substance induced (Luvox-induced) mood disorder with depressive and manic features that had reached a psychotic level of violence and suicide. Absent persistent exposure to Luvox, Eric Harris probably would not have committed violence and suicide."[47] However, according to The Denver Post, the judge of the case "...was visibly angry that the experts failed to view evidence prior to their depositions" even though they had months to do so. The evidence would have included hundreds of documents including a significant amount of video and audio tape that the killers had recorded. The judge stated, "...lawyers will be free to attack them on the basis of the evidence they haven't seen and haven't factored into their opinions."[48] The lawsuit was eventually dropped with the stipulation that the makers of Luvox donate $10,000 to the American Cancer Society.[47]
In 2005, the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas disqualified the testimony of Breggin because it did not meet the scientific rigor established by the Frye standard. The judge stated "...Breggin spends 14 pages critiquing the treatment provided not because it ran counter to the acceptable standards of care, but because it ran counter to Breggin's personal ideas and ideologies of what the standards ought to be.”[49]
[edit]Criticism of Breggin
Due to his outspoken criticisms of many aspects of psychiatry, Breggin has become a controversial figure who is regularly at odds with the mental health establishment.[50] He uses terms like "fraud" to describe the biological and genetic theories of mental disorders. He is critical of the medications used to treat these disorders, and the political process that determines the labels used for diagnosing mental disorders. He has also consistently warned about conflict of interest problems.[42] These claims often challenge accepted standards of care within the mental health field and have led to highly critical rebuttals.[51] In 1994, the president of the American Psychiatric Association called Breggin a "flat-earther" (suggesting he embraced outdated theories); the head of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) called Breggin "ignorant"; and the former head of the National Institute of Mental Health called him an "outlaw."[5]
Breggin points out that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and NAMI first began criticizing him after he conducted a successful campaign to stop the return of lobotomy and psychosurgery in the early 1970s. Among other actions, Breggin wrote scientific critiques of psychosurgery, participated in court cases against psychosurgery, and worked with the U.S. Congress to form the psychosurgery commission that declared the treatment experimental and unfit for routine clinical use. Both the APA and NAMI supported lobotomy as a legitimate medical treatment. Their criticism of Breggin escalated after he disclosed in Toxic Psychiatry that both organizations had substantial financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Before he called Breggin an "outlaw", Fredrick Goodwin lost his job as a result of a national campaign conducted by Breggin and his wife Ginger against Goodwin's "violence initiative," a large federal program aimed at unearthing genetic and biological defects in "inner city" children that supposedly made them violent. In their book, The War Against Children of Color, the Breggins called Goodwin's programs "racist" and their campaign caused Goodwin to leave the federal government. Funding for the "violence initiative" was stopped.[52]
NOTE: If you have never read the history of psychiatry, especially lobotomies, you need to read this. What was done in the name of "mental health," was nothing more than barbaric torture. Rose Marie "Rosemary" Kennedy (September 13, 1918 – January 7, 2005) was the third child and first daughter of Rose Elizabeth Kennedy née Fitzgerald and Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr., born little more than a year after her brother, future U.S. President John F. Kennedy. She underwent a prefrontal lobotomy at age 23, which left her permanently incapacitated. Why was this done to her? Because in her teenage years she became rebellious.
No comments:
Post a Comment