Psychiatry’s Dirty Secret: How Big Pharma Hijacked Mental Healthcare
March 6, 2025
by Jeffrey E. Hansen, PhD
Let’s be honest—modern psychiatry has sold out to Big Pharma. In 1980, with the release of the DSM-III, the field took a sharp turn away from human-centered mental healthcare and fully embraced the disease model, aligning itself with pharmaceutical giants. The result? A medical-industrial complex that turned normal human emotions into disorders, overprescribed psychotropics and put profits over patient well-being.
And the numbers don’t lie. In 1987, Americans spent about $80 million on psychotropics. By 2007, that number had skyrocketed to $40 billion—a 50-fold increase in just 20 years. Today, antidepressants are the second most-prescribed medication in the United States, behind only antibiotics.
Although this discussion focuses on antidepressants, the same patterns of pharmaceutical corruption, overprescription and long-term harm apply to other classes of psychotropic medications as well. Antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, stimulants and mood stabilizers have all been subject to misleading marketing, suppressed research and reckless prescribing practices. Each of these drug classes comes with its own risks, including withdrawal syndromes, cognitive impairment, emotional blunting, metabolic issues and, in some cases, permanent neurological damage.
The Serotonin Myth: The Lie That Launched an Industry
For decades, the chemical imbalance theory of depression—specifically, the idea that depression results from low serotonin levels—was presented as scientific fact. However, the truth is that it was never proven. Not then, not now.
Leading critics, including Dr. Joanna Moncrieff and Dr. Mark Horowitz, have dismantled the serotonin hypothesis, showing that antidepressants do not fix an imbalance—because no imbalance exists (Moncrieff, 2023; Moncrieff et al., 2023). Yet, pharmaceutical companies and complicit prescribers continued pushing SSRIs as the answer, despite strong evidence they are only marginally more effective than placebo in mild to moderate depression.
The Price of Overprescription: Real Harm, Real Consequences
Psychotropics do affect the brain—but not in the way people have been told. The long-term effects of antidepressants are underreported, poorly researched and too often dismissed. Consider these disturbing findings:
- Emotional numbness – 71 percent of users report feeling detached from emotions
- Cognitive impairment – Documented decline in information processing, memory and focus
- Weight gain – A 30 percent higher likelihood of obesity after 10 years of antidepressant use
- Increased dementia risk – A 34 percent higher chance of developing dementia in long-term users
- Bleeding risks – SSRIs reduce platelet serotonin, increasing the risk of serious bleeding
- Sexual dysfunction – 25 to 80 percent experience loss of desire, arousal issues or inability to orgasm—sometimes permanently, known as Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction
- Suicide risk in young people – The FDA’s Black Box Warning states that antidepressants can increase suicidal thoughts in people under the age of 24
The Brave Few Who Dare to Speak the Truth
Thankfully, not everyone has fallen in line with Big Pharma’s agenda. A handful of courageous professionals have risked their careers to expose the truth about psychotropics and the corruption within psychiatry. These are the people I admire deeply:
- Robert Whitaker – Investigative journalist who exposed the dark side of psychiatry in Anatomy of an Epidemic
- Joanna Moncrieff – Psychiatrist who debunked the serotonin myth and challenges the overmedicalization of distress
- Mark Horowitz – Psychiatrist and neuroscientist who experienced his own battle with antidepressant withdrawal and now educates prescribers on safe tapering
- David Healy – A relentless critic of pharmaceutical corruption who has documented antidepressant-induced suicides and sexual dysfunction
- Peter Gøtzsche – Co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, who has called out Big Pharma’s deceptive research tactics
- James Davies – A psychologist who exposed how psychiatry’s alliance with drug companies expanded the definition of mental illness for profit
- Josef Witt-Doerring – A former U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) psychiatrist turned whistleblower, who now educates the public about the dangers of psychiatric medications and exposes how regulatory agencies prioritize pharmaceutical interests over patient safety
Dear Prescribers: Please Do Better
To the prescribers who are recklessly handing out psychotropics like candy, you need to do better. Too many patients are put on these drugs without full informed consent, without a real discussion of side effects and without a clear plan for discontinuation. This is malpractice—plain and simple.
To be fair, not all prescribers are part of the problem. There are many who practice responsible, evidence-based psychiatry, who use medication only when truly necessary and who work to ensure their patients are fully informed. To those clinicians: I salute you.
DISCLAIMER:
The purpose of this blog is to stimulate thought and discussion about important issues in healthcare. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily express the views of CMDA. We encourage you to join the conversation on our website and share your experience, insight and expertise. CMDA has a rigorous and representative process in formulating official positions, which are largely limited to bioethical areas.
How, exactly, is it the fault of industry, and not the prescribers themselves?
I don’t dispute the claims you make. Marty Makary wrote about this in his latest book and he’s a very credible source.
But the picture Makary points is one of clinicians sometimes failing to exercise critical thinking, but also a condition of uncertainty in the presence of imperfect data. Progress in medicine never ends. He doesn’t paint businesses as villains, except for Purdue, of course.
-Steve
Christian Medical & Dental Associations, as a Christian psychiatrist who’s been active in CMDA since medical school & have been actively involved in the the CMDA Psychiatry Section – Limited Access, I find this article disappointing and surprising. I have not seen you publish something that is neither spiritually edifying nor clinically accurate.
Written by a person who has never prescribed a medication,
& does not have the medical training necessary to evaluate how these medications work or their efficacy.
To raise awareness about side effects and call for human-centered care, would make sense.
The inflammatory & hyperbolic statements such as “modern psychiatry has sold out to Big Pharma” is not only untrue but I don’t understand how that can possibly represent the views of a Christian medical organization.
Please consider reviewing this again.
Hello Steve,
Thank you for your comment. At a closer reading, you might find that I fault not only the industry but also the prescribers, as noted in the last section. Clearly, both are culpable.
“To the prescribers who are recklessly handing out psychotropics like candy, you need to do better. Too many patients are put on these drugs without full informed consent, without a real discussion of side effects, and without a clear plan for discontinuation. This is malpractice—plain and simple.”
I can’t agree with you more that prescribers often appear to be bereft of critical thinking. Maybe that should be a course in medical school?
With appreciation and respect,
Jeff
Dear Dr. Mirhom,
Thank you for taking the time to engage with my work. I recognize that discussions surrounding psychiatry, psychotropic medications, and the broader field of mental health care can evoke strong emotions, particularly for those who have been personally affected—whether as patients, clinicians, or loved ones.
First and foremost, I want to acknowledge that you are clearly highly respected in your field. Your dedication to psychiatry and your commitment to helping those struggling with mental health challenges are evident, and I deeply respect the work you do. This conversation is not about questioning the sincerity or expertise of individual psychiatrists but rather about addressing systemic issues within the profession.
While I am not a prescriber, as a PhD in clinical psychology, I am well-equipped to analyze and interpret research, particularly regarding the effects of psychotropic medications. My perspective is not formed in isolation but rather through years of working with patients, many of whom have suffered significant harm from these treatments. This is not to dismiss the potential benefits that some individuals experience, but rather to highlight a pressing issue: the psychiatric profession, as a whole, is facing a crisis of credibility. Far too often, the risks and limitations of these medications are downplayed, while alternative approaches to mental health care are ignored or dismissed outright.
As Christians, we are called to humility, self-reflection, and a commitment to truth. This applies not only to our personal lives but also to the professional fields in which we operate. It is not an act of hostility to critically examine the practices of psychiatry or psychology—it is an act of responsibility. When we see harm being done, we have an ethical obligation to speak out, even when doing so is uncomfortable or unpopular.
Moreover, it is not just psychiatry that is in crisis. The field of psychology, once rooted in scientific inquiry and clinical practice, has increasingly become ideologically driven, prioritizing prevailing cultural narratives over rigorous, evidence-based care. This ideological capture undermines trust in the profession and, more importantly, compromises the well-being of the very individuals it claims to serve.
My intent is not to vilify psychiatry or psychology but to encourage honest reflection and reform. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the growing number of individuals who have suffered under a model of care that often prioritizes pharmacological intervention over holistic healing. My hope is that, as a profession and as individuals, we will have the courage to question, to learn, and ultimately, to do better.
Again, I appreciate your engagement with these difficult but necessary conversations. Truth and accountability are not enemies of healing—they are its foundation.
Respectfully,
Jeff
Your response “My intent is not to vilify psychiatry or psychology but to encourage honest reflection and reform.” is perplexing. The statements, “Let’s be honest—modern psychiatry has sold out to Big Pharma” and “….. the corruption within psychiatry” clearly vilify psychiatry. CMDA should have required a blog post that was based on facts and rooted in research and science and not one laced with “inflammatory & hyperbolic statements”.
Dear Dr. Hansen and CMDA,
I respectfully but strongly second Dr. Mirhom’s motion: While there is certainly much to consider and discuss regarding the prudent use of psychotropic medications, this article does not help advance that agenda. Rather than raising questions and introducing concerns in an even-handed manner, its tone is inflammatory and pejorative throughout, with several gusts of contempt (“reckless prescribing practices,” “profits over patient well-being,” “corruption within psychiatry,” and “malpractice – plain and simple,” for example). We are not given food for thought, but rather presented with sweeping generalizations and told in no uncertain terms what to think about psychotropics and those who prescribe them.
Disclosure No 1: I am a family physician, retired after 44 years of front-line patient care, and a CMDA member. I saw hundreds of patients over the years who presented with anxiety and/or depression, often concurrently, or somatic symptoms that were exacerbated by (or directly tied to) those conditions. I prescribed first-line medications when appropriate – SSRIs, bupropion, and yes, even benzodiazepines – as part of an overarching approach that included assessment of the patient’s personal and family history, current medical conditions and medications, and spiritual outlook. I emphasized that all of these areas were important, but found very often that patients had difficulty attending to them until the physiological component of the disturbance was addressed and stabilized. I discussed possible side-effects, insisted on short- and long-term follow up, and strongly encouraged engagement in counseling, exercise, prayer, curbing negative media input, and so on. All of these contributed to improvement – including the medications. Were they always successful? No, but nothing we prescribe possesses that super-power. Did some patients experience side-effects. Certainly, and they were addressed. But I can state categorically that there were many, many patients for whom the benefit of one or more of these medications was far more than “marginally more effective than placebo.”
Disclosure No. 2: I understand Dr. Hansen’s passion to address the wrongs that he sees in this area of medicine. In 2001, I co-authored “Examining Alternative Medicine” (IVP) in an effort to evaluate – and yes, criticize — trends in that burgeoning movement that I had found concerning, especially Eastern mystical / New Age ideologies that were embedded in a number of alternative therapies. We sought to make this discussion engaging and a little humorous. I was dismayed when a reviewer whom I admired criticized our work for its tone, which she found disdainful and at times overtly sarcastic. Upon re-reading the book years later, I had to agree with her assessment. I would write a different book now. Lesson learned: However strongly one might feel about a particular topic, tone is of the essence.
Dear Colleagues,
First, I want to express my gratitude to each of you who took the time to engage with my blog post. I recognize that this is a charged and deeply personal topic, particularly for those who have dedicated their careers to psychiatry and psychopharmacology. My intent is not to diminish the dedication of individual clinicians who are working to help patients but to call attention to a larger systemic issue that continues to harm many.
I fully acknowledge that my tone in this article was direct and passionate. The reason for this is simple: the stakes are extraordinarily high. Every day, I see patients who are struggling not just with their mental health but with the long-term effects of psychotropic medications they were prescribed without fully understanding the risks. Many of these individuals have been left feeling numb, cognitively impaired, or trapped in cycles of dependence and withdrawal. This is not theoretical—it is a reality that thousands, if not millions, of people live with.
This issue is also deeply personal for me. Many years ago, I experienced firsthand the harm that can come from poor prescribing practices. I suffered significant negative effects from medication that was given without proper monitoring or informed consent. Even more painfully, I firmly believe that reckless prescribing contributed to the early death of my twin brother, who struggled with mental health issues. Losing him was a devastating experience, and it reinforced my conviction that we must do better—both in how we prescribe and in how we support those who seek help for their suffering.
Beyond the direct harms of overprescription, my concern is that too often, psychiatry has allowed people to experience momentary relief without ever addressing the root causes of their mental illness. Trauma, unresolved grief, relational wounds, early attachment disruptions, and spiritual emptiness are often at the core of emotional suffering, yet these deeper issues are frequently overlooked in favor of a quick pharmaceutical fix. This is not to say that medication never has a role—it clearly does for some—but when it becomes the default intervention rather than one piece of a larger, more holistic approach, we do a disservice to those we are called to help.
That said, I hear your concerns about tone. In retrospect, I could have framed certain statements in a way that facilitated a more constructive dialogue. However, the urgency of the issue remains. The overprescription of psychotropic medications, the downplaying of their risks, and the financial entanglements between the pharmaceutical industry and psychiatry are well-documented. These concerns are not hyperbolic; they are supported by extensive research, personal accounts, and the work of highly respected professionals, some of whom I referenced in my article.
To Dr. Mirhom and Dr. Reisser, I deeply respect your perspectives and the work you have done in medicine. I do not doubt that many prescribers, yourselves included, are careful, responsible, and truly invested in patient well-being. My critique is not aimed at those who practice responsible, patient-centered care but at the broader system that has too often prioritized pharmaceutical profits over long-term healing.
Dr. Reisser, I particularly appreciate your reflection on your own past writing and the evolution of your approach. I take your words seriously and will reflect on how I communicate these concerns in future discussions. At the same time, I stand by the substance of my argument.
This conversation is not about dismissing all medications outright—rather, it is about ensuring that we do not ignore their risks or allow financial incentives to dictate treatment practices. It is about advocating for informed consent, safe tapering protocols, and a more holistic approach to mental health that does not rely so heavily on pharmaceuticals as a first-line intervention.
If my words have struck a nerve, perhaps it is because this is a conversation that needs to happen more openly. I welcome respectful disagreement, and I hope that we can continue this dialogue in a way that prioritizes truth, accountability, and ultimately, the well-being of the patients we all seek to serve.
With respect and appreciation,
Jeff