All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 5, 2025 - Epoch Times
52:07
Is There a Link Between Mass Shootings and SSRIs?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
A lot of people have this idea that antidepressants, they're fixing something, you know, kind of like a type 1 diabetic takes insulin, restoring them to a normal state.
That's not true.
Over 35 million people in America take antidepressants, but many are not being told about the long-term side effects of these drugs, says psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Witt-During.
He's the founder of the TAPER Clinic, which treats severe withdrawal symptoms and helps people safely get off of psychiatric medications.
There is a group of people that when you bring them off that medication over two months, that's what I would say is a fast taper, they will actually develop very severe withdrawal symptoms that do not get better.
They get back on the drug, but the symptoms don't go away.
How do antidepressants actually work?
And what kinds of side effects can they have?
What we know is that many of the mass shooters are exposed to antidepressants.
In the case of some who are trans, there's also hormone medications as well, which can have a mood destabilizing effect.
This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Yanya Kellek.
Dr. Joseph Witt-Düring, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
Glad to be back.
So what's the bottom line?
We keep hearing about SSRIs, we keep hearing about antidepressants, that they're maybe not effective, not working, but then there's lots of studies that show that they do have a positive effect.
What's the bottom line?
So it really comes down to the definition.
What does it really mean to say that this medication works?
And I think to answer that question, you really have to look at the chemical imbalance theory because a lot of people have this idea that antidepressants, they're fixing something, you know, kind of like a type 1 diabetic takes insulin.
So if it's okay, I'd like to talk a little bit about that.
Yeah, please.
So back in the 1950s, antidepressants emerged onto the market for the first time.
And the way they were discovered was in tuberculosis patients.
There was a new drug called iproniazid and they noticed that when they gave it to those TB patients, they looked less depressed.
They started to appear more energized.
And so someone noticed this and said, well, let's try this with patients who have depression.
And they noticed that that effect translated.
These depressed patients became more lively.
Now, as they discovered more about this drug and other antidepressants that were emerging at the time, they found that they were actually increasing monoamines, which is a name that we give to serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine.
And so what the original researchers reasoned was that maybe depression is actually caused by deficits of those chemicals.
And the reason these drugs are working is that they're correcting that.
Now, I don't really buy that because I think the alternative explanation is that you're giving someone a drug that's having a drug effect and it's masking it.
You don't have to postulate that the person is depressed because they were lacking those chemicals.
But that ended up being a very commercially important narrative for drug companies.
And so they kind of ran with this idea that the antidepressants were fixing an underlying thing because it's better PR to say that they're fixing a medical condition that you have than to actually confront the other side, which is that you are taking a drug that has a drug effect that is masking your symptoms.
Most people feel uncomfortable about that because they start to think, well, I don't want to mask symptoms.
I don't want to sweep real problems under the rug.
And so that's where this idea of the chemical imbalance comes from.
Now, coming back to your original question about like, do they work?
So a lot of people think that they work in that they are fixing this imbalance, they are restoring them to a normal state.
That's not true.
There's never been any evidence that there's been a chemical imbalance.
I mean, we've looked at the CSF, which is the cerebral spinal fluid.
We've looked at metabolites for serotonin.
We've done post-mortem autopsies on the brains to look at receptors for serotonin.
And we've also done brain scans.
We've never found a chemical imbalance.
So we've never found depression connected with a chemical imbalance in the brain.
That's the bottom line.
That is the bottom line.
Yeah.
There is no way to differentiate patients who are depressed from those who are not depressed using any objective markers.
And that's why when you go and see a psychiatrist or a family medicine doctor, they're not doing blood tests.
They're not scanning your brain.
They're essentially just doing a checklist.
These are not biologically grounded conditions.
And so the idea that you're taking a drug that is going to fix that chemical imbalance has no legs underneath it because we haven't even found it.
There's nothing there.
But what the drugs are doing and what they are doing fairly consistently for people is inducing a drug effect.
And if we're going to go with the most common class of antidepressants, which is the SSRIs, what that effect typically is, is one of emotional numbing or emotional constriction, we say.
And that can be experienced as very therapeutic for some people.
If you are in a state where you're having a lot of anxiety and you take a drug and it kind of constricts that in, it sort of numbs that out, you're going to feel better.
And if you're highly suicidal, you might even say that that drug saved your life.
And so I think that, yes, these drugs do work.
They consistently produce this effect and that can be experienced as therapeutic for some people.
But for others, and this is why oftentimes you'll never hear psychiatrists or the media kind of talk about them as having a drug effect.
But for some issues, numbing someone out and masking those problems is actually going to make them worse because they need to actually focus on why they're unhappy instead of just like masking them with the drug.
So the bottom line is basically it's complicated.
Yeah, yeah.
It's a lot easier of a narrative to kind of sell like you have a chemical imbalance, you have a problem, take this drug, it's going to kind of pick it up to a place that that's normal.
Nothing to see here.
But the truth is that depression is so much more complicated than that.
You know, you can have problems with your relationships, with work, your physical health can sometimes result in depression.
And if you're not addressing those things and you're just kind of masking the symptoms with a drug, sure, you're going to feel better.
You could say that it's working.
You could say that it's helping, but it's not actually getting to the underlying reasons.
And this is really important because over time, these drugs actually wear off.
People become tolerant to them.
And then so you can get into a situation where you're sort of maxed out on the dose of the drug.
It's wearing off.
You're not experiencing that therapeutic effect anymore.
And you still have all of those problems that led you to getting on the drug in the first place.
And this is what drives polypharmacy.
The tolerance, they need to start another drug, it wears off, and they start another one.
And this is why you hear that some people are on four, five, six medications.
Now they're going for things like ECT and TMS.
It's not really a sustainable long-term strategy for many people.
So polypharmacy that's taking multiple drugs to deal with a condition, and you're saying often that's because of tolerance that's developed.
What about ECT and the other acronym you mentioned?
Yeah, so ECT, electroconvulsive therapy, which is shock therapy.
TMS is transcranial magnetic stimulation.
And these are psychiatric interventions that they're kind of the end-of-the-line treatments.
After you've used the medications, they're sort of like this advanced therapy.
ECT has a lot more side effects.
There's cognitive damage that can emerge from it.
But ultimately, people will end up there after they've been on five different medications and they've worn off.
And one of the really sad things about what I'm seeing in my field right now is that there's some dishonesty when it comes to explaining to patients why all of these medications aren't working.
Because I think an honest response would be, yes, this is the understandable and predictable outcome of masking symptoms with a drug effect that your body is adapting to, and here we are.
But many patients are told that, well, you have treatment-resistant depression, your mental illness is evolving, you know, you've developed a new condition, and so they don't really tell the patients honestly what's happened, and then they just keep on stacking on treatments when the solution might actually be to come off of them and find another approach.
So right now, probably the last thing you want to be seeing is a pitch from Jan, but I want to encourage you to subscribe to the Epoch Times.
It is how we keep the lights on.
It is how we keep these interviews coming.
Just hit the link below and subscribe to the Epoch Times.
Just a little bit about electroconvulsive therapy and TMS.
From what I understand, there are campaigns to get rid of electroconvulsive therapy itself.
Is it something that actually helps people?
This is basically the same question as with SSRIs.
And I guess, is it for depression?
Is it for other conditions?
So there's two main areas where people use ECT.
So the first one is depression.
And the second one is catatonia.
And catatonia is a state of, it's a very severe psychiatric state where people can sometimes stop moving, they stop eating, and they enter kind of a frozen state.
Now, for catatonia, ECT can be very effective in breaking people out of that.
So I want to put that aside.
I do think there is a use for ECT for patients with catatonia that don't respond to other things.
But where it's used mostly is in depression, in treatment-resistant depression.
And the reason that it's so controversial is that it can cause it can cause a lot of memory impairment.
After you get ECT, you can forget kind of large portions of your life.
They call it retrograde amnesia.
And that can be very devastating for some people.
Some people even report that they have difficulty remembering things going forward.
And the issue and why this has become so controversial is that it's often downplayed.
The psychiatric establishment has said, you know, ECT, it's well tolerated, there's not a lot of side effects.
But there's actually a very large group of people out there who are saying, no, I actually have enduring problems with my memory after this.
Now, coming back to the question of does it work?
It does work for some people, and it will kind of break them out of the depressive cycle.
The issue is, is that it's being used on a lot of patients whose problems aren't actually, you know, this depression or this treatment-resistant depression.
Their issues are really drug-induced.
You know, they're on a cocktail of five different medications that have worn off, they're causing side effects.
And instead of the doctors kind of looking at that and seeing it in that context, they're very quick to say, no, you just have severe depression.
They don't look at the medications and start taking them off and seeing if the person gets better.
So that's what I think is going on with ECT.
And before I ask you about TMS, because I'm also, that's one that I'm not familiar with, actually, a very influential book in my childhood or I guess young adult years was a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which is a book where it's precisely a guy is with his son and he's had ECT done and he has retrograde amnesia and he's trying to figure out who he was on this trip.
So I'm very familiar with this.
It was actually quite an influential book in a lot of ways for me.
But what about this TMS?
TMS is like baby ECT.
It's actually a lot less harmful on average and there's less controversy about it.
It's essentially a large magnet that sends pulses into the brain that disrupt the magnetic fields.
As opposed to electric shocks, as opposed to sending a direct current through the brain and inducing a seizure, because that's what happens in ECT.
Patients are awake when they get TMS.
It's less effective than ECT, but it also causes less side effects.
And I'd say there's much less controversy around that treatment.
I want to come back to your work.
So your work is focused a lot on helping people come off of these psychiatric drug cocktails.
And I think as we're starting to talk about that, I want to mention that it's incredibly important for people to do it properly with help.
It needs to be done slowly.
It needs to be done with support because sometimes cutting them off very quickly, which some people might be tempted to do if they realize that those drugs might be actually now the problem, it can cause its own suite of problems.
Yes. If you could just speak to that a little bit.
Yeah.
So it's an area where there is some nuance is needed.
Now, so I work in, it's a specialty practice.
People come and find me after they've had difficulty coming off their medications.
Now, I want you to imagine that, let's say you've been on an antidepressant or something like Xanax or Clonopen for several years.
You know, that's a lot of Americans.
Quite a large group of them can actually stop these drugs pretty quickly.
Within a couple of months, they have really nasty withdrawal, but then they kind of pull through it and things normalize for them.
They move on with their life.
And withdrawal is never really a big issue for them.
I would say that they have very healthy, elastic brains.
There's something just about them that allowed them to adapt to coming off that drug really quickly, readapt.
Now, what I focus on in my work is a smaller piece of that pie.
There is a group of people that when you bring them off that medication over two months, that's what I would say is a fast taper.
And that's really common for a lot of family doctors and psychiatrists.
They will actually develop very severe withdrawal symptoms that do not get better.
Well, they'll develop very serious withdrawal symptoms that don't get better in that timeframe.
Now, there's two really important things that most people need to be aware of here.
The first thing is that if that happens to you and you don't have one of these very elastic brains that can readapt quickly and you get through it, your doctor will tell you sometimes that, well, this is unexpected.
I've been taught that you can taper people in two months, that the withdrawal is mild, that it's going to go away.
And because that hasn't happened with you, this is proof that your underlying condition is coming back.
And this means that you need the drug.
And so they'll put the patient back on the drug.
And this person essentially ends up on an unwanted medication potentially indefinitely, afraid that they're unable to come off.
And so that's happening with a lot of people.
Now, the other area, which is even less common, but it's very important, is that some patients, when you pull them off the medications too quickly, particularly antidepressants and benzos, they develop a condition called protracted withdrawal.
And probably the best way to describe this is just to tell you what it's like for a patient.
So you go in and see your doctor and you're coming off Xanax or Clonop, and these are really common sedatives.
Your doctor pulls you off pretty quickly, or maybe you do it yourself, and you end up with a lot of withdrawal.
You're anxious, you can't sleep, your ears are ringing, all pretty normal stuff.
One month goes by, two months go by, and you're still feeling unwell, and you're white-knucking it.
You say, you know, if I just hang on long enough, I'm going to get through this, and I don't want to give up.
Three months goes by, it's still there.
And then you say, you know what, this is too much.
I want to get back on the drug.
I can't deal with this.
I'm going to figure out another way off.
They get back on the drug, but the symptoms don't go away.
And so then you have a person who essentially has severe anxiety, brain fog, earring, kind of a whole host of neurological problems.
That person has actually experienced a form of brain damage.
And that's really what I focus on in my practice is this small group of people who come off whose nervous systems become incredibly sensitized.
And for them, it usually takes them about 18 months to two years to recover.
Sometimes it's even years after.
It's like you've had a concussion.
And that has been really important for me because it's actually changed the way I practice.
I now recommend to anyone that I talk about, that I talk to, that you have to come off these medications in a controlled way.
You need to do it gradually because severe withdrawal for some people, and we cannot predict who they are, can actually cause this type of injury, which is very disruptive to their lives.
What percentage of people are not the sort of the neuroplastic type that can come off these common sedatives in a couple of months?
No one has ever studied that, but I will say I think it is a small fraction of people.
I think it's probably 5% of people, 5-10%, who have the protracted withdrawal.
Maybe it's like I think 40% of people will have a lot of difficulty and may not be able to come off that quickly without severe symptoms.
But the people who actually get hurt, that's really small.
Now, I don't want to diminish the problem because even if I say it's a small fraction of them, there's millions of people dealing with this problem.
You know, when we have 15% of the American population taking antidepressants and worldwide, that's an enormous amount.
And when you go online, you can go to places like surviving antidepressants, different online forums, Facebook groups.
That's where these folks are.
And there's hundreds of thousands of people in these forums supporting each other as they're going through this.
So it's not common, but it is a big public health issue.
The other dimension that we haven't talked about yet is the side effects, which I understand often people coming into using these drugs are not aware of.
And I'm not talking about the sedatives, but I'm talking about the SSRI Antidepressants.
So the side effect issue, if I were to list the ones that I'm most concerned about, and there's a lot, so I'm going to move fairly quickly on this.
The first one is something that everyone should be aware of, and that is the risk of actually not dealing with the real problem.
Because if you go and see a doctor and they're just like, hey, Jan, you have major depressive disorder, take this medication.
But actually, maybe there was some issue with your relationships or your work or something like that.
You're distracted.
You now think I'm going to understand these problems as coming from my brain.
And you miss the opportunity of actually addressing real issues in your life.
And so they fester.
That's the main thing that I really worry about.
Now, there's some other issues which are less common but important.
And so one of them is behavioral changes.
And so the ways these have turned up in the media is really the issue of drug-induced suicide and drug-induced homicide.
And so that is, you know, I'm not going to say that that's a common issue, but it's something that people need to be aware of.
And they kind of have similar mechanisms, which I want to go into.
So, you know, as I mentioned before, these drugs, the SSRIs, generally have like a blunting and constricting effect.
But all drugs, you know, recreational and otherwise, there can be a group of people who will have a paradoxical, it'll have a paradoxical effect on.
You know, the example I like to use is you could have 10 people sitting around smoking some cannabis, nine people are giggling and having a good time, and you get one person who becomes paranoid.
You know, there's just something unique about that person's, you know, their brain and their genetics that they have that bad reaction.
Now, if we're talking about suicide, if you get someone who is already depressed and then you expose them to a medication and they have one of these paradoxical reactions, you can actually make them worse.
You can kind of tip them into actually acting on those behaviors.
So not only are they depressed and suicidal in the first place, now they become more depressed, more agitated, more impulsive, very blunted and disconnected.
They're not having a therapeutic experience on it.
And so they may impulsively end up taking their life because of the medication.
And this actually happened recently in a case I read about, a young man called Bryson Burks.
He was 20 years old.
He had a football injury.
Now, he was never depressed before, but his doctor put him on three antidepressants for pain.
And he took them for several months while he was recovering.
And when he healed, he came off of them.
And during that withdrawal process, he became unstable and he actually took his life.
And his mom has been now speaking out about the risks of coming off these medications because it was a completely avoidable death.
So in this case, if he had come off them slower or he had supervision.
What I'm getting at is it's avoidable how?
So the symptoms have to do with coming off the medication too quickly.
If you do a staggered approach of these meds, you drop 10% or 15% and then you wait a short period of time, then you do it again, you'll be much more in control.
And so some withdrawal is inevitable when you're coming off these medications.
But you want to keep it in that mild to moderate range of symptoms where you're still functioning well.
You need to avoid severe withdrawal symptoms where you can become unstable.
Now, what I read about this case, and I don't have all the details, is that he came off three medications in three weeks.
And that is a lot, even if you've only been on the medications for several months.
And so it was likely he was pulled off rapidly and essentially went into severe withdrawal and did something he never would have done if he wasn't in that state.
And then what about homicide?
Now, this is a very controversial area that does not get a lot of coverage.
And this has turned up in a lot of discussions about school shootings, actually.
They noticed that school shooters are taking SSRIs.
And so I want to unpack that.
But I want to start by saying this.
I'm not trying to say that every single school shooter or mass shooting event is due to SSRIs.
I think clearly it's a multi-factorial problem.
I think we have issues with social contagion that spurs this on.
I also think we have to be real.
We have a lot of firearms in this country.
And because of that, if someone's having an adverse behavioral reaction to a medication, you can grab a gun.
If there's not guns around, you grab a knife, but obviously a gun is a more deadly weapon and it can cause more harm.
That said, the role that these antidepressants play has to be considered.
And I want to talk a little bit about the drug labels quickly before I go on to this, because I know some people they hear this and they go, this is quackery.
There can't be a link here.
If you just look at the drug labels for Adderall and Ritalin, in the warnings and precautions, it already lists aggression and hostility.
This is where they put the most important risks.
If you look at SSRIs, it already lists there in the label that they increase the risk of suicidal behavior.
It lists hostility, agitation, and violence.
If you look at Abilify, which is an antipsychotic, homicidal ideation is already in there.
And so what I want people to be aware of who are listening to this is these risks are actually already in the drug labels from the manufacturers.
Now the question is, okay, sure, maybe there's some violence, maybe you can have homicidal ideation, but can this actually, you know, has this been linked to actual homicides?
And time and time again, we've seen this go through the court system, and judges and juries have found that this has been involved.
And perhaps the most well-known case of this was a case in Wyoming, and it involved a gentleman called Don Schell.
He was an older man, and he had been exposed to Prozac in the past, an SSRI, and he had an agitated response to it, and they stopped it quickly.
His next doctor, who did not know that he had that history in the past, gave him a drug called Paxil, which is an SSRI.
Now, this shouldn't have happened given he already had a bad experience to the same drug class.
And so Don's new doctor put him on Paxil, and within a week, he killed his wife, he killed his daughter, and he killed his granddaughter, and then he shot himself.
I mean, an unspeakable tragedy for the family.
Now, the surviving son-in-law, his daughter's husband and the father of the grandchild that he lost, brought suit against Smith Klein.
This is before GSK had formed.
And this was heard out before a jury in Wyoming, and they ruled in favor of Tobin.
That was the name of the son-in-law who survived.
He was given a million-dollar verdict.
It was for failure to warn.
Smith Klein appealed it.
It did not change the verdict.
And so we already have court cases where judges, juries have heard the information and said, you know, if not for the drug, this wouldn't have happened.
The same thing happened in Australia.
A man strangled and killed his wife during a bad reaction to Paxil again.
And the judge ruled there as well.
If not for the drug, this wouldn't have happened.
And there's been many other cases that have been described in a paper by David Healy, who really is the big expert on this, called Antidepressants and Violence, Intersection with the Law.
And so this is already happening.
I know we don't like to talk about it in the media.
It's something that's very suppressed.
But the courts are already dealing with this, and they are finding that these drugs are playing a role.
I often hear about possible SSRI involvement in shootings, but typically we hear about this with respect to mass shootings.
And so is there any relationship that's been drawn there?
So perhaps the most well-known case when it comes to mass shootings was a case that was in Louisville, Kentucky, that involved a gentleman called, I think it was Wesbecker was his name.
And he went into his place of work, I think it was a paper printing factory, and he killed several people with a firearm.
This case is a little bit complicated, though.
There were multiple lawsuits about Prozac and violence at the time.
And this was the first one that went forward.
But before it went to verdict, it was settled out of court.
So we never really had a jury rule on it.
But many people thought that the drug was involved.
What we know is that many of the mass shooters are exposed to antidepressants.
In the case of some who are trans, there's also hormone medications as well, which can have a mood destabilizing effect.
And so there is potential there that you get someone who is already unhappy and you put them on a medication that's known in rare instances to cause these issues.
That can lead to or precipitate violence.
Now, the problem is that we're really not looking at it.
And it's very rare to evaluate someone who's had, who does something like this because they usually take their life.
The only case that I've really heard of recently where we were able to interview someone where it looked like there was a relationship was the Aurora shooting.
I think it may have been 12 people were killed in Colorado.
It was the Batman shooting where James Holmes dressed up as the Joker, I believe, and he murdered a lot of people there.
Now, there were multiple forensic experts that ended up interviewing him.
And one of them, David Healy, he believed that if not for the Zoloft, this would not have happened.
And the way that he kind of pieced that together was that he noticed that when James went up on the dose, which is commonly the time that people become destabilized, he had a clear behavioral change.
He started to send flirtatious messages to his roommates, which was a very big change from a very reserved, quiet, sort of nerdy guy.
He ends up dying his hair red as well.
And his behavior markedly changes.
And then three weeks later, he ends up doing this terrible mass shooting.
And so what happened there?
Well, it looks like it induced a manic episode.
Now, the defense actually chose not to run with that story.
Not really sure why, but I think it has to do, again, with the death penalty was on the table.
If there was a whiff that we're trying to look for something exculpatory, that might not go down that well.
And so they actually didn't use it, but the whole case was described really well in the BBC documentary, A Prescription for Murder.
And they actually go through all of the details.
If someone's really interested in that, it's a great watch.
You can just Google it.
But to me, I thought that was a very compelling temporal relationship between increasing the dose, having a clear behavioral change, and then shortly thereafter committing a mass shooting.
The reason why it's actually so important to look at this is because people are afraid to.
And I'm going to posit a little bit about the psychology of this.
So if you're involved, if you're the surviving family member and a school shooting has happened in your town and several people have died, I actually think there is tremendous pressure on you to just want this to go away.
I mean, it's such an unspeakable tragedy that to start saying, hey, you know, I think a drug was involved.
I actually don't think the person did this on purpose.
I think they were under the influence.
People aren't going to go there.
I mean, it might be right, but I can see that there is a lot of pressure on them.
And this is why it's so important for governments to start looking into this because it can actually change things.
Now, I want to unpack that a little bit.
If we started looking into these mass, these mass shooting events and actually kind of, even if the family doesn't want to talk about it, investigating it, talking to the surviving family members, okay, were they on a medication?
Had they had any dose changes?
Did you notice any changes in their behavior recently?
You know, if yes, were there any alternative explanations?
Were they using drugs or anything otherwise?
Because if we're finding that these rare events that happen on these medications are actually a part of this, as a country, we might decide that when we put someone on an SSRI, we say, hey, I really want a spouse, a family member, or a friend here, so I can say, in very rare instances, these may lead to behavioral changes that can sometimes result in violence.
Over the next month, I just want you to check in on this person.
If you think that there's any changes, call me immediately and let's talk about it.
Because these drugs are often given out almost in like these five-minute appointments with family medicine doctors, and you don't know if that person's really being monitored.
And so it can lead to better informed consent.
It can lead to having important conversations with family members about supervision.
And that's really what I hope is going to happen because in Tennessee, the governor, Bill Lee, actually, with bipartisan support, was able to get a bill through recently to look into the role of psychotropics in mass shootings.
And so they're actually finally going to investigate this instead of just trying to move on from these tragedies.
You can imagine there's a lot of, you know, there's, I think, a lot of reasons why in the past people may have wanted to move on.
Sometimes there's family members not wanting to go there.
Then there's, you know, the potential for abusing that.
Family member could also not want to believe that their son or daughter could do this at all.
So they may want to blame the drug, the opposite situation.
And then, of course, there's the corporate interest of not being implicated in anything like this.
So there's a whole lot of strong interests at play here.
And then there's this intimidation that I see happen just in general when it comes to criticizing psychiatric medications.
Media companies, they're not going to want to talk about it because when they do, you get groups like you get these faux grassroots patient organizations like NAMI, Depression Bipolar Support Alliance, these groups that are essentially propped up by pharmaceutical funding.
And people don't realize this, these patient advocacy groups.
Anytime the media comes out with a critical story, they get calls, hey, this is stigmatizing our patient population.
You're being harmful.
You're scaring people away from life-saving drugs.
They reach out to other reporters.
They say, Epoch Times or whoever is picking this up, they're so dangerous.
And they don't want that kind of pressure.
And so it creates this feeling as if this is what we believe.
These drugs could never do it.
And to even bring it up is actually dangerous.
You're a dangerous person.
But that is clearly serving a commercial interest there.
And that intimidation for a long time has actually worked.
Media companies are not interested in covering the other side of the story because they think it's compassionate in some way to the people who take the medications.
But that's really, I think it's really a cover for a commercial motive that is shaping things.
Presumably, there's all sorts of patient advocacy organizations, right?
Not necessarily ones that are all, let's say, pharma involved.
Yeah.
So what about the other ones?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, it comes down to money and like how big your microphone is.
So you can have like mental illness is so complicated, right?
Like imagine a spectrum.
On the one hand, you have some people who are just like, these drugs, they're always safe and they never have any risks and we really ought to use them.
And then on the other side is, you know, we ought to be really careful about these medications.
There's a lot that can go wrong.
I think about the pharmaceutical company as almost like a gardener with like a water spigot, with a watering spigot.
You get to just kind of survey all of the different people out there and their opinions and you can say, these guys, these are the people who align with my opinion or this celebrity with this story or this group.
We're just going to pour water on them.
We're going to help them grow.
We're going to develop them.
We're going to help them with their PR.
We're going to connect them with journalists.
They use their financial resources to platform a certain perspective which helps them.
Because you're right, there are other groups out there, but you never hear about them because they're not financially resourced in the same way as a group that goes along with the agenda of these companies.
Interesting.
So you used to be in the FDA.
Tell me what you did.
So I was a medical officer in the division of psychiatry.
And so my role was to review clinical trial dossiers to get drugs onto the market.
And it was also to review emerging safety problems.
And so what made you leave?
Yeah.
Presumably you took a pay cut.
When you went solo, I mean.
So I, you know, I actually, it was the opposite.
I was actually seduced into the pharmaceutical industry, which is another big issue.
And so I actually tripled my salary when I left the FDA.
I was still kind of confused in my career.
And so I was at the FDA, and I mean, we can talk about the problems there, but I ended up going into the pharmaceutical industry as a drug safety person, and that was my last stop.
I kind of made it there for about a year, and eventually I said, I can't be a part of this.
You know, I was able to sort of suspend my suspicions that there were problems with psychiatric medications up until this point.
But then when you, it's like going into the factory and seeing how the sausage is made.
When I actually got to see the evidence base underlying these medications, I realized that I believe I'm participating in one of the biggest scams of the 21st century when it comes to just the over-prescribing of these medications.
And so I had to get out.
I could not be there anymore.
Okay, fascinating.
Because you said over-prescribing.
Again, you're not saying that they don't work at all.
You're saying that they're used way too much.
Correct.
Yeah.
And we tell people incorrect things about the medications.
For instance, something I was always told as a medical student and trainee is, don't worry about the antidepressants.
They're safe and effective.
You know, they're approved by the FDA.
These things work.
When I went there, what I learned was they were actually leaving out a really important piece of information, which was, yeah, for the 12 weeks that they're studied for.
And I mean, that's a whopper.
I mean, if you think that half of the people on antidepressants are on them for five years or longer, that's important for people to know that these drugs really aren't studied that long.
And so I learnt that when I went there, that there's never been a randomized placebo-controlled trial that has gone longer than 12 months.
And I was also learning about all these other side effects, you know, things I talked to you about before, like post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, the fact that these medications actually make some people worse in the long run.
They cause something called tardide dysphoria.
It's where you're fatigued and you have brain fog and you have low motivation.
And so if people actually knew that the drugs were none of none of them, the SSRIs have been studied longer than a year, that it's quite easy to see that people develop tolerance to them and they wear off over time, and that there's actually these, you know, they're uncommon, but they're extremely important side effects that can have life-changing ramifications.
I believe that 90% plus people would say, you know, I don't want to take that risk.
This doesn't seem like a great strategy.
And then they would start looking for other ways of working on their mental health.
Well, and maybe I think going back to something you mentioned, they might feel compelled to deal with the underlying problem potentially in their life and address that or something.
I think that's what you're alluding to here, right?
Exactly.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You went back to the FDA recently.
You were on a panel.
What was it like?
So it was really heartwarming and it made me very happy.
Now, let me unpack that a little.
So I was there to talk about the risks to children exposed to SSRI and antidepressant medications in utero.
So when the mom is pregnant with them.
And quick summary of that is that most women are told that there's nothing to worry about when you take a medication when the baby is growing, when you're pregnant with the child.
That is not the case.
We actually have 12 different MRI studies that show structural and functional changes in the babies who are exposed.
We have some quite concerning animal studies that show that there's a higher rate of autistic-like behaviors and also decreased sexual interest in rodents who are exposed growing up.
And really the message when we went there is that moms should hear this.
They should hear that there are some signals that there could be changes.
We're seeing it in the animal studies.
It's something that you need to be aware of.
Make sure you really need these drugs before you get on them.
And so that was the message.
We got slaughtered by the mainstream media afterwards, essentially for, again, you know, the same thing.
I mean, we're scaring people away from medications.
But they never really engaged with any of the evidence or the points that we made.
Now, the reason why I was so happy about this was it signaled a real change at the FDA.
The last time I was there in 2020 when I was working, I felt like the agency was acting more like advocates for psychiatric medications.
Psychiatrists before really, they had become so fixed on this idea that if you talk about the risks of these medications, you're going to scare people away.
And that had really permeated the FDA.
The reason why this was so different was that we were invited there by Marty Makari and his leadership team to actually address a serious issue.
And so it felt like there's, you know, with the Maha movement and Bobby and him putting in people that are in line with his agenda, that the agency is actually taking some of these serious risks.
They're taking them seriously again.
And they're wanting to talk about them.
It was a really positive experience for me.
What about in the aftermath?
Yes, you were criticized in a number of legacy media.
What about in terms of patients or patient advocates?
Or what was the reaction?
I mean, the reaction has been amazing.
Myself and other panel members like Adam Urado, we've been making our way through alternative media sources, whether it's been podcasts, where people are interested in getting this message out.
And so it put this issue on the map and people have been very interested in it and more people are talking about it.
Over the last few decades, the use of these drugs has grown massively, I think would be fair to say.
Is that still continuing?
Does it make sense to continue that?
Where do you think things should go from here, given what we know today?
I think we need to really question what we're doing.
I mean, the use of antidepressants has gone up five-fold since the early 90s.
That's when Prozac entered the market.
Since then, teen suicide, suicide, disability from mental health diagnoses has all gone up about 50%.
We are not heading in the right direction with the way we are treating mental health problems.
I think we need to look at that and notice it.
Now, in my psychiatry circles, what people say is, well, mental health is getting worse for other reasons, and these drugs are a dam sort of stemming the tide of overflowing mental health problems.
Instead of actually considering that maybe this strategy doesn't work, you know, maybe treating everyone with anxiety and depression with these medications.
And this is 80% of mental health visits.
It's for depression and anxiety, not bipolar and schizophrenia.
Most people are coming with these issues.
Maybe we need to look at, does this really work when people come in with these problems to give them medications instead of really understanding their lives and helping them fix it?
I mean, I would love to see people dive into that problem more because I don't think what we're doing is leading to better mental health outcomes.
So as we finish up, what do psychiatrists that you think are on the right track do?
Like what's in their sort of arsenal of tools when someone comes in in this situation?
Well, I want to talk about what I think things should be like because right now, most psychiatric meds are handed out by family medicine doctors, gynecologists, and people on the front lines.
So these professionals, because of our insurance system, which really pushes people towards shorter visits, that's how we're incentivized to kind of churn through people.
We're not incentivized to get people better.
The more people we see in the less amount of time, the more we make.
And so I feel for my colleagues who are in this system and they want genuinely to help people and they think they're helping people because that's what they've heard.
We need to find a way to change the system so that we can actually help people in more sustainable ways.
Now, what might that look like?
And these are the things that I think about a lot.
Embedded in primary care, we need to have a curriculum and also some groups about satisfying relationships, about finding meaning, whether it's through work, your faith, or your community.
We need to have education about physical health, whether it's moving your body, good nutrition as well, and also on substance use disorder.
I think those four things are the main areas.
And I think if we can have a curriculum around that where people can watch, they can become educated on some basic knowledge of these four major pillars that really drive a lot of anxiety and depression.
And then they can meet in groups to kind of go through this content and to talk to the professionals, we can actually start to really fix some of these major problems.
And I would love to see a family medicine doctor talk with a patient and they say, well, you know, I'm having relationship problems.
I'm having some health issues.
And they go, well, don't worry, we've got something for you.
I want you to do this assessment.
And then on Tuesday night, you can come in here and you can meet with one of our professionals.
We're going to start teaching you about this.
And that will take the pressure off the family doctor to say, hey, take this medication because they actually have something to offer them in that case.
And to me, it's just bananas that in this country, we haven't done something like that.
And that places like the NIMH have not been conducting research on helping people with these enduring problems.
These aren't new problems.
These are things that all people have suffered from for a really long time.
We need to get more research and more of an emphasis on helping people with these issues so we can eventually give it to insurance companies and get this funded.
Up until now, NIMH has just been doing biological targets for drug development.
We need to refocus on non-drug therapies for anxiety and depression so we can back up our family doctors and the OBGYNs.
And then presumably another thing, I think you mentioned this earlier, is if a doctor is going to recommend a medication to explain the possible side effects in more detail.
Yes, absolutely.
I think, I've got some ideas about this.
I think the FDA should make drug companies put a QR code on the top of prescription bottles.
And so when you get a prescription, you see something there and it says, watch me, and the FDA develops a five-minute patient-friendly video where you just look at it on your phone and they say, hey, these are the risks.
This is what you need to know about the drug.
Because many doctors, they're not taking the time to fully inform people.
And there is a scalable way of getting that information out there.
I don't know why we don't do these things.
I think there's so much space for improvement in healthcare.
Well, Dr. Joseph Witt-Düring, it's such a pleasure to have had you on.
Thank you for having me again.
Thank you all for joining Dr. Joseph Witt-During and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders.
▲
Export Selection