Auntie Psychiatry deconstructs the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) logo 

Big Pharma, Psychiatry and the Prize Cash Cow

Fun with Flowcharts: Am I going nuts? 

It’s the sleep deprivation, stupid!

Ask anyone who is on the road to "psychosis" how they are sleeping and you won’t hear this: “Yeah, really well, like a baby.”

The script writers of Men in Black get this:

Jay: “Zed, don't you guys ever get any sleep around here?”

Zed: “The twins keep us on Centaurian time, standard thirty-seven hour day. Give it a few months. You'll get used to it... or you'll have a psychotic episode.” (MiB 1997)

Novelist Adrian Barnes gets it…

“After six days of absolute sleep deprivation, psychosis will set in” (Nod 2012). 

Joe Public gets it… 

“Lack of sleep can make you crazy.”

But Psychiatry? Not so much. The first time I found myself hurtling towards full-blown "psychosis", a psych-doc told me this:

“Don’t sleep during the day!”

This is the WORST ADVICE EVER!

Natural sleep is everything. Day or night, it is sacrosanct. Sweet, elusive, drug-free sleep.

Chemical Imbalance Theory: The erroneous dictum Psychiatrists love to spout.

And yet some of them seem to find the whole thing all rather embarrassing. Why is that?

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend – never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.” Ronald  Pies MD

References: Royal College of Psychiatrists Health Information leaflets 2015: Schizophrenia & Schizoaffective Disorder
Schizophrenia: Eli Lilly website

Read more here… Psychiatry and the Chemical Imbalance Theory.

Auntie Psychiatry debunks the Diabetes Analogy

The Diabetes Analogy is one of those things that sounds plausible, but when scrutinised turns out to be dangerous bunkum. For people with diabetes, their blood glucose levels must be managed and maintained within a very specific range. There is no such equivalent for any of the mental disorders. Neurotransmitter activity is constantly changing, we have no understanding of ‘normal’ levels.

The Diabetes Analogy is brought to us by lead Psychiatrists, then picked up an parroted by celebrities in their ‘anti-stigma’ messages…

from the Royal College of Psychiatrists…”If a person has diabetes and stops taking their medication, they may become unwell. Similarly with schizoaffective disorder, if you stop taking your medication, you too may become unwell.” Health Information leaflet: Schizoaffective Disorder.

Ruby Wax on depression and antidepressants… “You wouldn’t say [to someone with diabetes] “Don’t take the insulin.” I mean you really have to believe that this is the real thing”.

Auntie Psychiatry presents: A Cautionary Tale

This is a parody of a cautionary tale by Hilaire Belloc: Jim, Who ran away from his Nurse and was eaten by a Lion.

I loved this poem as a child – mostly for the gruesome description of Jim’s demise which I learnt by heart – but I was never convinced by the moral…

And always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse. 

I mean, he gets EATEN by a LION! How cool is THAT??

Auntie Psychiatry asks: Are antidepressants over-prescribed?

Professor Stephen Lawrie is Head of Psychiatry at University of Edinburgh. Read more about his views about antidepressants… Cabaret of Dangerous Ideas: Antidepressants are not overprescribed.

Professor Ian Reid of Aberdeen University is also unperturbed by the dizzying rise in antidepressant prescription rates. He has no qualms about spreading his point of view in the media that “antidepressants are not overprescribed.”

And RCPsych president, Professor Sir Simon Wessley, is perfectly at ease with the figures too, saying to the Guardian: “when we talk about the rise in antidepressant prescribing, before we start leaping to the tumbrils and saying the world’s coming to an end we should have a look and say, hang on a second, if that is appropriate prescribing then that’s good.”

I find their assurances terrifying.

Psychiatry: Anti-stigma campaigns

I’ve always been wary of anti-stigma campaigns, but never quite pinned down why that should be. After all, more openness and communication can only be a good thing – it encourages connection and makes people feel less alone – no problems with that. No, it’s the “illness like any other” mantra that sends a chill down my spine – but why?

On researching the topic, I came across this excellent blog post by Sera Davidow. False Arguments, Part 2: Anti-anti-stigma.

Sera suggests that… “the idea of developing and then promoting a solely medicalized way of understanding our distress is creating the very ‘stigma’ it seeks to eliminate.” She describes the process memorably as a merry-go-round spinning at breakneck speed.

That worked for me, but rather than a merry-go-round (which is fun and exciting) I eventually settled on the image of a circular saw blade to depict it. Oh, and a saw blade was simpler to illustrate.

I’m quite certain that Psychiatry would turn purple with rage and indignation at the suggestion that diagnosis comes with this subtext: Your inner-self is diseased. It took me a long time to work out the exact wording of that phrase. Any thoughts?

Auntie's Snakes and Ladders: Escape from the Psych Ward

Despite vocal claims from Psychiatry that Psych beds are always, always in huge demand, once you have been admitted to a Psych ward, you can have a devil of a job persuading the powers-that-be to let you out again. Even if you went in there as a voluntary patient and can, in theory, simply walk off the ward, you just try it and see what happens. The mere threat of sectioning is enough to make most patients quickly think better of it.

If you’ve never been a patient on a Psych ward, Auntie’s Snakes and Ladders  will give you some idea of how the game is played. You must convincingly feign compliance, insight and acquiescence. You soon learn that taking your meds is a Big Deal, and that it must be done willingly, without any resistance. Questioning your diagnosis is a no-no as doing so implies Lack of Insight into your illness. Other game tactics include: Never Joke with your Psychiatrist – they are notoriously humourless – and Don’t Be A Smart Ass.

Once they let you go, the words of WOPR from the 1983 film War Games should be your guide: The only winning move is not to play. 

Do whatever you can to keep yourself on an even keel and keep yourself on the outside… it’s the only way.

"Which Way?" captures the allure of extreme inner states that can lead to psychosis. Of course it is a foolish and dangerous path to take, as anyone who has ever experienced full blown psychosis knows to their bitter cost... and yet, and yet.

Sadly, psychiatry strictly disapproves of exploration, and the "illness like any other" approach leaves absolutely no room for discovering spiritual meaning or fulfillment in these profound experiences. Flirting with the Danger Zone is interpreted as "lack of insight" into your illness and noted down as yet another symptom of an underlying brain disease.

Makes me feel kind of sorry for them.

Auntie Psychiatry receives the right prescription.

This might seem an odd cartoon for an anti psychiatry blog, but it represents my own recent experience of NHS mental health services. I received nothing but the best care at a time when I really needed it. What more can I say? 

Auntie Psychiatry: Crazy Talk

A small selection of the colourful words and phrases we all use from time to time. I love them; partly because they are so alive and vivid, but mostly because they bridge the scary gap between sanity and madness. Everyone can relate to being "a bit bonkers" or "away with the fairies" - these peppy colloquialisms are a great leveller.

Why is our language so rich with these lively expressions? My guess is that it's because they portray mental states we are fascinated by - scary, yes, but also mystical, alluring, exhilarating.

Contrast this with the deadening language of Psychiatry. Worried about the offence that might be caused by these casual expressions, the anti-stigma charity Time for Change provides a helpful Mental Health Language Guide to put us all straight. So instead of using words like mad, lunatic or unhinged, they suggest "a person with a mental health problem" or "someone who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia."

Yeah, whatever.

A final thought: I bet you can add a dozen more phrases for madness to my list... but how many everyday expressions do you know for diabetes?

Let Wisdom Guide

Let Wisdom Guide is the motto of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The snake/serpent is their symbol of wisdom and health.

Psychiatry's only tool

Riding High Upon a Deep Depression

The Upside of Melancholia: Yet another thing that Psychiatry won't acknowledge. Society used to get it... before Big Pharma muscled in, cleverly marketing depression as a brain disease and pushing their drugs in earnest.

Weirdly, "melancholia" is creeping back as an acceptable medical term. Previously shunned as an antiquated throwback to the days of Victorian Lunatic Asylums, it seems that Psychiatry has done a U-turn and decided it's a valid diagnosis after all. Does anybody know why?

This cartoon is inspired by everybody's favourite Garbage track: I'm Only Happy When it Rains, a true celebration of depression. 

Go on, play it now... and crank up the volume. Knocks spots off Seroxat.

Clinical Trials Examination: Level 1

The inspiration for this cartoon was prompted by a Pharma backed ‘randomized clinical trial’ for a long-acting injectable "antipsychotic", Invega Trinza. The company's website encourages people to Explore the Study Design. Published in JAMA Psychiatry (2015), a heavyweight, peer-reviewed medical journal, the trial was carefully designed to bring about the best possible outcome for the drug company. It required the co-operation of doctors to ensure that ALL the subjects had been administered the drug for many months. The drug was then abruptly withdrawn from those randomly allocated to the placebo group – there was no tapering phase, no additional support.
 
I was staggered by the audacity of this ruse. The American Psychiatric Association’s own official guidance is unequivocal: ‘medications should never be stopped abruptly as rebound psychosis may result’: And this information has actually been incorporated into the trial design to maximise the risk of relapse in the placebo group. Something else!

I was beginning to detect a funny smell. If Psychiatry had made it so easy for a Pharma Giant to get away with this one, what other tricks were they getting up to? Digging around, it didn’t take me long to locate the source of the smell – the stinking, rotten underbelly of the psych-drug trials racket. Psychiatry and Big Pharma have been in cahoots for decades, exploiting patients as expendable pawns to keep their monstrous, putrid psych-drug gravy train hurtling down the tracks. Don’t believe me? Try digging yourself. You’ll see.

Looking at the cartoon now, I realise that it appears as though ALL the placebo group fall prey to the sharks, and ALL of the drug group stay high and dry. In fact, there were patients in the placebo group who did not relapse into psychosis, and patients in the drug group who did. I’m not quite sure how to portray that in a simple cartoon though. Any ideas?

Auntie Psychiatry asks "What's with the new American Psychiatric Association logo?"

This spoof "Snakes on a Plane" movie poster was inspired by Phil Hickey's blog post The APA's New Image. I had a great time creating it, especially when I discovered Samuel L Jackson's classic line... "Enough is enough! I've had it with these m@#!F%'& snakes on this  m@#!F%'& plane!" 

Only trouble is... I've made the rebranded APA logo look cool. Dammit!

Auntie Psychiatry Turns the Tables

This cartoon features Psychiatry Psnakes at the meds trolley "tonguing and spitting out the bitter pill of reality", as described by Daniel Kriegman in his post Physician, Heal Thyself.  Dan is optimisitic that "in the end they will have to swallow the bitter pill and face reality." 

Here's hoping.

Dr. Pies stays positive.

I've long been a fan of The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce, and the definition of 'positive' is one of my favourites. We've all been 'positive' from time to time - be honest - but none so loudly, or publicly or repeatedly as Ronald W. Pies MD. Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, Dr Pies remains adamant that psychiatry never bought into the "chemical imbalance theory" of mental illness, and continues to claim that his profession does not and hasn't ever promoted it to the public. Quite why he is determined to stay so 'positive' is a mystery to me.

For anyone interested, here are the links to the sources used in this cartoon.
Serotonin: How psychiatry Got Over Its "High School Crush" Ronald W Pies MD.
Schizoaffective Disorder: Health information leaflet Royal College of psychiatrists.
Schizophrenia: University of Utah - Health Library.
Depression: Johns Hopkins Medicine - Health Library.
Bipolar Disorder - causes: NHS Choices.

Auntie Psychiatry: Shill Doc MIllionaire

This cartoon required a lot of background reading and study. I wanted to be as certain as possible about the validity of the phrase "Long-term drugging with antipsychotics causes brain shrinkage." My starting point was The Bitterest Pills by Joanna Moncrieff, a lead Psychiatrist based in the UK. From this I tracked down several research papers and journal articles on the subject. In the end, I reached the conclusion that all the evidence points in the same direction: Antipsychotic drugs are Neurotoxic. That said, I can't help but admire the heroic strides by some experts in the field to torture the evidence into giving them The Right Answer: Antipsychotics are Neuroprotective.

Make a comment

Leave a comment...

Auntie Psychiatry plays with Google Autocomplete

Auntie Psychiatry's Buzzword Bingo: Schizophrenia Gene Discovery

Don't get me wrong - I'm very keen to learn about the latest scientific findings on the 'Genetics of Mental Illness'. Does schizophrenia really have a 'significant genetic component' as is so often claimed? The hunt is on.

But I have yet to find a satisfying report on the subject. Light on substance, brimming with froth, each one containing the same essential ingredients : Breakthrough discovery, New insights, Step towards a real diagnostic test, Hope for new drug treatments.

So... are scientists on the brink of a bright new dawn?  It's kind of hard to tell.

Anybody would think that what really matters is the pizzazz. 

This cartoon is inspired by the Royal College of Psychiatrists anti-BASH campaign. BASH is an acronym: Badmouthing, Attitudes and Stigmatisation in Healthcare. Professor Sir Simon Wessely is leading the charge. He reveals his disquiet about the 'stigmatisation' of his profession in his President's Blog... "stigma surrounding psychiatry doesn't begin and end with the experiences of patients; doctors too experience stigmatisation - for deciding to become psychiatrists."
Many thanks to Philip Hickey for his highly entertaining analysis of this issue: Psychiatry Bashing.

Incidentally, when trying to think up a joke brand name for the ECT machine in the cupboard, I looked to the names of real ECT machines for inspiration. The first one I found was the Siemens Konvulsator. Yes, even spelled with a K. Satirising psychiatry is SO EASY!!

This cartoon picks up on the advice and information presented to patients and carers in leaflets published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. According to the RCPsych website, "each leaflet/factsheet reflects the best evidence base at the time of writing." 

Indeed.

Here are the links to the sources used in this cartoon:
ECT (Electroconvulsive Therapy)
Schizoaffective Disorder
Bipolar Disorder 

Auntie Psychiatry crashes the RC Psychiatrists International Congress.

I'd love to take credit for the RC Psychic gibe, but in truth it was a gift from the Royal College of Psychiatrists: #RCPsychic

Make a comment

Leave a comment...

The Murphy Bill: Who is pulling Murphy's string?

While researching this cartoon, I listened to rather a lot of Rep. Murphy's speeches - his rhetoric is very compelling.

It's hard to argue with Murphy's claim that "The mental health system is broken" - not only for patients and families, but also for all those caring people lured into pursuing a career in "Mental Health", and for society in general. Murphy's solution? Add more balls.

Murphy is not averse to drawing from dramatic reports in the press and social media to make his case. In this speech (at 13 minutes), he reveals with a flourish a blown-up photo of 'Man in tree', Cody Lee Miller, being led into court in shackles to appear before a judge. It is an image disturbingly reminiscent of Jesus being brought before Pontius Pilot. Murphy sees this case as an object lesson in the importance of 'treatment before tragedy'.

Looking at that photo of Cody Lee Miller, I could think of many things that might help him - a bath, a safe bed, clean clothes, home cooked food, human warmth - but coercive flooding of his system with neurotoxic drugs wasn't one of them.

For anyone wanting an insight into what it's like to be on the receiving end of a compulsory 'treatment' order, I recommend this: Coercive Psychiatry in Australia

Exploring Anosogonsia

The notion of 'lack of insight' in Psychiatry is not new, but it has received a turbo-boost in recent years, largely due to the efforts of Dr E Fuller Torrey and the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC). Co-opting the Greek word 'Anosognosia' from the field of Neurology lends it an air of scientific credibility, backed up by impressive claims of "anatomical damage to the brain" in those affected. The TAC website is emphatic in its insistence that Anosognosia is not simply Denial of Illness because it has a "biological basis and is caused by damage to the brain. " 

Here's an idea for anyone brave enough: Request a differential diagnosis.

From blogs and news reports to the recent rhetoric of Rep. Tim Murphy, the Anosognosia meme is spreading fast, along with spurious statistics (Anosognosia afflicts 50% schizophrenia patients, 40% bipolar) and the TAC claim that it is the "most common reason why [patients] do not take medication."

For critical analysis and an entertaining take on this issue, join Marcellas and Daniel at... www.anosognosiac.com

My book is now available from Amazon. Here are the links...

Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk

One happy anteater.

Science Media Centre: A lesson in Spellcasting

There is a very, very long background story to this cartoon. I will try my best to be brief, but please do bear wtih me. First of all, let me translate the Latin Spell.

ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM: Argument from authority (or appeal to authority) - where something is purported to be true, simply because a knowledgeable and well-reputed person has said it.

Now the story. 
In July 2017, I happened across this article on the Newsweek Website: “BBC, SSRIS AND ‘A PRESCRIPTION FOR MURDER’: EXPERTS SLAM PANORAMA DOCUMENTARY ON ANTIDEPRESSANTS” 

It contains this quote from Carmine Pariante, Professor of Biological Psychiatry, King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience:

“we know very well that every time an alarm reduces the rates of prescription for antidepressants, suicide rates increase, including in adolescent and young adults.”

A quick Google search traced the exact quote back to a press release from the Science Media Centre (SMC) :

“expert comments on whether antidepressants can lead people to become a murderer, as is being reported in advance of the upcoming Panorama programme ‘A Prescription for Murder?’”

So, the Newsweek journalist had sourced Pariante’s quote from the SMC website.

I’d heard a lot about this UK based Registered Charity, none of it good, but I wanted to know more. A little rooting around their website put me in the picture.

“When science hits the news agenda, it’s our job to pass on to journalists as much accurate information as we can, as quickly as possible. In order to do this we send out quotes from experts…”

Experts? Tell me more…

“The quality of our experts is important to us. The SMC recruits scientists, engineers and others who work for respected institutions, publish in peer-reviewed journals and have a track record of quality research in their specialist field.”

Uh-huh. And what is your mission?

OUR MISSION: “To provide, for the benefit of the public and policymakers, accurate and evidence-based information about science and engineering through the media, particularly on controversial and headline news stories when most confusion and misinformation occurs.”

Indeed.

Now, I was pretty certain that Pariante’s words were neither accurate nor evidence based, but the SMC press release provided no references to back up his bold and startling claim. So, my first port of call was Prof Pariante himself. I sent an e-mail asking him to point me at the evidence. In reply, he sent me a link to this paper:

Early evidence on the effects of regulators' suicidality warnings on SSRI prescriptions and suicide in children and adolescents. Gibbons RD1, Brown CH, Hur K, Marcus SM, Bhaumik DK, Erkens JA, Herings RM, Mann JJ. (Am J Psychiatry 2007)

Gibbons et al 2007. I know this paper. It is notorious amongst many leading academics and doctors in the field. In the words of Consultant Psychiatrist Sami Timimi: “To describe this as ‘junk science’ would be an insult to junk science.”

And he’s right. Check it out for yourself, you’ll see.

Incredulous, I e-mailed Pariante back… “Gibbons et al? Seriously?” No response. And so, I turned my attention to the SMC. How would this Registered Charity with a mission to provide “accurate and evidence based information about science” respond to being challenged?

My first step was to track down the SMC Complaints Procedure. After searching the website in vain, I put in a polite request for it by e-mail. No reply. I tried again. Still no reply. I phoned the contact number.

“Are you the person who e-mailed about this?”

“Yes, that’s me.”

“Well, we don’t actually have a Complaints Procedure, but we’re discussing your request, and will e-mail you soon.”

Sure enough, later that day I received an e-mail – a very helpful e-mail.

“We would be happy to receive your complaint, review it internally and pass it onto the Trustees if appropriate.”

Encouraged, I diligently gathered together the evidence, put it to them, and firmly stated my case¹:

“The Science Media Centre bills itself as a reputable and reliable source for journalists [...] Journalists and the public rightfully expect to trust and rely on the information issued by the SMC. The assertion made by Prof. Carmine Pariante, and endorsed by the SMC, is misleading and without foundation.

Desired outcome: An appropriate response would be for the SMC to issue a public ‘corrections and clarifications’ notice (similar to those issued by editors of mainstream newspapers) on the SMC website.”

Three weeks later, I received this response from a Senior Press Manager.

“Thank you for your email on this contentious issue. We have considered your complaint closely and there are a few points for me to address. 

First, we are not scientific experts and so do not endorse comments. This is evident in our work as we rely on and issue the views of individual scientists and, as disagreements between scientists often occur, we frequently issue sets of comments containing differing views.
Second, if a scientist feels they have made a factual error in a statement then we are happy to make amendments on our website, and have done so previously. We have not been alerted to such a concern on this occasion.

Third, if other scientists inform us that an expert has made an error, or appears to have missed key evidence, then we may decide to speak to the expert involved to discuss their response. As part of our routine work we have sent Prof Pariante’s comments to many experts across the UK and none have raised any concerns, indeed the only responses I have received have been supportive.

In result, we will not be taking any action in response to your complaint.”

Bravo! A masterful piece of institutional flimflam, neatly sidestepping all the evidence I had so carefully presented, and wilfully failing to address my central point that Pariante’s statement is misleading and without foundation.

Undeterred, I pressed on. Next step, a letter to the Board of Trustees. This time, I gathered additional evidence from specialists with recognised expertise in this area, and took a different tack to re-state my case.

“The Science Media Centre is an independent charity with the purpose of boosting public trust in science [...] In the event that information circulated by the SMC is challenged by experts as being neither accurate nor evidence-based, it is the responsibility of the organisation to conduct a full and open investigation into the complaint.

Desired outcome: For the SMC to withdraw the above statement made by Prof Pariante, and issue a public ‘corrections and clarifications’ notice on its website to inform journalists and the public of the withdrawal.”

The response was a long time coming. Worth the wait? Well, see for yourself:

“My name is Jonathan Baker and I am chair of the Trustees of the Science Media Centre.
At our autumn meeting on October 20, the Trustees considered the complaint you made about an SMC roundup relating to a BBC programme about anti-depressants. Because you were not satisfied with the initial response you received, your complaint was referred to the Trustees for discussion and resolution.

Whenever there is a contentious or new science-related issue in the public debate, or about to enter it, the SMC circulates the details to as many experts in the field as it can to solicit their responses and opinions. Those responses are then collated and circulated to journalists to help them understand and/or cover the story. This element of the SMC's work is described on the website: "One of the other ways the SMC ensures that the media have easy access to scientists and their views is by offering journalists a variety of comments from scientists reacting to the latest research."

A roundup is no more or less than that. Inclusion of a quote from a scientist does not imply any form of endorsement by the SMC. From your complaint, it appears your (sic) believe that it does, or should. But the roundup is based on the fundamental conviction that it is the scientists who are the experts, not the SMC.      

In this context, the Trustees wanted to know the answers to three questions before deciding whether or not the SMC was at fault in this case.

Was Professor Pariante a qualified and credible person to express an opinion on this issue? We believe that he was.

Were his views accurately reported by the SMC? We believe that they were.

Were his views requested on their own, or as one contribution among many from scientists with relevant expertise and credentials? In keeping with the nature of roundups, as set out above, Professor Pariante’s response was one of several received and included in the roundup. Given all of this, the view of the Trustees is that the proper, indeed standard procedure was followed in this case, and no further action is required.”

And with that, I yield. Game over.
ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM.

1. The full transcript of my correspondence with the SMC is available on request.

For Garth.

From the other side of the world comes news of an act of such brutal treatment at the hands of Psychiatry that I can only find one word for it: Torture. Not even intervention by the UN Human Rights Council has been able to help Garth. This blatant abuse of power shames the entire profession... but where is the outcry from lead Psychiatrists?

Watch this 10 minute news report on Garth's case. Bear in mind that this was filmed in December 2015; Garth is still detained in hospital and receiving forced ECT.

31st DECEMBER 2017: SEE COMMENTS FOR FURTHER UPDATE.

The Outsider Outsider

This cartoon is a (reasonably) faithful rendition of my recent encounter with the website www.schizophrenia.com

Some time ago, I signed up to their forum: "Schizophrenia Discussion Community for People Diagnosed, or who think they may have Psychosis," but I had never actually plucked up the courage to join in. It is a very active forum, and over the past year I'd dipped in to read a few threads. This provoked mixed emotions - sometimes I thought "this place is not for me", other times I thought "I'd really like to get to know these people."

In February I decided to the plunge. I had something I wanted to share, and so I carefully composed my first message...

"Hi, I'm new here, but I have been reading the threads to get a feeling for this forum. It seems like there is a lot of caring support amongst you all - I can see why it is such an active forum.

I will be up front and tell you straight off that I am antipsychiatry. However, I hope you will give me a chance to tell you about a new website that is now up and running which you might find really helpful. It is not antipsychiatry, it has been developed with the aim of connecting people like us in a way that goes beyond the usual websites and forums. The community is just starting to form and grow - it is exciting to be part of it and I hope you will take a look. The link is... www.theinnercompass.org

Alongside the main website, there is a support network for anyone thinking of withdrawing from psychiatric drugs. You can learn about layperson taper methods that reduce risk, and connect with others who have successfully withdrawn, and those who are just starting their withdrawal journey. I know that the very mention of coming off psych-drugs can arouse strong reactions on this forum, but I am anxious to let you know about this in case any of you want to join in.

Hope to see you there! Auntie Psychiatry."

OK, reading this again I realise that it sounds kind-of pushy. Maybe advertising another site in my very first message wasn't a great idea, but the replies soon started coming in: The curious "Do you take meds yourself?"  The hostile "Encouraging people to come off their meds is very irresponsible!" The friendly, "Tell us a bit about yourself."  I was happy to respond to all of them, and started to do so, feeling pleased that my debut message had not gone unnoticed. But then  a puzzling message appeared... "Uh-oh, something tells me this thread is going to be locked down..." and another post simply listing a few @names. Being naive about forums, I didn't realise that someone had called in the moderators.

Before I knew it, my initial post had disappeared for "moderation". I didn't think much about this - it was my first post, so fair enough - I thought it would reappear soon enough. The other posts in the thread seemed to be staying up, so I continued posting replies. And then, within an hour.... the entire thread disappeared! It was wiped out totally - no message, no placeholder - as though it had never existed!!

When I tried to log back in, I received this message.

Yes, that's right - Account suspended until 3018.

My first reaction was to laugh in disbelief. A thousand years! Then I got angry. What did they mean "Anti-psychiatry, anti-medication postings"?? I hadn't actually said anything anti-psychiatry or anti-medication. Had I? And even if it could be interpreted that way, where in the guidelines did it prohibit such discussions? I read them carefully, and there was nothing about it.

And so, I sent an e-mail to the administrator:

"I hope you can help me. Yesterday I posted my first message to your forum “for people who have schizophrenia”, under “Medications.” Several people replied, but soon after that the whole thread disappeared, and when I tried to log in I received the message that my account is suspended for 1000 years for “anti-psychiatry and anti-medication postings”. I would like to converse with the people on this forum, I have carefully read the community guidelines and I don’t see how my post breached them. Please could you re-instate my account? Username: Auntie Psychiatry. Many thanks for your time."

The email bounced straight back with this message:

[Schizophrenia Forums] Email issue -- Silenced User
"We’re sorry, but your email message to [SzAdmin] didn’t work.
Your account associated with this email address has been silenced."

Silenced. That is a powerful word to use.

Anatomy of a Confidence Trick

This cartoon is my take on the ruckus surrounding the Cipriani et al study published by The Lancet in February. Much has been written and said about the whole affair, I became bleary- eyed keeping up with it all. Needless to say, a swarm of ideas and images invaded my mind, and refused to settle or leave me be. I wanted to find an amusing angle for this cartoon and, in fact, my first response was bitter laughter at the sheer audacity of such a blatant PR spin-job. In the UK, we were treated to a blitz of the airwaves by several lead psychiatrists from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, all pumped up and dutifully on message: "Antidepressants work, and depresion is under-treated."  The affair gathered pace and strength on blogs and social media, it is still rumbling around, and is likely to do so for quite some time. Far from "putting the controversy to bed", as the RCPsych hoped, they have stirred up an almighty stink.

In the end, the inspiration for this cartoon came from a book by Maria Konnikova - The Confidence Game: The Psychology of the con and why we fall for it every time. For many hours I listened, entranced, to the audiobook version, and was so captivated by the gentle sound of her voice that I listened to it all again a few weeks later. Several concepts from the book stayed with me, but the one that made the biggest impression was this:

"Con artists, at their best and worst, give us meaning. We fall for them because it would make our lives better if the reality they proposed were indeed true."

A simple magic pill to make it all better? How tempting! Sounds like a con, but surely all those top-dog eminent professors can't be wrong... can they?

I had the idea for this cartoon while listening to the Royal Society of Medicine podcast: Episode 1. The spiel reads...

"In this episode, Prof Sir Simon Wessely, Consultant Psychiatrist and Past President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Prof Clare Gerada, GP and Past Chairperson of the Royal College of General Practitioners, discuss the increasing use of antidepressants..."

And indeed they do. About ten minutes in, Sir Simon delivers a homily on the subject of "addiction". He opens with the line: "Addiction is pretty well described, and most of the population know what it is," he then patiently explains to us all how "antidepressants" are NOT addictive, and that, in any case, "addiction isn't the right issue to talk about."

As he talked, loud bells began ringing - where had I heard this before? Of course! It was the same argument that Big Tobacco put forward in the 1990s with the claim that "Nicotine is not addictive." A quick Google search uncovered uncanny parallels between the two. It didn't take long to track down the almost word-for-word same argument from RJ Reynolds Tobacco CEO, James Johnston, in his evidence to Congress in 1994. Watch this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08

Akathisia: Iatrogenic Hell

I've been wanting to do a cartoon about akathisia for a while, but was stuck for ideas of how to portray the concept in picture form. Then I read a conversation in the comments section of David Healy's June 7th blog post discussing this very topic. One particular suggestion by Laurie O. stuck in my mind and wouldn't leave me be: an illustration of the hangman game with the word AKATHISIA spelled out in the spaces underneath.

Why the image of a hanging figure? At its worst, akathisia can cause such intense torment that the sufferer's only escape is suicide, often by violent means such as hanging. Loved ones are left with many painful questions as the death was usually unforeseen and completely out of character.

While researching the subject of akathisia, I sought out medical definitions of the word, and watched as much youtube footage of people suffering as I could bear. I was struck by the contrast in language. The main phrase I encountered on medical sites was "inner restlessness." That nearly made its way into my wordsearch, but when I listened to the words of people in the throes of akathisia, I realised this was an insipid, appeasing kind of phrase. So I gritted my teeth and made a note of the recurring themes from the youtube footage. Torment. Torture. Terror. Living nightmare. Destroyed. Horror movie. Constant fear. Incessant movement. No relief. Bugs under the skin. Lonely. Isolating. Humiliating. Dismissed. Disbelieved.

And as I collected these words, I remembered my own brush with akathisia. It was many years ago, quarter of a century, in fact. On admission to a psych-ward, I was drugged up with enough haloperidol to floor an elephant. Despite being billed as a powerful "antipsychotic", it made not a dint in my raging insanity. A few weeks later I crash landed, and found myself trapped in an unfamiliar body with a will of its own. By then I was compos mentis enough to recognise these weird, involuntary movements as the drug-induced extrapyramidal symptoms I had studied at University. My main fear was Tardive Dyskinesia, and I voiced my concern to the psychiatrist. He listened, then gestured to my jiggling, kicking right leg and said: "Well, tardive dyskinesia comes later. For now, you have akathisia."

When I listen to the youtube accounts of akathisia, or hear of yet another youngster on psych-drugs found hanging, I feel that I escaped lightly.

 To Laurie O: If you are reading this - thank you for the inspiration.  

4th July 2018: UPDATE

I'm happy to say that Laurie O. has found my website and e-mailed me to ask for permission to use this cartoon for tee-shirts. Absolutely! I only have one goal with this work - to raise awareness - so please feel free to use the images for that.  Re-visiting the cartoon, I realised it works perfectly well as an actual wordsearch puzzle, so here is a blank version for people print off and distribute - Go nuts!

Antidepressants: The Big Spin

The heat is on for the Royal College of Psychiatrists. For years now, senior members of the profession have made very public pronouncements that "antidepressants" are safe, non-addictive and life-saving. The mainstream media has given them an easy ride - they are, after all, leaders in their field, trusted for their expert knowledge and integrity. But for how much longer?

As the public mood on antidepressants begins to sour, the Royal College of Psychiatrists will quietly disassociate itself from this stance. It is already happening.

In January 2015, RCPsych uploaded this video to Youtube: Coming off antidepressants

This pithy review by 'perimele6' captures the overall tone of people's comments...

"Why doesn't this weird little video just come out and admit it: antidepressants are physically addictive and stopping causes awful withdrawal? It's creepy how this video invokes authority to skirt the issue..."

But catch it while you can because official guidance from the College on this matter is disappearing fast. The commentary on the video ends by saying "To find out more about coming off antidepressants, visit the Royal College of Psychiatrists website."

And there is a helpful link to the RCPsych Health Advice webpage...

Psychiatry is the only branch of medicine to be dogged by an unshakeable nemesis: anti-psychiatry.

Day-by-day around the world, the anti-psychiatry voice is gaining strength and growing in confidence. But why are ever-greater numbers of people beginning to speak out against psychiatry? What does it mean to be anti-psychiatry in the 21st Century?

The answers are complex, deep-rooted and tricky to excavate - a job for a creature with an elongated snout, formidable fore-claws, fearsome spirit… and a fondness for honey ants. Step forward Auntie Psychiatry.

Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk

Shill Shaming

Shill [Slang] - a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
(source: Dictionary.com)

Shills tend to be shameless by nature, but in this cartoon, I give "Shill Shaming" my best shot. It was inspired by the recent collaboration between the Royal College of Psychiatrists and BBC News on a 'video story' to bring the phrase 'Pill Shaming' to greater public awareness...

"The Royal College of Psychiatrists is worried that people are being made to feel so ashamed that they're put off getting help for conditions such as anxiety and depression."

Are people really "being made to feel ashamed" for trusting doctors and taking prescription drugs? And why is guild Psychiatry so keen to involve mainstream media in pushing the "End Pill Shaming" rhetoric? As more and more cases of prescribed harm caused by "antidepressants" bubble to the surface, and journalists become emboldened to write about the issue, Psychiatry is looking to shore-up its untenable position. Rather than face up to the crushing weight of evidence that these drugs were never as "safe and effective" as they have claimed over the years, they take refuge in idiotic one-liners and soundbites. "Antidepressants are life-savers. Antidepressants are not addictive. Don't listen to scaremongerers. Talk to your doctor."

Psychiatry's PR machine is pretty formidible, but the cracks are starting to show... what next, I wonder?