EP 64: The Serotonin Myth: Rethinking Mental Health with Dr. Joanna Moncrieff

Send us a message!

In her new book "Chemically Imbalanced: The Making and Unmaking of the Serotonin Myth" Professor Joanna Moncrieff exposes how millions have been misled to believe they have brain chemical imbalances requiring drug treatments when no evidence supports this view.

• Depression is a normal human emotional response to life difficulties, not a brain disease
• The "drug-centered" model recognizes psychiatric medications as mind-altering substances that temporarily mask symptoms rather than targeting disease processes 
• Disease awareness campaigns funded by pharmaceutical companies deliberately changed public perception of distress as medical conditions
• Scientific studies showing minimal differences between antidepressants and placebos are systematically misinterpreted to support the disease model
• The psychiatric establishment responds to criticism by attacking messengers rather than addressing evidence
• Alternative approaches should focus on understanding distress in context of people's lives rather than medicating normal emotions
• Recent progress in recognizing withdrawal effects and persistent side effects shows growing awareness of medication risks

Website: www.joannamoncrieff.com

X: @joannamoncrieff

Bio:

JOANNA MONCRIEFF is Professor of Critical and Social Psychiatry at University College London, and a consultant psychiatrist for the National Health Service in London. She is author of numerous scientific paper and several books on psychiatry and psychiatric drugs. She is a founder member and co-chairperson of the Critical Psychiatry Network, an influential network of psychiatrists and other doctors. Her latest book is “Chemically Imbalanced: The Making and Unmaking of the Serotonin Myth” (publisher Flint Books), featured in The Sunday Times.

FREE Mood Cycle Survival Guide: https://theupsideofbipolar.com/free/

FREE Facebook Group for Moms with Bipolar: https://www.facebook.com/groups/bipolarmomslivingwell

website: https://theupsideofbipolar.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theupsideofbipolar/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theupsideofbipolar/

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
If we think about the term antidepressant, that to me
is a very misleading term,because we don't have drugs that
target depression.
We have no idea what's going onin the brain, if anything
specific, when people feeldepressed, and we have no idea
what the drugs that we callantidepressants are doing and

(00:20):
whether they bear anyrelationship to any of those
processes.
So to call a drug anantidepressant is really
misleading.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Hey, welcome to the Upside of Bipolar conversations
on the road to wellness.
I am so excited that youdecided to join me today.
We're a community learning howto live well with bipolar
disorder and we reject that.
The best we can expect islearning how to suffer well with
it.
I'm your host, michelleReitinger of MyUpsideOfDowncom,
where I help people with bipolardisorder use the map to

(00:51):
wellness to live healthy,balanced, productive lives.
Welcome to the conversation,welcome to the Upside of Bipolar
.
I am your host, michelleReitinger, and I have an
incredible episode for you today.
My guest, joanna Moncrief, isProfessor of Critical Social

(01:13):
Psychiatry at University CollegeLondon and a Consultant
Psychiatrist for National HealthService in London.
She is an author of numerousscientific papers and several
books on psychiatry andpsychiatric drugs.
She is a founding member andco-chairperson of the Critical
Psychiatry Network, aninfluential network of

(01:34):
psychiatrists and other doctors.
Her latest book, chemicallyImbalanced the Making and
Unmaking of the Serotonin Myth,published by Flint Books,
featured in the Sunday Times.
I've had her as a guest beforeand I'm so thrilled that she's
agreed to come back on mypodcast today and speak with us,
because this book that she haswritten is life changing.
It is probably the best bookthat I have read on

(01:59):
understanding psychiatry, what'shappened with us with the
disease-centered model, how thathas impacted psychiatry as a
whole and our society.
It's just brilliant.
Thank you so much, professorMoncrief, for being on our
program today.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
Thank you.
Thank you for inviting me,Michelle.
It's a pleasure to be back.

Speaker 2 (02:20):
And I want to start again for our audience, to make
sure that they know who you areCould you share with the
audience what your background is, how you ended up in this field
and how you ended upspecifically studying drugs and
drug action, and what led you towrite this book?

Speaker 1 (02:39):
So I'm a psychiatrist that means I'm trained as a
medical doctor and thenspecialized in psychiatry.
Psychiatrist that means I'mtrained as a medical doctor and
then specialised in psychiatry.
And I got interested in drugtreatment because from the early
days of my training it becameapparent to me that most people
with mental health problems weretreated with at least one sort
of drug, and usually many sortsof drugs, and not many of them,

(03:02):
it seemed to me, really gotbetter.
Or if they did get better, itwasn't clear that it was
anything to do with the drugsthey were taking.
So I suppose that piqued myinterest and got me questioning
what the drugs that areprescribed for mental health
problems are actually doing.
And that's when I started tothink about what I later

(03:24):
formulated as thedisease-centered and
drug-centered models of drugaction.
So I started to think about, Istarted to question, I should
say, the conventional view thatpsychiatric drugs work by
targeting some underlyingdisease mechanism.
And the more I looked into it,the more I realized that
actually there was no evidencefor this view.

(03:46):
But I did realize that they'renot inert substances, they are
drugs.
They are chemicals that change,that interact with our biology
and change and modify the normalway that the body normally
works, and so that led me tothis idea of what I've called

(04:08):
the drug-centered model.
So that's the idea that drugsthat are prescribed for mental
health problems, such asantidepressants, but also what
we call antipsychotics and moodstabilizers and antialytics like
the benzodiazepines, whatthey're all doing is altering
our normal mental states.

(04:29):
They are producing, they aremind-altering drugs, just in the
way that alcohol or cannabisare mind-altering drugs, and
therefore what happens is thatthe altered mental states that
the drugs produce are thensuperimposed onto any underlying

(04:49):
problems and difficulties thatpeople have, and sometimes that
may be perceived as beinghelpful.
For example, you know, ifsomeone's very anxious and
agitated and they take a dose ofValium, for example a
benzodiazepine, they will feel abit calmer, just as you would
if you had a drink of alcohol.

(05:10):
That effect comes about becauseof the typical alterations
produced by Valium, not becauseValium is targeting the
underlying basis of anxiety oragitation or distress.
And so my theory is that that'show all psychiatric drugs are
working, includingantidepressants, even though

(05:33):
it's not generally accepted inthe psychiatric world, although
it's not blatantly challengedeither, because it's difficult
to challenge, because thesedrugs are drugs that affect the
brain, that change our normalbrain chemistry.
There's no denying that.
And so, and there's no denyingthat they do cause that they do

(05:59):
alter people's mental states,including people who don't have
any psychiatric problems,including when you give them to
volunteers or indeed to animals.
So those are my ideas aboutpsychiatric drugs.

Speaker 2 (06:19):
Well, and one of the things that I found interesting,
as I.
First of all, your book is sowell organized, because I feel
like you present at thebeginning the issues at hand.
You present the problem and whyyou're writing this book so
that we understand where you'recoming from, and I feel like it
also draws people in.
For me, it drew me in because Ithought, yes, absolutely yes,

(06:40):
you know, yes, these are issues,yes, these are problems, and I
couldn't wait to find out like,okay, so what?
You know what are, what's goingon here?
And?
And then you talk about thehistory and then the science.
The science was my by far myfavorite part of the book,
because one of the biggestissues that we have in our
society we have, over time, gotbecome highly specialized, and

(07:04):
and we which I think there thinkthere is a ton of benefit to
that, because you know it isimpossible for every person to
become an expert on every aspectof life or health, or you know,
and so it serves a greatbenefit to society to have
experts, to have people thatspend their life studying
specific aspects of the humancondition or our bodies are

(07:25):
functioning, you know, and, andso there's a benefit to that.
But one of the handicaps thathas been created by that is that
we are becoming dependent on onthose experts and and I feel
like, in some ways vulnerablebecause we trust them.
We, you know, we need to trustthem.
We're going them, going to themfor a specific reason and that

(07:50):
was my experience when I went toa psychiatrist.
That was what I was told to do.
I was in a lot of mental andemotional distress.
I was, you know, then, you know, pleaded my parents pleaded
with me to go see a psychiatrist.
I went to a psychiatrist and Iwas told that I had a chemical
imbalance and given medicationsand I there was no way for me to
decide whether or not what Iwas being told was true.
And the thing I love the most,I've done a ton of research over

(08:12):
the years, you know, as I'vegone through the healing process
myself and and I've you know, Ihave a voracious appetite for
learning and as I've read a lotof books.
Robert Whitaker's Anatomy of anEpidemic was my red pill moment
.
That was the thing that helpedme recognize, like I'm not crazy
, like the things that I've beensuspecting about what's been
going on in my life, myexperience with psychiatry are.

(08:35):
You know I'm not a crazy person.
You know they are true, but Ididn't understand the science
behind it.
I really didn't.
You know, even in his book hedoesn't break it down the way
that you do.
And I appreciated so much thatpart of your book because you
talk about how research isconducted, why you want a double
blind study, for example, andthe issues with in psychiatry,

(08:57):
specifically with trying to dodouble blind studies with
psychiatric medications, becauseof the inherent issues with the
way that we identifypsychiatric issues, with the way
that we you know the medicationitself.
So sorry, there have so manythings I want to ask you.
So I've got a lot of things inmy head right now, but one of

(09:18):
the things that I feel like as Iwas reading that is that the
disease-centered model itselfcreates a problem in approaching
all of this, because it createsan inherent bias in the studies
that we're doing, in the waythat they approach research,
because there is an assumptionthat there is an underlying
medical condition.

(09:38):
That assumption colorseverything.
And what is I want to know fromyou, since you were trained as a
psychiatrist initially?
I mean, I assume I'm assumingthat you were presented with
that disease centered model.
Was that the way you weretaught?
And then, how did you come outof that?
Because I, because I love theway that you present the disease

(09:58):
centered versus the drugcentered, you know the drug
centered, just for our audienceunderstanding that.
Well, I'll, actually I'll letyou describe that.
Sorry, can you describe for ouraudience what the difference is
?

Speaker 1 (10:09):
Yes, I think I have already described it a bit, but
it's not necessarily thatstraightforward.
But first of all, I justthought maybe it's good to just
go back to the problem that Iset out at the beginning of the
book, because you've just sortof illustrated what it is so
well, and that is the fact thatmillions and millions of people
in Western countries inparticular, have been either

(10:32):
told explicitly, like you were,or inferred, implied, that they
have some biological problemwith their brain and that they
need a chemical, a drug, to putthat right.
And that is just that.
That is a theory.
It's an idea, but it's notsupported by evidence and
therefore all those peoplewho've been given that

(10:54):
impression or told that, havebeen misled and misinformed, and
many, many of them will betaking medication, therefore, on
the basis of misinformation.
So that, to me, is the problem,and that's why I set out to
write the book, and I'm sopleased that you found the

(11:15):
scientific bit accessible,because I was worried it was
going to be a bit boring, but itis very important.
And it's really importantbecause, as you also suggested,
the problem is that the peoplewho write these papers have an
agenda.
Now, that doesn't mean thatthey're bad people, but they
have been taught and sort ofinducted into this idea that

(11:39):
mental health problems arediseases and that even if we
don't know exactly what thedisease is, we'll find out
sooner or later.
And we can just go on assumingthat they are and that somehow,
even if we don't know what theyare, we have drugs that somehow
target them.
And, as you said, that colourseverything, that colours the way

(12:01):
that research is set up and,importantly, the way that it's
interpreted.
So if you go and read thepapers without knowing that,
without understanding all theassumptions that have gone into
generating that research in thefirst place, you are not
necessarily going to be able tounderstand what those studies

(12:21):
have really found.
And when we think aboutantidepressant studies the
classic study that compares anantidepressant drug with a
placebo that is an inactivesubstance.
It's biologically inactive, itdoesn't do anything to you, you
don't feel any different afteryou've taken it.
Then if you assume that whatthe drug is doing is acting on a

(12:44):
disease process, you miss thefact that it is a drug that is
necessarily going to bedifferent from taking a placebo.
Necessarily.
The experience of taking anactive chemical is different
from taking an inactive one.
You know, taking an activechemical that changes your
biology is going to make youfeel different in one way or
another, and if it gets intoyour brain it going to make you
feel different in one way oranother.

(13:05):
And if it gets into your brainit will probably make you feel a
bit emotionally different.
Often drugs that we take numbemotions or suppress them in one
way or another or change them,make them a bit sort of cruder.
So unless you understand thatall those effects have basically
just been written out of theequation because people are

(13:27):
focusing on this idea that whatthe drug is doing is targeting
an underlying disease, you won'tbe able to fully interpret the
research findings creates iseven with the informed consent,

(13:48):
if somebody believes that theiremotional reactions, that
they're having to life.

Speaker 2 (13:50):
And that's really what this is.
I was in tremendous distress,and nobody asked me about my
history, nobody asked me aboutwhat I had been through in my
life, and so for over a decade Ibelieved I had a biological
deficiency, and so there was nocuriosity into any of the

(14:10):
reasons why I was feeling thesethings, and as the medications
weren't resolving the problems,it made me feel more and more
desperate and more and morehopeless.
And it's interesting becauseI've had to go through my own
deprogramming over the past 15years so that I could actually
start to see things for whatthey really were and start to

(14:32):
address the problems that hadcreated these symptoms in the
first place.
The first thing I had to do washeal from the medication.
That took a number of years,and then I had to start learning
how to identify what wasactually causing the distress.
A lot of times, when you saythat it's not a medical
condition, I think what peoplehear is that you're not in

(14:53):
distress, and that is not thecase.
And you talk about that in yourbook.
You talk about what depressionactually is, what people are
actually suffering from, and Iwant to know if you can talk as
a psychiatrist, if you canaddress that when you you know
when you would.
I don't know if you're stillpracticing and seeing patients,
but when you were seeingpatients if you weren't now, did
you have a mindset shift thatoccurred from because a disease

(15:15):
centered model assumes thatthere's a deficiency or
defectiveness in the person.
Where the drug centered modelrecognizes this is.
You're experiencing normaldistress.
We might be able to help you alittle bit through the process
of recovering using medication,but that's not actually
addressing the problem.
It's just going to like for afever.
We're going to bring it downwith ibuprofen the same thing as

(15:36):
what's happening with the drug.
So can you talk about what youknow, if you've had a mindset
shift as a psychiatrist and whatthat's been in helping you
understand what's actuallyhappening with people when
they're depressed?

Speaker 1 (15:47):
Yeah, well, I suppose when I was a young psychiatrist
, what I was really struck bywas fact that other doctors
thought using antidepressantswas helpful, but I just didn't.
Really it didn't seem clear tome that people were getting
better as a consequence of thesedrugs.
A lot of the time people didn'treally get better, and when

(16:11):
they did get better, almostalways something else had
shifted in their lives thatcould explain it, rather than it
being due to theantidepressants people were
taking.
And it was also clear to methat people often get started on
antidepressants at a real lowpoint in their lives and the
fact that they've you know thatthey've had to take medication

(16:33):
can also be a bit of a wake upcall.
So sometimes that whole processaround going to the doctors can
be a spur to people to, youknow, to make a change and
therefore they improve.
But for many people theexperience is the same as you
have related they take the drugs, they don't actually feel
better.
Of course the drugs make themfeel worse, and then they feel

(16:55):
even worse because they think,oh, my goodness, you know I'm
not responding to the treatment,I'm non-responsive, I'm, like,
you know, the bottom of the pitand there's going to be nothing
left for me and end up feelingmore and more demoralized and
more and more, you know, like afailure and more and more
disempowered.

(17:28):
Labeling distress as a medicalcondition and telling people or
implying to people that theproblem is in their brain is
really, really harmful.
It really can mess withpeople's self-image and
undermine people's agency andhope and all the things that
people actually need to helpthem recover.
That's not to say that somepeople don't need help and
support cover.
That's not to say that somepeople don't need help and
support.
And, like you say, I think theproblem is because we've gone

(17:48):
down this medical line, becausewe've gone down this medical
route of understanding, ofconceptualising mental distress
as a medical problem.
If you then say it's notmedical, exactly as you say,
some people feel that you'redenying that there's actually a
problem, and I don't want to dothat.
I still do work as apsychiatrist.
I've worked as a psychiatristfor many years now and obviously

(18:11):
many people do have periods ofintense distress and some are
more vulnerable to it thanothers, depressed or to getting
anxious, often because of thingsthat have happened in their
past.
But there's a certain amount ofindividual variation too.
Some people will just probablybe born a little bit more

(18:32):
vulnerable to that sort of thingthan other people.
We're all different.
We have different personalities, but often it is to do with
things that have happened topeople in the past, and so some
people know some people willneed more support and help
getting through periods ofdistress than other people, but
that doesn't mean that we haveto medicalize the situation.

(18:55):
There are many other ways ofhelping people besides telling
people they've got a braindisease or a brain disorder and
they need chemicals people.

Speaker 2 (19:04):
They've got a brain disease or a brain disorder and
they need chemicals yeah, andone of the other.
Like I mentioned a little bitearlier, the issue that I have
with the informed consent ideais that they're not being
presented with any other options, so somebody comes in.
I was in severe distress by thetime I went to the psychiatrist
.
It had been going on for acouple of years and I was going
through severe depressiveperiods and then I would get

(19:26):
hypomanic and I would have lotsof ideas and make lots of
impulsive decisions that had anegative impact on my life,
which was then making mydepression worse, and I felt out
of control.
I felt out of control.
My family was seeing it, theywere worried, and so that was
adding to the distress becausemy parents were like something's
wrong, you need help right now,and so I was extremely
vulnerable.
By the time I went to thepsychiatrist and I've thought

(19:49):
about this as I was readingthrough the you know the
informed consent part, I wasthinking about it and I thought,
if, if I had gone in there andthey had said you know, you're,
you're?
They initially diagnosed mewith depression and anxiety.
I was so depressed I couldhardly talk when I went there, I
was crying and I couldn't think.
And if I had been told we cangive you this drug, it will, you

(20:13):
know, possibly help alleviatesome of your distress.
There's a possibility that it'sgoing to and then listed off
the side effects.
Even if they told me that youknow one of the side effects
could be, you know, suicidalideation, I probably still would
have taken it because I wasn'tbeing presented with any other
option.
I was being told that this isthe only thing that can help you

(20:33):
.
And and we do that same thingwith medical medications right,
we go in and they, they tell youwhat the side effects, but
we're thinking, you know, I'mhaving heart palpitations and I
need help with my heart, or I'mhaving, you know, circulatory
issues, and I, you know.
So we, we assume the risk and Ifeel like it.
Yes, it alleviates some of theresponsibility on a psychiatrist
part, but we're not being givenany other options.

(20:55):
And I think that is the biggestproblem when it comes to
informed consent.
When I people, when people aresaying, when form consent,
informed consent, I thought,well, if you're only offered one
option and you're only toldthis is the only option that's
available, it could have allthese negative side effects, but
could also help you when you'rein that kind of mindset, you

(21:15):
know, when you're feelingdesperate.
Yeah, yeah, you know, I almostfeel like that's not going far
enough.
Do you know what I?

Speaker 1 (21:22):
mean.
So in the UK we do have anational therapy service, so
everyone can access a certainnumber of sessions of CBT type
therapy, which you know may notbe enough for some people, but I
think is a really good start.
There is, of course, a bit of await for it, and I think one of
the difficulties that doctorsand other clinicians have is

(21:45):
sitting with and toleratingpeople's distress and holding
people, because to me that'ssomething that needs to happen
in the sort of situation youdescribe.
There needs to be a holdingprocess.
There needs to be a holdingprocess.
There needs to be someone to beable to support you until you

(22:06):
can get into some therapy anduntil you're in a place where
you can process things a bitbetter.
But I think that a lot ofclinicians find that really,
really difficult and aredesperate to have something
positive to offer that seems tobe a solution at the time.
So I think the problem has nowbecome a sort of systematic

(22:29):
problem.
We're all sort of deluding eachother, really, because distress
is difficult to deal with.
It is uncomfortable to be withsomeone who's really upset,
who's really struggling, andwouldn't it be nice if we had a
pill that just took it all away.
So we're sort of pretending toourselves that that's what we

(22:49):
have and yet in the long termthat's causing so many problems,
because it's you know, it'sgiving people this very damaging
message that you know they havea brain problem.
And and at least if you as Isay, I think which I think
you're suggesting you know, atleast if someone had said to you
look, we've got these drugs,they're not going to solve the

(23:10):
problem.
They may numb you for a bit andthat might be better than what
you're going through, but youknow they're not a long term
solution and they come with allthese side effects.
So you know, if you do decideto take them, then then don't,
don't take them for too long.
You know.
Get off them as soon as you can.
You know that that might havechanged the situation for you.

Speaker 2 (23:29):
Well, one of the things I love about you say over
and over throughout your bookis that depression is a normal
part of the human condition.
You know, when one of thestories that really resonated
with me was and I don't I shouldhave written his name down, but
there was a towards later inthe book you're talking about a
young man who was a footballerand he had I can't remember

(23:50):
exactly the sequence of events,but like his girlfriend left him
, so he went through a breakupand then he made he was starting
to make mistakes at work andyou know and so he went to his
general practitioner I think GPis also general practitioner for
you, correct?

Speaker 1 (24:03):
Yes, yeah.

Speaker 2 (24:05):
So he went to his GP and was told he had, you know,
severe depression, you knowclinical depression, and he
needed medications.
And even though he hesitated,you know, he thought well, I
don't know what else to do.
And so he went ahead andstarted taking the medications
and what eventually resolved, itwas him changing his life, you
know it was.
And so I feel like one of thethings that I think is really

(24:26):
important is not telling peoplethat they have a disorder.
You know, that's one thing thatI tell people on a regular
basis.
I have people that I coachthrough the healing process and
when they are feelingdiscouraged or depressed, we
look at their life circumstances.
You know, and I'll I have, youknow, people who are going
through really challenging lifecircumstances and I said that's,
that's a normal reaction to thesituation you're in.
And and I had one woman say Iam so grateful every time you

(24:50):
say that it just helps me feelso validated, and I, you know,
keep reminding her this is not,this is not disorder.
What you're experiencing is notdisorder.
This is the way that the brainis reacting to distressing
situation, like that's a normalthing.
You're not abnormal, you arenormal.
That is how our brains aredesigned to react, right, and so
I think that, oh, go ahead,sorry.

Speaker 1 (25:09):
Yeah.
So I think it's useful to thinkof emotions as the way that
intelligent, the intelligentcreatures that we are, respond
to our environment.
You know animals some higheranimals, more intelligent
animals, have some basicemotions, but not the range of

(25:30):
emotions that we have.
It is part and parcel of beingan intelligent creature that you
feel.
You know that.
You feel what is going on, thatwhat is going on around you
makes you react.
And so, just as you say youknow depression is, you know,
feeling depression, feelingdepressed when things go wrong

(25:53):
is a normal response.
But again, I think it'simportant to emphasize that we
are all different and somepeople will respond you know,
more to what other people mightbe a trivial situation that you
know that doesn't bother them atall.
So there is that variation thathappens.
And, and if you're someonethat's you know over, you know

(26:14):
very, very sensitive to things,you may need to find some ways
to manage your emotionalreactions.
But then it's not a bad thingto be sensitive and to feel
things.
It's a good thing.
In some ways it shows how youknow that you're a really
intelligent person evaluatingall the information in your
environment.

Speaker 2 (26:34):
Yeah, one of the things that I love that you also
do in your book is you talkabout how complex we are.
I think one of the challengeswe love simple.
You know our brains want simple, we want simple explanations,
we want simple solutions, and soI think that that's one of the
reasons why the medical modelappeals to us, because it's
telling us.
You know, it's appealing tothink and I felt this way when I

(26:56):
was first diagnosed.
I had kind of mixed, mixedreactions to it.
The first, on one hand, I was,I felt, relieved.
I felt relieved that there wasan explanation for it.
I felt relieved that there wasa solution for it.
I believed that I was going tobe helped by these medications.
On the other hand, I thought Iwas being told that I was broken
and I was afraid nobody wasgoing to want me that way.
So there were some mixedemotions.

(27:18):
But it kind of made it moreaccessible to me in
understanding what was going onin my brain.
So I think that we gravitatetowards simplified explanations
of things and I think that's oneof the reasons why that medical
model is so appealing and whyit was so easy for the public to
be so convinced of it so easily, because if you're saying, you
know, just, it's like havingdiabetes and the medications

(27:40):
like insulin, that's a veryappealing message and it also
helps people.
I think a lot of times we liketo feel that we're not
responsible, because that would.
You know, being responsible forour emotions and being
responsible for how we handlelife can feel heavy, especially
when you're struggling, you know, emotionally and mentally.
But I feel like the problemthat that has created is like

(28:03):
you talk about in your book.
We are super complex beings.
Our brains are very complex,the way that we handle life.
There are so many differentvariables that play into it and
it's not so simple.
It isn't as simple as taking apill.
It isn't as simple as sayingthat you've got to.
You know, in fact, one of thethings that you're, I think you
quote one of your colleagues inhere saying that he's convinced

(28:25):
that depression has nothing todo with the brain.
When I read that, I thoughtthat's a really interesting
insight, like I had never eventhought about it that way,
because even even with all theresearch that I've done, I still
kept thinking it's part.
You know, something's going onin the brain, because that's
where all of our emotions andmental.
You know, mental reactions andcognitive.
All of that stuff is residingin our brains, in my mind.

(28:47):
But it was really interestingto think somebody who studied
this so thoroughly is startingto come to the conclusion that
maybe it's not even in the brain, maybe it's not part of brain
chemistry, maybe it's not.
You know, maybe we've got itentirely wrong the way that
we're approaching this, andlet's let's step back and take a
look at it.

Speaker 1 (29:04):
I think it depends on what you mean when you when you
say it's in the brain or it'sto do with the brain.
So obviously we need a brain tobe human and to have feelings,
including to feel depressed.
But that doesn't mean thatthere's a specific brain state

(29:25):
or chemical brain state thatequates to depression.
And I think I use this examplein the book that if we think
about the chemical state ofarousal when we get lots of
adrenaline in the system, wetalk about the fight or flight
response, don't we?
And we know that that'sassociated with the release of
adrenaline and other arousalhormones and chemicals.

(29:46):
Now that same state of arousalcan be associated with many
different emotional responses.
It can be associated with angerand aggression, it can be
associated with fear and anxietyand it can be associated with
joy or relation.
So it's not necessarily thecase that there is a one-to-one

(30:09):
relationship between a specificfeeling and a specific brain
state.
It may be and I think this ismore likely that there are
general brain states, likearousal or lack of arousal, that
can be associated with lots ofdifferent sorts of feelings.

Speaker 2 (30:29):
Well, one of the things that I was struck by is
how unscientific the approach topsychiatry seems to be lately,
in recent years, in recentdecades, because I remember
being taught the scientificmethod when I was young and that
you're supposed to come intothings with no bias.
Ideally, when you do anexperiment, you don't have any

(30:49):
specific bias, you just have aquestion in your mind.
You have a question, youdevelop a hypothesis, you design
an experiment that hopefullykeeps you know, keeps bias out
of the, out of the equation, andthen you are open to whatever
the results are.
And one of the things that Ihave noticed and I think some of
it, has to do with themessaging.
We have words like antipsychiatry.

(31:12):
If somebody is questioning isquestioning what's going on in
general, generally in psychiatry, they are, you know, it is
described, they are described asanti psychiatry.
If somebody is, you know, notresponding to drug treatment,
they are described as treatmentresistant, instead of language
describing withdrawals that itis.
They gave it a name ofdiscontinuation syndrome.

(31:32):
I feel like there's a lot oflanguage manipulation that is
designed to keep us in thismedical model and anybody who
questions the medical model ispushed to the outside and
identified and instead offeeling scientific, it feels
more like a religion to me,because it feels like a dogma,
and if you question the dogma,you are a heretic.
And so I wanted you know andyou've experienced this

(31:56):
significantly more than I havein your work and all you're
doing is just trying to presentthe facts, you're just
presenting the information.
Can you talk about what thereaction is that you've had,
especially when you wrote thepaper initially and now your
book?

Speaker 1 (32:11):
Yeah, yeah.
So just coming back to thepoint that you make about
language, though, first becauseI think that's really
interesting.
So, if we think about the termantidepressant yeah, that to me
is a very misleading termbecause we don't have drugs that
target depression.
We have no idea what's going onin the brain, if anything

(32:32):
specific, when people feeldepressed, and we have no idea
what the drugs that we callantidepressants are doing and
whether they bear anyrelationship to any of those
processes.
So to call a drug anantidepressant is really
misleading.
And on top of that, drugs thatwe call antidepressants come
from lots of different chemicalclasses and produce lots of
different sorts of effects.

(32:52):
So it's very unlikely, it seemsto me, that they could be
working on a single mechanism,if such a thing exists.
So you're absolutely right.
The problem is that so manyassumptions are embedded in the
language that we use inpsychiatry and mental health and
, as you've also noticed, Ithink the tactic of leading

(33:15):
psychiatrists is, although a lotof what passes as
evidence-based medicine,research that passes as
evidence-based is conducted, alot of randomized control trials
are done in psychiatry, um, andrating measurement scales are
used.
Whether or not it meansanything to measure an emotion

(33:36):
like depression is anotherquestion.
But there is an appearance ofscientificy because what look
like scientific studies are doneand published in scientific
journals.
But even though that is goingon, if you listen to a leading
psychiatrist talk aboutdepression or antidepressants,

(33:58):
most of what they do is justdeclare what they think.
So they will say butantidepressants work.
We know they work.
Antidepressants save lives,they say, as if these things are
completely clear andwell-established.
When they say thatantidepressants work, the

(34:19):
evidence base for that is theseplacebo controlled trials that
show very small differencesbetween antidepressants and
placebo.
That can easily be explained inother ways.
But even if you put that aside,there's no dispute that the
differences are extremely smalland probably of no clinical
significance.
And moreover, thesepronouncements that

(34:40):
antidepressants save lives,antidepressants have never been
convincingly shown to reducesuicide or reduce death rates.
And indeed the evidencesuggests that in younger people
in particular, antidepressantscan increase the risk of
suicidal behaviour slightly.

(35:01):
I don't want to overemphasisethat point, but there is fairly
consistent evidence now thatthere is an increased risk of
suicidal behaviour in youngpeople in particular who take
antidepressants.
And yet, as I've said, leadingpsychiatrists, again and again,
are on the television and theradio and everywhere making
these authoritativepronouncements, that you know

(35:24):
that, we know that these drugsare effective, we know that
depression is caused by brainchemical problems or
inflammation or some sort ofbiological abnormalities, they
say, or some sort of biologicalabnormalities, they say.
And then when you start lookingat the research in detail, it

(35:45):
doesn't support thosepronouncements at all.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
Well, and one of the things that's odd to me it's
very ironic is that often people, instead of actually addressing
the substance of what you'retalking about, so instead of
addressing the substance of yourpaper're talking about.
So, instead of addressing thesubstance of your paper and
instead of truly addressing it,the tactic seems to be to attack

(36:06):
the messenger and impugning thecharacter of the messenger and
the motives, impugning themotives.
And those of us who are tryingto help people are not getting
wealthy this way.
There are easier ways to make aliving than to go out there and
try to attack a giganticbehemoth establishment.
It's, there's a genuine desireto help people and to help

(36:29):
people.
You know, my, my experience hasbeen people will will accuse me
of being misdiagnosed, and I say, well, what constitutes it?
You know, an accurate diagnosis.
All of these diagnoses arebased solely on symptoms that
are self-reported and everysingle psychiatrist I saw over
eight psychiatrists every singleone reaffirmed my diagnosis
based on their criteria.
So you know, and when you were,I think you talk about in your

(36:54):
book that when you brought forthyour information, you were, you
know, excited at first becausepeople you know you were happy
to present the information thatyou, you know you've done a lot
of research.
You had a team of people thatwere doing all this research on
this and you were lookingforward to being able to share
this with the public.
And then, very quickly, thetide turned and you were being,

(37:15):
you know, canceled from.
You know shows were beingcanceled, you were being
impugned your character wasbeing impugned, so can you talk
about?

Speaker 1 (37:27):
like your surprise, that's the way that people
reacted.
Yeah, I mean the reaction withone of the reasons I wrote the
book Chemically Imbalanced isbecause the reaction to our
serotonin paper, our papershowing that there is no
convincing or consistentevidence to have a link between
serotonin paper, our papershowing that there is no
convincing or consistentevidence of a link between
serotonin and depression wasjust so extraordinary.

(37:47):
The members of the public wereshocked, really shocked.
Some were angry.
Some were angry with me forhaving told them that there was
no evidence to support this view, but others were angry with
their doctors for having toldthem a view that you know, that
was now revealed to not be youknow, not be a scientific

(38:10):
position, having misled themessentially.
But the reaction from thepsychiatric establishment was
really remarkable.
You know, first of all theywere saying, oh, we've known
this for years.
This isn't news, you know,don't take any notice.

(38:30):
Essentially it's not important.
We know that there's noconnection between serotonin and
depression.
And then they were saying, oh,but there is some evidence for a
connection between serotoninand depression.
And then they were saying, oh,but there is some evidence for a
connection between serotoninand depression.
And overall it seemed to me thatwhat they were trying to do was
desperately trying to getpeople to keep believing that

(38:53):
depression is a biologicalcondition.
They didn't want people toquestion that.
So they either wanted to hushup the fact that the serotonin
theory of depression has neverbeen convincingly proved or
established and just hope thatpeople would not notice, or,

(39:16):
they know, fight back and say no, you know, there is evidence
for some serotonin abnormalityand for other biological
abnormalities.
Then, as you say, you know,thrown into that mix is trying
to impugn my character, tryingto discredit the research,

(39:37):
trying to pick holes in theresearch so that people wouldn't
take it seriously, so peoplewould go on believing that
depression is a biologicalcondition.
So that's what seemed tounderpin it this desperate need
to get people to continue tobelieve in this medical view and

(39:59):
to continue to takeantidepressants.

Speaker 2 (40:02):
Well, and the irony I think I started to mention a
little bit before was is thatwe're being accused of, you know
, doing it for financial benefit, when in fact the financial
benefit is on the other side,that it is an entire system
built on and I do want to saythis an entire system built on
and I do want to say thisbecause I am not
anti-psychiatrist Like I Ireally genuinely believe most

(40:24):
people who get into psychiatrydo it to help people.
You know, it's a, it's a fieldthat is specifically trying to
help people who are in mental oremotional distress.
And so my experience with mostof my psychiatrists even though
I had a lot of really negativeexperiences with, you know,
psychiatrists not listening tome and kind of talking down to
me I genuinely believe theywanted to help me I.
So I don't want this to comeacross as me saying

(40:46):
psychiatrists are bad but thesystem itself is the problem.
And and when it is, it's kindof similar to when you you know,
when you say that it's not amedical issue, somebody who has
been treated for years can takeoffense at that, because their
identity has been kind ofwrapped up in the belief that
they have a medical conditionand that they're treating that

(41:08):
medical condition with a drugthat is supposed to benefit them
.
I think the same thing happenswith psychiatrists, where you
are questioning their validityas a medical doctor, and it's
interesting too.
One of the things that youtalked about in your book that I
found really, reallyfascinating because we're seeing
this playing out right now inour country is that one of the

(41:28):
tactics used to try anddiscredit is to ascribe a
right-wing conspiracy to yourmotives.
And it's so ironic because wehave and'm not I'm not trying to
align you with RFK, necessarily.
I don't know where you fall onthe political spectrum, but but
he he's a Democrat.
He has been a Democrat hisentire life.
He has been very left wing.

(41:48):
He's, you know, very left wingin his ideologies all the way
through, but now he's beingaccused of being right wing
because he is questioningmedical establishment.
He is questioning, you know.
One of the things that he'sbrought up is the issue with
antidepressant use in ourcountry, and he's talking about
how they are addictive andpeople are saying this is a
right wing conspiracy.

(42:09):
And it's so fascinating to methat that we have, as a society,
become so divided politicallythat all you have to say often
is it's a right wing conspiracyand people will completely
dismiss everything they have tosay because they'll just lump
them into this group of you knowright wing conspiracy, when it
actually has nothing to do withpolitics at all.

(42:30):
There is nothing to do withpolitics.
It's talking about the scienceitself.

Speaker 1 (42:34):
Yeah, I mean this is.
This is another reallyremarkable thing about the
current mental health landscape.
At the moment, when I wastraining, and probably up until
about a decade ago, the peoplewho criticized the overuse of
drugs and the medicalization ofnormal feelings and reactions to

(42:57):
life were the left.
That was a left-wing positionto critique medicalization and
criticize Big Pharma.
And suddenly now it's become aright-wing position because many
people on the left have backedaway from that and for some
reason don't want to be criticalof that position anymore.

(43:20):
So I think that's a shame,because I think we need a
left-wing critique as well as aright-wing critique, because I
don't think that demedicalisingthe care and support of people
who are in distress means thatwe should just remove everything
and, you know, leave peoplewith nothing, although I do feel

(43:42):
that what we're doing at themoment is probably more harmful
than doing nothing actually inthe long run.
So you know.
So we need a left-wing positionon this and I don't know how
the new administration will turnout in the US, but let's hope,
you know, rfk Jr certainly hassome admirable ambitions from my

(44:06):
perspective to rein in thepharmaceutical company, to make
the FDA more independent of thepharmaceutical industry and to
question, at the very leastquestion, our massive use of
antidepressants and considersome of the harms that they
cause.
All those things seem to bereally important things to do to
me.
So you know, I wish him wellwith it.

Speaker 2 (44:28):
Yeah, well, and interestingly too, one of the
things you talk about in yourbook is the marketing campaign,
essentially to try and bringpeople back into line, which is
raising awareness, bringingawareness to, and I never
recognized that growing up andin my young adult years.
We would see, you know, raisingawareness campaigns for all
kinds of stuff.

(44:49):
You know heart disease and, andyou know I can't think of all
the others.
But there, you know, there werea lot of different raising
awareness campaigns and theyoften appear to be organic in my
mind, by design, I think.
But I started questioning theraising awareness about bipolar
on social media because Ithought this isn't doing us any

(45:10):
good.
It's actually harming peoplebecause you don't raise
awareness of somebody going intoinsulin shock, right, you don't
want to raise awareness of that.
That's somebody in distress, weneed to help them.
We don't raise awareness ofsomebody having a going into
insulin shock, right, you don't?
You don't want to raiseawareness of that.
That's somebody in distress, weneed to help them.
We don't want to raiseawareness and normalize it.
You know, we don't want tonormalize these things.
We want to raise awareness sowe can help them identify what's

(45:30):
actually going on and and Ifeel like it's.
It is and bringing makingpeople who are just maybe
feeling some depression orfeeling some low, you know
difficulty in their lifeexperience and and might
otherwise be able to correct youknow course, correct on their
own.

(45:50):
It is making them think thatthey've got a medical issue that
needs drugs and I feel like itis doing tremendous harm in our
society and it is.
It is continuing to perpetuatethis idea that we've got a
medical issue at the heart ofthis.

Speaker 1 (46:04):
Yeah, so these disease awareness campaigns
started in the late 1980s andearly 1990s with the
introduction of SSRIs, and theywere funded by the
pharmaceutical industry,although some of them were run
by medical institutions fundedby the pharmaceutical industry,
although some of them were runby medical institutions.
And they basically set out tochange our intuitive

(46:29):
understanding of our feelingsand emotions and to inculcate in
the population the idea thatdistress was a medical condition
, that you should go and seeyour doctor and that you should
get a medical treatment, thatyou should go and see your
doctor and that you should get amedical treatment, particularly
a drug.
And they started off withdepression.
They ran the pharmaceuticalindustry funded campaigns like

(46:49):
the Defeat Depression campaignin the UK and various ones in
the US, and then they moved onto bipolar disorder a bit later,
in the context of marketing theatypical antipsychotics which
had come out at about the sametime as the SSRIs but had
initially been marketed atpeople with psychosis or

(47:11):
schizophrenia.
When that market was saturated,the pharmaceutical companies
looked to find another market bypersuading by, as you say,
disease awareness campaignsaround bipolar disorder, by
trying to persuade people thatthe ups and downs of life were a
medical condition, that theyneeded to go and get treatment

(47:31):
for and also to persuade peoplewho would have seen themselves
as depressed that they hadbipolar disorder.
And this was all in order tomarket antipsychotics, which has
been really really welldocumented by David Healy, among
other people and I talked aboutit in a previous book, actually
but so I think it's reallyimportant to acknowledge that

(47:56):
our current views about thenature of mental health problems
have basically been pushed intous by the pharmaceutical
industry pushed onto us by thepharmaceutical industry, so they
have deliberately changed ourminds about the nature of our
feelings and reactions to life.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
So that begs the question we have this so
integrated into our society, howdo I find our way out of this?
I've been doing a lot ofresearch on my own, just first
for my own benefit, and then, asI started helping others, I
felt like I needed more.
I needed to know more.
I didn't want to be justspeaking out of my own
experience, I wanted to speakout of research, and so the

(48:39):
books like your, this book wasreally life changing for me in a
lot of ways, because I haveI've had kind of little bits of
understanding.
But but especially anybody inthe audience that that wants to
know and understand this better,please read this book.
It is very accessible.
She's written in a way thatdoesn't you don't have to be a
medical professional, whichwhich is so helpful, because

(49:01):
I've tried to read medicalpapers before, I think, as I
mentioned to you, and I feellike I need a dictionary next to
me of medical terminologybecause it's so difficult to
read them and I don't understanda lot of what I'm reading.
But the way that you havedescribed the, you know the
testing protocols and how thedrug action works and what we do

(49:22):
know and what we don't knowabout serotonin, and all of it
is so helpful to me and hasexpanded my mind in ways that I
didn't really even understand.
I needed to be expanded.
What do we do, though?
I feel like the more Iunderstand this problem, the
bigger it seems to me, becausewe've got there's a huge
financial incentive to keep ussick.
There really is.

(49:42):
I said that to my husband as Iwas going through the healing
process and getting off thedrugs.
I wasn't needing to go to apsychiatrist any longer.
I told him one day.
I said I really feel likethere's a financial incentive to
keep me sick and I don't knowwhat to do about that.
And so what do we do?

Speaker 1 (50:04):
So there are lots of forces acting to encourage
medicalization and encouragedrug use.
As you say, there's a financialsystem that is, pharmaceutical
industry profits, but alsokeeping psychiatrists in
business and numerous otherprofessionals, of course, of
course.
And so there is a challenge,but I would just like to say,

(50:25):
compared to a couple of decadesago, we're in a so much better
place.
It is so much easier for youand I to connect, for you to
connect with other people whohave had some similar
experiences, and for us to getthe word out there.
So it may feel like an uphillbattle and it still is, but we
are making a lot more progressthan you're probably aware of.

(50:47):
I mean, you know things likethe withdrawal difficulties that
people have getting offantidepressants and the sexual
dysfunction.
I think those things may neverhave come to light a few decades
ago.
There would have been a fewlittle descriptions in the
scientific literature and theywould have just been ignored out

(51:23):
there.
That is at least available forother people.
I mean, it may take a while forthe medical profession to fully
take it on board, but at leastit's out there and available for
people to look for.
And I do think that we arehaving a bit of an impact on the
medical profession as well.
The Royal College ofPsychiatrists, for example, in
the UK invited Dr Mark Horowitz,who is a colleague of mine who

(51:45):
I write about in the book, towrite their withdrawal guidance
for people coming offantidepressants, and they've
also recently included someinformation about persistent
sexual dysfunction in theirinformation on antidepressants.
They've had to be pushed a bitby people who've had bad
experiences with these drugs,but they've listened and they

(52:07):
have at least, you know, adaptedthe information that they put
out to the public so that it'savailable to people.
So I think there is someprogress.
There's a long way to gobecause, you know, ideally I
think we need to completelydemedicalise this area.
We need to absolutely stoptelling people that you know

(52:29):
they have a medical condition,that they have a brain problem,
that they need to take a drug.
We need to have someimagination, actually, about how
to provide other forms ofsupport that get people away
from that whole idea.
We really need to have hugesort of demedicalisation
campaigns on the same scale ofthose disease awareness

(52:49):
campaigns that you know thatwere run in the past, and we
need to devise some servicesthat don't just channel people
into the medical system butthrough which people can get
some, you know, some support,some handholding, some direction
and guidance and containment.

Speaker 2 (53:07):
You know, sometimes Well, and you talk in your book,
towards the end of your book,about some of the alternative
treatments that are coming outand unfortunately, I think a lot
of those alternative treatmentsare still being influenced by
this idea of the disease in thebrain.
You know, when you talk aboutlike mushrooms and psychedelics
and those kinds of things,anytime somebody brings that to
me, I immediately tell them I amnot interested in any of that

(53:29):
because it is no different in mymind than the psychiatric drugs
.
You are using a foreignsubstance to try and alter the
brain state of something that wedon't really understand.
A foreign substance to try andalter the brain state of
something that we don't reallyunderstand and instead of
addressing depression as acondition that is reacting to
normal, you know, to lifecircumstances, we are continuing

(53:53):
to try and manipulate the brainwith foreign substances.

Speaker 1 (53:56):
So I think what's happening with psychedelics and
ketamine has been quiteinteresting because it started
off as a slightly different sortof model.
It started off as the idea thatyou could have a drug-induced
experience and throughprocessing that you might get
some insights into yourdifficulties processing that

(54:17):
with a therapist.
And that may be the case.
There may be some people whoget insights from taking
psychedelic substances.
Personally, I think you canprobably get as good insights,
probably better insights,through doing non-drug induced
activities, in that probablyhave more lasting benefit.

(54:38):
But, uh, but, but you know,nevertheless, I wouldn't,
wouldn't rule out that somepeople you know some, some
people might not have, uh,interesting or valuable
experiences.
But what we've seen is thatactually that whole idea of the
therapeutic aspect of thisexperience has gone out the
window, because one or twodrug-induced experiences with a

(55:01):
therapist is not a very goodbusiness model.
The business model has to bekeeping people coming back for
more and more and more.
So actually that's what we seehas happened with ketamine in
the US and it's happening in theUK it's not as widely available
but it is available in someservices that people are just
coming back for more becausethey're not getting any insight

(55:25):
and it's not helping, and soit's just becoming a long term
ineffective treatment, just likeantidepressants are.
And yet we haven't properlyresearched all its long term
side effects.
But at least we know fromketamine because there's a
recreational drug scene thatactually the side effects can be
horrendous.
You can get terrible bladderproblems, you can get cognitive
problems, and we shouldn't foolourselves that people taking

(55:51):
therapeutic ketamine are takingless than people who take
recreational ketamine.
Actually the doses are verysimilar.

Speaker 2 (55:57):
Yeah, well, and again it is.
To me it's like playing Russianroulette with your brain.
You know, whenever people say,well, some people get benefit
from, you know, receive benefitfrom this, I always want to know
what is the other side of that,what are the downside, what are
the potential risks?
And, you know, are we willingto play Russian roulette with
our brains?
And one of the things that wasreally life-changing for me was

(56:22):
listening to a TED Talk by DrJulia Reklitsch, who has her
field of research ismicronutrition and making sure
that your brains are getting allthe nutrients that they need to
function in a healthy way, andher approach with when it comes
to and she's a psychiatrist orstarted psychologist or
psychiatrist, I can't remember,she's a PhD, but I don't
remember what her background isbut she says psychiatric drugs

(56:44):
and these types of interventionsshould be the very last thing
that we go to.
They should be the last thingwe try, not the first thing,
because those things we knowalter the brain In ways, like
you have said and in yourresearch you've discovered, we
don't fully understand, and soit should be the last line of
defense, not the very firstthing we go to.

(57:04):
And for me, in my opinion withall the things that I've read
and this is just my opinion butI do think there is value in a
triage type situation wherethere's somebody in acute
distress, similar to whensomebody is running a super,
really, really high fever andthere is there is risk for brain
damage.
You know we want to dosomething in the short term to

(57:24):
bring that down to a safe place,so then we can address what's
causing, you know, the physicaldistress.
The same thing needs to happenfor our mental distress.
When you've got somebody who isin acute crisis, who needs some
kind of help and relief in theshort term.
I can understand very briefly,like you said, in the drug, the
drug centered model, we'resaying we're going to give you a

(57:45):
little bit of relief, but thenwe need to figure out what's
caused this distress in thefirst place and then go into a
more holistic approach.
You know a way that we'relooking at the whole person.
You know, if somebody hadinvestigated my background,
there are a number of a numberof things that were clear
sources of emotional and mentaldistress.
There was abuse, there wasbullying in my childhood.

(58:06):
There were a lot of things thatled to what I know I've heard
referred to as emotionaldysregulation, mental
dysregulation.
There was no curiosity aboutany of those things and now that
I understand, looking back, I'mlike obviously I had some
things that caused me to getinto that mental state and so I
feel like we need to.
You know, we're not throwing itall the all the way out, but it

(58:27):
needs to be a last line ofdefense or something that is
used in acute situationstemporarily, so that we can get
somebody back into a safe placewhere we can work with them.

Speaker 1 (58:36):
Yeah, and we need to understand what we're doing.
We need to understand thatwe're taking a drug that is
going to temporarily sedate andnumb someone not cure them, not
target any symptom mechanism.
And, as you say, that any drugthat enters the brain is
potentially damaging.
And most of the drugs that weprescribe for mental health

(58:59):
problems have not been aroundfor that long, we have not been
tested for long periods of times, so we really just don't
understand what the consequencesof taking them day in, day out
for months and years on endactually are.
And you know the evidence thatsome people have really really

(59:20):
terrible withdrawal experiencesthat can go on for years after
they've stopped the drug.
This evidence suggests thatthese drugs are somehow
interfering with our biologicalprocesses in a way that is very

(59:44):
harmful and not easilyreversible.

Speaker 2 (59:47):
Yeah, I could talk to you for hours.
I am so grateful for all thework that you're doing, and I
want to highly recommend to myaudience that they read this
book.
Chemically Imbalanced theMaking and Unmaking of the
Serotonin Myth is so brilliantlywritten and it's very
accessible.
It is not something that youhave to be a medical
professional to understand,which I'm so grateful for, and

(01:00:09):
there's so much more in thisbook that we haven't even been
able to discuss, because you dosuch a thorough job of
describing the problem.
You know, helping us tounderstand the science behind it
, you know some of the politicsbehind it and a lot of the
things, maybe, that aremotivating the perpetuation of
this system.
And so is there any last wordsfor our audience, anything that

(01:00:29):
you want to leave us with?

Speaker 1 (01:00:34):
Question everything, do your own research and be
hopeful.

Speaker 2 (01:00:40):
Yeah, there is tremendous hope and I'm so
grateful we have.
I'm so thankful that we havepsychiatrists like you that are
willing to really put thepatient first, put us first and
and look for what is going to bebest for the person who is
being helped.
And that's what I feel likeyou're doing is.
You are you want to make surethat people have the information
at their you know that isaccessible, so that they can

(01:01:02):
make their own decisions abouthow they want to take care of
their mental health.
And, like I said at thebeginning, it's.
It is a brilliant thing that wehave such a highly specialized
society in some ways, because wedo have people we can go to for
help, but it has also caused usto feel like we can't trust
ourselves.
You know that we aren't theexperts, so we don't know.
But books like this make itpossible for us to become more

(01:01:23):
informed personally so that wecan make more wise decisions
about our own mental andemotional health.

Speaker 1 (01:01:30):
That was really well put, Michelle, and exactly what
I was trying to do.

Speaker 2 (01:01:34):
Wonderful.
Thank you so much.
I will make sure that this bookis linked in the show notes.
If somebody wants to connectwith you, how can they do that?

Speaker 1 (01:01:42):
I've got a website, joanna Moncriefcom.
I'm on X and B Sky B, and ifyou want to find my email, you
just Google it, I'm sure Perfect.

Speaker 2 (01:01:54):
Thank you so much.
I'll make sure all of those arelinked in the show notes.
And thank you again for being aguest today.
We really appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (01:02:00):
Thank you, michelle, it was a pleasure.

Speaker 2 (01:02:02):
Until next time, upsiders.
Hey, thanks for joining ustoday.
If you're ready to start onyour path to wellness with
bipolar, go to myupsideofdowncomand get your free mood cycle
survival guide four steps tosuccessfully navigate bipolar

(01:02:23):
mood swings.
If you're ready for more, checkout the map to wellness.
Until next time, upsiders.