"Promoting diabolically false science, psychiatry creates a
gateway for defining many separate states of consciousness that don't
exist at all. They're cheap myths, fairy tales." (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
USA Today, January 26, 2016: "Primary care doctors should screen all
adults for depression, an expert panel recommended Tuesday."
---Let's screen everybody to find out if they have mental disorders.
Let's diagnose as many people as possible with mental disorders and give
them toxic drugs---
Wherever you see organized psychiatry operating, you see it trying to
expand its domain and its dominance. The Hippocratic Oath to do no
harm? Are you kidding?
The first question to ask is: do these mental disorders have any
scientific basis? There are now roughly 300 of them. They multiply
like fruit flies.
An open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.
THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.
And along with that:
ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED,
AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human
behaviors.
Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by
the American Psychiatric Association.
For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of "research."
Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs
to treat every one of these "disorders," are leading the charge to
invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more
drugs and make more money.
In a PBS Frontline episode,
Does ADHD Exist?, Dr. Russell
Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the
University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out
the fraud.
PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there's no biological
marker-that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no
blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.
BARKLEY: That's tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of
illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions.
A
disorder doesn't have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the
case, all mental disorders would be invalid... There is no lab test for
any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn't make them invalid. [Emphasis added]
Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 297
mental disorders. They're all hoaxes. Because there are no defining
tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.
You can sway and tap dance and bloviate all you like and you won't
escape the noose around your neck. We are looking at a science that
isn't a science. That's called fraud. Rank fraud.
There's more. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who
has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew
the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years, almost no one
noticed.
His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article:
"Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness." (Dec.27, 2010).
Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.
Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to
write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This
tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder.
The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.
In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece,
"Scientist At Work," Daniel Goleman called Frances "Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment..."
Well, sure. If you're sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental
disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for
Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses),
you're right up there in the pantheon.
Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired's Greenberg and said the following:
"There is no definition of a mental disorder. It's bullshit. I mean, you just can't define it."
BANG.
That's on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the
burned rubble on the ground, remarking, "Well, I knew there would be a
problem."
After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, "These
concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to
define precisely with bright lines at the borders."
Frances might have been obliquely referring to the fact that his baby,
the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to
permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of
drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.
If this is medical science, a duck is a rocket ship.
To repeat, Dr. Frances' work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs
to be prescribed, because the definitions of Bipolar and ADHD were
expanded to include more people.
Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:
* acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
* life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
* brain damage.
Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:
* intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
* peripheral circulatory collapse;
* stupor and coma.
Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for "Bipolar" and "irritability stemming from autism") include:
* serious impairment of cognitive function;
* fainting;
* restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).
Dr. Frances self-admitted label-juggling act also permitted the
definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and
greater use of Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of
choice.
So...what about Ritalin?
In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most
important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called
"An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)" [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].
Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and cited
published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.
For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin
effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical
literature:
* Paranoid delusions
* Paranoid psychosis
* Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
* Activation of psychotic symptoms
* Toxic psychosis
* Visual hallucinations
* Auditory hallucinations
* Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
* Effects pathological thought processes
* Extreme withdrawal
* Terrified affect
* Started screaming
* Aggressiveness
* Insomnia
* Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
* Psychic dependence
* High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
* Decreased REM sleep
* When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
* Convulsions
* Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.
In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage
incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic
drugs (aka "major tranquilizers"). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug
given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major
tranquilizers. (source:
Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin's Press, 1991)
This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.
Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV
anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on
it week after week? They are in harness.
Thank you, Dr. Frances.
Let's take a little trip back in time and review how one psychiatric
drug, Prozac, escaped a bitter fate, by hook and by crook. It's an
instructive case.
Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a while. Stories
on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on
February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus' Wall Street Journal article on the drug
carried the headline,
"Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense."
She wrote, "A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they
became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new
problems for the drug's maker, Eli Lilly and Co."
Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined,
"Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?"
In his landmark book,
Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions
that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) "put together a group of
individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous
after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response
confirmed the problem."
A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental
Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour
Fisher, called
"Antidepressants for Children," concludes:
"Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that
antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating
depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be
in wide use."
An instructive article,
"Protecting Prozac," by Michael
Grinfeld, in the December 1998 California Lawyer, opens several doors.
Grinfeld notes that "in the past year nearly a dozen cases involving
Prozac have disappeared from the court record." He was talking about law
suits against the manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and he was saying that those
cases had apparently been settled, without trial, in such a quiet and
final way, with such strict confidentiality, that it is almost as if
they never happened.
Grinfeld details a set of maneuvers involving attorney Paul Smith, who
in the early 1990s became the lead plaintiffs' counsel in the famous
Fentress lawsuit against Eli Lilly.
The plaintiffs made the accusation that Prozac had induced a man to commit murder.
This
was the first action involving Prozac to reach a trial and jury, so it
would establish a major precedent for a large number of other pending
suits against the manufacturer.
The case: On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker, a former employee of
Standard Gravure, in Louisville, Kentucky, walked into the workplace,
with an AK-47 and a SIG Sauer pistol, killed eight people, wounded 12
others, and committed suicide. Family members of the victims
subsequently sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, on the grounds that
Wesbecker had been pushed over the edge into violence by the drug.
The trial: After what many people thought was a very weak attack on
Lilly by plaintiffs' lawyer Smith, the jury came back in five hours with
an easy verdict favoring Lilly and Prozac.
Grinfeld writes, "Lilly's defense attorneys predicted the verdict would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac litigation."
But that wasn't the end of the Fentress case. "Rumors began to circulate
that [the plaintiffs' attorney] Smith had made several [prior] oral
agreements with Lilly concerning the evidence that would be presented
[in Fentress], the structure of a postverdict settlement, and the
potential resolution of Smith's other [anti-Prozac] cases."
In other words, the rumors declared: This plaintiff's lawyer, Smith,
made a deal with Lilly to present a weak attack, to omit evidence
damaging to Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly innocent of all
charges. In return, the case would be settled secretly, with Lilly
paying out big monies to Smith's client. In this way, Lilly would avoid
the exposure of a public settlement, and through the innocent verdict,
would discourage other potential plaintiffs from suing it over Prozac.
The rumors congealed. The judge in the Fentress case, John Potter, asked
lawyers on both sides if "money had changed hands." He wanted to know
if the fix was in. The lawyers said no money had been paid, "without
acknowledging that an agreement was in place."
Judge Potter didn't stop there. In April 1995, Grinfeld notes, "In court
papers, Potter wrote that he was surprised that the plaintiffs'
attorneys [Smith] hadn't introduced evidence that Lilly had been charged
criminally for failing to report deaths from another of its drugs to
the Food and Drug Administration. Smith had fought hard [during the
Fentress trial] to convince Potter to admit that evidence, and then
unaccountably withheld it."
In Judge Potter's motion, he alleged that "Lilly [in the Fentress case]
sought to buy not just the verdict, but the court's judgment as well."
In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion: "...there was a
serious lack of candor with the trial court [during Fentress] and there
may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial
process or perhaps even fraud."
After the Supreme Court remanded the Fentress case back to the state
attorney general's office, the whole matter dribbled away, and then
resurfaced in a different form, in another venue. At the time of the
California Lawyer article, a new action against Smith was unresolved.
Eventually, Eli Lilly escaped punishment.
Based on the rigged Fentress case, Eli Lilly silenced many lawsuits based on Prozac inducing murder and suicide.
Quite a story.
And it all really starts with the institution of psychiatry inventing a
whole branch of science that doesn't exist, thereby defining 300 mental
disorders that don't exist.
Here's a coda:
This one is big.
The so-called "chemical-imbalance theory of mental illness is dead.
Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times,
laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with
this staggering admission:
"In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of
urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed
psychiatrists."
Boom.
Dead.
However...urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric
drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: "we're
correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain."
The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for
chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were
faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn't.
In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to cover his
colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:
"In the past 30 years, I don't believe I have ever heard a
knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim
[about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it...the
'chemical imbalance' image has been vigorously promoted by some
pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients'
understanding."
Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain
to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical
imbalance.
And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud...
...then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients...
...since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?
No comments:
Post a Comment