RFK Jr attacked for his stance on psychotropic meds

Lawmakers say RFK Jr. is spreading misinformation about psychiatric drugs— but the real threat may be their attempt to silence the debate.

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, established by Executive Order, convened its first meeting last month.

Among the topics discussed was the "threat posed by the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, and stimulants."

Shortly thereafter, a group of legislators issued a strongly worded letter to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, accusing him of "promoting disproven and outright false theories" about these medications—reframing them as "behavioral health medication."

They argued that even suggesting these drugs might pose a "threat" would "stigmatize" Americans with mental health conditions and potentially deter them from seeking medical care.

But labelling something a "threat" in a policy discussion is not a condemnation; it is an invitation to assess risk—a fundamental responsibility of medical oversight.

Letter to RFK Jr led by US Senator for Minnesota, Tina Smith.

The letter, led by Senator Tina Smith, urged Kennedy to "adhere to the well-established and widely accepted scientific and medical consensus" on the matter.

Consensus? This is precisely the problem—they are appealing to authority to shut down inquiry rather than fostering critical examination.

The FDA itself has placed a black box warning on SSRIs, cautioning that studies have shown these drugs double the risk of suicidal ideation and behaviour in certain populations.

Should that warning be revoked for fear of discouraging treatment?

Are we now at a point where simply discussing the risks of medications is considered dangerous? What happened to informed consent?

And if we are to insist on evidence - as the legislators say - where is their study that suggests educating people about the harms and benefits of medication prevents them from seeking treatment?

It does not exist.

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.

Neither the MAHA Commission nor Kennedy has advocated for anyone to stop taking medication abruptly—a well-known risk—but rather to investigate the full scope of these drugs' effects.

The legislators cited CDC statistics showing that "43 percent of children between the ages of 3 and 17 took medication for an emotional, concentrational, or behavioral condition," then immediately noted that "youth mental health needs have only increased in the past five years."

The contradiction is glaring—if these medications were the solution, why is the problem worsening? This is precisely what Kennedy seeks to investigate.

One of the most contentious points was Kennedy’s claim that SSRIs have been linked to school shootings in the U.S.

The legislators cited studies such as an analysis of FBI data on "educational shootings" from 2000-2017, which concluded that the majority of school shooters had not been previously treated with psychotropic medication.

However, these data are incomplete. Privacy laws restrict access to shooters’ full medical histories, making definitive conclusions about many of these analyses difficult.

Meanwhile, a 2015 study published in PLOS One by Moore et al. found a disproportionate association between certain psychotropic drugs and violent behaviour in the FDA’s adverse event reporting system.

The harms of antidepressants are often downplayed—even in the medical literature.

Comparisons between published studies and confidential regulatory documents have revealed significant discrepancies, including underreporting of suicide attempts and aggressive behaviour.

My point is, Kennedy is not asserting causation—he is calling for more research. The legislators’ dismissal of his concerns as "disproven" serves only to suppress an important discussion that demands further scrutiny.

At his confirmation hearing, Kennedy remarked, "I know people, including members of my family, who’ve had a much worse time getting off of SSRIs than getting off of heroin."

Legislators strongly objected to the comparison in the letter, but Kennedy was referring to the well-documented difficulties of SSRI discontinuation—affecting about half of those who take them, even though their dependency profile differs from that of opioids.

What most people don’t realise is that psychiatrists who specialise in tapering patients off antidepressants report that SSRI-withdrawal can last far longer than withdrawal from heroin.

In fact, some patients remain on SSRIs indefinitely—not by choice, but because withdrawal symptoms are so severe that stopping is unbearable. The legislators’ letter conveniently ignores this reality.

Instead of engaging with the substance of his arguments, Kennedy’s critics attacked his qualifications, claiming he was "unqualified" to weigh in on mental health or addiction.

True, Kennedy is not a psychiatrist—or even a physician. But as a lawyer who has spent decades exposing the failures of public health institutions, he understands where scrutiny is needed.

Moreover, Kennedy is not issuing medical directives—he is demanding accountability in a system that too often fails to critically examine the long-term effects of the medications it prescribes.

As Danish physician Peter Gøtzsche has shown, prescription drugs are the leading cause of death, surpassing even heart disease and cancer—and psychiatric medications alone are the third leading cause of death.

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?

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.

I have been writing about this issue for years, exposing the pharmaceutical industry's role in shaping narratives around psychiatric drugs while downplaying their harms.

The pattern is always the same -- suppress uncomfortable discussions, attack those who raise legitimate concerns, and protect the status quo.

How fragile do these legislators think people are, that they shouldn’t 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?

Kennedy pledged that "nothing is going to be off limits" in his effort to Make America Healthy Again—this is what he meant.

Raising questions is not misinformation. And shutting down debate is not science.

If policymakers are confident in the safety and efficacy of these drugs, they should welcome scrutiny—not suppress it.

Below is a letter from Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate - addressed to Senator Tina Smith. It requests a meeting to discuss mental health and antidepressant safety concerns, referencing Witczak's personal experience, attaching 15 studies highlighting issues like clinical trial misconduct and regulatory failures