Recent posts on RxISK and davidhealy.org have covered Fertility and heralded the forthcoming birth of a Fertility Zone.
On RxISK
- Uterine Roulette and Consent
- No Room at the Inn
- Medicine, Civilization and Cradles
- Sex, Fertility, France and Serotonin Timeline
- Disaster Sex Yes, No Sex Disaster
On DH
- Has Healthcare Gone Mad
- Pharmageddon and Fertility
- Pharmageddon and Our HealthCare Climate
- Liberty, Equality and Fertility
- TAIL Wags God – Technology and Morality
To these posts we can add this week’s DH post Its Health’s Illusions I Recall, I really don’t know Health at All. This post does not cover Fertility but as might become a little more obvious in the Officially Inconvenient Section below, Health’s Illusions deals with mistakes people like Jorge and Giorgia and Emmanuel are making.
The Fertility Zone, one of our most ambitious projects, has been born. The changes we hope it might trigger won’t happen unless visitors to the cradle collaborate to make something happen.
Invisible Hearts
Plummeting birth rates are causing a growing sense of crisis in Western countries. If there are no children to pay taxes, how do social services keep going? As it stands governments once upon a time could pay people to have children but can no longer afford to do so.
We did not value children, or the work women do to have children and make people of them, in the way we might have done if we had had a shred of foresight. We are now paying the price.
We have celebrated the role of Invisible Hands – aka the market – in making our economies and missed the more important role of Invisible Hearts.
This is a bigger crisis than climate change. We figured renewable energy would come onstream and replace petrochemicals once prices dropped. That’s how the market works. It now looks like it is not how the market works. The price of renewables has dropped dramatically but this has made little difference.
Markets in Adam Smith’s day, before the French Revolution, were supposed to respond to prices. They don’t now. They respond to profits. Can I make a profit from this because if I can, we have the marketing tools to ensure that these inferior and over-expensive products will fly off shelves. Our behaviours are shaped by Invisible Strings rather than Invisible Hands.
Profits can be made from cleaning up petrochemical spills – on the basis that it has to be done and governments or whoever will pay through the nose. Clearing up after the Exxon Valdez oil spill boosted US GDP.
But if, the petrochemical pills causing a polypharmacy pandemic are a major factor in stymying our Fertility, there is no profit to be made cleaning them up. Getting people off their meds is not a business model that computes for anyone.
It ain’t going to happen – except whipping some old folk in residential homes off some of the cheaper older meds they are on and replacing them with monoclonal antibodies. It makes perfect Invisible Strings sense to save the money that might be spend on a hip operation if a 92 year old is noticed to have some bone thinning by putting her on Denosumab – Prolia – at $2000 an injection.
What might things look like if Invisible Hearts shaped not just policy but what we in fact do rather than just aspire to do?
Leaders or Figureheads
It would not look like this photo of Giorgia and Jorge which comes from a Reuters Article on the perilous state of Fertility in Italy and Europe – How Europe can dodge a birth rate hard landing.
Giorgia is encouraging Italian women to have more children. Italy’s birth rate has dropped to 1.18 children per woman, when the rate of births among immigrant women are removed from the picture.
See Births in Italy Heading for a new Record Low.
The economists are saying – Hey we can get older people to work longer and we can get more women to work. What other options are there when demographers are saying – it is very difficult to increase fertility. The only semi-reliable way is War – World War II gave rise to the Baby Boom after all.
The Reuters article has one great merit to it – it says the reasons for declining Fertility are varied and in some cases not fully understood.
Economic constraints are felt everywhere – the article says – but points to evidence of a shift in deeper cultural attitudes towards parenthood. As evidence for a deeper cultural shift, they cite Norway which is very wealthy and can afford to make it possible for younger people to have a family but they too have falling Fertility Rates.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (see OECD and Fertility) has come out and said we just don’t know what is going on.
Anna Rotkirch, the Director of Finland’s Population Research Institute, says
“This goes right into what is a desirable, pleasant and attractive life path, lifestyle, and broader values and ideals… No one really knows what kind of family policy would work in this new situation to promote fertility.”
What everyone is steering clear of mentioning are the meds. If meds kill desire is this not going to make a difference? If meds kill function will this not make a difference?
The paradox is we have programs telling us that there is a War on Children leading to our children being more sexualized than ever before, along with ready access to pornography even pre-pubertally, but sales of contraceptives are falling, asexuality is rising, and on all sides younger people are just not having sex the way they once did.
The economic timebomb linked to the falling productivity that a shrinking aging population inevitably brings is one thing. But is it as important as a deep disenchantment with the way we live now? Where does it rank compared to having large sections of the population, both young and old afflicted with a drug induced inability to feel any joy in life? It is not going to be possible to get more older folk or women to work if they are on vitiating antidepressants or mood-stabilizers.
Where are the Leaders who are going to step up to this plate and ask what can we do to clean up this petrochemical mess? We need more than Figureheads like Jorge, who mandate petrochemical taking, we need Leaders who can articulate Inconvenient Truths.
Vive la République
The problem in France, a problem rapidly extending elsewhere, is that it has just become a Crime in France to articulate inconvenient truths. Does this explain why the French documents on Infertility liberally mention the petrochemicals in the air we breathe and water we drink but not the ones we take in pill form?
From France to Italy to the United States the silence about our medicines screams. This newly passed French Bill states:
Today, the National Assembly adopted a major law aimed at strengthening the prevention and fight against sectarian aberrations in France. This vote marks a significant step forward in strengthening the protection of citizens against abuse and manipulation by charlatans, gurus and any other sectarian movement.
This bill reflects the Government’s commitment to meeting the expectations of victims of these sectarian movements.
Among the key measures voted for by parliamentarians, we find in particular:
The approval of legal powers for the Interministerial mission of vigilance and fight against sectarian abuses to;
- Strengthen the criminal response with the creation of the offense of placement or maintenance in a state of psychological or physical subjection
- The creation of an offense of provocation to abandon or abstain from care, or to adopt practices which expose a person to a serious risk to their health;
- Support for victims with the extension of the categories of associations that can become civil parties;
- Inform judicial actors with the attribution of an “amicus curiae” role for certain state services in legal cases linked to sects.
Sabrina Agresti-Roubache, the Secretary of State for Citizenship and the City said:;;;;;
“I would like to recall the basis of this bill: the State does not fight against beliefs, opinions or religions, but against all forms of sectarian abuse, these dangerous behaviors, which represent a threat to our social cohesion and put lives at risk. »
The new Bill threatens to punish anyone who questions or criticizes officially approved treatments.
Officially approved means what?
It means approved by FDA or EMA. See Health’s Illusions. FDA and EMA licence companies to use words like antidepressant or vaccine. Regulators are bureaucrates. They are not doctors or scientists. They do not approve treatments or understand treatments.
They are approving companies to pulls some Invisible Strings to make money. Most of the words licensed to be used in this way are linked to treatments, which in the assays submitted to regulators have led to more disability and death than placebos. Many of the approved ‘Strings’ are linked to Falling Fertility Rates.
tim says
“The new Bill threatens to punish anyone who questions or criticises officially approved treatments”
‘Officially approved means what? It means approved by FDA or EMA’.
A license for yet more Evidence De-Based Medicine?
The vision of J. Robert Oppenheimer now appears to be unachievable:
“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science.
The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to ask for any evidence, to correct any errors”. —– “And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress”.
annie says
“we need Leaders who can articulate Inconvenient Truths.”
This was one hell of a story…
New INFERTILITY documentary launching soon
“When I analysed the data some years ago on mass shootings…the common denominator was psychotropic medication, many of which have this warning on them about suicidal and violent ideation, that’s what they drive people to do.”
https://rumble.com/v17op17-andy-wakefield-drops-bombshell-about-new-infertility-documentary-launching-.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=3
Short, powerful – a punch from the heart, from the young woman who coined the title…
Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda
“World Health Organization was extremely angry”
https://infertilitymovie.org/a-diabolical-agenda/
Executive Producer: Robert Kennedy, Jr.
Last words from Mike Yeadon…
tim. says
”The new Bill threatens to punish anyone who questions or criticises officially approved treatments.
Officially approved means what? It means approved by FDA or EMA”.
Doesn’t this negate the scientific method?
“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry.There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors”
—— “we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress”.
J.R.O.*
Dr. David Healy says
Who is JRO?
D
tim says
J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Sorry for duplication. First time: seemed rejected automatically: “You have said this before”.
susanne says
Sleight of hand – they were ‘forced’ by the FDA to simply change the marketing language Easily bought on-line still without women knowing how they had tried, and succeeded in in fooling them with ‘flawed’ information.
The grey area of “fertility tech” being mis-sold as contraception
BMJ 2024; 384 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q54 (Published 16 February 2024)
Cite this as: BMJ 2024;384:q54
Mun-Keat Looi
s
Chelsea Polis, who won the 2023 Maddox prize early career award, explains how she was sued for identifying a mis-sold medical device—and why, in an age of disinformation, researchers and clinicians must call out wrongdoing when they see it. Mun-Keat Looi reports
When Chelsea Polis questioned the evidence behind a fertility tracking thermometer, she soon found herself a defendant in a lawsuit.
In 2020 Polis, an epidemiologist, was sued for publicly sharing her scientific and regulatory concerns about the marketing of Daysy, a fertility device marketed as a contraceptive.1 The case was eventually dismissed, a flawed paper was retracted from the scientific literature, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forced the manufacturer of Daysy, Valley Electronics, to change its marketing language.
Polis now advocates for laws to protect free speech for scientists and others. In November 2023 she was awarded the Maddox prize early career award for “her courage in challenging false marketing claims made by medical device manufacturers, and for her analysis of the flawed research used to market a fertility tracking thermometer as a contraceptive, which she communicated effectively in the face of lawsuits and threats.”
Dan says
Hello Dr. D. Healy, I wanted to ask you if you had had the opportunity to read this study released a few days ago, and what you thought about it. Thank you
Antidepressant Use and Treatment-Emergent Sexual Dysfunction Among Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: Results From an Internet-Based Survey Study: Real-world antidepressant use patterns in patients with MDD
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666915324000350#fig0002
Harriet Vogt says
‘The economic timebomb linked to the falling productivity that a shrinking aging population inevitably brings is one thing. But is it as important as a deep disenchantment with the way we live now? Where does it rank compared to having large sections of the population, both young and old afflicted with a drug induced inability to feel any joy in life?’
Of course, drug-induced infertility is a crime against personal optimism. And linking drugs to very real fertility issues is, theoretically anyway, a smart strategic move for grabbing distracted politicians’ attention. But the political obsession in France, Japan etc. with population sub-replacement levels of breeding failing to support domestic running costs, really is a sort of national HR problem. ‘Politicians just get on with sorting it out – within budget and whilst making appropriate adaptions for the varying needs of the workforce. For once, use your imagination’.
Being deprived of our ability to feel joy – or profound sadness, for that matter – this loss is immeasurable. Leave your humanity at the door.
I stare at the data on UK (sorry, parochial) AD consumption…
…and think about all those people, hugely biased towards women , as usual – with drug induced emotional range constriction. Inappropriately prescribed for the peri/menopausal age groups who, if they can ever get off these drugs, probably assume their vanished sensuality means they’re ‘past it’. Makes you wonder what the real PSSD prevalence is? Dangerously prescribed for seniors – risking sedation and falls. Well known but criminally ignored life and death risks for the young, in the absence of benefit.
And, as you say, so many other drugs (‘mood stabilisers’, antihypertensives, polypharmacy cocktails galore etc.) leave human beings of all ages emotionally disconnected from their own feelings, suspended in a glass jar – PSSD Rosie’s vivid description of her state of non-being. Reading end of life protocols, they don’t even let you die feeling your own feelings (assuming the person doing the dying is not in extreme pain and in need of pain killing medication).
Why do governments refuse to see this? Are they blinded by the rich contribution to the national bottom line of pharmaceutical companies? Do they only see those no longer deniable, glaringly obvious physical harms, like the 20,000 UK mothers who gave birth to disabled babies after taking sodium valproate – 30 years after the risks were known and after 14 years of patient campaigning? Is a sedated, emotionally atrophied population just easier to manage? Are they all zoned out themselves? Do they simply not give a stuff?
A very faint glimmer of hope yesterday came from Zoomer journo, Freya India, fighting back against the social and sensual numbing and a/desexualisation of her generation:
‘We are a sexless generation. We are also a sedated generation. And I’m asking for the courage to at least investigate the connection between the two. You deserve to know if your sexual identity is a side-effect. And if enough of us speak up about this, the pharmaceutical industry deserves what’s coming to them.
https://www.freyaindia.co.uk/p/are-you-asexual-or-on-antidepressants?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Just maybe, possibly, conceivably, probably not, but you never know – as sometimes happens in life- the cultural pendulum will swing back – eventually – to joy. What will it take?
annie says
Carl Heneghan reposted
Assoc for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregn Tests
@acdhpt
·
Feb 18
#Primodos FULL DOCUMENTARY: A wonderful film on HPT’s/Primodos produced by David Bond.
https://primodos.org/testing-for-life/
‘Watershed moments’ …
Dr. David Healy says
A regular contributor to RxISK sent me a link to a French cardiologist’s blog Michel de Lorgeril that seems on the mark and and too good to stay in my inbox. The post and 16 comments are on
https://michel.delorgeril.info/ethique-et-transparence/les-derives-sectaires-et-le-fameux-article-4-nouvelle-police-de-la-pensee/
Sectarian excesses and the famous article 4: new “thought police”? 02/17/2024
Some visitors to this Blog wanted to see in article 4 of the new law on sectarian aberrations [Oops!] an attempt by the current leaders to censor information not in line with their ideologies.
I think they were right to be worried. Since Covid (and also before), our supposed local democrats have gone crazy to the point that today it is the supposed parties of the extreme left and right who defend freedoms. Now we have seen it all !
But it seems that there have been some reactions in Parliament to speak out against this new madness of “Thought Police” which generally heralds a Police State…
They have at least temporarily retreated.
I summarize: the famous article 4 rejected by the Assembly (then rewritten… and finally adopted) aimed to protect citizens against gurus…
Lots of emotions here and there; but surely and finally a sword in the water on the part of the initiators of this article 4.
It is difficult to reach this level of idiocy; but this is not surprising given the intellectual level of the people we sent to the National Assembly (from the extreme right to the extreme left and including the middle).
If I was there, I would be ashamed to be there!
Some fragments of the new version (which will still have to be validated by the Constitutional Council if I understood correctly):
1) “The provocation, by means of pressure or repeated maneuvers, of any person suffering from a pathology to abandon or abstain from following a course is punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros. treatment “.
2) “Provocation to adopt practices presented as having a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose is punishable by the same penalties.”
3) “When the provocation is accompanied by clear and complete information as to the consequences for health and the conditions in which this provocation was made do not call into question the free and informed will of the person, the offenses defined in this article may not be constituted.
4) “The information reported or disclosed by the whistleblower under the conditions provided for in Article 6 of Law No. 2016-1691 of December 9, 2016 relating to transparency, the fight against corruption and modernization of economic life does not constitute a provocation within the meaning of this article.”
In short, unless you are a very mean person or a really stupid person, you can sleep peacefully. The text of this article 4 serves no purpose other than to act as a scarecrow…
Or, quite simply, we tried to satisfy the initiators of this article 4 while calming the few good minds who saw it as a new Thought Police.
For example, I doubt that this could set back the “Grand Savont de Marseille”…
They write: “by means of repeated pressure or maneuvers”. What is that ?
They still write: “the provocation to adopt practices presented as…” What is that?
And again: “do not call into question the free and enlightened will of the person…” But what the hell is that?
And finally: “The information reported or disclosed by the whistleblower. ” It’s what ?
In short, any legal expert – which I am not – can only laugh when reading these things…
But what will the Judges appointed by the next French Putin do with it?
Dr. David Healy says
There are lots of comments about how things get lost in translation. Canadians, even French Canadians, would likely never end a comment like this as Michel has done. They would not have said what might the next French Poutine do. Poutine is a French Canadian dish – French Fries, Cheese Curds and Gravy
D
annie says
Before it took off…
French anti-cult law proposes to criminalise natural health
Dec 13, 2023
https://anheurope.org/news/french-anti-cult-law-proposes-to-criminalise-natural-health/
Opposition to the revised law
Fortunately, not everyone in France is taking this overt attack on alternative and natural medicine and insult to freedom of expression — the very thing the law originally set out to protect — lying down.
One such dissenter is Professor Christian Perronne MD PhD, a former member of the European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (ETAGE) of the WHO Regional Office. He was himself savagely attacked by French medical authorities and then dismissed in 2020 by the Garches hospital at which he worked as head of infectious diseases for not toeing the narrative on covid, criticising the covid-19 mass vaccination programme and supporting early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. He was subsequently prosecuted by the National Council of the Order of Physicians, via a malpractice tribunal. However, on 21 October 2022, supported by a public demonstration (no doubt classified by the authorities as a sectarian cult),
Professor Perronne was fully exonerated of all charges brought against him by the medical authorities.
On 27 November 2023, Professor Perronne expressed his grave concerns for the bill in an article published online by the BonSens.org association, of which he is an expert contributor.
The following is an extract from his article [translated from French]:
“This law would make it possible to violently suppress what little freedom of expression remains in our beautiful, battered country. This would be a crime against science which can only progress through debate of ideas….This law would establish a de facto obligation to receive pharmaceutical substances, even experimental ones, against one’s will….This would be a violation of international conventions.” – Christian Perronne MD PhD
Ah, Ya,; Poutine
My Student daughter cooked it, took me to a Poutine restaurant in Victoria, BC, years ago.
Rake-thin, with three jobs, a Canadian on the back-end of the CA health system, we went on to ‘Dairy Queen’…
David T Healy says
Harriet sent this comment
‘The economic timebomb linked to the falling productivity that a shrinking aging population inevitably brings is one thing. But is it as important as a deep disenchantment with the way we live now? Where does it rank compared to having large sections of the population, both young and old afflicted with a drug induced inability to feel any joy in life?’
Of course, drug-induced infertility is a crime against personal optimism. And linking drugs to very real fertility issues is, theoretically anyway, a smart strategy for grabbing distracted politicians’ attention. But the political obsession in France, Japan etc. with population sub-replacement levels of breeding failing to support domestic running costs really is a sort of national HR problem. ‘Politicians just get on with sorting it out – within budget and whilst making appropriate adaptions for the varying needs of the workforce. For once, use your imagination’.
Being deprived of our ability to feel joy – or profound sadness, for that matter – this loss is immeasurable. Leave your humanity at the door.
I stare at the data on AD consumption… and think about all those people, hugely biased towards women , as usual – with drug induced emotional range constriction. Inappropriately prescribed for the peri/menopausal age groups who, if they can ever get off these drugs, probably assume their vanished sensuality means they’re ‘past it’. Makes you wonder what the real PSSD prevalence is? Dangerously prescribed for seniors – risking sedation and falls. Well known but criminally ignored life and death risks for the young, in the absence of benefit.
And, as you say, so many other drugs (‘mood stabilisers’, anti hypertensives, polypharmacy cocktails etc.) leave human beings of all ages emotionally disconnected from their own feelings, suspended in a glass jar – PSSD Rosie’s vivid description of her state of non-being. Reading end of life protocols, they don’t even let you die feeling your own feelings (assuming the person doing the dying is not in extreme pain and in need of pain killing medication).
Why do governments refuse to see this? Are they blinded by the rich contribution to the national bottom line of pharmaceutical companies? Do they only see those no longer deniable, glaringly obvious physical harms, like the 20,000 UK mothers who gave birth to disabled babies after taking sodium valproate – 30 years after the risks were known and after 14 years of patient campaigning? Is a sedated, emotionally atrophied population just easier to manage? Are they all zoned out themselves? Do they simply not give a stuff?
Dr. David Healy says
Two people sent this comment from a post on GIRLS by Freya India – You deserve to know if your Sexual Identity is a Side Effect of Antidepressants
‘We are a sexless generation. We are also a sedated generation. And I’m asking for the courage to at least investigate the connection between the two. You deserve to know if your sexual identity is a side-effect. And if enough of us speak up about this, the pharmaceutical industry deserves what’s coming to them.
https://www.freyaindia.co.uk/p/are-you-asexual-or-on-antidepressants?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Just maybe, possibly, conceivably, probably not, but you never know – as sometimes happens in life- the cultural pendulum will swing back – eventually – to joy. What will it take?
Gen Z is often described as a sexless generation. We are having less sex than previous generations did at the same age. We are less likely to have been on a date. More of us identify as asexual. In fact, according to this Stonewall report, more Gen Z Brits identify as asexual (5%) than gay (2%) or lesbian (3%).
All kinds of cultural and social influences could explain this. Early exposure and addiction to online porn might be one. I’ve written about risk-aversion and fear of rejection as another. Increased awareness of asexuality too. But there is also, I think, a medical explanation. More specifically: the widespread use of SSRIs and their sexual side-effects.
SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors) are a common class of antidepressants used to treat depression, anxiety and other mental health problems. Popular SSRIs include Fluoxetine (Prozac), Escitalopram (Lexapro), and Sertraline (Zoloft). Something well established about these drugs is that they have sexual side-effects. In fact, between 40 and 65% of people who take an SSRI are thought to experience some form of sexual dysfunction. What few people know, though, is these side effects can persist even after coming off of the drugs—a condition called Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD).
This is more than just low libido. It can be a total loss of libido, genital numbness, erectile dysfunction, an inability to orgasm and complete lack of sexual attraction. Emotional blunting is also common, with sufferers describing a numbing of positive emotions, no romantic feelings, and difficulty connecting with others. PSSD can occur immediately—after just a few pills—and persist for years, decades, even permanently. There is no treatment. Despite PSSD being in the medical records since the ‘90s, patients are rarely warned of the risk. A risk thought to be 1 in 216.
Which terrifies me given the surge in SSRI prescriptions among Gen Z. In the UK, 1 in 3 teenagers aged 12 to 18 has been prescribed antidepressants. In 2022 alone, the number of children aged 13 to 19 taking antidepressants rose by 6,000 to 173,000. That’s kids taking drugs known to cause sexual dysfunction—drugs that the Royal College of Psychiatrists admits to using to castrate sex offenders—right during puberty.
And increasingly before puberty! In the UK, antidepressant prescriptions for children aged five to 12 years increased by more than 40% between 2015 and 2021. Aged five! Before they’ve even had the chance to develop normally! Online forums are already full of people sharing their experiences of puberty on SSRIs and now dealing with sexual dysfunction as adults. Stories of starting Zoloft at age 11 and never developing normal sexual sensation. Of being prescribed Prozac at 14 and not knowing what it’s like to have a libido. Of taking Lexapro for less than a month and still having genital numbness six years on. We talk endlessly about giving puberty blockers to children, which I think is important, but if we are worried about the chemical castration of our youth we also need to acknowledge the millions in Gen Z taking SSRIs during vital stages of their sexual development—and potentially being told their side-effects are a valid identity.
This seems especially true for girls and young women. In the US, 86% of those identifying as asexual are female, and 91% are aged between 18 to 27. Which is also the demographic with some of the fastest-rising rates in the use of mental health medication. Women and adults aged 18 to 29 in America have the highest rates of current depression or depression treatment. Women are also twice as likely to take antidepressants than men. In the UK, too, it’s young women driving the rise in prescriptions for anti-anxiety and antidepressant drugs. What are the chances that at least some are suffering from sexual dysfunction and thinking it’s asexuality? When we know that antidepressant use during developmental years can significantly impair women’s sexual desire in adulthood?
At the same time, there’s all these activists and influencers and companies desperate to normalise and de-stigmatise asexuality. Being Asexual is Totally Fine, teens are told, we didn’t need science to figure this out! They are reassured “there’s nothing wrong with you” and that “not experiencing sexual attraction isn’t a flaw—it’s just part of your unique brand of humanness.”
But is it always “completely normal” to not feel any sexual attraction? Should we celebrate that asexuality is “finally breaking free from medical stigma” to the point where we ignore potential causes? I’m not saying that asexuality is always a medical problem. I’m saying we can’t pretend that isn’t a possibility. We now live in a culture so desperate to immediately validate every expression of identity and soothe any sign of emotional distress that we stop caring about its causes. And so we have young people all over #asexual TikTok dismissing other explanations like medication or illness after discovering asexuality. Like this young woman who had no sex drive and feared it could be her hormones. So she googled why do I not want to have sex and found asexuality. Then stopped questioning it.
The problem is I think Gen Z are very aware of asexuality. Much more so than PSSD. We have asexual flags in train stations and International Asexuality Day and asexual merchandise and asexual dating apps and a TikTok hashtag with billions of views. But hardly anyone has heard of PSSD. Even when some do link their lack of sex drive to SSRIs, responses online either shut them down or are strangely lax about it. Like this post on an asexual Reddit forum where a user who has been taking Prozac for almost six years asks “can SSRIs cause asexuality?” Replies include “it doesn’t really matter” and “it’s theoretically possible…that said, who cares?” Elsewhere others are either dismissed with accusations of acephobia or met with an empty “you’re valid no matter what!”
Who cares? Who cares if it could be chemical castration? Well that plays nicely into the hands of the pharmaceutical industry. An industry that makes billions from antidepressants. That buries negative results. That pays the panel members deciding the diagnostic criteria for disorders. And which has proven, time and again, that patient wellbeing—particularly women’s wellbeing—is not the priority. Companies like Eli Lilly, for example, who developed the drug Sarafem to treat Pre-Menstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD). What they didn’t disclose to millions of women, though, was that Sarafem was actually Prozac, just coloured pink. With their patent on Prozac expiring, Eli Lilly needed to target a new market—so the “drug came before the disorder.” PMDD wasn’t formally recognised until a decade after Sarafem was first sold—and even then, the decision was influenced by a panel on which nearly 70% of the members had connections to drug companies. Now add to these pharmaceutical giants all these new direct-to-door medication companies like hers pressuring young women to buy Prozac and Paxil for breakups and job stress and premenstrual symptoms! (hey but at least hers can deliveroo you some Desire Libido supplements and Libido Gummies if you get chemically castrated!) Forgive me if I’m not rushing to their defence.
And can we please forgive others for being sceptical? I don’t accept that it’s ableist or stigmatising to discuss the side-effects of medication. Or discriminatory against asexual people to say that sometimes this could be sexual dysfunction. Maybe SSRIs saved your life, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t devastated the lives of others. And maybe you are asexual and have never taken antidepressants. But how dare you shut someone down who has? It’s so strange to me how progressives seem to reject any scepticism of the mental health industry now. We are a generation more medicalised than any other in history! We are a generation whose identities are more determined and inner lives more colonised by arbitrary DSM diagnoses than ever before! Don’t we deserve answers? Doesn’t this at least deserve a discussion? Honestly this might be the one instance where young people are victims and are being convinced by a progressive movement that they aren’t.
So my fear is this: you might not be asexual. You might be suffering from PSSD. You might not be a victim of stigma against your sexual identity; you might very well be a victim of the pharmaceutical industry. Trust me that is discrimination. That is a trillion-dollar industry getting away with chemical castration for profit. And please don’t be placated by a progressive movement demanding all this be normalised or telling you that your scepticism is dangerous. There’s a growing network of people out there screaming that they’ve been shut down, unplugged, dulled, their soul vacuumed out, that they feel completely asexual, and nobody is listening. Nobody is fighting for them. Companies are staying silent to protect their profits and victims are shut down for fear of offence.
Which means prescriptions will continue to soar. SSRIs will continue to be pushed without warnings. We will continue prescribing them to children for stress and sadness and social anxiety, playing down the side-effects and potentially applauding them. Enough. We are a sexless generation. We are also a sedated generation. And I’m asking for the courage to at least investigate the connection between the two. You deserve to know if your sexual identity is a side-effect. And if enough of us speak up about this, the pharmaceutical industry deserves what’s coming to them.
La castrata says
I wouldn’t say that falling contraceptive use is necessarily a bad thing. Whilst GPs have long promoted hormonal contraception as well as using them to treat various hormonal ailments, research such as this
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32968938/
received little attention. Instead, increasing rates of ADHD get waved away with ‘better diagnosis’ and ‘less stigma’.
Dr. David Healy says
There is a general idea that the drop in fertility rates from 1965 onwards is owing to contraception. The next post – Fertility and Military argues with that. The fact that contraceptives are being less used now is an additional pointer although it this case it may point as much to a growing asexuality as anything else.
In general the less of anything we take the safer we are likely to be but we continue to have a strong belief in and trust for new technologies – drugs included.
D