The COVID-19 pandemic caused much illness, many deaths, and profound disruption to society. The production of ‘safe and effective’ vaccines was a key public health target. Sadly, unprecedented high rates of adverse events have overshadowed the benefits. This two-part narrative review presents evidence for the widespread harms of novel product COVID-19 mRNA and adenovectorDNA vaccines and is novel in attempting to provide a thorough overview of harms arising from the new technology in vaccines that relied on human cells producing a foreign antigen that has evidence of pathogenicity. This first paper explores peer-reviewed data counter to the ‘safe and effective’ narrative attached to these new technologies. Spike protein pathogenicity, termed ‘spikeopathy’, whether from the SARS-CoV-2 virus or produced by vaccine gene codes, akin to a ‘synthetic virus’, is increasingly understood in terms of molecular biology and pathophysiology. Pharmacokinetic transfection through body tissues distant from the injection site by lipid-nanoparticles or viral-vector carriers means that ‘spikeopathy’ can affect many organs. The inflammatory properties of the nanoparticles used to ferry mRNA; N1-methylpseudouridine employed to prolong synthetic mRNA function; the widespread biodistribution of the mRNA and DNA codes and translated spike proteins, and autoimmunity via human production of foreign proteins, contribute to harmful effects. This paper reviews autoimmune, cardiovascular, neurological, potential oncological effects, and autopsy evidence for spikeopathy. With many gene-based therapeutic technologies planned, a re-evaluation is necessary and timely.

Background: Antineuronal antibodies are associated with psychosis, although their clinical significance in first episode of psychosis (FEP) is undetermined.Aims: To examine all patients admitted for treatment of FEP for antineuronal antibodies and describe clinical presentations and treatment outcomes in those who were antibody positive.Method: Individuals admitted for FEP to six mental health units in Queensland, Australia, were prospectively tested for serum antineuronal antibodies. Antibody-positive patients were referred for neurological and immunological assessment and therapy.Results: Of 113 consenting participants, six had antineuronal antibodies (anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antibodies [n = 4], voltage-gated potassium channel antibodies [n = 1] and antibodies against uncharacterised antigen [n = 1]). Five received immunotherapy, which prompted resolution of psychosis in four.Conclusions: A small subgroup of patients admitted to hospital with FEP have antineuronal antibodies detectable in serum and are responsive to immunotherapy. Early diagnosis and treatment is critical to optimise recovery.Declaration of interest: None.

Aripiprazole, a second-generation antipsychotic medication, has been increasingly used in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder and received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for this indication in 2005. Given its widespread use, we sought to critically review the evidence supporting the use of aripiprazole in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder and examine how that evidence has been disseminated in the scientific literature. We systematically searched multiple databases to identify double-blind, randomized controlled trials of aripiprazole for the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder while excluding other types of studies, such as open-label, acute, and adjunctive studies. We then used a citation search to identify articles that cited these trials and rated the quality of their citations. Our evidence search protocol identified only two publications, both describing the results of a single trial conducted by Keck et al., which met criteria for inclusion in this review. We describe four issues that limit the interpretation of that trial as supporting the use of aripiprazole for bipolar maintenance: (1) insufficient duration to demonstrate maintenance efficacy; (2) limited generalizability due to its enriched sample; (3) possible conflation of iatrogenic adverse effects of abrupt medication discontinuation with beneficial effects of treatment; and (4) a low overall completion rate. Our citation search protocol yielded 80 publications that cited the Keck et al. trial in discussing the use of aripiprazole for bipolar maintenance. Of these, only 24 (30%) mentioned adverse events reported and four (5%) mentioned study limitations. A single trial by Keck et al. represents the entirety of the literature on the use of aripiprazole for the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. Although careful review identifies four critical limitations to the trial's interpretation and overall utility, the trial has been uncritically cited in the subsequent scientific literature. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Objective: Pediatric bipolar disorder (PBD) reflects shifts in conceptualizing bipolar disorder among children and adolescents since the mid-1990s. Since then, PBD diagnoses, predominantly in the United States, have increased dramatically, and the diagnosis has attracted significant controversy. During the same period, psychiatric theory and practice has become increasingly biological. The aim of this paper is to examine the rise of PBD in terms of wider systemic influences. Method: In the context of literature referring to paradigm shifts in psychiatry, we reviewed the psychiatric literature, media cases, and information made available by investigative committees and journalists. Results: Social historians and prominent psychiatrists describe a paradigm shift in psychiatry over recent decades: from an era of “brainless psychiatry,” when an emphasis on psychodynamic and family factors predominated to the exclusion of biological factors, to a current era of “mindless psychiatry” that emphasizes neurobiological explanations for emotional and behavioral problems with limited regard for contextual meaning. Associated with this has been a tendency within psychiatry and society to neglect trauma and attachment insecurity as etiological factors; the “atheoretical” (but by default biomedical) premise of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd and 4th eds.); the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in research, continuing medical education, and direct-to-consumer advertising; and inequality in the U.S. health system that favors “diagnostic upcoding.” Harm from overmedicating children is now a cause of public concern. Conclusion: It can be argued that PBD as a widespread diagnosis, particularly in the United States, reflects multiple factors associated with a paradigm shift within psychiatry rather than recognition of a previously overlooked common disorder.