Archive for September, 2015

Psychiatry and the Creation of Senseless Violence

Saturday, September 26th, 2015
PSYCHIATRY AND THE CREATION OF SENSELESS VIOLENCE
Ben Swann, a news anchor at WGCL-TV (CBS46.com) in Atlanta, broadcast this great piece on his Reality Check show August 27, 2015:
Is There A Link Between Mass Shootings and Anti-Depressants?
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjB0gTzxhF4)
In light of the Virginia TV shootings, Ben Swann takes a look at the link between 26 mass shooters and anti-depressant/mood altering drugs.

It is not as if psychiatrists don’t know. The scientific research documenting the connection between violence, suicide and psychiatric drugs is overwhelming. Withdrawal effects from these drugs can also be severe, and it takes intense medical supervision to ensure the person safely detoxes.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) has a data base of hundreds of cases of violence that span the last 15 years.
On the surface, the idea of tranquilizers or antidepressants creating hostility and violence may not make sense. After all, they are supposed to make people calm and quiet. But the reality is that they can and do create such adverse effects.
CCHR urges that government officials and law enforcement bodies, armed with this information:
1) Hold legislative hearings to fully investigate the correlation between psychiatric drugs, violence, and suicide;
2) Call for mandatory toxicology reports that specify a testing for psychiatric drugs in anyone who has committed a homicide or serious violent crime;
3) Ensure that where psychiatric mind-altering drugs are implicated in such a crime, the psychiatrist prescribing the drugs be held accountable.
CCHR International has taken its commitment to inform and protect the public on mental health issues to a new level with the launch of its psychiatric drug side effects database.

The Cure Conundrum

Saturday, September 19th, 2015

The Cure Conundrum

We often say that psychiatry produces no cures, and for good reason. There is a lot of history behind the concept of “cure;” we’d like to touch on a small piece of that.

The psychiatric industry itself admits it has no capacity to cure.

“We do not know the causes [of any mental illness]. We don’t have the methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet.” [Dr. Rex Cowdry, psychiatrist and director of National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 1995]

“The time when psychiatrists considered that they could cure the mentally ill is gone. In the future the mentally ill have to learn to live with their illness.” [Norman Satorius, president of the World Psychiatric Association in 1994]

“What’s a cure?…it’s just that it’s a term that we don’t use in the medical [psychiatric] profession.” [Dr. Joseph Johnson, California psychiatrist during court deposition, 2003]

We generally take cure to mean the elimination of some unwanted condition with some effective treatment. The primary purpose of any 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.” This, we would call a cure.

Interestingly enough, elements in this society have systematically tried to downplay or eliminate the concept of cure, especially in the area of mental health. Consider the following quote:

“In the early 1900s, years of exaggerated claims finally caught up with the rest of the patent medicine industry. Inspired by muckrakers like Samuel Hopkins Adams, the official medical community embraced his expose called The Great American Fraud and began their battle against the nostrum-peddling industry. The public demanded appropriate labeling for patent medicines. But the newspaper lobby, supported by the advertising dollars from an $80 million patent medicine industry, kept national legislation tied up for months. Finally, the Pure Food and Drug Act was adopted in June of 1906 with regulations forcing the sellers who made patent medicine to disclose contents and give quantities of ingredients such as alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine and heroin. Six years later, the government passed an amendment forbidding the use of the word ‘cure’ on a bottle.” [page 141, Pure Sea Glass, Richard H. LaMotte, Sea Glass Publishing, 2004]

[A nostrum is a medicine, especially one that is not considered effective, prepared by an unqualified person; from Latin meaning our, used in the sense ‘(something) of our own making’.]

While it is illegal for such FDA-regulated products to make cure claims, there are in fact many non-drug and non-psychiatric alternatives which may prove effective in handling traumatic conditions. The trick is in finding out what is really wrong and fixing that. Or at the very least, using a broad-spectrum, many-pronged approach aimed to handle a wide variety of possible conditions. In any case, the point is to use a treatment that does not itself cause further harm, such as is the case with psychiatric drugs and other “treatments” promoted by the psychiatric mental health industry.

Click here for more information about alternatives to fraudulent and abusive psychiatric treatments.

The Glue of Society

Saturday, September 12th, 2015

The Glue of Society

Religion is the glue that binds a culture together. Yet it has become customary to mock religion in America today.

We’re not talking here about devotion to a particular religious practice. We are talking about a decline in moral values that used to be shored up by our religious faith, religious leaders, and religious communities.

Diversity of belief is a sign of a healthy democracy. Yet we observe not just diversity, but hostility and antagonism.

A society that unjustly restricts the religious practices of one group will likely be found to undermine justice for all other groups.

There is a relationship between religion, religious freedom, and violence that needs further exploration. We find, yet again, that the junk sciences of psychiatry and psychology are involved in the decline of this culture.

A May 2014 study by researchers at Georgetown University and Brigham Young University found that, “Standards and practices of honesty and integrity rest, ultimately, on…ideas of right and wrong, which for most of us are grounded in principles of religion and the teachings of religious leaders.”

As a result of psychiatrists’ subversive plan for religion, the concepts of good and bad behavior, right and wrong conduct and personal responsibility have taken such a beating that people today have few or no guidelines for checking, judging or directing their behavior.

A co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health, Canadian psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm, reinforced this master plan in 1945 by targeting religious values and calling for psychiatrists to free “the race … from its crippling burden of good and evil.” Viciously usurping age-old religious principles, psychiatrists have sanitized criminal conduct and defined sin and evil as “mental disorders,” “treatable” with harmful and addictive psychotropic drugs.

Following are several Chisholm quotes:

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas…”

“If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.”

“The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith…are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy. The fact is, that most psychiatrists and psychologists and other respectable people have escaped from these moral chains and are able to observe and think freely.”

Let’s face it, we’ve been fed a pack of lies and we are now seriously trying to eradicate, with terrorism on one side and the “war on terror” on the other side, each other.

Society is coming unglued.

Click here for more information about this.

MedWatch Consumer Protection

Tuesday, September 8th, 2015

MedWatch Consumer Protection

Landmark Legislation: Consumer Protection MedWatch Phone Number Placed on Generic Prescription Drug Containers in Connecticut

For immediate release:
Contact Sheila Matthews, Cofounder AbleChild (203) 253-0329
Westport, Connecticut

AbleChild is pleased to announce the passage of Connecticut SB 28, a bill that makes it mandatory for all generic prescription drug containers to carry the 1-800 MedWatch telephone number. This is a first-in-the-nation legislative action to provide this important consumer information and a landmark win for consumers in Connecticut. In February of 2015, AbleChild proposed an amendment to SB 28, taking the unique opportunity to propose this very specific protection on behalf of the consumers.

MedWatch is a drug safety reporting system made available to consumers to allow direct reporting of Adverse Drug Events to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Information provided to MedWatch, by consumers, provides a unique tool to the FDA by giving the federal agency the ability to identify adverse reactions and monitor prescription drugs. The information collected about adverse reactions is used to determine if FDA action is needed on a specific drug.

According to the FDA, it receives information on less than 1% of the actual adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from the consumers. Prescription drugs are currently responsible for killing more people annually than illegal drugs, and according to Tom Friden, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “It’s a big problem and getting worse.” Furthermore, according to the Medical Journal of Medicine, prescription drugs are responsible for 291 deaths every day.

Representative David Baram of Bloomfield, co-chairman of the General Law Committee, stated that, “The passage of legislation requiring the MedWatch information to be provided with prescription medications is a positive consumer bill. I applaud Sheila Matthews for bringing this to our attention and helping us to pass this great consumer protection legislation.  Now consumers will have information on how they can report adverse prescription reactions so the manufacturers can review medication issues, and the FDA can re-evaluation safety concerns. This is a major consumer protection that will help promote the safe use and manufacturing of medicines that many of us rely on to live productive lives.”

Senator Joe Markley, who also supported AbleChild’s efforts from the beginning said, “I’m delighted at the progress AbleChild has made in getting out the word on MedWatch, which will enhance the conversation on prescription drugs. Reactions to these drugs differ dramatically, and it’s important that people who have a bad experience have a place to report what happened. I hope we can do more to let people know about MedWatch, and to make them aware of the problems sometimes associated with certain prescription drugs.”

AbleChild’s amendment received bipartisan support and was unanimously passed on June 1, 2015. AbleChild would like to acknowledge and thank the cosponsors of this important consumer protection legislation, including Senator Joseph J. Crisco, 17th District, Representative Jonathan Steinberg, 136th District, Senator Joe Markley, 16th District, and the General Law Committee Chairman, Representative David A. Baram of the 15th District.

AbleChild also would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the entire General Law Committee staff for their assistance in navigating the often, complicated legislative process.


FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reports:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/
1-800-FDA-1088

Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed

Friday, September 4th, 2015

Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed

An article in the New York Times (27 August 2015) shocks us to the core!

“…a painstaking yearslong effort to reproduce 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals has found that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested.”

We are simply shocked! Not!

We’ve said all along that psychology, along with psychiatry, is a pseudo-science; junk science, if you will.

This finding invalidates much of the core knowledge by which psychologists think they understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory.

One of the essential problems with psychology is its reliance upon psychiatric or biological behavioral models—a far cry from its foundations. Psychology once followed early philosophy and initially meant the study of the soul—psyche (soul) and ology (study of). The general thought was that the mind and body were separate entities. Thus, each man and woman was regarded as a composite of soul, mind and matter.

In 1829, Webster’s International Dictionary of the English Language defined “psychology” as “a discourse or treatise on the human soul; the doctrine of the nature and properties of the soul.”

However, all this changed in the late 1800’s when German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt established the first “experimental psychology” laboratory in Leipzig University, officially rejecting the existence of the soul and declaring – without a shred of evidence – that man was merely a product of his genes.

By 1961, Merriam Webster’s 3rd International Dictionary defined “psychology” as “the science of mind or mental phenomena or activities; the study of biological organism (as man) and the physical and social environment.”

In placing man as the direct and unknowing effect of an authoritarian and soulless philosophy, those psychologists supporting this view are promoting the idea that one’s mental health depends upon an adjustment to the world rather than its conquest.

This presumes that man cannot, therefore, effect positive change on the world around him but must submit to its random will. Implicit also is the belief that he cannot even be responsible for his own mental healing, as his behaviors are entirely the product of the functions or malfunctions of the brain. In other words, that like dogs, men are basically stimulus response mechanisms.

Where psychiatric and psychological doctrine and thought influence and permeate our culture, those who succumb to this fraudulent philosophy have no hope of finding happiness outside of a medicine cabinet.

Click here for more information about this real crisis in mental health care.