Is love of freedom now a mental illness?
On psychiatry as a tool of the totalitarian state:
Just a few generations ago, when a person needed a credible witness to establish their personal character in a court of law, they would bring in a member of the clergy. Today, when a credible character witness is needed, we call a psychiatrist.
Though portrayed as a harmless, natural consequence of the progression of science, medicine and law, there is substantial risk that accompanies this shift in thinking. When the pseudo-science of psychiatry becomes an arm of the state, it enables abusers of state power to stigmatize and control people.
To illustrate how psychiatry is closer to social science than medical science, journalist Charley Reese used to contrast it with the actual science of neurology that studies the physical structures of the brain. He would point out how psychiatry claims to study the intangible products of the physical brain such as thought, behavior and imagination. Of these three areas, only behavior can actually be observed.
According to Dr. Thomas S. Szasz, psychiatry has consistently served as an arm of the law since its development nearly 300 years ago. Dr. Szasz claims that psychiatry provides the state with a means of dealing with those deemed inconvenient when he writes, “If we recognize that ‘mental illness’ is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior.”
But what the state considers a nuisance isn’t strictly limited to those with true mental defects. It also applies to individuals who, for a variety of reasons, refuse to submit unconditionally to the state’s authority or demands.
Free thinkers, constitutionalists, Oath Keepers, nonconformists, peaceful activists or resisters, and those who question authority, or practice any degree of civil disobedience, now have their very own disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition.
Modern psychiatry calls this illness Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Among the gems found within this 3-page excerpt from the DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition describing ODD and its diagnostic features: “The essential feature of Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months.”
…
The concern here is that when government and psychiatry team up to establish exactly what constitutes “acceptable” or “anti-social” attitudes, the conclusions always seem to miraculously fall in favor of the desired government result.
Countless dictators have used psychiatry as a tool of oppression through experts who labeled dissidents as mentally ill in order to discourage those who might be tempted to challenge the regime’s authority. Involuntary commitment and coercing or drugging non-conformists to solve their mental problems are handy ways to keep those who would make trouble for the regime under the state’s control and effectively marginalized from society.
One solution that Dr. Szasz advocates is the separation of psychiatry & the state: “Hence, like Church and State, Psychiatry and the State ought to be separated by a ‘wall.’ The role of psychiatrists and mental health experts with regard to law, the school system, and other organizations ought to be similar to the role of clergymen in those situations.”
Time for real medicine, rather than psychiatry
This is a blunt piece. I agree.
Experts have suggested a controversial psychiatric “disorder” may have been misdiagnosed in a large percentage of cases, according to a new study. The disorder is the highly lucrative ADHD or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
The study suggests three out of four cases may be wrongly diagnosed. On the basis, however, that ADHD has never been scientifically proven to exist, and on the basis that ADHD came into being after it was unscientifically voted into existence, it would be entirely accurate to say four out of four cases are wrongly diagnosed.
It is a figment of psychiatric imagination based only on a checklist of behaviours which could fit any normal child; “runs about or climbs excessively in situations when it is not appropriate”, for example, or “is often on the go; acts as if driven by a motor; blurts out answers; is easily distracted; loses pencils or toys; often doesn’t seem to listen”.
Any one of us can have an opinion about the way children behave, but we do not claim our opinions as scientific fact. Psychiatrists however, do. Despite the absence of proof to support ADHD, psychiatry has industriously built a multi-million-pound empire around it with no more than an empty deck of cards.
Combine the figures from England, Scotland and Wales and the ADHD “chemical cosh” drugs alone are worth £46 million a year. Psychiatrists claim those labelled have a chemical imbalance in their brains, but it’s a claim that has never been scientifically proven. The scam of ADHD and the chemical imbalance have been accepted by means of a slick marketing campaign, not scientific evidence.
When all of the rhetoric is stripped away, what psychiatrists are actually doing is redefining bad behaviour as an illness and drugging it. The child or adolescent has been drugged, and is exhibiting the effects of a dangerous mind-altering foreign substance in his or her body. The emphasis must be on workable medical testing and treatments that find undiagnosed physical conditions manifesting as so-called mental illness.
It is time to practice real medicine, rather than psychiatry.
Vitamin B3 may do more for psychosis than psychiatry ever could
Anti-psychotics are extremely dangerous drugs and are being prescribed to infants as young as 18 months:
Most of the atypical antipsychotics were approved in the 1990’s, at which time they were reserved for a very small minority of serious mental illnesses; primarily schizophrenia and bipolar disorder—diseases afflicting an estimated three percent of Americans. More recently, some atypical antipsychotics have also been approved for the treatment of severe depression.
…
Shockingly, as discussed in the featured Washington Post article, recent disclosures show that children in foster care receive a disproportionate amount of potent mind-altering drugs. Not only do American foster children receive more psychotropic drugs than other children in general; they receive more drugs than those with the most severe forms of mental illness! This is an absolute tragedy, as these children are being drugged not out of medical necessity, but primarily for the convenience of caretakers, and for the profit of those within “the system.”
…
Children as young as 18 months are now receiving antipsychotic drugs, despite the fact that the diseases they’re designed to treat rarely develop before adolescence. So why are toddlers receiving these potent drugs? Sadly, one of the key reasons these drugs are used is because of their sedative effect. They’re typically prescribed to control “disruptive” behavior—not to treat severe mental illness.
Granted, the dubious diagnosis of “pediatric bipolar disorder” is in large part responsible for the increased use of antipsychotic drugs in young children. It is absolutely incomprehensible that there has been such an astounding increase in the diagnosis of childhood mental illness. The only rational explanation is a manipulation of the definition to justify inappropriately drugging our children.
According to the featured article:
“Between 1994 and 2003, reported diagnoses increased 40-fold, from about 20,000 to approximately 800,000, according to Columbia University researchers. That diagnosis, popularized by several prominent child psychiatrists in Boston who claimed that extreme irritability, inattention and mood swings were actually pediatric bipolar disorder that can occur before age 2, has undergone a reevaluation in recent years.
“The reasons include the highly publicized death of a 4-year-old girl in Massachusetts, who along with her two young siblings had been taking a cocktail of powerful drugs for several years to treat bipolar disorder; the revelation of more than $1 million in unreported drug company payments to the leading proponent of the diagnosis; and growing doubts about its validity.”
…
If you suspect foul play might have something to do with this dangerous trend, you’re probably right. Last year, the Harvard psychiatrists who invented the pediatric bipolar diagnosis were disciplined for conflicts of interestiv after it came to light they’d all received millions of dollars in undeclared drug company monies. In a July 21, 2011 article, Vera Sherav for Alliance for Human Research Protection writes:
“An investigation, prompted by Sen. Charles Grassely, was conducted by Harvard University-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital. It concluded that psychiatrist Joseph Biederman and two of his proteges, Thomas Spencer and Timothy Wilens—each of who failed to disclose millions of dollars they had each received from the makers of antipsychotics, the drugs they promoted for the treatment of bipolar in children–had indeed violated the University’s/ and hospital’s conflict of interest reporting standards. The three wrote a mea culpa letter stating ‘we want to offer our sincere apologies…’ acknowledging ‘our mistakes…’
“However, no mention was made anywhere about the profound consequences of these psychiatrists’ commercially-driven clinical recommendations. No mention about the corruption of the scientific literature, about clinical practice that deviated from the Hippocratic Oath, ‘First, do no harm,’ nor was any mention made about the harm suffered by children whose doctors were misled about the safety and efficacy of highly toxic drugs. Child psychiatrists and pediatricians throughout the US were guided by these exceedingly influential Harvard psychiatrists.”
The investigation also unearthed evidence of commercially-driven corruption of the research produced by these psychiatrists. A New York Times articlev revealed that court documents showed Dr. Biederman promised Johnson & Johnson that the results of a planned study in preschool children would “support the safety and effectiveness of Risperdal in this age group.”
…
The word “polypharmacy” means “many drugs,” and essentially refers to instances where an individual is taking too many drugs—either because more drugs are prescribed than clinically indicated, or when the sheer number of pills simply becomes a burden for the patient. This situation used to be primarily a concern for the elderly, who generally take more medicines than younger folk. But over the past several years, even children as young as three are increasingly being prescribed four or more drugs! This is a significant problem, as the more drugs you mix together, the greater the chances of serious side effects.
People (of all ages) taking psychiatric drugs appear to be particularly prone to polypharmacy, which is particularly disturbing since each and every one of these drugs are quite potent and potentially dangerous when taken all by itself. Abilify, for example, has a staggering 75 different side effects associated with it….
…
It is bad enough to prescribe dangerous psychotropic drugs to adults, but some of the most targeted people are just barely out of diapers. In 2007 alone, half a million children and teenagers were given at least one prescription for an antipsychotic, including 20,500 under the age of 6. American children are the most medicated children in the world. For example, they get three times more prescriptions for antidepressants and stimulants, and up to double the amount of antipsychotic drugs than kids from Germany and the Netherlands.
And it turns out vitamin B3 (niacin) may be a more effective remedy. Dr. Andrew Saul has written a new book, Niacin: The Real Story: Learn about the Wonderful Healing Properties of Niacin. From the article:
He co-wrote the book with Abram Hoffer M.D., Ph.D., who published over 600 reports and articles as well as 30 books. His early work led to the use of niacin for schizophrenia and as an cholesterol treatment. Dr. Hoffer died in 2009 at the age of 91, but he successfully treated many thousands of patients with high dose niacin for psychotic disorders.
He presented some very compelling evidence to support treating most psychotic disorders as a vitamin B3 deficiency.
Considering it is very inexpensive and has virtually no dangerous side effects it would certainly be worth a consideration for anyone who has a family member with this mental health challenge.
57 percent of DSM authors have conflicts of interest
The DSM is clearly nothing more than a tool to sell mind-numbing and addictive drugs. From the article:
A new edition of a famed psychiatry handbook is under fire for its authors’ connections to drug companies.
According to professors who were in charge of reviewing the revamped Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)which will appear next year, 57 per cent of the nearly 150 authors involved in the manual had links to industry.
According to the New Scientist, for the the fifth edition, American Psychiatric Association, the manual’s publisher, required authors to declare their financial ties to industry. It also limited the amount they could receive from drug companies to $10,000 a year and their stock holdings to $50,000.
“This is extremely problematic,” said Sheldon Krimsky, a bioethicist at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, to Nature. “For this type of document and its importance, there should be no conflicts of interest. The stakes are so high.”
The investigating team found that many of the authors with ties to industry wrote on illnesses whose first-line treatment tended to be prescription medications.
According to Nature, 83 per cent of the authors examining psychotic disorders and 100 per cent of those looking at sleep/wake disorders have ties to industry,
There is, however, no evidence that any of the authors acted unethically.
“Transparency alone can’t mitigate bias,” Lisa Cosgrove of Harvard University, who investigated the financial disclosures with Krimsky said, according to the New Scientist.
Writing in PloS Journal, the investigators warned that even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing, ties to drug companies might promote ”pro-industry habit of thought” among authors.
Babies harmed by mother's antidepressants
More evidence that antidepressants are not only useless, but harmful:
A study conducted jointly in the Netherlands and the US has found that babies born to mothers who took antidepressants while they were pregnant had slightly slower head growth and were more likely to be born early. The study did not have any findings about whether there might be long-term effects or not.
Of nearly 8,000 pregnant women in the study, 570 had symptoms of depression during their pregnancy but did not take medication, while another 99 took SSRIs. In the womb, babies of women who were depressed gained less weight per week than babies of non-depressed mothers, and their heads grew a bit more slowly as well. With the women given SSRIs, the babies’ head growth was slowed by 0.18 millimeters per week. By the time they were born, those babies’ heads were about four millimeters smaller, on average, than babies of non-depressed moms. SSRIs are known to pass through the placenta, according to the lead researcher, and may reach the brain and affect its development.
On top of that, ten percent of mothers taking SSRIs had a premature birth, compared to six percent of those with untreated depression and five percent of non-depressed moms. Previous studies have suggested a slightly increased risk of some birth defects in babies of moms taking antidepressants, as well as a greater chance they will end up needing intensive care.
In January, the British Medical Journal published a study showing that babies of women who take SSRI antidepressants during pregnancy have a slightly increased risk of a life-threatening condition called persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) in which not enough oxygen reaches the bloodstream but returns to the heart in an oxygen-poor state. This in turn causes rapid breathing, a rapid heart rate, respiratory distress, and cyanosis. If not caught in time, it can cause shock, heart failure, brain hemorrhage, seizures, kidney failure, multiple organ damage, and possibly even death.
This finding is not new, however. In 2006, the FDA warned that women taking SSRIs were six times more likely to deliver babies with PPHN. And in October 2010, a Philadelphia jury ordered GlaxoSmithKline to pay $2.5 million to the family of a three-year-old boy, Lyam Kilker, who was born with heart defects because his mother took the SSRI antidepressant Paxil during pregnancy.
The problem is that mothers who take SSRIs for depression (either during pregnancy or to battle postpartum depression) often find it difficult to stop. SSRIs are not considered addictive by mainstream medicine because they do not create cravings and are not associated with drug-seeking behavior. However, even mainstream medicine agrees that stopping cold turkey can cause an array of symptoms such as dizziness (which can last for days), flu-like symptoms such as nausea, headache, and fatigue, as well as intense feeling of anxiety, irritability, or sadness. It’s so prevalent that it has a name—SSRI Discontinuation Syndrome—and the symptoms are so severe that many people decide to stay on the antidepressant just to stop those side effects.
Perhaps most significant for those who take SSRIs, or Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, is the news that the theory behind the drug—that depression is caused by having low levels of serotonin in the brain—is being debunked. “Chemical imbalance [brought on by low serotonin levels] is sort of last-century thinking. It’s much more complicated than that,” according to Dr. Joseph Coyle, a professor of neuroscience at Harvard Medical School. “It’s really an outmoded way of thinking.”
While Coyle, who is also the editor of the journal Archives of General Psychiatry, says serotonin plays a role in depression, low serotonin is likely not the cause of depression. The theory that it causes depression was propagated only after the introduction of Prozac. As Dr. Joseph Mercola points out, the low serotonin theory arose because they understood how the drugs acted on the brain; it was a hypothesis that tried to explain how the drug might be fixing something. Later, investigations were done to see whether or not depressed people actually had lower serotonin levels, and in 1983 the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) concluded that “There is no evidence that there is anything wrong in the serotonergic system of depressed patients.”
Worse, if you take an SSRI drug that blocks the normal reuptake of serotonin, you end up with the very problem the drug is designed to treat—low serotonin levels. SSRIs cause the brain to behave in ways it was never designed to do. No wonder it causes teens to attempt suicide, and other people to have inexplicably violent psychotic breaks, as we reported a year ago.
Treating depression—with the placebo effect
CBS reports on the efficacy of antidepressants versus placebo:
Do antidepressants work? Since the introduction of Prozac in the 1980s, prescriptions for antidepressants have soared 400 percent, with 17 million Americans currently taking some form of the drug. But how much good is the medication itself doing? “The difference between the effect of a placebo and the effect of an antidepressant is minimal for most people,” says Harvard scientist Irving Kirsch. Will Kirsch’s research, and the work of others, change the $11.3 billion antidepressant industry? Lesley Stahl investigates.
After years of living with side effects, Filmmaker Phil Lawrence puts his life on the line as he attempts to break free from the physical and psychological grip of the most prescribed drug in the United States—Antidepressants.
Source: youtube.com
