Antipsychotics have increased suicide by 20 times.

it seems the only way you'll be satisfied is if healy wrote a 20,000-page study on every possibility, issue, and factor that is associated with schizophrenia & suicide. you've missed the whole point of the study. THIS STUDY FOCUSES ON THE INCREASE IN SUICIDE RATES SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF ANTIPSYCHOTICS AND NOT EVERY SINGLE ISSUE as healy acknowledges.

above, you've said this study is flawed because it doesn't acknowledge the recovery rates in india (the WHO study). on other threads you've said the WHO study is flawed because it doesn't cite EFA's and diet as a contributing cause. pick a topic and you'll say it's flawed because it doesn't cover everything. i've noticed the pattern. it's why i'm being so belligerent on this thread.

maybe you should have a go at writing this all inclusive study that covers every point that you consider valid that should be written about sz and post it here. i'll go through it and highlight what you've missed.

it's one thing for a quack to be pushing for lobotomies and another thing for it to become law.

I just don't subscribe to the pattern you do; whihc is find something you don't like in psychiatry and blame it on the meds. There's much more wrong with psychiatry than just medication. Whatever a study shows, whatever conclusions are drawn, whatever aspects of psychiatry are being studied, you blame drugs. Which is fine; you want to set out to prove that medication is the biggest problem with psychiatry today so you refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that there are other factors at work.

You're belligerant on all threads, and patronising. Anyone who suggests there may be other (and heaven forbid more significant) factors at work than just the medication is shot down in flames. No need to explain. That's your view, and you're just as entitled to it as I am to mine.

Every single thread here comes back to one view; that meds cause problems. Even the study I found pointing to the benefits of using fatty acids to treat symptoms came back round to that same old whine, 'it's the meds'.

So yes, I start to argue. Because I will not be fobbed off with one litany; you cannot see the whole picture unless you open your mind to all the possibilities.

Every study is flawed, in one way or another. Part of interpreting studies is recognising where it is flawed and allowing for those flaws.

You criticise everything that doesn't fit your theory; but refuse point blank to even admit studies showing what you want to see might have their own problems.

That's ok. I just hoped for a more balanced viewpoint here. This is just as biased as schizophrenia.com, and just as unable to answer my questions. I ask; and either the questions are not answered or I'm told the answer is the meds are bad for me.

Sorry; I like to use the brain I still have. I'll leave you to it now, I guess. I've learnt a lot here; for that I am really grateful. But I can't be satisfied with half an answer, which is all I ever get here.

Good luck, and all the best. I hope life brings you what you want from it. And thankyou, sincerely, for everything you've opened my mind to.

i wish you luck in trying to find answers. i have never found any answers in the feild of psychiatry.

i do try to point out psychiatric diagnosis is more a political/social control tool than medical but that seems to have been missed.

i have enjoyed talking to you, good luck and i truly wish you well and all the best.

I like everything about being in hospital except being forced to take drugs. Asylum without drugs-yes, I would go to live there. Stright juscket is much more excetable to me than drugs. They have common goal of restraining. Can a sz's learn something from a stright jucket experience and modify theyir behiaviour? I mean can a paranoid let go of violence under the threat of panishment? I don't believe that asylum was all about torture. Van Gogh mad a voluntary chocie to live there.To bad nobdoy is trying to learn from 'good old days'.

in the good old days, before drugs, when they used to use water and air treatment to for schizophrenia the recovery rates were much higher.

then someone saw that rats that ate an industrial dye couldn't climb ropes. that industrial dye was then modified and given to schizophrenic patients. it had a similar effect as on the rats, it turned them into subdued, sedate zombies. the effect was almost the same as a lobotomy (driving an ice pick up the patients nose into their brain).

this modified industrial dye was hailed as the new treatment for controling schizophrenics. then the race was on, pharmaceutical companies developed more and more substance that gave this chemical lobotomy effect. it made the drug companies trillions, so much so the drug companies paid kick backs to psychiatrists. an alliance between the drug companies and psychiatry was born. as we see today, the alliance called psychopharmacology has grown to the point where any alternative form of treatment that doesn't use drugs is discredited and ignored as it doesn't make money for the drug companies.

i to like the sound of asylum, but asylums have been taken over by businesmen that want us to be treated by their methods alone. methods that make them money. drugs, drugs and more drugs.

i just want a safe place to go to where i can chill out for as long as it takes and talk to other non judgemental people about coping with madness until i'm better. i don't need drugs.

loren moshers soteria project is one example of just how effective such places are in the recovery from sz without drugs.

www.moshersoteria.com/

The World Health Organization recognizes that treating bipolar disorder with modern medication increases the rate of completed suicide - not necessarily the rate of suicidal intentionality, but they choose more violent means. I learned this at a WHO expert consultation on the global burden of disease from various risk factors including mental illness, sorry I don't have a documented source. Has anyone else heard this specifically, that antipsychotics increase the completed suicides as opposed to the attempted suicides?

Don't take statistics at face value and never take anyone's word for anything if you can avoid it.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, various drugs have been thought to increase suicides. But even so, what is presented with this study does not show that the statistic was gathered properly. It doesn't really show that they weighed other potential causes for an increase, all I see is that it leaps straight to drugs.

Maybe they did it right and know what they are talking about, but since they are not showing that they did it right, we should not be quick to believe it. There's no guarantee that they actually want to help anyone, or that they have your interests in mind.

Case in point:

UK-MHRA Drug-Related Suicide Reports_Yellow Card
Wednesday, 01 March 2006
The UK adverse event drug reporting system utilizes the Yellow Card system for filing reports.

It is estimated to represent 1 in 100 adverse drug events that occur. However, as there is no control, the number of incidents do not inform us about the rate at which these events occured or possible contributing factors other than the drug.

That's a red flag for the yellow card.

It's good to be informed and this is useful for that, but it is taking things a bit far to include this in a formal study or statement.

Studies need controls if they are going to be used to make a definitive statement. Period.

I barely read any of the article. I don't need to know what research is out there to give evidence to the adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs! I don't care what anyone's reasons are to believe that they are good. If you use heroin and cocane, you are "on drugs" and you need to get off. If you are on any type of synthetic chemical medication, YOU ARE ON DRUGS!

Yes I have an extreme philosophy on this topic. Like it or not, you won't change my views.

Extremes are almost never a good thing. And that is not a view. It is a fact.

Luckily we are free to ignore your view since it won't be changed. It might be more credible if you were willing to change it in light of evidence, since that you shows you care about world events rather than only caring about what YOU think.

Admitting a possibility of being wrong even if you are right goes a long way to actually being right.