Why I Refuse to Read Anatomy of an Epidemic
Many people here have read Robert Whitaker’s Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America (New York: Crown Publishers). And some of these people will likely claim that the book changed their lives or, at the very least, their view of psychiatry and psychiatric medication.
Well. Ho there. You would think with such a ground-breaking book I would be all over it.
Guess again.
I refuse to read Anatomy of an Epidemic. And yes, some people will fault me for this. But I have a good reason. I refuse to read Anatomy of an Epidemic as I have no desire to be outraged at a misunderstanding of science for 416 pages.
The Poster Child: Robert Whitaker
Robert Whitaker is the poster-child for antipsychiatry, which is his prerogative. If he enjoys talking to throngs of antipsychiatrists then I say, better him than me.
And part of his criticism of psychiatry is well-deserved. I would say that being concerned with the use, and possibly overuse, of some medications and the prescribing of heavy psychotropic medications to children is quite warranted. I take no issue with the fact that debate and concern is appropriate here.
What I do take concern with is his contention that psychiatric medication actually worsens treatment outcomes and causes disability. This is the reason why antipsychiatrits love him and it’s the reason I probably couldn’t stand to be in the same room as him.
Antipsychotics and Mental Illness
Whitaker’s chief whipping boy is antipsychotics and schizophrenia. He cites studies that he says back up his claim that not taking antipsychotics increases the chances of getting well and that antipsychotics induce the symptoms of schizophrenia.
Well that is complete falderal.
You see, Robert Whitaker, it seems, can’t read a study.
Scientific Studies
Studies are very tricky business and if you don’t actually read and entire study, look at the data and really read what the researchers are saying – you might miss something. In fact, you might miss something that changes the entire meaning of the study. Rarely do the researchers themselves miss it, but for some reason, when reading the study, people draw conclusions contrary to the researchers – like Whitaker does.
How do I know this? Well, rather than reviewing his book I reviewed some of the studies he cites and the claims he says are backed up by those studies and I found them to be fallacious at best. 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.
Whitaker Contrarians - Doctors
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.
Enter E. Fuller Torrey, MD. He wrote a most excellent piece on how Robert Whitaker got it wrong. And chiefly, how his assertions of medication-induced schizophrenia and treatment outcome improvement without medication is wrong. Fuller uses the very studies that Whitaker cites to prove the very opposite of what Whitaker is saying. Because quite honestly, Whitaker either doesn’t understand how to read a study or his misrepresents the data on purpose.
In one case, Whitaker claims that treatment outcomes for schizophrenia have worsened over the past two decades and are now no better than they were a decade ago.
Well, you know, wrong.
The problem with the study Whitaker cites is that it contains a moving target – namely the definition of schizophrenia over time. The way schizophrenia was diagnosed in the 1950s isn’t how it was diagnosed in the 1970s or the 1990s. The diagnostic criteria differed substantially as we learned more about the disease at there was progression of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Earlier on, diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia were very broad and so more people who were less sick were diagnosed with schizophrenia whereas now, the criteria are much stricter and people in the category of schizophrenia are much sicker. Fuller states:
When a broad definition of schizophrenia was in vogue, outcomes were better but when a narrow definition was in vogue, outcomes were worse, as would be expected.
In fact, in that very study it showed that treatment outcomes improved in the 1960s and 1970s specifically coinciding with the usage of antipsychotics. At no time in the study do the authors suggest that treatment outcomes have worsened over time. That was just Whitaker’s unsupported claim.
And Fuller goes on to explain more about how Robert Whitaker got the science wrong – and he does – over and over. He gets it wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. One really starts to wonder how he can call himself a journalist at all.
OK, I’m Getting Worked Up
And see, this is why I can’t stand to read the book because I would have to dissect all of his claims and find out where he was wrong simply because I would feel compelled to do so. I’m that kind of girl. I don’t like falsehoods hanging around for people to pick up and inadvertently digest.
In short, if you like Whitaker’s work, that’s fine, but you might want to read some doctor’s reviews of his work before you start believing everything he wrote because by-and-large, for many of the claims, the science isn’t there. It just isn’t.
Please read Anatomy of a Non-Epidemic - a Review by Dr. Torrey for all the details. More critique here.
You can find Natasha Tracy on Facebook or GooglePlus or @Natasha_Tracy on Twitter.
APA Reference
Tracy, N.
(2012, June 5). Why I Refuse to Read Anatomy of an Epidemic, HealthyPlace. Retrieved
on 2024, November 22 from https://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/breakingbipolar/2012/06/why-i-refuse-to-read-anatomy-of-an-epidemic
Author: Natasha Tracy
To me the crux of the matter is if a person with bpd must opt for medications and feel productive or he/she must avoid medications and limit the possibilities for a better quality of socially accepted life. That ,these medications have pluses and minuses ,is well documented. Shall we listen to a doctor or a crusader journalist whose conviction is anti-psychiatry.In case if a person accepts the second option above,has the anti-psychiatry team put in place an alternative model of care?
"How do I know this? Well, rather than reviewing his book I reviewed some of the studies he cites and the claims he says are backed up by those studies and I found them to be fallacious at best. 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." Natasha
Just like the Whitaker worshipers to misconstrue the facts. She researched his resources and found him wanting.
I cried tears of joy the day Whitakers book was published.
I only wished my dear Mother who stood by me through years of agony had been alive to see it.
I was prescribed psychiatric medication while a functioning adult, working, having connections and meaning in my life, respected in my community.
The side effects then led to a more serious diagnosis, the claim that the symptoms demonstrated a "hidden" illness.
This was the beginning of the end, more medication, cognitive impairment, symptoms so disabling I lost everything, my job, hope.
After years of torment I weaned myself with the help of my family from the psychiatric medication that was the cause of my suffering.
I am still very much disabled, still suffering from the side effects, some of them permanent.
Reaching out to the mental health profession for care was the single most life crushing decision I ever made.
Whitaker did not say all medication was bad, he said there is a place for it but that considering the spin from the psychiatric community and the pharmaceutical community, the disability rates for mental illness, it would seem, should be going down, not increasing as more people are labelled, stigmatized and the quality of their lives and functioning is limited by treatment. These are facts, from the SSA itself.
Your experience is your own, and your seeming lack of willingness to honor the experience of other sufferers is distressing.
You might want to actually read the book before you trash a man who has given a voice to millions of us who were ignored.
I am not anti-psychiatry, I am for responsible psychiatry. And you should be, too.
Your experience is yours. You have no evidence the drugs you took created a single negative side effect. You didn't have to do what a psychiatrist suggested. Don't blame others for your failure to use common sense. Whitaker's groupies are notorious for blaming everyone else for all their agony. They suffer like no other group, too. Self-pity is a constant theme in their comments.
I don't believe her, either. Her co-haters sound exactly alike. Woe is me!
Healthy place needs to put the disclaimer, not all sufferers are welcome, so people are warned of the risk of sharing. Not a safe place.
I praise Whitaker for his courage and steadfast integrity and I think the rest of you need to educate yourselves, his evidence is solid, but then that is why ignorance is bliss, yes?
Done with these *un* healthy place blogs, I don't bash other sufferers. Nor do I promote stigma.
Take care.
Hey LJ, thanks very much for sharing your story here about the iatrogenic harm you experienced from psychiatric treatment. You are not alone. As a matter of fact, a story which echoes some of the elements of your own account was recently published on Robert Whitaker’s site, Mad In America. I’ll try to share a link here.
http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/07/one-familys-encounter-with-modern-psychiatry-and-a-ca…
When people attack you for speaking your truth, I hope you can take some comfort in understanding that they do so from a place of ignorance and fear. And, when you are attacked, be assured that what you are sharing is worthwhile and is having an impact. Congratulations. Take courage, and please continue to speak up! I bet Mad in America would be interested in publishing your story. Please consider submitting an essay to the personal stories editor, Laura Delano who, by the way, also credits Anatomy of an Epidemic with saving her life! You'll find that Mad In America is a safe place to share your experience.
Typical crybaby ranting of a hypersensitive, it is all your fault, immature Whitaker groupie.
/ j';/
I think it's dangerous to make the kind of argument Betty uses above. First, it is ridiculous to state that it's impossible to know whether psychiatric drugs caused any of LJ's side effects. Psychiatric drugs are well documented to cause side effects that can be severe even to the point of being disabling. Anyone who tries to argue that there's no proof any side effects came from these drugs is demonstrating willed ignorance.
Second, to say that a person is to be blamed for a lack of common sense demonstrated by choosing to follow a doctor's orders is laughably poor logic. If psychiatry is a field of medicine that helps people, it follows that trusting your psychiatrist's orders is the best course of action. If your advice to someone is that common sense indicates that they should refuse treatment, then you are arguing that psychiatry is so fatally flawed that we cannot trust those care providers.
So which is it? You cannot argue in favor of psychiatry and blame its victims for seeking treatment. Common sense dictates that we seek the least harmful route. Betty's comment contradicts itself.
I clicked on the link that Karen Taylor provided (thank you, Karen) and found a troubling article by psychiatrist Joanna Moncrieff. Dr. Moncrieff cites the Wunderink and Andreasen studies, which suggest that “the standard approach to treating serious mental health problems may cause more harm than good.” (uh oh)
Dr. Moncrieff states that these studies indicate “antipsychotics are bad for the brain and can reduce people’s social functioning when used continuously over long periods.”
She’s more direct in her criticism of her profession than Robert Whitaker is. Dr. Moncrieff writes “psychiatry has its head in the sand.” Strong words from a practicing psychiatrist about her own profession.
Oh stop it. You have no proof she was injured by the drugs she took. You make assumptions based on your desire to trounce psychiatry; you lie and exaggerate. And, who said doctors are supposed to help people--without risk? From where did you acquire that ridiculous idea? You are adults, big girls, correct? No one forced drugs down your throats. And, don't go into involuntary commitment. Don't even try it. If you were so out there that you wound up being treated against your will, blame yourselves. Stop making baseless, immature, pity me, excuses for all your horrible, terrible, dire, indescribable suffering. For once, take responsibility for yourselves. You, the ultra-sensitive, blame everyone else for my problems, a.k.a. Whitaker's groupies (all 5 or 6 of you) have lives consisting exclusively of blaming psychiatrists for all your many woes. Go for a walk and let go of your obsessions to target others for all your misery. Smile. Laugh once in a while. Tell a joke. Stop ruminating on your terrible victimization.
I found websites where the benefits of the drugs prescribed by psychiatrists are lauded. Golly, how about that! That must mean they do some good.
"I was prescribed psychiatric medication while a functioning adult, working, having connections and meaning in my life, respected in my community.
The side effects then led to a more serious diagnosis, the claim that the symptoms demonstrated a “hidden” illness."
Funny. You don't have any evidence that the more serious diagnosis you received had anything to do with the drugs you were taking. You draw that conclusion, number 1, because you want to. 2, you lie.
"Dr. Moncrieff writes “psychiatry has its head in the sand.” Strong words from a practicing psychiatrist about her own profession." Who cares what she says, besides you and your fellow groupies? Most doctors disagree with her.
"Second, to say that a person is to be blamed for a lack of common sense demonstrated by choosing to follow a doctor’s orders is laughably poor logic..."
You blame doctors for everything. LOL. That's laughable. Let's pretend you can read. Every psych med is packaged with clear warnings about adverse reactions. You are responsible for reading them and heeding their warnings. [moderated]
Go spout your lies on Whitaker's garbage dump. Funny. These Self-pitying liars believe no one can be critical of them! They honestly believe others don't have the right to criticize them, to expose their lies and challenge them. They believe they have achieved some special status, based on their contrived mistreatment, that they alone are above suspicion. Talk about narcissism. Leave it to the mentally ill to try to frame the nature of the discussions about their own persecution from anyone they choose.
Sure R. Whatever you say.
Betty & Horace et al
Critcizing people is one thing but belittling them is whole different ball of wax altogether. If you need to tear people down to build yourself up then it says a lot more about you than it does about others...
I'll second R's suggestion that [moderated] commenting as betty-Horace-donald spew her poison somewhere else.
If Natasha really cares for good of their reader's she'd censore these individuals. However, she let's them attack and villify people, because they are on her, Pharma-paid side.
Really, wow. Blaming the victim of being mistreated. Attacking somebody because they had bad experience.
Well. pro-psychiatry people painted nice picture of themselves once again. Maybe meds fried their sense of empathy. Maybe they never had it.
Whitetaker fans took their life in their hands eventually. Unlike some.
This needs to stop. Seriously. Do you not understand I am a real person on the other side of the computer screen?
Some of these posts are abusive and amount to bullying.
Had I realized my sharing would result in such vitriol that would be allowed to continue, while attacking me personally, I would not have shared.
Please, stop.
It is rich that betty calls somebody mentally disturbed while going on violent rage about people with different approach to wellness.
Is she so scared about how Pharma stocks? Or does she feel if she spews enough venom on non-pharm approaches her meds will start magically working? Or?
Hi folks,
Okay, I've moderated things here a little and I must now ask that people stop the personal attacks. It's really not appropriate. Please try to raise the level of discourse to discussing the issue at hand. I will start moderating out comments that don't do this.
Thank you,
- Natasha Tracy
Thanks, Natasha, for stepping in and insisting on civility. Here's a sample of commenting guidelines from Robert Whitaker's mental health related site.
http://www.madinamerica.com/posting-guidelines/
From the guidelines:
"We find that a public space that allows abusive, disrespectful, or off-topic comments shuts down conversation and benefits very few people. . . . This kind of abusive environment mirrors and perpetuates the very problems we would like to address."
Thanks again, and keep up your good work!
Now that is fascinating. Accused of belittling individuals, as if that is something those who live to condemn psychiatrists never engage in, they hunt and attempt to belittle anyone who doesn't accept their every word. They even humiliate and falsely accuse a person kind enough to allow them to express themselves on her website, "pharma funded."
Certainly, part of the credibility problem these self-proclaimed crusaders face is their hypocrisy, rage and overly sensitive reactions for whomever they don't like. Only they are entitled be rude and vicious!
Sorry folks. Time to grow up, that is, if you truly aspire to affect change.
Why not share with everyone the biological markers as evidence that meds created the very injuries you insist they created? Let's see the proof. Why is it a primary argument of theirs that there are no biomarkers for mental illness and not apply the same reasoning to their own conclusions?
"I think it’s dangerous to make the kind of argument Betty uses above. First, it is ridiculous to state that it’s impossible to know whether psychiatric drugs caused any of LJ’s side effects... Anyone who tries to argue that there’s no proof any side effects came from these drugs is demonstrating willed ignorance." snap
Ridiculous? That's insulting. And, who said it is impossible to know? No one. Personally attacking someone for what they never said is absolutely wrong.
"You have no evidence the drugs you took created a single negative side effect." sainz
If you do, share it, please.
Classic example.
Of course, we are bad horrible people, while psychiatry is good.
How DARE somebody to have adverse reaction to HEAVENLY meds? How DARE somebody recover in their own way?
Yeah disgusting. What are people thinking having opinion?
(Notice how horace and betzy actually attack people while "whitaker groupies" only attacked theories in the beginning? Sure I made pharma snide, because I was sick what was said here from psychiatry defenders. Funny what can they get away with. But it's good it's here, everybody can make their own mind.)
Your comments were inappropriate and abusive. They should not have been allowed to continue. There is a difference between discussing an issue, and attacking a person. It also is against the Healthy Place posting policies, as I read them. Free speech isn't free when it hurts others. Compassion and empathy go a long way.
Here are some links that are worth viewing, from a variety of sources, parents who have lost their loved ones due to psychiatric medications, and from other members of the medical community who have a differing view.
This is about choice, and empowerment, which requires a whole story to be told. Informed consent is the foundation of any therapeutic relationship. Some people are helped, while others are harmed. There is no disputing that, it is a fact.
https://www.linktv.org/programs/the-dark-side-of-a-pill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gazEyr86RVY
http://overmedicatedandundertreated.com/
http://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/therese-borchard-sanity-break/are-we-overmedicating…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/opinion/difficult-decisions-in-treating-adhd.html?_r=0
http://www.breggin.com/
http://tabitagreen.com/her-lost-year-book/
This is my last post on this thread. As I said earlier, I don't promote stigma, and I don't "bash" other sufferers.
In order to sell their authenticity they even pretend not to be able to spell and use proper grammar. But, notice how they spell a word correctly, sometimes, and incorrectly at other times. Occasionally, their comprehension skills are fine and at other times, when they want to convince us of their traumatic brain injuries from antipsychotics, they can barely make sense. Mind you, we are not supposed to notice. We are only to pity the severely damaged former psych patients.
"Among predatory beasts, any display of weakness is an invitation to attack".
Any display of genuine illness or misfortune is met with support and hearts filled with compassion.
"betty sainz says:
August 20, 2015 at 4:41 pm
Any display of genuine illness or misfortune is met with support and hearts filled with compassion."
Actions speak louder than words...
Re: Betty Sainz comments of August 10, 2015 at 9:12 PM.
Dean Koontz says:
August 15, 2015 at 8:17 pm
“Among predatory beasts, any display of weakness is an invitation to attack”
Who's a beast?
Wow, after all the heated comments, I definitely will read the book. Sounds like there might be some good food for thought In its pages. Very interesting topic.
Btw Natasha, seems like you missed some disgustingly abusive comments. I hope you could moderate some more, for the sake of your followers who might be triggered by some very disturbing remarks on mental illness. Cheers!
Betty said something on August 10th that no mental health advocate would ever want on their website. I think it's the most insulting comment I ever heard about a mentally ill person. I'm surprised that you missed it and hope you remove it before someone is triggered. This is supposed to be a healthy place after all. Why is so much verbal abuse overlooked?
Hi Guy,
Personally, I'm a big believer in freedom a speech which means that people can be as ridiculous as they want to be. It says more about them than it does about anyone else. That said, that one, particular comment has been removed.
- Natasha Tracy
PS. Glad to see my comments are awaiting moderation, when an extremely abusive comment towards mentally ill people has not been removed from this mental health website in 2 weeks. Cheers!
Well, thanks for finally posting my comments, but you still haven't deleted the abusive comments from weeks ago. I am surprised that someone of your mental health expertise would allow such hateful and disrespectful comments on your blog. I'm disappointed and have lost faith in this site. Mentally ill people deserve far better treatment. I look forward to reading "Anatomy of an Epidemic". I'm open minded and intelligent, so i'm sure i'll enjoy the book. I look forward to learning more about the psychiatric industry and how it's patients are truly treated.
Thank you Guy for posting on this thread and to others who posted in support, but had their posts deleted.
It has been a distressing experience, having shared on Healthyplace and on Natasha's blog.
Cyberbullying and harassment are very serious things, and are magnified when one suffers from any sort of ailment.
But, the responses from Healthyplace and Natasha speak to their truth.
There remains much stigma and insensitivity in society along with much inadequate information.
I hope that my willingness and strength in putting my story out there, has helped even but one person to use discernment, read up on the facts and to know that it is courageous to speak your truth, even in the face of others who lack a compass of empathy.
LJ, thanks for sharing your story and providing the links you shared above. I hope you have a support system that is helping you with your path to recovery.
I posted this earlier and my comment was deleted, yet the awful abusive posts still remain. I fail to understand this moderation decision and perhaps that makes the point better than Whitaker could...
Yes, Natasha, you've made it quite clear,through your stance on freedom of speech, that the mentally ill are in fact mistreated, their suffering and personal experience invalidated by others who lack empathy; for that, I thank you. And all my best to you, L.J., Thank you for sharing your story. True mental health will only be achieved when all psychiatric patients have a voice and are able to tell their stories without being attacked.
Natasha, perhaps it doesn't bother you when people attack you, but come on. This is not okay for anyone to be subjected to, much less a more vulnerable group who may be less able brush it off. UNhealthy place indeed
Natasha
Thank you for helping to stomp out stigma by removing the comment in question.
Andrea Pacquette would be proud!
LJ promised she was done posting here. Not only has she posted, she's reread the disgusting posts that caused her such grief, she would never post again. She even recruited her watchdogs to try to silence someone who had the unmitigated gall to point out that she had no proof she reacted to psychotropic medication as she claimed.
Really bettsy? I don't know LJ, I came to this blog after some time and saw these disgusting attacks. Many probably did too.
Why does somebody's story make you so mad? Why do you care about "purity" of whole entire field of practice more than about one individual being?
You are not the brave one. Nothing brave about insulting people online.
MIA Guidelines
MIA lies. Whitaker has a standard for his adoring fans and lies to those who challenge him. He does not abide by the following.
"Honestly articulate your opinions and experiences. Your unique perspective is a welcome contribution to the issues discussed on the site.
Keep comments civil. This includes refraining from posting personal attacks, sarcasm, spamming, hyperbole, misrepresentations of oneself or others (including strawman arguments), illegal material, profanity, hate speech, disparaging assertions about a person's character, and discrimination based on a person’s identity or occupation. We ask for good faith and the benefit of the doubt in our effort to allow anybody who wants to join the dialogue to do so without fear of abuse. Please respond to and criticize ideas, not character.
Honor differing viewpoints. This website intentionally brings together individuals with varying backgrounds and values. We believe civil, inclusive dialogue to be crucial to finding solutions to our current paradigm of mental health care.
Remain relevant to the present article/topic. Off-topic comments are disruptive and derail the discussion. These may be removed by the moderator. Readers who wish to initiate a new conversation are invited to submit an Op-Ed blog. Keep self-promotion to a minimum and post no more than one link to your own website per comment. Please note that in most cases discussion of comment moderation in a thread is considered off-topic. Contact us directly to report problematic posts or offer feedback about moderation."
All bull
It is difficult to attack someone who comments anonymously. Just show the proof with the biological marker which demonstrates the harm the meds did. That's all. Since you can't, stop saying the meds damaged you. Very simple.
I'm curious Betty...
Do you have a mental illness? Do you take medication?
Fair questions to ask don't you think since you seem to have such strong opinions about both
Simple question. Yes or no?
Yes. I have ADHD. Medication has given me life. I can think and hear and focus and follow conversations and stories and discussions. I can read. My brain works. I know what it's like to have a functioning, wide awake brain. It is like a miracle. A miracle. When hope was gone, I was prescribed medication which turned my brain on, like a switch. Glory! Glory!