For years, stopping antidepressants was considered a relatively minor medical event—just a temporary adjustment phase. Official guidelines, particularly in the UK and the US, once described withdrawal symptoms as “brief and mild.” But now, emerging research is painting a very different picture—one that could affect millions of long-term users.

Recent findings suggest that withdrawing from antidepressants, especially after prolonged use, can trigger severe and long-lasting symptoms, sometimes lasting months or even years. Despite mounting evidence, some recent reviews—funded in part by pharmaceutical ties—continue to rely on outdated, short-term studies that don’t reflect the real-world experiences of long-term patients.

The modern class of antidepressants—SSRIs and SNRIs—were introduced in the 1980s and ’90s. When regulatory guidelines were first drafted, they leaned heavily on industry-funded clinical trials, where participants had taken the medications for only 8 to 12 weeks.

Because withdrawal symptoms in those short-term trials were limited and often transient, major healthcare bodies like NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK) assumed the same would hold true for all patients.

That assumption, however, ignored the experiences of millions of people who were on antidepressants for much longer periods.

A comprehensive new study of NHS patients in the UK has shed light on the scale and severity of antidepressant withdrawal. The findings reveal that patients who had been on antidepressants for more than two years were ten times more likely to experience withdrawal symptoms compared to those who had taken the medication for less than six months. Moreover, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms increased fivefold in long-term users. Perhaps most strikingly, symptoms that lasted for three months or more were found to be 18 times more common among those who had used antidepressants for extended periods.

In contrast, those who took antidepressants for six months or less mostly experienced mild and short-lived symptoms. Around 75% reported mild or no withdrawal, and only one in four had difficulty stopping but for long-term users, it’s a different story altogether. Two-thirds reported moderate to severe withdrawal symptoms, and nearly a third had symptoms that persisted for over three months.

In some cases, withdrawal effects were so debilitating that patients sought emergency care.

Against this backdrop, a newly published review in JAMA Psychiatry is drawing criticism. The review—which includes authors with known financial ties to pharmaceutical companies—relied on 11 short-term studies, most involving people who took antidepressants for 8 to 12 weeks. Only one study included participants on the medication for more than six months.

Not surprisingly, the review concluded that withdrawal symptoms from antidepressants are not clinically significant. It even went so far as to suggest the symptoms might be caused by the “nocebo effect”—the idea that negative expectations can create physical symptoms.

But experts argue that this reasoning is flawed and potentially harmful. The review failed to account for long-term users, excluded several studies with high withdrawal rates, and assumed that common symptoms like dizziness or fatigue are indistinguishable from genuine withdrawal effects.

Another glaring issue? The authors treated withdrawal symptoms reported by people stopping a placebo as equivalent to those reported by people stopping real antidepressants—despite clear evidence that the intensity, duration, and impact of symptoms differ significantly between the two. According to recent investigations:

• In England, 2 million people have been taking antidepressants for over five years.
• In the United States, that number is at least 25 million.

That’s tens of millions of people whose withdrawal experiences are underrepresented in medical literature and underserved by health systems.

To use an analogy, relying on eight-week antidepressant studies to predict withdrawal is like testing car safety at 5 km/h, when most people drive at 60 km/h. It simply doesn’t capture the full risk.

Is Antidepressant Withdrawal A Real Thing?

Yes, antidepressant withdrawal is real—especially if you stop the medication abruptly after taking it for more than four to six weeks. These symptoms, also known as antidepressant discontinuation syndrome, can last for several weeks and vary depending on the type of antidepressant.

Importantly, experiencing withdrawal doesn’t mean you’re addicted. Addiction involves compulsive use, cravings, and harmful consequences—none of which apply to antidepressants.

To avoid uncomfortable withdrawal effects, always consult your doctor before stopping. Most healthcare providers recommend gradually tapering the dose over weeks or months to help your body adjust. In some cases, a temporary switch to another medication might be advised to ease the transition.

If you're switching to a new antidepressant, your doctor may overlap medications to prevent withdrawal symptoms.

Since withdrawal can mimic a relapse of depression, it's essential to stay in close contact with your healthcare provider. If symptoms of depression return, your doctor may suggest restarting treatment or exploring alternative therapies.

Always follow a medical plan when discontinuing antidepressants—never stop them on your own.

What Withdrawal Feels Like?

Withdrawal symptoms can vary, but often include:

• Dizziness or “brain zaps”
• Nausea
• Headaches
• Anxiety and panic
• Mood swings
• Insomnia
• Irritability
• Sensory disturbances (like sensitivity to light or sound)

For some, these symptoms are manageable. But for others—especially those stopping medication after years of use—they can be overwhelming and life-altering.

Withdrawal from antidepressants is real, and it’s often far more difficult than current medical literature suggests—especially for long-term users. Reviews that lean on short-term, pharmaceutical-funded data do little to help the millions of people struggling silently.

Mental health treatment should never be a one-way street. People deserve a clear roadmap for both starting and stopping antidepressants safely, compassionately, and with evidence-based support.

If you’ve ever seen a baby’s tiny foot curled awkwardly inwards and downwards, you might dismiss it as “just the way they’re born.” But that little twist, called clubfoot, is no small matter. Left untreated, it can turn into a lifelong disability. And in India, where over 70% of cases in rural areas go untreated, clubfoot remains one of the most common yet most overlooked childhood deformities.

The Twist at Birth

Clubfoot is a congenital condition where one or both feet are turned inwards and downwards, making it difficult for the child to walk normally. “Clubfoot may look like a simple deformity at birth, but when not addressed in time, it becomes a rigid, disabling condition,” explained Dr Aashish Chaudhry, Orthopaedic Surgeon at Aakash Healthcare.

India sees roughly 1 in every 300 children born with a bone deformity, according to the Indian Orthopaedic Association, and clubfoot leads the list. Yet, awareness remains staggeringly low. Families often think the foot will straighten on its own or that treatment is too costly, so the condition is neglected. Children who should be running and playing instead limp through life, sometimes in pain and often with a heavy emotional burden.

Why India Lags Behind

Unlike countries such as China, Uganda, and Malawi that have national clubfoot programmes, India still does not have a dedicated public health plan. This gap leaves thousands of children untreated every year. “Children with neglected clubfoot often face pain, difficulty walking, and emotional distress. They may get bullied in school and develop poor self-esteem, which impacts their overall development,” said Dr Chaudhry, who himself grew up with the condition before becoming an orthopaedic surgeon.

The neglect is not just physical; it’s social. In communities where disability already carries stigma, children with clubfoot often become isolated, missing out on school and normal childhood experiences.

Early Treatment Is Possible

The irony is that treating clubfoot early is neither complicated nor expensive. The most widely used method is the Ponseti technique, which involves gentle manipulation of the foot, followed by a series of plaster casts and then bracing. “This method has a high success rate when started early, usually within the first few weeks after birth,” explained Dr Chaudhry.

Parents often believe treatment means surgery, but that’s not the case when intervention happens early. “Timely diagnosis and intervention can prevent the need for complex surgeries later and greatly improve outcomes,” he added.

When Treatment Is Delayed

But what about children whose clubfoot is neglected? Is it too late for them? Dr Chaudhry said, “Even in neglected cases, it is absolutely possible to correct the deformity with modern surgical techniques. Surgery, followed by proper physiotherapy and braces, can help the child walk normally again. The earlier the intervention, the easier the recovery but it's never too late to act.”

This is a crucial message for parents who assume that once their child starts walking with difficulty, nothing can be done. The truth is, whether it’s casting or surgery, medical science today offers hope.

Spotting It Early

Doctors recommend that all newborns undergo simple foot checks as part of routine postnatal screening. Parents should also be vigilant: if a baby’s feet appear turned inwards or if the child struggles when learning to stand or walk, medical advice should be sought immediately. Delay only makes matters worse.

“Many parents wait, thinking the child will outgrow the twisted foot. But delay in treatment often makes it worse,” said Dr Chaudhry.

Changing the Story

Ultimately, the solution lies not only in treatment but also in awareness and policy. With a dedicated national programme, better newborn screening, and parent education, India can turn the tide. As Dr Chaudhry put it: “Clubfoot is a treatable condition. With awareness, early action, and the right care, we can ensure that no child has to grow up with a disability that could have been prevented.”

If you thought the only souvenirs from childbirth were baby pictures and tiny socks, times have changed. Turns out, the real treasure might be something most parents never even glance at before it is thrown away: the placenta and umbilical cord. Doctors are now calling placenta banking “biological insurance”, and the idea is picking up pace.

Your Baby’s Placenta Is More Than Just Leftovers

For centuries, the placenta has been treated as medical waste. But according to Dr. D.B. Usha Rajinikanthan, Senior Consultant in Gynaecology and IVF at SIMS Hospital, Chennai, this organ is brimming with stem cells that could be life-saving later on.

“Placenta and cord blood contain stem cells that can repair or replace damaged tissue. Collecting them at birth is safe and painless, but once discarded, that opportunity is lost forever,” she says.

These tiny cells are essentially the body’s master builders, with the potential to transform into different blood and immune cells. Which means what is usually thrown in a bin could actually hold a family’s medical safety net.

Why Stem Cells Are a Big Deal

Stem cells from the placenta are not just versatile; they are generous. Dr. Rajinikanthan explains that they have already been used to treat more than 80 diseases worldwide, including leukaemia, certain immune deficiencies and metabolic disorders. “Research is expanding into conditions like heart repair, brain injury and even diabetes,” she adds.

Placental stem cells are “younger” and more flexible, making them easier to match with siblings and relatives. In simple terms, the baby, siblings, parents and even grandparents may stand to benefit. It is not just your child’s resource; it is potentially a family heirloom.

Placenta Preservation: A Health Insurance

If we insure our cars and houses against accidents, why not our health? Placenta banking works on that philosophy. “It is a one-time investment in future health security. Families may never need it, but having stored stem cells gives enormous peace of mind,” says Dr. Rajinikanthan. She emphasises, though, that choosing an accredited stem cell bank that follows quality standards is essential.

How Does Amniotic Membrane Help?

Beyond the cord blood, there is another underrated star, the amniotic membrane. Dr. A. Jaishree Gajaraj, Head of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at MGM Healthcare, Chennai, explains that the amnion has been saving lives for over a century. “The first use dates back to 1910 when it was applied as a skin graft to promote healing. Today, it is used in ophthalmology for dry eyes, as well as for burns and diabetic ulcers,” she says.

In other words, this part of the placenta is not just a wrapper for your baby; it is a medical toolkit waiting to be tapped.

The Science Behind the Promise

Stem cell science has moved leaps and bounds in recent decades. According to Dr. Gajaraj, the umbilical cord blood and tissue have already been used successfully in bone marrow transplants for children with leukaemia and other bone marrow disorders. But the real buzz is around their future potential.

“These pluripotent cells are being researched for regenerating organs like the pancreas, liver, lungs and even the spinal cord. While still experimental, the promise is extraordinary,” she explains.

She adds that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), particularly those derived from cord tissue, are showing the greatest promise in regenerative therapies. “Foetal MSCs from cord tissue expand better, are less likely to trigger immune rejection, and have higher therapeutic potential than their maternal counterparts,” says Dr. Gajaraj. Simply put, storing placenta and cord tissue maximises the number and types of cells available for future therapies.

But What About Delayed Cord Clamping?

Some parents worry that opting for placenta banking might compromise delayed cord clamping, the practice of waiting a few minutes before cutting the cord to allow extra blood flow to the baby. Dr. Gajaraj reassures that this is not the case. “Delayed clamping does not reduce the yield of mesenchymal stem cells. Parents can safely choose both practices,” she says.

A Gift From Your Newborn to the Whole Family

Placenta banking is not a crystal ball or a cure-all. It does not guarantee immunity against every illness. But as both doctors point out, it offers a shot at future treatments that could transform outcomes in life-threatening conditions

In a heartbreaking incident, an infant was removed from the mother, just a mere hour after giving birth after she underwent “parenting competence” tests, despite the new law banning the test.

As the Guardian reports, Ivana Nikoline Brønlund was told she was "not Greenlandic enough" for the new law to apply to her. The social affairs minister for Denmark, Sophie Hæstorp Andersen, has since expressed concern and is asking the municipality to explain its actions, stating that the law on these tests is "clear."

Why Did The Greenlandic Authorities Remove Ivana’s Baby?

The tests, known as FKU, were made illegal for people with Greenlandic backgrounds in May. However, Brønlund, 18, who was born in Greenland to Greenlandic parents, was subjected to a test that began in April and was completed in June, after the law had already taken effect. She was told three weeks before giving birth that her baby would be removed from her care.

Brønlund said she was told her baby was removed because of trauma she suffered from her adoptive father. She says she has only seen her daughter, Aviaja-Luuna, once for a supervised hour, during which she was not allowed to comfort or change her. Brønlund's appeals will be heard on September 16.

This case has sparked protests in Greenland and other cities, with campaigners arguing that it is wrong to punish someone for trauma they are not responsible for. Another similar case involving a Greenlandic mother, Keira Alexandra Kronvold, has also drawn global attention after her baby was removed by Danish authorities.

What Are The Controversial “FKU Test” Danish Parenting Tests?

The FKU, or "parenting competency test," was used by Danish authorities to decide if parents were fit to raise their children. The test was supposed to protect kids, but many believed it was used to unfairly remove Greenlandic children from their homes.

The test used Western ideas of what makes a good parent and was given in Danish. It ignored important parts of Greenlandic life, like their language and culture. Because of this, many Greenlandic parents were misunderstood, and their children were taken away.

Greenlandic children have been a large and unfair part of Denmark's child welfare system. Around 5-7% of Greenlandic children in Denmark were taken from their homes, compared to just 1% of Danish children. Activists believe the FKU test contributed to this big difference.

Why Is the FKU Test Controversial?

Cultural Bias

The test was based on Danish and Western ideas of parenting. It often misunderstood traditional Greenlandic values, like communal childcare and different ways of communicating. This led to parents being judged unfairly.

Unfair Impact

The test had a hugely unfair effect on Greenlandic families. Cases like that of Keira Alexandra Kronvold, whose baby was removed just hours after birth, caused public outrage and protests. These events brought up painful memories of times when families were split up and people were forced to change their culture.

Human Rights Concerns

Human rights groups, including the United Nations, criticized the test for its serious cultural biases. They said the test went against international agreements that require Denmark to protect the cultural identity of Indigenous people.

The Danish government has now promised to make future parental reports more culturally sensitive. However, for families like Keira's, who lost their children because of this test, the change comes too late.

Continued Oppression Of Greenlandic Indigenous Women

While the FKU test is shocking, it is far from being the only case of oppression forced upon them from history. On Wednesday, the leaders of Denmark and Greenland officially apologized for the forced contraception of Greenlandic Inuit women and girls decades ago. This was a dark chapter in their shared history, and both countries admitted their role in the mistreatment.

Between the 1960s and mid-1970s, Danish health authorities fitted as many as 4,500 women and girls in Greenland with intrauterine devices (IUDs) to prevent pregnancies. Many of these women, including teenagers, were not fully informed about the procedure and did not give their consent. This was allegedly done to control the rapid population growth in Greenland at the time.

Last year, nearly 150 of these women sued the Danish government, claiming that their human rights were violated.

How Has The Greenland And Denmark Officials Responded To The Lawsuit?

The Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, formally apologized on behalf of Denmark, stating that while the past cannot be changed, they can take responsibility. She said the apology also covers other systematic discrimination against Greenlanders.

Greenland's Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, also acknowledged his country's role and said they plan to offer compensation to the victims. He described the situation as leaving "deep imprints on lives, families and communities."

Although the apology was welcomed and accepted as a big step, but it is noted that the lawsuit is still pending. The apology is seen as a start to repairing the relationship between Denmark and Greenland, which was a Danish colony until 1953 and is now a self-governing entity within the Danish realm. This event is a reminder that the effects of past colonial policies, such as the forced separation of families and forced contraception, still impact people today.