Tag Archives: Robert Whitaker

The Continuing Proof of the Efficacy of Anti-Psychotics

By Marvin Ross

Despite the protestation from the anti-psychiatry advocates, medication for schizophrenia works and another study has just been published to support that position. A new study based on a nationwide data of all patients hospitalized for schizophrenia in Finland from 1972 to 2014 found that the lowest risk of rehospitalization or death was lowest for those who remained on medication for the full length of time.

The risk of death was 174% to 214% higher among patients who never started taking antipsychotics or stopped using them within one year of their first hospitalization in comparison with patients who consistently took medications for up to 16.4 years.

It should be pointed out that this is real life data rather than a clinical trial involving a total of 8,738 people.

What is particularly significant for me in this study is that it is from Finland which is the home in one isolated part of that country (Lapland) to the alternative Open Dialogue espoused by the anti-psychiatry folks including journalist Robert Whitaker of Mad In America fame. Whitaker claims that 80% of those treated with Open Dialogue are cured without need for drugs.

I wrote about Open Dialogue very critically back in 2013 in Huffington Post and pointed out that there is very little research to demonstrate its efficacy. I actually asked a Finish psychiatrist, Kristian Wahlbeck who is a Research Professor at the National Institute for Health and Welfare, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, in Helsinki about Open Dialogue.

This was his answer:

“I am familiar with the Open Dialogue programme. It is an attractive approach, but regrettably there has been virtually no high-quality evaluation of the programme. Figures like “80 per cent do well without antipsychotics” are derived from studies which lack control group, blinding and independent assessment of outcomes.”

He went on to say that:

“most mental health professionals in Finland would agree with your view that Open Dialogue has not been proven to be better than standard treatment for schizophrenia. However, it is also a widespread view that the programme is attractive due to its client-centredness and empowerment of the service user, and that good studies are urgently needed to establish the effectiveness of the programme. Before it has been established to be effective, it should be seen as an experimental treatment that should not (yet?) be clinical practise.”

As for the claim that psychiatric hospital beds in Finland have been emptied, he said “in our official statistics, the use of hospital beds for schizophrenia do not differ between the area with the Open Dialogue approach and the rest of the country.”

My blogging associate, Dr David Laing Dawson also wrote about Open Dialogue in this forum with very skeptical view. He stated that the director of the program admitted that about 30% of the patients in Open Dialogue are prescribed medication so arguing that medication is not used is not correct.

At the time my article appeared in Huffington Post, someone on Mad In America agreed with me that there was insufficient evidence on the efficacy of Open Dialogue and said that a US study was set to begin in, I think, Boston. I did find a completed study on Open Dialogue done by Dr Christopher Gordon. His study involved 16 patients and he states at the outset that

“Since this was not a randomized clinical trial and there was no control group, we cannot say that these outcomes were better than standard care, but we can assert that they were solidly in line with what is hoped for and expected in standard care.”

In the paper that is in a legitimate psychiatric publication, he states that of the 16, two dropped out and a further 3 had disappeared at the end of the study so no data is available for them. This is a study of 11 people who completed the one year term.

He then points out that:

“Of note, four individuals had six short-term psychiatric hospitalizations (two involuntary).”

and that:

“three of the six individuals who were not on antipsychotics at program entry started antipsychotics. Of the eight already on antipsychotics, four had no change in their medication, and four elected to stop during the year. Both groups of four had similar outcomes and continued to be followed in treatment. Shared decision making and toleration of uncertainty contributed to these choices.

Hardly the success he suggests if the goal was to help them get well without medication.

But, coming up at the end of May in Toronto we have a conference with Robert Whitaker and others on Shifting the Narrative on Mental Health from the psychiatric disease model to the relational/recovery model, and on the challenges that are stacked against that eventuality.

Now I would say that the challenges against that shift are science but they define it as “The challenges and resistances to progressive change are of an ideological, macro-economic nature guaranteeing a protracted and difficult struggle for recovery advocates.”

Advertisements

The “Logic” of Anti-Psychiatry

by Marvin Ross

Our last couple of blogs have generated considerable criticism from the anti-psychiatry folks on Facebook. Not unexpected, of course, and I do enjoy (to a point) debating with them. I know that nothing that I or others say will sway them but it is important to expose them. If left unchallenged, they may influence some who are not as well educated in the realities of serious mental illness. And, for far too long, those shrill and hostile voices have made politicians cautious to implement reforms.

My blog on belief systems and anti-psychiatry I modified slightly and redid on Huffington Post. They gave the headline as Anti-Psychiatry Folks Cannot Ignore That Medication Saves Lives A much better head than mine.

One comment this received on Facebook included this:

How many people have you treated, Marvin, that your blogging is somehow more accurate than Robert Whitaker’s journalism? He spoke with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals too, many of which (sic) prescribe medications and are involved in Mad in America.

My reply:

Neither Mr Whitaker nor I have treated anyone as neither of us are doctors. I’m a simple medical journalist like he is but I also have a family member with schizophrenia so I have first hand experience into what the disease is like when it is not treated and the difference that properly prescribed medication makes. I too have talked to many psychiatrists.

The reply

Having a family member who is diagnosed with schizophrenia is not first-hand experience. It is second-hand perception, at best, depending on how much one is trusted. The person with the diagnosis is the only person with first-hand experience…not doctors, not family members.

Now I do agree that those of us who have never experienced a disease do not know exactly what it is like. But that does not mean that medical specialists do not know how best to treat based on the currently available research and the guidelines established by experts in the field. That goes for psychiatric diseases, cancer and all other diseases humans contract. And Robert Whitaker is not in step with mainstream medicine given how many have criticized him.

I don’t know all the people involved in Mad in America but I do know one – Dr Bonnie Kaplan. She is a psychologist at the University of Calgary and the leading “researcher” on The Truehope product called EM Power +. She gives a continuing education course on Mad in America on Nutrition and Mental Health where the value of EM Power + (EMP) is talked about.

To one person who posted in the discussion to her program, Dr Kaplan had this to say:

I do not see why people should not take one of the mineral/vitamin supplements that emanate from the two Alberta companies, but I cannot figure out the context for your question. If you want to discuss offline, my email is kaplan@XXXX. The appropriateness and the dose of these formulas can vary with the individual.

The two companies are Truehope and the offshoot Hardy Nutritional which was formed when the two founding partners – Tony Stephan and David Hardy – dissolved their partnership.

In 2002, Dr Kaplan’s research trial on EMP at the University of Calgary was shut down by Health Canada because it failed to meet the proper standards for a clinical trial.

The blog Neurocritic entitled one of its articles as EMPowered to Kill as one man with schizophrenia went off his meds to take EMP and brutally killed his father in a psychotic state. I have written on this case as well in Huffington Post. Health Canada has declared the product a health hazard on two occasions. I have written critical article about this in various publications and an e-book with Dr Terry Polevoy and a former Health Canada investigator and now private detective in Calgary, Ron Reinold, called Pig Pills.

The vice-president of Truehope is David Stephan who made headlines around the globe when he and his wife were convicted in the death of their toddler from untreated meningitis by a jury in Lethbridge Alberta. Both had worked as well at the Truehope call centre advising customers on their treatment. You can listen to some calls that were made to the call centre here

Dr Kaplan gives lectures where she tells the audience not to google her name (slide 3). She even went so far as to bring professional misconduct charges against Dr Terry Polevoy with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario because he criticized her work.

She is one of the people involved with Mr Whitaker on Mad in America.

Dr Dawson’s last blog on anti- depressants and benzodiazapines also received a great deal of criticism. A favourite is:

Yeah, I like to get all of my information about psych drugs, withdrawal, discontinuation, and side effects from someone’s hypothetical idea of what it should look like without their having any clue at all what actually happens when people stop or start psych drugs.

And

who wrote this drivel? – It’s not even remotely accurate

I suggested to this last person that they look at the byline to see who wrote it and then look at his bio which is on the blog. I also suggested that they state what specific statement he made that they considered wrong and to provide me with evidence from research to back it up. Nothing. And Dr Dawson has worked in psychiatric hospitals in three Canadian provinces, in the UK, was chief of psychiatry in one and has been treating patients for close to 50 years.

When I suggested to someone that prescription drugs are monitored by regulatory bodies and removed from the market if their are problems, I was met with disbelief that anything is monitored. After I posted the link to the 35 drugs removed from the market by the FDA, there was no comment. Some are psychiatric drugs and two were drugs that I took for arthritis that I had no problem with and were very effective. No comment.

And no one commented when I posted this video of the author of My Schizophrenic Life.

Addendum to Belief Systems, Mad in America and Anti-psychiatry

By Dr David Laing Dawson and Marvin Ross

Reading the comments to this blog and others of ours, there is a lot of a-historic and naive thinking. Recently, someone posted my Huffington Post blog on Open Dialogue in Finland to the Spotlight on Mental Health group set up by the Boston Globe to foster discussion of their series on the sad state of mental illness treatment and care in Massachusetts. One person criticized it claiming that I had no right to comment because I have never been to Finland, and the Finnish psychiatrist I quoted had no right to be critical because he had never been to Lapland. This is part of what that person said:

That paper by Marvin Ross is written around totally wrong information:

1) Marvin Ross has never been to Lapland to check what he wrote; thus he does not know what he speaks about…

2) The psychiatrist whom he telephoned in Helsinki, i.e. some 800 km from Lapland, had never been either…How she knew any of that I do not know.

One person commented on this blog that 10 times as many people diagnosed with schizophrenia die in the first year post diagnosis than 100 years ago and that olanzapine has killed 200,000 people worldwide.

Taking data from a number of public sources, Dr. Dawson put these statistics together:

Some American Statistics

1880

Total population: 50,000,000

A total of 91,959 “insane persons” were identified, of which 41,083 were living at home, 40,942 were in “hospitals and asylums for the insane,” 9,302 were in almshouses, and only 397 were in jails. The total number of prisoners in all jails and prisons was 58,609, so that severely mentally ill inmates constituted only 0.7 percent of the population of jails and prisons.

Average Life expectancy for entire population: low 40’s for whites

Low 30’s for blacks

2016

2016 total population: 324,000,000

Average life expectancy: men 76, women 81 (lower than Canada and most of Europe, lower still for minority groups. Much of this improvement from 1880 by preventing childhood diseases.)

U. S. Prison population : 2,200,000 (2014)

Or 716 per 100,000 American citizens are in prison. (a seven fold increase from 1880)

Mentally ill in prison estimated/measured to be 30% to over 50%

So 700,000 to over one million mentally ill are incarcerated in US prisons.

Incarceration in jail reduces life expectancy by roughly a factor of 10 years for every 5 years incarcerated. (all inmates)

Estimates/measurements of homeless in the USA:  1.5 to 2 million.

Estimates of homeless mentally ill range from 30% to over 50%.

So 500,000 to one million mentally ill are either homeless or living in shelters.

The homeless mentally ill are not receiving consistent psychiatric treatment. The incarcerated mentally ill may be receiving some limited treatment.

Adding this up:

One to two million mentally ill people are either homeless or  incarcerated in prison in the USA.

A high proportion of people with severe mental illness live in poverty.

Severe mental illness without treatment confers higher risks and co-morbidities for several serious diseases, such as cardio vascular disease. People with severe mental illness have a much higher risk of cigarette smoking and poor diet.

Untreated depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia confer a much higher risk of suicide.

Homelessness and incarceration in and of itself reduces life expectancy by a considerable number of years. Neither of these groups is consistently receiving psychiatric treatment.

Psychiatric drugs do have side effects. (as do all pharmaceuticals) In a good outpatient or inpatient facility these can be monitored and treatment adjusted in partnership with patients.

But the real causes of contemporary poor life expectancy of the seriously mentally ill can be found in:

  • The illness itself untreated
  • Reduction and closing of hospitals.
  • Incarceration in jails and prisons
  • Poor or no housing. Homelessness
  • Poverty
  • Poor diet. Illicit drug use. Smoking.
  • Stigma leading to isolation and victimization
  • Poor, inadequate, or limited health care
  • Absence of good consistent psychiatric treatment.

And the overall cost of not providing good early consistent psychiatric treatment in both inpatient and outpatient facilities is calculated in the following article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/12/mental-health-system-crisis/7746535/

Belief Systems, Mad in America and Anti-Psychiatry

By Marvin Ross

I keep reading comments from people wondering how anyone could possibly support Donald J Trump. Fact checking his statements demonstrates how wrong he is on much of what he says. And then there are the numerous comparisons of statements that he makes that contradict each other.

Not so surprising, sadly enough, when we look at the people who believe what Robert Whitaker and the anti-psychiatry movement believe.

Put simply, Whitaker and the Mad in America anti-psychiatry folks are adamant that anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia makes people sick and shortens their lives. Research fails to support these contentions but they persist and the data is ignored. The two latest studies provide overwhelming evidence that anti-psychotics help – but more on that in a moment.

The late Dr William M. Glazer of Yale writing in Psychiatric Times four years ago had this to say of Whitaker:

Should we accept the analysis of a journalist who (1) to my knowledge, has not treated a patient or implemented a study and (2) reaches conclusions that run counter to well-established practice guidelines? Whitaker’s ideological viewpoint, which is implied throughout the book, is that our guidelines are inaccurate and driven by industry and our own need for income—that we are dishonest brokers. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Criticisms of Whitaker have been done by many eminent psychiatrists but my favourite is by blogger Natasha Tracy in Healthyplace.com. Natasha explained why she refused to even read his book with these words:

Sure, he cites studies, he just contraindicates what the study actually proves. And nothing ticks me off more than this because people believe him just because there is a linked study – no one ever bothers to check that the study says whatever Whitaker says it does.

Except, of course, the people who do – the doctors. You know, the people who went to medical school for over a decade. You know, the people actually qualified to understand what all the fancy numbers mean. You know, those people.

And I, for one, rely a lot on what doctors make of medical data and they are the ones most able to refute Whitaker’s claims.

As for the contention by Whitaker and his minions that anti-psychotics make people sick, let’s look at two recent studies.

In 2013, the highly respected British Medical Journal, The Lancet, published a German meta-analysis on the efficacy and side effect profile of all anti-psychotics. The results are summarized simply in a blog by Dr Gerhard Gründer with a link to the original study.

The meta-analysis combined 212 studies with a total of 43,049 patients. All of the anti-psychotics produced improvements that were statistically better than placebo. The best agent was clozapine.

The most recent study was conducted in the Province of Quebec and published in July and was based on real world evaluations of all people prescribed with anti-psychotics for schizophrenia between January 1998 and December 2005. The cohort consisted of 18 869 patients. Outcome measures consisted of mental health event (suicide, hospitalization or emergency visit for mental disorders) and physical health event (death other than suicide, hospitalization or emergency visit for physical disorders).

The researchers pointed out that data from randomized control trials are often limited in terms of generalizability thus real world studies like this one are much more realistic. What they found was that taking anti-psychotics reduced the risk of having either a mental or a physical problem compared to those who discontinued taking them. The only anti-psychotic that performed poorly was quetiapine (seroquel) while clozapine had the best results.

The other criticism from the anti-psychiatry bunch is that taking anti-psychotics results in premature death for people with schizophrenia. Studies have shown that people with schizophrenia do die years earlier than others but the reasons are not well understood.  One hypothesis that I mention in my book Schizophrenia Medicine’s Mystery Society’s Shame is discrimination by health care practitioners. Studies show that people with schizophrenia often do not get adequate basic medical care and treatment.

Researchers in Sweden conducted a real world analysis of 21,492 patients with schizophrenia. Subjects were followed up from 2006 through 2010. Data on drug use and outcomes was obtained from national registers.

What was found was that Antipsychotics and antidepressants were associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared with no use. The opposite of what the anti-psychiatry crowd claim. However, there was a clear dose-response curve for benzodiazepine exposure and mortality. More benzos, greater mortality. Note that benzodiazepine drugs are not anti-psychotic medications. They provide short term relief from anxiety, but they are addictive when used over a long period. Which means with long term use people develop tolerance and then crave more. And if they stop them they experience serious withdrawal symptoms. They are never prescribed alone to treat psychosis.

Psychotropic medications prescribed properly to those who need it, are beneficial despite what you may hear from some journalists and a vocal minority.

 

Psychiatry, Eugenics and Mad In America Scare Tactics – Part I

By Marvin Ross

Much of what I read on the Robert Whitaker website, Mad in America, stretches logic but this newest blog has to be one of the biggest stretches I’ve seen. Dr Robert Berezin, a US psychiatrist, warns that psychiatry is moving closer and closer to eugenics.

As defined by dictionary.com “eugenics is a word that made everyone at the event uncomfortable. … The very subject evokes dark visions of forced sterilization and the eugenics horrors of the early 20th century. … The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.”

The most famous proponent of eugenics was Adolph Hitler who wanted a pure Aryan race but the subject has been advocated by many in recent history in an attempt to eradicate debilitating diseases. In fact, one could say that the reason for amniocentesis is to do just that. Sampling of the amniotic fluid of pregnant women can predict such things as Down’s Syndrome. And some parents will opt for abortion if Down’s is found but many do not.

Amniocentesis can also predict such genetic conditions as Tay Sachs Disease where the infant usually only lasts to about age 4. But, nowhere in the article by Dr Berezin does he actually show that modern psychiatry is planning to eliminate anyone who suffers from schizophrenia or any other psychiatric disorder.

What he talks about is the fact that genetics is being employed to try to understand these conditions better. He states that:

The accepted (and dangerous) belief is that psychiatry deals with brain diseases – inherited brain diseases. We are back to absolute genetic determinism. Today’s extremely bad science is employed to validate not only the idea that schizophrenia and manic-depression are genetic brain diseases, but that depression, anxiety, phobias, psychopathy, and alcoholism are caused by bad genes

I have no idea why he considers the genetic research to be bad science other than he does not agree with it. So what if he doesn’t. He does state that “The temperamental digestion of trauma into our personalities is the source of psychiatric conditions.” But, as Dr David Laing Dawson has written on this blog:

Childhood deprivation and childhood trauma, severe and real trauma, can lead to a lifetime of struggle, failure, depression, dysthymia, emotional pain, addictions, alcoholism, fear, emotional dysregulation, failed relationships, an increase in suicide risk, and sometimes a purpose, a mission in life to help others. But not a persistent psychotic illness. On the other hand teenagers developing schizophrenia apart from a protective family are vulnerable, vulnerable to predators and bullies. So we often find a small association between schizophrenia and trauma, but not a causative relationship.

Dr Berezin’s concern does not come from anything that anyone has said about aborting fetuses that genetic testing proves will be born with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or any serious psychiatric condition. And the reason for that is that genetics and the understanding of the causes of these diseases is nowhere near a point that this can be demonstrated with 100% accuracy. Science is a long way from getting to that point if it ever is able to.

Suggesting that these research avenues will lead to abortion, eugenics or something similar is absurd and nothing but scare tactics perpetrated by someone who does not agree with the causation theories being investigated. If these avenues lead nowhere and it is discovered that science has been on the wrong path, then science will self correct. Attempting to generate unfounded fear is counterproductive.

Next Part II by Dr David Laing Dawson

Journalists, Medical Research and Medical Practice

By Marvin Ross and Dr David Laing Dawson

As a medical writer and as someone who works in the daily trenches of serious mental illness in my own family, I find people like Robert Whitaker dangerous. For those who aren’t familiar with him, he is a medical journalist from Boston who is highly critical of the long term use of medication for schizophrenia even though he is neither a scientific researcher nor clinician.

My earlier criticisms of his work appeared in the Huffington Post as Journalists are not medical experts and Leave the schizophrenia diagnosis to the experts please.

One of Whitaker’s key criticisms is that the long term use of antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia makes people worse not better. A group of researchers in New York set out to see if they could replicate what they called his “troubling interpretation” and published their results in a recent issue of the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.

Their hypothesis was what Whitaker contended that the long term use of antipsychotics resulted in worse outcomes than people who are not treated. They wondered if a systematic appraisal of all the literature would produce the same results as claimed by Whitaker. They looked at 18 studies which included the four that Whitaker used. They pointed out that Whitaker used an additional 6 studies to come to his conclusion but they did not include them because they were review articles that did not report separated data on the exposure groups or were ecological studies which did not report on individual level data.

Of the 18 studies they looked at, only 3 supported the hypothesis that long term treatment with medication causes harm to patients. 8 studies found the opposite and 7 were mixed. These researchers, however, also did not find that long term treatment resulted in greater benefits than harm which is, frankly, not surprising. Some recent studies show that some people with schizophrenia can manage well without long term drug use which Whitaker likes to cite. But there is also no way to predict who can actually achieve that. That is a caveat in all those studies and a fact that Whitaker seems to ignore. (see my post on leave the diagnosis to experts).

Lumping all people with schizophrenia together for a study is bound to have problems since schizophrenia is very likely more than one disease. When Bleuler first coined the term schizophrenia in 1908, he called it the schizophrenias to indicate that it was more like a spectrum than a single entity. Unfortunately, science has not reached the point where the different forms can be identified. An editorial in the January 1, 2016 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry makes that very point. Current treatment algorithms, it says, do not take into account the substantial interindividual variability in response to antipsychotic drugs.

And, a recent study of first episode patients published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found a greater relapse for those who went off medication after they were stabilized. Decisions to try to reduce doses and to go off are best left to the individual patients working with their psychiatrist. Going off or staying on medication is described by my blogging colleague Dr Dawson who has close to 50 years clinical experience treating patients in a variety of situations. Here is what he has to say:

We doctors over treat at times and under treat at other times. And occasionally we get it just right.

Studies show that family doctors are much more likely to under treat than over treat (pain, depression, arthritis), with specialists erring in the other direction. This is as one would expect, for specialists receive their patients after a family doctor has deemed the case too complex, too resistant to a first line of treatment, or simply beyond her zone of knowledge, skill and comfort.

I have been guilty of both under treating and over treating, probably more often the former. These are type 1 and type 2 errors. If we work to totally eliminate one type of error we will increase the incidence of the other.

We need to be vigilant catching both types of error and correct or ask for help, without letting our egos get in the way.

My patient tells me she is feeling much better now that she has stopped taking those pills I prescribed for her. And at that moment I must allow my feeling of relief and pleasure seeing her look and sound better over-ride this small insult to my ego. Unless I know for sure this is a relapsing illness that will re-emerge within a few weeks, perhaps worse than before.

I also know that it may take a relapse or two or three before we are both sure it is better to suffer the minor discomforts caused by these pharmaceutical agents than the blackness of severe depression, the torture of obsessions, the horrors of psychosis, or the social destruction of mania.

It is really a very small percentage of people who have suffered these severe illnesses who would willingly give up the medication that treats and prevents them. I am usually the one to suggest it may be time for a cautious reduction.

And those that quit them and return to a state of depression, obsession, psychosis, or mania do so for a variety of reasons. Occasionally the side effects were much too severe, or the drug was not helping much. The financial cost too much to bear. The very fact of needing these medications to keep sane can be, for some, an intolerable thought. A manic may remember the ecstasy and not the night in a jail cell, for which he can blame others. Another may find that the drugs he can buy on the street give him, at least temporarily, total relief. Still another may quit simply because there is no one near to remind him, to support him, occasionally to insist. And then a few who prefer to believe their true nature consists of special powers, a supreme intelligence, a grand future, clear reason to be, to be loved by a movie star, to be a hero, to have a unique relationship with God, to have a clear and present or distant antagonist – who prefer to live with this sense of self no matter the earthly consequences – which can always be explained away – than to accept the earth-bound but often meager existence provided by faithfully taking one’s medication.

But most people, when sane, prefer to remain sane, even if it means a dry mouth, a little dizziness upon arising too quickly, blood tests more frequently, a harder time keeping weight under control.

As one patient recently said to me: “Thank God for these big pharmaceutical companies.”

To which I responded, “Not everyone would share that sentiment.”

And he then said, “Why not? Without them you and I would be having this conversation in the asylum.”

Has Mad in America Changed its View of Medication for Schizophrenia?

newer meBy Marvin Ross

For those of you not familiar with Mad in America (MIA), it is a US organization begun by journalist Robert Whitaker. He is the author of books that are highly critical of modern psychiatry and its reliance on medication particularly for schizophrenia. As they say on their website they “investigate the problems and deficiencies with the current drug-based paradigm of care.”

I happened to come across this announcement on their site: “In World Psychiatry, two Canadian psychiatrists argue that the body of scientific evidence about schizophrenia shows that it is not a progressive illness and therefore we should have much higher expectations of full recoveries than we do.” I was intrigued because one of the authors of this study is Dr Robert Zipurski of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

Once before, MIA cited a study by him that used quotes selectively. They implied that Dr Zipurski provided proof of the evils of antipsychotic medication. Their website stated “decreases in brain tissue volumes are attributable to antipsychotic medication, substance abuse, and other secondary factors.” But, a careful reading of that paper found that when people discontinue medication early, the relapse rate is up to 78 per cent compared to 0-12 per cent for those who remain on medication.

MIA did not provide its own interpretation of this current paper which Dr Zipurski wrote with Dr Ofer Agid of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. The two authors continue from the previous paper mentioned above and point out that:

Relapse of psychotic symptoms following a remission from a first episode of schizophrenia is also observed to occur in over 80% of individuals when studied naturalistically. This is largely attributable to discontinuation of antipsychotic medication rather than to the effects of an unrelenting disease process. The risk of symptom recurrence in remitted first episode patients receiving maintenance antipsychotic treatment is estimated to be in the range 0-5% in the first year of follow-up, compared to 78% in the first year off medication and close to 100% after three years off medication.

The authors then go on to wonder why outcomes are so poor if people have the ability to remain in remission. The reasons, they say, are numerous including the lack of services for these people or that they refuse treatment. Then, of those who are treated, about 20-30% are treatment resistant to the available antipsychotic medications. Others are non compliant with medication and so have relapses and re-hospitalizations. For others, their concurrent problems with alcohol, drugs, and other mental illnesses mitigate against retained recovery.

They conclude that while “there is room for debate about how recovery should be defined, it should be clear that most individuals with schizophrenia have the potential to achieve a stable remission of symptoms and substantial levels of satisfaction and happiness.”

That stability, they say, can be achieved with antipsychotic medication. Physicians/scientists/psychiatrists who observed that this dementia praecox or group of schizophrenias appeared to be a progressive disease were observing people with this illness pre 1960 before anti-psychotics were available – they were not wrong or overly pessimistic as there were no effective treatments at the time.

And it does take time for science to recognize that if someone begins antipsychotics at about age 19 and remains on them along with good medical care, that they can get to old age and remain stable or even improve.

It is encouraging to see MIA recognizing the importance of drug treatment by their promotion of this paper.