|
The definitive case against psychiatry: dangerous scientific fraud from top to bottom |
|
(To read about Jon's mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
|
|
Note: This is an expanded version of my recent piece about
psychiatry. It contains far more evidence that psychiatry is a highly
dangerous fraud.
By Jon Rappoport
"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)
Regardless of what you think of Donald Trump, the deployment
of psychiatrists to diagnose a person they oppose on political grounds
is a tactic---not science.
In some cases, psychiatrists give favored individuals a soft
landing---"Well, he's suffering from bipolar and he needs help
straightening out his life"---while in other cases these shrinks use
their diagnoses to discredit and diminish public figures---"his judgment
is impaired, pay no attention to what he's saying, he needs treatment
(toxic drugs)."
It's the old USSR strategy, with a few cultural twists to fit the American landscape.
It's time to lay out the facts about psychiatry, to show how bankrupt this "science" really is.
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.
No blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no brain scans, no genetic assays.
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.
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. 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") 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 amphetamine-like
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. Let's go deeper. 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. Peter 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. He, Smith, would present a weak attack,
omitting 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 Judge Potter to admit that
evidence, and then unaccountably withheld it."
In 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; every mental
disorder stems from such a chemical imbalance."
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?
Here's what's happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing
the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They're
taking heavy flack on many fronts.
The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no
defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders.
All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human
behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce
violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.
Psychiatry is a pseudoscience.
So the shrinks have to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they're looking for one.
For example, mental disorders are the result of genes plus "psycho-social factors." A mish-mash of more unproven science.
"New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is
paying dividends and holds great promise..." Professional propaganda.
It's all gibberish, all the way down.
Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.
So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.
Big Pharma isn't going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.
And in the wake of Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Naval
Yard, and other mass shootings, the hype is expanding: "We must have new
community mental-health centers all over America."
More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drugs.
You want to fight for a right?
Fight for the right of every adult to refuse medication.
Fight for the right of every parent to refuse medication for his/her
child.
|
 |
|
|
Use this link to order Jon's Matrix Collections.
|
|
|
Jon Rappoport
The
author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM
THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US
Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a
consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the
expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he
has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles
on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin
Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and
Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics,
health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment