Psychiatry in the Courts and the Corruption of Justice

You may recall that on 22 July 2011, Anders Breivik bombed the government buildings in Oslo, Norway, which resulted in eight deaths. He then carried out a mass shooting at a camp of the Workers’ Youth League on the island of Utøya where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers.

A 10 April 2012 article (“Psychiatry May Also Face Scrutiny at Norway Killer’s Trial”) on a New York Times blog discusses two court-ordered psychiatric assessments.

After an earlier psychiatric report declared him to be a paranoid schizophrenic living in a delusional universe, a second evaluation by different Norwegian psychiatrists found Breivik to be legally sane.

“The clinical disagreement prompted some Norwegian news media to speculate that the methods of psychiatric evaluation would also be put on trial along with Mr. Breivik when hearings begin.”

Well, pardon me for the sarcasm, but “duh!” What has CCHR been saying for the last 43 years?

Eroding Justice – Psychiatry’s Corruption of Law

Psychiatric “expert” witnesses are widely criticized for providing testimony to suit their client’s purposes. They have only theories and conflicting opinions about their diagnoses and methods, and are lacking any scientific basis for these.

Dr. Margaret Hagen, author of Whores of the Court, The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice (1997), said, “Why not just flip pennies or draw cards? Why not put on a blindfold and choose without being able to identifity the patients? It could hardly hurt [a diagnostic] accuracy rate that hovers at less than one out of three times correct…”

Psychiatry is not based on science and has failed to cure insanity, or predict it or even diagnose it, despite taxpayer funding in the billions of dollars, and it should no longer be accepted as an authority by our courts.

For more information, download and read the free CCHR booklet on psychiatry’s corruption of law by clicking here.

No Responsibility

We have all heard the endless sarcastic jokes and sayings:

“What, me worry?”
“Whatever you say!”
“Give it to someone who cares!”
“Like I care!”
“Do I look like I care?”
“Like I give a care!”
or, in a text or tweet, “LIC”

It even has its own “glitter graphic” (yes, I know this is really distracting and offensive; like I care!)

What does it all mean?

The criminal exhibits this “nothing matters” attitude as a cover-up for having committed crimes.

It all comes down to a consideration called “No Responsibility.”

The opposite of having no responsibility for something is caring for it.

So the sarcasm “Like I Care!” just means “I have no responsibility for this!”

How does it relate to psychiatry?

In 1963 Thomas Szasz wrote, in Law, Liberty and Psychiatry, “Although we may not know it, we have, in our day, witnessed the birth of the Therapeutic State. This is perhaps the major implication of psychiatry as an institution of social control.” In other words, you are considered to be under the care of psychiatry and the State, unless you actively do something about that.

In 1946, Canadian psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm, in a speech to the World Federation of Mental Health, said, “If the race is to be freed of its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.”

Ever since, psychiatry has attempted to remove individual responsibility from everyone, claiming that psychiatrists are the only ones who can be responsible for one’s mental health; and oh, by the way, forget right and wrong, since psychiatrists know best. The Bill of Rights left off one right we all should have, the right to our own sanity. If you cede the right to your own sanity to psychiatry, as they would have it, what responsibility do you have left for your own mental health?

How many times have you, a family member, or a co-worker, said “LIC!” The apathy of “No Responsibility” has seeped into society, just as Chisholm predicted.

What are you going to do about it?

We care that you do something about it. We care that you, your family, your associates and co-workers, do something about it. Because we don’t want a bunch of people around us who don’t care when the men in white coats come for us. Think they won’t come for you if you don’t take your meds? Think again! Maryanne Godboldo found out.

Detroit mother Maryanne Godboldo experienced first hand the effects of the Therapeutic State when she chose to take her daughter off an antipsychotic drug. Maryanne had reluctantly agreed to administer this drug to her daughter, Ariana, under the condition she could take her off of it — at her own discretion. Once Maryanne witnessed the drug’s harmful effects, she worked with a physician to wean her daughter off the drug and pursue non-drug solutions. This decision however, did not sit well with the psychiatrists advising Child Protective Services. They responded to Maryanne’s refusal to drug her daughter with the full force of the Therapeutic State.

Take a lesson. Fight back.

The Insanity Defense

According to Associated Press news articles, “A JetBlue Airways captain accused of disrupting a flight when he left the cockpit screaming about religion and terrorists plans to use an insanity defense at trial. An attorney for Clayton F. Osbon filed a motion Wednesday [April 18, 2012] outlining plans to argue Osbon was insane at the time of the incident on the March 27 flight from New York to Las Vegas. Osbon remains jailed in Texas awaiting a court-ordered psychiatric exam to determine his competency for trial and whether he was legally sane when witnesses say he left the cockpit and ran screaming through the plane’s cabin.”

I’ll be the first to admit to having had the rare meltdown; but I have since taken some responsibility for my behavior and this has not happened in a very long time, thank you very much. I can empathize, however.

Supporters of CCHR understand also that psychiatric drugs can actually cause this kind of psychotic behavior. That is not, however, the subject of this newsletter. We are going to discuss the insanity defense.

Dr. Thomas Szasz had the following to say about the insanity defense [from Ideas on Liberty, 50: 31?32 (March), 2000]:

“The insanity defense, as we know it, is a relatively new cultural invention. … The ‘crime’ that led to the creation of the insanity defense was not murder, but a deed long considered even more heinous, namely, self-murder or suicide, punished by both ecclesiastic and secular penalties: the suicide was denied religious burial and his estate was forfeited to the Crown’s Almoner. Because punishing suicide required doing grave harm to innocent parties — that is, to the suicide’s children and spouse — men sitting on coroner’s juries eventually found the task to be a burden they were unwilling to bear. However, prevailing religious beliefs precluded repealing the laws punishing the crime. The law now came to the rescue of the would-be punishers, offering them the option of finding the self-killer non compos mentis and hence not responsible for his deed. In the eighteenth century, it became a matter of routine for juries to arrive at the posthumous diagnosis that the suicide was insane at the moment he killed himself. (The criminal law against suicide was repealed only in the nineteenth century, by which time it had been replaced by mental health laws.) … By validating the fiction that suicides could, post facto, be found to have been non compos mentis, the law had crafted a mechanism for rejecting responsibility — the criminal’s for his deed, the jury’s for its duty — and, aided by the medical profession, wrapped the deception and self-deception in the mantle of healing and science.”

How is it that today we still face the absurd situation of psychiatrists testifying to excuse a wrongdoers’ actions? The answer lies in three places: 1) because psychiatric “experts” are paid an average of $3,600 (in the U.S.) per day to testify for whomever is willing to foot the bill; 2) the goal for psychiatry that was delineated by G. Brock Chisholm, co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health (WFMH), that therapy be aimed at eliminating the concept of right and wrong; and 3) bolstering this, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Psychiatry’s attempt to eradicate the concept of right and wrong and thereby destroy personal responsibility by inventing excuses for the most flagrant misconduct, undermines the justice system and must be corrected.

In 2006 the United States Supreme Court upheld the right of the state of Arizona to make laws which excluded many forms of psychiatric testimony in criminal cases. In concluding that the Arizona statute was sufficient to satisfy a criminal defendants’ rights to a fair trial, the Supreme Court quoted a legal source in support of its decision, stating, “No matter how the test for insanity is phrased, a psychiatrist or psychologist is no more qualified than any other person to give an opinion about whether a particular defendant’s mental condition satisfies the legal test for insanity.”

It must be recognized that every person is responsible for his or her own actions and must be held accountable for their actions. State legislators should repeal any laws permitting the insanity defense and diminished capacity pleas. Write your legislators and tell them what you think.

Medical Ethics – Outcomes

Medical ethics is a system of principles that applies values and judgments to the practice of medicine. One of the purposes of ethics is to remove the barriers toward optimum survival. And an outcome is an end result or consequence.

When we think about the quality and outcomes of health care, we can think in terms that are important to the patient, or alternatively in terms that are important to others such as family, teachers, insurance companies, or the attending medical professionals.

Joe Jimenez, the CEO of Novartis (a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland), was recently quoted in Business Week (4/5/12) as saying, “Increasingly, in every part of the world, pharmaceutical companies will not be paid on the number of pills they sell but on the outcomes they produce. In the U.S., we spend about 17 percent of GDP on health care. Singapore spends 1.3 percent and gets better health outcomes. Something is very wrong.”

While it is refreshing to hear a pharmaceutical executive allude to poor outcomes in the pharmaceutical industry, we must not forget what the real problems are in health care, and what the real solutions are.

Naturally, in an industry as complex and burdened with problems as health care, there is not going to be just one solution. There needs to be one or more solutions for each problem. One of the problems is that mental health care has lost sight of what is a good patient outcome.

The Real Problem in Mental Health Care

In a nutshell, there is a lack of science and results within the mental health industry. Despite its lack of scientific validity, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used heavily as a diagnostic tool, not only for individual treatment but also for child custody battles, court testimony, education, and more. While medicine’s scientific procedures are verifiable, psychiatry’s lack of any systematic approach to mental health and its continued lack of measurable results has contributed greatly to its declining reputation.

In spite of record spending for mental health care, the U.S. now faces record levels of child abuse, suicide, drug abuse, violence and crime – very real problems for which the psychiatric industry can identify neither causes nor solutions. Community Mental Health programs have been an expensive and colossal failure, creating homelessness, drug addiction, crime and unemployment. Mental health courts assert that criminal behavior is caused by a psychiatric problem and that treatment will stop the behavior; there is no evidence, however, to support this supposition. Many medical studies reveal that psychiatric drugs create violence.

The claim that only increased psychiatric funding will cure the problems of psychiatry has lost its ring of truth. In 2002, the U.S. President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education found that 40% of American children in Special Education programs labeled with “learning disorders” had simply never been taught to read.

More than 6 million U.S. children have been put on mind-altering psychiatric drugs for an invented mental disorder called “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.” Talk about an unethical outcome! Giving a child psychotropic drugs for a learning disorder when the correct outcome should be teaching the child to read! Whose outcome is this? Not the child’s, for sure.

From these facts it is safe to conclude that a reduction in the funding of psychiatric programs will not cause a worsening of mental health. Less funding for harmful psychiatric practices will, in fact, improve the state of mental health.

Fortunately, many non-psychiatric, humane and workable practices exist in the quest for the achievement and recovery of mental health, even for the most severely disturbed individuals. While psychiatrists strenuously deny it, much knowledgeable and skillful help is administered by non-psychiatric professionals whose focus is on positive patient outcomes.

The same waste of lives and funding occurs whenever the DSM is used to evaluate an individual’s mental health or actions. It is vital that the DSM diagnostic system is universally rejected before any chance of meaningful mental health reform and advancement can occur.

Become a member of CCHR St. Louis today and receive a complimentary copy of the CCHR documentary “Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) — Psychiatry’s Deadliest Scam.”

Alternative Therapies

We are continually asked to recommend alternatives to psychiatric drugs. Frequently, parents tell us that their children are taking psychotropic drugs as a last resort for behavioral issues and they wish there were non-drug alternatives.

This illustrates a major issue with the current state of mental health care. There are non-drug alternatives, and many doctors are either not aware of or not referring their patients to these alternative treatments.

CAM, or Complementary and Alternative Medicine, is a vast subject, worthy of one’s attention.

Perusing a recent article, “Complementary and Alternative Medical Therapies for Children with Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD),” in the Alternative Medicine Review (AMR) (Altern
Med Rev 2011;16(4):323-337
) we find quite a number of potential alternatives to psychotropic drugs.

Points to note:

1. The first alternative to drugs is always no drugs. The second alternative is to find and fix the actual cause rather than the symptoms.

2. While ADHD as fraudulently presented by the psychiatric billing bible Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a fake illness, people do exhibit symptoms of mental distress at times and the root cause needs to be properly diagnosed and treated. The correct action on a mentally disturbed person is a full searching clinical examination by a competent, non-psychiatric medical doctor. For more information on the DSM scam, watch the video here.

3. Obviously, CCHR does not provide medical advice, and one should not abruptly stop taking any prescription drugs without the advice of a competent medical doctor, as these drugs frequently have harmful withdrawal side effects. The information presented here and in the referenced AMR publication must not be construed as offering medical advice, but only as an aid to further study and to encourage fully informed consent when discussing treatment options with your health care providers.

More complete discussions of alternatives can be found here on the CCHR St. Louis web site and here on the CCHR International web site.

Without going into a detailed discussion, here are some alternatives discussed in the referenced AMR publication:



Essential Fatty

Vitamin B6 and

Iron and Zinc

Calcium and










Phosphatidylserine and







St. John’s Wort





Grassley Pursues Prescription Drug Abuse in Medicaid, Medicare

A recent Press Release from U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (Republican, Iowa) caught our attention (read the March 22, 2012 press release here.)

Here are some choice quotes:

“The Office of National Drug Control Policy describes prescription drug abuse as the nation’s fastest-growing problem, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has classified prescription drug abuse as an epidemic.”

“Over prescription of these types of drugs strains the financial viability of the Medicaid and Medicare systems and threatens the health and well-being of the American people.”

“In 2010, I sent a letter to all 50 state Medicaid directors asking them for their top ten prescribers of the top eight most over-prescribed drugs on the market. Many states provided the data I requested, and the statistics were alarming.”

“For example, the top prescriber of antipsychotics in Nevada wrote nearly 6,800 prescriptions for the drugs over 2010 and 2011 – more than ten times some of the other top prescribers identified. For context, no individual prescriber in Colorado wrote more than 2,000 prescriptions for the same drugs over the same period. This single doctor in Nevada accounted for $2.75 million in payments from the Medicaid system.”

As a result of Senator Grassley’s request, a number of states began investigations into possible insurance fraud regarding these massive drug prescriptions: South Carolina, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Nevada, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Kansas, Iowa, and Hawaii.

Do we have to spell out how this kind of drug fraud and abuse raises health care and insurance costs for the rest of us?

Are there any other states that should be conducting these investigations into Medicaid and Medicare fraud? Perhaps your state? Write your state legislators and other officials and encourage them to do so.

Now, aside from plain greed, what is the real problem here?

If you said, “DSM”, take a win. The rest of you need to watch the CCHR video documentary “Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Psychiatry’s Deadliest Scam.” If you would like your own copy of this DVD, become a CCHR St. Louis member today and we’ll mail one to you.

You can also read Sen. Grassley’s press release at, and we encourage you to get the latest psych news there as well as from

New book reveals Richard Nixon’s secret shrink sessions

Alright, we know this headline reads like the Weekly Trashmonger, but we simply couldn’t resist relaying this news. It’s not April Fool’s, this is a real book. There may or may not be some huge significance to this, but whenever we see news about the failures of psychiatrists, we think our readers ought to know that psychiatrists are still out there in society causing damage.

Here is what the New York Post has to say:

“It’s the secret file that could have kept Richard Nixon from ever becoming president.

“Today, more than 50 years later, the contents of that file — and the true viciousness of the 1960 Kennedy and Nixon campaigns for president — have been revealed in the new book, “The Gumshoe and the Shrink.”

[The Gumshoe and the Shrink: Guenther Reinhardt, Dr. Arnold Hutschnecker, and the Secret History of the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon Election by David L. Robb, Santa Monica Press, March 15, 2012]

“The shrink’s patient was then-candidate Nixon, who began seeing Dr. Arnold Hutschnecker in 1952. Nixon was suffering from a battery of symptoms that he suspected were psychosomatic, including back and neck pain and insomnia.

“Hutschnecker not only treated Nixon for his stress and anxiety but became an informal adviser during the 1960 presidential campaign, teaching Nixon how to appear more calm and composed next to the effortlessly cool John F. Kennedy.”

And your point is …?

The real point here is, maybe those shrink sessions did some damage to Mr. Nixon. We can only conjecture about these 50-year-old events, but we certainly know now, after 43 years of CCHR’s in-depth research, that all psychiatric “treatments” are dangerous.

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, have always been dangerous.

In 50 years, “biological psychiatry” has yet to validate a single psychiatric condition/diagnosis as an abnormality/disease, or as anything neurological, biological, chemically imbalanced or genetic.

While medicine has advanced on a scientific path to major discoveries and cures, psychiatry has never evolved scientifically and is no closer to understanding or curing mental problems. While medicine has nurtured an enviable record of achievements and general popular acceptance, the public still deservedly links psychiatry to snake pits, straitjackets, and “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”

Psychiatry has never cured anything. Instead, as a consequence of its extensive use of dangerous drugs, it has created most of the mental ill health that now cries out desperately for cures. Medical studies show that for many patients, what appear to be mental problems are actually caused by an undiagnosed physical illness or condition. This does not mean a “chemical imbalance” or a “brain-based disease,” but a real physical condition with real pathology that can be addressed by a competent medical doctor.

Psychiatry’s approach to mental health care is predicated on bad science and bad medicine but is very good business for psychiatry. The simple truth is that there are workable alternatives to psychiatry’s mind-, brain-, and body-damaging treatments. With psychiatry now calling for mandatory mental illness screening for adults and children everywhere, we urge all who have an interest in preserving the mental health, the physical health and the freedom of their families, communities and nations, to do something about it.

The Placebo Effect

Placebo: A substance containing no medication and prescribed or given to reinforce a patient’s expectation to get well [from the Latin word meaning “I shall please.”]

Professor Irving Kirsch, Associate Director of the Program for Placebo Studies at Harvard Medical School, has this to say, “The difference between the effect of a placebo and the effect of an antidepressant is minimal for most people.”

Watch a video interview of Professor Kirsch speaking about his research on the CBS News program 60 Minutes here:

How did Professor Kirsch do his research? He filed Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain unpublished clinical trial data and found that, when combining results with published data, the various antidepressants were no better than dummy pills. As 60 Minutes notes, Kirsch is “dropping a bomb” on a big business – some $11 billion in annual sales and no cures.

Read the full 60 Minutes transcript by clicking here.

What can you do about this tremendous waste of health care dollars? Watch the CCHR DVD documentaries and show them to your family, friends, and associates; write your local, state and federal officials and express your opinion; volunteer or donate to CCHR St. Louis so that we can continue to make a difference against psychiatric fraud and abuse.

CCHR International ADHD Ads on National TV

Click image to watch our Ad playing on CNN

Thanks to our supporters, CCHR International has been able to get our ads placed on national TV and viewed by millions. Such as this ad, on normal kids being diagnosed with “ADHD” which is part of CCHR’s “Fight for Kids” campaign – giving parents enough information to make educated choices.

Honk (i.e. donate) if you like this ad!!!