Top products from r/Antipsychiatry

We found 36 product mentions on r/Antipsychiatry. We ranked the 25 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/Antipsychiatry:

u/mental_dam · 4 pointsr/Antipsychiatry

PLEASE LISTEN. take it from someone who had to learn the hard way, please. doing what you’re about to do ruined my life and my health.

you really really REALLY do not want her to be cold turkeying any meds at all, let alone 4 meds at once. the withdrawal from one med can mimic mental disorders so severe she could be institutionalized for life. doing this can also cause permanent damage to her brain and body.

you need to find a way to get refills, first of all. if you can’t reach her doctor, try to get your pharmacy to give her a “loaner” which is when they give you just enough pills to last until you can get a refill. explain that she could suffer withdrawal which can be life threatening.

once you have enough pills to buy some time, you can figure out a plan. she should be getting off one medication at a time, and SLOWLY TAPERING. if you can get a doctors support and supervision for this, that is ideal. having someone she can trust advocating for her in the health system throughout this process will be crucial. since she is a woman, and a mental health patient, there is a lot of discrimination and gaslighting she might face in the health system, which is invisible and very hard to pinpoint - i would suggest you educate yourself on how this happens!

you may be able to get her current doctor to sign on with this plan, if they have already approved and supervised her tapering off two others. i would advise you against taking too strong of an anti-psychiatry stance in these settings, doctors won’t respond well to that. entirely getting off medication may be realistic or it may not be. but getting off 4 meds at once, could be a death sentence. for real. you want to take your time, research carefully, plan ahead.

as she gets off meds, especially if she’s been on them since age 6, she’s going to feel a lot of things she may have never felt before, it’s going to be a difficult and intense time. she should have someone else to talk to who isn’t you, some kind of counseling in which the big picture of the situation is understood ... she will need it

if you can do this the legit way, it will be a lot easier for you and your wife... and a whole lot safer. but you will need to be very educated so that you can advocate for her effectively in a corrupt system, and help her with the life changes that will come

EDIT:

https://www.amazon.com/Psychiatric-Drug-Withdrawal-Prescribers-Therapists/dp/0826108431

this book was recommended and purchased for me, you should read it. i cannot vouch for it though, i’ve lacked the cognition to read books for quite some time, i wish somebody in my life had cared enough to put the time into reading it and doing their own research.

some good resources here:
https://www.madinamerica.com/drug-withdrawal-resources/

advice for caregivers of withdrawal patients:
https://youtu.be/Mu27Q0sTXYU

online support groups:
https://withdrawal.theinnercompass.org/

https://www.survivingantidepressants.org/

i’ve heard there are facebook groups also, i’m not on facebook though. reading other people’s stories and finding info on online forums and youtube was my saving grace through all this, because there is sooo little info out there, and a lot of the legitimate science is made inaccessible to the public. good luck. i’m wishing you and your wife nothing but the best.

u/bastet0 · 3 pointsr/Antipsychiatry

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.

u/WorldController · 1 pointr/Antipsychiatry

> very much inhabited by people pushing anti science opinions

No, what people are doing is pushing critical views of conclusions reached by pro-psychiatrists based on the available research. Critical analysis is not antiscientific; on the contrary, it is integral to science.

Antipsychiatry is a well-established academic tradition. In this post I discuss some of the work that has been done on the topic.
_
>ThEy MaKe MoNeY bY pUsHiNG pills and other conspiracy theory opinions. It’s all a vast conspiracy to hide the truth and two separate fields of science and medicine are all in on it.

Psychiatric medications are, in fact, are highly profitable. Given that we live in a profit-driven, classist society, it is highly naive to believe that our institutions are immune to corruption. Being constantly vigilant about potential corruption is a matter of scientific, as well as moral responsibility. As a society, we need to end this silly stigma against conspiracy theories, as it clearly plays into the hands of the powerful in that it stifles genuine concern and good faith discussion about these matters. We must recognize that people who think everything is a conspiracy are no more foolish than those who feel conspiracies do not exist and cannot manifest in our society.

Regarding medical research in general, there is ample evidence that this field has been corrupted by the profit motive. For more info on this, I would highly recommend Can Medicine Be Cured? The Corruption of a Profession, by gastroenterologist and former medical researcher Seamus O'Mahony, where he details his experience in the field.

However, while the whole "conspiracy" angle is certainly one that should be considered, to reduce the entire issue to just this is a massive oversimplification. In this post, which is part of a series of posts in which I elaborate in detail on why I'm opposed to psychiatry, I touch upon these issues of profit and conspiracies, and also note that these are only one piece of the puzzle:

> In service of the biomedical model, psychiatry relies on drug therapies, which critics have noted are problematic for many reasons. According to Weiten:
> >
> >. . .
>
>>Critics maintain that the negative effects of psychiatric drugs are not fully appreciated because the pharmaceutical industry has managed to gain undue influence over the research enterprise as it relates to drug testing (Angell, 2004; Healy, 2004; Insel, 2010). Today, most researchers who investigate the benefits and risks of medications and write treatment guidelines have lucrative financial arrangements with the pharmaceutical industry (Bentall, 2009; Cosgrove & Krimsky, 2012). Their studies are funded by drug companies, and they often receive substantial consulting fees. Unfortunately, these financial ties appear to undermine the objectivity required in scientific research because studies funded by companies are far less likely to report unfavorable results than are nonprofit-funded studies (Beckelman, Li, & Gross, 2003; Perlis et al., 2005). Industry-financed drug trials also tend to be too brief to detect the long-term risks associated with new drugs (Vandenbroucke & Psaty, 2008). Additionally, positive findings on drugs are almost always published, whereas when unfavorable results emerge, the data are often withheld from publication (Spielmans & Kirsch, 2014; Turner et al., 2008). Also, research designs are often slanted in a variety of ways to exaggerate the positive effects and minimize the negative effects of the drugs under scrutiny (Carpenter, 2002; Chopra, 2003; Spielmans & Kirsch, 2014). The conflicts of interest that appear to be pervasive in contemporary drug research raise grave concerns that require attention from researchers, universities, and federal agencies. (Ibid, p. 551, bold added)
>
> I'm not certain if "ruse" or "conspiracy" would be the right words to describe psychiatry. Biological determinism is simply an ideology whose adherents tend to be staunchly conservative. Whether they actually have faith that human psychology is biologically determined, or merely lend their public support for it for political purposes is beside the point. Aside from the political aspect, what is clear is that there is a very definite economic motive underlying psychiatry. Moreover, its function as an oppressive, conservative, non-democratic system of social control is self-evident, and that it's historically rooted in the efforts of eugenicist Nazi collaborators leaves one to be understandably suspicious of its credibility.

I recommend that you read through the entirety of my polemic against psychiatry and invite you to respond to any specific points you take issue with or would like to learn more about.
_

>I agree wholeheartedly with you about biological determinism.

If this were true, then you wouldn't be pro-psychiatry. Psychiatry is a biological determinist ideology.

>as I mentioned before and you disagreed with, we don’t fully understand how the human mind works.

I didn't disagree that we don't fully understand the mind. What I said is that we know enough about the human brain to know that it doesn't come "hardwired" with specific psychological functions. The major mystery surrounding the brain lies not so much in its role in behavior but rather in the detailed, technical mechanisms and interactions underlying its many processes. Further knowledge of these processes, of course, will not illuminate anything about psychology, any more than the physico-chemical processes that make computers work can teach us anything about how to operate software.

The human mind is an emergent property that cannot be reducible to and operates by entirely different principles from its physical substratum.

>And psychology is a new field. I’m sorry but prior to the past half century or so there was little to no way to actually study the brain in any real way and the major early schools of though within the field were more philosophical than anything scientific.

This is false. Psychology has been an empirical science since at least 1879, when Wilhelm Wundt (who is often considered to be the "father of psychology") established the first psychological research laboratory at the University of Leipzig. The earliest schools of thought in the field, structuralism and functionalism, largely relied on experimental and observational evidence, respectively.

While the subfield of neuropsychology, which studies the nervous system as it relates to behavior, may be relatively novel, this does not mean psychology as a whole is a fledgling field.
___
>(Also I think that may have been a point of confusion for you and I apologize. I have been combining a defense of both psychiatry and psychology here)

Yep. They are often confused but are not the same, as I explain here:

> Though there are some similarities, psychiatry and psychology are actually distinct in important ways. As UNLV psychology professor Wayne Weiten explains in Psychology: Themes and Variations (10th Edition), a textbook used in introductory psychology courses in colleges across the US:
>
> >Psychology is the science that studies behavior and the physiological and cognitive processes that underlie behavior, and it is the profession that applies the accumulated knowledge of this science to practical problems. (p. 15, italics and bold in original)
> >
> >. . . psychiatry is a branch of medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of psychological problems and disorders. (p. 18, italics and bold in original)

In the future, please be more clear on which you're referring to.

u/Anonymous2016aba · 2 pointsr/Antipsychiatry

Peter Breggin gave expert testimony at the Prozac trial. You can check out all the papers on this page. Ely Lilly suppressed a lot of information at the trial. It is now happening again for GSK and paxil. You can search for the court testimony on Youtube. The best two are the statistician and the CEO. Breggin also has papers he's submitted to the FDA and about all his court testimonies throughout the years.

http://breggin.com/category/ssris-and-other-antidepressants/page/2/

A good read of his is: Medication Madness. It tells of the Prozac trial. Or the whistleblower for Ely Lilly, Dr. Virapen, you can search him on youtube although his book is well known.

https://www.amazon.com/Side-Effects-Death-Confessions-Pharma-Insider/dp/1602645167

u/miguel_m · 3 pointsr/Antipsychiatry

> How have researcher framed performance of a certain drug in research process?

I didn't read about this subject as much as I would like, but there is some evidence that antidepressants don't work, or in other words they aren't more effective than a placebo. And there is some evidence that there were a bunch of flaws in the approval process of them by the FDA. This book talks about this subject:

https://www.amazon.com/America-Fooled-Antidepressants-Antipsychotics-Deceived/dp/0977307506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1509910303&sr=8-1&keywords=america+fooled

And I didn't read this other book, but I think it talks about this same subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Emperors-New-Drugs-Exploding-Antidepressant/dp/0465022006/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509910390&sr=1-1&keywords=emperor%27s+new+drugs

So antidepressants might be the focus of your research.

u/cerebrum · 3 pointsr/Antipsychiatry

I recommend reading House of cards : psychology and psychotherapy built on myth by Robyn Dawes

There are some therapies that have proven effective for certain problems, e.g. CBT.

Do your research.

u/Pangyun · 1 pointr/Antipsychiatry

> Could you provide a link this claim?

https://www.amazon.com/America-Fooled-Antidepressants-Antipsychotics-Deceived/dp/0977307506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493773056&sr=8-1&keywords=america+fooled+timothy+scott

> What do you mean by antidepressants

at least part of antidepressants, prozac and the ones that were approved after it.

u/beast-freak · 1 pointr/Antipsychiatry

The article is a review of the book, [Psychology Gone Wrong: The Dark Side of Science and Therapy,] (https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Gone-Wrong-Science-Therapy/dp/1627345280) by Tomasz Witkowski and Maciej Zatonski. They argue psychotherapy as not only profit driven but ineffective, and that it makes claims not supported by science.

From the article:

 

> Psychotherapy
>
> Psychotherapeutic interventions in general have been remarkably unsuccessful. Only one of the many varieties of psychotherapy is supported by acceptable evidence: cognitive-behavioral therapy. There is no correlation between a therapist’s training or experience and patient outcomes. Amateurs get equal results. The benefits of psychotherapy may be no better than the benefits of talking to a friend; in a sense, psychotherapists are paid to act as friends, which could be considered a sort of prostitution.
>
 
>
> The harms of therapy
>
>Therapy can do real harm and can lead to suicide. It encourages dependence, false optimism, and externalized responsibility. Not one study of AA has ever shown it superior to any other approach for treating alcohol abuse, and in fact untreated patients have similar or better outcomes. Sexual misconduct by therapists has become so common that insurance companies have been refusing to insure them.

u/karlrowden · 4 pointsr/Antipsychiatry

I've posted 2 guides on low dosage neuroleptics, check on r/criticalpsychiatry.

Also check this book: https://www.amazon.com/Psychiatric-Drug-Withdrawal-Prescribers-Therapists/dp/0826108431

u/HistoryInvestigator · 2 pointsr/Antipsychiatry

> 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.

u/BooTownBlue · 2 pointsr/Antipsychiatry

The 'autism' name-calling smear was popularized by a psychiatrist, it is one of psychiatry's fictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Kanner

Having not yet learned adequate, flowing, reading skills, is not a 'condition'. I reject the 'dyslexia' name-calling label too. I don't believe in 'learning disabilities'. If someone finds it subjectively hard to learn something or isn't learning something others want them to learn they are name-called 'learning disabled'. There is no proof they have an inability to learn if they are interested in learning the thing and the environment is good.

I couldn't care less what 'mainstream medicine' claims about the 'autism' name-calling label. There is no biological test for this fake 'medical condition'.

LOL 'neurodevelopmental', don't make me laugh. Prove a god damn thing about anybody's 'neuro' anything who has been name-called with the 'autism' smear.

You're a psychiatry believer. This will be our sole interaction, just to humor you. Obviously the negative effect of these girls being brainwashed to believe they have a 'medical condition' when no pathologist in the world can prove they do, is that they will be disempowered from willing themselves to improving their social skills etc, and fatalistic and feel they are the passive victims of an active 'condition'.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Autism-Medicalising-Emotional-Competence/dp/0230545262

No child name-called 'autistic' in the history of man, has received that label based on an examination of their biology. A kid not 'talking enough' or being 'awkward' or 'not socially developing' is not evidence that their 'neuro' anything hasn't 'developed'.

I won't be replying. Stick around in the sub and learn for a few months why we don't believe in name-calling people whose bodies cannot be demonstrated to have any biological pathology with quackery-based labels, including the 'autism' label and the so-called 'dyslexia' label.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10661412/Dyslexia-may-not-exist-warn-academics.html

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/sep/07/schools.uk

Doing things poorly, whether it be reading, making eye contact, speaking, interacting, thinking, believing, behaving, is not evidence of a 'neuro' god damn anything. Life is a limitless collection of skills and tasks and they all must be mastered, nurtured and improved for someone to be competent. Unless someone can prove there is something wrong with a kid's body, I say there is something wrong the kid's environment and the kid's choices and guidance. This entire fucking sub is about not mindlessly blaming the body for human conduct, not believing in bullshit fake diseases for which the only evidence is other peoples interpretations of behavior.

I vehemently oppose making so-called 'accommodations' based on the psychiatry religion's bullshit labels.

u/DiscombobulatingSpot · 4 pointsr/Antipsychiatry

Honestly, once you read up enough on anti-psychiatry/pro-psychiatry you start to realise that they're not really ideological positions and more pro/anti establishment movements that borrow each others ideas.

Given you're heavy on the biology side of things, you might find some value reading up on the biopsychsocial model.

Your anarchist/communist leanings will help you on the sociological side of things, although getting to grips with Foucault won't hurt. Don't know enough to make specific recommendations on him, but History of Madness, The Order of Things and The Birth of the Clinic might be relevant.

On the psychology side of things, try reading up on the Power Threat Vulnerability Framework. It argues powerfully against reductionism, although unfortunately that means you really need to read it in detail to fully get it.

u/mckay949 · 2 pointsr/Antipsychiatry

> Has anyone looked into the antidepressant vs placebo debate ?

I did look into it, but not in as much detail as I would like. I didn't study medicine or psychology, I studied engineering and started studying either books or scientific articles or reading whatever I found on the internet about psychiatry because the treatments I did were pretty crappy.

Of what I read about this specific debate of antidepressant vs placebo, there is the article you mentioned that is on the side that antidepressants work better than placebo. [This blog] (https://fugitivepsychiatrist.com/) by a psychiatrist is of the opinion that they work better than a placebo too, but I don't remember where exactly in the blog he makes his argument. If you search for "placebo" inside it, you find a bunch of his articles, some of them will be the ones that deal with this debate. The author of this blog is one of the moderators of the subreddit /r/PsychMelee/ , he is user u/fugitivepsychiatrist

There is this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0977307506/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_pt_BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=america+fooled&qid=1571429094&sr=8-1 that I read it all, and half of it is about the whole antidepressant VS placebo debate, and how big farma's influence pushed bad science as good science. According to him, antidepressants simply do not work better than a placebo, trials show this, and the trials that supposedly prove that they work better than a placebo are just bad trials with methodological errors. For instance, one error in those trials is that in some of them, the patient taking the antidepressant was also taking another drug to counteract the agitating effect of the antidepressant. If you search for "timothy scott antidepressant" on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=timothy+scott+antidepressant , you will find some videos on which the author talks about his views. There was a site where you could get one of the chapters of his book for free, I remember it being www.americafooled.com or the same site .org, but it's not on those addresses, and can't find it anymore.

There's also this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465022006/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_pt_BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=the+emperor%27s+new+drugs&qid=1571430255&sr=8-1 , which I only read a little of it, it's entirely about this antidepressant vs placebo debate, and the author I think also proposes that antidepressants are no better than a placebo in the book. If you search for the author on youtube, https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=irving+kirsch, you find some videos where he explains his findings.

There is also the psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who is pretty critical of all psychiatric drugs, he was involved as an expert witness in an lawsuit against Ely lilly when they were sued because a patient taking prozac killed a bunch of people with a gun and committed suicide, and he writes about what he found out researching the drug company papers when he was involved in the trial. He writes that the trials the company did to get the approval of the antidepressant had problems (he mentions the same problem I mentioned, that patients given antidepressant were also given another drug), but I don't remember in which of his books he writes about this, it was either one or more than one of these 3 books of his that has this information: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0738210986/ref=sr_1_3?__mk_pt_BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=peter+breggin&qid=1571430780&sr=8-3 ; https://www.amazon.com/dp/073820451X/ref=sr_1_7?__mk_pt_BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=peter+breggin&qid=1571430780&sr=8-7 ; https://www.amazon.com/dp/082612934X/ref=sr_1_8?__mk_pt_BR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=peter+breggin&qid=1571430780&sr=8-8 .

I've also come across a page from the FDA on the internet saying that the trials to approve the antidepressants really show that they work better than a placebo, but I don't remember what the link to that page was.

So that is what I came across. But as I didn't read each of the individual trials that supposedly show that antidepressants either work better or don't work better than a placebo, I don't know who is right. I just know what the people who read those trials and/or read studies of people who read those trials has to say. I'm actually curious to study more of this subject to find out who is right in this debate, but I ended up not studying this any further due to a bunch of factors.

u/FirmApartment · 2 pointsr/Antipsychiatry

One of the disgusting people involved in her death, Brita St. Clair, has written a book called "99 Ways to Drive Your Child Sane" which is an advice book for parents who have children with RAD.

https://www.amazon.com/Ways-Drive-Your-Child-Sane/dp/0970352514

​

One of the reviewers included some of the advice Brita gave in the book such as, "Taping newspaper over your child's door to greet him when he wakes up."

​

Good to see the people involved in the horrific death of Candace Newmaker have been brought to justice.....