September 1, 2014

The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth

pin it button The Emperors New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth

The Emperors New Drugs Book cover The Emperors New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth

The Emperor’s New Drugs
Exploding the Antidepressant Myth


by Irving Kirsch Ph.D.

Like most people, I used to think that antidepressants worked. As a clinical psychologist, I referred depressed psychotherapy clients to psychiatric colleagues for the prescription of medication, believing that it might help. Sometimes the antidepressant seemed to work; sometimes it did not. When it did work, I assumed it was the active ingredient in the antidepressant that was helping my clients cope with their psychological condition. According to drug companies, more than 80 per cent of depressed patients can be treated successfully by antidepressants. Claims like this made these medications one of the most widely prescribed class of prescription drugs in the world, with global sales that make it a $19-billion-a-year industry. Newspaper and magazine articles heralded antidepressants as miracle drugs that had changed the lives of millions of people. Depression, we were told, is an illness – a disease of the brain that can be cured by medication. I was not so sure that depression was really an illness, but I did believe that the drugs worked and that they could be a helpful adjunct to psychotherapy for very severely depressed clients. That is why I referred these clients to psychiatrists who could prescribe antidepressants that the clients could take while continuing in psychotherapy to work on the psychological issues that had made them depressed.

But was it really the drug they were taking that made my clients feel better? Perhaps I should have suspected that the improvement they reported might not have been a drug effect. People obtain considerable benefits from many medications, but they also can experience symptom improvement just by knowing they are being treated. This is called the placebo effect. As a researcher at the University of Connecticut, I had been studying placebo effects for many years. I was well aware of the power of belief to alleviate depression, and I understood that this was an important part of any treatment, be it psychological or pharmacological. But I also believed that antidepressant drugs added something substantial over and beyond the placebo effect. As I wrote in my first book, ‘comparisons of anti-depressive medication with placebo pills indicate that the former has a greater effect . . . the existing data suggest a pharmacologically specific effect of imipramine on depression’. As a researcher, I trusted the data as it had been presented in the published literature. I believed that antidepressants like imipramine were highly effective drugs, and I referred to this as ‘the established superiority of imipramine over placebo treatment’.

The drug companies claimed – and still maintain – that the effectiveness of antidepressants has been proven in published clinical trials showing that the drugs are substantially better than placebos (dummy pills with no active ingredients at all). But the data that Sapirstein and I examined told a very different story. Although many depressed patients improve when given medication, so do many who are given a placebo, and the difference between the drug response and the placebo response is not all that great. What the published studies really indicate is that most of the improvement shown by depressed people when they take antidepressants is due to the placebo effect.

Our finding that most of the effects of antidepressants could be explained as a placebo effect was only the first of a number of surprises that changed my views about antidepressants. Following up on this research, I learned that the published clinical trials we had analysed were not the only studies assessing the effectiveness of antidepressants. I discovered that approximately 40 per cent of the clinical trials conducted had been withheld from publication by the drug companies that had sponsored them. By and large, these were studies that had failed to show a significant benefit from taking the actual drug. When we analysed all of the data – those that had been published and those that had been suppressed – my colleagues and I were led to the inescapable conclusion that antidepressants are little more than active placebos, drugs with very little specific therapeutic benefit, but with serious side effects. I describe these analyses – and the reaction to them – in Chapters 3 and 4.

I remain convinced that antidepressant drugs are not effective treatments and that the idea of depression as a chemical imbalance in the brain is a myth. When I began to write this book, my claim was more modest. I believed that the clinical effectiveness of antidepressants had not been proven for most of the millions of patients to whom they are prescribed, but I also acknowledged that they might be beneficial to at least a subset of depressed patients. During the process of putting all of the data together, those that I had analysed over the years and newer data that have just recently seen the light of day, I realized that the situation was even worse than I thought. The belief that antidepressants can cure depression chemically is simply wrong. In this book I will share with you the process by which I came to this conclusion and the scientific evidence on which it is based.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter 1 – Listening to Prozac, but Hearing Placebo
  • Chapter 2 – The ‘Dirty Little Secret’
  • Chapter 3 – Countering the Critics
  • Chapter 4 – The Myth of the Chemical Imbalance
  • Chapter 5 – The Placebo Effect and the Power of Belief
  • Chapter 6 – How Placebos Work
  • Chapter 7 – Beyond Antidepressants

Irving Kirsch is Professor of Psychology at the University of Hull in the UK.

The Emperor’s New Drugs
Exploding the Antidepressant Myth
by Irving Kirsch Ph.D.

The Emperors New Drugs Book cover 202x300 The Emperors New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth

Free Shipping Available!
More Info

Related stories:

More Americans abuse prescription drugs than the number of those using cocaine, hallucinogens, and heroin combined

Tranquilizer Klonopin Destroyed 8 Years of Stevie Nicks’ Life

Ending a Midlife Affair with Antidepressant Meds by Supermodel Paulina Porizkova

 

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

CDC Director of Immunization Safety Admits Bias and Withholding Data Linking Vaccines to Autism

CDC Director of Immunization Safety Admits Bias and Withholding Data Linking Vaccines to Autism

Pin It

In what is quickly becoming one of the largest news stories in our lifetime, things are just getting worse for the CDC and their cover-up of data linking vaccines to autism.

Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson has posted a recorded phone call she just had with Dr. Frank DeStefano, the CDC Director of Immunization Safety. Dr. DeStefano was a co-author with CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson on a 2004 study that originally was put forward as research showing there was no link between vaccines and autism. Dr. Thompson has come forward and revealed that data was withheld from the public that showed an increased risk of autism in certain populations, specifically African American boys. The CDC has already made a public announcement admitting that they did withhold some data.

Dr. DeStefano has publicly stated that while he will reveal the data again, but that he is standing by the original study. A new audio recording of a conversation he just had with independent investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson has just been posted on the Internet.

In this interview, Dr. DeStefano, who is not a whistle-blower, has come out with his own confession of bias and way of interpreting data so that it does not have to be shared with the public if it is not favorable with what they want to communicate regarding vaccines.

Dr. DeSefano and the CDC is being forced to answer questions like this (which unfortunately the mainstream media as of yet are NOT asking) because his co-author on the study, Dr. William Thompson, has hired one of the top whistleblower attorney’s in the nation so that he can come forward and reveal all the data the CDC has been hiding in regards to vaccines and autism.

60+ Natural ALS Cures the “Ice Washing” Campaign Isn’t Funding!

60+ Natural ALS Cures the “Ice Washing” Campaign Isn’t Funding!

Pin It

In a previous article we published on where funds donated to the ALS Association are being spent, we showed that a small percentage was actually spent on research, and even then only on pharmaceutical products. This has been our most popular story of the year so far.

Sayer Ji brings us a great review of over 60 natural cures that have published research on helping ALS. He also shows how some of the corporate sponsors of the ALS Association are pharmaceutical companies producing drugs that are linked to the cause of ALS!

MSM Marginalizes CDC Whistleblower Story on Vaccine-Autism Coverup

MSM Marginalizes CDC Whistleblower Story on Vaccine-Autism Coverup

Pin It

CNN was the first mainstream media (MSM) outlet to publish a story on the CDC whistleblower story linking vaccines to autism. Predictably, CNN marginalized this story on their website, and then posted a video from their TV network which said nothing about the CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, but simply reiterated the MSM’s belief that all vaccines are safe and do not cause autism. They have posted a video that incorrectly represents facts regarding infant mortality and current whooping cough outbreaks that are occurring among fully vaccinated populations.

How can we trust anything CNN says on the vaccine issue if they misrepresent such basic facts regarding vaccines that are easily verified by 3rd party sources?

This story regarding the CDC cover-up has become too big for the MSM to ignore. They have to address it, but predictably they will continue to cover the story from their own belief system that the vaccine-autism debate is over, and that only one side of the debate should be heard. For those reporters that would dare to cover both sides of the debate, they will soon be without a career in MSM. So perhaps the American public needs to wake up and acknowledge this fact, and research the issue for themselves. A current senior scientist working for the CDC who has regrets over his participation in covering up data linking vaccines to autism is something worth taking some time to research.

CDC Whistleblower: Mercury in Vaccines Given to Pregnant Women Linked to Autism

CDC Whistleblower: Mercury in Vaccines Given to Pregnant Women Linked to Autism

Pin It

Today, the Autism Media Channel released a short video where CDC whistle-blower Dr. William Thompson states, in a phone call to Dr. Brian Hooker, that injecting mercury into pregnant women creates a “clear and present danger” to the unborn child. Thimerosal, a form of mercury used as a preservative in vaccines, was removed from most childhood vaccines a few years ago, but is still in the annual flu shot, which is recommended for pregnant women.

Dr. Thompson, in the video below, insists that this mercury in vaccines causes “tics” in children, and these tics are 4 times more prevalent in kids with autism. “Tics” are defined on the CDC website as: “Tics are sudden twitches, movements, or sounds that people do repeatedly. People who have tics cannot stop their body from doing these things. For example, a person with a motor tic might keep blinking over and over again. Or, a person with a vocal tic might make a grunting sound unwillingly.”

Watch the short 1 minute video.

CDC Responds: Admits Omitting Vaccine Data Linking Vaccines to Higher Rates of Autism

CDC Responds: Admits Omitting Vaccine Data Linking Vaccines to Higher Rates of Autism

Pin It

While the mainstream media continues to ignore what is becoming the biggest news event of the year, the CDC is scrambling to respond to damaging data that they were forced to release earlier this year clearly showing they had data linking vaccines to autism that they hid from the public. This issue can longer be hidden since one of the top researchers within the CDC, who co-authored several of the studies that supposedly showed no link between vaccines and autism, has decided to become a whistle-blower. He has yet to make an official statement, and it is thought that his attorney is seeking official whistle-blower status before he does so.

The CDC, on the other hand, has responded to Dr. Brian Hooker’s newly published study reanalyzing a 2004 CDC study that excluded data showing a significant increase in autism among African American boys who were vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. They supplied a response to the Next News Network, admitting they excluded certain data, and the reasons for doing so. Next News interviewed Dr. Hooker to discuss the CDC response. Dr. Hooker, through a 10-year legal battle with the CDC and hundreds of Freedom of Information requests, finally received the entire data sets from the CDC after Congressman Bill Posey stepped in to put pressure on them to release it. We also now know that Dr. Hooker was in contact for more than a year with an insider in the CDC who has become a whistle-blower, which undoubtedly applied pressure on the CDC to obey the law and release the data.

In this interview, Dr. Hooker states that the CDC is lying in their response, and the reason they are doing so is to protect the reputation of the MMR vaccine. He also points out that the CDC purchases $4 billion of vaccines from the vaccine industry every year, and are the last ones who should be trusted to do studies on vaccine safety due to their huge conflict of interest.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!