The harm of neuroleptics

[JesusSaves]

I want to clarify, first off, that I am pro-psychiatry. I believe psychiatry can be used to provide relief from many different things. Chronic fatigue (a disorder of both the body and the brain), depression (although I think most ADs should be pulled off the market. Wellbutrin is an example of a good one), ADHD (neurological disorder or not, the medications help people. It's too bad it gets diverted/abused sometimes. I have seen people's quality of life greatly improved because of those meds. The benefit of rxing them far outweighs the risks), anxiety (which ruins many people's lives and leaves them in torment, despite what society thinks), PTSD (as long as neuroleptics are not used. I can not believe they are but they are.), and many other things. It is my belief that psychiatry should ONLY be used to provide relief. To make people feel better.

Certain neuroleptics such as Zyprexa can be used to stop a psychotic episode. I'm not arguing against short term (1-2 weeks) use of neuroleptics to stop psychotic episodes if other options fail. Regrettably, other options are never considered thanks to the influence of companies like Johnson & Johnson.

I am making a case for why neuroleptics should be used as a last resort and should never be coerced or forced. I do believe benzos should be tried to stop the episode first. If a patient shows no psychosis after being calmed down with benzos, they should not be leaving the hospital having been coerced or forced into taking neuroleptics.

Now, psychosis aside: neuroleptics should NEVER be used as a maintenance drug for children diagnosed bi-polar. They should never be used on autistic children either. In my opinion, this is not just bad medicine. It is pure evil.

But what about lack of insight?
Lack of insight is not a good reason to torture someone.

I am going to make a case for why AOT (assisted outpatient treatment) is legalized torture.

I am going to list some of the effects of a popular neuroleptic called invega sustenne, which in it's depot form does not leave the patient's system for 4-8 months due to an incredibly long half-life. I do not call these side-effects because they are main effects of blocking dopamine and seratonin. Akithisia and severe depression are not SIDE effects of neuroleptics just like a mood lift and more energy are not SIDE effects of Wellbutrin.

• A Feeling of Restlessness with Inability to Sit Still -(Akitishia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akathisia#Drug-induced) This is so bad it leads to suicide in many cases.
• Severe depression - This is not like a normal depression. It is a chemically induced depression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anhedonia Anhedonia is often called a negative symptom post-psychosis, but blocking dopamine and seratonin will chemically induce it. Many people report this to be so bad that they would rather die than continue to take neuroleptics. Many people on AOT orders HAVE committed suicide.
• Impaired thinking
• Extreme fatigue
• Sluggishness

Those are main effects of blocking dopamine and seratonin. No way around it. If you wanted to induce akathisia and severe depression and adhedonia in someone - you would give them an invega sustenna injection.

These same effects are present with all neuroleptics, with abilify being the least tormenting.
Most of these effects do not manifest until 2-4 weeks into "treatment." The neuroleptics do not reach their full potential to do harm until around 6 months into treatment if what I read is correct.

They are forcing children to take this stuff, and sometimes even forcing parents to give it to them. Even in cases where no psychosis is present, just a diagnoses of bi-polar or autism. I will never understand why they are giving this stuff to autistic kids. That is not TREATMENT.

These drugs will invariably ruin a child's life.

These drugs are used long-term based on the dopamine hypothesis in cases of psychosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_hypothesis_of_schizophrenia
"The excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate is now also thought to be associated with schizophrenia. Phencyclidine (also known as PCP or "Angel Dust") and ketamine, both of which block glutamate (NMDA) receptors, are known to cause psychosis at least somewhat resembling schizophrenia, further suggesting that psychosis and perhaps schizophrenia cannot fully be explained in terms of dopamine function, but may also involve other neurotransmitters.[24]

Similarly, there is now evidence to suggest there may be a number of functional and structural anomalies in the brains of some people diagnosed with schizophrenia, such as changes in grey matter density in the frontal and temporal lobes.[8] It appears, therefore, that there are multiple causes for psychosis and schizophrenia, including gene mutations and anatomical lesions.

Psychiatrist David Healy has argued that drug companies have inappropriately promoted the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia as a deliberate and calculated simplification for the benefit of drug marketing."

I agree with David Healy.

"Further experiments, conducted as new methods were developed (particularly the ability to use PET scanning to examine drug action in the brain of living patients) challenged the view that the amount of dopamine blocking was correlated with clinical benefit. These studies showed that some patients had over 90% of their D2receptors blocked by antipsychotic drugs, but showed little reduction in their psychoses. This primarily occurs in patients who have had the psychosis for ten to thirty years. At least 90-95% of first-episode patients, however, respond to antipsychotics at low doses and do so with D2 occupancy of 60-70%. The antipsychoticaripiprazole occupies over 90% of D2 receptors, but this drug is both an agonist and an antagonist at D2 receptors."

So slowing a person down, which benzos also do, can stop a psychotic episode. I agree with that. The problem is maintenance.

But let's say they are effective for preventing SOME relapses in SOME patients SOME times. Is it worth making the person live in torment against their will?

What about children who throw temper tantrums and the MANY other reasons neuroleptics are used, including autism of all things. Can the medical community at least agree that chemically inducing akathisia and severe depression is doing harm? Can the medical community agree that there are other options for how to deal with these problems?

I want you to be reminded that there are children in foster care who are receiving NO relief 24/7 from sever akathisia and severe chemically induced depression.

Then there are the side-effects. Those are really bad. You are probably aware of them. TD, heart problems, death, diabetes etc... But every drug has side-effects. That's why I chose to stick to the main effects.

Now, the UN did call for a ban on forced neuroleptics based on the fact that it is torture:

I would like to explain. I am not thinking that I will change the accepted norm within the profession. What I am hoping to do is get psychiatrists to personally reconsider prescribing or even forcing someone to take neuroleptics.

I have seen what these drugs do. They turn people into non-functional zombies with severe akathisia and severe depression - 24/7 with no relief. I hope some of you can at least agree that they should only be tried in the most extreme of circumstances, that they should not be forced on anyone (or at least on anyone who is not a danger), and that pharmaceutical companies are responsible for the slanted studies and extremely wide-spread use. They are giving kids with autism this stuff (risperadol for example). That is just evil. I don't donate anything to autism speaks anymore. They actually support this. They are torturing those children.

I hope I can at least get you to agree that they should never be used on CHILDREN, especially children who have no psychosis. Those poor kids, right now, are on drugs that chemically induce akathisia and severe depression. They will not get to have a childhood and their adult life will be ruined.

So please, reconsider before prescribing neuroleptics. Explain to the patient that it is not just "for clarity of thought" (that is an outright lie). Explain that the drug blocks dopamine and seratonin and explain to them what those things do in the brain.

Please, reconsider before going to get a court-order for a non-compliant patient. If that patient is not a danger to self or others (AS IN - NEVER ATTACKED ANYONE), please don't do it. Even if they are I am against it but please reconsider if they are not.

Neuroleptics are by far the most harmful psychiatric drugs on the market. They are serious business. They destroy lives and families. The benefits RARELY outweigh the risks, very rarely. Sometimes, maybe neuroleptics could truly be the only option. A complete and total last resort. But someone who has had a few non-violent delusions should not be tortured. Please reconsider.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Bartelby]

You obviously have a very clear bias against antipsychotic treatment. You drastically overstate the side effects ("turn people into non-functional zombies with severe akathisia and severe depression - 24/7 with no relief," "These drugs will invariably ruin a child's life") while denying empirically proven benefits. You also ignore or are unaware of the relapse data for stopping antipsychotic treatment. I have seen some people snowed and harmed by these medications, yes, but when used appropriately I have seen many benefit dramatically (keep in mind chronic active psychosis is often not pleasant).

It's hard to know if you are just trolling, if not consider linking to studies if you really want to change minds. Good doctors like data, not rambles.

 

[JesusSaves]

You obviously have a very clear bias against antipsychotic treatment. You drastically overstate the side effects ("turn people into non-functional zombies with severe akathisia and severe depression - 24/7 with no relief,"

I'm not sure if you are just trolling or if you didn't read. I said those are main effects of blocking dopamine and seratonin, not side effects, and I was hoping no one needs me to link to any studies to prove that.

Do you want me to post studies showing the severity of the side effects (I did not overstate them. Look at rxlist), links to stories of suicides, or studies about the efficacy of long-term maintenance? I can link to tons and tons of posts online of people begging for help and wondering when it will end (depot injection victims) as well. I just don't see why I would need to link to this stuff.

It is well known that "side effects" are under reported in neuroleptics because of people running from the mental health system the first chance they get after starting neuroleptics. But just what IS reported is extremely disturbing, considering they are forcing kids to take this stuff.

What do you mean by used properly? You seem to imply that those people were harmed as a result of improper use.

You also imply that relapse from stopping neuroleptics is not linked to the brain being overstimulated by the dopamine that is being unblocked. The psychosis was probably already there, the person just had their brain un-seized which makes it manifest.

 

[Bartelby]

I am aware that antipsychotics can cause akathisia or depressed mood (not that they inevitably will). How about starting with citations for:
1- "turn people into non-functional zombies with severe akathisia and severe depression - 24/7 with no relief"
and 2- "These drugs will invariably ruin a child's life"

Also yes, please post studies about the efficacy of long-term maintenance. Linking to a website or discussion does not count. Peer-reviewed and published in a journal, please.

 

[Armadillos]

That brick of text was a little much for me, but if your interested i believe there have been several recent studies showing a U shaped morality curve in schizophrenics based on antipsychotic dosing. No idea how/if they accounted for various confounding issues, but you may find it interesting.

 

[st2205]

I don't have time for a more in-depth response. While I generally agree with some of your feelings, I do believe you have a very caricatured and distorted perception of the practice of psychiatry. I'm of the belief that many medications, antipsychotics in particular, are overused and typically on people with pseudopsychosis, any other pseudo____ diagnosis and personality disorders (usually all mutually inclusive). Many other feel likewise. Despite that, the narrative you're describing doesn't really seem to reflect what's going on. Probably 80+% of people here are practicing psychiatry in one setting or another (and have been broadly exposed to many settings over many years), and yet none of it seems to line up with what you're describing as being typical. You reference that most of your information is from reading. If that's the case, you may have a difficult time coming arguing what's "really happening" in psychiatry to people who are actually doing it every day.

Also, I'm typically not one to nitpick or demean, but with so many repeated references to serotonin and confidently explaining your expertise of it, I hope that from this post forward you could spell it correctly.

 

[splik]

first off, i want to clarify, i am anti-psychiatry. i think that we need a radical new approach to working with people with mental distress and that although there is a role for medically trained individuals most of this work can be done by those who are not medically trained. i am probably the psychiatrist most critical/skeptical of the use of neuroleptics on this forum. i often try and get people off medications and believe that for the most part patients should not be confined to a lifetime of psychiatric drugs. however you are making lots of inflammatory statements without support, conflating class of drugs and their use, and also making lots of incorrect statements.

most neuroleptics block D2 receptors by and large not seratonin (sic), the newer ones may block 5HT2A receptors but that is a different thing, and blocking these receptors may actually ENHANCE dopamine release in the prefrontal cortex and may even IMPROVE cognition.

you seem to have some weird ideas, its not like benzos or stimulants are bad for the brain either. these are all toxic drugs which can be used therapeutically. many patients actually get RELIEF from neuroleptic drugs, and some of them even have abuse potential (such as seroquel), which doesn't make sense in your "neuroleptics are torture" explanation. these drugs are also used for RELIEF from nausea and vomiting including in those who are dying. are ob/gyns torturing their patients? is palliative medicine about torture. you are offending and trivializing that actual experience of torture. many of us have patients who have actually been tortured and it does a disservice to those who suffer though to make these hyperbolic statements. yesterday a patient of mine told me (i didnt prescribe his drugs he came to me on them) how zyprexa and seroquel had been things that had helped him and provided relief from his suffering. another patient described taking thorazine as making her feel "all creamy inside". many individuals seek out the newer drugs for abuse purpose (not uncommon in methadone patients for example). they may also help take the edge of stimulant abuse and used in this way. patients experiencing significant psychosis do not tend to feel unpleasant with these drugs (though can) but it is certainly the case that healthy individuals who take older neuroleptics report how horrible the experience is. i mean the drugs stop you caring about things, that is how they work.

it is also not helpful to conflate a class of drugs with their use in ways. so for example, some people do regard forced drugging as a form of torture. being held down forcibly, restrained and injected with a noxious substance may indeed be epxerienced as highly traumatic. that is very different from branding a class of drugs that many individuals regard as bringing them relief from their suffering (whether physical or emotional) as torture. drugs themselves cannot be torture, its just poor english.

I also agree with your sentiments about the rather orwellian sounding "assisted outpatient treatment". many psychiatrists are very uncomfortable with this model, and the misleading name (preferring outpatient commitment for example). the evidence is fairly shaky. the british equivalent, community treatment orders has been shown in RCTs (the OCTET trial) to be ineffective at reducing hospitalizations. AOT has some favorable evidence but it is fairly weak and has been disputed by Tom Burns, who did the OCTET trial, but there was a paper on this in psychiatric services last year.

you are also correct that the long-term evidence for neuroleptic use does not appear favorable, but there has been little done and the quality of these studies tend to be poor. Unfortunately in studies where they have looked at maintenance vs placebo they have taken patients off their neuroleptics cold turkey and so of course they did worse because they were withdrawing. no one has looked at patients who were on placebo or no drugs to begin with and followed them up in maintenance studies (some challenges there but doable to some extent). neuroleptics do not appear to improve functioning (and in fact seem to impair functioning). however there was a study in the green journal i think a couple of years ago that showed that in individual with psychotic diagnoses and histories of violence neuroleptic maintenance was associated with reduced risk of violence. clozapine has also been shown to reduce suicide risk and suicidal behaviors in those with schizophrenia. the FIN11 study also found that mortality of patients on cloazapine was lower than those on other neuroleptics or no treatment suggesting that despite the heavy toxicity and metabolic burden of the drug they seem to still have favorable effects where people live longer, this is about as hard an outcome measure that you get in medicine (and especially psychiatry) and may argue in favor of the use of clozapine in treatment-resistant psychosis.

 

[675015]

You are changing the accepted definition of the word side effect.

 

[JesusSaves]

Most studies are biased thanks to Pharmaceutical companies. I'm surprised you want proof that neuroleptics turn people into non-functional zombies with severe akathisia and SEVERE (not just a depressed mood, try to remember that their dopamine is blocked) depression.
Well, the non-functional part can not be linked to because it is always written off as negative symptoms of the illness (Perfect huh?).


I will post some other studies later. First I want to post this one.

Adverse reactions experienced by >5% of patients treated with risperidone includedsomnolence, parkinsonism, tremor, dystonia, dizziness, akathisia, increased salivation, andanxiety. (7)

https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-171874405/risperidone-s-2-new-pediatric-indications-approval

That study reports that less than 5 percent of children receiving a powerful neuroleptic developed akithisia, parkinsonism, or even ANXIETY. Peer reviewed. In a journal. These children have had their dopamine and seratonin blocked. Depression is not even listed in the study.

So do you call this trustworthy empirical data? Do you place any trust in studies like this one?

Because I personally believe it is an intentionally slanted study by some of the most evil people on the planet who want to get paid to torment children diagnosed with bi-polar. And I can find tons of studies just like it, outright lies, with so-called empirical data suggesting similar things. That blocking dopamine and seratonin is a safe, effective treatment that does not put people in perpetual torment. I truly believe they KNOW what they are doing.

I will post a study about long term efficacy in a little while. I have to find it first and I have things to do. But you will be surprised by what was found.

But seriously, do you believe everything you read? Their dopamine and seratonin is blocked! Of course over 5 percent of them developed anxiety. Is that a joke? If someone tells you 2+2=5 enough, and conducts studies showing it, it doesn't make it equal 4. And those kids really are being tormented day in and day out.

Any doctor should know that blocking dopamine and seratonin will chemically induce severe depression and anxiety in over 5 percent of the child victims. Stop letting pharmaceutical companies pull the blinders over your eyes. They do this to foster kids who act up too much.

 

[Armadillos]

If we can't trust any pharmaceutical related studies, why do you believe any of these drugs are actually blocking X receptor?

 

[NickNaylor]

Most studies are biased thanks to Pharmaceutical companies. I'm surprised you want proof that neuroleptics turn people into non-functional zombies with severe akathisia and SEVERE (not just a depressed mood, try to remember that their dopamine is blocked) depression.
Well, the non-functional part can not be linked to because it is always written off as negative symptoms of the illness (Perfect huh?).


I will post some other studies later. First I want to post this one.

Adverse reactions experienced by >5% of patients treated with risperidone includedsomnolence, parkinsonism, tremor, dystonia, dizziness, akathisia, increased salivation, andanxiety. (7)

https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-171874405/risperidone-s-2-new-pediatric-indications-approval

That study reports that less than 5 percent of children receiving a powerful neuroleptic developed akithisia, parkinsonism, or even ANXIETY. Peer reviewed. In a journal. These children have had their dopamine and seratonin blocked. Depression is not even listed in the study.

So do you call this trustworthy empirical data? Do you place any trust in studies like this one?

Because I personally believe it is an intentionally slanted study by some of the most evil people on the planet who want to get paid to torment children diagnosed with bi-polar. And I can find tons of studies just like it, outright lies, with so-called empirical data suggesting similar things. That blocking dopamine and seratonin is a safe, effective treatment that does not put people in perpetual torment. I truly believe they KNOW what they are doing.

I will post a study about long term efficacy in a little while. I have to find it first and I have things to do. But you will be surprised by what was found.

But seriously, do you believe everything you read? Their dopamine and seratonin is blocked! Of course over 5 percent of them developed anxiety. Is that a joke? If someone tells you 2+2=5 enough, and conducts studies showing it, it doesn't make it equal 4. And those kids really are being tormented day in and day out.

Any doctor should know that blocking dopamine and seratonin will chemically induce severe depression and anxiety in over 5 percent of the child victims. Stop letting pharmaceutical companies pull the blinders over your eyes. They do this to foster kids who act up too much.

I tried to understand your post but I just don't get what you're trying to argue. You sound like a Jenny McCarthy for psychiatry.

 

[st2205]

I'm surprised you want proof that neuroleptics turn people into non-functional zombies with severe akathisia and SEVERE (not just a depressed mood, try to remember that their dopamine is blocked) depression.

You're arguing that we're the one putting these people on antipsychotics, correct? So, by virtue of this, we're the ones seeing these people and how they function, no?

But seriously, do you believe everything you read?

I'm not sure how to respond to this. most of us here are speaking from experience. You're stating you've accumulated information via reading.

Their dopamine and seratonin is blocked! Of course over 5 percent of them developed anxiety. Is that a joke? If someone tells you 2+2=5 enough, and conducts studies showing it, it doesn't make it equal 4. And those kids really are being tormented day in and day out.

Any doctor should know that blocking dopamine and seratonin will chemically induce severe depression and anxiety in over 5 percent of the child victims. Stop letting pharmaceutical companies pull the blinders over your eyes. They do this to foster kids who act up too much.

This is an overly simplistic view of neuro chemistry. You can argue why giving a diuretic to someone with diabetes insipidus makes no sense, but you'd be missing the larger picture in favor of a poorly understood and simplistic supposed physiological mechanism.

 

[JesusSaves]

you seem to have some weird ideas, its not like benzos or stimulants are bad for the brain either. these are all toxic drugs which can be used therapeutically. many patients actually get RELIEF from neuroleptic drugs,

Benzos, stimulants, and wellbutrin don't torture people. You say some patients get relief from neuroleptics? How long were they on them for? Anyone on forced maintenance is being tortured. They don't want to take the drugs for reasons.

Neuroleptics take 2-4 weeks before they start to torment people.

If we are talking about what people report, I can pull up links to tons of people who received a depot injection and developed akathisia, severe depression, adhedonia, and who feel suicidal every day. Luckily, the ones posting reports online are not the children being forced to take them.

If someone gets relief from neuroleptics - by all means they should take them. But that is a rare thing. The people being forced to take them for non-compliance are being tortured, and many of those foster kids are being tortured. While studies are put out that less than 5 percent of them will even develop a little anxiety.

Imagine being a child who always feels terrible all day 24/7 and is semi-conscious. That IS torture. The UN even said forced neuroleptic drugging is torture.

 

[JesusSaves]

This is an overly simplistic view of neuro chemistry. You can argue why giving a diuretic to someone with diabetes insipidus makes no sense, but you'd be missing the larger picture in favor of a poorly understood and simplistic supposed physiological mechanism.

Not exactly. There is no larger picture with this. If you block dopamine and seratonin, you block the chemicals responsible for making them feel good. Once enough of their receptors are blockaded, they will start to experience the worst adverse effects any psych drug has.

 

[st2205]

Not exactly. There is no larger picture with this. If you block dopamine and seratonin, you block the chemicals responsible for making them feel good. Once enough of their receptors are blockaded, they will start to experience the worst adverse effects any psych drug has.

I think you're overestimating your understanding of neuro chemistry that appears to be based on a layman's explanation that is, in reality, far more nuanced and far less understood than is portrayed.

 

[JesusSaves]

I think you're overestimating your understanding of neuro chemistry that appears to be based on a layman's explanation that is, in reality, far more nuanced and far less understood than is portrayed.

Layman's explanation? The top experts in the world don't know what else neuroleptics do. All we know is that they blockade receptors.

You can dress it up however you want, but if you do the opposite of blockading someone's dopamine and seratonin - say give them a MDMA - you wouldn't say it will make them feel depressed while they are under the influence of it.

This thing has gotten so far out of hand that they are giving the stuff to autistic kids just to keep them from acting out. They are turning them into semi-conscious balls of anxiety and depression and saying it "calms them down."

I hope some psychiatrists start to reconsider and use common sense. The studies are more than biased. Those are real people, real children, and regardless of the influence of pharmaceutical companies - this is still real life.

 

[splik]

Benzos, stimulants, and wellbutrin don't torture people. You say some patients get relief from neuroleptics? How long were they on them for? Anyone on forced maintenance is being tortured. They don't want to take the drugs for reasons.

Neuroleptics take 2-4 weeks before they start to torment people.

If we are talking about what people report, I can pull up links to tons of people who received a depot injection and developed akathisia, severe depression, adhedonia, and who feel suicidal every day. Luckily, the ones posting reports online are not the children being forced to take them.

If someone gets relief from neuroleptics - by all means they should take them. But that is a rare thing. The people being forced to take them for non-compliance are being tortured, and many of those foster kids are being tortured. While studies are put out that less than 5 percent of them will even develop a little anxiety.

Imagine being a child who always feels terrible all day 24/7 and is semi-conscious. That IS torture. The UN even said forced neuroleptic drugging is torture.

well you have a weird idea of what torture is but i have seen patients become severely suicidal, psychotic, anxious, have severe panic attacks, or develop severe dysphoria, agitation and aggression on benzos especially with long-term use. I have seen patients become paranoid, develop persecutory delusions, tic disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, skin picking problem and delusions of infestation from stimulants (adderall) to the point of ripping off their skin. i have had people tell me they became suicidal from taking wellbutrin. i evaluated a patient who developed delirious mania with catatonia from taking wellbutrin. others develop severe agitation, anxiety or seizures.

these are psychoactive drugs. all psychoactive drugs can have adverse effects. there are many many people who report relief and voluntarily take neuroleptics. there are even patients i dont want to take them who ask for them. they are now in the majority. there are of course people who do not want to take the drugs and are forced to do so. i agree that forcible use of drugs is overused and i can only see very limited situations for this. however you are saying its all torture. many people take neuroleptics for years without reporting what you are.

it seems like you have made up your mind on things and are not willing to listen or have your own inaccuracies or sweeping generalizations challenged.

 

[st2205]

Layman's explanation? The top experts in the world don't know what else neuroleptics do. All we know is that they blockade receptors.

What I'm arguing is equating dopamine and serotonin with "feeling good" and therefore arguing that anything modulating those will by default modulate feeling good. This is simplistic and only a model, but it's something you're relying on as, in part, the basis of forming an opinion.

This thing has gotten so far out of hand that they are giving the stuff to autistic kids just to keep them from acting out. They are turning them into semi-conscious balls of anxiety and depression and saying it "calms them down."

You realize that when you say "they" you're referring to us, right? Unfortunately, what you're describing does seem to approximate with how I practice. I'll let everyone else speak for themselves.

 

[JesusSaves]

The point is that the main effects of what benzos, stimulants, and wellbutrin do provide relief in the VAST majority of people who take them.

The main effect of blocking dopamine and seratonin is exactly what you would think. Nothing else.

Zyprexa, for instance, might help with someone's anxiety because it is a sedative. Seroquel helps people get to sleep. But I am talking about what all neuroleptics share in common.

This is a very, very common type of report you will find online. Many people who start to experience this stuff just stop going to the psych doc. http://www.psychforums.com/anti-psych/topic129521.html

That is how they are making kids who have temper tantrums or autism feel. That is, regrettably, torturing them.

 

[touchpause13]

Dude sounds like a conspiracy theorist. And I don't understand the fascination with benzos as a good thing considering how much harm it can cause through addiction

 

[JesusSaves]

You realize that when you say "they" you're referring to us, right? Unfortunately, what you're describing does seem to approximate with how I practice. I'll let everyone else speak for themselves.

You prescribe neuroleptics to kids with autism and bi-polar? I'm begging you to reconsider. At the least, talk to the kid and make sure they tell you the truth about how they feel.

There is a reason I am so involved in this topic. I don't really want to share. But suffice to say that I know exactly how bad neuroleptics can be. I don't use words like torture lightly, but I know someone who wanted to die 24/7. This person was taken from me. They are still alive, and just now starting to get better, but for a long time I lost one of my loved ones. I would have rather had them a little crazy than THAT. They weren't even a danger to anyone. Their kids missed them while they were "gone." Invega sustenna was what did it. Risperadol is used for autism, which GREATLY concerns me because I want to cry when I think about a kid going through what I have seen.

 

[st2205]

You prescribe neuroleptics to kids with autism and bi-polar? I'm begging you to reconsider. At the least, talk to the kid and make sure they tell you the truth about how they feel.

You misheard me (or misread me). You say "they" are putting kids on these. The only "they" I can conclude are psychiatric practitioners. You're making a lot of assumptions about the way psychiatry is practiced. A lot of us have told you otherwise but you're not having it.

I'm sorry to hear someone you know had an adverse outcome. To generalize that to the whole of antipsychotics is inaccurate, just as your generalizations about the positives of benzos, stimulants and Wellbutrin are also too simplistic. These aren't black and white issues.

 

[JesusSaves]

You misheard me (or misread me). You say "they" are putting kids on these. The only "they" I can conclude are psychiatric practitioners. You're making a lot of assumptions about the way psychiatry is practiced. A lot of us have told you otherwise but you're not having it.

I'm sorry to hear someone you know had an adverse outcome. To generalize that to the whole of antipsychotics is inaccurate, just as your generalizations about the positives of benzos, stimulants and Wellbutrin are also too simplistic. These aren't black and white issues.

I'm not making assumptions about how all psychiatry is practiced. Just what I have observed. That's why I say "they" instead of "you." I don't know what you all do in your own practices.

I have spent the last few months reading people's stories online. I was trying to find help for my loved one, but there is no antidote and no way to speed up metabolism. We just have to wait it out. I have been trying to figure out how this could have happened. Now I know. It's not a psych docs fault they are getting bad information. Anyways, people who took everything from Zyprexa to Invega all report the same things, but what concerns me the most is that the worst ones are always about Invega.

What I meant about the other drugs is that they are DESIGNED to provide relief. Neuroleptics are designed to do the opposite of provide relief. They are designed to seize up the person's brain by blockading receptors. After seeing what I have seen, I would leave the country before I let someone put one of my children on a neuroleptic.

 

[st2205]

I'm not making assumptions about how all psychiatry is practiced. Just what I have observed. That's why I say "they" instead of "you." I don't know what you all do in your own practices.

You've made statements about every psych unit discharging people on antipsychotics. This isn't just mistaken, it's patently false. I'm not certain how you're making these claims other than what you're reading, which is interesting when you're asking if we believe everything we read.

 

[JesusSaves]

You've made statements about every psych unit discharging people on antipsychotics. This isn't just mistaken, it's patently false. I'm not certain how you're making these claims other than what you're reading, which is interesting when you're asking if we believe everything we read.

Of course, people in for depression don't take the neuroleptics. But anyone who has experienced delusions/psychosis is discharged on neuroleptics, often by coercion or force.

Anyways, that was in a different thread.

 

[st2205]

Of course, people in for depression don't take the neuroleptics. But anyone who has experienced delusions/psychosis is discharged on neuroleptics, often by coercion or force.

Anyways, that was in a different thread.

I'm not talking about depression either. Again, my comment stands that this is patently false.

 

[Armadillos]

What I meant about the other drugs is that they are DESIGNED to provide relief. Neuroleptics are designed to do the opposite of provide relief. They are designed to seize up the person's brain by blockading receptors.

If its any consolation to you, the vast majority of psychiatrist are very hesitant to use neuroleptics in children.


As for the highlighted, that's just absurd, receptor antagonism is how numerous medications work throughout medicine. Beta blockers block receptors in your heart and elsewhere , ARBs block receptors in you kidney, etc.

 

[JesusSaves]

If its any consolation to you, the vast majority of psychiatrist are very hesitant to use neuroleptics in children.


As for the highlighted, that's just absurd, receptor antagonism is how numerous medications work throughout medicine. Beta blockers block receptors in your heart and elsewhere , ARBs block receptors in you kidney, etc.

Right. Many medications are antagonists of many different things. But only one class, the class given to people who are unmanageable or could become unmanageable in the future, blocks dopamine and serotonin.

The point isn't that it is an antagonist. The point is 1. what receptors it is an antagonist at and 2. how strong of an antagonist it is.

edit and 3: what are the chemicals it is blocking responsible for

 

[Frazier]

Not much to add -- just want to commend the parties on both sides of this discussion for staying civil and focused in regards to responses.

Also, JesusSaves, sorry to hear your loved one has had an adverse outcome from a facet of treatment.

 

[NickNaylor]

Right. Many medications are antagonists of many different things. But only one class, the class given to people who are unmanageable or could become unmanageable in the future, blocks dopamine and serotonin.

The point isn't that it is an antagonist. The point is 1. what receptors it is an antagonist at and 2. how strong of an antagonist it is.

edit and 3: what are the chemicals it is blocking responsible for

There are medications used throughout medicine whose mechanism of action is unknown and yet benefits are clearly documented. Is the argument that if you don't understand every pharmaceutical property of a substance that it shouldn't be used in patients?

As far as your other posts, apart from people admitted for first-break psychosis and concern for a chronic psychotic disease or for people who are on a maintenance regimen of some kind of neuroleptic, I have never seen a patient discharged from the hospital on a neuroleptic if they were, for example, delusional during their hospital course.

There are bad psychiatrists out there that do a variety of dumb things just as there are bad physicians of any type out in the community. I think you're overgeneralizing your experiences and seem to think a vague "they" describes the majority of psychiatric practice. Also, relying on what people write on forums about medical treatment is hardly a reliable exercise. Anecdotes like that only present one side of a story - and likely one that lacks any significant degree of medical training at that. Stories involving medical care are often editorialized, and while there is likely at least a kernel of truth to them, they aren't worth all that much IMO.

 

[thepoopologist]

it seems like you have made up your mind on things and are not willing to listen or have your own inaccuracies or sweeping generalizations challenged.

Agreed. Looks like the OP was basically venting

 

[nitemagi]

The danger of fearing neuroleptics.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientology-a-question-of-faith/

 

[birchswing]

The danger of fearing neuroleptics.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientology-a-question-of-faith/

I just watched the Going Clear documentary. It was a snooze fest. Maybe because I've kept up with it throughout the years and wrote a term paper on the status of its legality by country relative to each country's level of paternalism. For me, there was no new information. I would say one thing that stood out to me was that some of the people who went into it who were interviewed couldn't offer really good explanations for why their radar didn't go off. In fact, rather than Scientology being good at attracting the average man off the street, it seems more like it barely survives by people who are already a bit off seeking it. The proportionality with which Scientology is criticized is equal to its oddity, curiosity, and intensity but I don't think proportionate to its harm. I could make a more damning documentary about my personal experience with the psychiatrists I've seen. If you did a documentary about the practice of psychiatry in the Florida penal system, it would make Scientology look like the Girl Scouts. I think Scientology attracts attention the same way the kids I knew growing up who were bullied attracted so much negative attention. They came to school telling wild tales and when they were attacked defended themselves way too vociferously. If Scientology either 1) didn't make such wild claims or 2) didn't so vociferously over-defend itself (like instead they could say, Yeah we're a bit out there, who really knows the truth?), I don't think they would draw nearly as much emotional attention from society. They have made themselves fun to pick on, which only reinforces some of their core beliefs. There are larger harms in society, but they tend to be things that are not as interesting because they're omnipresent and not intense and they aren't defended as being perfect. Scientology has made itself in short really low-hanging fruit for an emotionally satisfying take-down.

As for the article, I would imagine there are more parents who refuse psychiatric medicines for their children for reasons that don't have to do with Scientology than parents who refuse due to affiliation with Scientology. Scientology is interesting, I will admit, but the number of people who actually practice it are very few. It obviously makes people do things they wouldn't if they hadn't joined, but I am not entirely of the mind that it can attract people who weren't already somewhat willing to deviate from normal behavior.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

Which is more likely to be true?

1. Psychiatrists are evil masochists who use neuroleptics because they take pleasure in “torturing” people and they are on the pay role of the pharmaceutical industry.
2. They understand that many psychotic illnesses are relatively chronic and the overall exposure to neuroleptics goes up if they are used sporadically.

 

[heyjack70]

Which is more likely to be true?

1. Psychiatrists are evil masochists who use neuroleptics because they take pleasure in “torturing” people and they are on the pay role of the pharmaceutical industry.
2. They understand that many psychotic illnesses are relatively chronic and the overall exposure to neuroleptics goes up if they are used sporadically.

The number of physicians NOT getting paid by big pharmacy would probably astound the common US citizen. And this evil psychiatrist thing doesn't make any sense. If a person wanted a job with power, to exert the most "torture" on the populace, they would become a police officer; they wouldn't slog through 8 years post bachelors degree and rack up 6 figure debt.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

It's been 9 years since I got as much as a slice of pizza from Big Pharma.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

It's been 9 years since I got as much as a slice of pizza from Big Pharma.

I know what you mean. It seems I write so many inappropriate prescriptions for neuroleptics, it just galls me when I have to buy my own pens to do it. (warning, this should be taken with a large grain of salt).

 

[SmallBird]

Is Jesus Saves also birchswing? I mean, I'm not accusing anyone, but its happened before...

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

I do believe benzos should be tried to stop the episode first. If a patient shows no psychosis after being calmed down with benzos, they should not be leaving the hospital having been coerced or forced into taking neuroleptics.

I would have thought so but then there is this part.

 

[Shikima]

Mods can look at the IP addresses to know if they're duplicate accounts.

 

[birchswing]

I can tell you that it's not me; although, I'm not sure how convincing that is. But, it really is not me.

Edit: I actually wasn't even familiar with the term neuroleptic before JesusSave's postings. I don't disagree that there is probably an overuse of antipsychotics, but I have no particular reason to be against them other than that they caused metabolic problems for me (weight gain, high blood sugar). They for me were relatively easy to taper compared to benzos, and while I am very sorry for his/her situation, I have not had the issues with them described.

 

[whopper]

Antipsychotics have their place but IMHO there needs to be a very high confidence in the rationale to use them, and if they provide no benefit stop them. While it's common sense there's too many doctors out there willing to put their patients on some gumbo regimen that doesn't work.

 

[Leo Aquarius]

I don't know who this poster is, and I don't care to know. But he or she has issues and is not speaking from personal experience of prescribing these medications to hundreds of people (as I have as a resident).

Just wanted to say this poster has completely neglected the obvious, that we only prescribe these medications because people get better on them when used appropriately.

What the poster is completely ignorant of, is that patients come to us as zombies, and after using anti-psychotics, the zombiness goes away and they become human again. Ignorant fool.

 

[birchswing]

I don't know who this poster is, and I don't care to know. But he or she has issues and is not speaking from personal experience of prescribing these medications to hundreds of people (as I have as a resident).

Just wanted to say this poster has completely neglected the obvious, that we only prescribe these medications because people get better on them when used appropriately.

What the poster is completely ignorant of, is that patients come to us as zombies, and after using anti-psychotics, the zombiness goes away and they become human again. Ignorant fool.

As I said before, I'm not familiar with the problems associated with antipsychotics outside the metabolic ones, but I must imagine you have your own reservations for your defenses to be so high. If it's an inert subject matter why are you upset? And from my perspective, I assumed that they were relatively safe aside from the metabolic effects.

It's not OK to refer to a patient as a zombie or to imply that a patient is somehow not human without your treatment. No medication makes someone become human again—I think that's a very insulting way to look at your patients.

I will reiterate I am not the OP; I can understand why that might be hard to believe given that I wrote on this forum as a dancing psychiatrist. If there were some way to confirm that I am not the OP, I would gladly do that, if only so that his/her points could be taken based on their own merits. I did think in the other thread that the link he posted to had some interesting thoughts, which I responded to there. I don't think the reactivity is helpful, and I tried responding to the parts of his/her posts that to me made sense. I ignored the rest that I didn't understand or couldn't relate to.

 

[splik]

i liked the dancing psychiatrist and i dont believe that birchswing was the op, birchswing can spell

 

[wannabie]

It's not OK to refer to a patient as a zombie or to imply that a patient is somehow not human without your treatment. No medication makes someone become human again—I think that's a very insulting way to look at your patients.

It's certainly not the most empathetic way to describe that sentiment, but it's sensational. Perhaps there's a more compassionate way to describe it--awakening? Return to normalcy? Restoring mental health? Those descriptions might be more politically correct, but they come with their own social and pseudo-spiritual baggage. Of course, they also lack the visceral impact of the zombie metaphor!

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

Let’s run with the Zombie metaphor. Personally I thought World War Z was brilliant in that I was having a lot of trouble suspending my disbelief in Zombie’s ability to catch up to able bodied victims while dragging one foot. Those fast moving zombies got me back into the game. Never mind the issues of the perpetual undead needing to eat brains or else what will happen to them? I guess they will become even more undead? While I’m completely derailing this discussion of neuroleptics because it is too visceral and not at all scholarly, what about vampires? If they cannot see themselves in the mirror, how is it they are so impeccably groomed?

 

[Shikima]

It's encoded in Vampire DNA to be well groomed at all times.

 

[Armadillos]

It's not OK to refer to a patient as a zombie or to imply that a patient is somehow not human without your treatment. No medication makes someone become human again—I think that's a very insulting way to look at your patients..

While from a moral and religious standpoint I believe there is inherent and immutable value in all people as humans, I don't think this is what Leo is talking about, he is talking about the day to day undertaking of being a living human.

In medicine you really see that being "human" from a practical standpoint (perhaps not from a strict logical/philosophical) is really a continuum. We treat patients in persistent vegetative states that have lost the vast majority of the characteristics that would define them as human, there are patients stuck in some sort of hazy gray zone between life and death in every ICU in the world right now, etc.

A severely catatonic patient has similarly lost many of the characteristics unique to being a human and if you improve their illness I think many would agree they feel human again. Thats not to say they had lost the rights and dignity associated with being human while sick, but they had nearly completely lost the experience of living as a human.

 

[Promethean]

I know what you mean. It seems I write so many inappropriate prescriptions for neuroleptics, it just galls me when I have to buy my own pens to do it. (warning, this should be taken with a large grain of salt).

A grain (65mg) of salt? What, like Lithium? Can you evil psychiatrists not ever stop trying to push your drugs?

OP wasn't totally wrong. I also have loved ones who were absolutely harmed by prescriptions that were more intended to make them manageable for caregivers than to help them be optimally functional. But some of the drugs in question are ones that OP finds perfectly reasonable, like benzos. I've known people turned into muppets by long term round the clock ativan, because that kept them docile and pleasantly dysfunctional. I have also seen neuroleptics used as a chemical restraint when increased supervision would probably have been a more humane choice.

However, I believe that those situations are the exceptions. The indications and applications of psych meds are far more nuanced than OP suggests. I'm currently taking care of a man who is violently self-injurious and dangerously anorexic when his neuroleptic medication is wearing off. Once his levels are therapeutic again, he eats, drinks, smiles, and engages pleasantly with his caregivers. It would be better if he didn't need such powerful and problematic drugs in order to be functional, but in his case, I can confidently say that it would be torture to withhold them.