Best biotechnology industry books according to redditors
We found 112 Reddit comments discussing the best biotechnology industry books. We ranked the 15 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 112 Reddit comments discussing the best biotechnology industry books. We ranked the 15 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
His book on the subject is very upsetting. A must-read for anyone in medicine.
It's may be partly because depression is over-diagnosed.
This book argues that we're now diagnosing normal self-limiting periods of grief or stress as mental illness.
For example, if your spouse dies and you experience symptoms of major depression for several months, do you have a physiological illness called depression, or are you going through a completely natural grieving process?
The book also suggests antidepressant use may be perpetuating depression, rather than treating it successfully in the longterm. People may experience symptoms of depression or anxiety during the withdrawal process, think that's their normal state, and go back on the drug to stop the symptoms.
That's not to discount people who legitimately suffer longterm symptoms of severe, unexplained depression and suicidal tendencies.
Administering contraception to them was wrong, and you were right to resist it.
All the Church requires for marriage (which, by the way, it requires as a prerequisite for sex) is the understanding that marriage involves the following. An average ten year old can understand them:
There are no other requirements. It might be a bad idea for someone to get married, but if they understand the requirements above and meet canonical form, they're validly married. Does this mean that some people will never have sex? Yes. The Catholic Church has always held that not all things are for all people - and if Christ, Mary, and many of the other Saints can do just fine without the "joy of having sex" I think we can survive, too.
As to the medication, I would recommend reading Pharmageddon.
All of these psych drugs (stimulants like riddalin or adderall, antidepressants like effexor or prozac, antispycotics like seroquel and risperdol, mood stabilizers like lamictal, and benzos like klonopin or xanax) are addictive, and the body reacts to them exactly like it would any street drug. The brain is capable of recovering in some circumstances, but lingering effects can last for years or be permanent. Psych meds are incredibly powerful substances that in some cases can be more powerful than common "street drugs". These are not medications. Instead, pyscg meds are powerful neuroactive substances that are poorly understood. In US society, these drugs are heavily prescribed to all sectors of the population. Including children and pregnant mothers.
In a social sense, these drugs are convenient "control" mechanisms for prisons, psych wards schools. They are also heavily prescribed for depression, anxiety etc. Most of this occurs in the USA, in other countries (excluding the UK) prescription rates are fairly low. Women account for something 2/3 of all psych med drug use, and women are usually responsible for drugging their children.
Riddalin is a common "entry" drug for children. Adderall, vyvanse and provigil are also quite common now. It rarely ends with these stimulants and often progresses to the more powerful antidepressants, antianxity, and antipsycotic medications. That's when the long term and life altering damage can occur.
There's considerable evidence both in the scientific literature and NUMEROUS anecdotal stories on the internet for people who get severe withdrawal from the antianxiety, antidepressant, and antipsycotic drugs. As such, they are not treatment for a disorder, but cause their own dependency and addiction profiles. Psych meds are powerful substances that severely affect the body just like any drug or toxin. There's studies on the long term side effects, and how difficult it is to stop taking the drugs. Sexual side effects can be permanent. This condition is called post-SSRI sexual dysfunction and primarly affects those who take antidepressants.
Some people recover, others never recover. Children almost certainly get permanent damage as their brains are still in development. Lots of dumb ass women take these drugs during pregnancy, damaging their kids brains before they're even born. Then the dumb cunts take it after they give birth, so they are shit mothers doped out on drugs. These are the same dumb cunts who will quickly go to a doctor and start poisoning their kids once the PTA meeting goes badly. Then they'll bitch and moan like the cunts they are about why the kid isn't getting better. Eventually, the poor kid will probably fail to do well in school because the drugs cause brain damage, and the dumb bitch will make his life even more difficult until he escapes at the age of 16 or 18. With brain damage and a dumb bitch as a mother, his life is going to be very difficult. Life is hard enough, life with withdrawal or brain damage can lead to homelessness, jail, lifetime of addiction, and worse. Homelessness due to psych med withdrawal and long term side effects is extremely common for men.
Women have it easy. Even if a young girl gets brain damage, no one will care - standards are so low, and any guy will fuck a girl if she's wet between the legs (or use lube if she can't get wet). If she's got a pulse, she'll never be homeless. Even a heavily brain damaged girl will get a job and a college degree no matter how badly damaged they seem to the world. IF that doesn't work out, she'll just find some dude to take care of her. These drugs primarily affect men, because society puts so much pressure on them. Even small amounts of brain damage, or withdrawal can fuck their careers and futures up permanently.
Scary shit, good reason to never ever send your child into a public school system if it can be helped. Public schools have gotten worse since I was a child. Pyschiatrists and other such doctors"child psychiatrists" are all greedy cunts who want to poison your kid so that they can make some extra money. Most psychiatrists are too brainwashed to understand how the drugs really work, and believe everything the pharmaceutical company tells them like idiots.
Most parents are blue pilled faggots who will listen to the female's desire to do the "right thing". Doing the "right thing" is brain damage to young children with fragile brains. If your child survives the brain damage, he will be prone to addiction and other emotional issues for a very long time. These drugs affect every single part of the brain and especially affect the emotional and sexual portions of the brain.
Also note: there's no such thing as a child dose for these drugs in the literature. They're designed for adults. It's literally GUESSWORK, and everyone reacts differently to different doses. It's a real fucking mess, but doctors pretend they know what they're doing, and are protected from legal repercussions from any consequences these drugs may have on children.
Very few if any studies have been done on children for more than 6 weeks. This is true for stimulants, antidepressants, antipsycotis, mood stabilizers and benzos. There's not much scientific understanding about how these drugs actually work, and there's even less understanding about their long term effects on adults. For children the knowledge is even less thorough.
There's a handful of studies that have been carried out on these drugs for more than 6 weeks in adults, and I don't believe there's ever been one carried out long term in children. The fact is that almost EVERYONE takes these drugs for more than 6 weeks, so there's very little knowledge about how these drugs actually work long term. There is also plenty of evidence that these drugs are no more effective for treating their make believe "diagnoses" than a placebo pill.
There's literally studies that have been carried out which demonstrate that placebo and antidepressants or ADHD meds are equally effective over the longer term. In some studies, patients actually do BETTER for more than 6 weeks on the placebo and those on the drugs do considerably worse. This also holds true for benzodiazepines, and antipsychotic medications as well.
A pulitzer prize finalist (male author) has published two very informative and scientifically based books on the subject of psychiatry and psychiatric medications. He's not a scientologist, just a concerned journalist.
Here's the links for those who are interested:
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527721857&sr=8-1&keywords=anatomy+of+an+epidemic
https://www.amazon.com/Mad-America-Medicine-Enduring-Mistreatment/dp/0465020143/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527721886&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=made+in+america+robert+whitaker
TLDR: All pysch meds are poorly understood in adults, and very few if any studies have ever been conducted in children. In adults, psych meds can cause severe withdrawal reactions, nerve damage, and permanent sexual dysfunction in both men and women. There's considerable documentation that placebo pills are more effective than psych meds for treating the "diagnosed condition". Robert Whitaker's two books are excellent, easy to read documents that can explain far more than I can on a reddit post.
The claim that mental disorders are caused by imbalances in the brain has been heralded for decades in research paid for by pharmaceutical industries. However, the evidence substantiating those claims is very sketchy. Take a look at Robert Whitaker's Anatomy of an Epidemic for a comprehensive overview of the scientific evidence. It strongly suggests that the claim for mental disorders being cause by faulty brains is not consistent with the best evidence.
"I'm on a 10mg daily dose right now, do I even have anything to worry about?"
Longterm benzo use is going to make your anxiety vastly worse than it was to start with. That's why you're never supposed to take them for more than ten days. Time for you to find a new doctor.
But if you want an answer to your question, yes they cause brain damage, and they're also extremely addicting -- more than heroin. (Whereas heroin withdrawals are over in three or four days, longterm benzo users are often completely unable to sleep or think and function properly for up to a full year.)
If you want a good book on the subject, I'd recommend Anatomy of an Epidemic:
http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347671582&sr=1-1&keywords=anatomy+of+an+epidemic
Considering there's a heated debate going on right now within the medical community that they don't perform much better than placebo
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4592645/
I think the jury is still out.
Also it hasn't been disproven, but the majority of scientists agree that the chemical theory is not the cause of depression -
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-007-9047-3
Let me help you find more about it, if that's what you want to do.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=chemical+imbalance+theory
a good read is a this book if you're interested more
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0036S4EGE/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Bottle of Lies: The Inside Story of the Generic Drug Boom
https://www.amazon.com/Bottle-Lies-Inside-Story-Generic/dp/0062338781
sempre sul pezzo in italia
Thanks man! I found it:
Ben Westhoff is an award-winning investigative journalist who writes about culture, drugs, and poverty. His new book "Fentanyl, Inc.: How Rogue Chemists Are Creating the Deadliest Wave of the Opioid Epidemic " is available now on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Fentanyl-Inc-Chemists-Creating-Deadliest/dp/0802127436
https://www.amazon.com/Career-Opportunities-Biotechnology-Drug-Development/dp/0879698802
​
https://www.amazon.com/Managing-Biotechnology-Science-Market-Digital/dp/1119216176
​
https://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Discovery-Approval-Rick-Ng-ebook/dp/B00WWQQ842
​
https://www.amazon.com/Biotechnology-Entrepreneurship-Starting-Managing-Companies-ebook/dp/B00JVLHAQ6
> but has a huge and positive impact on their lives
Actually, I've read a lot of criticism about the EMA, particularly about its lack of transparency in terms of data and clinical studies but also in general not regulating drug approval scientifically. Not that the US's agency is much superior (the book linked above is mostly about the US).
Dang it, now I have to defend my responses! ; )
There are books and books on psychiatry's history as well as it's problems. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory but there's just so much to it and there are so many levels. It's very complicated...the bio-medical model is great for treating things like polio, bacterial infections, and stomach aches, but in terms of mental illness there are so many more variables going on. You can't say that something like depression is simply a chemical imbalance and therefor you need medication. That's so reductive it hurts. That's like saying a headache is an Advil imbalance. Brain chemistry is important but it is over emphasized. Also think about the side effects of medication.
I think you missed my last point. Drug companies want wider diagnoses and more loose criteria in the DSM so more people can be diagnosed and prescribed and thus the companies can make more money.
The below book completely changed my view. It documents the rise and history of psychiatry as well as its outcomes. Tons of research backing in the book. It's not just some guy rambling but some guy rambling with research and data to back it up.
http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425
Anyone interested in this, and how it affects them, should read the book Bad Pharma
Highly recommended, and though a little hysterical in parts, absolutely true.
Dr. Raine,
Kudos to you sir, rarely is an IAMA filled with so many thoroughly well-informed students of the OP's area of expertise. You have an erudite fan base.
My question -
Are you familiar with the book Anatomy of an Epidemic? (My guess is yes,.. if only due to the similarity in titles!)
Do you have an opinion on the argument that Mr. Whitaker put forth that the application of psychiatric drug-based interventions with the goal of improving mental health appears to result in (on average) dramatically worse long term results? Perhaps even driving patients further up the scale of mental illness in the interests of relieving short tern symptoms.
Mr. Whitaker puts together a convincing (to me, a layman) foundation of studies and research that seem to show we are "re-wiring brains" and not for the better with drug interventions.
Follow-up question -
I have ordered your book (just now) so perhaps you address this there. In your synopsis you say that your studies may help "identify violent offenders early in life [potentially informing] crime-prevention policies" - are you concerned about the inefficacy of intervention-directed policies in the hands of government bureaucratic oversight?
BTW - I can't speak for Mr. Whitaker or Anatomy of an Epidemic - I hope I have gotten his thesis right in my question.
Well, be glad you're not a Kindle user: many e-books on Amazon are more than their harcopy equivalents.
Example.
I read an interesting book a while back that ties in to some of what you are saying. It details how the pharaceutical industry does not report negative results from medical & pharmaceutical trials - they only report favorable results. And, because of that, scientists, doctors, and consumers are not given the complete picture of the risks and benefits of a given medication. Goldacre argues that ithould be mandatory for drug companies to release ALL DATA - favorable or not. Really interesting & informative read.
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Pharma-Companies-Mislead-Patients/dp/0865478007
That is a great document. Hard for the nopers to argue with because it's .gov. David Healy (co-author of the document) is well worth listening to. His book Pharmageddon should be required reading for med students. But it won't even get any air on major networks because it presents a roadmap for real change.
Bedtime stories for drug warriors:
http://ssristories.org/old/index1.php
Michael Moore (Columbine) used to want to know more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpinCRaAQOk
Fox News made the connection 10 years ago and then shut up completely about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAO5_Hk06Mc
All anyone needs to do to figure out why the networks avoid this topic is to watch the ads they have on every 15 minutes.
For the uninitiated
I have posted a link here once but don't speak for others in this sub in any way, of course. I am writing off the cuff and won't cite studies, but if anyone needs to corroborate these statements I refer you to Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Rober Whitaker for a journalistically sound statement of the argument and some of the relevant studies on the harmful effects of modern psychiatric drugs, as well as a beautiful glimpse at the end of the kind of effective, social treatment that might replace them.
Among other things, I find the zeal with which the psychiatry-marketing complex has defended and continues to tacitly promote the simple neurotransmitter chemical imbalance model of depression and other mental illness fairly disingenuous. This is true especially given its use to justify drugs that are obviously sedatives and tranquilizers, or performance enhancers geared towards reassuring the parents of underachieving students.
The clear and effective purpose of these drugs, in an institutional or community setting, is to make the patient easier to handle, not to cure the disease. By advertising the latter as their intention and promise, drug manufacturers and marketers are opening up a new market of voluntary patients in addition to the existing market seeking sedatives with which to control patients and family members whose symptoms make them hard to handle.
The drugs and their marketers have the effect of converting patients into consumers, not only of drugs for the initial diagnosis or episode but for the drugs used to balance the reaction to those - somehow the option of stopping the first drug in the case of a less than expected response has been virtually replaced by a norm of adding 'complementary' drugs to try and optimize the response.
This flies in the face of common sense trial and error medicine and also creates lifetime multidrug consumers. This pattern is not very flattering for those whose wealth is built on these products.
This process, which thrives on emergency room institutional commitment and justificatory diagnoses, skews the diagnostic methodology as it obscures the quite plausible causal role of the initial drugs in the manifestation of 'symptoms' of a later or conclusive diagnosis. Robert Whitaker conveys the prevalence of this kind of revisionary diagnosis to include symptoms of drug withdrawal or long-term use well in his book and I don't claim to represent it as cogently as is warrented, but I think this aspect reveals some of the nuance in the criticism that distinguishes it from simply believing "that it's all bs".
The suspicion is not that the illness or symptoms do not exist, in the sense that the patient is suffering, but that the worst of them (very frequently not the initiailly displayed symptoms) might be symptoms of poisoning from these other drug treatments or of the combined drug stupor and isolation from community and society. In other words the symptoms might not be the end-all, labeled-and-medicated-for-life huge issue we often treat them as, if the people had adequate social support. We might be creating these lifetime multidrug consumers in direct opposition to their best interests as patients of mental illness.
Unfortunately, these patterns and market forces have inhibited and led to the suppression of those who would carry forth research into the long-term effects of these medications, meaning we cannot yet know how damaging these treatments are in the long term. Abnormal outbursts upon stopping psychiatric medication have been overwhelmingly interpreted as psychotic breaks rather than dangerous somatic reactions to the drug and its withdrawal - again justifying continued medication, often at a higher dose. It appears as though secondary diagnosis has been used to mask what may be long-term damage caused by these drugs, and revelations about the ubiquity and multifunctionality of neurotransmitters in the body make urgent the need to understand the implications of our heavy-handed attempts at 'rebalancing' someone's brain chemistry.
A fictional example: an initial, often childhood diagnosis of AD(H)D for manic symptoms, treated with amphetamines (known to cause distinct crashes), precedes the appearance of depressive periods or lethargic moods, followed sometime later, likely in middle or high school, by a diagnosis of manic-depressive (bipolar) disorder for which antipsychotics or sedatives are added to the mix. Because he began medication as a child, the patient has no regular pattern of talk therapy where he can hash out his moods and feelings with an informed professional, and he is alienated and simultaneously romanticizes his condition and flaunts his medication schedule (or seeks higher dosages and sells a portion of his prescription) as he sees fit, confusing his medical history. Enough hospital-worthy episodes later, with increasing (drug-induced?) delirium, or perhaps when he has an episode that threatens his college graduation or career, and the patient is likely to be deemed schizophrenic and the drug cocktail made stronger and more hallucinatory.
Eventually, when his family supports wither and he is alone, he falls through the cracks and ends up committed. His diagnosis justifies his lifetime institutionalization and continued, expanded medication - now with even less input from the patient and far less credibility given to his personal narrative, which by this point has been strung out on multiple drugs for years. His symptoms, or possibly the consequences of a childhood and adolescence spent on multiple psychotropic drugs, have impeded the development of healthy living habits and social literacy, which further justifies his need for 'assisted living' and forced medication in a locked ward, at the expense of family members or insurers once the patient's own estate has been expended.
This illustration sounds extreme in a few paragraphs but it is not so far from how these things play out all too often in the US right now. And the age of initial diagnosis is creeping younger and younger at an unsettling rate. Part of why I follow this sub is to keep abreast of changes in diagnostic criteria like the introduction of childhood flavors of adult mental illness.
In response to your first question, although I am not any authority in this sub at all, I think it's important to realize the difference between 'anti-psychiatry' and 'anti-psychology' - I, for one, believe that talk therapy, proceeding from potentially multiple psychological traditions, can be very effective treatment and possibly sufficient for most, except for the very real expense involved in providing the time and attention that would be effective and the pursuant difficulty in reaching the most vulnerable populations. Every one of us, and especially those who have been cut off from normative communication with society by mental illness, need the loving attention of the people in their lives in order to flourish and function healthily in the group, and in an ideal world I think we would do well to provide psychologists where family supports are lacking or inadequate.
On the other hand mass psychiatry, the medicalizing of societally unfit personality presentations and subsequent drug treatment, feels like a dangerous road for us to travel, a shortcut to a numb consumer populace and a profit venture masquerading as individualized mental healthcare.
TL;DR: Critical of motivations and methodology as well as the existing diagnostic criteria born of those.
Iinvestigative journalist and author of Bottle of Lies, illuminates the prevalence of fraud in generic drug manufacturing which brings into question the idea that generics are identical to brand-name drug as we are lead to believe. Katherine walks us through how this widespread corruption came to be, including the shocking story of one particularly egregious (and unfortunately not uncommon) example of an Indian drug company, Ranbaxy, whose business model was completely dependent on falsifying data in their drug applications to the FDA. We then discuss the subsequent investigation into Indian and Chinese drug manufacturing plants which revealed that nearly 80% of them are tainted with fraud.
Her response to the furore today:
"@Philippa_Perry: Thanks for all your tweets and letting me know what you thought of last night's doc. Here is some further reading http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pharmageddon-David-Healy/dp/0520275764"
Anti meds much?
Yes, as well as that there has been a meta analysis comparing the adverse events in the published papers to the clinical study reports and there was a huge discrepancy (only 30% reported were included in the final paper). So even when patients do report adverse events they are hidden.
Even if you ignore the fact that negative trials go missing and assume that the data about the effectiveness of the drugs we use is sound (which it isn't). You still can't make an informed decision if you don't have good evidence about the harms of that medication.
If you are interested I recommend you check out this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-healthcare/dp/1846198844 You won't believe how much we have let industry corrupt science.
I learned not long ago that our family's first microwave oven (1970s) was a pharma gift to my uncle, an oral surgeon. He didn't want it, gave it to us.
Years later (1980s), I was scrounging for food in my sister's house, and stumbled across these jars of jelly; when I opened them, they had a wax seal on top. Gift from pharma to my BIL. Sis told me to tuck in, they were free, a gift from pharma.
Sis's decadal birthday celebration was held at pharma's expense.
I forget what all else, but it's a seemingly unending flow of goodies and trinkets from thinly veiled bribery to writing pads and expensive gimmicky pens.
BIL goes on junkets around the country, talking about how wonderful Drug X is; gets put up in the best hotels, speaks for half an hour, goes home with an extra few thousand and a free trip. And he doesn't work in what is considered a particularly lucrative specialty, either.
Goldacre's Bad Pharma is an excellent book on what pharma does to get what they want.
Yes... psych meds have the unfortunate side effect of making transient problems chronic.
This will elucidate: https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing-ebook/dp/B0036S4EGE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492973798&sr=1-1&keywords=anatomy+of+an+epidemic
I suggest that book to anybody who is interested in a well researched look at the long term effects of medication. Also, anybody who has had a bad experience with medications should definitely read it as well.
But there are other factors at play. The only difference between a psychiatrist who charges $200 for 15-20 minutes and a psychologist who charges $120 for 50 minutes is the ability to prescribe medications. There is a reason why Psychiatrists rarely provide talk therapy. The AMA is invested in pushing a medical model of mental health because psycho-social therapy can be provided by PhD or masters level therapists for a fraction of the cost, and there is nothing in medical training that would give someone an inherent edge in being able to provide therapy. Basically, the playing field is too even when it comes to providing talk therapy. Also, the AMA actively lobbies to deny PhD level psychologists the ability to prescribe in order to protect their monopoly as the only source of psych meds (while also pushing the medical model as the fundamental source of mental distress).
I'm not implying that there is never a place for medication in treatment, but I do think that if anybody actually becomes informed on the issues, they will reach the conclusion that as a society we are DRAMATICALLY overmedicated and that pharma companies have an outsized influence on treatment. Also, the professional organizations that govern Psychiatry are knowingly allying themselves with pharma and pushing for unproven and at times harmful treatments in order to further their own aims.
Once one actually understands the process by which therapies are developed this claim is totally absurd. The pharmaceutical industry is fiercely competitive.
The vast majority of drugs fail to be approved due to side effects, or lack of therapeutic effect so the thought that a company would reject a promising new drug is absurd. Also limits on patent and licencing time strongly encourage companies to continually develop new therapies even ones that would replace their current product.
The other thing as I mentioned before is that people actually make a lot of money curing disease. Here is an article from scientific American about hepatitis C cures and the economics of them. The jist of the Hep C story is companies stand to make a fortune off curing the disease (Granted they had a spend a fortune to develop them in the first place).
If you really want to learn more about the pharmaceutical industry check out The Antidote its a pretty good read about Vertex one of the companies who developed one of the drugs used to cure hep c.
The reality is developing a cure for a disease is very hard, and often we simply don't have the tools required to do it. The pharmaceutical industry has been slow to develop new tools instead over relying on small molecule drugs. This is all changing though with many companies pushing curative new biologic therapies through the pipeline. Take a look at Juno, Avalanche, Spark, or one of the many many other companies working on developing complete 1 time cures for disease, the economics are there, it's the science that's the hard part.
> these people were prescribed ADs for a reason, no?
Check out Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker - https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425
Yes, but probably not the reason you're thinking. The answer is $$$$, control and the belief that a pill will be a panacea for all of life's problems.
The most scathing critiques of psychiatry are from people who have been maimed by it.
This book can change one's view of the benevolence & competence of the enterprise. "Religion" has nothing to do with it.
There's a fantastic book that addresses a lot of these points: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307452425/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
While I wholeheartedly agree psychiatric drugs should not be the go-to for children, talking to a therapist or another mental health professional can be highly beneficial, and drugs don't even need to be in the equation. In fact, Amber said "i want you to talk to a therapist" not, "I want you to see a psychiatrist." Also, Gary doesn't seem to be providing any coping mechanisms, whereas Amber says "There's things we can do to take your mind off it"
> as you can probably tell this is still an issue of much contention for me
Seems like you still are a little unsure about the route you are taking with the psychiatric medications. I'd advise a smart guy like you might want to check out some of the current controversy re: long term treatment with these medications.
"anatomy of an epidemic" by robert whittaker is a great book that tries to look at the evidence base for psychiatric drugs .. written by a reporter.
amazon link : http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425/
The points I'd make have already been made, so I won't repeat them. But if people are interested about this topic and the pharmaceutical industry in general, I learnt a lot from Ben Goldacre's book - Bad Pharma and I'd recommend it. He talks a lot about drug companies and marketing.
Not sure how that's relevant exactly...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/
Or this book if you prefer greater detail:
>In his latest ground-breaking book, Peter C Gotzsche exposes the pharmaceutical industries and their charade of fraudulent behaviour, both in research and marketing where the morally repugnant disregard for human lives is the norm. He convincingly draws close comparisons with the tobacco conglomerates, revealing the extraordinary truth behind efforts to confuse and distract the public and their politicians. The book addresses, in evidence-based detail, an extraordinary system failure caused by widespread crime, corruption, bribery and impotent drug regulation in need of radical reforms. "The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don't sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs.
And before someone attackd the author:
> He became professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis in 2010 at the University of Copenhagen. Peter Gotzsche has published more than 50 papers in 'the big five' (BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine and New England Journal of Medicine) and his scientific works have been cited over 10 000 times.
http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-Healthcare/dp/1846198844#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1463489060335
These are both a good read if you hadn't already seen them.
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing-ebook/dp/B0036S4EGE
https://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Like-Us-Globalization-American-ebook/dp/B00321OR8K/ref=pd_sim_351_34?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B00321OR8K&pd_rd_r=93b443d9-9c42-4356-9a1d-6538bb25df2c&pd_rd_w=7rj6K&pd_rd_wg=vxSSr&pf_rd_p=5c130f77-a5ef-4ffd-9db1-c29a354f52f9&pf_rd_r=JNEAQJVNT0TGPFPZ836B&psc=1&refRID=JNEAQJVNT0TGPFPZ836B
Pharmagellan Guide to Biotech Investing just came out in January.
https://www.amazon.com/Pharmagellan-Guide-Biotech-Forecasting-Valuation/dp/099840750X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486431743&sr=8-2&keywords=biotech+valuation
Quite expensive, though. I would suggest reading some of EvaluatePharma's pieces on seeking alpha and poking around their site, reading their blogs.
The book Dopesick by Beth Macy details very well the origins of the ongoing opioid crisis in the US.
If you are interested in the genesis of the problem in the United States, you should read Dopesick: Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America by Beth Macy. The majority of it is set where I live so I’ve seen (and personally struggled with) this firsthand.
>I'm guessing you're trained in a relatively enlightened form of psychology or social work or another field, rather than psychiatry. Psychiatrists consider theselves in the mental health field, and they go to medical school, so they also consider themselves doctors.
Psychology is my field, I don't think I had a particularly enlightened education or career though. And I've known a few psychiatrists but none of them seem to fit the description you have of them.
And yeah they do consider themselves doctors because they are.
>It's my understanding that in the olden days, people with behavioral symptoms related to things like viral encephalitis which were clearly biological in origin were considered schizophrenics.
I can't say for sure as I don't know enough about that specific issue but there's a difference between something being a biological cause of a mental disorder and something being a brain disease.
> (have you read Robert Whitaker by the way? You could probably pick apart his arguments if you want, but definitely worth a read.
I might check it out if I can stomach it but I generally steer clear of Whittaker as he's well known for misrepresenting the field..
>Anyway, there's definitely biological causes for undesired emotional/behavioral experiences. Interestingly, as soon as one is discovered, those patients are no longer under psychiatric purview - they go to neurologists or infectious disease docs or whatever. I think this reinforces your point that mental health practitioners have a corresponding opportunity to work outside models of biological causality, and are missing the point (or lying) if they're claiming neurotransmitters are the primary cause of mental illness. I think this is also why I get so frustrated and angry when they are so quick to prescribe SSRI's and implying that they are a disease treatment, rather than offering them up as neuroactive compounds that a person may find helpful (as in managing symptoms, not curing disease).
As I say above, I think there is a difference between a brain disease and a biological cause. If someone gets syphilis then it's not a mental disorder, but if someone is born with a particular brain makeup that leads to the development of some disorder, then that's a mental disorder.
>>1) I don't think the DSM encourages any particular treatment option over the other,
>Either way, in practice psychiatrists encourage drugs. Their hammer makes your problem look like a nail.
They do as they are medical doctors but that's not their only treatment option and they usually work in unison with psychologists to provide all relevant treatment options.
>Now here is a fruitful topic of discussion. Key word is "can be" the best option. For some. We need to be honest about the fact that they may also not be for others. I drink coffee routinely to treat my sleepiness and/or lack of motivation, and for now, it works for me. I wouldn't try and strongly suggest that you do the same under the guise of science.
Absolutely but this is a well recognised fact. That's why psychiatrists will continually monitor the effectiveness of the drugs and it's dosage, and provide psychotherapies where applicable.
To be clear, I'm talking about good practice here and not suggesting this occurs in every case.
>Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that these meds (though often effective in a positive way over short time scales) are causing severe side effects over the long-term. Symptoms like akethesia, diabetes, tardive dyskinesia, just to name a few.
Definitely! But two points here: 1) all medications have this issue, and 2) not medicating someone has worse consequences than the side effects.
>And we are still using electroshock in this country, which is really saddening to me.
ECT is an effective treatment option which can be a life saver for many people.
>Disagree on all fronts. My brother was diagnosed with ADHD when we were kids, and that altered his identity. To this day his self-confidence in himself is very weak. He never was able to develop tools to focus, or the confidence that he could be a self-sufficient person.
What makes you think that was the drugs and not the ADHD?
>Adderall most definitely produces results that parents, teachers, and psychiatrists are going to like. I wouldn't conclude that this is the 'best'.
The primary measure of success is usually how the patient feels and an effective treatment is one that generally increases their autonomy and ability to function.
>And what's 'best'? By what metric of success? I advocate a flexible model of treatment. If a patient wants to try pills, then go for it; if they want to try CBT or ACT, or meditation and exercise, by all means! When a therapist accompanies a patient through his/her own journey and allows them to grow in self-determination, I almost think THAT's what heals most, and the specific techniques matter much less.
Sort of agreed. Patients should be allowed to choose their path but the professional must ensure that the patient is being given the best information and they recommend treatments that evidence shows will be most effective for the individual.
>I can't speak for medical doctors but it's not widespread in the mental health field which, as I say above, is more focused on the biopsychosocial model.
I'm guessing you're trained in a relatively enlightened form of psychology or social work or another field, rather than psychiatry. Psychiatrists consider theselves in the mental health field, and they go to medical school, so they also consider themselves doctors.
>That isn't to say that it's never right to focus on biological causes of disorders. I'm skeptical of some attempts to support such claims (like saying that since there are brain differences then it must be biological) but that doesn't make it necessarily wrong.
With schizophrenia in particular I was under the impression that there is some good evidence for biological causes. With the exception of people like Mosher and Bentall, I can't think of many researchers that oppose it. Their book 'Models of Madness' was quite good but I think they make similar mistakes in the opposite direction, of presenting bad evidence in support of environmental causes.
It's my understanding that in the olden days, people with behavioral symptoms related to things like viral encephalitis which were clearly biological in origin were considered schizophrenics. (have you read Robert Whitaker by the way? You could probably pick apart his arguments if you want, but definitely worth a read. Anyway, there's definitely biological causes for undesired emotional/behavioral experiences. Interestingly, as soon as one is discovered, those patients are no longer under psychiatric purview - they go to neurologists or infectious disease docs or whatever. I think this reinforces your point that mental health practitioners have a corresponding opportunity to work outside models of biological causality, and are missing the point (or lying) if they're claiming neurotransmitters are the primary cause of mental illness. I think this is also why I get so frustrated and angry when they are so quick to prescribe SSRI's and implying that they are a disease treatment, rather than offering them up as neuroactive compounds that a person may find helpful (as in managing symptoms, not curing disease).
>1) I don't think the DSM encourages any particular treatment option over the other,
Either way, in practice psychiatrists encourage drugs. Their hammer makes your problem look like a nail.
2) even if disorders aren't biological, it doesn't mean biological treatments aren't the best option. Behaviors and thoughts still need to go through the brain and so manipulating the brain directly can be the best treatment option - and not just to "relieve symptoms".
Now here is a fruitful topic of discussion. Key word is "can be" the best option. For some. We need to be honest about the fact that they may also not be for others. I drink coffee routinely to treat my sleepiness and/or lack of motivation, and for now, it works for me. I wouldn't try and strongly suggest that you do the same under the guise of science. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that these meds (though often effective in a positive way over short time scales) are causing severe side effects over the long-term. Symptoms like akethesia, diabetes, tardive dyskinesia, just to name a few. And we are still using electroshock in this country, which is really saddening to me.
>For example even if ADHD wasn't biologically caused, we still know that medication is the best treatment. Conversely, just because a disorder is biologically caused it doesn't mean non-biological treatments aren't the best option (e.g autism with behavioral therapy).
Disagree on all fronts. My brother was diagnosed with ADHD when we were kids, and that altered his identity. To this day his self-confidence in himself is very weak. He never was able to develop tools to focus, or the confidence that he could be a self-sufficient person. Adderall most definitely produces results that parents, teachers, and psychiatrists are going to like. I wouldn't conclude that this is the 'best'. And what's 'best'? By what metric of success? I advocate a flexible model of treatment. If a patient wants to try pills, then go for it; if they want to try CBT or ACT, or meditation and exercise, by all means! When a therapist accompanies a patient through his/her own journey and allows them to grow in self-determination, I almost think THAT's what heals most, and the specific techniques matter much less.
I'm going to bed; this was a good discussion - would be fun to talk more sometime.
Oh .... if only I had a shekel for each time I've heard of these experiences.
It's hard to find a Clinical Psychologist or Psychiatrist who speaks out and holds their Snake Oil Peddling colleagues to account. Have a look at the works and books of Dr. David Healy - Making medicines safer for all of us.
His 2012 book "Pharmageddon" is a must read modern classic.
When I find a supposed medical or health professional who judges their professional quality and work by the number of drugs they have peddled and prescribed to just one patient .... I call NEGLIGENCE and advise the patient to seek legal support.
Widespread crime, corruption and drugs being the third leading cause of death ? O wait that’s already happening
> The book addresses, in evidence-based detail, an extraordinary system failure caused by widespread crime, corruption, bribery and impotent drug regulation in need of radical reforms
https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-Healthcare/dp/1846198844
You may find these books 1, 2, 3 and 4 quite interesting.
I used hyperbole and satire on purpose. At some point I realized I cant even convince people in person, with sources. They WANT to believe the pills will work as it gives them a sense of hope and security. On the surface it appears to be cognitive dissonance, but in reality I have come to believe ignorance is bliss. It is too much a leap of the imagination to even entertain the idea that consumers and their doctors have been mislead for the sake of obedient workers and corporate profits. On a side note, Prozac LITERALLY turns people into zombies, that is not hyperbole.
But fuck it, I can try again. Lucky for the lazy, 2 of 4 sources are videos.
Article 1) The Strange Powers of the Placebo Effect (video)
Article 2) Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration
>Conclusion: Drug–placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients. The relationship between initial severity and antidepressant efficacy is attributable to decreased responsiveness to placebo among very severely depressed patients, rather than to increased responsiveness to medication.
Ergo: Antidepressants are no more effective than placebo except in the most statistically extreme cases. In those cases, drugs do not perform better but placebo performs worse.
Article 3) Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Robert Whitaker
Article 4) RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms by Sir Ken Robinson (video)
IF you think I am a crazy loon, click article 4 first, and just watch.
I suggest everyone considering the possibility that their doctors opinion is bought and paid for. Said doctor may not realize they are a pawn and may honestly believe they are helping you. Also understand there is little law requiring they stay up to date on modern studies after they receive their certification. You may be receiving information which has long since been disproven, yet the drug companies have no reason to spread such information.
A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not following you.
Your alternative option is to believe there is no conspiracy. Because they clearly know what they are talking about, and I am a kook/crank. If you cannot even hypothetically enter into a though experiment on the subject and temporary accept my premise for the sake of a socratic dialog, I have wasted my time for the system has already won and you are no longer a free thinker.
tldr: I give up, satire is the only way to push peoples buttons enough to even get them to look into the issue. Even then no one on pills cares enough.
Bad pharma Ben Goldacre
Sadly it is worse. Prescription Drugs Are The Third Leading Cause Of Death After Heart Disease And Cancer.
I would hasten to add that the author of the book is not some sensationalist quack, he co-founded The Cochrane Collaboration and is Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen. He has published more than 70 papers in the top 5 general medical journals, cited over 10,000 times.
This book won the British Medical Associations book of the year in 2014.
I think I read about it in this book... https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425
https://www.amazon.com/Fentanyl-Inc-Chemists-Creating-Deadliest/dp/0802127436
Topol’s book “Deep Medicine” is worth a read if anyone is interested in the realistic possibilities of AI and medicine.
While you're looking into the depression thing you might try reading [Anatomy of an Epidemic] (http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing-ebook/dp/B0036S4EGE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422644475&sr=8-1&keywords=anatomy+of+an+epidemic). It had quite a lot to say about the prescribing of SSRIs to young people and it's worth a read.
And those fears are understandable: we all have anxiety about our meds, and what benefits we may derive from them. The problem is there are no long-term studies indicating CRABs are effective at maintaining remission, and (worse) relapse rate is not indicative of long-term disability anyway. The only one that has shown promise in the long run is Tysabri, which has that nasty brain thing going on, too.
I have a good friend with MS, and I don't tell her the Avonex probably does nothing for her, as there is the possibility she is deriving benefit from the placebo effect. Most of these MS drugs have horribly skewed clinical results because the ones that don't derive benefit from the drugs tend to drop out; the ones that stay on the drugs tend to have milder MS, and/or derive more benefit from the drug, skewing the results. These are very expensive medications, and it is reasonable to anticipate that the research behind them may be biased by the pharmaceutical companies; see Ben Goldacre's excellent Bad Pharma.
Interestingly, low uric acid is tied with MS relapses. There are ways to boost your uric acid levels (uric acid causes gout, and folks with MS relapses are at the opposite end of the scale of those with gout), which may reduce your rate of relapses.
-unless they voice the want to be off of them. In which case they will need your support.
Edit: Allow me to direct all of you to this book which I found recommended on Reddit concerning mental illness and medication. It gives a good objective exploration of the history of mental illness and its treatment, and the history of the varying medications itself. As a sufferer, I find it very informative. It's helped me come to important decisions for my own foture.
Yeah, I get that. I think one of the major successes in the 20th Century was the movement toward medicalizing mental health issues so that they were given the credit they deserve. We know these experiences are a problem, and people having them are subject to many layers of oppression and human rights violations, and psychiatry has made a lot of strides towards these issues being taken far more seriously. I do also believe that psychiatry and pharmaceuticals do help some people. It is one option, and many people find their life more manageable because they have taken that route, and that's a beautiful thing and I'm very happy for anyone who has found solace there. But it is not universally true, and one of the reasons for that is how imprecise the science actually is on what is going on with the mind, and what the drugs are actually doing. The most famous example is the notion that depression is the result of lower than usual seratonin levels in the brain, which was actually the result of an ad that was using a study that had found that more people with depression in the study had higher levels of seratonin. But they had a drug that dealt with lower seratonin levels, so that's the narrative that was created (links below). Point being, (and see The Anatomy of Melancholy by Robert Burton on this), there is no chemical test for depression because there are many potential causes, and remedies. Psychiatry and the DSM have categorized these experiences, which I agree is a necessary thing to research them, but then got fully entwined with pharma. Now policies and laws impose that one narrative onto people who are going through these experiences, even though they often get it very wrong.
There are alternatives, and the Soteria house project by Lorne Mosher was one of the most interesting, where they took people with severe schizophrenia and had a virtually drug free approach, and their results were better than the alternatives. The problem for scaling up was that it did not put people on a lifelong hook for medication. So, I guess it's not about wanting to tear it all down, but I think people should know what's up, they should be informed about all the studies done on the chemicals they are taking, what all the side affects might be, and, ideally, alternative approaches that may benefit them in the long run. I think people going through these experiences should be given the rights and power to make decisions, including whether or not they will self-identify with the DSM categories at all.
I cannot stress the following enough, the result of extensive studies by the World Health Organization, as articulated by Robert Whitaker: "Most Americans are unaware that the World Health Organization (WHO) has repeatedly found that long-term schizophrenia outcomes are much worse in the USA and other developed countries than in poor ones such as India and Nigeria, where relatively few patients are on anti-psychotic medications. In undeveloped countries, nearly two-thirds of schizophrenia patients are doing fairly well five years after initial diagnosis; about 40% have basically recovered. But in the USA and other developed countries, most patients become chronically ill. The outcome differences are so marked that WHO concluded that living in a developed country is a strong predictor that a patient will never fully recover."
Sources:
Lorne Mosher's resignation letter from the APA
The Icarus Project (theicarusproject.net): "We are a support network and media project by and for people who experience the world in ways that are often diagnosed as mental illness. We envision a new culture that allows the space and freedom for exploring different states of being, and recognizes that breakdown can be the entrance to breakthrough. We aim to create a language that is so vast and rich that it expresses the infinite diversity of human experiences."
Soteria: From Madness to Deliverance, by Lorne Mosher
Mad in America by Robert Whitaker
Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker
The Anti-Depressant Era by David Healy
The Invisible Landscape: Mind, Hallucinogens, and the I Ching by Terence McKenna
The Archaic Revival: Speculations on Psychedelic Mushrooms, the Amazon, Virtual Reality, UFOs, Evolution, Shamanism, the Rebirth of the Goddess, and the End of History by Terence McKenna
The point is to try and empower people to improve their lives, and since we don't know how to do that universally, giving people the power and options to be able to choose methods that work for them is a vital part of maintaining their autonomy and preserving their fundamental human rights. I find this subject is very difficult to discuss without it getting heated. Please understand I have so much sympathy for your experiences. I have tried to take care of people while they were in the midst of full psychotic breaks, I have had to call the police, I have had to participate in the forced hospitalization of people I have known, I have lost too many people to suicide. I know these things and they still hurt and I am welling up thinking about all of them. And I care about you too, and you're not alone.
Sorry re length.
This matches with what I recently read in Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Robert Whitaker where he shows that the number of people labeled as disabled due to mental illness has tripled during the past 20 years.
If they are "disabled" then they certainly are a part of the increased burden on the system.
Several
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Pharma-Companies-Mislead-Patients/dp/0865478066?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=ad-backfill-s-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0865478066
https://www.amazon.com/Ending-Medical-Reversal-Improving-Outcomes/dp/1421417723/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523507539&sr=1-1&keywords=vinay+prasad
perhaps you have a single comment to make with content?
Hahaha thats idiotic. Absolutely not true. MAny books have been written explaining how pharma manipulates medical science. See this one
Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare https://www.amazon.com/dp/1846198844/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_V7iYBbKT9Q0DF
I do have a source? I just told you. The image is a picture of text that IS from an academic source.
> Being an academic does not make everything you do academia
Ok but being an academic doing academic work does.
> has no peer review process and clearly has an agenda (promoting "psychiatric drug withdrawal). It's not academic. It's simply promoting pseudoscience and selling "education" for $100 a module.
and it links to academic papers... Mad in america is an aggregate for the papers not its publisher...
> If you want to talk goal posting shifting, why are you discussing SSRI's now? They're an entirely different class of drugs and aren't even used to treat adhd. So I take it you don't have anything to add about the long term impacts of stimulants and we'll call that one settled.
Because the discussion was about psychiatric drugs. I have never mentioned stimulants nor do I really care about the efficacy of them.
> Not for adhd. And even for the shift to discussing depression it doesn't support your claim.
Im not talking about adhd, well if that one paper is off there is a whole book on it.
Lucky for you, 2 of 4 sources are videos.
Article 1) The Strange Powers of the Placebo Effect - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfRVCaA5o18
Article 2) Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration - http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045
>Conclusion: Drug–placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients. The relationship between initial severity and antidepressant efficacy is attributable to decreased responsiveness to placebo among very severely depressed patients, rather than to increased responsiveness to medication.
Ergo: Antidepressants are no more effective than placebo except in the most statistically extreme cases. In those cases, drugs do not perform better but placebo performs worse.
Article 3) Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Robert Whitaker - http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425
Article 4) RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms by Sir Ken Robinson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&t=3m26s
IF you think I am a crazy loon, click article 4 first, and just watch.
You are welcome to talk to your doctor, but I suggest considering the possibility that their opinion is bought and paid for. They may not realize they are a pawn, and they may honestly believe they are helping you. In addition, understand there is little law requiring they stay up to date on modern studies after they receive their certification. You may be receiving information which has long since been disproven.
Your alternative option is to take the advice below. "Go see a medical doctor. There is no conspiracy." Because they clearly know what they are talking about, and I am a kook/crank. This could also serve as a lesson. Just because the majority of people believe something, mass approval does not equate with accuracy.
Read this book: Anatomy of an Epidemic. I ran the medication gauntlet for ten years as well and I can tell you there is a lot of misinformation out there about brains and chemicals.
Western mental health services are far more pseudoscience than psychics. Western mental health has little scientific basis. It is also used as a tool of both church and state to punish dissidents.
Read the following before commenting further.
http://www.amazon.com/Mad-America-Medicine-Enduring-Mistreatment/dp/0465020143
http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425
>Saying “sponsored science” and big pharma are skewing all the facts is a conspiracy theory like the originating tweet.
Nah. More like the sober reality of an informed person.
>“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
https://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/
Care to address the downfall of medical science?
Is evidence based medicine icon Peter Gotzsche making it all up?
>The "evidence tells us that it is likely that the DTP vaccine increases total mortality in low-income countries."
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dtp-vaccine-associated-with-increased-rate-of-total-mortality-in-low-income-countries-says-peter-gotzsche-in-new-expert-report-300902971.html
https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-Healthcare/dp/1846198844
https://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375760946
but the science is settled, right?
Here's a whole book.
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing-ebook/dp/B0036S4EGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R6MXO2j0V0&t=3625s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNvCyUC_LPc&t=39s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gigZD4RIXhg&t=18s
It's all there if you take the time to read, study, watch.
People who were diagnosed as schizophrenics, who were completely cured and have been for decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPfKc-TknWU&t=3617s