What do you think?
Rate this book
Talking Back to Prozac: What Doctors Aren't Telling You about Today's Most Controversial Drug
Millions of Americans are on it to treat everything from serious depression to shyness, obesity, PMS, and back pain. They've been told it has few, or no, side effects. But what is the dark side of Prozac? Has the FDA told you everything it knows about the drug's potentially dangerous side effects? What essential facts must you have if you are already taking Prozac, or are considering taking it? Find
-What Prozac's label won't tell you
-The truth about serious and life-threatening reactions
-Cases of sexual dysfunction from Prozac, particularly in men
-If Prozac can lead to violence, murder, or suicide
-The panic and anxiety Prozac can cause-not cure
-What Prozac has in common with cocaine and amphetamines
-What Prozac's label won't tell you
-The truth about serious and life-threatening reactions
-Cases of sexual dysfunction from Prozac, particularly in men
-If Prozac can lead to violence, murder, or suicide
-The panic and anxiety Prozac can cause-not cure
-What Prozac has in common with cocaine and amphetamines
318 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published February 11, 1995
26 people are currently reading
249 people want to read
About the author
Peter R. Breggin
31 books113 followersPeter R. Breggin MD is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and former Consultant at NIMH who has been called “The Conscience of Psychiatry” for his many decades of successful efforts to reform the mental health field.
His work provides the foundation for modern criticism of psychiatric diagnoses and drugs, and leads the way in promoting more caring and effective therapies.
His research and educational projects have brought about major changes in the FDA-approved Full Prescribing Information or labels for dozens of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs.
Dr. Breggin has authored dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty books, including medical books and the bestsellers Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Prozac.
His work provides the foundation for modern criticism of psychiatric diagnoses and drugs, and leads the way in promoting more caring and effective therapies.
His research and educational projects have brought about major changes in the FDA-approved Full Prescribing Information or labels for dozens of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs.
Dr. Breggin has authored dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty books, including medical books and the bestsellers Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Prozac.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 10, 2022
I intended only to skim this book. I have no connection to prozac, but after reading Dr. Breggin's book, Covid-19 and the Global Predators, I was curious to read something earlier written by him.
This is a fascinating book. What I am coming away with in a skimming kind of reading, is that the FDA (in the 1980's) behaved pretty much then as it does now, which is to say, pretty badly, and its approval of drugs bears no relationship to the actual efficacy or safety of drugs. "While many Americans, including physicians, believe that the FDA takes tough stands toward the pharmaceutical industry, this has never been so. FDA and other agencies we know about now, take bribes and courting the favor of drug companies to withholding lifesaving drugs from the public." p. 187 Who are consumer advocates? FDA relates almost entirely to drug companies and the medical association, to the exclusion of the consumers it is supposed to serve.
"The FDA's powers derive from its mandate to supervise the labeling of drugs. To obtain an approved label, the drug company must undertake and report a series of studies, culminating in scientifically controlled comparisons of the new drug to established drugs and placebo. These studies are usually only four to six weeks in duration. Anecdotal data from individual clinical reports continue to flow in after the drug has been marketed.
The FDA does not finance research. The projects are formulated by the manufacturer and carried out by doctors of their own choosing, usually physicians with whom the drug company has long-standing professional and financial relationships and friendly rapport. The drug company is likely to do anything it can to maximize the possibility that is tests will turn out positive for their drug, as millions or billions can be at stake. They select physicians and researchers who seem likely to look favorably upon the company's interests. The studies are constructed so that they are likely to make the drug look good.
A side effect is likely to be noticed relatively quickly in a drug study, compared to routine clinical practice, and drug treatment will be stopped before really serious problems develop, but when a patient doesn't see the doctor for weeks or months at a time, as what usually happens in the real world, seemingly minor side effects can mushroom into serious problems. The relatively short duration of controlled studies - four to six weeks, almost guarantees that even very serious adverse effects will be undetected before marketing if they years or month to develop." p. 71-73
The drug companies pool data for trials, to lessen the effect of failures, or those who drop out because of side effects, to make it appear that the drug is more effective and safer, statistically, than it is in reality. The drug company can resubmit findings to the FDA over and over until the company and the FDA reach carefully nuanced give-and-take highly biased negotiations over the drug label that may downplay or expunge the negative conclusions and effects from the label. Even when the label includes negative side effects, they are considered rare, and the drugs are often pushed by medical boards and associations despite negative issues. This was done with prozac. No studies actually showed a safe effectiveness for prozac to be used as an antidepressant for adults. It was widely used in both adult and child populations with horrifying results.
One more interesting take away for me. Drug companies isolate one pathway that they believe can be tweaked to change the course of a medical problem. In reality, that one pathway is part of a whole system of chemical and neurological, etc., that take place in our body's highly complicated systems, without knowledge of how that one specific manipulation (by the drug) effects the whole environment to which it is introduced.
Neither the pharmaceutical companies nor the FDA can be relied upon to protect American from even the most dangerous adverse effects of ... drugs before they cause havoc. p. 112
"Doctor said prozac was so safe it should be put into the drinking water." p. 82
There are many medications I have heard doctors say should be put into drinking water. Flouride is a poison that put into drinking water, and it is recognized as a poison. Some doctors think statins should be put in drinking water. If regular, local doctors are saying things like this, who is really playing around with our drinking water?
Physicians and public know . . . are very dangerous drugs, yet the pharmaceutical industry and FDA have been slow to mandate public warnings. (p. 142) Members of the medical-industrial complex tend to enjoy one seamless cooperative enterprise, fueled by billions of dollars from drug companies, funds from government agencies and private sources. Drug companies resist any negative results related to their products. Takes 20 years for the light to shine on problems enough to reverse the approval. Then they say "sorry" too late.
Hearing on prozac because of repeated horror stories related to it: one day hearing concluded with 9 member FDA committee voting unanimously that there was no credible evidence that . . . and made decision against any label change...'
Following the hearing the public was told that the subject was laid to rest: Prozac and other SSRIs do not cause violence or suicide. But the public was NOT told about the amount of controversy or the conflicts of interest among many of the professionals at the hearing. Nor was the public informed of the nature and extent of independent research findings, as well as nightmarish experiences that led to the FDA hearings. (p. 145)
Gee, are independent research findings and nightmarish experiences now called "disinformation"?
C-19 jab anyone?
This is a fascinating book. What I am coming away with in a skimming kind of reading, is that the FDA (in the 1980's) behaved pretty much then as it does now, which is to say, pretty badly, and its approval of drugs bears no relationship to the actual efficacy or safety of drugs. "While many Americans, including physicians, believe that the FDA takes tough stands toward the pharmaceutical industry, this has never been so. FDA and other agencies we know about now, take bribes and courting the favor of drug companies to withholding lifesaving drugs from the public." p. 187 Who are consumer advocates? FDA relates almost entirely to drug companies and the medical association, to the exclusion of the consumers it is supposed to serve.
"The FDA's powers derive from its mandate to supervise the labeling of drugs. To obtain an approved label, the drug company must undertake and report a series of studies, culminating in scientifically controlled comparisons of the new drug to established drugs and placebo. These studies are usually only four to six weeks in duration. Anecdotal data from individual clinical reports continue to flow in after the drug has been marketed.
The FDA does not finance research. The projects are formulated by the manufacturer and carried out by doctors of their own choosing, usually physicians with whom the drug company has long-standing professional and financial relationships and friendly rapport. The drug company is likely to do anything it can to maximize the possibility that is tests will turn out positive for their drug, as millions or billions can be at stake. They select physicians and researchers who seem likely to look favorably upon the company's interests. The studies are constructed so that they are likely to make the drug look good.
A side effect is likely to be noticed relatively quickly in a drug study, compared to routine clinical practice, and drug treatment will be stopped before really serious problems develop, but when a patient doesn't see the doctor for weeks or months at a time, as what usually happens in the real world, seemingly minor side effects can mushroom into serious problems. The relatively short duration of controlled studies - four to six weeks, almost guarantees that even very serious adverse effects will be undetected before marketing if they years or month to develop." p. 71-73
The drug companies pool data for trials, to lessen the effect of failures, or those who drop out because of side effects, to make it appear that the drug is more effective and safer, statistically, than it is in reality. The drug company can resubmit findings to the FDA over and over until the company and the FDA reach carefully nuanced give-and-take highly biased negotiations over the drug label that may downplay or expunge the negative conclusions and effects from the label. Even when the label includes negative side effects, they are considered rare, and the drugs are often pushed by medical boards and associations despite negative issues. This was done with prozac. No studies actually showed a safe effectiveness for prozac to be used as an antidepressant for adults. It was widely used in both adult and child populations with horrifying results.
One more interesting take away for me. Drug companies isolate one pathway that they believe can be tweaked to change the course of a medical problem. In reality, that one pathway is part of a whole system of chemical and neurological, etc., that take place in our body's highly complicated systems, without knowledge of how that one specific manipulation (by the drug) effects the whole environment to which it is introduced.
Neither the pharmaceutical companies nor the FDA can be relied upon to protect American from even the most dangerous adverse effects of ... drugs before they cause havoc. p. 112
"Doctor said prozac was so safe it should be put into the drinking water." p. 82
There are many medications I have heard doctors say should be put into drinking water. Flouride is a poison that put into drinking water, and it is recognized as a poison. Some doctors think statins should be put in drinking water. If regular, local doctors are saying things like this, who is really playing around with our drinking water?
Physicians and public know . . . are very dangerous drugs, yet the pharmaceutical industry and FDA have been slow to mandate public warnings. (p. 142) Members of the medical-industrial complex tend to enjoy one seamless cooperative enterprise, fueled by billions of dollars from drug companies, funds from government agencies and private sources. Drug companies resist any negative results related to their products. Takes 20 years for the light to shine on problems enough to reverse the approval. Then they say "sorry" too late.
Hearing on prozac because of repeated horror stories related to it: one day hearing concluded with 9 member FDA committee voting unanimously that there was no credible evidence that . . . and made decision against any label change...'
Following the hearing the public was told that the subject was laid to rest: Prozac and other SSRIs do not cause violence or suicide. But the public was NOT told about the amount of controversy or the conflicts of interest among many of the professionals at the hearing. Nor was the public informed of the nature and extent of independent research findings, as well as nightmarish experiences that led to the FDA hearings. (p. 145)
Gee, are independent research findings and nightmarish experiences now called "disinformation"?
C-19 jab anyone?
Read
December 3, 2007I'd recommend this to anyone who is talking, or involved with someone, who is taking a serotin uptake inhibitor drug like Prozac
November 4, 2025
A STRONGLY CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE ON PROZAC, AND THE FDA’S APPROVAL OF ITS USE
Psychiatrist Peter Roger Breggin wrote in the introductory section of this 1994 book, “Most books about psychiatric drugs provide the kind of information that drug advocates and pharmaceutical companies want the public to have… This book is different. It provides information not readily available, even to most experts in the field. Much of it, in fact, has been systematically withheld from physicians and patients alike… Like many mental health professionals… Many biologically oriented psychiatrists argue that medication is the best or only approach to the problems they diagnose and treat… some psychologists support the pharmacological approach that we criticize, while many others do not… In seeking help from mental health professionals… it is best to inquire in advance about their views.”
He explains, “Prozac is now the most frequently prescribed psychiatric drug… competitors have begun to vie for a share in the market in this new class of drugs called SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors)… Once a drug is approved for marketing by the FDA, there are no government controls over what the physicians can prescribe it for. While Prozac was originally approved for depression… it and other SSRIs quickly began to be prescribed for a wide variety of ailments and difficulties, such as seasonal affective disorder (SAD), obesity… panic disorder… [and] behavioral and emotional problems in children and adolescents.” (Pg. 4)
He continues, “With the publication of Peter Kramer’s book [‘Listening to Prozac’], Prozac entered a new phase. It became a drug for enhancing the lives of people who otherwise consider themselves normal… The winter of 1993-1994 saw a new explosion of promotion and controversy surrounding Prozac… A series of extraordinarily laudatory TV news stories followed… At first, serious criticism and critics were absent from the pro-drug media hype for Prozac. But the daytime talk shows soon began to discover the existence of the darker undercurrent that had been missed… including large numbers of people who said that they … had ben emotionally damaged and even ruined or killed by the drug. By this time I had gained visibility as an outspoken critic of Prozac and other psychiatric drugs, and I found myself being invited onto so many talk shows, including Oprah, that I couldn’t schedule appearances on all of them.” (Pg. 4-5)
He observes, “The Prozac craze at first suggests a radical change in America’s thinking… It used to be that we suspected and even vilified drugs that ‘just made you feel good.’ The government outlawed them… does this enthusiasm for Prozac suggest problems with the drug that we haven’t yet faced? Gradually, the media and the public are becoming aware of the potentially dangerous implications in … this new drug. As a result of the avalanche of adverse publicity, including… reports of violence and suicide, the FDA felt compelled to hold hearings on Prozac in 1991.” (Pg. 7)
He reports, “While many patients and professionals seem to be listening to … its manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and to the medical-industrial complex that promotes medication—a hitherto underground movement of Prozac survivors is making an increasing public impact…. The members of the national Prozac Survivors Support Group include hundreds of former patients and their friends and families… [It] is wholly independent, receives no funding from anyone, and is not affiliated with crank groups or cults. It is run by volunteers.” (Pg. 11)
He suggests, “The moral and psychological dangers posed by Prozac are ultimately more threatening than its physical side effects… it has garnered a degree of media support never before encountered, as well as a best-selling book by Peter Kramer to fuel its popularity… Kramer argues that Prozac can transform personality for the better but largely dismisses the far more likely possibility that, like any psychoactive drug, it can transform it for the worse… In my conversations with Kramer and in his media appearances, he seems genuinely concerned that his book has helped to fuel the Prozac craze… On a talk show we appeared on together, he warned that there’s no way to anticipate Prozac’s potentially damaging effects on the developing brains of children and adolescents…” (Pg. 17-18)
He continues, “It’s time to address the real issues and questions about Prozac: *Did Prozac perform well or even adequately during the FDA trials, or was the FDA overeager to approve it?.. *Do people really function better on Prozac and, if so, what does that mean about their lives? *Can Prozac encourage or worsen someone’s tendency toward violence, depression, and suicide?... *… why did the [FDA] exonerate the drug at its 1991 hearing?... *Why is there an avalanche of lawsuits against Eli Lilly regarding Prozac? *What methods does Lilly use to push America to buy its pill?” (Pg. 18-19)
He points out, “Most people believe that when Prozac was approved for depression, it had been thoroughly tried on extremely depressed patients and had proven life-saving. In actuality, the Prozac studies as designed by Lilly excluded all patients with serious tendencies toward suicide. This deliberate exclusion was part of the formal protocol… of each study used for FDA approval… Advocates of the drug would wholly overlook this in their enthusiastic reviews, giving the false impression that Prozac is a potentially life-saving drug… No antidepressant has ever been shown to prevent suicide, and Eli Lilly apparently didn’t want to risk finding out whether Prozac would also fail to prevent suicide. Hospitalized psychiatric patients were also excluded from nearly all of the studies, including every one that was used to approve the drug.” (Pg. 44)
He explains, “According to the FDA approval process, it doesn’t matter how many times a drug FAILS to prove useful in its clinical tests. Innumerable scientific studies can show the drug to be ineffective, but as long as two or more show statistical superiority over placebo, the drug can win approval.” (Pg. 47)
He asserts, “the three protocols we have examined were the only ones that the FDA judged valid enough to use for demonstrating efficiency… These three badly flawed efforts, with many patients suffering adverse reactions, are the basis for the FDA allowing Prozac to be given to millions of Americans. A lot of fancy numbers-crunching was required to make Prozac look any better than a lowly sugar pill… These three protocols---with only 286 Prozac patients finishing the 4- to 6-week studies---were the best that Eli Lilly could come up with to prove the value of Prozac. We believe the FDA … should not have approved Prozac.” (Pg. 63-64)
He notes, “Lilly’s studies for FDA approval demonstrated that Prozac can cause psychosis, especially mania. Hypomania and mania are especially disastrous reactions because they can lead people to ruin their lives… The shortness of the trials greatly limits the percentage of patients who will become affected… There are numerous published reports and other confirmations that Prozac can produce a variety of other mental and behavioral abnormalities, from obsessions and compulsions to murder to suicide, but these have largely been rejected by both Eli Lilly and the FDA. Perhaps the most central and destructive effect of all… is a loss of empathy for oneself and others---a kind of withdrawal from human connectedness and caring.” (Pg. 103-104)
He summarizes, “Prozac can cause a range of psychological and neurological disorders that can lead to destructive actions. First, Prozac frequently causes agitation, panic, or anxiety. These emotional responses can make a person desperate enough to commit suicide or to perpetrate violence. Second, Prozac causes mania in a significant percentage of patients, and mania can lead to suicide and violence… Third, Prozac very commonly causes the neurological disorder ‘akathisia,’ which can drive people into violence toward themselves or others. These first three… are the most commonly associated syndromes with Prozac-induced violence and suicide, as well as other bizarre and destructive actions… Fourth, Prozac can cause depression… Fifth, Prozac can cause paranoia---an irrational fear and blaming of others---that can lead to violence… Sixth, Prozac can cause obsessive-compulsive thoughts and behavior, including preoccupations with death, murder, and suicide. Seventh, Prozac frequently causes insomnia…” (Pg. 176-177)
He concludes, “Biological psychiatry---with its genetic and biological theories, drugs, and electroshock---is itself a depressing philosophy. It is no wonder that so many patients go from one drug to another, only to end up hospitalized for yet more toxic doses of drugs and electroshock… depressed people need, above all else, the inspiration to start living once again, this time in new and better ways.” (Pg. 251)
This book will be ‘must reading’ for those who are critical of Prozac, and other such drugs.
Psychiatrist Peter Roger Breggin wrote in the introductory section of this 1994 book, “Most books about psychiatric drugs provide the kind of information that drug advocates and pharmaceutical companies want the public to have… This book is different. It provides information not readily available, even to most experts in the field. Much of it, in fact, has been systematically withheld from physicians and patients alike… Like many mental health professionals… Many biologically oriented psychiatrists argue that medication is the best or only approach to the problems they diagnose and treat… some psychologists support the pharmacological approach that we criticize, while many others do not… In seeking help from mental health professionals… it is best to inquire in advance about their views.”
He explains, “Prozac is now the most frequently prescribed psychiatric drug… competitors have begun to vie for a share in the market in this new class of drugs called SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors)… Once a drug is approved for marketing by the FDA, there are no government controls over what the physicians can prescribe it for. While Prozac was originally approved for depression… it and other SSRIs quickly began to be prescribed for a wide variety of ailments and difficulties, such as seasonal affective disorder (SAD), obesity… panic disorder… [and] behavioral and emotional problems in children and adolescents.” (Pg. 4)
He continues, “With the publication of Peter Kramer’s book [‘Listening to Prozac’], Prozac entered a new phase. It became a drug for enhancing the lives of people who otherwise consider themselves normal… The winter of 1993-1994 saw a new explosion of promotion and controversy surrounding Prozac… A series of extraordinarily laudatory TV news stories followed… At first, serious criticism and critics were absent from the pro-drug media hype for Prozac. But the daytime talk shows soon began to discover the existence of the darker undercurrent that had been missed… including large numbers of people who said that they … had ben emotionally damaged and even ruined or killed by the drug. By this time I had gained visibility as an outspoken critic of Prozac and other psychiatric drugs, and I found myself being invited onto so many talk shows, including Oprah, that I couldn’t schedule appearances on all of them.” (Pg. 4-5)
He observes, “The Prozac craze at first suggests a radical change in America’s thinking… It used to be that we suspected and even vilified drugs that ‘just made you feel good.’ The government outlawed them… does this enthusiasm for Prozac suggest problems with the drug that we haven’t yet faced? Gradually, the media and the public are becoming aware of the potentially dangerous implications in … this new drug. As a result of the avalanche of adverse publicity, including… reports of violence and suicide, the FDA felt compelled to hold hearings on Prozac in 1991.” (Pg. 7)
He reports, “While many patients and professionals seem to be listening to … its manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and to the medical-industrial complex that promotes medication—a hitherto underground movement of Prozac survivors is making an increasing public impact…. The members of the national Prozac Survivors Support Group include hundreds of former patients and their friends and families… [It] is wholly independent, receives no funding from anyone, and is not affiliated with crank groups or cults. It is run by volunteers.” (Pg. 11)
He suggests, “The moral and psychological dangers posed by Prozac are ultimately more threatening than its physical side effects… it has garnered a degree of media support never before encountered, as well as a best-selling book by Peter Kramer to fuel its popularity… Kramer argues that Prozac can transform personality for the better but largely dismisses the far more likely possibility that, like any psychoactive drug, it can transform it for the worse… In my conversations with Kramer and in his media appearances, he seems genuinely concerned that his book has helped to fuel the Prozac craze… On a talk show we appeared on together, he warned that there’s no way to anticipate Prozac’s potentially damaging effects on the developing brains of children and adolescents…” (Pg. 17-18)
He continues, “It’s time to address the real issues and questions about Prozac: *Did Prozac perform well or even adequately during the FDA trials, or was the FDA overeager to approve it?.. *Do people really function better on Prozac and, if so, what does that mean about their lives? *Can Prozac encourage or worsen someone’s tendency toward violence, depression, and suicide?... *… why did the [FDA] exonerate the drug at its 1991 hearing?... *Why is there an avalanche of lawsuits against Eli Lilly regarding Prozac? *What methods does Lilly use to push America to buy its pill?” (Pg. 18-19)
He points out, “Most people believe that when Prozac was approved for depression, it had been thoroughly tried on extremely depressed patients and had proven life-saving. In actuality, the Prozac studies as designed by Lilly excluded all patients with serious tendencies toward suicide. This deliberate exclusion was part of the formal protocol… of each study used for FDA approval… Advocates of the drug would wholly overlook this in their enthusiastic reviews, giving the false impression that Prozac is a potentially life-saving drug… No antidepressant has ever been shown to prevent suicide, and Eli Lilly apparently didn’t want to risk finding out whether Prozac would also fail to prevent suicide. Hospitalized psychiatric patients were also excluded from nearly all of the studies, including every one that was used to approve the drug.” (Pg. 44)
He explains, “According to the FDA approval process, it doesn’t matter how many times a drug FAILS to prove useful in its clinical tests. Innumerable scientific studies can show the drug to be ineffective, but as long as two or more show statistical superiority over placebo, the drug can win approval.” (Pg. 47)
He asserts, “the three protocols we have examined were the only ones that the FDA judged valid enough to use for demonstrating efficiency… These three badly flawed efforts, with many patients suffering adverse reactions, are the basis for the FDA allowing Prozac to be given to millions of Americans. A lot of fancy numbers-crunching was required to make Prozac look any better than a lowly sugar pill… These three protocols---with only 286 Prozac patients finishing the 4- to 6-week studies---were the best that Eli Lilly could come up with to prove the value of Prozac. We believe the FDA … should not have approved Prozac.” (Pg. 63-64)
He notes, “Lilly’s studies for FDA approval demonstrated that Prozac can cause psychosis, especially mania. Hypomania and mania are especially disastrous reactions because they can lead people to ruin their lives… The shortness of the trials greatly limits the percentage of patients who will become affected… There are numerous published reports and other confirmations that Prozac can produce a variety of other mental and behavioral abnormalities, from obsessions and compulsions to murder to suicide, but these have largely been rejected by both Eli Lilly and the FDA. Perhaps the most central and destructive effect of all… is a loss of empathy for oneself and others---a kind of withdrawal from human connectedness and caring.” (Pg. 103-104)
He summarizes, “Prozac can cause a range of psychological and neurological disorders that can lead to destructive actions. First, Prozac frequently causes agitation, panic, or anxiety. These emotional responses can make a person desperate enough to commit suicide or to perpetrate violence. Second, Prozac causes mania in a significant percentage of patients, and mania can lead to suicide and violence… Third, Prozac very commonly causes the neurological disorder ‘akathisia,’ which can drive people into violence toward themselves or others. These first three… are the most commonly associated syndromes with Prozac-induced violence and suicide, as well as other bizarre and destructive actions… Fourth, Prozac can cause depression… Fifth, Prozac can cause paranoia---an irrational fear and blaming of others---that can lead to violence… Sixth, Prozac can cause obsessive-compulsive thoughts and behavior, including preoccupations with death, murder, and suicide. Seventh, Prozac frequently causes insomnia…” (Pg. 176-177)
He concludes, “Biological psychiatry---with its genetic and biological theories, drugs, and electroshock---is itself a depressing philosophy. It is no wonder that so many patients go from one drug to another, only to end up hospitalized for yet more toxic doses of drugs and electroshock… depressed people need, above all else, the inspiration to start living once again, this time in new and better ways.” (Pg. 251)
This book will be ‘must reading’ for those who are critical of Prozac, and other such drugs.
September 30, 2014
Some solid information, and a whole lot of questionable assertions sprinkled with a few conspiracy theories. I'll never understand why it's so hard to find a book that is critical of psychiatry without arguing that all of psychiatry is a sham.
December 13, 2021
Eyes wide open!
This book was food for my soul! I have been on and off antidepressants and am truly grateful for this very well written book. It's jaw-dropping at the greed that exists in the pharmaceutical/FDA/government complex. The human being is last on the list!
This book was food for my soul! I have been on and off antidepressants and am truly grateful for this very well written book. It's jaw-dropping at the greed that exists in the pharmaceutical/FDA/government complex. The human being is last on the list!
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews