Even before COVID-19 and certainly afterward, people have been anxious, depressed, stressed, and even suicidal. But are these mental illnesses or natural and expected reactions to extreme life events? Should these experiences be treated with drugs or acknowledged as reactions to deep flaws in modern culture and lifestyles?
The Epoch Times spoke to several people whose minor lifestyle stresses—or those of their family member—were interpreted as “mental illness” and subsequently overmedicated. In some cases, medication led to side effects that led to additional medication.
Polypharmacy, is the “regular use of at least five medications” according to an article in
American Family Physician—a practice which the authors say, “increases the risk of adverse medical outcomes.”
Psychiatric polypharmacy, associated with the widening conceptions of mental illness, is “the prescription of two or more psychiatric medications concurrently to a patient,” according to an article in the mental and physical medicine
journal The Mens Sana Monographs. “Despite advances in psychopharmacology and a better understanding of the principles of therapeutics, its practice is increasing rapidly,” write the authors.
A woman who asked that her name not be used said that her son was given an SSRI antidepressant for stress-related insomnia and soon began having hallucinations which is recognized as a
possible side effect of the drug class. Subsequently, he was prescribed the antipsychotic Latuda, and the anti-anxiety medications Klonopin and, Xanax. Sadly, he continued to get worse until he was finally hospitalized repeatedly.
The woman, who knew her son had been fine before the medications, said she did not understand why a class of drugs, SSRIs, which
can also cause unprovoked mania and bipolar disorder in previously normal people (and did with her son), was given for mere insomnia.
Sue, not her real name, was put on an antidepressant for adolescent angst and remained on psychiatric drugs for 30 years until her daughter observed that maybe the drugs were the problem and not the solution. Sue said patient advocacy groups sometimes “encourage people to force psychiatric drug on their family members” which she called “chemical rape.”
A 65-year-old man who spoke to The Epoch Times described a similar overmedication nightmare which began with simple anxiety in college and graduated into Xanax and Klonopin addiction. “When the doctors put you on these drugs there is no disclosure,” he said. “To microtaper off all psychotropic drugs like Xanax, Klonopin, Trazodone, Prozac or gabapentin takes years.”
Many of the patients The Epoch Times spoke to believed they had no original mental illness and their “symptoms” were actually side effects of the drugs they were being prescribed… which led to more drugs. The 2020 documentary “
Medicating Normal” explores the issue of overmedication and polypharmacy in depth and several
Facebook pages are devoted to people who believe they have been overmedicated.
Questions About Disease Awareness/Patient Advocacy Groups (PAGs)
Patient Advocacy Groups (PAGs) have raised awareness of many
mental conditions in recent years but funding questions have also been raised. As much as 80 percent of PAGs take industry money
according to Science Daily and the Kaiser Family Foundation
maintains a database of specific funding called “Pre$cription for Power.”
“Big Pharma Pharmaceutical companies gave at least $116 million to patient advocacy groups in a single year,” reported Kaiser
Health News in 2018 and several groups have been investigated by the U.S.
Congress for their drug company payments. “Drug Makers Are Advocacy Groups’ Biggest Donors,” read the
headline of a New York Times article on the topic in 2009.
Still, patients often appreciate drug maker money to fund their groups which brings awareness to their mental conditions and encourages FDA approval of new drugs they may wish to try. Patient advocacy groups, in turn, testify at FDA hearings and
lobby state lawmakers to authorize expensive new drugs.
For example, for years, a particular PAG “has fought states’ legislative efforts to limit doctors’ freedom to prescribe drugs, no matter how expensive, to treat mental illness in patients who rely on government health care programs like Medicaid,”
reported the New York Times. “Some of these medicines routinely top the list of the most expensive drugs that states buy for their poorest patients.”
Melissa Healy of the Los Angeles Times
echoed the Times’ findings. “When insurers balk at reimbursing patients for new prescription medications, these groups typically swing into action, rallying sufferers to appear before public and consumer panels, contact lawmakers, and provide media outlets a human face to attach to a cause.”
Such de facto patient lobbyists are so effective at marketing, some drug makers spend
more on patient advocacy groups than on federal lobbying. “Bristol-Myers Squibb provides a stark example of how patient groups are valued,”
reported Kaiser Health News. “In 2015, it spent more than $20.5 million on patient groups, compared with $2.9 million on federal lobbying and less than $1 million on major trade associations, according to public records and company disclosures. The company said its decisions regarding lobbying and contributions to patient groups are ‘unrelated.’”
How Can Patients’ Needs Come First?
Certainly, simple anxiety or insomnia should not lead to a “polypharmacy” situation in which patients are hospitalized or unable to terminate their drugs. Too often mental reactions from getting off psychoactive drugs “are termed a ‘relapse’ of the condition the drugs were prescribed for—when they are actually a result of the process of going through withdrawal,” said Dr. Peter R. Breggin, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist, said
in a 2012 interview with the Huffington Post. “This is obvious because when the withdrawing person is returned to a higher dosage level, the symptoms quickly disappear, sometimes in an hour or two.”
On the other hand, there are patients who suffer persistent, irrational, and immune-compromising worry, and dread. Their needs are acute and should be addressed by the medical establishment.
Meanwhile, PAGs can make efforts to be more balanced. “While disclosure of industry funding is imperative, it’s not enough,’
says the Lown Institute, a nonpartisan health think tank. “Agencies that review evidence should be sure to invite more independent advocates, instead of just those funded by pharma. Patient advocacy groups should ‘just say no’ to pharma funding, even so-called ‘unrestricted’ grants.”
Epoch Times readers interested in finding patient advocacy groups that are
industry free can visit
Pharmed Out, a group at Georgetown University
dedicated to advancing evidence-based prescribing and educating healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here. 
