08/17/2026
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀.
Psychiatrists are now downplaying the polypharmacy of the 𝟭𝟯 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀, 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 “𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝗱𝗼𝘀𝗲” 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲. This is an attempt to blunt the public’s reaction to the sheer number of drugs she was given once that information became public. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗿𝘆: ignore the FDA-documented psychological and physical effects of these drugs and the profession’s own minimal standards—standards it routinely fails to meet.
𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲, the 2026 American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) task force—one of the main U.S. organizations psychiatrists are supposed to rely on for the practice of psychopharmacology—states clinicians should begin with monotherapy and that “every time you add a medication, you should stop a medication.” Even Stahl’s Prescriber’s Guide—a practical handbook doctors are supposed to use to switch psychiatric drugs—requires accounting for residual activity and half-lives. That means the doctor must factor in how much of the old drug is still affecting the brain so the patient is not exposed to overlapping or conflicting drug effects, unexpected side effects, or withdrawal while the new drug is being introduced.
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗯𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳. 𝗜𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗱.
𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗙𝗗𝗔 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝗱𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀—𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿—𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿, 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻. In reality, “weeks” is often not long enough. The fact that HHS and SAMHSA are now developing new clinical guidance and training on tapering and deprescribing only confirms what has been known for years: residual effects from these drugs can persist well beyond a few weeks, and current practice has failed to account for it.
With current FDA labeling and clinical guidelines, fluoxetine’s active metabolite can persist for weeks. Short-half-life agents such as paroxetine and venlafaxine are well-known for producing anxiety, irritability, and insomnia during withdrawal. Benzodiazepines can trigger rebound anxiety or paradoxical excitation. SSRIs themselves can cause activation, heightened anxiety, insomnia, emotional blunting, or intrusive thoughts.
When these drugs are piled on in quick succession by multiple uncoordinated prescribers—sertraline, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, trazodone, zolpidem, lorazepam, clonazepam, diazepam, quetiapine, lamotrigine, and others—𝗻𝗼 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀, 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗹, 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. The patient’s condition deteriorated under this uncontrolled pattern of one psychiatric drug being piled on after another.
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗻. Dr. Sejal Shah, presented as an “expert” as an Associate Chief at a Harvard-affiliated hospital, explained SSRIs as correcting a “lack of serotonin” in the brain—the debunked chemical imbalance myth that mainstream psychiatry claims to have stopped using decades ago. Yet this Harvard psychiatrist apparently didn’t get the memo.
Or 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗝𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝘂𝗳𝘁𝘀, who claimed the FDA’s black-box warning on antidepressants causing suicidal ideation applied only to children. The actual FDA warning covers adults through age 24. And as common sense would dictate, there is no scientific basis for claiming the risk vanishes the day after a patient’s 24th birthday.
𝗣𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗻𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗰𝗮 𝗝𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗮 responded to Clancy’s extreme reaction to Zoloft—48 hours without sleep—by declaring it “unusual” and evidence of possible bipolar disorder, then prescribing the antipsychotic Seroquel. This was not clinical science. It is the same pharmaceutical marketing script engineered in the early 2000s: reframe SSRI-induced agitation and sleeplessness as “unmasked bipolar” so another profitable drug class can be added. Internal Lilly materials trained sales representatives in exactly this diagnostic switch. The company later paid $1.415 billion to settle charges that included illegal off-label promotion of Zyprexa for such uses.
This trial is showing the public that the emperor—psychiatry—has no clothes.
Behind the titles, Harvard affiliations, and talk of chemical imbalances and “unmasked bipolar” sits a profession that runs on behavioral checklists, not science. It shows little interest in ruling out real physical causes—such as thyroid problems in the postpartum period—before prescribing psychiatric drugs. Side effects are rebranded as new disorders and used to justify the next prescription. Drugs are piled on with no reliable way to know what remains in the patient’s system, no required training in how to take people off them safely, and no accountability when the resulting deterioration is labeled a new “mental illness.” This is not an unusual case.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲: 𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀—𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗹, 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁’𝘀 ‘𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲.’”
