Thoughts on anti-psychotics

I was thinking about anti-psychotics.

These drugs are generally prescribed for issues such as bipolar, schizophrenia, psychosis and these days, whatever the doctor feels like for some bizarre reason.

Now, they were originally developed for (I think, not sure) dealing with the problems amphetamines cause within the brain.

Amphetamines allegedly cause problems with brain circuitry/wiring or what have you (according to the literature I have read), which is why amphetamine induced psychosis causes voices and other assorted issues.

Now, anti-psychotics alleviate these problems by interfering with dopamine and serotonin (and in some cases histamine) receptors. The old anti-psychotics just worked on dopamine receptors (according to literature I have read).

Now, I have been told that anti-psychotics only work for a set amount of time, and then they have to be replaced with a different anti-psychotic once they stop working. Apparently they all do the same thing they just do it differently, yet they don't know how they work, or they claim they don't know. I know people this has happened to (the meds stopping working and having to be replaced).

When the anti-psychotics stop working, symptoms return, often with a vengeance. Things such as hearing voices and other such hallucinations will sometimes occur within the patient, and then the medication ceases to work.

Why? What has happened in the brain during the course of anti-psychotic treatment to affect the brain like this and cause a relapse, regardless of the dose given?

I have met more than one person who have reported auditory hallucinations AFTER commencing anti-psychotic treatment, when previously this was not an issue for them, it only occurred after they started taking this medication.

What has happened to the brain circuitry of the individual after commencing anti-psychotic treatment?

Doctors say they don't know how the meds work. I think this is what is reported to them from the pharmaceutical companies. Perhaps the pharma companies don't know how they work either. Perhaps they are lying.

Quite interesting, considering they eventually wear off, a relapse will occur, new medication has to be commenced, and it has been reported that some people will have psychotic symptoms emerge when previously they had none.

I have also heard metabolites from these drugs can potentially be excreted from the body and can end up in the water supply.

Originally posted by randomnumbergenerator

pharmaceutical companies. Perhaps they are lying.

Truer words were never spoken! Star!

In short, big pharma gives money & perks to psychiatrists to push huge dosages of their drugs onto innocent victims. Why? Why else...for PROFITS! These drugs can be deadly, cost a fortune, and have severe side effects.
Deaths Attributed to Psychopharmaceutical Industry Influence on Mental Health Practices

Someone close to me was told he suffered from a "chemical imbalance" and needed 2 prescriptions to remedy the imbalance, at over $600 per mo.

I asked him if he saw the results of the chemical testing...
He said no tests were ever conducted on him!!!
Depression: The Myth of "Chemical Imbalance"

I questioned why he would voluntarily swallow some unknown compounds based on the linguistic deception of the psychiatric health care system.

He woke up. Anyone else taking psych meds for similar reasons needs to, also!

My simple advice: STAY AWAY FROM PSYCHIATRY!!!

Go volunteer at your local animal shelter.
Help your kids with their homework.
Take a stroll, or a bike-ride.
Humbly volunteer at your local Veteran's Administration Hospital.
Visit and assist an elderly friend or family member.

DO ANYTHING but sitting around 'stewing' with yourself, or taking meds!!!

Anti-depressants saved my life, and have made it possible for me to have a life.

Are they overprescribed? yes.
Are the pharmaceutical companies immoral liars? yes.

Do SSRIs and other new-generation antidepressants, in combination with therapy, work for major depression? yes.

Blanket judgments are almost always wrong. And telling someone who can barely drag herself out of bed to brush her teeth that it would all be better if she just did some volunteer work is cruel.

Amphetamines are documented to be neurotoxic.

It would appear anti-psychotic medication is also neurotoxic, and the pharmaceutical companies are either unaware (unlikely) of this fact, or are entirely aware and are happy to be destroying minds (highly likely, consider MKULTRA experiments involving said medications and pharmaceutical 'help' with these experiments).

Amphetamines are widely prescribed by doctors and so are antipsychotics.

Now, doctors know that amphetamines are neurotoxic, this is documented fact. Any doctor prescribing these medications, for whatever reason (ESPECIALLY weight loss) are breaking their hippocratic oath knowingly and willingly.

reply to post by americandingbat

Thank you. I was going to write the same response. I do have this to add. Not all psychiatrists go crazy prescribing drugs. They will start slow, monitor the patient and add drugs or change them as indicated. I have suffered from major depression for years, and excercise is not always the answer.
There are many reasons for depression. Perhaps the person has a genetic predisposition. Or perhaps they have been under a tremendous amount of stress, and have "burned out" their serotoin levels to the point where the body can't replace it fast enough. SSRI's inhibit the reuptake of serotonin, allowing the levels to return to normal. Sometimes, the drugs are only needed for a short time, say six months to a year.
And they don't make you into a zombie sheeple. I have heard people say that once the drugs took effect, they were able to think clearly for the first time in years.
I am currently taking 2 SSRI's and I find that I don't like to follow the leader anymore now than when I was a kid!

reply to post by FRIGHTENER


so, based on you extensive studies involving some guy, your personal and professional opinion is that there is no such thing as depression and those people should just pull themselves together?

good for you, glad it's never been a factor in your life, now go away and come back with idiotic advice when you have some experience and/or some decent research to back it up.

depression is a life threatening illness, countless suicides every year prove this fact out. i don't care that you don't think so, that doesn't make any difference to sufferers.

What are you? Disinformation agents? Working for big pharma?

This discussion is about the neurotoxicity of antipsychotic medication and amphetamines, which are widely and commonly prescribed for the most idiotic of reasons. Not once did I mention anti-depressants or SSRI's or MAOI's in the original post.

Why are you trying to make this topic deviate towards your agenda?

The point I am raising is that antipsychotics and amphetamines appear to be neurotoxic.

And that doctors who prescribe these (amphetamines in apparent, at least) are in violation of their hippocratic oath.

The people from big pharma, who notoriously worked with government agencies in regards to human experimentation when developing these antipsychotics also have a lot to answer for.

Stop the disinformation campaign, stay on topic.

Originally posted by randomnumbergenerator
What are you? Disinformation agents? Working for big pharma?

Boy did that accusation come out fast

This discussion is about the neurotoxicity of antipsychotic medication and amphetamines, which are widely and commonly prescribed for the most idiotic of reasons. Not once did I mention anti-depressants or SSRI's or MAOI's in the original post.

No, you didn't. But the next post went straight into an overall anti-psychiatric agenda that's all too common here on ATS, including a link to what I consider to be a dangerous article claiming that antidepressants should not be used for depression.

That's what I and I think others have been responding to.

Why are you trying to make this topic deviate towards your agenda?

Because that's what disinfo agents representing Big Pharma do

Seriously, the topic deviated into the antidepressant question without my help. Once it was there, I chimed in with my experience.

The point I am raising is that antipsychotics and amphetamines appear to be neurotoxic.

I don't know much about either antipsychotics or amphetamines, but I think the topic has the potential to be interesting. I do know people who have been on antipsychotics and have been helped by them dramatically, so my inclination is to suspect that the situation is similar to that with antidepressants: doctors and Big Pharma and the mainstream media want to see them as curealls without tradeoffs, and people here want to see them as unremittingly evil. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

And that doctors who prescribe these (amphetamines in apparent, at least) are in violation of their hippocratic oath.

Disagree on this one. Medicine is a matter of balance, very often. If the benefit of amphetamines to the patient outweighs the downside, they are not in violation of their hippocratic oath.

The people from big pharma, who notoriously worked with government agencies in regards to human experimentation when developing these antipsychotics also have a lot to answer for.

True. A thread on the role of big pharma in MK Ultra would probably go over really well, and I'd be fascinated to follow it.

Stop the disinformation campaign, stay on topic.

Then keep the thread on target on the other side too.

Originally posted by americandingbat
Anti-depressants saved my life, and have made it possible for me to have a life.

Are they overprescribed? yes.
Are the pharmaceutical companies immoral liars? yes.

Do SSRIs and other new-generation antidepressants, in combination with therapy, work for major depression? yes.

Blanket judgments are almost always wrong. And telling someone who can barely drag herself out of bed to brush her teeth that it would all be better if she just did some volunteer work is cruel.

I agree. Whilst I appreciate the merit behind ideas concerned with 'keeping occupied' and a 'sense of purpose' &c., a lot of people just don't seem to understand that, even those kinds of things are much further down the line than many people are at any moment in time.

Sadly, a lot of this thinking doesn't seem to far removed from 'pull yourself together!'.

Also, perhaps the U.S. healthcare is system is different in more ways than I thought, but is medication generally offered without any other form of support such as psychological services, psychiatric nurses, key workers and so on? Reading this thread and others over the years, I get the impression that it's standard practice that patients/service users/clients are given (expensive) prescriptions and are left to their own devices. Have I got that wrong?

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Also, perhaps the U.S. healthcare is system is different in more ways than I thought, but is medication generally offered without any other form of support such as psychological services, psychiatric nurses, key workers and so on? Reading this thread and others over the years, I get the impression that it's standard practice that patients/service users/clients are given (expensive) prescriptions and are left to their own devices. Have I got that wrong?

At the risk of further angering the OP with off-topicness, but because I think it's an important question:

It depends so much on how one's health care is provided. First off, general practitioners here are often the doctors prescribing the medication. The pharmaceutical industry has sold mental illness (especially depression) as a single-faceted chemical issue so hard and so well that few people outside the field are educated about how important supportive therapy is.

And most insurers will only provide a limited amount of therapy coverage.

But mostly I'd say it's the fault of Big Pharma and Mass Media, both of which have really pushed the idea that all you need is a pill, ignoring the patterns of behavior and thought that depression creates in the brain/mind. Ignoring the trauma that major depression causes.

Make a different thread if you wish to discuss anti-depressants.

This thread is about human anti-psychotics (neuroleptics) and amphetamines and neurotoxicity.

It's ironic how over-excitable kids get prescribed amphetamines, only to have to end up on neuroleptics later in life.

Are big pharma and government trying to destroy the minds of the highly gifted?

There are clear links between government human research, pharmaceutical companies and the psychiatry profession.

Mods please can you put all posts about anti-depressants in to a separate thread or remove them completely? It is taking this thread down a path which it was not intended.

reply to post by randomnumbergenerator


I can only share my Brother's experience. He has schizophrenia.

He'd been receiving depo injections every 2 weeks from 1996-2007, they did help very much to control the worst of his symptoms, particularly his paranoia. But by 2007 it had become apparent that his mental health was getting poor again & his Doctor thought that his meds had run their course. And recommended new tablet based meds instead.

Coming off one anti-psychotic and going onto another isn't quite as straightforward as swopping from aspirin to paracetomol, heavens I wish it had been. He was hospitalised & observed as they cut his dose down to zero for the old med, then slowly introduced the new med Olanzapine into his system And they observed him all the way.

It was a very difficult transition for him. During the transition period he did start reacting to things, he'd be talking away to himself & responding to people who weren't there. He maintains he wasn't hearing voices but he was obviously responding to something, what we don't know. He never suffered from "voices" before he was unwell in 1996, he hasnt since his new meds kicked in. It was only during that transition period from one med to another that he began reacting to things & he can't explain that himself, not that anyone's been pushing him on the subject.

January 2008 he started his transition from one med to another. He's still in hospital today, although he spends two or three days at his own home, we're trying to get him rehabilitated to such an extent that he can be relied on to take his meds (a huge issue in itself) and to be able to look after himself & his home.

It's a really long haul & wears everyone down. But he is getting better, slowly but surely, for that I'm grateful.

reply to post by The Lass


I might be misunderstanding your post.

Are you implying that he didn't have psychiatric symptoms as severe as what he has now until he was placed on medication?

I assume the depot injections he were taking were either Haldol or Risperdal?

(I'm not a doctor )

Clearly, if the medications stop working, and have to be substituted, then the medications are changing the structure of the brain, bringing symptoms on in a more severe form and are quite obviously neurotoxic.

Originally posted by randomnumbergenerator

Clearly, if the medications stop working, and have to be substituted, then the medications are changing the structure of the brain, bringing symptoms on in a more severe form and are quite obviously neurotoxic.

I don't see how you can conclude this at all. As I understand it, neurotoxicity refers to actual death of nerve tissue. But all that would be required for the medications to stop working is a change in chemical equilibrium or in protein synthesis in the nerve cells.

In the tiny bit of research I've managed to do into antipsychotics since my last post here, it looks to me like yes they are known to be neurotoxic at varying levels, particularly the first-generation antipsychotics. I'm still not clear on the connection you're making with amphetamines, though.

Here's the abstract for a study that compares the neurotoxicity of Haloperidol versus Risperdal:

study of neurotoxicity of risperidone vs haloperidol



I'm also curious about the government connections that you keep alluding to. Do you have a source for this, or can you elaborate on what the connections were/are?

Originally posted by randomnumbergenerator
Amphetamines are documented to be neurotoxic.

Of course they are, they act on the nervous system. High abuse potentials like meth and speed will damage serotonin and dopamine nerve terminals.

It would appear anti-psychotic medication is also neurotoxic, and the pharmaceutical companies are either unaware (unlikely) of this fact, or are entirely aware and are happy to be destroying minds

Neurotoxins act specifically on nerve cells and can be produced by the body endogenously as well as externally in nature. To suggest that a Pharmaceutical company produces Neurotoxic medication is spot on. Of course they do, they are not like toxic waste, which i think your post in infering, pharmaceutical companies are well aware of what neurotoxins are, in fact they are in the business of targeting specific nerves in some cases. Some natural remedys and drugs are derived from naturally occuring nurotoxins. Snake bite remedy is derived from the naturaly occuring neurotoxins in venom. What do you think Botox is and BTX-A?
Consider this, THC in marijuana is a neurotoxin. Ethanol is a neurotoxin(alcoholic beverage anyone), there are neurotoxins in plant foods and animals. Your livers job is to break down neurotoxins. As with all these, the damage by the toxin is dependant on the level of dosage when we look at damage to nurons. In many cases of drug induced psychosis(see large doses of nurotoxins like meth, marijuana, alchohol) anti-psychotics are combating the effects. So I consider any nurotoxic elements of a measured dosage of anti-psychotics totally acceptable and not an aspect of MKULTRA or some other mind control conspiracy.

People who are not psychotic do not need to take anti-psychotic drugs so there is no need to worry about the "nurotoxic" side effects of anti-psychotics. If you are on anti-psychotics your mental health obviously requires an intervention of some sort, drugs act on damaged processors that are responsible for the episodes of pyschotic behaviour by either blocking or intiating these processors, are currently the best we have and considering the potential for someones personal health and well being as well as public safety, this seems to be preferable to allowing individuals to wallow in psychosis and illness.

(highly likely, consider MKULTRA experiments involving said medications and pharmaceutical 'help' with these experiments).

I believe psychoactive drugs that enhance behaviour are preferable with mind experiments and not psychoactive drugs that block. '___' was used along with other mind altering drugs. Antipsychotic block receptors in areas that are experiencing over production and stimulation of certain chemicals like dopamine.

Amphetamines are widely prescribed by doctors and so are antipsychotics.

Amphetamines are being over perscribed in my opinion, due to ADHD etc Drugs like Deoxsyn(almost the same as meth) but amphetamines have been widely used in the USA since creation in 1929. Millions of troops used it in ww2, it was used as an inhaler against nasal congestion, as weight loss drug, for depression, in the 60's the use of this drug was similar if not the same as todays use of Ritalin ,Preludin and Redux. Its been a part of the western culture for decades so I don't see a conspiracy although there are institutional responsibilities that are not being met by doctors, drug companies and governments . In the 70's it was cracked down by govt. and the illegal amphetamine industry took off. The illegal meth industry you see today is the result of the US governments crack down on pharmaceutical amphetamines. Nicholas Rasmussen has a great look at this in a book titled "on Speed".

Antipsychotics on the other hand are not being widely perscribed. There is no cultural dependance on Anti-psychotics.

Now, doctors know that amphetamines are neurotoxic, this is documented fact. Any doctor prescribing these medications, for whatever reason (ESPECIALLY weight loss) are breaking their hippocratic oath knowingly and willingly.

You need to understand what you are talking about. Deny Ignorance.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by atlasastro]

Still defending the medicos?

Neurotoxic in the sense that it rewires the brain, pathways are altered, brain structure is changed et cetera. If this wasn't true, different neuroleptics would not be required.

It happens to too many people, who are not drug or even alcohol users, for it to be sheer coincidence. I mean, multiple people reporting a worsening of psychiatric symptoms once they are on the medication?

These medications are bad.

How much clearer does it have to be made?

They are produced by big pharma. They are prescribed (usually) by psychiatrists. They all worked together with government mind control (and individual discrediting programs) experiments.

They are not trying to help anyone.

Protein synthesis in nerve cells?

Isn't the brain the place where you really do not want to be allowing protein to get in? Isn't that what the protective barrier does (among other things)? Stops proteins entering the brain? Don't proteins cause the colloquial 'holes in the brain' when they make contact with it?

So your research has shown you they are known to be neurotoxic.

Why are these drugs being given to people with psychiatric disorders? Why are they being given substances that are harmful to the brain when the individuals require (alleged) brain repair?

What government connections?

You come to a conspiracy site and are not familiar with MKULTRA? There is plenty of information out there.

CIA (and offshore) program in to mind control, creating sex slaves, assassins, couriers, hypnosis, drugs to make people appear insane etc.

I'm sorry, was this meant to be a rant thread? I mistook it for a place to share thoughts and research about antipsychotics and amphetamines.

Yes, I know about MKUltra. I don't know of any specific references to the development of antipsychotics under the auspices of MKUltra. I thought perhaps that you had sources I haven't seen on the matter (MKUltra and government mind control experimentation is actually fairly high on my list of interests here at ATS).

You posed your OP as a series of questions, not as a researched essay presenting a summary of what you've learned on a topic. So I reacted by researching the bits that seemed interesting to me.

But if you just want an anti-psychiatry rant, I'll bow out.



edit: about protein synthesis in nerve cells

Of course protein synthesis goes on in nerve cells. Here's a snippet from "Neuroscience for Kids":

Neurons are similar to other cells in the body because:

1. Neurons are surrounded by a cell membrane.
2. Neurons have a nucleus that contains genes.
3. Neurons contain cytoplasm, mitochondria and other organelles.
4. Neurons carry out basic cellular processes such as protein synthesis and energy production.

[edit on 3/18/2009 by americandingbat]

[edit on 3/18/2009 by americandingbat]

reply to post by atlasastro


So you just wrote that pharmaceutical companies manufacture psychiatric medications which cause brain damage?

Are you acknowledging that is what you just wrote?

That the pharmaceutical companies, willingly, and knowingly, give people with mental illness (of which there is no scientifically validated test, just a list of reported symptoms ticked off in a book) medications which are going to cause brain damage?

Am I understanding you correctly here?

Amphetamines, which are neurotoxic, are prescribed to children who exhibit traits of intellectual giftedness.

Long term amphetamine abuse can lead to altered brain chemistry.

Which is then 'treated' with neuroleptics.

Are you confirming that pharmaceutical companies develop, and peddle to doctors, medications which are supposed to help the mind (amphetamines in small doses ) which actually lead to brain damage and psychosis, which they then have a 'cure' for, that being neuroleptics, which are also neurotoxic and damage the brain further?

Is that what you are writing?

Edit: Protein synthesis is vastly different to allowing proteins to cross the blood/brain barrier, is it not? Did they have that part in 'Neuroscience for Kids'?

[edit on 18-3-2009 by randomnumbergenerator]

reply to post by atlasastro


Some specific points which need to be addressed:

Neurotoxins act specifically on nerve cells and can be produced by the body endogenously as well as externally in nature. To suggest that a Pharmaceutical company produces Neurotoxic medication is spot on. Of course they do, they are not like toxic waste, which i think your post in infering, pharmaceutical companies are well aware of what neurotoxins are, in fact they are in the business of targeting specific nerves in some cases. Some natural remedys and drugs are derived from naturally occuring nurotoxins. Snake bite remedy is derived from the naturaly occuring neurotoxins in venom. What do you think Botox is and BTX-A?

Let's talk about things here that go to the brain. Don't deviate. I thought the medications were supposed to be antagonists? Doesn't that mean they are supposed to stop the neurotransmitters from being absorbed by the brain? So the medication is neurotoxic, which is stopping the neurotransmitters from going to work? It isn't just simply blocking the neurotransmitters, it is making them ineffective by damaging the parts of the brain which would usually be responsive?

Consider this, THC in marijuana is a neurotoxin.

I have read recent French studies (IIRC) that it is actually neuroprotective. They might be false. They might not be.

Neuro correlates to brain, right? So someone getting botox is actually damaging their brain? Is that the point you are trying to put across? Or because it doesn't, and isn't designed to have contact with the brain, it actually doesn't cause any damage? These medications are designed to go to work on the brain, which is why the neurotoxicity issue needs to be addressed. You cannot give something for the brain, saying it is going to help it, when it is neurotoxic. It is outrageous and deceitful.

If you are on anti-psychotics your mental health obviously requires an intervention of some sort, drugs act on damaged processors that are responsible for the episodes of pyschotic behaviour by either blocking or intiating these processors, are currently the best we have and considering the potential for someones personal health and well being as well as public safety, this seems to be preferable to allowing individuals to wallow in psychosis and illness.

So now you say they block the receptors, before it was damaging them. What is happening? Let's discuss public safety. Are schizophrenics notoriously anxious, paranoid, fearful and untrusting? Who are they going to hurt when avoidance is a clear trait they exhibit?

Amphetamines are being over perscribed in my opinion, due to ADHD etc Drugs like Deoxsyn(almost the same as meth) but amphetamines have been widely used in the USA since creation in 1929. Millions of troops used it in ww2, it was used as an inhaler against nasal congestion, as weight loss drug, for depression, in the 60's the use of this drug was similar if not the same as todays use of Ritalin ,Preludin and Redux.

The original antipsychotics were introduced to combat amphetamine related psychosis.

Confirm/Deny?

Antipsychotics on the other hand are not being widely perscribed. There is no cultural dependance on Anti-psychotics.

Antipsychotics are commonly prescribed by doctors off-label as sleep aids.

Confirm/Deny?

reply to post by randomnumbergenerator


No, the contrary, he has had severe mental health problems and has had since 1996.

Without meds he simply cannot function at all. Unsure what depo injections he was receiving, they'd been administered by his CPN (community psychiatric nurse) throughout. He'd been deteriorating throughout 2007, becoming extremely withdrawn, paranoid about family, friends & neighbours, rarely left his home, his home had become a nightmare to look after, rubbish everywhere (I filled 22 black sacks one day full of rubbish), he wasn't washing clothes, wasn't keeping himself clean etc. The more you tried to help, motivate him the more abuse you got from him for "interfering", he started refusing entry to family members, had almost entirely pulled up the drawbridge.

Christmas 2007 & everything came to a head & at that point he was faced with either being admitted to hospital voluntarily or being detained. After many hours of persuasion we finally managed to get him to hospital voluntarily and from then they started changing his meds.

I'll throw this one into the pot. Every single person in his mental health unit smokes cigarettes, his own cigarette consumption at the time he was really unwell was monstrous, at least 100 each day. Cigarette ash everywhere in his house, butts lying everywhere, and he was so territorial about his cigarettes, even move his packet six inches as you were cleaning and he went off his head, his verbal abuse was terrible. He's down now to 20 per day, I'm wondering if something in cigarettes doesn't in some way affect the meds he's been receiving.