“….Could our drug-based paradigm of care, for some unforeseen reason, be fueling the increase in disability rates? And in order to investigate that question, you need to look at two things. First, do psychiatric medications alter the long-term course of mental disorders for the better, or for the worse? Do they increase the likelihood that a person will be able to function well over the long-term, or do they increase the likelihood that a person will end up on disability?…”
Robert Whitaker –
Note: Thanks To Aunty Psychiatry for the images https://twitter.com/auntypsychiatry
Twitter is a maelstrom of opinions at the best of times, and most of them are clashing continually like a box of pots and pans hurled down an infinite cyber escalator. The Royal College of Psychiatry in the UK has been in a ‘Twitter War‘ with activists (trying to bring attention to the dangers of psych drugs) for quite some time now. Most of the skirmishes occur when Psychiatry refuses to acknowledge the harms caused by psychiatric drugs (or lately- ECT). Psychiatrists don’t like to be questioned on their methods, and more often that not, they block those who insist on questioning them or drawing attention to harms. I’ve been blocked by several psychiatrists because I have been asking them extremely awkward questions about conflicts of interest within the murky realms of the key opinion leaders of UK psychiatric research.
Psychiatry is so awash with Pharma cash nowadays that it seems it has become normalized. 10 or 15 years ago it was seen as controversial and unbecoming of a psychiatrist to sell their careers (and their integrity) to Pharma, yet it’s so common nowadays that it’s somehow seen as normal. Nobody bats an eye lid it seems. This isn’t confined to psychiatry though, it’s across the entire medical profession.
As an example of the amounts of money that your average key opinion leader in medicine can make, have a look at (STD Expert and Pro-Vaccine) Dr Dominck Rowley’s tweets below. For one weekend conference he got 3000 euro. Of course Dominck Rowley sees no problem in this at all, in fact he’s rather proud of it, and that’s understandable considering the 3000 euro a pop most likely helps him to justify it.
Where money is concerned, we are all easily seduced.
Money has a power like no other.
People will steal it, and they will kill for it.
It doesn’t take a lot of money to taint an individual.
So if we are to take Dr Dominick Rowley’s average of 3000 a pop for a weekend conference, for your average garden variety key opinion leader in academic psychiatry perhaps it’s a similar (or more) rate? If they do (let’s say) 10 of these a year, once a month or so, that’s about 30,000 extra cash a year they can get just for touting the benefits of drugs for the Pharmaceutical industry.
Handy work if you can get it right? (that’s if you can call this kind of reputation-pimping ‘work’).
Now let’s say they do this work regularly, over a decade, they could earn close to 300,000, or perhaps 500,000 or more over their careers?
That would pay for a house, a nice lifestyle, or a lot of good living.
It’s a huge incentive for the key opinion leader to become more loyal to the Pharmaceutical industry that is keeping them in cash, as opposed to the patient who isn’t -right?
And presumably, the more loyal the Doctor is to the Pharmaceutical company’s information stream (party line) then the more work they will be offered, and the more work they are offered, the more enmeshed they become don’t they? and so on.
I have been trying to get the Royal College of Psychiatry UK to tell me how much its members have earned (either directly or indirectly) through the Pharmaceutical industry for several months now. Every time I get close to the bone, I get blocked by these psychiatrists. Royal College President- Wendy Burn- blocked me a while back, however she did admit to me that she stopped taking money from industry because she didn’t like ‘how it looked’. However she didn’t really see a problem with taking the cash in itself. I think this is a problem, and it concerns me how Wendy doesn’t see it as such. Through her ability to deny reality, Wendy Burn is dangerous. She is dangerous to patients, and dangerous to herself. She seems to crave validation through basking in the constant backslapping she gets from her colleagues. The death and disablement of patients from psychiatric drugs seems of little concern to her. She is obsessed with the brain to the point of distraction, and she has a morbid fascination with it that is bordering on some kind of fantasy fetish.
This is disturbing.
Samei Huda is another psychiatrist who tweets a lot on Twitter. He is also quite dangerous. He consistently goads, gaslights and winds up those harmed by psychiatric meds, and seems to get enjoyment out of it. Personally, I find it disturbing that someone of this character has the power to drug and disable vulnerable people, but at least people can see what he’s doing on Twitter, and make up their own minds. I would hope that his sadistic, uncouth, arrogant and borderline sociopathic personality type is not close to the norm in psychiatry, but I fear it is.
George Dawson, is another psychiatrist (from the US) who is prolific on Twitter. Dawson also likes to goad those harmed by meds. He is also disturbing, but in a different way. He is arrogant and pompous beyond belief, but quite often he (unintentionally) puts his foot in it and gives us a great insight into how psychiatrists really operate. Check out the humdinger he tweeted below, where he basically admitted that psychiatrists job is mostly about managing side effects. If I had have known that all psychiatrists did all day was manage side effects, I would never have gone to one just so that they could drug me into oblivion.
The psychiatrist Sameer Jauhar seems to be carving a niche for himself as the main defender of UK psychiatry on Twitter. They likely chose him because he hasn’t got the vast links to Pharma that many of the others have (such as David Baldwin, David Nutt, Paul Morrison etc). He seems squeaky clean compared to the other Pharma-Compromised Key Opinion Leaders, however this might not be the case. I asked him about a declaration of interest that he declared which entailed a visit to the Lundbeck Institute in Denmark (Lundbeck are one of the biggest Pharma earners/producers of psychiatric drugs). When I asked him about this he promptly blocked me (no surprise there).
Sameer is highly ambitious, and no doubt his attacks on psychologists (and patient activists) like Prof John Read will earn him many brownie points as he climbs that slippery ladder up the echelons of the Royal College of Death, Disablement and Denial.
He’s doing a fine job.
Keep it up Sameer, you’ll be in that presidents chair in no time. Wendy will keep it warm for you in the meantime.
Psychiatrists are causing death and disablement to some patients with their irresponsible prescribing of psychiatric drugs, and the playing down of serious side effects and withdrawals. This is evident by the massive amounts of reports all over the internet for the past two decades in various forums, comments, blogs, social media, documentaries, youtube videos, etc etc. This dangerous debacle is out of control now, and must be addressed. The conflicts of interest within UK psychiatry – regarding Pharma-Cash- is extremely concerning too and must also be addressed.
I would like to ask all the psychiatrists at the Royal College of Psychiatry UK when was the last time that they checked up on a patient that they have prescribed psychiatric drugs to long term? Do they feel they adequately monitor their patients?
And is it possible that any suicides under their care/treatment were related to SSRI induced akathisia?
Do they monitor their patients thoroughly for emerging side effects such as depersonalization, de-realization, med induced mania, suicide, aggression, etc etc?
Do they think that it’s possible that throughout their entire career that they might have harmed at least one person? harmed in the sense that they drugged a patient into death, disablement or worse trauma? and if so- how do they clear this with their conscience?
Have they seen the raw data on the drugs they prescribe? and if not (they haven’t) then why don’t they ask their Pharma buddies to provide it?
And also, I’d like to ask them, have they read through the forums of Surviving antidepressants? or the antidepaware website?
Furthermore, I’d like to ask them, how much has the Royal College of Psychiatry UK members received from Pharma over the past 50 years? either directly or indirectly?
A ballpark figure would suffice..