New model for treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder created
A new model of obsessive-compulsive disorder that mirrors both symptoms of the disease and the timing of its treatment in humans has been created by University of Chicago researchers, according to a new study.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at EurekAlert!.
#1 Sep 15, 2011
here Are NO tests for "Chemical Imbalances"
American Psychiatric Association admitted it lied to the American Public
Without a test for chemical balance the mental health (psychiatry) is limited in the ancillary tests of medicine like an EKG, EEG, blood work or other tests in the diagnoses of a patient. They aren't needed in Psychiatry. Psychiatry wouldn't know a good chemical balance from a bad chemical balance or an imbalance of chemistry in the brain. It was a fraud designed to drug and addict the American (world) population and to create a mentally compromised person for political and financial reasons.
The psychiatric diagnosis is made on the basis of behavior and hearsay at the discretion and feeling of the therapist (psychiatrist) who makes money from the prescription drugs and office visits.
If we respect metabolic changes based on daily dietary habits, weight gain / loss , terms of the survival of the organisms as a person age along with physical conditioning, physical illness, electrolyte level, gender differences , body temperature, I don't see where the Mental Health Industry could conform to any consistency in data with consideration to the above to state a person has a mental disease or illness based on chemical imbalance.
The fraud has been going on for more then 40 years since H W Bush was CEO, Eli Lilly and before his VP under the Reagan Presidency (1980's) when the essential Amino Acid "Tryptophan" was limited in the food chain by the FDA and Prozac entered the market place. Lots of people compromised under the fraud of mental health services with made to order mental illnesses with mind altering drugs as the capitalist & political solution for some.
There Are No "Chemical Imbalances"
"The hypothetical disturbances of neurochemical function that are said to underlie "mental illness" are just that: hypothetical. No experiment has ever shown that anyone has an "imbalance" of any neurotransmitters or any other brain chemicals. Nor could any conceivable experiment demonstrate the existence of a "chemical imbalance," simply because no one, least of all the biopsychiatrists, has the slightest idea what a proper and healthy chemical "balance" would look like."
"...the views and beliefs of biopsychiatry have nothing to do with the answers to scientific questions in any case: the hunt for biological "causes" of "mental illness" is an entirely fallacious enterprise in the first place; the non- existence of data to support its assertions is quite beside the point."
"The latest edition of one pharmacology text has this to say about the status of depression as a disease: "Despite extensive efforts, attempts to document the metabolic changes in human subjects predicted by these [biological] hypotheses have not, on balance, provided consistent or compelling corroboration." This is a long-winded way of admitting that not even a scrap of evidence supports the idea that depression results from a "chemical imbalance." Yet patients are told every day - by their doctors, by the media, and by drug company advertising - that it is a proven scientific fact that depression has a known biochemical origin. It follows directly that millions of Americans are being lied to by their doctors; and people surely can't give informed consent for drug treatment when what they're being "informed" is a fraud...
To sum up: there is no evidence whatsoever to support the view that "mental illness" is biochemical in origin; in other words, things like "Unipolar Disorder" and "Attention Deficit Disorder" simply do not exist."
#2 Sep 15, 2011
Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness
Every so often Al Frances says something that seems to surprise even him. Just now, for instance, in the predawn darkness of his comfortable, rambling home in Carmel, California, he has broken off his exercise routine to declare that “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.” Then an odd, reflective look crosses his face, as if he’s taking in the strangeness of this scene: Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV), the guy who wrote the book on mental illness, confessing that “these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.” For the first time in two days, the conversation comes to an awkward halt.
Pasted from < http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv... ;
There are no genetic tests, no brain scans, blood tests, chemical imbalance tests or X-rays that can scientifically/medically prove that any psychiatric disorder is a medical condition.
#3 Sep 15, 2011
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:
#4 Sep 15, 2011
The Mental Health Parity Scam
President Bush, in yet another slap at the free-enterprise system, wants to force health-insurance companies to cover mental illnesses in the way they cover bodily illnesses. This is known as “mental-health parity.”
According to the Washington Post, the psychiatrists in the audience applauded when Bush made his announcement. No kidding. They stand to reap big bucks if such legislation passes.
By what authority does the federal government order insurance companies to provide a particular kind of coverage? I thought we believe in capitalism in this country. There is nothing to prevent buyers and sellers of health insurance from bargaining to include any services they want. Some policies already include psychiatric services. Why is coercion advocated?
Because the price of the coverage is higher than people want to pay, and these days if you can’t get something you want through persuasion, you turn to force—more precisely, you ask the government to do it for you.
#5 Sep 15, 2011
#6 Sep 15, 2011
Why your kid is drugged in school. The mental health is stressing the kids out.
How it works:
The State Department of Education gets monies from the Federal Government (Disability) under a program called "IDEA" for each child diagnosed with a disability. A disability could be ADD/ADHD, Bi-polar disorder, Depression or any of the other mental diagnoses.
Who profits: The State Department of Education, the mental health and counseling Industry, the Pharmaceutical company and the money that is kicked back by lobbyists for politicians special interest and of course the legal profession.
All this at the cost of your child's Health and welfare.
IDEA" Final Regulation (part 1 of 2)
300.7 Child with a disability.
(1) As used in this part, the term child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance with §§300.530-300.536 as having mental retardation, a hearing impairment including deafness, a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment including blindness, serious emotional disturbance (hereafter referred to as emotional disturbance), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.
(i) The term means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child's educational performance:
(A) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.
(B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers.
(C) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances.
(D) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.
(E) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.
(ii) The term includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance.
9) Other health impairment means having limited strength, vitality or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that-
(i) Is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, and sickle cell anemia; and
(ii) Adversely affects a child's educational performance
§300.24 Related services.
(a) General. As used in this part, the term related services means transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability.
(9) Psychological services includes-
(i) Administering psychological and educational tests, and other assessment procedures;
(ii) Interpreting assessment results;
(iii) Obtaining, integrating, and interpreting information about child behavior and conditions relating to learning;
(iv) Consulting with other staff members in planning school programs to meet the special needs of children as indicated by psychological tests, interviews, and behavioral evaluations;
(v) Planning and managing a program of psychological services, including psychological counseling for children and parents; and
(vi) Assisting in developing positive behavioral intervention strategies.
#7 Sep 15, 2011
Child psychiatry is sick with hidden conflicts of interest
By Dr. Leonard Sax
When I first began writing prescriptions for children 22 years ago, it was unusual for a child to be taking powerful psychiatric drugs. Today it's common. How did we get here?
Dr. Joseph Biederman is part of the answer. He's an important guy. His title is "chief of pediatric psychopharmacology" at Massachusetts General Hospital, the main teaching hospital for Harvard Medical School. Pediatricians and family doctors look to him, and doctors like him, for guidance about what they should do with problem kids. For the past two decades, Biederman has pushed the use of medications for treating ADHD and bipolar disorder. Over the past two decades, the use of medications for treating those disorders has soared.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), recognizing how much influence Biederman has in promoting these medications for children, wondered whether the doctor might be taking money from drug companies. When first asked, Biederman admitted to taking perhaps "a couple hundred thousand dollars" from pharmaceutical companies. When he was asked to take another look, it turned out that Biederman and a colleague had accepted more than $1.6 million from the drug companies. And they hadn't told anybody.
Or consider the case of Dr. Fred Goodwin. After stepping down as director of the National Institute for Mental Health, Goodwin moved on to serve as the host of the NPR program "The Infinite Mind." Goodwin didn't think he needed to tell anybody that the drug companies were paying him $1.3 million, even as he reassured listeners on his program about the safety of powerful psychiatric medications for children. Last month, after his connections to the drug industry came to light, NPR canceled his program.
#9 Sep 15, 2011
Deaths Murders, violence and Suicides from mind drugs.
#10 Sep 17, 2011
I blame vaccines for these conditions. Cause anorexia too, but mainstream medicine can't seem to figure it, even though its listed as a side effect of numerous vaccines.
Add your comments below
|What's bribery? The answer is trickier than it ...||Oct 18||Pope Closet Emeritus||1|
|Laurence L Smith Releases Updated Version of 'T... (Jul '15)||Oct '17||Texxy||70|
|Pelosi: Trump doesn't understand a president's ...||Oct '17||Memo from Turner||6|
|Chicago won't see eclipse spectacle of Carbonda...||Aug '17||Real Faxt||1|
|Campus Zionists don't need safe spaces. They ne... (Sep '16)||Aug '17||lavon affair||2|
|Ottawa natives Cory, Simon Tiffin performing to...||Aug '17||just me||3|
|Jim Dey: A fresh start in C-U for Lovelace||Jul '17||Lovelace is loveless||1|
Find what you want!
Search University of Chicago Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC