The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission,\u00a0established<\/a>\u00a0by Executive Order, convened its first meeting last month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among the topics discussed was the \u201cthreat posed by the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, and stimulants.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shortly thereafter, a group of legislators issued a strongly worded letter to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, accusing him of \u201cpromoting disproven and outright false theories\u201d about these medications\u2014reframing them as \u201cbehavioral health medication.\u201d<\/p> They argued that even suggesting these drugs might pose a \u201cthreat\u201d would \u201cstigmatize\u201d Americans with mental health conditions and potentially deter them from seeking medical care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But labelling something a \u201cthreat\u201d in a policy discussion is not a condemnation; it is an invitation to assess risk\u2014a fundamental responsibility of medical oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\u00a0letter<\/a>, led by Senator Tina Smith, urged Kennedy to \u201cadhere to the well-established and widely accepted scientific and medical consensus\u201d on the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consensus? This is precisely the problem\u2014they are appealing to authority to shut down inquiry rather than fostering critical examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The FDA itself has placed a black box warning on SSRIs, cautioning that studies have shown these drugs\u00a0d<\/a>o<\/a>uble the risk<\/a>\u00a0of suicidal ideation and behaviour in certain populations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Should that warning be revoked for fear of discouraging treatment?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Are we now at a point where simply discussing the risks of medications is considered dangerous? What happened to informed consent?<\/p>\n\n\n\n And if we are to insist on evidence \u2013 as the legislators say \u2013 where is their study that suggests educating people about the harms and benefits of medication prevents them from seeking treatment?<\/p>\n\n\n\n It does not exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In many cases, psychotherapy should be prioritised over medication, as it is safer, more effective in the long run, and aligns with what most patients prefer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neither the MAHA Commission nor Kennedy has advocated for anyone to stop taking medication abruptly\u2014a well-known risk\u2014but rather to investigate the full scope of these drugs\u2019 effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The legislators\u00a0cited<\/a>\u00a0CDC statistics showing that \u201c43 percent of children between the ages of 3 and 17 took medication for an emotional, concentrational, or behavioral condition,\u201d then immediately noted that \u201cyouth mental health needs have only increased in the past five years.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The contradiction is glaring\u2014if these medications were the solution, why is the problem worsening? This is precisely what Kennedy seeks to investigate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the most contentious points was Kennedy\u2019s claim that SSRIs have been linked to school shootings in the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The legislators cited studies such as an analysis of FBI data on \u201ceducational shootings\u201d from 2000-2017, which concluded that the majority of school shooters had not been previously treated with psychotropic medication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, these data are incomplete. Privacy laws restrict access to shooters\u2019 full medical histories, making definitive conclusions about many of these analyses difficult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, a 2015 study\u00a0published<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0PLOS One<\/em>\u00a0by Moore et al. found a disproportionate association between certain psychotropic drugs and violent behaviour in the FDA\u2019s adverse event reporting system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The harms of antidepressants are often downplayed\u2014even in the medical literature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Comparisons between published studies and confidential regulatory documents have\u00a0revealed<\/a>\u00a0significant discrepancies, including underreporting of suicide attempts and aggressive behaviour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My point is, Kennedy is not asserting causation\u2014he is calling for more research. The legislators\u2019 dismissal of his concerns as \u201cdisproven\u201d serves only to suppress an important discussion that demands further scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At his confirmation hearing, Kennedy\u00a0remarked<\/a>, \u201cI know people, including members of my family, who\u2019ve had a much worse time getting off of SSRIs than getting off of heroin.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Legislators strongly objected to the comparison in the letter, but Kennedy was referring to the well-documented difficulties of SSRI\u00a0discontinuation<\/a>\u2014affecting about half of those who take them, even though their dependency profile differs from that of opioids.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What most people don\u2019t realise is that psychiatrists who specialise in tapering patients off antidepressants report that SSRI withdrawal can last far longer than withdrawal from heroin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, some patients remain on SSRIs indefinitely\u2014not by choice, but because withdrawal symptoms are so severe that stopping is unbearable. The legislators\u2019 letter conveniently ignores this reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instead of engaging with the substance of his arguments, Kennedy\u2019s critics attacked his qualifications, claiming he was \u201cunqualified\u201d to weigh in on mental health or addiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n True, Kennedy is not a psychiatrist\u2014or even a physician. But as a lawyer who has spent decades exposing the failures of public health institutions, he understands where scrutiny is needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, Kennedy is not issuing medical directives\u2014he is demanding accountability in a system that too often fails to critically examine the long-term effects of the medications it prescribes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Danish physician Peter G\u00f8tzsche has\u00a0shown<\/a>, prescription drugs are the leading cause of death, surpassing even heart disease and cancer\u2014and psychiatric medications\u00a0alone<\/em>\u00a0are the third leading cause of death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why are these legislators so adamantly defending what is widely acknowledged as the rampant over-prescription of psychiatric drugs? Could it have anything to do with their deep ties to Big Pharma lobbyists?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Their eagerness to silence dissent suggests that the interests being protected may not be those of the public, but rather those of the industry that funds their campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I have been writing about this issue for years, exposing the pharmaceutical industry\u2019s role in shaping narratives around psychiatric drugs while downplaying their harms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The pattern is always the same\u2014suppress uncomfortable discussions, attack those who raise legitimate concerns, and protect the status quo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How fragile do these legislators think people are, that they shouldn\u2019t be trusted with the full truth about the medications they take? And more disturbingly, what gives them the authority to control what information the public is allowed to access?<\/p>\n\n\n\n![](\"https:\/\/www.activistpost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/David-Avocado-Wolfe-Logo.png\"\/){kind=logo}
<\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/brownstone.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image-28-800x450.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/brownstone.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image-29.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/brownstone.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image-30.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n