Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal from Psychiatric Drugs (2022)
By Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche - 30 Q&As - Book Summary
Psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death in the developed world, after heart disease and cancer. The estimate comes from Peter Gøtzsche’s 2022 book Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal from Psychiatric Drugs, and it is built from regulatory data the drug companies tried to keep buried. One drug alone — Zyprexa — was estimated to have killed 200,000 patients up to 2007. In a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials covering 5,000 elderly demented patients, one in 100 was dead within ten weeks on a psychosis pill; when Gøtzsche checked the underlying FDA data, the rate doubled, because around half of all deaths in psychiatric drug trials never reach publication. The TIPS study followed 281 first-episode psychosis patients with an average age of 29; within ten years, 12% of them were dead, and the authors mentioned the deaths only in a flowchart of patients lost to follow-up.
Gøtzsche is a specialist in internal medicine, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993, and author of more than 75 papers in the BMJ, the Lancet, JAMA, the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine. His scientific work has been cited over 150,000 times. He came to psychiatry from outside the speciality — his earlier books include Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime, which won the British Medical Association’s annual book award in 2014, and Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial. He was eventually expelled from the Cochrane Collaboration he had helped found, after the organisation’s leadership decided his criticism of the HPV vaccine and of psychiatric drugs threatened its institutional standing. The expulsion is documented in his 2019 book Death of a Whistleblower and Cochrane’s Moral Collapse. He continues his work through the Institute for Scientific Freedom in Copenhagen, which he founded the same year.
When the book appeared, Danish psychiatry professors were still telling patients in officially endorsed handbooks that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance corrected by depression pills — a claim the former director of the US National Institute of Mental Health, Steven Hyman, had already publicly disowned in 1996. A 2019 review of 39 popular health websites in 10 countries found 74% still made the same claim. The UK Royal College of Psychiatrists and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence had spent five decades denying that the drugs were addictive — a denial precisely paralleling the 50-year delay before barbiturates were acknowledged as addictive, and the 30-year delay for benzodiazepines. The 2020 BBC programme that finally broke ranks still featured a voiceover assuring viewers that “although they are not addictive, they can lead to dependency issues.” Gøtzsche was writing into a profession actively defending the same lies it had told patients for half a century, while the patients themselves — surveyed as early as 1991 — had already concluded by a 78% margin that the drugs were addictive.
Gøtzsche is not a terrain practitioner. He is an evidence-based-medicine reformer working within mainstream pharmacology, but his findings converge with what Shelton documented a century earlier: drugs prescribed to suppress the body’s response to insult drive acute conditions toward chronic disease, and the harms of the suppression are then misread as evidence of progressing illness. The full summary unpacks the mechanism in detail — the cold-turkey trial design that converts withdrawal injury into apparent drug efficacy, the 12% greater dropout rate on drug than on placebo across 67,319 pages of clinical study reports that no researcher outside the companies had ever read, the 5 cm permanent height loss in children on stimulants at 16-year follow-up, the 79% rate of akathisia among mentally ill patients who attempted suicide, the contrast between drug-heavy Stockholm and the Open Dialogue model in Lappland where 19% versus 62% of first-episode psychosis patients ended up on disability five years later. The mother of one Danish patient killed by overdosed psychosis pills against her warnings was told the death was natural. Her daughter’s last words to her, before the lethal injection, were: Mom, won’t you tell the world how we’re treated?
This work stays free because paid subscribers make it possible. They get the full book library, the Deep Dive Audio Library, and the Questions for Your Doctor, Before You Consent, and Package Insert series. No grants, no gatekeepers — your subscription is what keeps it that way.
The paywall has been removed on this book summary making it available to free subscribers.
30 Q&As
Question 1: What is the central claim about psychiatric drugs and mortality, and how does it compare to other causes of death?
Psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death in the developed world, after heart disease and cancer. The estimate is built from the best available evidence on placebo-controlled trials, regulatory data, and large cohort studies, and it implicates every major drug class used in mental health: depression pills, psychosis pills, lithium, antiepileptics used as “mood stabilizers,” and stimulants. Even the most cautious reading of the data forces the conclusion that these drugs kill hundreds of thousands of people every year and cripple millions, physically and mentally. One drug alone, Zyprexa, was estimated to have killed 200,000 patients up to 2007, most of whom should never have been treated with it.
Psychiatry occupies a unique position in medicine in this respect. There are no cardiology survivors or infectious-disease survivors, but there are psychiatric survivors — people who use that word to describe what they survived from their own treatment. In every other speciality, a patient who lives through serious illness is grateful for the doctor’s intervention. In psychiatry, doing what the doctor recommends may be what kills you. The patients who fight their way out of the system describe it as imprisonment, with a door in but not a door out, and many say it took 10 or 15 years before they realised that life is much better without the drugs.
Question 2: Why is the biological model of psychiatry — the idea that mental disorders arise from chemical imbalances corrected by drugs — considered scientifically bankrupt?
The biological model rests on three assumptions: that specific psychiatric diagnoses exist, that they result from specific brain changes, and that specific drugs correct those changes. Each assumption fails when examined. Diagnoses are made by checklist consensus rather than by any biological marker. The chemical imbalance hypothesis has been refuted repeatedly: mice genetically depleted of brain serotonin behave like other mice; tianeptine, which lowers serotonin, “works” for depression just as drugs that raise serotonin do; depression pills are tested on 214 unrelated diagnoses and seem to “work” for everything that has nothing to do with serotonin. The drugs do not correct an imbalance — they create one, as Steven Hyman, former director of the US National Institute of Mental Health, pointed out in 1996.
The collapse of the model has been hidden by relentless professional defence. When challenged, psychiatry’s spokesmen retreat — saying the chemical imbalance was always “a metaphor” or that they have “known for 20 years” the theory is too simple — only to reassert it in textbooks, patient handbooks, and consultations the moment the spotlight moves elsewhere. A 2019 survey of 39 popular websites in 10 countries found that 74% still attributed depression to a chemical imbalance or claimed depression pills could correct one. The myth survives not because it is supported by evidence but because it justifies lifelong prescribing, defends professional prestige, and protects an industry whose only motive is money.
Question 3: How did the chemical imbalance theory survive for decades despite the evidence against it, and what role did commercial interests play?
The recipe was simple. A drug was found to increase serotonin or lower dopamine, and a hypothesis was invented that patients must therefore be deficient in serotonin or producing too much dopamine. The hypothesis was rejected by every test — by genetic studies, by speed-of-onset studies, by the observation that drugs working in opposite directions both seem to “work” — but it was not abandoned, because abandoning it would mean abandoning the prescription. The 1992 Defeat Depression Campaign in the UK, run jointly by the Royal Colleges of Psychiatrists and General Practitioners, accepted donations from every major manufacturer of depression pills. The president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Robert Kendall, conceded that the companies’ major motive was to increase sales. There were no other motives.
The lay public was harder to convince than the doctors. A 1991 UK survey found 91% wanted counselling for depression, only 16% wanted pills, 78% considered them addictive, and 46% thought they worked. After the campaign, the figures had shifted only 5–10%. Patients drew their conclusions from their own experience and that of their relatives. The psychiatrists called this ignorance and prescribed “psychoeducation” — what is normally called brainwashing. The myth persists in 74% of major health websites, in psychiatric textbooks, in consultations where patients are told they have a chemical imbalance and need pills like a diabetic needs insulin. It persists because money, prestige, and guild interests demand that it persist, not because any scientific question is being asked.
Question 4: Why are psychiatric diagnoses described as neither specific nor reliable, and how does the DSM construct them?
Psychiatric diagnoses are made by checklist. A person with at least five of nine symptoms qualifies for major depression. The symptoms — sleep problems, appetite change, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, low mood — are common features of ordinary life, and the cut-off between five and four is decided by show of hands at committee meetings, not by any biological measurement. When psychiatrists are asked to diagnose the same patients independently, they disagree wildly. The American Psychiatric Association’s own reliability studies were so embarrassing that they were buried in short articles requiring detective work to locate. The largest study of 592 people produced poor agreement even after extensive training of the assessors.
The labels are social constructs, not natural kinds. You can have a dog or a car; you cannot have ADHD in the same sense. When a child fidgets and is called ADHD, then explained as fidgeting because she has ADHD, the reasoning is circular. The labels stick for life — affecting driver’s licences, custody decisions, adoption applications, insurance, and employment — and there is no court of appeal. Even when the diagnosing psychiatrist herself doubts the diagnosis, it cannot be removed. Filmmaker Anahi Testa Pedersen received the schizotypy diagnosis during acute distress over a divorce; eight years later, the system summoned her well-functioning daughter for examination because they assumed psychiatric disorders are inherited. The system makes diagnoses; it does not unmake them. The single best protection against this system is to avoid getting a diagnosis in the first place.
Question 5: What is meant by a “psychiatric career,” and how does prescribing one drug typically lead to additional diagnoses and a cocktail of further drugs?
A psychiatric career begins, most often, with a family doctor and a depression pill prescribed for some ordinary trouble — grief, divorce, work stress, sleeplessness. The patient is told the drug will fix a chemical imbalance. Then the drug produces its predictable effects. Depression pills make some people manic or psychotic, and when this happens the patient is now bipolar or has psychotic depression. A psychosis pill is added, then lithium, then an antiepileptic relabelled as a “mood stabilizer.” Each added drug brings new harms that overlap with the symptoms used to make new diagnoses. The harms are read as confirmation of progressing illness. The patient now collects diagnoses and medications in parallel, and there is no exit ramp.
The 21-year-old student described in the book illustrates the endpoint. She was discharged from a private hospital on diazepam, two depression pills, three psychosis pills, three antiepileptics, and lithium — eleven psychiatric drugs simultaneously, after 21 sessions of trans-cranial magnetic stimulation and 12 electroshocks. Stine Toft was given depression pills for stress, became manic from the drugs, was diagnosed bipolar, and spent 14 years on an escalating cocktail before realising the bipolar diagnosis was a misreading of drug-induced mania. Silje Marie Strandberg, bullied at 12, was prescribed Prozac at 16, lost herself, and was eventually medicated by 95 different doctors with 21 different psychiatric drugs over 10 years. The career pattern is not the exception — it is what the system produces by design.
Question 6: What does the term “medication spellbinding” describe, and why does it matter for patients trying to assess whether their drugs are helping?
Medication spellbinding describes the state in which a drug numbs a person’s capacity to evaluate the effect of the drug itself. The pills affect feelings, thoughts, and behaviour, and they affect the very faculty that would notice this. Patients lose the ability to see how much they have changed. They lose insight into their own emotional flatness, their cognitive slowing, their sexual numbness, their loss of interest in people and life. The main biasing effect is that patients underestimate the harms — sometimes catastrophically. A patient who can no longer feel music, who has stopped laughing, who no longer recognises herself, may report that the drug is “helping” because she can no longer feel the suffering it is causing.
This is why patient self-report on whether a drug is working is unreliable in exactly the wrong direction — it favours continuing the drug. It is also why withdrawal so often comes with a stunning return of basic experience: Stine Toft, in the bath during withdrawal, began crying because she could feel water on her body for the first time in years. The return of feeling is the return of the capacity to assess. Combination treatment with psychotherapy is undermined by spellbinding, because effective therapy requires a patient who can think, feel, and evaluate herself, and the drugs prevent exactly this. The patient on drugs is not in a position to know what the drugs have done to her until she comes off them.
Question 7: How are drug-induced harms — such as mania caused by depression pills or compulsive behaviour caused by stimulants — routinely misdiagnosed as new diseases?
The pattern is consistent across drug classes. A depression pill causes mania; the patient is diagnosed bipolar. A stimulant produces tics, twitches, and meaningless repetitive behaviour; the child is diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder. A psychosis pill produces tardive dyskinesia; the movements are read as worsening of the underlying illness. The DSM-5 went as far as ruling that mania occurring during depression-pill treatment should be considered “true” bipolar disorder rather than drug-induced — a definitional sleight of hand that converts a side effect into a permanent diagnosis. There is considerable overlap between the harms of psychiatric drugs and the symptoms used to make psychiatric diagnoses, and the system reliably reads the harm as a new disease.
This is medical malpractice on a massive scale, and it is what produces psychiatric careers. A patient who would never have had mania in her life produces drug-induced mania, is now bipolar, and is now on lithium and an antiepileptic for the rest of her life. A child who would have grown out of fidgeting produces stimulant-induced obsessive behaviour, is now also diagnosed with OCD, and is now on additional drugs. Trials of ADHD drugs report psychosis or mania in 3% of treated children versus 1% on placebo — 30 times higher than the FDA’s own warning about “new psychotic or manic symptoms.” The harm is reliably catalogued as a disease that justifies further treatment, and the reverse arrow — that the treatment caused the harm — is rarely allowed to be drawn.
Question 8: What does the evidence show about whether depression pills work, and how do flaws in trial design create the appearance of an effect?
The smallest effect that can be perceived on the Hamilton Depression scale is 5 to 6 points. In flawed trials, depression pills produce about 2 points more than placebo. When the placebo contains atropine — which mimics the drug’s side effects so the blind cannot be broken — the difference shrinks to 1.3 points and disappears. Three of the 17 items on the Hamilton scale concern sleep, and a single shift on these can produce 6 points; an anxiety reduction can produce 8. Almost any substance with side effects can be made to “work” for depression by these mechanics, including stimulants. The question is not whether the patient feels something happening in her body — she does — but whether the change has any clinical relevance, and the answer is no.
The deeper problem is that no trial has ever measured whether depression pills return patients to a normal productive life. Over a thousand placebo-controlled trials have been conducted, and none uses the outcome the DSM itself defines as central — clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other functioning. When Gøtzsche’s group examined patient dropout rates across 73 trials covering 18,426 patients — reading 67,319 pages of clinical study reports that no one outside the companies had ever read before — they found 12% more patients dropped out on drug than on placebo. Patients voted with their feet. Even with broken blinding, even with cold-turkey placebos, even with rating scales that exaggerate small changes, the patients themselves prefer no drug. The reported “benefit” exists only on rating scales that the patients do not experience as benefit.
Question 9: Why is the cold-turkey placebo design in psychiatric drug trials considered fraudulent, and what does it mean for the published evidence base?
In a cold-turkey trial, patients already taking the drug are abruptly switched to placebo. They go into withdrawal — anxiety, agitation, insomnia, suicidal thoughts, the full constellation of abstinence symptoms that resemble the original condition. The trial then “finds” that patients on continued drug fare better than patients on placebo. What it has actually measured is the harm of sudden withdrawal, not any benefit of the drug. Virtually all psychiatric drug trials suffer from this design defect, and it pervades the evidence used to justify lifelong prescribing.
The mechanism is what produces the famous “relapse prevention” findings. Patients abruptly switched to placebo experience withdrawal-induced misery, restart the drug, feel relief from the abstinence, and the trial concludes the drug prevents relapse. As few as two patients are needed to produce one with withdrawal symptoms — the Number Needed to Harm is two. There cannot be a Number Needed to Treat below this, only the harm of forcing patients into acute withdrawal. The published literature is so saturated with this design that meta-analyses citing “established efficacy” are reading harm as benefit. When trials are conducted without cold turkey, the apparent effect collapses. The entire evidence base for long-term psychiatric drug use rests on a methodology that systematically converts withdrawal injury into evidence of drug benefit.
Question 10: How are suicides, deaths, and serious harms hidden in published psychiatric drug research, and what did Gøtzsche’s group find when they read the unpublished clinical study reports?
Only about half of suicides and other deaths that occur in psychiatric drug trials are published. Deaths are wiped under the carpet — recoded as “unknown cause,” omitted before publication, attributed to the underlying disease rather than the drug. Companies report adverse events only above arbitrary thresholds — for instance, only if they occurred in at least 5% of patients — which conceals serious harms occurring at lower frequencies. In Lilly’s fluoxetine and duloxetine trials, only 2 of 20 suicide attempts and only 3 of 17 akathisia events were documented in the public summaries. Akathisia was recoded as “hyperkinesia” in three sertraline trials. Sexual dysfunction in women was coded as “Female Genital Disorder,” with the blame implicitly placed on the patient.
Gøtzsche’s group obtained 71 clinical study reports from European and UK regulators — 67,319 pages, around seven metres if stacked — and read them all. They were the first researchers outside the companies ever to do so. They found 12% more dropouts on drug than on placebo. They found that 9 of 15 study reports contained selectively reported quality-of-life data, and 24 of 26 corresponding publications did. Quality-of-life data were sometimes measured in 11 trials but reported in only 5. Two-thirds of trials had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted after the data were seen, and 86% of trialists denied this when asked. The published evidence base for psychiatric drugs is not what the trials actually showed; it is what the companies decided patients and doctors would be allowed to see.
Question 11: What does the evidence show about the deadliness of psychosis pills, both in elderly demented patients and in young people with first-episode psychosis?
In a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials in 5,000 elderly demented patients, 3.5% had died after only ten weeks on olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or aripiprazole, compared with 2.3% on placebo. One patient killed per 100 in ten weeks. When Gøtzsche checked the FDA’s underlying data — because around half of deaths in psychiatric trials go missing — the rates rose to 4.5% versus 2.6%. Two patients killed per 100 in ten weeks. A Finnish cohort study of 70,718 community-dwellers newly diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease found that psychosis pills killed 4 to 5 patients per year compared with patients not treated, and 57% more if the patients received more than one psychosis pill. There is no other drug, given to patients who do not need it, with a death rate this high.
For young people with schizophrenia, the picture is no better. The TIPS study followed 281 patients with first-episode psychosis whose average age at entry was 29. Within 10 years, 31 of them — 12% — were dead. The authors took no interest in the deaths, mentioning them only in a flowchart of patients lost to follow-up. They focused on symptom scores. When Gøtzsche wrote asking what the patients had died of, the response came months later, in a separate paper, with the death numbers changed and the causes still not given. The patients with schizophrenia have a lifespan 15 years shorter than the rest of the population. Psychiatry blames patient lifestyles. The drugs cause weight gain, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular sudden death, pneumonia from sedation and inactivity, and irreversible brain damage. The roadblocks against finding out why young people on these drugs die are guarded by the psychiatric guild itself.
Question 12: What is akathisia, why is it dangerous, and how is it concealed in clinical trials?
Akathisia is a horrible feeling of inner restlessness — a Greek word meaning inability to sit still. The patient may pace endlessly, fidget, wring her hands, or sit motionless while experiencing unbearable inner torment, rage, dissociation, and delusional ideation. In one study, 79% of mentally ill patients who attempted suicide suffered from akathisia. Half of all fights at a psychiatric ward in another study were related to akathisia. Moderate to high doses of haloperidol made half the patients markedly more aggressive — sometimes to the point of wanting to kill their psychiatrists. Akathisia is one of the most direct mechanisms by which psychiatric drugs cause suicide, violence, and homicide.
In clinical trials, akathisia is systematically miscoded. In three sertraline trials, it was recorded as “hyperkinesia.” In paroxetine trials, not a single case was found, which is implausible given the clinical reality of these drugs. Lilly’s summary reports for fluoxetine and duloxetine documented only 3 of 15 akathisia events. The harm appears in product information for psychosis pills like Zyprexa as “extreme inner anxiety and restlessness,” but the language obscures what is happening. A patient who kills herself on a depression pill is rarely connected back to the akathisia that drove her there, because the akathisia was either not recorded or was recorded under a different name. The harm is real, it is common, it is lethal, and it is hidden.
Question 13: What is tardive dyskinesia, how common is it among long-term users of psychosis pills, and why did psychiatry take 20 years to recognise it as drug-caused?
Tardive dyskinesia is an involuntary movement disorder — uncontrollable grimacing, lip-smacking, tongue-thrusting, jerking of the limbs and trunk. It develops in 4 to 5% of patients on psychosis pills per year, which means most patients in long-term treatment will eventually develop it. In 1984, FDA scientist Poul Leber extrapolated the data and concluded that, over a lifetime, all patients on psychosis pills might develop the condition. It is often irreversible, and it is masked by ongoing treatment — the drug that causes it also conceals it, so stopping the drug both reveals and may permanently expose the damage. Around half of patients in the TIPS study who remained on psychosis pills 10 years after first-episode psychosis would have developed it.
Psychiatry took 20 years to acknowledge that tardive dyskinesia was iatrogenic — caused by the doctor’s own treatment. Even after acknowledgement, the denial continued. Three years after Leber’s extrapolation, the president of the American Psychiatric Association told an Oprah Winfrey audience that tardive dyskinesia was not a serious or frequent problem. Forced treatment with these drugs continues to be ordered by psychiatric tribunals even when patients have already developed akathisia or tardive dyskinesia from prior treatment. In one of 30 forced-treatment cases reviewed by Gøtzsche’s group, an expert confirmed the patient had developed akathisia on aripiprazole and on the same page recommended forced treatment with the same drug. The drugs that produce permanent brain damage continue to be prescribed, often against the patient’s will, by a system that does not allow the harm to register as evidence.
Question 14: How do depression pills affect sexual function, why is the harm often permanent, and how do drug companies and doctors deflect blame onto the patients?
Half of patients with previously normal sex lives experience disruption or destruction of sexual function on depression pills. In one carefully conducted study of 1,022 patients, 57% reported decreased libido, 57% delayed orgasm, 46% no orgasm, 31% erectile dysfunction or decreased lubrication. In unpublished Phase 1 trials with healthy volunteers, over half experienced severe sexual dysfunction, and in some cases it persisted after the drug was stopped. The numbness can become permanent — post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, in which patients report being unable to feel chili paste rubbed into their genitals. Some patients kill themselves when they discover the damage is permanent. An Australian child psychiatrist told Gøtzsche he knew three teenagers who attempted suicide because they could not get an erection the first time they tried to have sex.
The Prozac package insert lists decreased libido at 4% — barely above placebo — while the actual rate is around 57%. The deflection mechanism is built into the language of the labelling itself: “changes in sexual desire, sexual performance, and sexual satisfaction often occur as manifestations of a psychiatric disorder.” The blame is placed on the patient’s depression, not the drug. SmithKline Beecham coded female anorgasmia as “Female Genital Disorder.” Doctors tell patients the problem is psychosomatic, prescribe psychosis pills on top, refuse to believe the complaints, or — in one documented exchange — tell the patient she has a choice between losing orgasms and “going mad.” Meanwhile, the same pharmacological action is repackaged and sold as Priligy for premature ejaculation. The drug industry knows exactly what these compounds do to sexual function. The denial is a marketing decision, not a scientific uncertainty.
Question 15: What is known about lithium’s actual benefits and harms, and why is the claim that it prevents suicide unreliable?
Lithium is a highly toxic metal with a narrow therapeutic window — toxicity occurs at doses close to therapeutic concentrations, so serum levels must be constantly monitored. It can cause irreversible brain damage, kidney damage, cardiovascular harm, ataxia, tremor, drowsiness, and a long list of other serious effects. Many other drugs alter lithium’s serum level, making safe co-prescription extremely difficult. Like most psychiatric drugs, it sedates and incapacitates rather than treats. The studies that claim lithium prevents suicide rest on a tiny number of trials — when Gøtzsche and a Swedish psychiatrist excluded the cold-turkey trials and looked only at the four remaining studies, the data were too unreliable to draw any conclusion, and the trials were poorly blinded because lithium’s side effects are pronounced.
The 2013 review most often cited as evidence that lithium prevents suicide noted six suicides in the trials, all on placebo. The reviewers themselves cautioned that just one or two moderately sized trials with neutral or negative results could materially change the finding, and selective reporting of deaths in old psychiatric drug trials is the rule rather than the exception. Around half of all deaths in psychiatric drug trials are missing from publication. Trials that titrate patients up to “the most appropriate dose” before randomising half to placebo are measuring abrupt withdrawal harm, not suicide prevention. The case for lithium is built on selectively reported old data, broken blinding, and cold-turkey designs. It is not a drug that should be recommended to anyone.
Question 16: How are antiepileptic drugs used in psychiatry, and why are they harmful when prescribed for mood rather than for seizures?
Antiepileptics double the risk of suicide. Their effect in psychiatry is to numb and sedate — what Gøtzsche calls a chemical straitjacket — and they are prescribed for almost everything, particularly for what is called mania. Anything that knocks a patient down will appear to “work” for mania, but the drugs do not cure or stabilise mood; they suppress emotional responsiveness. They can also do the opposite of what is claimed: antiepileptics can themselves induce mania, which then produces a new diagnosis and a new layer of drugs. One in 14 patients on gabapentin develops ataxia — loss of voluntary muscle coordination. The marketing label of “mood stabilizer” was coined without anyone clarifying what it means. The category includes antiepileptics, lithium, and even psychosis pills like asenapine — a flexible commercial term, not a pharmacological class.
The trial evidence is fraudulent. Lamotrigine reached the market with two positive published trials; seven large negative trials were buried. Two positive trials are all the FDA requires, and the agency treats negative results as “failed trials” rather than as evidence the drug does not work. Cochrane reviews of methylphenidate and ADHD-related antiepileptics performed by attentive researchers found every single trial at high risk of bias. The British drug agency’s own document recorded the rate of aggression on methylphenidate as 1.2% on page 61 and 11.9% on page 63 — same population, same follow-up, same document. Antiepileptics drive psychiatric careers forward by adding harms, requiring further drugs, and making it almost impossible for the patient to function or to come off. They should not be used for mental health issues.
Question 17: Why is ADHD described as a social construct rather than a real disease, and what does the long-term evidence show about stimulant medications in children?
ADHD is a label, not an entity. The reasoning that constructs it is circular: a child fidgets and is diagnosed with ADHD; the child fidgets because she has ADHD. The label cannot be observed in nature like an elephant. The diagnostic checklist consists of behaviours common to ordinary childhood, and the cut-off is decided by committee. When a diagnosis was needed for children who sat too still, ADD was invented; the drug industry’s logical endpoint is a diagnosis for everyone in the middle, so that no one escapes treatment. The drugs used are stimulants — methylphenidate, amphetamine, and amphetamine derivatives — pharmacologically equivalent to crystal methamphetamine. The WHO classifies amphetamine-type stimulants as a public health danger when bought on the street, and says nothing about the same compounds prescribed at similar population-wide rates.
The long-term evidence is grim. The US MTA trial randomised 579 children and followed them for 3, 6, 8, and 16 years. After 16 years, those who consistently took their pills were 5 cm shorter than those who took very little. Children developed tics, twitches, obsessive-compulsive behaviour, apathy, depression — more than half in some studies. Animal studies confirm reproductive harm persisting after the drugs are stopped. The compulsive behaviour at school is often misread as improvement: a child who copies everything from the board without learning anything is judged to be focusing well. Children on these drugs have suddenly dropped dead in classrooms. Stimulants increase the risk of violence. The short-term effect of getting children to sit still disappears quickly; the long-term effects on developing brains can only be guessed at. The drugs do not protect against crime, delinquency, or substance abuse, contrary to what psychiatrists testify in parliamentary hearings — if anything, they do the opposite.
Question 18: What is the truth about benzodiazepine and depression-pill addiction, and why did it take 30 to 50 years for the authorities to acknowledge it?
Benzodiazepines were marketed as the safer alternative to the addictive barbiturates. Barbital came on the market in 1903; it took 50 years before barbiturates were officially recognised as addictive. Benzodiazepine dependence was documented in 1961 and described in the British Medical Journal in 1964. Sixteen years later, the UK Committee on the Review of Medicines published a systematic review estimating that only 28 people had become dependent between 1960 and 1977. The actual number was millions. The Medicines Control Agency finally wrote to doctors about the problem in 1988 — nearly 30 years after the dependence was first documented. Then SSRIs replaced benzodiazepines as the safer alternative, and the cycle began again. Imipramine dependence had been described in 1971 in just six healthy volunteers. Authorities denied SSRI addiction for another 50 years.
The denial is now performative rather than substantive. Authorities use words like “discontinuation symptoms” and “dependency issues” to avoid saying addiction. Professors of psychiatry argue patients are not dependent because they do not crave higher doses — a definition that would exonerate every smoker who maintained a constant pack-per-day for 40 years. A 2020 BBC programme reported that the UK mental health charity Mind was directing people to street drug charities to help them withdraw from depression pills, while the voiceover insisted the drugs are not addictive. Gøtzsche’s systematic review found that withdrawal symptoms are described in similar terms for benzodiazepines and SSRIs, and 37 of 42 identified symptoms are very similar across the two drug classes. The patients have known the drugs are addictive for at least 30 years; lay people surveyed in 1991 already considered them so by a 78% margin. The institutions that refuse to call it what it is are protecting prescribing rights, not patients.
Question 19: What does the evidence show about electroshock, and why does its mechanism of action raise serious ethical concerns?
Electroshock works by causing brain damage. The effect, when there is one, does not last beyond the treatment period — which is why patients receive long series of shocks rather than one dramatic intervention. If electroshock genuinely cured anything, repetition would not be needed. Most patients who receive ECT experience memory loss, often severe and often permanent. Leading psychiatrists deny this, despite well-documented evidence in the medical literature. About 1 in 1,000 patients dies from electroshock. Many more suffer serious irreversible cognitive damage. One patient described in the book could not remember the name of the Danish capital after her treatments — she had been sexually abused as a child, given a psychiatric diagnosis she never met the criteria for, and electroshocked into permanent brain injury.
The mechanism is the ethical problem. A treatment whose therapeutic effect is brain damage, whose effect requires endless repetition, whose memory destruction is denied by the practitioners who administer it, and which can be enforced upon patients against their will — including patients who have not consented — is a treatment no humane medical system should retain. Some patients say it has helped them. Some patients say morphine has helped them. Anecdotes do not establish efficacy; they establish what the patient experienced. There is no reliable evidence that electroshock saves lives, and there is reliable evidence that it kills some patients and brain-damages many others. The fact that it can still be enforced on unwilling patients in democratic countries is one of the markers of how far psychiatry stands outside ordinary medical ethics.
Question 20: Why is the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) considered bogus when applied to psychiatric drugs?
The Number Needed to Treat tells you how many patients must take a drug for one to benefit. It is meaningful only when there is a real benefit to count. In psychiatry, the trial methodology is so corrupted that the apparent benefits are artefacts. The cut-off for “improvement” can be moved until the data confess what marketing wants. NNT calculations rest on rating-scale changes that patients themselves do not experience as meaningful — the 2-point difference on the Hamilton scale that drug companies celebrate is invisible to the person taking the pill. NNT also ignores harms entirely, treating drugs as if their possible benefits existed in a vacuum.
In a depression-pill trial, only two patients on cold-turkey placebo are needed to produce one with withdrawal symptoms — the Number Needed to Harm is two. Twelve per cent more patients drop out on drug than on placebo, giving a Number Needed to Harm of about eight on dropout alone. The Number Needed to Harm for sexual dysfunction is below two. There is no Number Needed to Treat in psychiatry that survives once harms are placed alongside the apparent benefits. The UK psychiatrists who claimed depression pills had an NNT of three for preventing recurrence were measuring nothing more than the cold-turkey withdrawal harm in their placebo group. The NNT framework, as applied to psychiatric drugs, exists to produce numbers that flatter prescribing. It does not exist as a legitimate measurement of benefit.
Question 21: How have medical journals, mainstream media, and Boards of Health acted to suppress critical information about psychiatric drugs and children’s suicides?
The censorship is comprehensive. Major psychiatric journals declined to publish or even discuss any of 13 to 14 pivotal studies on whether depression pills worsen long-term outcomes or cause persistent sexual dysfunction. Editor-in-chief positions in psychiatric journals are often held by people on drug industry payroll. When the British Medical Journal devoted an issue to conflicts of interest in 2004, the drug industry threatened to withdraw advertising; Annals of Internal Medicine lost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million dollars in advertising after publishing a study critical of industry practice. Giovanni Fava found it so impossible to publish results his peers disliked that he founded his own journal. Mainstream newspapers — Svenska Dagbladet, Dagens Nyheter, La Vanguardia — have killed interviews with Gøtzsche. A Dagens Nyheter editor told the journalist directly that explaining the suicide risk to readers would be too dangerous. National TV documentaries are routinely sanitised in editing, with the hardest material removed and a voiceover inserted assuring viewers that “many people are helped by psychiatric drugs.”
Boards of Health have been similarly unresponsive. Gøtzsche alerted the Boards of Health in the Nordic countries, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK to the fact that two simple interventions — the Danish Board’s reminder to GPs, and his own public warnings — had nearly halved Danish children’s depression-pill prescriptions between 2010 and 2016. He noted that depression pills double the risk of suicide in randomised trials and urged action. He received no replies, late replies, or what he considered bullshit. The Finnish Ministry replied after five months that “increased suicidal thoughts have been connected with SSRIs in some studies.” The Swedish Drug Agency’s 2016 treatment recommendations contained no information at all about suicidality under side effects, while the Swedish package insert for fluoxetine listed suicidal behaviour as a common side effect in children. New Zealand had the highest teenage suicide rate in the world — twice Sweden’s, four times Denmark’s — and a 78% rise in adolescent depression-pill prescriptions between 2008 and 2016. The Director of Mental Health, when asked to make the drugs unlawful in children, said only that some children were so depressed the drugs should be tried.
Question 22: What does the contrast between Stockholm and Lappland reveal about whether psychosis can be treated without drugs, and what is the Open Dialogue model?
In Lappland, the Open Dialogue Family and Network Approach treats first-episode psychosis at home, involving the patient’s social network, beginning within 24 hours of contact. In Stockholm, the standard biomedical approach prevails. The patient populations were closely comparable. In Stockholm, 93% of first-episode patients were treated with psychosis pills, 33% in Lappland. Five years later, ongoing drug use was 75% in Stockholm versus 17% in Lappland. Sixty-two per cent in Stockholm versus 19% in Lappland were on disability allowance or sick leave. Hospital bed use was 110 days versus 31 days on average. The differences are not subtle. They are the difference between a system that produces chronic disability and one that produces recovery.
The contrast is not a randomised trial, but the magnitude of the effect makes the result impossible to dismiss. The Lappland team waits, listens, involves family, and keeps drugs to a minimum. At a London psychosis ward, staff waited about two weeks before starting medication on newly admitted patients; most chose only small doses or none, suggesting it was respect, time, and shelter that helped, not the drugs. The Norwegian Akershus University Hospital has operated without rapid tranquillisation regimens. Iceland has not used chains, belts, or physical restraints since 1932. Italy’s Mental Health Law treats danger as a police matter, not a justification for forced drugging. The evidence that psychiatric care without drug coercion is not only possible but produces dramatically better outcomes is not hidden. It is ignored, because acknowledging it would dismantle the prescribing model that defines the profession.
Question 23: What does the evidence show about psychotherapy compared with depression pills, particularly in the long term and for suicide prevention?
Psychotherapy halves the risk of a new suicide attempt in people acutely admitted after a suicide attempt. The finding came from Gøtzsche’s meta-analysis with his daughter, focused on cognitive behavioural therapy because most trials used it, but emotion regulation therapy and dialectical behaviour therapy show similar effects. Across the broader literature, psychotherapy outperforms pharmacotherapy in the long run — the longer the trial follow-up, the clearer the advantage. The effect of psychotherapy is enduring because it teaches patients adaptive emotion regulation: how to handle feelings, thoughts, and behaviour in ways that strengthen them. Drugs do the opposite. They impose maladaptive emotion regulation by numbing, blunting, and disconnecting. The patient on drugs does not learn to handle her life; her capacity to feel her life is suppressed.
Combination therapy of drugs and psychotherapy is poorly supported. Effective psychotherapy requires a patient who can think and feel, and medication spellbinding prevents both. Trials comparing the two are not effectively blinded, and the dominant biomedical assumption among psychiatrists biases their assessments toward drugs. Short-term comparisons are misleading; only follow-up of a year or more reveals what the treatment is actually doing. Trauma and severe stress underlie most psychiatric symptoms, and these conditions tend to self-heal if the patient is given time and humane support. The healing leaves the patient stronger and better equipped for future trouble. Drugs prevent this by numbing the very experience the healing requires. They also provide doctors with an excuse not to engage — a patient on a drug needs less of the doctor’s presence than a patient being listened to.
Question 24: Why does the book argue that most psychiatric symptoms are responses to trauma and severe stress rather than brain disorders?
When psychiatrists fail to take careful patient histories — and they often do — they miss the trauma that produced the symptoms. A current episode of distress diagnosed as depression frequently began as anxiety years earlier when the patient was a teenager. Stine Toft’s “bipolar” diagnosis followed depression-pill-induced mania during a difficult period of her life. The patient permanently brain-damaged by electroshock had been sexually abused as a child and had no psychiatric disorder. The patient who was told she had to choose between orgasms and “going mad” had also been sexually abused as a child. Trauma drives most of what arrives at the psychiatric clinic, and the clinic responds with a checklist that produces a diagnosis, a prescription, and a career.
A meta-analysis of studies on childhood adversity found it markedly increases the risk of psychosis. The same applies to cumulative traumas across the lifespan. Acute conditions — psychoses, depressions — are typically related to trauma and tend to self-heal if treated with patience. The healing process teaches the patient something useful and builds self-confidence. Drugs interrupt this. They numb feelings, prevent learning, and convert what should be a temporary crisis into a chronic medication-dependent state. The biopsychosocial model has been replaced by a bio-bio-bio model that ignores the social and psychological dimensions. The result is that the experiences that produced the patient’s distress — abuse, bereavement, divorce, unemployment, isolation, the wrong marriage, the bullying boss — are reframed as evidence of brain malfunction. The trauma is buried under the drug.
Question 25: What practical steps make safe withdrawal from psychiatric drugs possible, and what role do tapering strips and hyperbolic tapering play?
Safe withdrawal requires slow, individualised dose reduction over months, sometimes more than a year. The patient must be in charge of the pace, and a support person must follow her closely because the danger signals — irritability, restlessness, suicidal thoughts — may not be visible to the patient herself. Withdrawal can be the worst experience of a person’s life, and the patient must be ready for it; she should not start when overworked or stressed. The drugs must never be stopped abruptly. Withdrawal reactions can include severe emotional and physical symptoms that can be dangerous and lead to suicide, violence, and homicide. Tapering takes longer than most patients expect — six months or more is often required, and venlafaxine in particular can be exceptionally difficult.
Tapering strips, developed in the Netherlands by Peter Groot and Jim van Os, are pre-prepared series of progressively smaller doses. Each strip covers 28 days, and patients can use one or more to regulate the pace. Of 895 patients on depression pills who used the strips, 71% were off their drug after a median of 56 days. Of 810 venlafaxine patients starting at 37.5 mg, 90% tapered off in three months or less. The strips work because they remove the obstacle the drug companies created — limited dose strengths that make small reductions impossible. Splitting tablets, opening capsules and dissolving them in water, switching to liquid forms, ordering split fragments by size — all are improvisations forced on patients because regulators allowed companies to bring drugs to market without providing the strengths needed to come off them safely. Dutch insurers refuse to reimburse the strips because “there is no evidence in the literature” that slow withdrawal is needed. The system that hooked the patients refuses to pay for the way out.
Question 26: How can patients distinguish between withdrawal symptoms and a return of the original condition, and why does the difference matter?
Withdrawal symptoms emerge quickly after a dose reduction and resolve within hours of restoring the dose. The original condition, if it returns at all, returns gradually and does not respond instantly to the previous dose. This is the practical test, and it matters because doctors routinely tell patients suffering withdrawal that their disease has come back, that they need lifelong drugs, that they have proven they cannot manage without medication. The patient, terrified by withdrawal symptoms she has been told are her illness, restarts the drug, feels better within hours, and concludes her psychiatrist was right. The cycle locks her in. The same misreading drives the cold-turkey trial findings used to justify long-term prescribing — withdrawal misery is read as relapse, restoration of the drug as evidence of effect.
The withdrawal-symptom list overlaps almost perfectly with the symptoms used to make psychiatric diagnoses. Anxiety, agitation, insomnia, low mood, irritability, suicidal thoughts, dissociation, racing thoughts — all are common withdrawal effects, and all are also the criteria for depression, anxiety disorder, bipolar, and other diagnoses. The withdrawal-induced state can be more severe than the original condition that prompted the prescription. A patient who never had suicidal thoughts before drugs may become suicidal during withdrawal. This is not relapse; it is iatrogenic harm. The single most important piece of information a patient withdrawing from a psychiatric drug can have is the knowledge that what she is experiencing is the drug leaving her body, not her old self returning. Without that knowledge, she will give up and the system will claim her as proof its drugs are necessary.
Question 27: What does Anders Sørensen’s work with 30 consecutive patients show about what successful withdrawal requires?
Anders Sørensen, a psychologist working with Gøtzsche, took on 30 consecutive patients who contacted them for help. He set no limits — any drug, any diagnosis, any duration of use, any prior failed attempts. About half had been on drugs for 15 years or more. Most had tried to withdraw before without success. He worked with them in his spare time, without pay, mentoring most of them through to becoming drug-free. The protocol involved three questionnaires — one before tapering began, one after becoming drug-free, and a quality-of-life measure six months later. Patients had his mobile number and could call any time. Group gatherings four times a year let them share experiences. Once a year, an information evening for patients and relatives explained the basics of withdrawal, because relatives often resist the patient’s choice and undermine the process.
The work shows what successful withdrawal requires: time, individual pacing, peer support, family involvement, education about what the drugs have done and what the body is doing as it recovers, and a clinician who is genuinely committed to getting the patient off rather than keeping her on. A separate study of 250 adults who tried to come off psychiatric drugs found only 54% met their goal, and 54% rated their withdrawal symptoms as severe. Self-education and contact with others who had succeeded were rated more helpful than doctors — only 45% rated doctors as helpful, 16% withdrew against medical advice, and 27% did not tell the doctor or stopped seeing one. The Danish Research Ethics Committee killed Sørensen’s formal trial by demanding a psychiatrist take responsibility for safety — a psychiatrist from a department where two patients had recently been killed by overdosing was on the committee. Sørensen and Gøtzsche proceeded with the work outside the research framework. The patients were withdrawn anyway. The system that approved the drugs would not approve the means of escape from them.
Question 28: Why is forced psychiatric treatment described as a violation of human rights, and what do the appeals processes reveal about the system’s accountability?
Forced psychiatric treatment violates the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which virtually every country has ratified. It is the only sector of society where the law is systematically broken with no consequence. Italy and Iceland show coercion is not necessary. Akershus University Hospital in Norway operates without rapid tranquillisation. With proper de-escalation training and adequate alternatives — 24-hour refuges, sufficient staffing, time, and respect — coercion can be eliminated. The danger criterion used to justify forced drugging is not even consistent across jurisdictions: in Italy it is treated as a police matter, not a medical one. The argument that psychiatry cannot practice without coercion is empirically false.
The appeals system in countries that retain forced treatment is a sham. Gøtzsche’s group studied 30 consecutive cases from Denmark’s Psychiatric Appeals Board and found the law had been violated in every single one. All 30 patients were forced to take psychosis pills they did not want, even though less dangerous alternatives like benzodiazepines could have been used. In all 21 cases with information on prior drug effects, psychiatrists claimed the drugs had worked well, while none of the patients agreed. The harms of prior medication played no role in the decisions, including in seven patients with suspected akathisia or tardive dyskinesia. Five patients expressed fear of dying from forced treatment. Patients’ diagnoses were doubtful in nine cases. The catch-22: a patient who disagrees with her diagnosis is said to lack insight, which itself proves illness. The psychiatrists are investigators and judges; the appeal boards consist of the same people or their close colleagues; the patients have been declared insane and so their testimony does not count. Gøtzsche compares this to the Soviet Gulag and Nazi concentration camps, where the deaths of those held by the state were also recorded as natural deaths and the appeals were also sham. The comparison is uncomfortable. It is also accurate.
Question 29: What patient stories — Stine Toft, Luise, Silje Marie Strandberg, David Stofkooper — illustrate about what psychiatry routinely does to people?
Stine Toft entered psychiatry stressed by life troubles, was given depression pills, became manic from the pills, was diagnosed bipolar, and spent 14 years on an escalating cocktail of drugs — through a withdrawal she described as crazier than the medicated state, including periods when her body felt crooked and her hand would not release a stick during a game. She emerged with her sense of life returned, started a coaching practice, and now helps other patients withdraw. Her family, told repeatedly that she was sick and needed her pills, no longer sees her. The bipolar diagnosis is glued to her permanently. Her driver’s licence must be renewed every two years to prove she is not sick. Luise, killed by Danish psychiatrists with overdosed psychosis pills against her and her mother’s protest, told her mother before she died: “I shall be next.” Her death was recorded as natural. Her mother, Dorrit Cato Christensen, wrote a book about it; every year, on the anniversary, around 20 relatives of psychiatric patients killed in the same way demonstrate at the hospital.
Silje Marie Strandberg was bullied at 12, admitted at 16, given Prozac for moderate depression. She started cutting herself, became suicidal, was given a psychosis pill, then saw a hooded figure ordering her into a river. Over the next decade she received 21 different psychiatric drugs from 95 different doctors, was put in belts 195 times, was electroshocked, was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. A single caregiver who saw the girl behind the diagnoses brought her back. The book she planned to write was cancelled by her publisher when her story turned from a “psychiatric success” into a critique of psychiatry. David Stofkooper, a 23-year-old Dutch student with a flourishing social life, consulted a psychiatrist for repetitive thoughts, was given sertraline, became suicidal within two weeks. The dose was increased. He became zombified, with no libido, no emotions, no personality. Cold-turkey withdrawal followed. He never recovered the capacity to feel. He killed himself, leaving a note: “You present them with a problem that is created by the treatment you got from them, and as a reaction, get blamed yourself.” He had read Gøtzsche’s book — too late. Each story shows the same pattern: a patient enters with ordinary trouble, the drugs produce harm, the harm is read as worse illness, the dose escalates, life is destroyed. The pattern is not the exception. It is the system functioning as designed.
Question 30: What is the proposed plan for dismantling psychiatry as it currently exists, and why does the book argue that collective action is the only realistic path?
The proposal is direct: disband psychiatry as a medical specialty. In an evidence-based healthcare system, interventions that do more harm than good are not used. During a transition period, psychologists opposed to psychiatric drugs should head psychiatric departments. Existing psychiatrists should be re-educated as psychologists, or retire. The focus should shift to helping patients withdraw, not maintain them on drugs. Mandatory courses on withdrawal for all mental-health workers. A 24-hour helpline. Free tapering strips for patients. Apologies from psychiatric associations for the lies told about the chemical imbalance and about pills protecting against suicide. DSM-5 and ICD-11 discarded entirely. All treatment voluntary. Forced treatment unlawful. Psychiatric drugs available only for tapering, for permanent brain damage that cannot be tapered, and for narrowly defined medical situations like alcoholic delirium and surgical sedation. No financial conflicts of interest with manufacturers permitted for anyone working in mental health. The diagnosis-based gating of social benefits abolished, since it creates an incentive to label rather than help. The very words psychiatry, psychiatric disorder, and psychiatric drugs replaced with mental health, depression pills, psychosis pills, and speed on prescription — language that names what these things actually are.
The reform will not happen through professional self-correction. The leadership has too much invested in the lies, the industry has too much money tied to continued prescribing, and politicians have too much use for a profession that exerts tighter social control over difficult populations than the criminal justice system would allow. The only force that can move the system is collective public action — an unstoppable revolution of patients, relatives, and the few psychiatrists willing to defect. Slavery lasted thousands of years as an officially accepted norm. The Nazis came to power because too few protested early enough. People accept almost anything if they get used to it, no matter how unfair, harmful, or unethical. One worker striking is fired. Everybody walking out forces negotiation. The book is written so that those who recognise what is happening can become part of the resistance — the way Gøtzsche’s grandfather was part of the Danish resistance against Nazi occupation, taking real personal risk, and saving people who would otherwise have been killed by a system that called its killings natural deaths.
Analogy
Imagine a town where the firefighters are paid by the gallon of water sprayed, not by the fires extinguished. After a few decades, you would notice some odd patterns. Houses burning more often than they used to. Firefighters arriving at small kitchen fires and flooding the entire neighbourhood. Families who once had a smoke alarm now living with industrial sprinkler systems running permanently. Children of fire victims being preemptively flooded to prevent fires they have not had. When residents notice the houses are deteriorating from constant water damage, they are told their wood has a chemical imbalance that requires lifelong saturation. When mould develops from the damp, it is called a new disease — different from fires, but equally requiring water. When residents try to turn the sprinklers off, they discover the wood has rotted around the pipes; pulling the pipes out collapses the walls. They are told this proves they needed the water all along.
The firefighter chief insists the town has never been safer. The town’s newspapers are partly funded by the water company. The fire academy teaches new recruits that water is the answer to fires, mould, dry rot, termites, and unhappiness. When a new firefighter notices the houses without sprinklers in the next town are doing better than the houses with them, she is told she does not understand fire science. When a senior fireman publishes data showing water is the third leading cause of structural collapse after earthquakes and hurricanes, he is expelled from the firefighters’ association. When residents form support groups to slowly dry their houses out, the residents’ association refuses to help, and the regulator demands a licensed firefighter take responsibility for any drying — even though it was the firefighters who flooded the houses in the first place. The flood does not stop because the fires require it. The flood continues because the water is sold by the gallon, and stopping it would empty the company’s accounts and the chief’s pension.
That is psychiatry. The drugs are the water. The patients are the houses. The fires are ordinary human distress — grief, anxiety, sleeplessness, the bullying boss, the wrong marriage, the bereaved child — that almost always pass on their own with time, support, and the body’s own capacity to heal. The flood is what does the lasting damage. The book is the senior fireman explaining, with the data the company tried to hide, exactly how the system works and how to dry your house out before the walls collapse.
The One-Minute Elevator Explanation
You know how we are told that depression and anxiety are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, and that psychiatric drugs correct them like insulin corrects diabetes? The drugs do not correct an imbalance. They create one. The chemical imbalance theory was disowned by the former director of the US National Institute of Mental Health in 1996, but 74% of major health websites still tell patients otherwise — because the lie is what justifies the prescription, and the prescription is worth tens of billions a year. Psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
Think about that. One drug — Zyprexa — killed an estimated 200,000 patients up to 2007. In trials of 5,000 elderly demented patients, one in fifty was killed in just ten weeks on a psychosis pill. In a study of 281 first-episode psychosis patients with an average age of 29, 12% were dead within ten years — and the authors mentioned the deaths only in a flowchart of “patients lost to follow-up.”
So what happened when the trials kept showing the drugs barely worked? They redesigned the trials. They put the placebo group through cold-turkey withdrawal, mistook the withdrawal misery for relapse, and called the original drug “preventive.” Then they buried half the suicides, miscoded akathisia as “hyperkinesia,” recorded female anorgasmia as “Female Genital Disorder,” and changed primary outcomes after seeing the data — in two-thirds of trials.
The depression-pill effect on the Hamilton scale is 2 points. The smallest perceptible difference is 5 to 6. Fifty-seven per cent of patients with previously normal sex lives have it destroyed. Children on stimulants are 5 cm shorter at 16-year follow-up. Forty-one percent of Danish children stopped getting depression pills after one persistent critic kept publishing the data — and other countries’ Boards of Health refused to act, while New Zealand teenagers killed themselves at four times Denmark’s rate.
The brutal reality: psychiatry runs on the same lie barbiturate makers ran on for 50 years and benzodiazepine makers ran on for 30. It is the medical equivalent of the asbestos industry insisting the lung problems are caused by the patients’ anxiety about asbestos, and the entire profession is too invested in lifelong prescribing to admit the obvious truth.
[Elevator dings]
Want to know more? Look up the chemical imbalance myth Steven Hyman 1996 and Open Dialogue Lappland Stockholm psychosis. The evidence is hiding in the patient files, in the FDA’s own data, and in 67,319 pages of clinical study reports that no researcher outside the drug companies had ever read until Gøtzsche’s group read them.
12-Point Summary
1. Psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death. Built from regulatory data, large cohort studies, and unpublished clinical study reports, the estimate places psychiatric drugs behind only heart disease and cancer in lethality. One drug, Zyprexa, was estimated to have killed 200,000 patients up to 2007. In a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials in 5,000 elderly demented patients, 1 in 100 was dead within 10 weeks; FDA data revised the rate to 1 in 50. A Finnish cohort of 70,718 Alzheimer patients showed psychosis pills killed 4 to 5 patients per year compared with the untreated, with a 57% increased death risk on multiple psychosis pills. Patients labelled schizophrenic die 15 years earlier than the general population — and the drugs, not the patients’ lifestyles, account for much of the gap.
2. The chemical imbalance theory was always a marketing device, not a scientific finding. Steven Hyman, former director of the US National Institute of Mental Health, publicly disowned it in 1996. Mice genetically depleted of brain serotonin behave normally. Tianeptine, which lowers serotonin, “works” for depression as well as drugs that raise it. Depression pills “work” for 214 unrelated conditions. The drugs do not correct an imbalance — they create one, which is why patients struggle to come off them. A 2019 review of 39 popular health websites in 10 countries found 74% still attributed depression to a chemical imbalance, because abandoning the lie would mean abandoning the prescription.
3. Psychiatric diagnoses are checklist consensus, not biological categories. Major depression is declared when a patient has 5 of 9 common symptoms decided by show of hands at committee meetings. Reliability studies were so embarrassing that the American Psychiatric Association buried them. Diagnoses stick for life — affecting driver’s licences, custody, adoption, employment — with no court of appeal, even when the diagnosing clinician herself doubts the label. The schizotypy test for personality disorder is so broad that most psychiatrists would test positive. The single best protection against the system is to avoid getting a diagnosis in the first place.
4. The “psychiatric career” is the system functioning as designed. A patient enters with ordinary trouble, receives a depression pill, becomes manic from the drug, is rediagnosed bipolar, receives lithium and an antiepileptic, develops further harms read as new diseases, and accumulates diagnoses and drugs in parallel. The 21-year-old student described in the book left a private hospital on 11 simultaneous psychiatric drugs after 21 sessions of trans-cranial magnetic stimulation and 12 electroshocks. Silje Marie Strandberg received 21 different psychiatric drugs from 95 different doctors over 10 years, beginning at age 16 with Prozac for moderate depression. Drug harms and diagnostic symptoms overlap so completely that the harm reliably becomes the next diagnosis.
5. The trial methodology converts withdrawal injury into apparent drug efficacy. Virtually all psychiatric drug trials randomise patients already on the drug to abrupt placebo — cold turkey — which produces withdrawal misery indistinguishable from relapse. The trial then “finds” the drug prevents relapse. As few as two patients are needed to produce one with withdrawal symptoms, so the Number Needed to Harm is two; there cannot be a Number Needed to Treat below this. The depression-pill effect on the Hamilton scale is about 2 points; the smallest perceptible effect is 5 to 6. With atropine in the placebo to mimic side effects and preserve the blind, the effect collapses to 1.3 points and disappears.
6. Around half the deaths in psychiatric drug trials never reach publication. Suicides are recoded, omitted, or attributed to the underlying disease. Adverse events are reported only above arbitrary thresholds. Akathisia is miscoded as “hyperkinesia.” Female anorgasmia is recorded as “Female Genital Disorder,” with the blame placed on the patient. In two-thirds of trials, primary outcomes were changed, introduced, or omitted after data were seen, and 86% of trialists denied this when asked. Gøtzsche’s group read 67,319 pages of clinical study reports — material no researcher outside the companies had ever read — and found systematic selective reporting in 24 of 26 publications and 12% greater dropout on drug than on placebo.
7. Akathisia and tardive dyskinesia are common and often hidden. Akathisia — unbearable inner restlessness — afflicted 79% of mentally ill patients in one study who attempted suicide. Half of all fights at a psychiatric ward in another study were related to it. Half the patients on moderate-to-high haloperidol became markedly more aggressive, sometimes wanting to kill their psychiatrists. Tardive dyskinesia — irreversible involuntary movements — develops in 4 to 5% of patients on psychosis pills per year. FDA scientist Poul Leber extrapolated in 1984 that all patients on long-term psychosis pills might eventually develop it. Three years later, the president of the American Psychiatric Association told an Oprah Winfrey audience it was not a serious problem.
8. Sexual dysfunction is widespread, often permanent, and routinely deflected onto patients. Around 57% of patients with previously normal sex lives experience disruption on depression pills. In unpublished Phase 1 trials with healthy volunteers, over half developed severe sexual dysfunction, sometimes persisting after the drug was stopped. Some patients describe being unable to feel chili paste rubbed into their genitals. Some kill themselves on discovering the damage is permanent. The Prozac package insert lists decreased libido at 4%; the actual rate is 57%. The same compounds are repackaged and sold as Priligy for premature ejaculation. The denial is a marketing decision, not a scientific uncertainty.
9. Children are harmed at an industrial scale. ADHD is a social construct, not a biological entity. Stimulants are pharmacologically equivalent to crystal methamphetamine. The 16-year US MTA trial follow-up found children who consistently took their pills were 5 cm shorter than those who took very little. More than half of children on stimulants develop depression and obsessive-compulsive behaviour. Some have suddenly dropped dead in classrooms. The British drug agency’s own document recorded aggression on methylphenidate as 1.2% on page 61 and 11.9% on page 63 of the same report. After Gøtzsche’s persistent public warnings, Danish children’s depression-pill prescriptions fell 41% between 2010 and 2016. New Zealand, where prescriptions rose 78%, has the highest teenage suicide rate in the world — twice Sweden’s, four times Denmark’s.
10. Psychiatry without coercion and drugs produces dramatically better outcomes. In Lappland, the Open Dialogue model treats first-episode psychosis at home with the patient’s social network beginning within 24 hours. In Stockholm, standard biomedical care prevails. Five years later, 17% versus 75% of patients remained on psychosis pills; 19% versus 62% were on disability or sick leave; hospital bed use averaged 31 versus 110 days. Akershus University Hospital in Norway operates without rapid tranquillisation. Iceland has not used physical restraints since 1932. Italy treats danger as a police matter, not a justification for forced drugging. Psychotherapy halves the risk of a new suicide attempt in patients admitted after a suicide attempt. Trauma and severe stress underlie most psychiatric symptoms and tend to self-heal with time and humane support.
11. Safe withdrawal is possible but requires patient-led, slow, individualised tapering. Drugs must never be stopped abruptly; withdrawal can produce suicidal, violent, and homicidal states. Hyperbolic tapering — 10% reductions of the previous dose, slowing as the dose lowers — over months or longer is required. Tapering strips, developed in the Netherlands, allow 71% of depression-pill patients to taper off after a median of 56 days. Withdrawal symptoms emerge quickly after dose reductions and resolve within hours of restoring the dose; relapse, if it occurs at all, returns gradually. Distinguishing the two is essential, because doctors routinely tell patients in withdrawal that their illness has returned, locking them back onto the drug. Anders Sørensen withdrew most of 30 consecutive patients in his unpaid spare time. The Danish Research Ethics Committee killed his formal trial, while the same committee included a psychiatrist from a department that had killed two patients with overdosed psychosis pills.
12. The book proposes dismantling psychiatry as a medical specialty. The 15-point plan: disband psychiatry; re-educate psychiatrists as psychologists; mandate withdrawal training; provide free tapering strips; require psychiatric associations to apologise; abolish DSM-5 and ICD-11; make all treatment voluntary; outlaw forced treatment; restrict drugs to tapering, brain-damaged patients who cannot taper, and narrow medical situations like alcoholic delirium; ban financial conflicts of interest; remove diagnosis-based gating of social benefits; and replace stigmatising language — psychiatry, psychiatric drugs, antidepressants — with neutral terms like depression pills, psychosis pills, and speed on prescription. Reform will not come from the profession. It requires collective public action — the comparison Gøtzsche draws is to slavery and Nazi acquiescence: people accept almost anything if they get used to it, and few protest a sick system because it might be uncomfortable. His grandfather was in the Danish resistance against Nazi occupation. He sees the work the same way.
The Golden Nugget
The single most profound idea in the book — and the one fewest people will know — is that the entire long-term efficacy case for psychiatric drugs rests on cold-turkey trial design that mistakes withdrawal injury for relapse, and the system has made this methodology the standard precisely because it converts harm into apparent benefit.
This is not a peripheral methodological complaint. It is the structural reason psychiatry’s evidence base says one thing while patients’ lived experience says the opposite. Take a patient who has been on a depression pill for years. Randomise her to abrupt placebo. Within days she experiences anxiety, agitation, insomnia, suicidal thoughts, racing thoughts, dizziness, irritability — a constellation that looks identical to severe depression and anxiety. Restart her drug, and within hours the abstinence symptoms resolve. The trial concludes the drug “prevented relapse.” What it actually measured was the harm of forcing her into acute withdrawal. As few as two patients are needed to produce one with withdrawal symptoms. The Number Needed to Harm is two. There cannot be a Number Needed to Treat that survives this.
The implication runs through everything. The “relapse prevention” data used to justify lifelong prescribing — measuring withdrawal harm. The clinical “experience” of psychiatrists watching patients deteriorate when they try to come off — withdrawal harm. The patients themselves becoming convinced they cannot live without their pills — withdrawal harm. The professors of psychiatry confidently telling audiences of 600 people “Who would take insulin from a diabetic?” — staking the analogy on a body of evidence that, when stripped of cold-turkey design, shows the drugs do not work and cannot be safely stopped because the system never developed a way to stop them. The methodology was not chosen for scientific reasons. It was chosen because it produces the answer the industry needs, and once the methodology became standard, the whole edifice of long-term psychiatric prescribing — covering hundreds of millions of patients globally, generating tens of billions of dollars annually, defining the profession’s identity — became dependent on a study design that systematically converts iatrogenic injury into evidence of therapeutic benefit. The patients have been hooked for decades on drugs whose continued necessity was demonstrated by the suffering of their own withdrawal.
I'm new here. All this information would have been very helpful to me about six years ago when I decided to get off all the meds that "doctors" had me on. SSRI"s and Xanax among them. The process took about four years. I purchased a small scale for capsules and a pill splitter for the pills so I could slowly ween off. I just never returned to any of my "doctors" and began treating myself.
I am now 69 years old and can say that by radically changing my diet, exercising, getting off meds, and discovering after much trial and error the supplements which have worked, I now feel as good or better than I did in my early 40's.
I mainly joined here so I could get information to pass on to others and also to further educate myself. Thanks.
Psychiatrists earning money is only part of the equation, because the vast number of psychiatrists are following the agenda of the elite, to wit Agenda 2030.
I know, because I experienced it first hand in New York City. I have an MLS (Master of Library Science) degree from Pratt Institute in which I did follow up research on an organisation about which hardly anyone knows of its existence, David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, in which I found an unpublished dissertation on that nefarious organisation's effect on the banking industry, but when I showed it to the outreach psychiatrists in my home, I could see the wheels spinning around in their heads leading them to take me into Bellevue psychiatric department in handcuffs despite the fact that I was not a threat to myself or anyone else.
My daughter, who was pregnant with my grandson, suffered morning sickness, so lost her job resulting in loosing her apartment. So I, as the generous human being I am, invited her to come live with me.
One night when I had retired for the night at my usual 11PM, was awakened at 2AM by my daughter on the phone in my bathroom causing me to tell her to go to bed which caused her to begin arguing with me which caused me to be fully awake. So I decided to make a call to the other wide of the world, i.e. Ethiopia, which caused my daughter who had not even graduated from high school, but who had read 2 psychology books thinking that I had manic depression.
She, therefore, contacted the Bellevue outreach psychiatrists, and they were only too happy to come. My only problem was financial, because as the Reference Librarian I was, one of my students taught a few of us the first two reasons why President John F Kennedy had been assassinated 30 years earlier, more than a year before my daughter was born which was on January 7, 1965. So she clearly didn't realise what a horrible time that was for the whole world, because when the CIA assassinated him, they betrayed the entire world of decent people. I knew this because of learning from a book written by a man who had been a CIA agent who became fed up with the agency so resigned and exposed that agency in a book that I read when I was working on my Bachelor's degree at UCLA.
The same foundation that controls the medical schools, the Rockefeller Foundation, also controls K-12 public schools in the USA too. I was trying to get the New York City public school superintendents to subscribe to what would have been a magazine of top secret history so the students would learn America's true history to they would not join the military and get killed in another war that was based on a lie as all the modern wars had been, something that President Kennedy knew as he wanted to prevent anymore wars, a major reason he was assassinated.
Once in Bellevue psych ward, I was first on lithium, and then later taken off of it and put on Depakote with some sort of antidote for the side effects from the Depakote in the doorway to the room in that ward which I at once entered the lavatory to spit out into the toilet unknown to the staff. I do remember refusing to take this medication which resulted in them forcing an injection on me which caused me to threaten to sue them.
They also took me to their kangaroo court, where, when I mentioned Dr. Susan Forward's name to them as the brilliant psychotherapist she is in California, a look of sheer horror came over their faces, because they know that she has the solution to psychological problems, and that this is all people need. They don't need drugs. I certainly didn't.
Eventually, after 5-1/2 months in Bellevue, I found, via the social worker, a place to live as my financial situation caused me to lose the co-op that I was buying because the public school superintendents never subscribed to my work in New York City.
I met a decent psychiatrist while living in that system, and asked him if he would like to read the research I had performed at UCLA for a professor of political science who had her Ph.D. who gave me an A for my independent study and told me that she passed my references onto another student, and this decent psychiatrist said, "Yes." So I brought it to him, and he read it, and told the authorities at the housing authority where I was living that I did not have to take the drugs in order to be able to live there.
Eventually I would leave New York City to go take care of my parents who were both terminally ill with cancer, but an advisor told me some good advice which was to tell the authorities that I wanted to go to California for my parents' care of me instead of my caring for my parents who desperately needed my help which was the reality.
At the beginning of my 8th edition, which is the edition devoted to children, I exposed the psychiatric profession. See https://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/creating-racism/introduction.html
Sincerely,
Arlene Johnson
Publisher/Author
http://www.truedemocracy.net
To access the rest of my work, click on the icon that says Magazine. It's internationally acclaimed, and free to the world.