Not long ago, journalist Robert Whitaker uncovered evidence that the drug companies’ long-standing narrative of a medical model for mental illnesses, (with its emphasis on heredity and permanence,) was a fraud. Years earlier, when the drug companies had learned that there was biology involved in mental processes at all, they began speculating as to whether or not they couldn’t devise compounds which would right the biological wrongs of mental illnesses. Accordingly, a new avenue for profit was born. Advances in biological research in the post-Freudian era revealed that a chemical imbalance within the brain was involved, though it did not turn out to be irreversible.
The way in which Mr. Whitaker accomplished what he did was by subpoenaing clinical trial results from drugs developed after the one known as, “Prozac,” in 1987. To the drug companies’ chagrin, those other drugs had not born out the story concocted by the drug companies, following the supposedly, “wild,” success of Prozac.
In a separate development, investigator Irving Kirsch conducted a meta-analysis of the results of clinical trials for 50 different antidepressants in 2008. He concluded that, at best, none of these drugs had anything more than a minimal effect on the relief of depression. The improvements seen in patients taking them is thought to have been attributable to positive relationships those patients had had with their therapists, instead. Nonetheless, the drug companies mounted massive and dishonest promotional campaigns in support of those drugs.
Sigmund Freud postulated that mental illnesses were the result of traumas suffered in early childhood. If one completely abandons the medical model, one then reverts back to Freud’s explanation for trauma. What I find very upsetting is the crooked way in which the medical model is publically implemented nonetheless. With the help of the news media, the TV networks, and Hollywood, public characterizations of mental patients are derogatory, a condition necessary for the promulgation of the medical model belief, and drug company profits. Due to a confluence of developments, (none the least of which is the impact Robert Whitaker and Irving Kirsch have had,) it’s become popular to state that, “the pendulum is now swinging,” away from the medical model altogether.
To be honest with everybody, it’s only been recently that a clear picture of how the public perceives mental patients has crystallized in my mind. This has been in spite of the fact that I’ve been on the receiving end of that perception for years.
The scenery is always set for the drama of the drug companies and their henchmen’s derogation of patients’ lives. In order to maximize profits, the drug companies have successfully sought the collaboration of the news media, the networks, and Hollywood in publically devaluing the lives of patients. Such circumstances are what are necessary in order to maximize those profits. Such is the landscape. There isn’t anyone who doesn’t think mental patients are the silliest things they’ve ever set eyes on. Nobody takes a mental patient seriously. Given this, it’s easy to see why patients are treated with the callousness, cynicism, and sarcasm we always are.
Robert Whitaker and Irving Kirsch challenged the hitherto-presumed saintliness of the drug companies. Sadly though, the news media, TV networks, and Hollywood are critically dependent on the revenue they get from pharmaceuticals nonetheless.
This article was packed with practical tips—thank you!
You’re more than welcome, Jason. Thanks for reading!