Blog

29 May
2

Bath salts and Psychiatric Drugs: Are they really so different?

warning sign

Bath salts, now illegal in the U.S., aren’t in the same category as other FDA-approved medications prescribed by psychiatrists, but both groups of drugs share some startling similarities. One might even go as so far as to say they’re cousins under the same family tree.

The street term “bath salts” was given to a body of designer drugs  known under  a variety of names like “Ivory Wave,” “Purple Wave,” “Vanilla Sky,” “Bliss,” “Ocean Burst,” and “Bolivian Bath.”

Bath salts aren’t the crystals people use to soften, perfume and overall enhance their bathing experience.  They resemble the crystalline salts made for baths, but their chemical make-up varies markedly from real bath salts. Like psychiatric drugs, bath salts consist of synthetic chemicals. These chemicals are like amphetamines, which serve to energize and induce excitement.

In July of last year, the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act made it illegal to have, use and distribute as many as 26 of the synthetic ingredients used in bath salts. But that doesn’t always stop street chemists from working in quasi-labs to make new synthetic derivatives or combinations to get around the law. It’s possible to tamper with and change the chemical formulas to produce similar mind-altering effects.

Which brings me to my next point: psychiatric drugs are also based on chemical formulas and synthetic chemicals with long, often unpronounceable names. These chemicals may not be illegal, but don’t they often serve the same purpose? Psychiatric medications seek to enliven, energize, calm, stabilize or sedate one. And don’t these meds have some of the same side effects as bath salts?

The side effects for bath salts include high blood pressure, heightened pulse, paranoia, hallucinations, irritation and suicidal thoughts/behavior. The latter can last even after the so-called stimulation of bath salts wears off.

“Due to the violent nature of the side effects involved in taking these drugs, the emergency rule will provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to take this dangerous substance off the shelves and protect the abusers from themselves as well as others,” Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said. “These are dangerous drugs that should not be confused with any type of common bath product.”

Bath salts may be snorted and absorbed intravenously or with drink and food.  For parents and children, it is important to beware of anyone offering drink or food if you do not know the person offering.

Read More
29 May
0

The Reason for Teenscreen’s Termination

school kids

Why Teenscreen National Center, headquartered at Columbia University, terminated its psychiatric screening services at the end of last year still remains a mystery to a large extent. Teenscreen directors and spokespeople are absolutely mum on what happened exactly, but I came up with some highly probable reasons based on my internet research.

What is Teenscreen? (Brief History and Significance) 

David Schaffer and his team of researchers at Columbia University developed the Teenscreen program starting in 1999. Based on pseudo-scientific studies, they developed a questionnaire that screened for mental health disorders and suicidal tendencies in middle- and high school teens.

Investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle writes:

“The truth is the survey is a fraud and cannot diagnose mental illness in kids. ‘The normally developing child hardly stays the same long enough to make stable measurements. Adult criteria for illness can be difficult to apply to children and adolescents, when the signs and symptoms of mental disorders are often also the characteristics of normal development,’ according to the US Surgeon General in 1999.”

Upon “diagnosis” of mental health issues using this survey, Teenscreen would push different psychiatric drugs to “treat” the teens with at-risk suicidal behaviors and other disorders. Big Pharma and taxpayer dollars were used to fund Teenscreen after its programs were launched nationally in 2003. Evelyn Pringle cites example upon example of this in her Op-Ed piece titled “TeenScreen – Angel of Mercy or Pill-Pusher.”

This conflict of interest resulted in heavy controversy and blowback from concerned parents and the media.

Laurie Flynn 

Flynn has actively lobbied and worked for Teenscreen in several executive capacities since 2001. She had strong connections to pharmaceutical companies which enthusiastically invested in Teenscreen and continued to breathe life into it. Flynn also spoke numerous times in front of congressional committees on the importance and value of Teenscreen’s so-called pre-emptive strategies. In return, she received millions in federal, state and local tax revenue for Teenscreen’s expansion. She promoted Teenscreen on-air and in the papers.

 

By 2011, Teenscreen had about 2,000 testing sites in the U.S. and around the world.

Teenscreen’s Downfall 

Laurie Flynn, who was Teenscreen’s executive director the year the Center closed down, and second-in-command Leslie McGuire both resigned from Teenscreen just a few months before Teenscreen announced it was folding. According to psychsearch.net,

“One source close to the scene said that Flynn and McGuire left with disagreements over policy issues. The source said that psychiatrist Mark Olfson was the ‘interim director’ who we discovered only showed up once a week on Wednesdays for one hour!”

Without a strong driving force like Laurie Flynn to keep Teenscreen going, it’s no wonder that this initiative came to an abrupt end. It didn’t seem like a shortage of cash flow or a lack of resources and facilities is what halted Teenscreen. It’s leadership politics that played a key role in bringing Teenscreen’s downfall.

Youth Behavioral Risk Survey 

This survey is still implemented nationally in schools. It’s used to gain raw data on teen drug and alcohol abuse, diet, physical activity, and other health behaviors in teens. Certain psychiatric and psychological studies are conducted based on this information and mental health “conclusions” and “treatments” are proposed. This survey and the organization behind it aren’t directly pushing Pharma pills like Teenscreen did, but they do fuel mental health policy and psychiatric initiatives – not good news.

Read More
27 May
0

Why is ADHD Rampant Only in the United States?

child

It is all too common these days that a child who can’t sit still in class or can’t focus on his school work will be diagnosed with ADHD and put on psychotropic drugs as treatment.  At least nine percent of American school children have been given such a diagnosis and medication.  However, in France only half of one percent of school children have met the same fate.  How is it possible that ADHD has reached epidemic proportions in the United States but in France it is negligible?

There are several reasons for this.  In the United States, undesirable behavior is considered by the field of psychiatry to be a biological problem.  Generally, “experts” say it is caused by a defect in the brain, like the chemical imbalance theory for example.  Since the behavior supposedly stems from a biological condition, the treatment is psychiatric drugs.  These drugs are supposed to correct that alleged defect.  No other solution or treatment is usually offered by psychiatry.  This makes the American handling of undesirable behavior a one track railroad and basically shows a very limited point of view.

The French on the other hand, do not advocate ADHD as a biological condition and do not automatically use psychiatric drugs as treatment.  The French quite wisely look for the underlying cause of the undesirable behavior.  They have found that the causes are from the child’s environment, namely from social situations involving family, friends and school relationships.  They generally handle this with family counseling and not drugs.

Additionally, the French do not use the DSM which does not address any potential underlying causes of certain behaviors.  About thirty years ago, they found that the DSM did not align with their findings.   Instead, they decided to create their own classification system to identify and address underlying causes of children’s behavioral problems.  The French manual is based on finding causes of symptoms, not using drugs which only mask symptoms.

Since the French look for actual causes of behavior and remedy them, they wind up with fewer children that can qualify for an ADHD diagnosis.  Their criteria for diagnosis are more precise, also contributing to less French children with ADHD.  One may ask how can the criteria be different in one country versus another?  Aren’t the criteria universal?

The criteria for ADHD are not universal.  When you have a real medical disease, the criteria are universal.  With cancer for example, a biopsy is done and cells are studied under a microscope.  This is a medical test that identifies the disease. Since there are no medical tests to identify ADHD, it is not a real biological disease. 

In the United States, the precise medical test for ADHD is replaced with subjective opinions.  These are the only tools for diagnosis of ADHD in this country.   This means the diagnostic criteria can vary as opinions vary.  Three different doctors could diagnose three different conditions for the same child.  One could diagnose ADHD, another could diagnose bipolar disorder and yet another could diagnose something else. 

One should also know that psychiatric diagnosis and treatment of ADHD and other childhood “disorders” are big business in the United States.  One would hope drug companies would have honest intentions in funding research in the field of mental health, but they do not.  Today the field of psychiatry and drug companies have become partners in profits.  Today, they are not looking at wiping out real diseases like polio and smallpox that were threatening the overall health of society years ago.  Instead, they are creating “disorders” to correspond to new drugs in order to make huge profits. 

In effect, psychiatry has given themselves permission to take normal childhood behavior and call it ADHD or some other “mental disorder.”  They have taken the liberty to put forth their opinions as fact when their opinions cannot be substantiated because they have no test.  As a result, billions of dollars are being made at the expense of many millions of American children being unnecessarily put on drugs. 

While the French are looking for social factors that can explain “ADHD behavior,” Americans are putting their kids on psychotropic drugs.  While the French are smart to check out children’s nutrition to see if that affects their child’s behavior, Americans are drugging their kids with Ritalin.  While the French are investigating allergens, preservatives and artificial food colors to see if these negatively affect their child, Americans are being told psychotropic drugs are the answer.  Does anybody get the idea by now that there are other causes of “ADHD behavior” and that drugs are not the answer?

One other thing that should be made clear is that ADHD drugs like Ritalin and Adderall do more harm than good.  They have multiple serious adverse side effects such as stunting growth and even sudden death for those with a heart condition.  Also in the long-term there is no evidence that they change academic performance or improve behavior. 

In short-term studies, teachers and parents have said that behavior improved.  They said the kids were better at doing repetitive tasks requiring concentration and diligence.  However, it was also found that all children responded to the drug in the same way, whether diagnosed with ADHD or not!  If the drug has the same effect on everyone, this means the drug is not fixing any brain “defect” or any other underlying condition.  It just means the drug is influencing a normal child to behave in a certain way. 

Considering ADHD drugs are in the same class as cocaine and in effect giving a child Ritalin or any other stimulant is equal to giving a child speed, is this really the direction that parents want to go?  What kind of message is being given to a child if he’s told he needs to be drugged so he behaves appropriately in class?  

Regardless, that controlled behavior won’t last because over time one builds up a tolerance to ADHD drugs.  Some will say when the child goes off the drug and behavior worsens, it proves the drugs work.  This is not true.  Just like drinking more alcohol to cure a hangover, it just means the body is used to having the drug.  Again, the drug controls the child’s behavior by making him calmer and without the drug, the fidgety inattentive behavior returns.  

It is time to avoid the psychiatric path and follow the lead of the French.  Psychiatric drugs with dangerous side effects are not the answer to behavior problems in children.  Every child is different and probably has a different set of circumstances and reasons that explain the behavior.  It would be smart to find out what those things are and remedy them.  Skip the bogus ADHD sales pitch and find out what’s really going on with your child.  Everyone will be happier and healthier as a result.

     

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/suffer-the-children/201203/why-french-kids-dont-have-adhd

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/suffer-the-children/201102/adhd-the-emperors-new-diagnosis

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/childrens-add-drugs-dont-work-long-term.html?pagewanted=all

 

 

 

Read More
21 May
23

Depakote severely heightens cancer risk

Depakote

Depakote is an anticonvulsant psychiatric drug that significantly increases one’s chances of getting certain types of cancer. It’s used as a sedative for manic highs, hyperactivity, migraines and epileptic seizures.

Among other serious side effects, taking Depakote will produce a vitamin D deficiency in the body.  This medication makes the liver remove more of vitamin D than is necessary from the system. Vitamin D is important for bone strength because it helps create calcium from one’s food intake. Too little vitamin D may cause brittle bones, or bone weakening, and skeletal deformities. Webmd.com also states:

“Low blood levels of the vitamin have been associated with the following:

  • Increased risk of death from cardiovascular      disease
  • Cognitive impairment in older adults
  • Severe asthma in children
  • Cancer.”

Cancer. In addition to contributing to a strong and sturdy bone structure, vitamin D actively regulates cell growth and differentiates these cells. New studies show it even goes so far as to kill cancerous cells. Better yet, vitamin D goes beyond just pre-emptive cancer measures. Cancerous tumors require new blood vessels to supply nutrients for tumor growth, but the vitamin inhibits these tiny young blood vessels from forming.

So what can happen when Depakote creates a vitamin D deficiency? Cancertreatmentmx.com says:

“Clinical studies now show vitamin D deficiency to be associated with four of the most common cancers: Breast, Prostate, Colon and Skin.”

 

Read More
21 May
0

Depression in the Elderly and Psychiatric Drugs

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Depression in elderly patients is commonly treated with the use of psychiatric drugs, especially when these seniors live in assisted living situations or nursing homes. The rate of depression, one might assume, would increase when the elderly are far from family and the comforts of their own home and community, no longer surrounded by those who love them. This does seem obvious, yet depression in the elderly is more often treated with pharmaceuticals than warmth and human kindness.

Shockingly, older adults who live in assisted living situations are up to 18 times more likely to be prescribed psychotropic drugs than those of middle age. Worse yet, up to 53% of the elderly is on one or even more psychotropic pharmaceuticals.

Once they move into such a facility, the drugging often happens quickly, within 2 weeks of their admission. One research conducted discovered 87% of patients with dementia were on a single psychotropic drug, up to 66% of the inhabitants were prescribed two, 36% were taking three of them, and 11% were actually on four or even more psychiatric drugs.

The dangerous side effects these drugs produce in the elderly is well known, which makes their common prescription even more loathsome. In fact, for those older than 70, the possibility of an adverse side effect goes up 3.5%. When additional drugs are added, the risk goes up alarmingly.

Side effects of the more commonly used antidepressants, also known as SSRIs, include:

  • Insomnia
  • Anxiety
  • Tremors
  • Dizziness
  • Weight gain
  • Fatigue and sleepiness
  • Diarrhea or constipation
  • Headaches

Additionally, the elderly are in danger of fractures, falling and bone loss. Since they are already susceptible to these problems, prescribing psychiatric drugs which cause tremors and dizziness seems nothing less than elder abuse.

A Dutch research study found that one third of participants who were on psychiatric drugs, 45% had fallen at least three times. Compare this to less than 22% of those who were not taking any psychiatric drug. And there were incidents of more multiple falls among those on antidepressants, antipsychotics and anxiety and insomnia drugs.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information states this obvious conclusion on depression in the elderly:

“The prevalence of depression in the nursing home population is very high. Whichever way defined, the prevalence rates found were three to four times higher than in the community-dwelling elderly. Age, pain, visual impairment, stroke, functional limitations, negative life events, loneliness, lack of social support and perceived inadequacy of care were found to be risk indicators for depression.”

One might assume that with these causes of elderly depression so clearly delineated, that the cure would be equally obvious. For instance, what might cure loneliness? The other reasons behind elderly depression have equally simple cures, none of which involve psychiatric drugging.

Why our elderly are drugged with psychiatric pharmaceuticals that at best hasten their demise is obvious.

The profit made by huge pharmaceutical companies with no interest in dignified aging is beyond deplorable. As human beings, we must take the care of our elderly back from the profit-motivated clutches of psychiatry and their hazardous drugs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3128509/

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/medications_depression.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/08/us-health-psychiatric-drugs-idUSBRE9170X420130208

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15555706

Read More
21 May
0

NIMH Casts Aside DSM V

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM IV TR Fourth Edition. Image shot 2007. Exact date unknown.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is the federal agency that conducts and supports research that seeks to understand, treat, and prevent mental illness.

NIMH recently dismissed the long awaited DSM V manual as being unworthy of NIMH’s future research and stated it will take a new direction based on physically measurable aspects of the body.

DSM V (now called DSM-5) is scheduled for release on May 22nd 2013; it is the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Until NIMH gave it the boot, the DSM had been the undisputed “Bible” of psychiatry filled with official psychiatric disorders voted into existence by a show of hands of its professional members. More importantly, it lays out names of mental disorders that can be matched to recommended drugs.

By “discovering” more new disorders and more new drugs, psychiatrists and drug companies have been flourishing while patients taking these prescription “medicines” have been committing violent acts, mass murders, committing suicide or sinking into apathy.

On April 29, 2013, Dr. Thomas Insel, the director of the NIMH, had this to say about DSM V:

“Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever. Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment.”

Ischemia is an insufficient supply of blood to an organ, usually due to a blocked artery, lymphoma is a cancer of the lymphatic system involving malignant tumors and AIDS is a disease caused by a virus that affects the immune system.

Clearly, Dr. Insel is calling psychiatry to task for its diagnosis techniques which are quite subjective and have no tests of any kind to parallel the physical type of laboratory testing done in standard medicine practice.

No psychiatrist can show by testing that “chemical imbalances in the brain” actually exist. They prescribe psychiatric drugs based on their supposed ability to observe the behavior or emotions of the person across the desk from them and match a drug to the disorder using the current DSM manual.

Dr. Insel states that “the NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.”

Category labels such as depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia have failed to help people achieve improved ability to feel good emotionally and enjoy life, hence the new direction by NIMH – the largest mental health research organization on earth with an annual budget approaching 1.5 billion dollars.

Here are some quotes from people commenting on the news articles and blog posts about the NIMH position on DSM V.

  • “Bravo, NIMH! The APA deserves to be shunned for their complete disregard for science and quality of care for those with mental disorders.”
  • “We ran into this DSM vagueness with an older doctor we saw for our son. We could not get any sort of causal explanation, but only symptom-ology. Good riddance, lets move on to something better.”
  • “What a refreshing development. The tyranny of the DSM is weakened. I will look forward to the vector from the NIMH”
  • “This work of Fiction, The DSM, has been presented as Fact for far too long and far too many people have suffered greatly as a result.”
  • “The day you find the “gene” or “brain component” that makes or controls trust, faith, honor, and creative inspiration the world, as we know, it will end. Let’s hope civilization as a whole becomes more aware of who and what they are before the “brain boys” take over and muck everybody up.”

It looks as though both public and professional sentiment as voiced by the National Institute of Mental Health has taken a big step forward in recognizing the failure of psychiatry as presented in the DSM V model.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201305/the-nimh-withdraws-support-dsm-5

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514571/nimh-will-drop-widely-used-psychiatry-manual/

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

http://www.policymic.com/articles/40063/national-institute-of-mental-health-forsakes-the-dsm-the-bible-of-psychiatry

http://mindhacks.com/2013/05/03/national-institute-of-mental-health-abandoning-the-dsm/#comment-61216

 

 

 

Read More
21 May
0

Toddlers Labeled with Internet Addiction Disorder

toddler

Internet addiction disorder is a controversial psychiatric label placed on people who spend a lot of time in a variety of internet activities. These have included visiting gambling and pornography websites, spending too much time playing online games or constantly using social media to stay in touch with friends and colleagues.

The latest group to get the attention of psychiatrist as potential victims of internet addiction is babies and toddlers. These little ones given smartphones and IPads to play with have gotten “distressed and inconsolable” when the parents removed the gadget from their hands.

A Dr. Richard Graham in the UK was the first to launch a treatment program there for technology addiction.

He stated that these toddlers were experiencing the same withdrawal symptoms as alcoholics or heroin addicts, when the devices were taken away.

Parents who are not in good enough communication with their children to control these devices and prevent tantrums have paid as much as £16,000 for a 28-day “digital detox” programme” created by Dr Graham at the Capio Nightingale clinic in London.

Targeting toddlers for so-called internet addictionisa logical jump for psychiatrists looking for new territory, as they have already been treating college, high school and grade school youth for such “addiction”.

To date Internet addiction disorder has not being recognized as an official mental condition by The American Psychiatric Association (APA) in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. DSM version V coming out in May reportedly will be listing it in Section III as needing “further research.”

Allen Frances, M.D., who served on the board who wrote DSMIV, is a frequent critic of DSMV. He writes in his article “Internet Addiction – The Next New Fad Diagnosis”

“Granted that lots of us are furtively checking emails in movie theaters and in the middle of the night, feel lost when temporarily separated from our electronic friends, and spend every spare minute surfing, texting or playing games. But does this really qualify us as addicts?

No, not usually. Not unless our attachment is compulsive and without reward or utility; interferes with participation and success in real life; and causes significant distress or impairment. For most people, the tie to the internet, however powerful and consuming, brings much more pleasure or productivity than pain and impairment. This is more love affair and/or tool using than enslavement- and is not best considered the stuff of mental disorder. It would be silly to define as psychiatric illness behavior that has now become so much a necessary part of everyone’s daily life and work.”

Regardless of its status, various psychiatrists have created and used oddball treatments with devastating effects on young people.

In the USA study conducted by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City that ran from December of 2002 to October of 2004 “has established that Escitalopram (Lexapro is one drug therapy for treating problematic Internet use.”

Lexipro is an SRRI psychiatric drug used to treat depression. It has known side effects of Suicide Risk, Suicide Attempts, Suicide, Anxiety, Panic Attacks and aggressive behavior.

In South Korea they take internet addiction very seriously. The government provides counseling programs and psychological treatment for an estimated 2 million people who cannot wean themselves from playing online computer games. Lee Hae-kook, a psychiatry professor at Catholic University of Korea, College of Medicine is proud that Asia is leading the world in researching this “addiction”.

In China psychiatrists have gone back to the days of Mao Tse-tung to model their treatments for Internet Addiction. City kids are sent to rural boarding camps to be treated.

Tao Ran, created and still directs the country’s first Internet addiction treatment clinic in a military hospital in Beijing; his clinic has treated about 5,000 Internet addicts since 2004.

He has co-authored papers suggesting psychiatric drug therapy for such youth.

There are now 300 centers in China for treating internet addiction. Parents pay thousands of dollars to send their children to these military style boot camps.

A summer camp in rural Sichuan province promises cures for internet addiction. In 2009 a youth, Pu Liang, was hospitalized in critical condition with broken ribs, kidney damage and internal bleeding. Police removed him from the camp after he told his parents he had been beaten by a counselor when he was unable to complete a rigorous regimen of push-ups.

At another internet addiction facility, the BeitengSchool in Changsha, 16 year old Chen Shi was beaten to death – this school uses a plastic pipe, a wooden baton, and handcuffs.

In another case, a 15 year old teen named Deng Senshan was beaten to death at a similar boot camp in Nanning, Guangxi province. He was admitted for Internet Addiction and had been at the camp less than 48 hours when he died. This camp was closed with 13 staff arrested.

When asked about this death, Tao Ran told The Associated Press that such deaths are bound to happen because few camps employ scientific methods, with most opting for crude military-style discipline.

Apparently some camps do use the pinnacle of psychiatric “scientific methods” – electric shock treatments.

The Chinese Ministry of Health finally ordered a hospital in Shandong province to stop electric shock treatments, which it had reported using on 3,000 youths. It stated this treatment needed “further study”.

Americans would be wise to heed the mistakes of Asia and not allow the labeling of normal behavior and personal interests as addictions. The “Internet addiction disorder” label could easily follow this route to treatment with psychiatric drugs or electric shocks.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10008707/Toddlers-becoming-so-addicted-to-iPads-they-require-therapy.html

http://www.netaddiction.com/articles/drug_study_Internet_addiction.pdf

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201208/internet-addiction-the-next-new-fad-diagnosis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/south-korea-internet-addicted_n_2202371.html

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-08-06-china-internet-death_N.htm

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/22/world/fg-china-beatings22

http://www.cio.com/article/496973/Chinese_Web_Addicts_Get_Boot_Camp_Therapy?page=2&taxonomyId=3234

 

 

 

 

Read More
21 May
0

Informed Consent and Psychiatric Drugging

blackboxwarning

All 50 states now require an informed consent document be signed before medical treatment of either a physical or mental nature. A psychiatrist, like a medical doctor, is required to tell his patient of any benefits, risks and alternatives to his proposed treatment.

Every patient has a legal and ethical right to make the decision of what will or will not be done to him. After all, it is his body, and by law he is allowed to familiarize himself with every dangerous side effect a psychiatric medicine may cause.

Of course the understanding of the patient is observed by only one person; the psychiatrist himself. And obviously this man or woman has a vested interest in obtaining the consent of his or her patient.

Does anyone else oversee the possible lack of information given, or the (quite likely) inaccuracies of the doctor’s description of any drug’s danger?

For instance, when a person is prescribed an SSRI drug, his doctor should, under the guidelines of informed consent, discuss these possible side effects:

  • Movement disorders
  • Sexual dysfunction
  • Improper brain development
  • Gastrointestinal bleeding
  • Apathy
  • Personality changes similar to the effects of a lobotomy
  • Agitation
  • Anxiety
  • Suicide (studies show 3 out of 100 children have suicidal thoughts or actually attempt or commit suicide while on an SSRI
  • Permanent brain damage
  • Delusions and hallucinations when the drug is withdrawn or the dosage is lowered

Not to mention that there is much research now supporting the alarming fact that antidepressants actually worsen the severity of depression in many patients, and that despite widespread use of antidepressants, there are more people being diagnosed with this condition than ever before. It is unlikely the psychiatrist mentions this to his potential patient.

The psychiatrist often describes the drug treatment in a rapid, disorganized and confusing manner, not leaving time for a patient’s questions or concerns. One is reminded of the drug commercials on television, when the announcer speedily describes horrendous outcomes and even death is couched in the euphemism “fatal event.”

Since informed consent by its nature requires there be no coercion, a person locked in a psychiatric facility is already experiencing coercion and undue influence by the medical personnel. In other words, the doctor is in a position of authority, and can force a patient to take psychiatric drugs without his or her consent.

Even a psychiatrist’s office can be intimidating to a worried patient or family member. No one needs to sign an informed consent form until he is fully satisfied that the treatment option is in his best interest. And of course this would include information describing alternative treatments as well.

It is possible to do one’s own research on adverse drug side effects and alternatives to psychiatric drugging. All Americans have a legal right to informed consent, and should never be coerced by a psychiatrist with his vested interest of payment by the patient and funds donated to the doctor by grateful pharmaceutical companies.

http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Informed-consent.html

http://chriskresser.com/the-dark-side-of-antidepressants

http://medicalwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2011/11/psychiatric-patients-have-right-to.html

 

 

Read More
17 May
1

DSM-V Shows Insanity of Psychiatry

dsm

The latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) is due to be released this month.  It has been published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) since 1952.  Its purpose is to identify and classify “mental disorders.”  In this version, they do exactly that, but this time psychiatry has taken things too far.  They have classified nearly every normal emotion that can be experienced in life as a “mental disorder.”  This just shows how the field of psychiatry has gone insane themselves.

Emotions like grief, sadness, frustration, impatience and excitement are now “mental disorders.”  If you refuse to follow authority, it is now called Obedience Defiance Disorder (ODD).  If you like to have plenty of food, water and ammunition around, even just to prepare for a natural disaster, it will likely be diagnosed as Hoarding Disorder.  The most insulting one is for rapists who are aroused during their criminal activity.  According to the DSM-V, they are not responsible for their actions because they supposedly have Paraphilic Coercive Disorder (PCD).

Psychotropic drugs with extensive serious adverse side effects are the usual treatment for all “mental disorders” whether new or old.  That means with the release of DSM-V, millions of people could be misdiagnosed with a “mental disorder” for their normal behavior and be put on drugs that they don’t need.  

One may ask how did all this come about?  How can what was normal before now be a “mental disorder?”   One would be wise to ask, is there some new research showing this change?  There’s plenty of research in developing new drugs, but only a show of hands is needed to bring a new “mental disorder” into being.  Basically, symptoms are grouped together, a disorder is named and it is voted into existence by the APA.

This makes it obvious that there isn’t any science behind psychiatry.  This can’t be emphasized enough.  Psychiatry does not have any medical or scientific test to identify a “mental disorder.”   Psychiatrists will insist that “mental disorders” are biological disorders, yet they have no tests.  They have the opinion that the brain is the cause of the disorders, yet again, no tests are available.  

Over the years, medical doctors and specialists have done a lot of research resulting in greatly improved methods of discovery and treatment of disease.  Psychiatry has not.  The medical profession has progressively been able to cure many diseases and ailments.  With that in mind, it would only be logical to ask where is the scientific support to prove so many “mental disorders” do exist?  

There isn’t any scientific evidence in the DSM-V or anywhere else.  Psychiatry has been preaching for years that they are experts on the mind when actually all they do is put you on drugs hoping to manage your symptoms.  Perhaps that is why many who really are in the field of science say that psychiatry is no more scientific than astrology or palm reading.

A psychotherapist from Connecticut says that if you are told that you have a “mental disorder” it is not the same as being told you have diabetes or cancer.  Even if a doctor suspects a disease based on symptoms, he can confirm that suspicion with a medical test.  The DSM-V does not have a single diagnosis that meets the standards of medical disease.  The same psychotherapist says that the DSM-V is made up of many collections of symptoms that “experts” agree are “mental illnesses.”

A professor of social welfare at UCLA says the DSM-V is purely descriptive.  “Mental illnesses” are created from a descriptive, not biological basis.  A psychiatrist from Montreal said that the reason many field trials don’t work out is because “mental disorders” don’t exist in biological reality, they exist only in the DSM-V.  Yet this doesn’t stop any mental health professional from claiming it is a “real” medical illness when it is really just normal human behavior. 

This also doesn’t stop psychiatry from prescribing psychotropic drugs.  About sixty-five million people, or about one in five Americans, is taking at least one psychiatric drug.  In 2010, about thirty-five billion dollars were spent on psychiatric drugs.  Between 2010 and 2011, use of psychiatric drugs increased twentyone percent!  How is it that so many people are taking drugs to treat depression, bipolar, ADHD, etc. for which there are no tests or scientific proof that these are medical diseases?

How is it that these mind-altering drugs are even on the market when the adverse side effects are horrendous and often fatal?  Over two hundred thousand Americans go to the hospital every year due to some psychosis or mania induced by a psychiatric drug.  Since 2000, there have been sixty-six school shootings that involved use of psychiatric drugs.  In addition, there have been thirteen hundred murders and suicides, also by those on psychiatric drugs.  Even the FDA has issued a Black Box Warning on many of these drugs alerting people to the possible increased risk of suicidal thoughts.  Mass murders and mass shootings follow the same pattern.  There are more than five thousand documented events on ssristories.com that link psychiatric drugs to violent crime. 

It doesn’t take much to realize that psychiatric drugs cause violence.  Drug companies are making a fortune many times over at the expense of everyone else.  Psychiatry doesn’t have a cure so they push drugs.  With more “mental disorders” in the DSM-V, they have only made more opportunities to push drugs and keep their industry alive.  

Only this time around they have pushed the envelope too far and have invited a backlash.  There are at least half a dozen books scheduled to be released during the same time as the DSM-V, all critical of the new manual and psychiatry itself.  Dr. Allen Frances, who was Chairman of the DSM-IV Task Force, wrote a new book about out of control psychiatric diagnosing and the medicalization of ordinary life.  He also admitted that DSM-IV was a huge mistake, as it resulted in a mass over-diagnosis of people who were actually normal.    As an insider, this is a serious blow to the APA and the profession itself.

Even more detrimental to the APA is the recent announcement that the National Institute of Mental Health will no longer fund research projects that only use DSM-V criteria.  This is the world’s largest research institution that previously gave full support to the DSM.  Its director has stated that the DSM-V is just a dictionary at best and its weakness is its lack of validity.  He has stated that unlike regular medical disease, the DSM-V diagnoses are based on a majority of symptoms grouped together, not by objective findings in a lab.

It is about time that the truth is made public.  It is about time the authenticity of bogus “mental disorders” like ADHD are being questioned by psychiatry’s own.  Based on the above information, it would be wise for everyone to question the validity of “mental disorders” and their treatments.  Don’t be fooled.  Do your own research and decide for yourself. 

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=9786

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/12/dsm-psychiatry-mental-disorders/2150819/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201305/the-nimh-withdraws-support-dsm-5

http://ssristories.com/

 

 

Read More
15 May
0

Informed Consent and Psychiatric Drugging

doctor

All 50 states now require an informed consent document be signed before medical treatment of either a physical or mental nature. A psychiatrist, like a medical doctor, is required to tell his patient of any benefits, risks and alternatives to his proposed treatment.

Every patient has a legal and ethical right to make the decision of what will or will not be done to him. After all, it is his body, and by law he is allowed to familiarize himself with every dangerous side effect a psychiatric medicine may cause.

Of course the understanding of the patient is observed by only one person; the psychiatrist himself. And obviously this man or woman has a vested interest in obtaining the consent of his or her patient.

Does anyone else oversee the possible lack of information given, or the (quite likely) inaccuracies of the doctor’s description of any drug’s danger?

For instance, when a person is prescribed an SSRI drug, his doctor should, under the guidelines of informed consent, discuss these possible side effects:

  • Movement disorders
  • Sexual dysfunction
  • Improper brain development
  • Gastrointestinal bleeding
  • Apathy
  • Personality changes similar to the effects of a lobotomy
  • Agitation
  • Anxiety
  • Suicide (studies show 3 out of 100 children have suicidal thoughts or actually attempt or commit suicide while on an SSRI
  • Permanent brain damage
  • Delusions and hallucinations when the drug is withdrawn or the dosage is lowered

Not to mention that there is much research now supporting the alarming fact that antidepressants actually worsen the severity of depression in many patients, and that despite widespread use of antidepressants, there are more people being diagnosed with this condition than ever before. It is unlikely the psychiatrist mentions this to his potential patient.

The psychiatrist often describes the drug treatment in a rapid, disorganized and confusing manner, not leaving time for a patient’s questions or concerns. One is reminded of the drug commercials on television, when the announcer speedily describes horrendous outcomes and even death is couched in the euphemism “fatal event.”

Since informed consent by its nature requires there be no coercion, a person locked in a psychiatric facility is already experiencing coercion and undue influence by the medical personnel. In other words, the doctor is in a position of authority, and can force a patient to take psychiatric drugs without his or her consent.

Even a psychiatrist’s office can be intimidating to a worried patient or family member. No one needs to sign an informed consent form until he is fully satisfied that the treatment option is in his best interest. And of course this would include information describing alternative treatments as well.

It is possible to do one’s own research on adverse drug side effects and alternatives to psychiatric drugging. All Americans have a legal right to informed consent, and should never be coerced by a psychiatrist with his vested interest of payment by the patient and funds donated to the doctor by grateful pharmaceutical companies.

http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Informed-consent.html

http://chriskresser.com/the-dark-side-of-antidepressants

http://medicalwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2011/11/psychiatric-patients-have-right-to.html

 

 

 

Read More
SIGN UP FOR THE LATEST NEWS
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.