Archive for January, 2015

State of Fear

Saturday, January 24th, 2015

State of Fear

The following extended quote is from the author’s appendix to the novel State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Stay with us here, we’re sure you’ll get the importance of it quickly.

“Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

“This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in colleges and high school classrooms.

“I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

“These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

“All in all, the research, legislation, and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

“Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of this theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

“The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful—and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing—that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.”

There is a lot more the author has to say about this; we highly recommend it.

He reaches some conclusions:

“First, … there was no scientific basis for eugenics. … Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. … Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. … And that is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The psychiatric profession, the original perpetrators of eugenics, purports to be the sole arbiter on the subject of mental health and “diseases” of the mind. The facts, however, demonstrate otherwise. Psychiatric “disorders” are not medical diseases. Psychiatrists deal exclusively with mental “disorders,” not diseases. Psychiatry has never established the cause of any “mental disorders.” The theory that mental disorders derive from a “chemical imbalance” in the brain is unproven opinion, not fact. The brain is not the real cause of life’s problems.

In 1883, British psychologist Francis Galton created the term “eugenics,” from the Greek word eugenes, meaning “good stock,” and defined certain racial groups as “inferior.” Through their history of invented racial “diseases,” psychiatry and psychology have not only legitimized modern racism, but also provided the justification for outright genocide.

In 1879, German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt of Leipzig University provided the ultimate scientific “proof” for eugenics and racism, by arrogantly declaring that as man’s soul could not be measured with scientific instruments, it did not exist.

In 1895, Alfred Ploetz, a Swiss-German psychiatrist, published his race inferiority theories. Hitler and his Nazi regime would use this to promote their brand of eugenics.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood of America and a eugenicist, planned to exterminate the Negro population by sterilization.

1n 1994, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s book The Bell Curve arrogantly and audaciously claimed that African-Americans and Hispanics are genetically disabled.

In the last few months, violence erupted across the U.S. as racial tensions were fueled by conflicts with police. Police department Crisis Intervention Teams across the country are being taught by psychiatrists and psychologists how to “handle” people with mental trauma.

If you think these attitudes have been purged from society, think again.

And who is it that claims to be able to ease these conflicts? Why of course, get some counseling from your local psychologist and get some anti-anxiety drugs from your local psychiatrist. They should know; after all, their professions created the attitudes in the first place.

OK, yes, we know that there was undoubtedly racial tension prior to 1883. We know you might have been rankled at the phrase “their professions created the attitudes in the first place.” But we’re not the Boston Fern here, tracing our ancestry back to the Garden of Eden. (To make a racially suspect joke about it.) We’re trying to make a point, and we think belaboring that point is necessary, because so many people around the country are simply not being allowed to get it.

The point is, racism is alive today because it is being continually created and reinforced by psychiatry and psychology, as it has been for at least the last 132 years.

The U.S. President’s Commission on Excellence in Education revealed that 40% of children in Special Education were falsely labeled with learning disorders simply because they weren’t taught to read.

For minorities, Special Education is covert psychiatric racism; a means of getting millions of children hooked on mind-altering psychiatric drugs.

For many years, schools have employed destructive psychological curricula, and are constantly pushing for compulsory “depression screening” of schoolchildren.

The psychiatric profession has a profit interest in ensuring that racist ideas continue to influence us — in our educational institutions, religious institutions, and other areas of society. The way to ensure freedom from their consequences is to continue to identify and limit the influence of the exact source of this social poison—psychiatrists and psychologists.

For more information about racism, download and read the CCHR booklet “Creating Racism – Psychiatry’s Betrayal – Report and recommendations on psychiatry causing racial conflict and genocide.”

The Accessibility of Care

Sunday, January 18th, 2015

The Accessibility of Care

The political, financial and medical worlds rank the mental health of the nation’s citizens based on their access to “mental health care”, not on the actual state of their mental health nor on the outcomes of treatment. New reports from Mental Health America underscore these wrong targets.

These are some of the measures used in these reports to rank the 50 states and the District of Columbia on their citizens’ mental health status:

  • Number of people with “mental illness”
  • Number of children who have “Emotional Behavioral Developmental Issues” (EBD)
  • Number of people who have suicidal thoughts or who have attempted suicide
  • Number of children who have had “at least one major depressive episode”
  • Number of people who do not have access to mental health care or to mental health care insurance
  • State hospital re-admission rates

As you are undoubtedly aware, counting the number of people with “mental illness” or with “EBD” or with “depression” is totally specious, as the diagnostic criteria in psychiatry’s billing bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), are fraudulent.

As you are also undoubtedly aware, counting the number of people who have suicidal thoughts or who have attempted suicide is equally specious, as some of the known side effects of psychotropic drugs are violent behavior, and suicidal thoughts or attempted suicide.

State hospital re-admission rates are evidently how they measure the effectiveness of treatment, under the assumption that the higher the re-admission rate the less effective the treatment. Again, a specious measure, as the side effects of psychotropic drugs all but guarantee re-admissions and thus provide an argument for even more “treatment.”

And if you did not already know, “specious” means “superficially plausible but actually wrong.”

The emphasis in these reports is to identify and treat so-called “mental illness” at the youngest age possible. The psychiatric industry wants to hire an additional 30,000 child psychiatrists to handle this imagined need.

So we are basically left to surmise that reporting on the mental health status of the various states is an attempt to “show” that there is not enough insurance available to get everyone, particularly children, into the mental health care system, and that the various insurance companies, states and the federal government need to spend more on this fraudulent, ineffective and abusive mental health care system.

Missouri, by the way, is ranked 22nd in its citizens’ overall access to this kind of mental health care. A critical aspect of these reports is to show the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on access to mental health care; particularly, they hope to show that the ACA does not provide enough improvement in access to psychiatric mental health care, and that more money is needed to get more children into this system and taking psychotropic drugs. One of the other targets of these reports is to provide evidence suggesting that the definition of “medically necessary” be expanded so that more people fit into the category of needing “behavioral health care,” and thus needing more psychotropic drugs.

The mental health monopoly has practically zero accountability and zero liability for its failures. This has allowed psychiatrists and psychologists to commit more fraud and abuse than any other area of health care.

The primary purpose of mental health treatment must be the therapeutic care and treatment of individuals who are suffering emotional disturbance. The only effective measure of this treatment must be “patients recovering and being sent, sane, back into society as productive individuals.”

For more information, visit www.CCHRSTL.org. Please forward this newsletter to your family, friends and associates, and recommend that they subscribe.

Consumer Reports Weighs in on Harmful Psych Drugs

Thursday, January 8th, 2015

Consumer Reports Weighs in on Harmful Psych Drugs

The Consumer Reports magazine of February 2015 has this to say about harmful psych drugs (page 8):

“Did You know that forms you sign when you or a relative enter a medical facility could signal your consent to take whatever drug is prescribed—even antipsychotics that could harm your health or be used to control behavior?

“It’s a nightmare that Marian Hollingsworth experienced firsthand. Her father, admitted to a California hospital for back pain, had a sudden mental decline that only worsened when he was transferred to a nursing home. Physical complications followed; he died less than two months later.

“Only after closely studying her father’s records did Hollingsworth learn that upon admission he had been prescribed the antipsychotics Risperdal and Haldol—along with opioids and tranquilizers—and that many of his symptoms seemed to be complications of those drugs.

“One signature, obtained days after admission, was all that the hospital—and later, the nursing home—needed to dispense the drugs and to add others. Outraged, Hollingsworth filed several complaints with her state health department and contacted the media. The result: A new state policy requiring nursing homes to verify informed consent for antipsychotic drugs used for patients who are being transferred from a hospital.

“Now Hollingsworth has joined Consumer Reports’ nationwide Safe Patient Project. Learn how to protect yourself and those you care for at SafePatientProject.org.”

Click here for more information about the side effects of psychiatric drugs.

Take Action – Missouri Legislative News

Saturday, January 3rd, 2015

Take Action – Missouri Legislative News

The 2015 Missouri state legislative session (98th General Assembly, First Regular Session) starts January 7 and runs until May 15. The Pre Filing of bills started December 1, 2014.

Follow the Missouri legislature at www.moga.mo.gov (Missouri General Assembly) and find out how to contact your own Missouri state representatives here.

We wanted to tell you about proposed legislation that we think deserves your support. Please contact your Missouri state legislators regarding this bill; they do listen. In order of importance: personal contact, phone call, handwritten letter (blue ink), typed letter (blue ink signature), fax, email. Any contact is better than no contact.

It is a civic duty (responsibility of a citizen) to contribute to your government in this manner.

(If you do not live and vote in Missouri, then suggest to your own state representatives to introduce anti-psychiatric legislation in your state. You can find some model legislation here.)

HB = House Bill

Please contact your state legislators in support of HB 217 introduced by Representative Kenneth Wilson, Republican from District 12 (Clay and Platte counties north of Kansas City).

The bill specifies that a parent may not be charged with medical neglect (and have their child taken away from them) if they are following the advice of a licensed medical or mental health professional, even if that conflicts with another licensed medical or mental health professional. This is known as “Isaiah’s law,” prompted by the case of Isaiah Rider, a Kansas City area teen who had been legally kidnapped by a Chicago hospital.

Paraphrasing the major point of the bill:

No one shall file a report of abuse or neglect based solely on a parent’s or legal guardian’s decision to follow the recommended treatment of a licensed medical or mental health provider. A parent or legal guardian has the right to follow the advice and treatment plan of a licensed medical or mental health provider over a contrary opinion or recommended treatment plan of another licensed medical or mental health provider if the decision does not involve immediate life-threatening conditions. Even in the case of life-threatening conditions, the decision of the parent or legal guardian to follow the advice or treatment plan of a licensed medical or mental health provider shall not be overridden unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

We think this is an important human rights protection, since we observe multiple cases where the state takes away children from parents who refuse to give psychiatric drugs to their children.