And let's be clear about this: you have claimed lithium "will destroy the kidneys, eventually leading to death". This is the claim you made, not some other unrelated claim, and it is wildly implausible.
A plausible but completely unrelated claim is, as reported in this paper: "lithium can be safely prescribed over a protracted period of time, even in elderly populations, but should be monitored closely under specialist supervision, to ensure early identification and management of adverse effects."
This proposition offers no support whatsoever to the claim that lithium "will destroy the kidneys, eventually leading to death". It is not evidence for it, it is contradictory to it.
I'm over-emphasizing this because I've too often seen people make wildly implausible claims like the one you have made and then try to claim that some totally unrelated but plausible claim like the one in this paper somehow supports their position. It does not. Your position is not in any way supported by a paper that directly contradicts it.
After that qualified reassurance we read that "In recent years, large-scale epidemiological studies have convincingly shown that lithium treatment elevates the risk of chronic kidney disease and renal failure."
And further, "Other patients may be able to switch to a different mood stabilizer medication, but kidney function may continue to deteriorate even after lithium cessation. Most, but not all, evidence today recommends using a lower lithium plasma level target for long-term maintenance and thereby reducing risks of severe nephrotoxicity."
The risk of nonreversible kidney damage seems to counter your claim that "lithium can be safely prescribed over a protracted period of time". Even careful monitoring isn't sufficient since detecting these kidney problems does not guarantee they can be corrected ("may continue to deteriorate even after lithium cessation".) Thus a more accurate formulation would be "lithium can be safely prescribed over a protracted period of time... as long as you're lucky enough not to incur this dangerous side effect." Or possibly, "lithium can be safely prescribed over a protracted period of time when it is administered in low doses."
I made the claim because I actually know people affected by it, and the Doctor said, yes, that's expected. Which was an absolute shocker to both the person involved and family.
And if you bother to do more than cursory research you will find that yes, lithium WILL damage the kidneys, and the damage is irreversible. The only question is how bad will it get, and will you catch it before it causes failure.
Your paper just says the Dr should be on top of things to discontinue treatment before the damage gets too severe. Did you read more than the summary?
"The duration of lithium treatment was found to be positively correlated with mean serum creatinine level"
"We conclude that lithium can be safely prescribed over a protracted period of time, even in elderly populations, but should be monitored closely under specialist supervision, to ensure early identification and management of adverse effects."
And let's be clear about this: you have claimed lithium "will destroy the kidneys, eventually leading to death". This is the claim you made, not some other unrelated claim, and it is wildly implausible.
A plausible but completely unrelated claim is, as reported in this paper: "lithium can be safely prescribed over a protracted period of time, even in elderly populations, but should be monitored closely under specialist supervision, to ensure early identification and management of adverse effects."
This proposition offers no support whatsoever to the claim that lithium "will destroy the kidneys, eventually leading to death". It is not evidence for it, it is contradictory to it.
I'm over-emphasizing this because I've too often seen people make wildly implausible claims like the one you have made and then try to claim that some totally unrelated but plausible claim like the one in this paper somehow supports their position. It does not. Your position is not in any way supported by a paper that directly contradicts it.