Klick auf das Kreuzchen um das hier auszublenden ->


 ! Nachricht von: Oliver

Dieses Forum ist im Ruhezustand.

Es hat sich eine neue Gemeinschaft aus Betroffenen und Angehörigen gegründet, die sich weiterhin beim risikominimierenden Absetzen von Psychopharmaka unterstützt und Informationen zusammenträgt. Die Informationen, wie ihr dort teilnehmen könnt findet ihr hier:

psyab.net: wichtige Informationen für neue Teilnehmer


Die öffentlichen Beiträge auf adfd.org bleiben erhalten.

Bereits registrierte Teilnehmer können hier noch bis Ende 2022 weiter in den privaten Foren schreiben und PNs austauschen, aber es ist kein aktiver Austausch mehr vorgesehen und es gibt keine Moderation mehr.

Ich möchte mich bei allen bedanken, die über die geholfen haben, dieses Forum über 18 Jahre lang mit zu pflegen und zu gestalten.


Artikel: Psychopharmaka in der Krise

Eine Sammlung von Artikeln, die über wissenschaftliche, politische und wirtschaftliche Hintergründe der Behandlung von seelischen Leiden mit Psychopharmaka berichten.
Antworten
Murmeline
Moderatorenteam
Beiträge: 16481
Registriert: 11.01.2015 13:50
Hat sich bedankt: 843 Mal
Danksagung erhalten: 2773 Mal

Artikel: Psychopharmaka in der Krise

Beitrag von Murmeline »

Ein Artikel aus dem New Yorker, 2. September 2013, von Gary Greenberg, Psychotherapeut
The Psychiatric Drug Crisis

Der Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die Entwicklung von Psychopharmaka und den aktuellen Status Quo und geht insebsondere auf den Mythos des chemischen Ungleichgewichts ein.

Auszüge auf Englisch, Hervorhebungen von Murmeline

It’s been just over twenty-five years since Prozac came to market, and more than twenty per cent of Americans now regularly take mind-altering drugs prescribed by their doctors. Almost as familiar as brands like Zoloft and Lexapro is the worry about what it means that the daily routine in many households, for parents and children alike, includes a dose of medications that are poorly understood and whose long-term effects on the body are unknown. Despite our ambivalence, sales of psychiatric drugs amounted to more than seventy billion dollars in 2010.[/quote]

Yet the psychiatric-drug industry is in trouble. “We are facing a crisis,” the Cornell psychiatrist and New York Times contributor Richard Friedman warned last week. In the past few years, one pharmaceutical giant after another—GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi—has shrunk or shuttered its neuroscience research facilities. Clinical trials have been halted, lines of research abandoned, and the new drug pipeline has been allowed to run dry.

Why would an industry beat a hasty retreat from a market that continues to boom? (Recent surveys indicate that mental illness is the leading cause of impairment and disability worldwide.) The answer lies in the history of psychopharmacology, which is more deeply indebted to serendipity than most branches of medicine—in particular, to a remarkable series of accidental discoveries made in the fifteen or so years following the end of the Second World War.

By 1960, the major classes of psychiatric drugs—among them, mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and anti-anxiety drugs, known as anxiolytics—had been discovered and were on their way to becoming a seventy-billion-dollar market. Having been discovered by accident, however, they lacked one important element: a theory that accounted for why they worked (or, in many cases, did not).

That didn’t stop drug makers and doctors from claiming that they knew. Drawing on another mostly serendipitous discovery of the fifties—that the brain did not conduct its business by sending sparks from neuron to neuron, as scientists previously thought, but rather by sending chemical messengers across synapses—they fashioned an explanation: mental illness was the result of imbalances among these neurotransmitters, which the drugs treated in the same way that insulin treats diabetes.

The appeal of this account is obvious: it combines ancient notions of illness (specifically, the idea that sickness resulted from imbalanced humors) with the modern understanding of the molecular culprits that make us suffer—germs. It held out the hope that mental illness could be treated in the same way as pneumonia or hypertension: with a single pill. Drug companies wasted no time in promulgating it.

Merck, the manufacturer of Elavil, commissioned the psychiatrist Frank Ayd to write a book called Recognizing the Depressed Patient, in which he extolled the “chemical revolution in psychiatry” and urged doctors to reassure patients they weren’t losing their minds, but rather suffering a “common illness” with a “physical basis” and a pharmacological cure. Merck sent Ayd’s book to fifty thousand doctors around the country. In 1965, Joseph Schildkraut, a psychiatrist at the National Institute of Mental Health, reverse-engineered antidepressants and offered an actual theory: at least when it came to depression, the imbalances were to be found in the neurotransmitters he thought were affected by the drugs, dopamine and norepinephrine. Seven years after antidepressants were invented, and five years after Ayd asserted that depression was a chemical problem, psychiatrists finally had a precise, scientific explanation for why they worked. The paper quickly became one of the most cited articles in the medical literature.

But Schildkraut was wrong. Within a few years, as technology expanded our ability to peer into the brain, it became clear that antidepressants act mostly by increasing the availability of the neurotransmitter serotonin—rather than dopamine and norepinephrine, as previously thought. A new generation of antidepressants—the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (S.S.R.I.s), including Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil—was developed to target it.

The ability to claim that the drugs targeted a specific chemical imbalance was a marketing boon as well, assuring consumers that the drugs had a scientific basis. By the mid-nineties, antidepressants were the best-selling class of prescription medications in the country. Psychiatry appeared to have found magic bullets of its own.

The serotonin-imbalance theory, however, has turned out to be just as inaccurate as Schildkraut’s. While S.S.R.I.s surely alter serotonin metabolism, those changes do not explain why the drugs work, nor do they explain why they have proven to be no more effective than placebos in clinical trials. Within a decade of Prozac’s approval by the F.D.A. in 1987, scientists had concluded that serotonin was only a finger pointing at one’s mood—that the causes of depression and the effects of the drugs were far more complex than the chemical-imbalance theory implied. The ensuing research has mostly yielded more evidence that the brain, which has more neurons than the Milky Way has stars and is perhaps one of the most complex objects in the universe, is an elusive target for drugs.

Despite their continued failure to understand how psychiatric drugs work, doctors continue to tell patients that their troubles are the result of chemical imbalances in their brains. As Frank Ayd pointed out, this explanation helps reassure patients even as it encourages them to take their medicine, and it fits in perfectly with our expectation that doctors will seek out and destroy the chemical villains responsible for all of our suffering, both physical and mental. The theory may not work as science, but it is a devastatingly effective myth.

But the dry pipeline of new drugs bemoaned by Friedman is an indication that the drug industry has begun to lose faith in the myth it did so much to create. As Steven Hyman, the former head of the National Institute of Mental Health, wrote last year, the notion that “disease mechanisms could … be inferred from drug action” has succeeded mostly in “capturing the imagination of researchers” and has become “something of a scientific curse.”

Bedazzled by the prospect of unraveling the mysteries of psychic suffering, researchers have spent recent decades on a fool’s errand—chasing down chemical imbalances that don’t exist. And the result, as Friedman put it, is that “it is hard to think of a single truly novel psychotropic drug that has emerged in the last thirty years.”

Despite the BRAIN initiative recently announced by the Obama Administration, and the N.I.M.H.’s renewed efforts to stimulate research on the neurocircuitry of mental disorder, there is nothing on the horizon with which to replace the old story. Without a new explanatory framework, drug-company scientists don’t even know where to begin, so it makes no sense for the industry to stay in the psychiatric-drug business. And if loyalists like Hyman and Friedman continue to say out loud what they have been saying to each other for many years—that, as Friedman told Times readers, “just because an S.S.R.I. antidepressant increases serotonin in the brain and improves mood, that does not mean that serotonin deficiency is the cause of the disease”—then consumers might also lose faith in the myth of the chemical imbalance.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/ ... rug-crisis
Erfahrung mit Psychopharmaka (Citalopram, langjährig Venlafaxin und kurzzeitig Quetiapin), seit 2012 abgesetzt
Hinweis: Das Team sorgt für die Rahmenbedingungen im Forum und organisiert den Austausch. Ansonsten sind wir selbst Betroffene und geben vor allem Erfahrungswerte weiter, die sich aus unserer eigenen Geschichte und aus Erfahrungen anderer ergeben haben.

Dein Behandler nimmt Absetzproblematik nicht ernst? Das geht anderen auch so, siehe hier
Einer Deiner Ärzte erkennt Probleme mit Psychopharmaka an? Dann berichte doch hier
Antworten