Psychiatry and Assisted Suicide

April 10th, 2016

Psychiatry and Assisted Suicide

 We were struck by this paragraph on page 14 in the March 28th issue of the National Review magazine:

“The Dutch have discovered a cure for autism: murder. Dutch law first was changed to accommodate ‘physician-assisted suicide’?i.e., medical euthanasia?for patients with severe conditions some years ago, and, as it turns out, some slopes are slippery: The Dutch soon decided that those suffering from psychiatric problems could be put down like unwanted pets, too, and now are eliminating those who have no diagnosed medical condition whatsoever save autism. Dutch law requires that patients seeking to be put to death do so after sober and careful consideration?a condition that people suffering serious mental problems cannot reasonably be said to have met. Now unhappy people from abroad are traveling to the Netherlands to be killed. Canada is on the same decline, its supreme court having ‘discovered’ a new right, as our own so often does, this time to physician-inflicted death. When a mentally ill person says that he wants to die, the proper response is treatment, not “Does your insurance cover hemlock?”

Not that we have any particular wish to debate the pros and cons of assisted suicide?we wish only to highlight the psychiatric involvement here. Assisted suicide of psychiatric patients is increasing in the Netherlands. The data indicates that euthanasia is often granted despite disagreement by the treating psychiatrists over whether cases meet the legal criteria for assisted suicide.

The Washington Post chimes in: “Once the Netherlands authorized euthanasia for physical illnesses in 2002, demands to extend this ‘right’ to the suffering mentally ill were inevitable … Canadians are debating how to implement last year’s ruling by their Supreme Court establishing a right to ‘physician-assisted dying’ in cases of a ‘grievous and irremediable medical condition.’ A panel of experts advising Ontario and 10 other provinces and territories has urged that the ruling be construed to include mental illness.”

For decades after World War II, leading psychiatrists in Germany and around the world consistently denied or greatly minimized their profession’s main role in Nazi Germany’s euthanasia atrocities. The Nazis murdered well over 5,000 physically and mentally disabled children in over 30 psychiatric and pediatric hospitals. Doctors in German psychiatric facilities seeking to free up beds and save money killed patients—possibly as many as 10,000—by administering overdoses or providing them with so little food that they starved to death.

German psychiatrists created the ‘racial hygiene’ movement, which began with the work of eugenicist Alfred Ploetz in 1895. Almost forty years later this gained supremacy with the passage of the 1933 Sterilization Act in Nazi Germany and the concept of ‘lives unworthy of living’. This led to psychiatrists in Germany murdering hundreds of thousands of people that were ‘racially or mentally unfit’, long before the Holocaust began, and these same psychiatrists were then placed in killing centers during the Holocaust. Millions of people were killed during the Holocaust in Germany led by psychiatrists, which admission was finally made in an international broadcast apology by the President of the Germany Psychiatric Association in November 2010.

The Netherlands and Canada seem now to be following in those footsteps, urged on by the same psychiatric community of greed and misanthropy. Only now instead of calling it euthanasia they are calling it “assisted suicide,” or “death with dignity”, as if that removes the guilt.

Physician-assisted suicide in the United States is legal in the states of California, Oregon, Vermont, Montana, and Washington; a number of other states have considered it. There are alternatives to psychiatric treatment; however, these need to be applied before psychiatry-assisted suicide.

The treatment was successful; unfortunately, the patient died. Contact your state legislators and tell them what you think about this.

More About Marijuana and PTSD

April 3rd, 2016

More About Marijuana and PTSD

 Recent news is full of articles about making marijuana legally available for those diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

While marijuana’s popularity may be based on the perception that it is safer than other methods as a treatment for so-called PTSD, a new study just published March 23 in the journal Clinical Psychological Science finds that regular marijuana smokers experience more work, social and economic issues at midlife in comparison to the ones who use pot just occasionally or not at all.

Backing up for a moment, we should mention that PTSD is not a real medical illness. It has become blurred as a catch-all diagnosis for some 175 combinations of symptoms, becoming the label for identifying the impact of adverse events on ordinary people. This means that normal responses to catastrophic events have often been interpreted as mental disorders when they are not.

Indeed, people can experience mental trauma; unfortunately, the “treatments” being used — psychiatric drugs and marijuana — have their own issues.

People take drugs to get rid of unwanted situations or feelings. Marijuana masks the problem for a time; but when the high fades, the problem, unwanted condition or situation returns more intensely than before.

The University of California, Davis researchers in this newly published study tracked roughly 1,000 young people for decades and found that the ones who smoked cannabis four or more days in a week over many years suffer lower-paying, less-skilled jobs in comparison to those who didn’t smoke pot on a regular basis. Quoting from the study, “Persistent cannabis users experienced more financial difficulties, engaged in more antisocial  behavior in the workplace, and reported more relationship conflict.”

“Against the backdrop of increasing legalization of cannabis around the world, and decreasing social perception of risk associated with cannabis use … this study provides evidence that many persistent cannabis users experience downward socioeconomic mobility and a wide range of associated problems. Individuals with a longer history of cannabis dependence (or of regular cannabis use) were more likely to experience financial difficulties, including having troubles with debt and cash flow, … food insecurity, being on welfare, and having a lower consumer credit rating. Persistent cannabis dependence (and regular cannabis use) was also associated with antisocial behavior in the workplace and higher rates of intimate relationship conflict, including physical violence and controlling abuse.”

The study concludes with, “Our data indicate that persistent cannabis users constitute a burden on families, communities, and national social-welfare systems. Moreover, heavy cannabis use and dependence was not associated with fewer harmful economic and social problems than was alcohol dependence. Our study underscores the need for prevention and early treatment of individuals dependent on cannabis. In light of the decreasing public perceptions of risk associated with cannabis use, and the movement to legalize cannabis use, we hope that our findings can inform discussions about the potential implications of greater availability and use of cannabis.”

We urge everyone embarking on some course of treatment to do their due diligence and undertake full informed consent.

Holocaust Commemoration in London Details Hitler’s Use of Psychiatric Genocide Program

March 25th, 2016

Holocaust Commemoration in London Details Hitler’s Use of Psychiatric Genocide Program

 International Holocaust Remembrance Day forum discloses the sordid role psychiatry played in the Nazi genocide.

LONDON, March 3, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Community leaders gathered for a Holocaust Commemoration and Human Dignity forum hosted by the London Church of Scientology heard accounts of Hitler’s lethal weapon to eliminate “unwanted” people by means of a psychiatric eugenics genocide program.

After one minute of silence to honor the millions who lost their lives during the Holocaust, attendees learned of the secret eugenics program spawned in the late 1800s by Swiss German psychiatrist Alfred Ploetz. As documented in the Citizens Commission on Human Rights documentary, Psychiatry: An Industry of Death, eugenics is the so-called “science” and practice of “improving the human race” by selective breeding to eliminate those considered “inferior.”

German psychiatrists used eugenics to justify the sterilization and murder of the mentally and physically disabled. In collusion with the Nazi regime, they then extended this to encompass those considered socially and politically unacceptable. They used starvation, sterilization and lethal injection to accomplish their sordid aims and expanded the program into the concentration camps where they systematically gassed Jews, Roma, Poles, and anyone else Hitler wanted to eliminate.

Other subsequent genocides have harrowing similarities. The 10-year Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts in the 1990s had the same psychiatric theories at their root. Psychiatrists Jovan Raskovic and Radovan Karadzic inspired racial and religious genocide in Bosnia including mass torture and rape. Former President Slobodan Milosevic, a Karadzic patient, perpetrated and financed the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

It was not until 1999 that German psychiatrists finally admitted publicly that psychiatry had spawned eugenics and the racial inferiority/superiority ideology that poisoned the minds of the German people for almost three decades, laying the foundation for the Holocaust.

The conference went on to explore modern psychiatric procedures that include categorizing difficult or unruly children and labeling them with invented “mental disorders” so they drug them into being “normal” or “acceptable.”

Today even normal childhood behavior—such as crying or being energetic—is labeled and codified as a mental disorder, the solution for which is mind-altering and highly addictive pharmaceutical drugs, and even electric shock.

While psychiatric crime occasionally surfaces in the media—as with a recent rash of headlines on a study linking their prescribing of antidepressants to suicide—psychiatrists continue to practice with impunity. They prey on “those who are vulnerable—those who feel they have no voice or rights and should just do as they are told,” said keynote speaker the Director of Citizens Commission on Human Rights in the UK, who detailed how the rights of patients are being compromised and what they and their families can do and say to successfully fight these abuses.

“We have a duty to help those in need,” said Daniels, “and by helping them understand their human rights we can empower them to make their lives better.”

Click here to report mental health human rights abuse to Citizens Commission on Human Rights, or click here to report psychiatric abuse in a specific State of the U.S. Click here for more information about the politics of psychiatry.

The Screeners are Screaming Again

March 12th, 2016

The Screeners are Screaming Again

Just when you thought that calls for ubiquitous mental health screening was winding down, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is calling for widespread depression screening for children.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is made up of 16 volunteer members who are supposed to be experts in prevention, evidence-based medicine, and primary care. Task Force members are appointed by the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to serve 4-year terms. AHRQ is a federal government entity which is supposed to work within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide research on health care.

In February, 2016, the USPSTF recommended repeated and widespread primary care mental health screening for “major depressive disorder” in children aged 12 to 18 years. The usual “treatment” is SSRI psychiatric drugs.

While they admit that “Medications for the treatment of depression, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), have known harms,” they basically ignore the harms in order to push the screenings and the drugs.

Mental health screening is a test for so-called mental illness. A person who is screened and found to exhibit symptoms of mental distress can then be diagnosed with a mental “disease” or “disorder” and referred to a psychiatrist or psychiatric facility (or even to a General Practitioner) to be prescribed psychiatric drugs.

Mental health screening aims to get whole populations on drugs and thus under control. The kinds of drugs used create further medical and social problems, and these subsequent complications require additional taxes and laws to handle them. The net result is a sick and fearful population dependent on the government to “solve” all their problems.

Recognize that the real problem is that psychiatrists fraudulently diagnose life’s problems as an “illness”, and stigmatize unwanted behavior or study problems as “diseases.” Psychiatry’s stigmatizing labels, programs and treatments are harmful junk science; their diagnoses of “mental disorders” are a hoax – unscientific, fraudulent and harmful. All psychiatric treatments, not just psychiatric drugs, are dangerous.

Psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, psychiatric institutions, and other medical doctors prescribing psychiatric drugs and treatments must be made fully accountable for their funding, practices and treatments, and their results, or lack thereof — including prescribing antidepressants whose only results are harmful side effects.

Risky Business of Sleep Drugs

March 5th, 2016

Risky Business of Sleep Drugs

After reading about the dangers of sleeping pills in the February 2016 edition of Consumer Reports magazine, we thought you might like to know something about that.

Some psychotropic drugs are prescribed as sleeping pills. Trazodone, an antidepressant, is often prescribed off label as a sleeping pill. Benzodiazepines such as Valium are also prescribed as sleeping pills. Other examples are Ambien (an anti-psychotic), Lunesta (an anti-anxiety drug), and Sonata (another anti-anxiety drug).

These have all the potential side effects we have come to associate with psychiatric drugs — including violence, suicide, addiction, and so on.

The latest sleeping pill fad, touted as “the new insomnia drug”, is Belsomra (generic “suvorexant”). It is classified as a “sedative-hypnotic” which means it is a central nervous system depressant; it alters brain chemistry by targeting a neurotransmitter called orexin.

Belsomra is manufactured by Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corporation, and was approved by the FDA for insomnia in August of 2014.

Guess what? This drug carries the same warnings as other psychotropic drugs; it may cause memory loss, anxiety, confusion, agitation, hallucinations, depression, addiction, and thoughts of suicide — all this along with its own special side effects: inability to move or talk, sleep-walking, sleep-driving, and drowsiness lasting through the next day.

Here is what Consumer Reports has to say about Belsomra: “…people who took a 15- or 20-milligram dose of Belsomra every night for three months fell asleep just 6 minutes faster on average than those who took a placebo. And those on Belsomra slept on average only 16 minutes longer than people given a placebo. Such small improvements didn’t translate to people feeling more awake the next day, either. Instead, more people who took Belsomra reported that they felt drowsy the next day than those who took a placebo.”

“Because of the limited benefits and substantial risks of sleeping pills, Consumer Reports’ medical experts advise that sleep drugs should be used with great caution.”

“Merck spent $36 million on TV ads for its new drug Belsomra from Aug. 1 to Nov. 24, 2015, making it the second most advertised Rx drug in that time frame, according to iSpot.tv. The ads note that Belsomra is the first drug to target orexin, a chemical that plays a role in keeping people awake. But Belsomra doesn’t work much, or any, better than other sleep drugs. And because it’s new, little is known about its long-term safety.”

One take-away here is that even if a prescription drug is not advertised or prescribed for psychiatric reasons, if it messes with the brain’s neurotransmitters and has all the same side-effects as a psychiatric drug — well, you must get the picture by now.

The Consumer Reports article goes on to discuss non-drug sleep alternatives at some length; it is a good and helpful read.

When your doctor prescribes a drug, it is good practice to ask questions so you can give your full informed consent. These are some example questions you can ask:

1. What is the evidence for the diagnosis?
2. How does the treatment affect the body?
3. How does the treatment affect the mind?
4. What unwanted effects may occur?
5. Is it approved by the FDA for this condition?
6. What is known and not known about how safe it is and how well it works?
7. What are the alternatives, including the option of no treatment?
8. Does the doctor or the clinic have a financial interest in pushing the diagnosis or treatment?

Another Day Another Anti-depressant (Again)

February 25th, 2016

Another Day Another Anti-depressant (Again)

On July 10, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Rexulti (brexpiprazole, an atypical antipsychotic) tablets to treat adults with so-called schizophrenia and as an add-on treatment to an antidepressant medication to treat adults with so-called major depressive disorder. We are now starting to see the TV ads for this.

Rexulti is manufactured by Tokyo-based Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. and its partner Lundbeck. It might be marketed as a replacement for Abilify (aripiprazole), although clinical trials for its usage to treat ADHD were discontinued, likely due to lack of efficacy. It is still a new drug that has not been tested over a long-term in a real-world population.

Rexulti and other such drugs have a Boxed Warning alerting health care professionals about an increased risk of death associated with the off-label use of these drugs to treat behavioral problems in older people with dementia-related psychosis.

The Boxed Warning also alerts health care professionals and patients to an increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents, and young adults taking antidepressants.

It has the same pattern of debilitating side effects as any other antidepressant or antipsychotic, including addiction and suicidal thoughts and actions. The most common side effects reported by participants taking Rexulti in clinical trials included weight gain and an inner sense of restlessness (akathisia), such as feeling the need to move.

Rexulti is being touted as producing less akathisia, restlessness, and insomnia than other drugs, but it is important to be skeptical of this marketing due to the fact that clinical trials reported all of these side effects. Like all antipsychotics, Rexulti will likely have severe withdrawal symptoms.

While the way Rexulti works is completely unknown, it affects serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine neurotransmitters in the brain; and this effect is called a “serotonin-dopamine activity modulator”. Messing with neurotransmitters in the brain without really understanding how they work is serious business; we don’t recommend it. In any case, we can guarantee that this chemical-in-the-brain-based hypothesis is bogus. Full Informed Consent should be your watchword.

Rexulti was studied in two 6-week clinical trials of 1,054 patients aged 18-65. The patients selected for the studies took another antidepressant for at least 8 weeks. Twenty patients discontinued participation due to adverse reactions.  The incidences of akathisia and restlessness, and some other side effects, increased with increases in dose.

We must recognize that the real problem is that psychiatrists and other medical practitioners fraudulently diagnose life’s problems as an “illness” and stigmatize unwanted behavior as  “diseases.” Psychiatry’s stigmatizing labels, programs and treatments are harmful junk science; their diagnoses of “mental disorders” are a hoax – unscientific, fraudulent and harmful. Taking such damaging drugs as Rexulti prevents people from finding out what is really wrong and fixing that.

CCHR believes that everyone has the right to full informed consent. FIND OUT! FIGHT BACK!

CCHR STL MO Legislative Take Action

February 18th, 2016

Legislative Take Action

Periodically we let you know the progress of various proposed legislation making its way through the Missouri General Assembly and suggest ways for you to contribute your viewpoint to your state Representative and state Senator.

This time, we’d like to discuss SJR 38 and HB 1755.
Contact your Missouri state Representative and Senator, and let them know what you think about these. We suggest supporting these two bills.  You can find your Representative and Senator, and their contact information, by entering your 9-digit zip code here.
SJR 38 (Senate Joint Resolution)
Creates a new constitutional provision relating parental rights
Introduced by Senator Kurt Schaefer (R-19). Read the full text here.
This proposed constitutional amendment, if approved by the voters, declares that every parent has a fundamental right to exercise exclusive control over all aspects of their minor children’s lives without governmental interference, including but not limited to, decisions regarding their minor children’s custody, upbringing, education, religious instruction, discipline, physical and mental health care, and place of habitation. This fundamental right does not extend to any action by the parent that threatens clear, immediate, and substantial physical injury to their minor child, nor permit a parent to compel a minor child to have an abortion.
This amendment also declares that every parent has a fundamental right to require government entities to obtain the parent’s explicit permission before soliciting or sharing information obtained from a minor child about the child or the child’s family, unless the information is obtained during a criminal investigation or, if enrolled in public school, the child’s knowledge of academic subjects.
This amendment guarantees that every parent shall have the fundamental right to decide what educational settings in which to place their child.
This amendment lists several circumstances in which government interference with parental rights will be justified, including: (1) when protecting a child from a clear, immediate, and substantial threat of physical injury; (2) when a parent has been found by a court to have knowingly exposed a child to physical neglect, abandonment, reckless endangerment, or sexual or physical abuse; (3) when a parent has been found by a court to be incapacitated or mentally incompetent; (4) when a child has been emancipated by court order in accordance with state statutes; (5) when a court has assumed jurisdiction over a minor child charged with or convicted of violating a criminal statute; and (6) when a court of law has assigned parental rights to one parent or a non-biological parent as a result of mental incompetence, adoption, or marital dissolution.
Finally, this amendment permits any parent whose rights have been adversely affected to challenge the constitutionality of the infringing law, policy, or other government act and seek damages and attorney’s fees.
HB 1755 (House Bill)
Specifies that parental liberty to direct the upbringing, education, and care of his or her children is a fundamental right not subject to infringement without demonstrating a compelling governmental interest
Introduced by Representative Kurt Bahr (R-102). Read the full text here.
This bill specifies that the liberty of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, and care of his or her child is a fundamental right. The State of Missouri and any political subdivision of the state is prohibited from infringing on this right without demonstrating a compelling governmental interest. Any law or policy must be narrowly tailored and by the least restrictive means to achieve the interest. These provisions apply to all laws of the state, whether adopted before or after the enactment of these provisions. Any law adopted after the enactment of these provisions is exempt only if the law explicitly excludes the application by reference to these provisions.
Let us know that you contacted your state legislators and let us know any response you get.

 

Another Day Another Anti-depressant

January 28th, 2016

Another Day Another Anti-depressant

The New Year brings us another harmful psychoactive antidepressant – Brintellix (vortioxetine hydrobromide).

The mechanism of the antidepressant effect of vortioxetine is not understood, although it is theorized to be related to serotonin in the brain.

It has the same pattern of debilitating side effects as any other antidepressant, including addiction and suicidal thoughts and actions.

Developed by the Danish company H. Lundbeck A/S and marketed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, it is an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) drug. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in September, 2013. Its sales to date have not been inspiring, possibly related to its initial review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the U.K. which said, “there was no convincing evidence to show that vortioxetine was any more or less effective than other antidepressants.”

Lundbeck and Takeda are making a new push to increase sales by submitting additional clinical trial data to the FDA and to NICE. You may now start seeing TV commercials for it. Don’t be fooled; there has been no change in the drug itself or its devastating withdrawal and side effects.

We must recognize that the real problem is that psychiatrists and other medical practitioners fraudulently diagnose life’s problems as an “illness” and stigmatize unwanted behavior as  “diseases.” Psychiatry’s stigmatizing labels, programs and treatments are harmful junk science; their diagnoses of “mental disorders” are a hoax – unscientific, fraudulent and harmful.

CCHR believes that everyone has the right to full informed consent.

FIND OUT! FIGHT BACK!

S.2388 Reciprocity Ensures Streamlined Use of Lifesaving Treatments Act of 2015

January 16th, 2016

This bill, S.2388, introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) on 12/10/2015, has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).

Its stated purpose is “To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for reciprocal marketing approval of certain drugs, biological products, and devices that are authorized to be lawfully marketed abroad, and for other purposes.”

Essentially what this Act would provide is that if a drug, biological product, or device is approved for use in another country, then the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would approve it for use in the United States without it having to go through the entire FDA approval process.

While we applaud the Senators for desiring to reduce the inherent bureaucracy of the FDA, we cannot help but notice that this would open the door for marketing various harmful psychiatric drugs and devices without satisfying the usual FDA requirements for safety and effectiveness.

The Act also authorizes an outreach campaign to encourage the sponsors of such products that are potentially eligible for reciprocal marketing approval to request such approval.

We think this Act deserves to be amended to explicitly exclude psychiatric drugs, and devices such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, deep brain stimulation, or any other electric shock or magnetic wave device designed to interfere with the brain.

Please contact your U.S. Senator and the members of HELP to express your viewpoint regarding S.2388.

Victims of Brain Stimulation Abuse Urged to Report

January 1st, 2016

Victims of Brain Stimulation Abuse Urged to Report

CCHR Nashville, TN — Almost exactly two years ago on January 1, 2014, Scientific American magazine published an article on Deep Brain Stimulation, describing an experiment on a Dutch man wherein psychiatric researchers “…bored small holes in his skull and guided two long, thin probes deep into his head. The ends of the probes were lined with small electrodes… (psychiatrists) ran the connecting wires under his scalp, behind his ear and down to a battery pack sewn under the skin of his chest. Once turned on, the electrodes began delivering constant electrical pulses.”

In response to this alarming new therapy, the Citizens Commission of Human Rights of Nashville (CCHR Nashville) has called for victims to report abuse suffered during this or any other psychiatric treatment.

On the website cchrnashville.org, is the question: “Do you know someone who has been damaged by experimental psychiatric treatments including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS) or any other electric shock or magnetic wave to the brain?” Then follows a link to report abuse from these treatments.

CCHR has long been an advocate for human rights, especially as relates to patients’ rights in the field of mental health. Per the international CCHR website, cchr.org, “CCHR has long fought to restore basic inalienable human rights to the field of mental health, including, but not limited to, full informed consent regarding the medical legitimacy of psychiatric diagnosis, the risks of psychiatric treatments, the right to all available medical alternatives and the right to refuse any treatment considered harmful.”

Abuses from treatment may be reported online or by mail. The report form can be found at cchrnashville.org/report-abuse.

CCHR is a non-profit, non-political, non-religious mental health watchdog. Its mission is to eradicate abuses committed under the guise of mental health and enact patient and consumer protections. CCHR receives reports about abuses in the field of mental health and is especially interested in situations where persons experienced abuse or damage due to a false diagnosis or unwanted and harmful psychiatric treatments, such as psychiatric drugs, electroshock (ECT) and electronic or magnetic brain stimulation (TMS). CCHR is often able to assist with filing complaints, and can work with a person’s attorney to further investigate the case. To contact CCHR Nashville for more information, visit cchrnashville.org.