我不是第一個建議精神抑制藥物具有劇毒的人。事實上，它在使用的最初幾十年被認為是常識（Hunter et al., 1964; Hunter et al., 1968）。為了支持鋰的使用，一些研究人員批評了神經安定藥的令人震驚的效果。例如，Fieve（引自 Shah，1973 年）說，神經安定藥“讓一個人昏迷”並把他們放在“精神上的直夾克”中。 Fieve (1989) 還提到了由神經安定藥產生的“殭屍樣外觀”（第 4 頁）。一份 NIMH (1970) 的小冊子將這些藥物與鋰進行了不利的比較，因為它們的效果是“將患者的整個思想包裹在一個麻木的繭中”。同樣，Prien 等人。 (1972) 發現“大多數服用氯丙嗪的患者行動遲緩或疲倦。” Wittrig 和 Coopwood (1970) 證實了受損的“主動性和計劃”（第 488 頁）會產生類似腦葉切除術的效果，他們稱之為化學緊身衣。 Robitscher (1980) 指出，患者經常感到“死亡或‘像殭屍’”（第 90 頁）。
I am not the first to suggest that neuroleptic medications are highly toxic. In fact, it was considered common knowledge in the first decades of their use (Hunter et al., 1964; Hunter et al., 1968). In support of the use of lithium, a number of investigators have criticized the neuroleptics for their stupefying effects. Fieve (cited in Shah, 1973), for example, said that neuroleptics “zonk a person out” and put them in a “mental straight jacket.” Fieve (1989) also referred to the “zombielike appearance” (p. 4) produced by neuroleptics. A NIMH (1970) brochure compared the drugs unfavorably to lithium because of their effect of “wrapping the patient’s entire mind in a cocoon of stupefaction.” Similarly, Prien et al. (1972) found that “most patients receiving chlorpromazine were sluggish or fatigued.” Wittrig and Coopwood (1970) confirmed the lobotomy-like effect of impaired “initiative and planning” (p. 488), which they called the chemical straightjacket. Robitscher (1980) noted that patients frequently feel “dead or ‘like a zombie’ ” (p. 90).
也許是為了應對越來越多的專業和公眾批評，精神科醫生變得更不願意發表對任何治療的批評或提及它們對大腦的影響。 如今，精神安定藥物總是被描述為具有特定的抗精神病作用，而不是麻木的、腦葉切除樣的失活作用。 用我的研究助理伊恩·戈達德（Ian Goddard）的話來說，“歷史和當代關於精神安定藥影響的評論之間的顯著差異清楚地表明，存在一種普遍否認的現象，這種否認在現代已經吞噬了這個行業”（2007 年，未發表）。
Perhaps in response to growing professional and public criticism, psychiatrists have become much more reluctant to publish criticism of any treatments or to mention their brain-disabling effects. Nowadays the neuroleptic drugs are always described as having a specific antipsychotic effect, rather than a numbing, lobotomy-like deactivation effect. In the words of my research assistant, Ian Goddard, “This remarkable difference between historic and contemporary commentary on the effects of neuroleptics clearly reveals the existence of an all-pervasive denial that has consumed the profession in modern times” (2007, unpublished).
大腦的獨特功能（第 40 頁）
THE UNIQUE FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN (p. 40)
一些將腦殘疾作為治療的支持者認為，少量毒性是有幫助的，而只有過度毒性是有害的。他們為降低一個或另一個器官功能以提高其有效性的藥物開創了醫學先例。 因此，為了預防心律失常，一些心臟藥物實際上會削弱心肌功能。 但是在處理大腦時，這個類比就不足了。 當心肌的力量減弱時，對人的思想或個性沒有任何實質性的影響——當然，除非患者出現心力衰竭。 但是，當大腦功能降低時，個人作為有情生命的能力會直接且成比例地降低。 他或她的思考、感覺、選擇和發起活動的能力變得越來越差，最終被迷住了。
Some proponents of brain disability as therapy assume that a little toxicity is helpful and that only excessive toxicity is harmful. They bring up precedents in medicine for drugs that reduce function of one organ or another to improve its effectiveness. Thus some cardiac medications actually weaken heart muscle function in the interest of preventing arrhythmias. But the analogy falls short when dealing with the brain. When the strength of the heart muscle is reduced, nothing substantial is done to the mind or personality of the person—unless, of course, the patient goes into heart failure. But when brain function is reduced, the individual’s capacities as a sentient being are directly and proportionally reduced. He or she becomes less able to think, feel, choose, and initiate activities—and ultimately spellbound.
除此之外，人們還必須研究醫療和精神干預的目的。 破壞一種心臟功能的醫療干預旨在改善整體心臟功能。 使大腦失能的精神干預旨在以降低整體心理功能為代價抑制某些思想、情緒或行為。 這樣一來，它就會使個人的自我意識和自決能力降低，變得更加無助和易於管理。 當他或她在現實中缺乏情緒意識或生命力時，他或她可能會表現出較少的情緒困擾。
Beyond this, one must also look at the purposes of medical and psychiatric interventions. The medical intervention that disrupts one kind of heart function is intended to improve overall heart function. The psychiatric intervention that disables the brain is aimed at suppressing certain thoughts, emotions, or behaviors at the cost of reducing overall mental function. In doing so, it renders the individual less self-aware and less self-determining, more helpless, and more manageable. The individual may appear to be less emotionally disturbed when he or she is, in reality, less emotionally aware or vital.
總之，與第 1 章中介紹的生物精神治療的大腦功能障礙原則一致，抗精神病藥物或抗精神病藥物會產生一種類似腦葉切除術的失活綜合徵，其特徵是情緒冷漠或冷漠、自發性降低和順從。 這是包括 Haldol、Risperdal、Zyprexa、Geodon 和 Seroquel 在內的所有抗精神病藥物的主要或“治療”影響。
In summary, consistent with the brain-disabling principles of biopsychiatric treatment presented in chapter 1, the neuroleptic or antipsychotic drugs produce a lobotomy-like deactivation syndrome characterized by emotional indifference or apathy, reduced spontaneity, and docility. This is the primary or “therapeutic” impact of all neuroleptic drugs including Haldol, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Geodon, and Seroquel.
這種臨床結果在絕大多數患者中是顯而易見的，其中一些患者已淪為殭屍狀態。最近涉及非典型抗精神病藥 Risperdal 和其他抗精神病藥的研究記錄了這一點。 對動物、正常人、持不同政見者和叛逆兒童的研究以及對精神病院、發育障礙機構、療養院和監獄的囚犯的研究也證實了這一點。給定有效的“治療”劑量，所有人類和動物都會在情緒上被抗精神病藥物扼殺和制服。
This clinical result is obvious in the great majority of patients, some of whom are reduced to a zombielike state. It is documented by recent research studies involving the atypical antipsychotic Risperdal and other neuroleptics. It is also confirmed by studies of animals, normal human beings, political dissenters, and rebellious children as well as by studies of the inmates of mental hospitals, institutions for the developmentally disabled, nursing homes, and prisons. Given an effective “therapeutic” dose, all human beings and animals alike are emotionally stifled and subdued by antipsychotic drugs.
該領域的先驅者在首次使用抗精神病藥物時就認識到並撰寫了有關腦葉切開術的作用，但近年來藥物倡導者宣傳了這些藥物具有特定的抗精神病或抗精神分裂症作用的錯誤印象。 實際上，這些劇毒化學製劑的壓倒性臨床效果是使患者和囚犯在情緒上更加平淡和冷漠，更加冷漠和溫順，以及更少的自主和自我導向。
Pioneers in the fi eld recognized and wrote about the lobotomy-like effects of the neuroleptic drugs when they first came into use, but in recent years drug advocates have promoted the false impression that these medications have a specific antipsychotic or antischizophrenic effect. In reality, the overriding clinical effect of these highly toxic chemical agents is to render patients and inmates more emotionally flat and indifferent, more apathetic and docile, and less autonomous and self-directed.
因此，這些患者和囚犯有時在情緒上的痛苦似乎不那麼明顯，而且他們幾乎總是更容易控制。 但這種效果與治療精神疾病無關。 相反，這些藥物使患者在情緒和神經上都失去了能力。
As a result, these patients and inmates sometimes seem less obviously in emotional pain, and they are almost always much more manageable. But the effect has nothing to do with treating a psychiatric disorder. Instead, the patients have been rendered emotionally and neurologically disabled by the drugs.
筆記 (p. 41)
1. 在明顯的疏忽中，該表沒有指出最初的抗精神病藥氯丙嗪 (Thorazine) 是一種有效的 D 受體阻滯劑。
2. 抗精神病藥或抗精神病藥清單見附錄。
NOTES
1. In an apparent oversight, the table fails to note that the original antipsychotic, chlorpromazine (Thorazine), is a potent D blocker.
2. A list of antipsychotic or neuroleptic drugs can be found in the appendix.