Tag: psychotropics

  • Psychedelics Open the Door Then What?

    Psychedelics Open the Door Then What?

    Someone left a comment on my YouTube channel a while back: “He doesn’t know anything, he’s just a new graduate.” Fair enough. I should probably update my profile.

    For the record, I’ve been practicing psychiatry for five years post-residency now, and to put it mildly, I’ve seen a few things. I’ve sat across from patients fighting depression that won’t lift, PTSD that won’t quiet, bipolar illness that won’t stabilize, and the often-forgotten but equally devastating problem of simply trying to live a daily life. In the most complex cases, I struggle right alongside them. It takes a real toll on both sides of the therapeutic relationship. I didn’t enter medicine, and certainly not psychiatry, to helplessly watch people suffer.

    How I Got Hooked (No Pun Intended)

    I remember attending my first American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry annual meeting with my best friend, two excited second-year residents with a budding interest in addiction medicine. There were dozens of strong lectures that week, but one track lit me up: a series on psychedelic research, including data on mystical experience and the use of psilocybin in patients with terminal cancer.

    I was hooked. The work was compelling, novel, and almost completely absent from the standard residency curriculum. The literature has only grown since, building on a body of clinical research and on centuries of indigenous and traditional experience that came long before any of us showed up to a conference.

    Why the Psychedelic Conversation Matters Now

    People have told me my entire field is “pseudoscience at best.” I prefer to think of psychiatry as the most interpretive part of medicine, but everyone is entitled to an opinion.

    What most people across the spectrum do agree on is this: collective mental health is getting worse, and the current standard of care leaves a lot of people out in the cold. There is a large gap, and it is begging to be filled. Right now, renewed clinical and cultural interest in psychedelics is rushing in to fill it.

    Everything old is new again. Postwar America saw a similar wave in the 1960s, a counterculture pushing back against the status quo with these compounds in hand, and we blew it. We were reckless, the political backlash was severe, and the scientific window slammed shut for a generation. We have a chance now to do this differently: to do the actual science, to understand these medicines, and to deliver them safely. I have written extensively about that elsewhere, and I will continue to.

    This piece is about something else.

    What I’ve Actually Seen in the Room

    After five years of treating serious mental illness, treatment-resistant depression, and addiction, here is the unglamorous clinical truth I want anyone considering psychedelic therapy to hear:

    I have rarely seen lasting recovery come from medication alone.

    Not on SSRIs. Not on mood stabilizers. Not on stimulants. And, this is the part the hype train usually skips, not on psychedelics either.

    Medication can take the edge off. It can crack a window in a sealed room. But without a concerted effort to change how a person thinks, what they believe about themselves, and how they show up in their own life, relief is often partial and temporary. Old patterns reassert themselves with depressing reliability.

    Being well, actually well, not just less symptomatic, is a far more complex process than adding a molecule. Even when that molecule is a powerful psychedelic that can temporarily reroute the circuits that have run a patient’s life into the ground.

    The Onion and the Ego

    This is where ego dissolution comes in.

    Psychedelics, used well, can do something extraordinary. They can peel back the layers, the conditioning, the wounds, the social performance, the inherited beliefs – and offer a person something close to a blank canvas. The experience is often described as a multi-stage journey: a descent into the subconscious, a confrontation with personal shadow material, and an ascent toward integration. Anyone who has sat with patients in the days after a session knows that structure is not imaginary.

    But dissolving the ego is only half the work. Maybe less.

    There has to be a rebuilding. Otherwise, the process can end in chaos, disorientation, drift, or destabilization. For all the cultural and societal programming embedded in the ego, the ego also has a job. It organizes. It protects. It gives a person a sense of continuous self. You do not want it gone so much as loosened, examined, and put back together with more skill.

    A Spiritual Problem in a Secular Age

    Here is where I will say something that may cost me a few subscribers: for many patients, psychedelic experiences can feel like a return to something sacred, however they define it.

    Nietzsche famously wrote, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” That line is usually quoted as a takedown of religion. I read it more as a diagnosis. Religious authority is not what it used to be, fine, but the bigger problem is the void it left behind. Not a physical void. An existential one. And that is much harder to fill.

    A great deal of suffering in modern mental health is not only symptomatic. It is existential. It is about disconnection, meaning, identity, and the felt sense that nothing larger is holding the pieces together. This is where psychedelics, used carefully, may do something SSRIs cannot. The mystical experience, that sense of being part of something larger, more connected, less small, is precisely what many patients are starving for. It offers a temporary transcendence of the cages we live inside and a reminder that the ego’s account of who we are is not the whole story.

    The Limitation Nobody Wants to Talk About

    Here is the catch, and it is a big one.

    Psychedelics can show us the possibility of what we could be and how the world could feel. They do not teach us how to embody that possibility once we come back down.

    It is like buying the book that is supposed to change your life, finishing it, and realizing it handed you the concept but not the protocol. The map, not the legs.

    In my view, this will be one of the central questions of the psychedelic revolution in both medicine and culture: when we strip away the layers that make us who we think we are, what do we replace them with?

    Will the medicine alone be enough? I do not think so. For people to genuinely transcend rigid thought patterns and live differently, something larger has to shift: a societal opening toward the slow work of integration, lived community, meaning-making, and the willingness to pursue some form of inner life without being constantly dragged back by money, politics, and a version of the American dream that has metabolized into burnout for much of the country.

    Without some broader change in how we live, think, and treat each other, psychedelic therapy risks becoming a high-end coping mechanism. People will dose, briefly touch something profound, and then return to the same conditions that drove the depression in the first place. So they will dose again. And again.

    What the Old-Timers Knew

    This is both a beacon of hope and a cautionary tale, and not from me. From the people who walked this path long before psychiatry got around to studying it. The medicines open the door. They do not walk you through it.

    The deepest insight – the one many patients eventually report after the sessions, the integration, and the work – is almost embarrassingly simple: the beauty of everyday life and ordinary connection was already there. The medicine just got the ego out of the way long enough to let them see it.

    The work, your work, my work, our work, is figuring out how to keep seeing it once the medicine wears off.

  • We say we care about mental health in America

    We say we care about mental health in America

    We say we care about mental health in America.
    But the data—and my front-line experience—say otherwise.

    We are overmedicating, underfunding, and pathologizing poverty, trauma, and stress.
    Instead of addressing why people are sick, we throw pills at symptoms.

    🧠 In my latest article for Psychiatric Times, I make the case that we’ve built a system that profits off disease—not health.
    We’re not solving the problem. We’re institutionalizing it.

    If we want to make America healthy again, we need to stop doing the wrong things.

    👉 Read the full piece here: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/if-we-want-to-make-america-healthy-again-we-are-doing-the-wrong-thing

  • Is Antidepressant Withdrawal Overhyped? What the Evidence Really Says

    Is Antidepressant Withdrawal Overhyped? What the Evidence Really Says

    In my clinical practice, I’ve often found myself scratching my head over the narrative surrounding antidepressant withdrawal.

    I’m not denying that withdrawal is real—it is. And for a small subset of patients, it can be quite distressing. But what I am saying is this: it’s not nearly as common, dramatic, or dangerous as some online circles and sensational stories would have you believe.

    I’ve seen countless patients abruptly stop antidepressants and experience no withdrawal symptoms. I’ve also aggressively tapered antidepressants in patients with bipolar disorder to prevent mood destabilization—again, with little to no evidence of withdrawal. This isn’t a one-off observation. It’s a consistent clinical pattern I’ve noted for years. So, I asked myself: What does the data actually say?

    The Evidence

    A 2024 meta-analysis published in JAMA Psychiatry examined 49 randomized controlled trials and finally gave us some clarity.

    The results?
    ✅ People discontinuing antidepressants reported on average just one more symptom than those who either continued medication or discontinued a placebo.
    ✅ The most commonly reported symptoms in the first two weeks were dizziness, nausea, vertigo, and nervousness—exactly what I’ve seen clinically.
    ✅ Critically, the average number of symptoms fell below the threshold for what’s considered a clinically significant discontinuation syndrome.
    ✅ There was no link between discontinuation and worsening depression, suggesting that if mood symptoms return, it’s likely a relapse—not withdrawal.

    Why This Matters

    There are vocal groups online—often with clear anti-psychiatry agendas—who focus exclusively on rare, severe cases of withdrawal and present them as the norm. The goal is simple: to scare people away from psychiatry and evidence-based treatment using emotional testimonials instead of clinical reality.

    Let’s be honest—those cases do exist, but they are not representative of what most patients experience.

    As clinicians, we should remain cautious and responsible. Yes, we should taper medications thoughtfully. Yes, we should prepare patients for the possibility of withdrawal symptoms. But we also shouldn’t scare them into avoiding treatment—or make them feel trapped on medications for life.

    Bottom Line

    Antidepressant withdrawal can happen. It can be uncomfortable. But it’s rarely severe and almost never dangerous. The fear around it has been overstated by those with an ax to grind. We owe it to our patients to treat based on evidence, not anecdotes.

  • Understanding Psychiatry: Science vs. Skepticism

    Understanding Psychiatry: Science vs. Skepticism

    🧠 “Psychiatry is a scam.” “Big Pharma controls your brain.” “Mental illness isn’t real.”

    You’ve heard the takes. Now here’s the truth.

    In my new article for Psychiatric Times, I dive headfirst into the controversy:
    👉 Understanding Psychiatry: Navigating Skepticism and Science
    https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/understanding-psychiatry-navigating-skepticism-and-science

    I don’t dodge the hard questions—about overmedication, broken trust, and bad science—but I also push back against lazy anti-psychiatry takes that ignore the very real suffering of patients.

    If you care about the future of mental health care, this one’s worth your time.

  • Reject dogma—embrace nuance in Psychiatry

    🔹 Psychoanalysis should not be treated as sacred doctrine. Freud was a clever and influential thinker, but not a prophet.


    🔹 Biological psychiatry is equally vulnerable to dogma. Not every symptom signals a disease, and not every distress warrants medication.


    🔹 That said, evidence-based pharmacology has its place—especially when medications show clear, replicable benefits in defined clinical conditions.

    The future of psychiatry lies in balanced thinking, not blind allegiance—to Freud, to biology, or to any single model of mind.

  • New JAMA Study Challenges Previous Concerns About Valproate and Paternal Risk

    New JAMA Study Challenges Previous Concerns About Valproate and Paternal Risk

    What we thought we knew may not hold up under scrutiny.

    A recent JAMA Psychiatry study titled “Disorders and Paternal Use of Valproate During Spermatogenesis” has delivered surprising news:

    There was no increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children whose fathers were taking valproic acid around the time of conception.

    This finding directly challenges earlier observational data that suggested a possible link, leading to cautionary guidance against prescribing valproate to men of reproductive age. But now, with a large, well-conducted study showing no signal of harm, we’re left reconsidering that initial recommendation.

    As clinicians, we must remember:
    🔍 Association is not causation.
    🚧 Observational studies, while valuable, can mislead when confounding variables aren’t fully accounted for.
    📚 Evidence evolves—and so must our clinical guidance.

    This study not only impacts how we think about valproate use in men but also serves as a critical reminder about the limits of inference from non-randomized data.

    👉 For patients with bipolar disorder or epilepsy who benefit from valproate, this offers some reassurance. We may not need to withhold an effective treatment based on unconfirmed reproductive risks.

    📌 Bottom line: Always be skeptical. Always be curious. Always be willing to revise your practice when the data say it’s time.

    link to the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2834363

  • Suicide is a tragically common outcome in schizophrenia

    🔹 Up to 50% of patients attempt suicide
    🔹 Around 10% die by suicide

    The InterSePT trial directly addressed this crisis by comparing clozapine vs olanzapine in high-risk patients—all with recent suicidal ideation or attempts. Notably, only 27% were treatment-resistant.

    ✅ Clozapine led to a 25% reduction in suicidal behaviors—a game-changer.
    📌 This led to FDA approval for clozapine in reducing suicidality in schizophrenia.

    Let’s stop thinking of clozapine only as a last resort. Sometimes, it’s exactly what’s needed—not later, but now.

  • 💥 Time to Rethink Valproate in Acute Mania

    Valproate continues to be overvalued in the treatment of acute mania—and it doesn’t work as well as many assume.

    Part of the problem? A single overhyped study, cleverly marketed by the pharmaceutical company, has shaped decades of prescribing habits and continues to be taught to psychiatry residents as gold-standard evidence.

    But the data tells a different story.
    The BALANCE study (British study of Lithium +/− Valproate) showed no significant long-term benefit to adding valproate to lithium over a 2-year period in bipolar disorder.

    It’s time we stop relying on outdated assumptions and start practicing based on robust, long-term outcomes—not industry narratives.

    📚 Evidence over tradition.
    🧠 Teach residents the full picture.
    💊 Prescribe with precision.

  • Rapid cycling ≠ lithium failure

    There’s a persistent myth in psychiatry that lithium doesn’t work for bipolar disorder with rapid cycling.

    🧠 But here’s the truth:
    Multiple literature reviews show lithium performs just as well as other antimanic agents in rapid cyclers. The issue isn’t lithium—it’s that rapid cycling is simply harder to treat overall.

    Let’s stop excluding one of our most effective mood stabilizers based on outdated or anecdotal thinking. Patients with rapid cycling deserve full access to evidence-based treatment options—including lithium.

  • New Mechanism, Promising Results: Novel PDE10A Inhibitor for Acute Schizophrenia

    New Mechanism, Promising Results: Novel PDE10A Inhibitor for Acute Schizophrenia

    A novel PDE10A inhibitor just showed safety and efficacy in a large Phase 2 trial for acute schizophrenia. 👏

    📌 PDE10A inhibitors represent a non-dopaminergic approach—targeting phosphodiesterase 10A to modulate both D1 and D2 pathways indirectly. This could be a game-changer for patients who don’t respond to or can’t tolerate traditional D2 blockers.

    🔍 The trial demonstrated:
    ✅ Significant reduction in PANSS total scores
    ✅ Favorable side effect profile (no EPS or prolactin elevation)
    ✅ Oral formulation, once daily

    This reinforces the urgent need to diversify our treatment mechanisms beyond dopamine antagonism. As treatment-resistant schizophrenia remains a major challenge, we’ll take all the innovation we can get.

    🧠 Stay tuned—PDE10A could join the ranks of TAAR1 agonists and muscarinic agents in reshaping how we treat serious mental illness.