gwynne replied: "I'm just trying to help! Based on my own personal experience, and from extensive research on other people's comments and stories, I am very critical of psychiatric drugs. I also agree with Peachy, when she advises not to continue on the drugs. I've been there, done that too, and you just end up going from one drug to another on a neverending quest to find one that works for you, often having to take additional drugs to combat side effects of the depression medication. You could spend years like I did, searching for that perfect combination. I lost my husband because of this and the related problems of my depression and Bipolar. I didn't quite understand my symptoms and how to deal with them and some of the drugs gave me bad side effects, like irritability and also wanting to sleep all the time. My ex-husband just wanted a normal wife and couldn't deal with all of my problems, so he found someone else! I guess I don't really blame him, but it was hard to see him go as I did love him and valued his friendship. Anyway, hopefully instead of continuing with medication, start researching on freeform amino acids, homeopathic medicine, eating organic foods, and getting some exercise and sunlight. You can also have special tests done to see what amino acids you are lacking. Dr. Robert Eerdman speaks more in detail about this in his book, The Amino Revolution. Also, there is a great website that Dr. Peter Breggin has about the mounting evidence of psychiatric drugs and the dangerous long term side effects. Actually, if you start looking around on the internet you will come across a lot of this evidence from several different sources. The drug companies are very rich, powerful corporations that have the money to persuade the FDA and the public to see things their way. If people were to become well, then they wouldn't make any money. They want you to take their drugs for the rest of your life. It's the same story with the large agricultural corporations. I've done quite a bit of research myself, reading books and websites, and have listed a bunch below. I get very frustrated when people will not even look at the opposing side's information. In debate classes, looking at both sides is a requirement to make a logical, informed and fair decision. If you want to let others think for you and follow the crowd - just take the back seat to your health, then by all means, take the psychiatric drugs. They will help for a few years at best, and then you'll have to move on to another drug. "The PR psychiatric manipulation industry is now enormous. Corporations spend at least $10 billion each year hiring PR propaganda experts (pg. 26) and our federal government spends another $2.3 billion or so (pg. 27) -- and these are no doubt underestimates. But these huge sums are not wasted -- they provide major benefits to the clients. For example, about 40% of all stories that appear in newspapers are planted there by PR firms on behalf of a specific paying client. Because most radio and TV news is simply re-written from newspaper stories, a substantial proportion of the public's "news" originates as PR propaganda. Naturally the connection to the PR source is edited out." Source: Peter R. Breggin on Paxil, anti-depressants and the FDA: "So, after years of prodding by me and more lately by a handful of other professionals, what new point in its journey has the FDA tortoise reached? In a May 2006 release in collaboration with the manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the FDA has acknowledged the antidepressant Paxil causes a statistically significant increased rate of suicidality in depressed adults as measured in controlled clinical trials. [1] The results are based on a re-analysis of all adult controlled clinical trials that compared Paxil with placebo. Buried in the FDA/GSK release is an astounding fact: Depressed people are 6.4 times more likely to become suicidal while taking an antidepressant than while taking a sugar pill. [2] No other antidepressants were mentioned in the FDA’s warning but all SSRI antidepressants share a common profile of adverse mental and behavioral effects, including Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, Luvox, and Lexapro. Several other relatively new antidepressants have also been implicated in producing similar psychiatric abnormalities, including Wellbutrin, Effexor, Serzone, and Cymbalta. All of the newer antidepressants can produce stimulation or activation with the potential for increased agitation, anxiety, mood instability, disinhibition, irritability, aggression, hostility, mania, and crashing into depression and suicide. They can also cause a flattening of emotional responses, including a loss of caring, that can unleash dangerous actions. [3] It is hard to cheer the FDA when in books and scientific reports, I’ve been warning about the risk of antidepressant-induced suicide (and violence) for fifteen years, starting in1991 with Toxic Psychiatry. My most comprehensive scientific review of the subject was published in 2003. [4] In more recent years, other professionals have also joined the fray, especially Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen. Scientific reviews confirmed that antidepressants cause suicidality in children and adults, [5] but the FDA delayed acting on mounting evidence. To this day, the agency waffles about the importance of the antidepressant suicide risk. Thus far it has focused only on Paxil in regard to adult suicide and it has hinted that the risk may be slight when it is catastrophic. It also continues to avoid facing evidence that the drugs cause violence. A few weeks before the FDA and GSK published their recent admission that Paxil can make adults more suicidal, I published a special report in Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry in which I released previously suppressed data indicating that GSK had manipulated its research results to hide the risk of Paxil-induced suicidality [6] (available on). I based my observations on suppressed company data that I had discovered during a three-day investigation inside the drug company’s secret files, working as a medical expert in a murder-suicide product liability case against the company. Simultaneously, I published on my website the original product liability report with all the scientific data that I had unearthed during those three days. More than a year earlier, I had informed the FDA at two of its public hearings that I possessed this sealed smoking gun. They never responded to me directly. Perhaps they are responding to me now." Source:"