why wouldn’t they want to hear that?…

Posted on Wednesday 10 October 2012


"British psychiatrist and Big Pharma gadfly David Healy is so controversial amongst his colleagues that some have tried to have his medical license revoked — but there he was on Thursday, speaking at the American Psychiatric Association’s [APA] second largest annual meeting at a well-attended session on conflicts of interest. ‘It’s a miracle that I was asked along to give a talk [here], and I’m extremely grateful,’ Healy said."
gad·fly [gdfl] –noun

  1. any of various large dipterous flies, esp the horsefly, that annoy livestock by sucking their blood
  2. a constantly irritating or harassing person

Word Origin & History: 1620s, "fly which bites cattle," probably from gad "goad, metal rod" [early 13c.], here in the sense of "stinger," from O.N. gaddr "spike, nail," from P.Gmc. *gadaz "pointed stick;" but sense is entangled with gad [v.] and an early meaning of gadfly was also "someone who likes to go about, often stopping here and there." Sense of "one who irritates another" is from 1640s [equivalent of L.oestrus].

con·tro·ver·sy [kntr-vûrs] –noun

    a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views.

Origin of Controversy: Middle English controversie, from Anglo-French, from Latin controversia, from controversus disputable, literally, turned against, from contro- (akin to contra-) + versus, past participle of vertere to turn. First Known Use: 14th century.

I don’t think of Dr. Healy as a gadfly. As a matter of fact, as more time passes, I wonder what’s even controversial about what he’s been saying over the last decade and a half. I guess if I had to pick a word for him, it would be resilient, maybe patient. He made the observation early that some people on the SSRI antidepressants react by becoming hostile, aggressive, sometimes suicidal or homicidal. He noticed that people discontinuing these medications sometimes had withdrawal reactions requiring attention. As time passed, he realized some other things that most of the rest of us now know – that the pharmaceutical industry had gained control over much of the academic psychiatric research community, ghost-writing articles for the peer-reviewed literature that favored their drugs, hiring psychiatrist opinion leaders onto advisory boards and speaker’s bureaus, handing out unrestricted institutional grants, financing research, etc. In the meantime, the actual practice of psychiatry itself has become trivialized – down to medication management by brief, infrequent med checks on the way to turning that over to primary care physicians [that’s the "Professional Suicide" part he’s referring to]. What’s controversial about that? In the meantime, we’re increasingly aware that these medications aren’t so benign as we’ve been lead to believe.

This article was written as if there would be surprise that he would be welcomed by an audience of psychiatrists – that they might see him as a gadfly, or as controversial, maybe throw rotten tomatoes:
British psychiatrist and Big Pharma gadfly David Healy is so controversial amongst his colleagues that some have tried to have his medical license revoked — but there he was on Thursday, speaking at the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) second largest annual meeting at a well-attended session on conflicts of interest. “It’s a miracle that I was asked along to give a talk [here], and I’m extremely grateful,” Healy said… Healy’s jeremiad was more severe and sharply worded, but it seemed to be well received by the psychiatrists assembled in the audience. Many even asked questions that suggested they too were troubled by the status quo…
If you’ve read Dr. Healy’s books, you wouldn’t be surprised by his reception at all. I wasn’t. The books are written to physicians, and it easy to intuit that Dr. Healy himself is a physician. He talks about patients, often specific cases. He talks about the difficulties patients run into with their medications, and their lives. If you go to DavidHealy.com, his posts are often about cases and his Rxist site is patient reported side effects. There was another thing that surprises some:
But when a questioner, claiming himself “speechless” in the face of Healy’s arguments, asked whether he should just stop prescribing antidepressants, Healy said no. Healy prescribes them himself, but believes that the role of the doctor is to manage risks, not view drugs as harmless. “Medical treatment is poison, and the art of medicine is trying to find the right dose,” he said.
People are surprised that in his practice, he uses medications. I do too. Many of the very medications that he’s talking about, that I talk about here. Although he is a psychopharmacologist, he doesn’t talk about Clinical Trials except to point out their limitations and how they’ve been grossly misused. How is psychiatry different from any other medical specialty? When I saw a new Diabetic as an Internist, I didn’t give them a prescription for Insulin and send them on their way – returning for med checks. Insulin is dangerous stuff. That’s a major part of being a physician – learning to use the potentially toxic chemicals we call drugs in a way that helps rather than harms, helping patients learn themselves. Done right, it’s hard work that requires a lot of knowing and ongoing attention:
Healy noted further that when data surfaced showing a link between antidepressant use and risk of suicide in children, the APA issued a statement proclaiming that “we believe that antidepressants save lives.” “What I believe they should have said is that the APA believes that psychiatrists can save lives because it takes expertise to manage the risks of risky pills,” he said; if psychiatrists’ only role were to dole out drugs, then less trained physician’s assistants could easily replace them, he noted.
Most of his talk was about how the Pharmaceutical Industry has systematically overstated the efficacy of their drugs and downplayed their toxicity – about how the industry has engaged organized and academic psychiatry in the pursuit of commercial goals, and about the lies they all told in the process. David Healy is neither gadfly, nor controversial, nor even messiah. He’s just a doctor, trying to remind his colleagues that they are too. Why wouldn’t they want to hear that?…
  1.  
    October 10, 2012 | 11:00 AM
     

    Great commentary!

  2.  
    Mary Sheridan
    October 10, 2012 | 12:05 PM
     

    With all due respect to those involved, I wonder why the word “believe” is even used in any of these situations. I tho’t “believe” was in the category of faith/religion/spirituality. How is it scientists, speaking about something scientific, use the word “believe”? Or am I being too picky? Perhaps. Bit I find using a word like “believe” when speaking about scientific “things” (and such important things that seriously affect people’s lives) an anomaly. MCS

  3.  
    Jane
    October 10, 2012 | 4:01 PM
     

    Ms. Sheridan: I don’t think you’re splitting hairs, and that is why critics of psychiatry sometimes refer to it as a cult. The cult-like nature of “medical” psychiatry is explored in such books as “The Myth of the Chemical Cure” by Joanna Moncrieff MD.

  4.  
    Nick Stuart
    October 11, 2012 | 3:12 AM
     

    There may be a reason why Dr Healy is a critic of drugs. He has been actively promoting the use of ECT for many years.
    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shock-and-panic

  5.  
    October 13, 2012 | 4:16 PM
     

    Psychiatric activist, therapist, and recovered mental patient Will Hall also spoke at the APA conference http://beyondmeds.com/2012/10/07/will-hall-speaks-to-apa/ (well worth listening to).

    (At the very end, a psychiatrist in the audience suggests he’s been indoctrinated by Scientology!!! What is it about psychiatrists and reason?)

    Carlat, Healy, Will Hall — is the APA reluctantly moving into the 21st century?

    As for Healy and ECT, to suggest he’s discouraging antidepressants to push people into ECT is a rhetorical device of the highest exaggeration. He says ECT is safer than antidepressants, which given the drawbacks of antidepressants, might be true.

    Whether Healy’s right or wrong on the merits of ECT (there are people who swear up and down it’s helped them), he’s in the camp of doctors who want to utilize invasive treatments of any sort as infrequently as possible. (He also prescribes antidepressants.)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.