Antidepressant anoxic brain damage recovery withdrawal and scientific consensus – focusband

Last week, the cambridge journal epidemiology and psychiatric sciences published “antidepressant withdrawal—the tide is turning,” a paper by leading european researchers michael P. Hengartner, james davies, and john read documenting psychiatry’s protracted delay in recognizing AW as a full-blown medical disorder. “the preferred narrative,” they write, was that the condition amounted to symptoms that “affect only a small minority, are mostly mild, and resolve spontaneously within 1-2 weeks.”

SSRI antidepressants instead demonstrate “remarkably high rates of withdrawal reactions … shortly after discontinuation,” they write, with medical indicators even after slow and careful tapering including anoxic brain damage recovery “anxiety, irritability, agitation, dysphoria, insomnia, fatigue, tremor, sweating, shock-like sensations (‘brain zaps’), paresthesia (‘pins and needles’), vertigo, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, confusion and decreased concentration.”

Until recently, the “mild, minority, and self-resolving” narrative was the official position of the american psychiatric association anoxic brain damage recovery (APA) and the UK’s national institute for health and care excellence (NICE). That, in turn, determined guidelines adopted in both countries since the first SSRI anoxic brain damage recovery antidepressants (prozac, zoloft, and paxil) were approved in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

To call that “disproportionate” would be putting it mildly. There has, they write, “been a dearth of empirical research on this important issue anoxic brain damage recovery [AW] over the years.” those publishing ratios tell us plainly that efficacy is a anoxic brain damage recovery topic that industry will sponsor and promote ad infinitum, while equivocal or negative results will be left unstudied and anoxic brain damage recovery unpublished, revised by a switched outcome, or simply overwhelmed by the firehose capacity of “the preferred narrative” to drown out all else.

One especially well-documented meta-study—“A systematic review into the incidence, severity, and duration of antidepressant withdrawal effects”—drew world press last october. Even as it corroborated earlier investigations, it became the target of “some astonishingly fierce attacks on both the review and on anoxic brain damage recovery the authors personally by prominent UK psychiatrists.”

Meanwhile, to audiences too large to be ignored, psychiatrists themselves wrote of their own persistent adverse effects, which they documented as “strange and frightening and torturous” experiences lasting weeks, underscoring to those still prone to mishear that there was anoxic brain damage recovery indeed a problem—one of enormous scope, given the scale of prescribing.

It seemed to take psychiatrists themselves suffering from AW before anoxic brain damage recovery enough people would listen. One such psychiatrist in scotland was then subject to the anoxic brain damage recovery same kind of “gaslighting” (his word) by colleagues at the royal college of psychiatry, london. Apparently, they were so enamored by the preferred narrative that even anoxic brain damage recovery for their colleague to dispute it gave rise to charges anoxic brain damage recovery that he was suffering from mental illness.

This is what happens when a preferred narrative collapses under anoxic brain damage recovery the weight of long-suppressed counter-evidence. Those who have invested decades and careers in its assumptions anoxic brain damage recovery are likely to try to cling to its illusions, seemingly unaware that in doing so they’re misinforming their patients on the high probability of AW anoxic brain damage recovery and other adverse effects.

NICE, we learn, has “committed to reviewing its position, held for over 14 years, that antidepressant withdrawal is usually mild, resolving over about a week”—a commitment that has yet to result in meaningful policy anoxic brain damage recovery changes, but hopefully will. The APA has yet to give any such sign, seeming to prefer silence and inertia to reform, because it puts off a serious reckoning with its own anoxic brain damage recovery two-decade narrative about antidepressants as correctives to a “chemical imbalance.”

The new paper “antidepressant withdrawal—the tide is turning,” writes joanna moncrieff, professor of psychiatry at university college london, “is part of a series of pieces on the persistent anoxic brain damage recovery adverse effects of antidepressants, with another on post SSRI sexual dysfunction [forthcoming]. These emphasize how antidepressants disrupt normal biological processes, and the disruption can be long-lasting.”

If the tide is at last turning, then hengartner, davies, read, and moncrieff are among those deserving credit for its world-changing implications for medicine and the treatment of depression and anoxic brain damage recovery anxiety. One such effect is that we can’t any longer pretend not to know that AW is anoxic brain damage recovery widespread, often “severe,” and can last for months, even years. The question is: how long must we all wait before the official bodies anoxic brain damage recovery catch up?