#26 Aug 15, 2013
The (APA) DSM-V is the future version of the Mein Kampf.
Bombs and bullets will be replaced with mind drugs and psychotherapy (false memory) in future generations.
That's certainly what Aldus Huxley predicted with his fictional Soma and it came true
#27 Aug 15, 2013
The program of Telepsychiatry that links a patient with a psychiatrist somewhere in the State(s) for a remote consultation can only be considered a threat to the democracy of the USA and the individual that has to go through the process.
In the past years (2008 - 2009): We have seen forced federal mental health parity legislation that requires health insurance companies to pay for mental health treatment that was not discussed under the normal debate by our Congressional elected officials.(Voodoo, tarot card and crystal ball gazing diagnoses for made to order mental illnesses.)
The Mental Health Parity Act was attached under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. It's another Mental Health Industry "dirty deal" that was pushed by the Republican party (Bush) that tied the Congressional hands of Congress in the law making of the issue on it's own merit, if any..
(The Mental Health Parity Act is forcing insurance companies to pay for longer term stays, even indefinite, involuntary commitment for mental health care in which the industry has in many cases (by mind drugs and psychotherapy) caused the problem.)
Telepsychiatry should sounds alarms of liberty being removed by a non-governmental agency across our nation and without due process of law.(Even a last in their class law student should grasp that meaning with respect to Constitutional issue.)
There is no question that the use of Telepsychiatry clinics with rights to accessing patient records and making decisions of commitment for all hospitals,(from one central Headquarter) is to fill psychiatric bed and provide mental health services that could only be considered as part of a larger government conspiracy considering the greed of governmental and insurance profit taking by the mental health and the Pharmaceutical industry in the past.(drug America plan)... and it is at the cost of the health and welfare of the society and the poor luck of the individual.
Telepsychiatry also has a darker side in that it is positioned with the newly devised Mental Health Court and the licensing of Psychologists to dispense mind drugs and forced mental health services. That is a clear danger to the people of the United States when you consider the invalidity in the concept of mental illness and the crimes and atrocities they have committed worldwide..
#28 Aug 15, 2013
Today, my fellow NamiDearests, we call for a National Mental Health Offender Registry, referred to from herein as the “MHOR“. The MHOR would be modeled upon the already existing National Sex Offender Registry, but it would not be limited to those who’ve been convicted of criminal offenses. A serious mental health offense exists by application of any diagnosis by a mental health clinician, and anyone so diagnosed would be included in the registry and monitored for compliance with a psychiatric treatment regimen. This is all about prevention!
Check out http://www.namidearest.com/
#29 Aug 15, 2013
Cartoon: Psychiatry / Court/ puppet
Establishing State Mental Health Courts
There is no science and there has never been a cure for mental illness.
There is no medical model. No evidence based medicine and the Mental Health / Pharmaceutical industry lied about Chemical imbalance to drug the population. There is no imaging (MRI) to declare a defective brain from a normal brain.
The Mental Health Industry is political and based on hearsay. The court shouldn't except hearsay.
Psychiatry is fake science. The Thud Experiment proof.
Pasted from <
Psychiatry "No Science"
Psychiatry: An Industry of Death, Introduction
#30 Aug 15, 2013
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not prohibit disclosure to the government, during the guilt phase of a trial, of the results of a court-ordered mental examination.
September 21, 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
This memorandum responds to the Criminal Division's request, conveyed by Roger A. Pauley, for our opinion whether certain limitations on the disclosure of results of a court-ordered mental examination in a capital case are required to protect a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. In particular, the limitations would prevent disclosure, during the guilt phase of a capital trial, of the results of a mental examination ordered upon a defendant's notice of intent to introduce evidence of a mental condition bearing upon sentencing. As discussed below, principally because the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects against the prosecution's direct or indirect use of compelled statements in a criminal case, not against the prosecution's possession of or access to such statements, we do not believe that a rule lacking such limitations would be facially defective. Nevertheless, in any given case, adherence to such limitations may aid the prosecution in establishing that, during the guilt phase of a capital trial, it made no use of statements, or the fruits of statements, obtained through a court-ordered mental examination of the defendant.
Pasted from < http://www.justice.gov/olc/rule122a10.htm> ;
#31 Aug 15, 2013
Locking-up Home Schoolers
Pasted from < http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/lockin... ;
Locking up as mentally ill those who refuse to obey a tyrannical state was a favorite tactic of Stalin and his successors. The New Europe is learning to love this reinforcement of government power.
< http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/lockin... ;
#32 Aug 15, 2013
IMO: Since the Bush Presidency the Pharmaceutical Industry was hiding under an umbrella of Federal (FDA) protection and could release any harmful drug into the public provided it's bed partner the FDA accepted the drug..
Can't sue the government
Obama’s Preemption Memo: Limiting Regulatory Preemption of State Common Law Claims
By Matt Melamed, Public Justice Kazan-Wallace Fellow
On May 20, 2009, President Obama reversed one of the most nefarious practices of the Bush administration by issuing a memorandum (Preemption Memo) aimed at curbing federal preemption by regulatory fiat.(The memorandum is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Pr... .) With the Preemption Memo, the President made clear his intent to limit federal agencies’ efforts to preempt state law claims merely by declaring that they would conflict with federal regulatory purposes. This position represents a radical shift from that taken by the Bush administration, which aggressively encouraged federal agencies to seek to preempt state tort law in precisely that fashion. For the first time in a long time, consumer advocates have an ally in the executive branch.
The Bush Administration’s Stealth Tort Reform Effort
The Preemption Memo is described more fully below. But its importance can only be understood against the backdrop of the Bush administration’s attempt to utilize federal agencies to implement stealth tort reform. Since 2005, seven federal agencies have issued over 60 proposed or final rules that were accompanied by introductory statements – commonly known as “preambles”– stating that the rule preempts state tort law on the ground that lawsuits involving the regulated matters would conflict with the agencies’ regulatory goals. See, e.g., Press Release, American Association for Justice, FOIAs Reveal How Bush Administration Made Complete Immunity for Negligent Corporations a Top Priority (Oct. 15, 2008), available at http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/h... .
The most notorious example of this practice is the preamble to a 2006 United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling regulation, which states that the FDA’s approval of a prescription drug’s label “preempts conflicting or contrary State law,” including lawsuits seeking to hold drug manufacturers liable for failing adequately to warn of a drug’s dangers. 71 Fed. Reg. 3922, 3934-35 (2006). This preemption preamble was particularly egregious because it represented a 180-degree reversal of the FDA’s prior views on the matter: before the Bush administration took power, the FDA enthusiastically endorsed tort litigation as complementing the agency’s ability to ensure the safety of prescription drugs.(As discussed below, in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009),the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 2006 labeling regulation’s preemptive preamble was not entitled to any deference.)
The intention behind this and other Bush-era preemption preambles is clear: by attempting to strip consumers of their rights to sue, the Bush administration was pandering to the business community, which seeks at all costs to immunize itself from tort liability. Indeed, Bush administration officials had an unusually close relationship with the industries they regulated. Again, the 2006 FDA labeling regulation is instructive. As first proposed, the preamble to the labeling regulation specifically stated that the FDA did not intend to preempt state law failure-to-warn claims. See Press Release, American Association for Justice, supra. Less than six months before issuing the final regulation, FDA’s chief counsel met with legal representatives from the largest pharmaceutical companies. Id. After the meeting, the preamble was changed to state that FDA approval of a drug label preempted state common law failure-to-warn claims.
#34 Aug 15, 2013
Psychiatric Diagnosis: Too Little Science, Too Many Conflicts of Interest [i]
Paula J. Caplan, Ph.D.
There is a lot of pain and suffering in the world, and it is tempting to believe that the mental health community knows how to help. It is widely believed, both by mental health professionals and the general population, that if only a person gets the right psychiatric diagnosis, the therapist will know what kind of measures will be the most helpful. Unfortunately, that is not usually the case, and getting a psychiatric diagnosis can often create more problems than it solves, including a lifetime of being labeled, difficulties with obtaining affordable (or any) health insurance (due to now having a pre-existing condition), loss of employment, loss of child custody, the overlooking of physical illnesses and injuries because of everything being attributed to psychological factors, and the loss of the right to make decisions about one’s medical and legal affairs. The creation and use of psychiatric diagnosis, unlike, for instance, psychiatric drugs, is not overseen by any regulatory body, and rarely does anyone raise the question of what role the assignment of a psychiatric label has played in creating problems for individuals.[ii]
The Problematic History
These serious limitations have not prevented the authors of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), sometimes known as “the therapist’s Bible,” from making expansive claims about their knowledge and authority and wielding enormous power to decide who will and will not be called mentally ill and what the varieties of alleged mental illness will be. The DSM’s current edition is called DSM-IV-TR, and it was preceded by the original DSM (in 1952), then DSM-II (1968), DSM-III (1980), DSM-III-R (Third Edition Revised)(1987), DSM-IV (1994), and DSM-IV-TR (2000). The DSM-V is currently in preparation and slated for 2013 publication. Each time a new edition appears, the media ask whichever psychiatrist is the lead editor why a new edition was necessary, and like clockwork, each editor replies that it was because the previous edition really wasn’t scientific (Caplan, 1995). And each time a new edition appears, it contains many more categories than does the previous one. For instance, DSM-III-R contained 297 categories, and DSM-IV contained 374 (Caplan, 1995).
I served as an advisor to two of the DSM-IV committees, before resigning due to serious concerns after witnessing how fast and loose they play with the scientific research related to diagnosis (Caplan, 1995). The DSM is widely used, not only in the mental health system, but also in general medical practice, in schools, and in the courts. I have been involved since 1985 in trying to alert both therapists and the public to the manual’s unscientific nature and the dangers that believing in its objectivity poses. Since then, I have watched with interest a national trend toward gradually increasing openness to the idea that psychiatric diagnosis (A)is largely unscientific,(B)is highly subjective and political, and (C)can cause untold harm, ranging from the patients’ lowered self-confidence to loss of custody of children to loss of health insurance (because any psychiatric label can be considered evidence of a pre-existing condition) to loss of the right to make decisions about their medical and legal affairs.
More of this article:
#35 Aug 15, 2013
An unprecedented 1 in 66 Americans is a diagnosed psychotic
Pasted from < http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/20/an-unpr... ;
Outselling even common drugs to treat high blood pressure and acid reflux, antipsychotic medications are the single top-selling prescription drug in the United States.
Once reserved for hard-core, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest type of mental illnesses to treat hallucinations, delusions or major thought disorders; today, the drugs are handed out to unruly kids and absent minded elderly.
A recent story in Al Jazeera by James Ridgeway of Mother Jones illuminates the efforts by major pharmaceutical companies to get doctors prescribing medicines like Zyprexa, Seroquel, and Abilify to patients for whom the drugs were never intended.
Focusing on psychiatrists because they rely on subjective diagnoses, the drug reps have been so successful that they've changed the criteria for mental illness and disability payments. Ridgeway quotes former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell.
"[T]he tally of those who are so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) increased nearly two and a half times between 1987 and 2007 - from one in 184 Americans to one in seventy-six. For children, the rise is even more startling - a thirty-five-fold increase in the same two decades. Mental illness is now the leading cause of disability in children." Under the tutelage of Big Pharma, we are "simply expanding the criteria for mental illness so that nearly everyone has one." Fugh-Berman agrees: In the age of aggressive drug marketing, she says, "Psychiatric diagnoses have expanded to include many perfectly normal people."
Particularly vulnerable because medication decisions are often out of their hands the old and the young suffer most.
For kids: the number diagnosed with bi-polar disorder rose 40-fold between 1994 and 2003 and one in five comes away from a psychiatrist with a prescription for an antipsychotic.
Dosing the elderly at nursing homes has become so common that sales reps have coined the term "five at five" -- meaning 5 milligrams of Zyprexa at 5 pm to sedate difficult residents.
For all their nefarious wrangling, in 2009, Lily agreed to pay $1.4 billion, including a $515 million criminal fine. The largest ever in a health care case and the largest criminal fine on any corporation in the U.S.
That year, Lilly sold $1.8 billion of Zyprexa alone.
Pasted from < http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/20/an-unpr... ;
#36 Aug 15, 2013
#38 Aug 15, 2013
These Popular Drugs Can Make You Violent – Avoid Them
Some medications have been linked to an increased risk for violent, even homicidal behavior. A recent study identified 31 drugs that are disproportionately linked with violent behavior.
Time Magazine lists the top ten offenders:
1. Varenicline (Chantix): The number one violence-inducing drug on the list, this anti-smoking medication is 18 times more likely to be linked with violence when compared to other drugs
2. Fluoxetine (Prozac): This drug was the first well-known SSRI antidepressant
3. Paroxetine (Paxil): Another SSRI antidepressant, Paxil is also linked with severe withdrawal symptoms and a risk of birth defects
4. Amphetamines:(Various): Used to treat ADHD
5. Mefoquine (Lariam): A treatment for malaria which is often linked with reports of strange behavior
6. Atomoxetine (Strattera): An ADHD drug that affects the neurotransmitter noradrenaline
7. Triazolam (Halcion): This potentially addictive drug is used to treat insomnia
8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox): Another SSRI antidepressant
9. Venlafaxine (Effexor): An antidepressant also used to treat anxiety disorders
10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq): An antidepressant which affects both serotonin and noradrenaline
Time Magazine January 7, 2011
PLoS One December 15, 2010; 5(12)
Pasted from < http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/ar... ;
#39 Aug 15, 2013
Insight Magazine September 2, 2002
Could Antidepressants Explain the Virginia Tech Massacre?
http://v.mercola.com :80/blogs/public...re--10928.a spx
Criteria for Depression Are Too Broad, Researchers Say :Guidelines May Encompass Many Who Are Just Sad
Antidepressants Alter Personality
The antidepressants known as serotonin reuptake inhibitors have a significant effect on emotional experience and behavior, even in the absence of clinical depression. While serotonergic interventions are known to reduce hostility and violence in psychiatric patients, little is known about the effect of such treatment in normal individuals.
Pasted from < http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/ar... ;
#40 Aug 15, 2013
IMO : The only personality disorders are those in the Mental Health Industry and especially those with membership in the APA. It was discovered in Europe and called NAZISM.
#41 Aug 15, 2013
Are ADHD Meds Making Boys Behave Like Girls?
An interesting column appeared on forbes.com yesterday by Lionel Tiger, a columnist for the website and professor of anthropology at Rutgers University. In his column, Tiger cites the example of France hardly permitting the use of Ritalin and other stimulants in kids, which I've noted before myself, gets into the various conflict of interest scandals around child and adult psychiatry, and then asks:
"The overwhelming proportion of children fed Ritalin--as high as 90% by some estimates--are boys.
"Is it possible that because girls do much better in the school system than boys, boys are being drugged to behave more like girls? Are boys who enjoy large-muscle movements and jolty social interactions being drugged to render them more manageable in classes calibrated to female patterns of behavior and attention? Is this an example in the early years of a feminization of the school system that later on in college yields a ratio of women to men of about 63% to 37%?"
I have no idea if Ritalin does indeed represent the "sissification" (as a friend of mine calls it) of American boys in an educational system that was once built around their needs and behavioral patterns (perhaps excessively so), but is now apparently tilted towards girls (or so I'm told), but it is a provocative question. I don't see American culture and education in such stark terms. The needs of girls are important, too.
That said, there's something truly strange about the fact that most of the children being slammed with ADHD drugs and various meds for alleged child bipolar disorder are in fact boys (among teens, it appears that girls wind up taking more anti-depressants). Prior to the 1990s or thereabouts, it was unheard, except in unusual circumstances, to medicate children for much of anything beyond colds and various vaccines. Nowadays, on the order of 5 percent and more of American kids are medicated for some form of mental disorder, a sea change that ought to give everyone pause regardless of where they line up on medication issues.
Because when you make an epic shift in how you deal with an issue of any kind in a culture and let it play out for a generation or so, it's time to start asking questions about how it's all worked out, measure results and figure out if it's been a worthwhile way of doing things. Presently, I don't think anyone is asking those questions and digging into the data, but it's about time someone did ask, "How has a generation of drugging little boys turned out for us as a culture? Are the kids better and smarter? Is our nation better off? Have we made boys more like girls?" And so on.
Add your comments below
|CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10)||1 min||LizW||492,016|
|Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08)||11 min||Freebird||1,190,563|
|Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08)||44 min||adamski||51,452|
|Let's Chat (Jan '12)||47 min||LizW||17,848|
|Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09)||6 hr||Shaniquah||71,214|
|New Game ***Last Word + 2 (Oct '11)||6 hr||Princess Hey||12,027|
|keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11)||7 hr||Princess Hey||17,359|
|Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09)||23 hr||King George||96,887|
Find what you want!
Search Orlando Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC