Whilst the Covid vaccines were based on a valid mechanism of action, the companies behind them (Pfizer, Johson and Johnson etc) are still the same as the ones that produce the psychiatric drugs.
Knowing how they act and conduct themselves in their studies to get psych drugs to market, there’s no reason to think they would act much differently with the vaccine (ignoring side effects, statistical manipulation etc).
It was also how people were coerced from companies that you must have the vaccine or lose your job or stranded in countries where they could not leave unless they had an injection, along with the idea that everyone in low risk groups (children, babies) must be vaccinated, that I think contributed towards animosity toward Covid vaccines.
Patrick Hahn provides a deep analysis on this topic in his book, and one case I remember was this one where, given her age, she didn’t seem to be hugely at risk: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-57853285
I don’t disagree in principle with vaccinations of course, but the way these companies prove efficacy to bring their psychiatric drugs to market should, at the very least, make one wary of how they prove efficacy for any other drug (especially without standard clinical trials), be it vaccine or not.
The preface and introduction of the Maudsley guide to deprescribing should be required reading for anyone being offered psychotropics. As you say, if people knew how difficult it is to come off them, they would definitely have second thoughts about starting.
It brings to mind a discussion I had with some Americans that I was doing business with who asked my opinion about US intervention in Iraq in 2003. My response was "It's much easier to start a war than finish it". Same with psychotropics.
People should be informed about the probability of weight gain. Data from the drug industry underplays its significance, but my impression is that weight gain is more or less assured, often with catastrophic effect. When an individual is so affected, the impact for them is no longer merely a statistical probability , it's an absolute reality.
Health care is delivered in silos. GPs defer to specialists and aren't inclined to question entrenched processes of decision making that are rooted in myths about a biological model of mental illness.
As I see it, there is cost shifting in three directions from mental health services
1. to GPs to manage metabolic and other consequences of psychotropics
2 to social services that have to contend with many folk who become unemployable
3 to the PBS for drugs that cost- what ? $12000 to $15000 per year per person for drugs that are scarcely better than placebo.
Not to mention the burden upon families and the community.
If people want pills, how about trying placebos first while helping them to get a handle on their well being?
Multiple state and commonwealth governmental reports have described systemic failures of mental health services throughout the country. In South Australia there are attempts to acknowledge and address shortcomings with the introduction of lived experience into policy development and service delivery. This is an area that interests me and there are some "green shoots", albeit under the umbrella of the Mental Health Act.
It might be a crazy idea, but what if people demand support for their health and well being in each of the dimensions suggested. There could be reallocation of resources that would produce much better outcomes? Its political.
What happened in dentistry ( my past life) is that people started to abhor the idea of having their teeth replaced by dentures. Fluoridation came along, which meant that waiting rooms were no longer packed with people needing cavities filled or teeth extracted. Private practitioners then made hygiene the core of their business model, even if it wasn't the main profit centre. Practitioners switched to identifying with the concept of preventive dentistry. The practice of dentistry as it was conceived when I graduated, is now well and truly redundant.
Biggest problem in psychiatry is the blizzard of propaganda from drug companies via mainstream psychiatry that says all mental disorder is biological and only biological treatment can work. This is non-stop. It may be possible to introduce the "preventive" model you mention but that means psychotherapy, as in "new personalities for old," but very few psychiatrists these days have any training or experience or interest in it.
I think you're out by an order of magnitude on the costs of psychiatric drugs... I'd suggest that antipsychotics are more likely to cost 2000 a year and often less... Something I'd willingly spend on sanity
Thanks for pointing this out. You are right about the big differential between Australia and the US. I thought the Australian government was paying more.
I've included my search on copilot that verifies your assertion
No wonder RFK is mad a big pharma
As for the cost of "sanity", I would be interested in your critique of the work of Joanna Moncrieff who has pieces on YouTube and has written a number of books on the topic including "The bitterest pills". The notes and index at the end run to 50 pages.
hort answer:
Australia (PBS price): ~A$0.83 per pill for 40 mg lurasidone (A$25 for 30 tablets).
United States: ~US$18–47 per pill depending on pharmacy and whether coupons are used.
🇦🇺 Australia — Cost per pill
The clearest Australian price comes from Chemist Warehouse:
Lurasidone WGR 40 mg, 30 tablets = A$25.00 with a valid PBS script
Cost per pill:
25 / 30 = \textbf{A$0.83 per tablet}
This is the standard subsidised PBS price for patients with a Medicare card.
🇺🇸 United States — Cost per pill
US prices vary dramatically depending on whether you use coupons, insurance, or pay retail.
1. Retail / pharmacy coupon prices (brand Latuda)
Lowest US pharmacy price for Latuda 40 mg: US$46.64 per tablet
There is the cost to the patient and cost to the government via subsidies. This adds up to a lot money in a year. Also, Medicare negotiates lower prices with manufacturers, which infuriates Big Pharma and their lobby in the US, Trump tried to get that stopped but he got nowhere as it would be political suicide for any Australian government
I get the impression that many people including doctors, think that, just be cause for example, someone is no longer shouting at phantoms in the street, after being given antipsychotics they are rendered "sane". Doctors mumble platitudes about "balancing the side effects against the benefits of suppressing of troubling symptoms". There is no evidence of the calculus that justifies that decision making and guidelines promote "maintenance". I had a social worker say to me that "the side effects are the price of mental health". Absence of symptoms does not equal mental health.
Someone on any kind of psychotropic is no longer the same person that they were without them, any more than someone who is inebriated by any mind altering drug, whether it be alcohol, heroin or whatever will display the same personality characteristics that they would possess when not under the influence. Primates have been fascinated by mind altering substances for aeons. Problems arise when people feel they need to keep taking them to feel "normal"
This raises the critically important question of involuntary treatment. Normally, treatment of a medical condition is directly for the benefit of the patient, even if it costs the community a great deal, but who benefits from phantom-shouters being locked in boring, noisy places with bars on the windows? Same with the drugs: who asks the patient "Which would you prefer? Lose your phantoms or lose your sex life?" Remember that when chlorpromazine was first released, it was touted as a drug which gave the inertia and passivity of a lobotomy (leucotomy) without the operation. Wards became much more manageable and staff were happier, but the patients? Nobody asks them.
Not relevant to this topic doctor. I watched your interview with Pascal's neutrality studies. One of the most brilliant conversations on politics and politicians doctor. I wish i got the the power and testosterone to make everyone who votes to watch your video, LOL!!
I have a quick question doctor. I can understand, why men are addicted to power because of testosterone. What about Women doctor? I know you clearly mentioned humans many times.
Women too exhibit same behavior when they are power. Unlimited and unchecked power always lead to many issues? After a quick search, I found this. "In women, it acts as a critical baseline for physical strength and a vital pro-hormone for estrogen production."
Reason for this ask, I am from India, From a Southern state called Tamil Nadu. We got a female chief minister, who exhibited all the psychotic behavior. She is a good woman, but a psycho and ruled our state for 10+ years. Any one who dared to questioned her thrown into jail. Her name is J Jayalalitha, in case if you want to check and validate.
Just curious about the psychological and mental changes, behaviors testosterone cause to women in power. I also find, it is no coincidence everyone in power structure in EU are lead by women and they are placed intentionally. From Von der leyen (Competent and Evil) to Kaja Kallas(Incompetent and evil) to Madeline Albreit(Asked about death of million children in iraq, she said, worth it).
In our culture, women are always portrayed as symbol of life. Seems women in power are as cruel and evil as men. Just sharing my thoughts. If you read this, please let me know your feedback and thoughts.
That was one brilliant interview with Pascal. Please share your knowledge with rest of the world when you are free. Greetings from India.
Could the practice of psychiatry take upon itself the task of monitoring aspects of personal hygiene with respect to the physiological constraints upon mental well being to which you refer? Such an approach would be consistent with an appreciation of the importance of biological parameters that influence states of mind that are thought of as mental illness.
As you mention, being rejected by your social group is devastating. Loneliness and other forms of oppression are highly toxic . Lack of quality sleep is damaging to not only the capacity to make decisions, but also prevents the recuperative effects that are essential to brain health.
The gut brain axis virtually never gets a mention in clinical practice. As endocrinologist Robert Lustig puts it, "Feed the gut ( have a healthy microbiome) and protect the liver".
A psychiatrist once told me emphatically that "depression has nothing to do with diet".
Exercise is another big one.
Whereas there are no biological markers for mental illnesses, there are markers of health, in that healthy people have healthy habits.
Measurable parameters can be developed for sleep, diet and exercise.
Measuring the degree of social inclusion and participation in purposeful activity ( which leads feelings of competency and satisfaction that is the result of doing things that seem worthwhile ) are parameters that are perhaps more qualitative than quantitative.
In my practice of dentistry, it was very easy to explain the disease model of dental caries.
Think of a Venn diagram of three overlapping factors , which when all three are present, disease will occur
1 Teeth ( no teeth -no caries)
2 Bad microbes ( no microbes- no caries ) i.e. perfectly plaque free teeth at all times
3 Sucrose substrate that promotes bad microbes ( sucrose/ refined carbohydrate free diet- no caries)
For generations people expected to have few if any teeth left by the time they were 70 or 80.
Fluoridation came along and people stopped being satisfied with the idea of wearing falsies. Dentists were no longer at "the bottom of the cliff" chasing a never ending stream of cavities. What transformed the landscape was the introduction of auxiliaries, namely dental prosthesists who now own a major segment of the market for dentures, dental therapists who restore baby teeth and dental hygienists who instruct people in self care and clean teeth and milder forms of periodontal disease. These changes initially threatened the guild mentality of the profession accustomed to depending on their skills as tooth carpenters, but some practitioners realised that they could amplify their productivity by adopting a hygiene based model, which promised the prospect of no cavities ever.
People think of dentistry as being a stressful occupation, but there was immense satisfaction to be had by empowering people to become free of disease. Hygiene is the key.
From long experience, it is all but impossible to stop people on psychiatric drugs gaining weight, that's a product of the drug, only managed by reducing the drugs, and even more difficult to get apathetic, overweight, isolated people to join exercise. Not impossible but very difficult and mental health services don't see that sort of thing as their job. Also too lazy to bother.
Whilst the Covid vaccines were based on a valid mechanism of action, the companies behind them (Pfizer, Johson and Johnson etc) are still the same as the ones that produce the psychiatric drugs.
Knowing how they act and conduct themselves in their studies to get psych drugs to market, there’s no reason to think they would act much differently with the vaccine (ignoring side effects, statistical manipulation etc).
It was also how people were coerced from companies that you must have the vaccine or lose your job or stranded in countries where they could not leave unless they had an injection, along with the idea that everyone in low risk groups (children, babies) must be vaccinated, that I think contributed towards animosity toward Covid vaccines.
Patrick Hahn provides a deep analysis on this topic in his book, and one case I remember was this one where, given her age, she didn’t seem to be hugely at risk: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-57853285
I don’t disagree in principle with vaccinations of course, but the way these companies prove efficacy to bring their psychiatric drugs to market should, at the very least, make one wary of how they prove efficacy for any other drug (especially without standard clinical trials), be it vaccine or not.
The preface and introduction of the Maudsley guide to deprescribing should be required reading for anyone being offered psychotropics. As you say, if people knew how difficult it is to come off them, they would definitely have second thoughts about starting.
It brings to mind a discussion I had with some Americans that I was doing business with who asked my opinion about US intervention in Iraq in 2003. My response was "It's much easier to start a war than finish it". Same with psychotropics.
People should be informed about the probability of weight gain. Data from the drug industry underplays its significance, but my impression is that weight gain is more or less assured, often with catastrophic effect. When an individual is so affected, the impact for them is no longer merely a statistical probability , it's an absolute reality.
Health care is delivered in silos. GPs defer to specialists and aren't inclined to question entrenched processes of decision making that are rooted in myths about a biological model of mental illness.
As I see it, there is cost shifting in three directions from mental health services
1. to GPs to manage metabolic and other consequences of psychotropics
2 to social services that have to contend with many folk who become unemployable
3 to the PBS for drugs that cost- what ? $12000 to $15000 per year per person for drugs that are scarcely better than placebo.
Not to mention the burden upon families and the community.
If people want pills, how about trying placebos first while helping them to get a handle on their well being?
Multiple state and commonwealth governmental reports have described systemic failures of mental health services throughout the country. In South Australia there are attempts to acknowledge and address shortcomings with the introduction of lived experience into policy development and service delivery. This is an area that interests me and there are some "green shoots", albeit under the umbrella of the Mental Health Act.
It might be a crazy idea, but what if people demand support for their health and well being in each of the dimensions suggested. There could be reallocation of resources that would produce much better outcomes? Its political.
What happened in dentistry ( my past life) is that people started to abhor the idea of having their teeth replaced by dentures. Fluoridation came along, which meant that waiting rooms were no longer packed with people needing cavities filled or teeth extracted. Private practitioners then made hygiene the core of their business model, even if it wasn't the main profit centre. Practitioners switched to identifying with the concept of preventive dentistry. The practice of dentistry as it was conceived when I graduated, is now well and truly redundant.
Maybe there are parallels? It's a long game.
Biggest problem in psychiatry is the blizzard of propaganda from drug companies via mainstream psychiatry that says all mental disorder is biological and only biological treatment can work. This is non-stop. It may be possible to introduce the "preventive" model you mention but that means psychotherapy, as in "new personalities for old," but very few psychiatrists these days have any training or experience or interest in it.
I think you're out by an order of magnitude on the costs of psychiatric drugs... I'd suggest that antipsychotics are more likely to cost 2000 a year and often less... Something I'd willingly spend on sanity
Thanks for pointing this out. You are right about the big differential between Australia and the US. I thought the Australian government was paying more.
I've included my search on copilot that verifies your assertion
No wonder RFK is mad a big pharma
As for the cost of "sanity", I would be interested in your critique of the work of Joanna Moncrieff who has pieces on YouTube and has written a number of books on the topic including "The bitterest pills". The notes and index at the end run to 50 pages.
hort answer:
Australia (PBS price): ~A$0.83 per pill for 40 mg lurasidone (A$25 for 30 tablets).
United States: ~US$18–47 per pill depending on pharmacy and whether coupons are used.
🇦🇺 Australia — Cost per pill
The clearest Australian price comes from Chemist Warehouse:
Lurasidone WGR 40 mg, 30 tablets = A$25.00 with a valid PBS script
Cost per pill:
25 / 30 = \textbf{A$0.83 per tablet}
This is the standard subsidised PBS price for patients with a Medicare card.
🇺🇸 United States — Cost per pill
US prices vary dramatically depending on whether you use coupons, insurance, or pay retail.
1. Retail / pharmacy coupon prices (brand Latuda)
Lowest US pharmacy price for Latuda 40 mg: US$46.64 per tablet
2. Generic lurasidone (with GoodRx coupon)
Example: 20 mg, 30 tablets = US$18.19 → US$0.61 per pill
(generic pricing varies by strength; 40 mg is typically higher)
3. International online pharmacies (not US retail)
Prices as low as US$3.01 per tablet for 40 mg when imported from accredited international pharmacies (not US domestic pricing)
📊 Comparison Table
Country Product Type Cost per Pill Source
Australia PBS‑subsidised lurasidone 40 mg A$0.83
USA Brand Latuda 40 mg (retail) US$46.64
USA Generic lurasidone (coupon price, 20 mg example) US$0.61
International (not US retail) Latuda 40 mg US$3.01
🧩 Interpretation
Australia’s PBS makes lurasidone extraordinarily cheap compared with US retail prices.
US brand-name Latuda is ~50× more expensive than Australian PBS pricing.
Generic US lurasidone can be cheap with coupons, but availability varies by strength and pharmacy.
If you want, I can also compare monthly treatment costs, different strengths, or brand vs generic availability in each country.
How much is the PBS subsidy for Lurasidone
Short answer:
The PBS subsidy for lurasidone is the difference between the true government‑negotiated price (DPMQ) and the patient co‑payment.
Based on the PBS listing, the subsidy is:
40 mg tablets (30 pack):
DPMQ: A$29.40
Patient charge: A$25.00
PBS subsidy: A$4.40 per pack → A$0.15 per pill
80 mg tablets (30 pack):
DPMQ: A$45.01
Patient charge: A$25.00
PBS subsidy: A$20.01 per pack → A$0.67 per pill
🧩 What these numbers mean
DPMQ = the actual price the government pays the manufacturer (after price disclosure).
Patient charge = what you pay at the pharmacy (A$25 for general patients; concession is lower).
PBS subsidy = DPMQ − patient charge.
Because lurasidone is priced differently at different strengths, the subsidy varies:
Strength DPMQ (Govt price) Patient pays PBS subsidy Subsidy per pill
40 mg × 30 A$29.40 A$25.00 A$4.40 A$0.15
80 mg × 30 A$45.01 A$25.00 A$20.01 A$0.67
🧠 Interpretation
The 40 mg strength is already close to the co‑payment, so the subsidy is small.
The 80 mg strength is much more expensive, so the PBS covers a larger share.
For concession card holders, the patient charge is lower, so the subsidy becomes even larger.
Good work.
There is the cost to the patient and cost to the government via subsidies. This adds up to a lot money in a year. Also, Medicare negotiates lower prices with manufacturers, which infuriates Big Pharma and their lobby in the US, Trump tried to get that stopped but he got nowhere as it would be political suicide for any Australian government
I get the impression that many people including doctors, think that, just be cause for example, someone is no longer shouting at phantoms in the street, after being given antipsychotics they are rendered "sane". Doctors mumble platitudes about "balancing the side effects against the benefits of suppressing of troubling symptoms". There is no evidence of the calculus that justifies that decision making and guidelines promote "maintenance". I had a social worker say to me that "the side effects are the price of mental health". Absence of symptoms does not equal mental health.
Someone on any kind of psychotropic is no longer the same person that they were without them, any more than someone who is inebriated by any mind altering drug, whether it be alcohol, heroin or whatever will display the same personality characteristics that they would possess when not under the influence. Primates have been fascinated by mind altering substances for aeons. Problems arise when people feel they need to keep taking them to feel "normal"
This raises the critically important question of involuntary treatment. Normally, treatment of a medical condition is directly for the benefit of the patient, even if it costs the community a great deal, but who benefits from phantom-shouters being locked in boring, noisy places with bars on the windows? Same with the drugs: who asks the patient "Which would you prefer? Lose your phantoms or lose your sex life?" Remember that when chlorpromazine was first released, it was touted as a drug which gave the inertia and passivity of a lobotomy (leucotomy) without the operation. Wards became much more manageable and staff were happier, but the patients? Nobody asks them.
Not relevant to this topic doctor. I watched your interview with Pascal's neutrality studies. One of the most brilliant conversations on politics and politicians doctor. I wish i got the the power and testosterone to make everyone who votes to watch your video, LOL!!
I have a quick question doctor. I can understand, why men are addicted to power because of testosterone. What about Women doctor? I know you clearly mentioned humans many times.
Women too exhibit same behavior when they are power. Unlimited and unchecked power always lead to many issues? After a quick search, I found this. "In women, it acts as a critical baseline for physical strength and a vital pro-hormone for estrogen production."
Reason for this ask, I am from India, From a Southern state called Tamil Nadu. We got a female chief minister, who exhibited all the psychotic behavior. She is a good woman, but a psycho and ruled our state for 10+ years. Any one who dared to questioned her thrown into jail. Her name is J Jayalalitha, in case if you want to check and validate.
Just curious about the psychological and mental changes, behaviors testosterone cause to women in power. I also find, it is no coincidence everyone in power structure in EU are lead by women and they are placed intentionally. From Von der leyen (Competent and Evil) to Kaja Kallas(Incompetent and evil) to Madeline Albreit(Asked about death of million children in iraq, she said, worth it).
In our culture, women are always portrayed as symbol of life. Seems women in power are as cruel and evil as men. Just sharing my thoughts. If you read this, please let me know your feedback and thoughts.
That was one brilliant interview with Pascal. Please share your knowledge with rest of the world when you are free. Greetings from India.
Thank you, a valuable observation. I'll respond in a week or two.
Could the practice of psychiatry take upon itself the task of monitoring aspects of personal hygiene with respect to the physiological constraints upon mental well being to which you refer? Such an approach would be consistent with an appreciation of the importance of biological parameters that influence states of mind that are thought of as mental illness.
As you mention, being rejected by your social group is devastating. Loneliness and other forms of oppression are highly toxic . Lack of quality sleep is damaging to not only the capacity to make decisions, but also prevents the recuperative effects that are essential to brain health.
The gut brain axis virtually never gets a mention in clinical practice. As endocrinologist Robert Lustig puts it, "Feed the gut ( have a healthy microbiome) and protect the liver".
A psychiatrist once told me emphatically that "depression has nothing to do with diet".
Exercise is another big one.
Whereas there are no biological markers for mental illnesses, there are markers of health, in that healthy people have healthy habits.
Measurable parameters can be developed for sleep, diet and exercise.
Measuring the degree of social inclusion and participation in purposeful activity ( which leads feelings of competency and satisfaction that is the result of doing things that seem worthwhile ) are parameters that are perhaps more qualitative than quantitative.
In my practice of dentistry, it was very easy to explain the disease model of dental caries.
Think of a Venn diagram of three overlapping factors , which when all three are present, disease will occur
1 Teeth ( no teeth -no caries)
2 Bad microbes ( no microbes- no caries ) i.e. perfectly plaque free teeth at all times
3 Sucrose substrate that promotes bad microbes ( sucrose/ refined carbohydrate free diet- no caries)
For generations people expected to have few if any teeth left by the time they were 70 or 80.
Fluoridation came along and people stopped being satisfied with the idea of wearing falsies. Dentists were no longer at "the bottom of the cliff" chasing a never ending stream of cavities. What transformed the landscape was the introduction of auxiliaries, namely dental prosthesists who now own a major segment of the market for dentures, dental therapists who restore baby teeth and dental hygienists who instruct people in self care and clean teeth and milder forms of periodontal disease. These changes initially threatened the guild mentality of the profession accustomed to depending on their skills as tooth carpenters, but some practitioners realised that they could amplify their productivity by adopting a hygiene based model, which promised the prospect of no cavities ever.
People think of dentistry as being a stressful occupation, but there was immense satisfaction to be had by empowering people to become free of disease. Hygiene is the key.
From long experience, it is all but impossible to stop people on psychiatric drugs gaining weight, that's a product of the drug, only managed by reducing the drugs, and even more difficult to get apathetic, overweight, isolated people to join exercise. Not impossible but very difficult and mental health services don't see that sort of thing as their job. Also too lazy to bother.
Off topic message:
Niall, please have a look at Pascal Lottas Neutrality studies interview with Mattias Desmet.
Im so glad that Pascal picked up my suggestion to interview him.
Yes, started the video yesterday, will finish today.
Today. Glenn Diesen also posted an interview with Desmet. After 27 minutes Diesen takes a different direction then Lottaz.
Very interesting interviews.
And in my opinion key discussions to find a way out
The group think of those with a higher education... and how to turn the ship around...
Will try to catch up on these, time permitting. Never seems to be enough time these days.
Big Pharma is going to have to step it up! I’m sure a few million for the ballroom could grease the wheels.
They don't need to, latest news is that the American taxpayer will be shelling out $1billion for it. Aren't they just so generous.
https://apnews.com/article/senate-trump-white-house-ballroom-construction-4b9f101ea8c4861e81018ad5e6627626