Stony Brook Hospital Psychiatric Abuse
Posted in the Stony Brook Forum
#1 Apr 3, 2012
I’m sure each of us has attempted that conversation with our Primary care physician about how we might not feel so great about our life situation or what is happening with relationships and so on and so forth.
$ 100 says that the doctor, TELLS YOU THAT CHEMICAL IMBALANCE LIE instead of walking you through your problems with talk therapy (which cures the problem) they prescribe you a lifetime commitment to psychotic drugs which you can NEVER safely just stop ingesting.
I WAS TREATED LIKE HUMAN TRASH AT STONY BROOK CPEP AFTER PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS MADE ME SICK. lEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT PSYCHIATRY LIKE I DID SEARCHING ONLINE FOR MY HUMAN RIGHTS.
This hospital has some of the best medical testing equipment in the world
BUT PSYCHIATRY IS FRAUD, THATS WHY NO ONE GETS A CHEMICAL IMBALANCE TEST.
When psychiaric drugs GIVE you panic attacks that you NEVER had before psychiatric drugs and you seek treatment expect cpep abuse.
Its like getting arrested but worse, you have NO RIGHTS !
LOOK AT THE TRUTH ! www.cchr.org
Psychiatric disorders are not medical diseases. There are no lab tests, brain scans, X-rays or chemical imbalance tests that can verify any mental disorder is a physical condition. This is not to say that people do not get depressed, or that people can’t experience emotional or mental duress, but psychiatry has repackaged these emotions and behaviors as “disease” in order to sell drugs.
This is a brilliant marketing campaign, but it is not science.
Currently, due to the massive growth in psychiatric drugging of children and youth and the current targeting of them for even more psychiatric drugging, PsychRights has made attacking this problem a priority. Children are virtually always forced to take these drugs because it is the adults in their lives who are making the decision. This is an unfolding national tragedy of immense proportions. As part of its mission, PsychRights is further dedicated to exposing the truth about these drugs and the courts being misled into ordering people to be drugged and subjected to other brain and body damaging interventions against their will.
Psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, sometimes including life-threatening emotional and physical withdrawal problems. In short, it is not only dangerous to start taking psychiatric drugs, it can also be dangerous to stop them. Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision. Methods for safely withdrawing from psychiatric drugs are discussed in Dr. Breggin's books, Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry:
Saint Petersburg, FL
#2 Nov 20, 2013
Below is an example of a psychiatric experiment violating the Nuremberg Code at Stony Brook University School of Medicine.
Liquid Risperidone in the treatment of rages in psychiatrically hospitalized children with possible bipolar disorder
Gabrielle A. Carlson, MD, Michael Potegal, PhD, David Margulies, MD, Joann Basile, RN, BA, and Zinoviy Gutkovich, MD
A rage outburst was defined as sufficient agitation and loss of control such that the child was unable to “time out”(i.e. sit in a chair for 10 minutes on being told to do so) or was a danger to himself or others and a higher level of intervention was needed. In order to compare the efficacy of medication against usual treatment (i.e. seclusion/restraint), a first rage outburst in the hospital was treated non-medically; that is, the child was placed in an isolation room. The door remained open if the child was able to regain control and take the time out in the room; otherwise the door was closed. If there was a second episode, the child was told “You need some medicine to help you get back in control. Take this medicine or we may have to give you a shot”. If agreeable, the child was given 0.015 mg/kg of liquid Risperidone.
Children are frightened of injections, so are adults. They are very painful and scary. Of course children will choose to drink a drug rather than be injected with one. Gabrielle A. Carlson would have got the same results if she had told the children that if they didn’t take their drugs she would give them an electric shock or a slap in the face
The children did not ask to take part in the medical experiment and were threatened with PAIN (injection) to coerce indigestion of the drug during the experiment if they could not “time out”(i.e. sit in a chair for 10 minutes on being told to do so...
Read the story "Threats, Coercion and Chemical Restraints for Distressed Children" http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/11/threats-c...
Saint Petersburg, FL
#3 Nov 20, 2013
Stop testing drugs by making threats to children Gabrielle A. Carlson, MD, Michael Potegal, PhD, David Margulies, MD, Joann Basile, RN, BA, and Zinoviy Gutkovich, MD
Nuremberg Code — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
The great weight of the evidence before us is to the effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
Add your comments below
|Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06)||7 min||AN NFL FAN||120,649|
|Brentwood,Long Island, New York (Apr '06)||7 hr||Squafdonoboles||1,131|
|Roberto Clemente Park toxic debris cleanup plan...||11 hr||above the law||12|
|vincenzo scarpetta uk . greek elections||19 hr||Cantor||1|
|LIE road rage arrest (May '07)||23 hr||Moral Man||278|
|The National Bank of Lake Ronkonkoma (Dec '09)||Sun||Kathleen Manning||10|
|Suffolk County to install monitoring wells at d...||Sun||real experts apply||8|
Find what you want!
Search Stony Brook Forum Now
Stony Brook News Video
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC