Psychiatric drugs are among the most toxic substances synthesized for human ingestion. Their toxicity is highly generalized influencing every part of the body including the nerve system. The list of side-effects is endless including permanent destruction of the nerve system referred to as tardive dyskinesia (TD).
Why are the drugs so toxic? There is no logical explanation. Psychiatry has historically designed its technology for nerve damage. Part of the reason is desperation. There is often a strong desire to suppress undesirable behavior; and damaging the nerve system has been the only consistent method of doing so that psychiatry could produce.
The patients, however, are not told how desperate and nerve damaging the treatments are. They are told that the treatments are a form of medicine producing cures for some physical ailment. Portraying the treatments as cures has been the only justification that psychiatry could produce for promoting and enforcing its practices. But the meaning of cure becomes quite perverted, as physical damage is rationalized away, while the benefits are so etheric and fantasized that no real evidence for them can be found. Infact, the few objective measurements that exist show opposite results.
My perspective is based on having spent a year in a mental institution as a patient observing the results and experiencing them, and then exploring the criticism that has been published.
What the Drugs are Supposed to do.
If a person is unemployed and evaluated by a psychiatrist, he is usually said to be paranoid schizophrenic. But if a person has a position in society and is evaluated, he is usually said to be depressed. The drugs are supposed to be specific for a nerve cell disorder, while the evaluations are sociological.
The three main groups of drugs used by psychiatry are the so-called antipsychotics or neuroleptics, the so-called antidepressants, and the drugs given to school children called antihyperactivity drugs. (The label changes often.) And what is neuroleptic supposed to mean? There is no clear explanation, but in effect it is a euphemism for nerve toxin.
The neuroleptics are so often objectionable to the patients that they are not easily administered outside of institutions. There was much talk during the seventies about creating a delivery system for increasing the use of such drugs outside of institutions, but the system never materialized, probably because it was unrealistic in the absence of a coercive force to assure that the drugs would be taken. (Recently, it was instituted through government social services.)
The antidepressants are similar to the neuroleptics but a little less toxic, and outpatients are more inclined to take them. They do however produce more fatalities resulting from being mixed with other drugs or alcohol.
Psychiatric drugs are often referred to as major tranquilizers, while nonpsychiatric mood altering drugs are referred to as minor tranquilizers. The primary difference between major and minor is the degree of toxicity. Because of their toxicity, the major tranquilizers do not tranquilize; stupefication is a more appropriate description of their mind altering effects.
The sort of claims for the drugs which I have encountered are these: A senator whom I wrote to said that he supports the drugs, because they "correct biochemical imbalances." another senator said the drugs "reduce the pain, anguish and delusions produced by mental disease." An authority at the National Institute for Mental Health said, "The positive effects, such as improved clarity of thinking, reduction in feelings of persecution and improved ability to interact socially with others, far outweigh some, milder, side-effects." An advertisement for one of the drugs, mellaril, says that it "provides highly effective tranquilization, relieves agitation, apprehension, anxiety." The descriptions by promoters are utopic.
Here is what some of the patients have had to say about the drugs in letters to Madness Network News and MNN Reader:
"With each drug I felt shaky, confused, unable to focus my eyes or attention, unable to sit still, unable to sleep." 6:4 p30.
"...that prolixin really messed me up...I felt like I was just made rigid...that stuff is killing me." Reader pp61-62.
"I felt like my head was coming off...Everything viewed distorted the first time I was on thorazine. My thinking ability gradually decreased." 6:3 p9.
"The drug put me into a chemical straight jacket and transformed me into a walking zombie." 6:3 p26.
"It really is a mind crippler...I could barely think. All creativity disappeared." 7:2 p24.
"When your nerve system...is junked up with the psychiatric dope, you are definitely in the Twilight Zone...I was told by a doctor...that I have permanent kidney and liver damage from thorazine and mellaril...A gun to the head is better than that kind of cruelty under the guise of beneficence." 6:2 p25.
"(I was) treated with lithium (one year) which resulted in a severe depression which culminated in a suicidal act." 5:2 p19.
"Whenever I took one of these drugs it would wipe out a whole universe of thought and feeling...I couldn't think of concentrate." 6:6 p11.
"...the doctors say the 27 years of hell were initiated and perpetuated by drugs...forced upon me." 6:6 p28.
"I have a long way to go yet getting through the drug withdrawal, not withstanding the chronic liver damage as well as a host of other iatrogenic illnesses..." 7:1 p31.
My own experience was that I successfully fought off the drugs while at the mental institution, but I agreed to take a trial dose of mellaril. It made me so nauseated, stupefied and miserable that I was not aware of much else for two days. I took stelazine at a low dosage for a couple of weeks while in graduate school, and it left a slight amount of tardive dyskinesia which was only noticeable when I was low on energy.
Some persons prefer the drugs in spite of such effects, such as the one who wrote "I can't live (without) my 25mg of mellaril...when I venture out, due to extreme anxiety of agoraphobia...Of course, I still panic out in public but atleast it isn't as bad as it would be without mellaril." 7:1 p32.
The 25mg that the person was taking was about one twentieth the usual dose. She probably would not be going out at all with the usual dose. So she is partially blotting out a phobia, but the drugs blot out all other mental activities at the same time. The drugs cannot act upon some mental activities and not others. If some persons want to be stupefied as a means of coping, that certainly is not the utopic effect that the promoters describe.
The Neurology of the Drugs.
In 1955, when the synthetic psychiatric drugs began to be commonly used, the mechanism of action of psychoactive drugs was not significantly determined. The drugs were promoted as special tranquilizers. Since then, much of the biochemistry has been determined.
Drugs influence the nerve system by altering the activity of messenger molecules called neurotransmitters, which function as signals between nerve cells. There are several different neurotransmitter systems for different types of nerve cells. The neuroleptic drugs usually influence the neurotransmitter called dopamine, which controls muscular responses and which can to some extent be found in the higher areas of the brain.
The messengers are synthesized and stored in packets at the tips of nerve cells. They are then released in packets, crossing a small space in a few microseconds and attaching to a receptor site on an adjacent cell. Upon attachment, a chain of reactions occurs having the effect of changing the ion concentration and conductivity of the surface of the nerve cell along which impulses flow.
Neurologists have been describing that mechanism as the "firing" of a nerve cell. Supposedly, each impulse is transmitted from cell to cell by the messenger molecules. I think the neurotransmitters create a tuning mechanism, not a transmission of impulses. Regardless, changes in nerve cell sensitivity are known to be the consequence, and adaptations are known to exist.
What it means is that the drugs work against an automatic tuning mechanism. The result is adaptations creating addiction. And it means that such a complex and sensitive tuning mechanism could not be improved by a foreign chemical. The nerve system is obviously subdued by the drugs, not corrected by them.
Since the drugs mimic neurotransmitters, they must have a structural appearance similar to them. The problem is, along with the identifying structures, the drugs also have extraneous and chemically active components. Thorazine, for example, has a chlorine atom attached to the side of the molecule. Supposedly, it is stable and will not react with surrounding molecules. However, the molecule comes apart at other locations, which reduces the stability of the chlorine.
Furthermore, several organs in the body have a detoxifying function which breaks down foreign molecules. As the molecules break down, their reactivity changes. The liver specializes in such detoxifying functions. When the breakdown products are toxic, they can damage the liver. The neuroleptic drugs damage the liver for that reason.
There are no organic halides in nature, and the reason appears to be that they have a tendency to react without enzymatic control. So why is a halide attached to thorazine? Besides being chemically reactive, organic halides are highly antigenic. They cause allergic reactions to the drugs; and if transferred to other structures in the body, they could create autoimmune responses. Several of the neuroleptics have organic halides on them.
Compare these two drugs:
On the left is the structure of thorazine, which has a chlorine atom attached to it. On the right is tofranil, which is similar but does not have the chlorine. The sulfur, which is also different, makes the chlorine more reactive. Thorazine is one of the worst drugs for creating tardive dyskinesia, while tofranil does not. Therefore, the chlorine must be causing the TD.
Side-effects.
Tardive dyskinesia is permanent damage to the nerve system resulting in difficulty at controlling muscles. Tongue and face muscles are first to show abnormal motions, while limbs are commonly affected also. Persons having difficulty walking and talking due to such effects are a common sight at mental institutions, and these days, on the streets as well. The condition is often called the zombie effect because of the abnormal motions and appearances.
Here is one of the official descriptions of TD:
The syndrome is characterized by rhythmical involuntary movements of the tongue, face, mouth, or jaw (e.g., protrusion of tongue, puffing of cheeks, puckering of mouth, chewing movements). Sometimes these may be accompanied by involuntary movements of the extremities.
Conservative
estimates of the prevalence of TD indicate that 20-40% of
the persons who take the drugs for more than two years
get it. A typical study showed 43% for outpatients taking
the drugs for 8 months to 10 years, and 14% for those
taking the drugs for less than a year. Elderly persons
are much more vulnerable than younger persons, and
females more than males.
Closely related to TD is parkinsonian symptoms involving
muscle rigidity and tremors. Some authorities say that
all persons taking neuroleptics show some signs of
parkinsonism, but it often goes away when the drugs are
discontinued.
There are numerous nonmuscular side-effects caused by
neuroleptics including damage to the immunological system
reducing the number of white blood cells, liver damage
resulting in hepatitis or jaundice, eye damage, skin rash
or pigmentation, cardiac arrest, low blood pressure,
temperature control disruption, asphyxiation from inhaled
food due to suppression of the gag reflex, paralysis of
the intestines, gloom, despair, depression, hopelessness
and suicide attempts.
Control
or Cure?
Promoters of the drugs often claim that the drugs opened
mental institutions allowing them to be less restrictive
and reducing the number of persons in them. But to a
large extent, the same would have occurred without the
drugs, because society was developing higher standards
and demands in dealing with incarcerated persons. Mental
institutions did not have to be the dungeons that they
were. Infact, many of the patients were moved to other
types of facilities which were cheaper and freer from
judicial restrictions.
There is, however, a psychology involved. With a
treatment and pretense of a cure, patients are discharged
more readily. There is a feeling that the patients must
pay a penalty and be subdued, and the harmfulness of the
drugging is a substitute for incarceration.
What I observed at the mental institution was that the
drugged patients were more undisciplined, annoying and
agitated. fights and injuries were more commonly caused
by drugged patients. If control was really needed,
hypnotic drugs were used along with isolation.
It should not be surprising that the drugs would make the
patients less controllable, because all abused drugs
including recreational drugs and alcohol produce such a
result. What is wrong with alcoholism? Intolerable
behavior, for one thing. The same is true of street drugs
which are heavily used, and even minor tranquilizers
create undesirable behavior, after they are used for some
time.
All psychoactive drugs including minor tranquilizers and
street drugs will damage the nerve system through
adaptations. Consider how the adaptations occur with
thorazine. It blocks dopamine reducing its effectiveness.
The nerve system tries to overcome the effects by
increasing its sensitivity to dopamine. So when the
thorazine is discontinued, the sensitivity to dopamine is
greater than it was before the drug was given.
Yet schizophrenia is considered to be an over-activity of
dopamine. So the after-effects are to create the problem
which the drugs are supposed to be curing.
All psychoactive drugs are addictive because of the
adaptiveness of the nerve system. The appearance of some
drugs being nonaddictive stems only from low dosage or
short exposure. Mental patients commonly become addicted
to psychiatric drugs, which compounds the problem of
toxicity.
Drug users develop a tolerance to the drugs because of
the adaptiveness of the nerve system. When mental
patients first take the drugs, they are subdued by the
stupefication. After a tolerance develops, they are less
subdued and more undisciplined and reactive.
One of the few studies of the drugs which had a degree of
objectivity was described as follows:
The patients in the P1-off group (no drugs) showed greater clinical improvement and less pathology at follow up, fewer rehospitalizations and less overall functional disturbance in the community than the other patients did.
Only 8%
of the nondrugged patients were rehospitalized, compared
to 47% and 73% for those drugged (with thorazine) during
and after hospitalization. The patients studied were
randomly divided from a group of 80 prior to treatment;
so the drugging should have been the only variable
involved.
Of course, persons with moral and religious concerns
assume that mind alteration through drugs is harmful
mentally and spiritually. Psychiatric drugs are mind
altering, which should make them morally unacceptable.
Scientifically, the claim that a foreign chemical
disrupting the complex mechanisms of nerve cell
regulation could produce a corrected condition is
preposterous. It's like trying to tune a television by
throwing a hammer at it.
Psychologically, attributing any and every psychological,
social or moral problem of vulnerable persons to nerve
cell chemistry is preposterous, and treating them with a
drug is even more preposterous. Emotions can be affected
by drugs, but changing emotional states as a solution to
reality problems is not credible. And the evidence
clearly indicates that the changed emotional states are
not improvements.
Books:
Toxic Psychiatry. Peter R. Breggin. 1991. St. Martin's
Press, NY.
Schizophrenia: Medical Diagnosis or Moral Verdict? T.R.
Sarbin and J.C. Mancusco. 1980. Pergamon, NY.