Psychiatry "No Science"
Psychiatry: An Industry of Death, Introduction
Cartoon NAZI guards / Prozac
Just as more and more attention is being paid to the importance of mental health care, a new study reveals that access to psychiatrists is decreasing.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at NY1.
#1 Jan 20, 2014
Health insurance doesn't want to pay for an industry that has no science. No medical model. No evidence based medicine and. Has no test for a chemical imbalance of the brain. The mental health industry is based on hearsay and has political motive
Psychiatry "No Science"
Psychiatry: An Industry of Death, Introduction
Cartoon NAZI guards / Prozac
#2 Jan 20, 2014
PSYCHIATRIC FASCISM by Don Weitz Toronto, Ontario
For almost 150 years, psychiatry has been masquerading as a medical science and as a branch of medicine. It is not and never was a science or a type of health care. Modern psychiatry is driven by unproved empirical assumptions, medical biases, and pseudo-scientific opinions. There are no scientifically established, independently proven facts in psychiatry. Psychiatry, in fact, has no laws or testable hypotheses and no coherent and comprehensive theory. Psychiatry conspicuously lacks scientific proof or evidence to support its news-media-parroted claims of "mental illness" or "disorders".
After about seventy years of psychiatric practices and research, there is still no diagnostic test for schizophrenia or any of the other three hundred so-called mental disorders listed in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is essentially a list of class-driven moral judgements of allegedly abnormal behaviour, published and propagandized by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM is the official bible of organized psychiatry. The DSM is the equivalent of the Malleus Maleficarum in the middle ages, which Spanish inquisitors used to identify, target, stigmatize and burn witches and heretics. Today's witches, heretics, and scapegoats are labeled mentally ill or schizophrenic.
Hospital psychiatry with its emphasis on the control of inmate behaviour through high risk behaviour modification programs, biological "treatments", physical and mechanical restraints, locked doors and wards, and seclusion/isolation rooms, have always exhibited several fascist elements. I want to focus on three: fear, force and fraud. These are the guiding principles and policies used to control citizens and groups in the population whom government leaders and other authorities, including the police and so-called mental health experts, have judged to be dissident, problematic or difficult to control. Hospital psychiatry is very similar to the prison system. In the prison or correctional system psychiatrists have been used as consultants to design dangerous, unethical behaviour modification programs and to conduct high risk drug experiments on prisoners. Both the psychiatric system and the prison system systematically use fear, force and fraud for the purpose of social control and punishment - not for purposes of treatment or rehabilitation, both of which are euphemisms. It is or should be obvious that forced treatment is in fact punishment. It is frequently cruel and usual and should therefore be banned in the United States under that nation's Eighth constitutional amendment. Virtually all treatments in psychiatric facilities are forced or administered without informed consent. They are administered against the "patient's" (the prisoner's) will or with consent obtained by threatening the "patient" with worse consequences, or with consent obtained by keeping the "patient" unaware of important information about serious risks and alternatives. Informed consent in psychiatry is a cruel sham. It doesn't exist.
#3 Jan 20, 2014
Psychiatry does not have a cure
WHENEVER the media writes on the subject of disruptive, inattentive or boisterous children who have been labelled ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), there seems to be an assumption the reader accepts the psychiatric label is real, and that "experts" can treat it.
This could not be further from the truth. While there is no question children and adolescents can be argumentative, impulsive, and that some can be more active than others, psychiatry has packaged up these and other behaviour characteristics and categorised them as the so-called mental illness ADHD.
If you strip away all of the psychiatric rhetoric, the reality of the situation is children and adolescents are being chemically restrained for displaying behaviour that is considered to be an illness because a psychiatrist said so. As for the idea of a "chemical imbalance of the brain" as the reason given for drugging young minds, forget it. It's hype and slick marketing. While psychiatrists spout their claims, they have never found a test or submitted evidence to support the existence of such an imbalance.
They can't measure a balance in the brain, so they wouldn't know if an imbalance had been resolved if there was one.
A significant factor however in the whole charade is money. Last year in England alone, the cost of ADHD drugs was over £52 million while the cost over the last ten years was more than £340 million. Add the cost of ADHD drugs dispensed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the figure comes to over £409 million. That's extremely good business but bad medicine.
It is important that we question ideas, especially those that are based on opinions rather than science. It goes without saying that psychiatric drugs will chemically restrain a person, but they don't cure anything. Psychiatry does not have any science or cures.
While life is full of problems that can sometimes be overwhelming, it is important to know that psychiatry, its diagnoses and its drugs are the wrong way to go. The emphasis must be on workable medical testing and treatments.
#4 Jan 20, 2014
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.
Or consider Dr. Charles Nemeroff, who was until just a few weeks ago chairman of the psychiatry department at Emory University. Between 2000 and 2007, Nemeroff pocketed $2.8 million in payoffs from drug companies. He never told anybody about it until a Senate investigation brought the payments to light.
Are the medications recommended by these opinion leaders risky for children? We don't know for sure. Researchers at Harvard have reported that giving medications such as Ritalin and Concerta to young laboratory animals results in those animals displaying a loss of drive when they grow up. There could be a similar phenomenon in our children.
I've seen many young men in my own practice who took these medications as children or teenagers and are now content, as twentysomethings, to live in their parents' homes, work a few hours a week at the coffee shop, and spend most of their free time playing video games.
So the verdict is out. Maybe the drugs are harmful to children. Maybe they aren't. Would you like to volunteer your child for the experiment?
The Cleveland Clinic may be on the right track toward fixing this problem. The clinic has just begun exposing ties to the drug industry for every one of their doctors. Any doctor who accepts more than $5,000 per year from the drug industry, or any industry, must acknowledge that fact online. The site doesn't provide the juicy details about exactly how much money each doctor gets, just that it's more than $5,000.
I'd like to see every other health care facility follow that example - or go further and disclose the actual dollar amount received above $5,000. Or above $500, for that matter.
Until that happens, what's the bottom line for parents? Buyer beware. If your doctor recommends a medication for your child, ask: What's known about the long-term risks of this medication? What's the source of that information?
The traditional rule for good medical practice has been "First, do no harm." For parents, that translates: "When in doubt, say no." Don't let anyone push you into
giving your child a drug whose long-term risks are uncertain.
|Blue Cross Blue Shield in Texas ... comments, r... (Sep '14)||Mar 21||bone||21|
|Health insurance||Mar 21||bone||2|
|Cystic fibrosis patients surviving longer in Ca...||Mar 16||Evkan||1|
|AARP opposes GOP health plan, which raises prem...||Mar 15||Justin Bilyj||1|
|The CBO report raises five serious questions||Mar 14||Jeff Brightone||1|
|GOP bill will push insurance costs - down, down...||Mar 14||Chess Yellott MD||3|
|Obamacare revision would reduce insured numbers...||Mar 13||YouDidntBuildThat||1|
Find what you want!
Search Health Insurance Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC
Enter your email to get updates on this discussion.