An Affair to Remember

Infidelity literally means unfaithfulness (from the Latin word infidelis, “not faithful”); the word can be used as unfaithfulness, disbelief or disloyalty to a moral obligation, to a religion or religious belief, or as current and relentless news stories have it, as a romantic or sexual relationship with someone other than one’s husband, wife, or partner. It’s certainly related to the hue and cry over sexual misconduct and the stories of sexual abuse dominating the current news environment.

How can we deal effectively with this topic, when it seems that daily lurid revelations are occurring about some highly-placed person’s infidelity or alleged sexual harassment.

“I told my wife the truth. I told her I was seeing a psychiatrist. Then she told me the truth: that she was seeing a psychiatrist, two plumbers, and a bartender!” — Rodney Dangerfield

While it is not our place to make judgments about this, there are some things we can say about psychiatrists’ and psychologists’ involvement in matters of sexual abuse and harassment.

In a British study of therapist-patient sexual contact among psychologists, 25% reported having treated a patient who had been sexually involved with another therapist.

Therapist sexual abuse is sexual abuse. Therapist rape is rape. They will never constitute therapy.

Psychiatrists and psychologists rarely refer to rape as rape. Instead, they downplay it as “sexual contact,” a “sexual relationship” or “crossing the boundaries” when one of its members sexually forces themselves on a patient, often with the help of drugs or electroshock. While psychiatrists account for only 6% of physicians in the country, they comprised 28% of perpetrators disciplined for sex-related offenses.

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the mental disorders section of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) have greatly assisted psychiatrists and psychologists in their efforts to avoid criminal proceedings for sexual abuse. The DSM decriminalizes illegal acts by defining criminal behavior as a biologically based aberration or “mental disorder.” In this way, dangerous criminals in psychiatry’s own ranks have been excused of all personal responsibility for their actions.

How did this come to be?

The family unit, long held sacred by religion, was purposely weakened by psychiatry’s World Federation for Mental Health, which considered it “the major obstacle to improved mental health.”

In 1993, Catholic psychologist William Coulson admitted that, “The net outcome of sex education, styled as Rogerian encountering [Carl Rogers’ therapy], is more sexual experience. Humanistic psychotherapy, the kind that has virtually taken over the Church in America … dominates so many forms of aberrant education like sex education.”

Considering that, according to William Coulson, the result of sex education is “more sexual experience,” there is no doubt as to psychologists’ intention or the direction of these courses.

Freudian theory developed in the 1890’s called for radical permissiveness in sexual mores. Freud taught that sexual repression was the chief psychological problem of mankind, which has been used to whitewash behavior that society has traditionally considered inappropriate, leading to excessive sexual permissiveness.

Psychiatrists and psychologists cannot be allowed to continue to determine the standards of conduct in any society, or society risks further degradation.

For more information, download and read the CCHR booklets about psychiatry assaulting religion and psychiatric rape.

The Continuing Cannabis Conundrum

We have previously written a number of blogs on cannabis, but it seems the problems won’t go away. So we’re writing about it again.

On January 4, 2018 Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the long-standing “Cole Memorandum” issued in 2013 by Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole. These relate to the laws and enforcement policies of cannabis use by the federal government and the various state governments and their drug enforcement agencies. We won’t go into the details, as one expects these things to continue changing, and anyone can get that information off the current news reports.

Here’s what we said before about marijuana:

The conundrum is this:
§ On the one hand, we think that in an ideal society the government should not be interfering in the personal lives of individual citizens. We don’t like the government saying you can’t smoke pot and this is for your own good. It enforces a moral code by fiat without actually making the individual ethical and responsible.
§ On the other hand, we think that the rampant use of marijuana, whether “medical” or “recreational”, is harmful to society and not just harmful to individuals. It puts at risk everyone in contact with drug users, since some of the side effects can be violence, loss of coordination, perception distortions, slower reflexes, reduced mental functions, and so on.

So how do we reconcile these two different points of view? Especially since this is not, in any way, an ideal society.

Talking about marijuana means we are talking about tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which is the principal psychoactive constituent of marijuana. Psychoactive means that the drug changes brain function and results in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness or behavior.

Because a tolerance builds up, marijuana can lead users to consume stronger drugs to achieve the same high. Marijuana itself does not lead the person to other drugs; people take drugs to get rid of unwanted situations or feelings. The drug masks the problem for a time. When the high fades, the problem, unwanted condition or situation returns more intensely than before.

We reject outright the point of view that marijuana is not harmful in any way. The anecdotal evidence as well as formal research on this is pretty clear, regardless of the public relations protestations to the contrary by people poised to make a lot of money from selling it. We do understand that for some people, some uncomfortable mental and physical symptoms seem to lessen with marijuana use; but one has to understand the why and the consequences of this.

How Do Drugs Work?
Drugs are essentially poisons. The amount taken determines the effect. A small amount acts as a stimulant. A greater amount acts as a sedative. A still larger amount poisons and can kill. This is true of any drug. Only the amount needed to achieve the effect differs.

Drugs block off all sensations, the desirable ones along with the unwanted ones. While drugs might be of short-term value in the handling of pain, they wipe out ability, alertness, and muddy one’s thinking. One always has a choice between being dead with drugs or alive without them.

Drugs affect the mind and destroy creativity. Drug residues lodge in the fatty tissues of the body and stay there, continuing to adversely affect the individual long after the effect of the drug has apparently worn off.

What Can We Do?
How can we resolve this conundrum and come up with some compromise that maintains individual choice and responsibility while at the same time protecting society from the accidents and mistakes and damaging or destructive behaviors that will inevitably occur by legions of pot heads on a high?

It’s no small decision. We do have a suggestion. We’re not sure anyone is listening. The psychiatrists and psychologists can’t wait to have more clients with drug-induced psychoses and their insurance; the pot growers, pot sellers, and tax men are already salivating over the expected profits; the police, attorneys and courts are lined up to take cases; and the users are too stoned to care.

We’d like to hear, first, how you might consider resolving this conundrum. As a society we need to reach an agreement about this, before every state in the union goes off making a conflicting bunch of new laws. It is their constitutional right, after all; but just because they can, should they? And just because you can smoke pot, should you?

For more information, read through the blogs referenced above. Then let us know what you think.

Missouri Foster Care Children at Risk

Following up on the federal class action lawsuit (M.B. v. Corsi) against the Missouri Department of Social Services for the overuse of harmful and addictive psychotropic drugs among vulnerable foster children.

More than 30 percent of Missouri’s 13,000 foster children are on at least one psychotropic medication, with 20 percent taking two or more psychotropic medications at the same time. This is almost twice the national rate of such prescriptions. These drugs are known to cause violence and suicide, as well as being addictive.

For the first time, a federal court has ruled that the failure to oversee the administration of powerful psychotropic medications to children in foster care could violate their rights under the Constitution.

On January 8, 2018 U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey denied the state’s motion to dismiss the children’s due process claims. The judge was particularly concerned that the state, by its own admission, fails to maintain complete medical records for the foster children in its care, and does not provide updated health information to foster parents or doctors.

Foster children are drugged with harmful psychotropics at 13 times the rate of children living with their parents.

Recognize that the real problem is that psychiatrists fraudulently diagnose children’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.

Click here for more information about psychiatric drugs harming foster care children.

The Radical Permissiveness of Psychiatry

Permissiveness: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior. A permissive person, society, or way of behaving allows or tolerates things of which other people disapprove.

Apparently the quote “DO AS THOU WILT because men that are free, of gentle birth, well bred and at home in civilized company possess a natural instinct that inclines them to virtue and saves them from vice. This instinct they name their honor.” [François Rabelais, 1534] has been shortened by the psychological and psychiatric industries to the first four words.

From where does this radical permissiveness come?

“The biomedical model [the biological underpinnings of mental disorders] currently dominates psychiatric clinical practice and research.”
“Psychiatry’s growth and power during the twentieth century also can be traced in part to its alliance with Western science’s goals of control and domination of nature. … For example, during this century, capitalism has simultaneously needed to increase consumption and the technical control of social reality in order to maximize profits. This creates a paradox in which morality is slackened to increase permissiveness, and consequently, consumption.”
“Biological psychiatry’s rush to transmogrify much of human life into clinical or biological entities has become increasingly suspect on scientific as well as sociopolitical grounds.”
[“The Biomedicalization of Psychiatry: A Critical Overview“, Carl I. Cohen, M.D., Community Mental Health Journal, Vol. 29, No. 6, December 1993]

The problem with the biomedical model is that psychiatrists attempt to explain environmental, behavioral, social and spiritual phenomena with strictly biological factors. This is called “biological reductionism.” It places a heavy emphasis on the chemistry of the brain instead of searching for root causes of mental distress in areas that have more effective treatments. This leads to dependence on psychotropic drugs which have been shown to be addictive and harmful.

The transformation of psychiatry into a purely medical model was driven primarily by third-party reimbursement (insurance), the pharmaceutical industry, and government funding.

Freudian theory developed in the 1890’s called for radical permissiveness in sexual mores and child rearing, and left parents in constant worry of unwittingly perpetrating untold psychological harm upon their children.
[Chapter 3, Psychiatry The Ultimate Betrayal, Bruce Wiseman, Freedom Publishing, 1995]

To this day, thanks to the large-scale Freudian indoctrination of teachers, doctors, social workers, and others, many a mother and father is filled with dread, fearing irreparable mental damage, whenever some minor or major trauma strikes their child.

When lawyers turn to “childhood trauma” as a defense for criminality, it is assumed that the jury and the public will understand this: “everybody knows” that psychological damage comes from one’s childhood.

“The indiscriminate, ‘nonjudgmental’ approach, of dubious value with neurotics, amounts to a frank condoning of crime when applied to offenders and threatens to undermine and eradicate social and moral attitudes. This is the more serious, since this psychiatric-social work approach combines with the ‘permissive’ or ‘progressive’ upbringing of the home and school and a very lax enforcement of justice by the police and the courts.” The statement was made in 1962 by psychiatrist Melitta Schmideberg, president of the Association for the Psychiatric Treatment of Offenders.
[ibid. Chapter 8]

In 1966, schools began to be used as an ideological platform for the abandonment of self-discipline and morality. The assault on social values came with the textbook called Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Teachers and Students. Children were asked to abandon values instilled through family, home and church, and substitute new values which they were free to make up.

This “therapeutic education,” or “behavior modification,” gradually replaced academics in favor of feelings and emotions, eroding discipline and promoting permissiveness, redefining and replacing earned self-esteem with psychological doubletalk like “anger management” and “mental health.”

The undermining of traditional education and values can be traced to a German psychologist, Wilhelm Wundt of Leipzig University, who founded “experimental psychology” in 1879. Declaring that man is an animal with no soul, he claimed that thought was merely the result of brain activity — a false premise that has remained the basis of psychiatry until this day.

Wundt was a strong advocate of Gottlieb Fichte, head of psychology at the University of Berlin in 1810, who believed that “Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished.”

Influential educational psychologist Ernst Friedrich Wilhelm Meumann, professor of philosophy and education at Leipzig University and student and assistant of Wundt, sought to radically change schools by the “oppression of the children’s natural inclinations.” His book discussing Mental Hygiene in the Schools became required reading for several generations of education students in Germany and he propagated the idea that schools should be used for “preventative mental health functions.”

For more information download and read the CCHR report Harming Youth — Psychiatry Destroys Young Minds — Report and recommendations on harmful mental health assessments, evaluations, and programs within our schools.

Gaming Disorder – WHO’s the Loser?

The 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) is scheduled to be released in June, 2018.

The ICD, published by the World Health Organization (WHO), is the international standard diagnostic tool for epidemiology, health management, and clinical purposes. It is used for the identification of health trends and statistics and for reporting diseases and health conditions by its 194 member countries, although in the U.S. the DSM is used for mental health conditions. Think of WHO as Big Brother for Universal Health Care. With offices in over 150 countries, it is very big business.

The first version of the ICD was published in 1893. WHO took over publishing the ICD when it was formed in 1948. ICD-10 was adopted in 1990. The revision process for ICD-11 was begun in 2007 and has been working in earnest since 2015.

The Beta Draft of ICD-11 contains a new classification which we thought might be of interest to our CCHR STL supporters.

6D11 Gaming disorder
Gaming disorder is characterized by a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behaviour (‘digital gaming’ or ‘video-gaming’), which may be online (i.e., over the Internet) or offline, manifested by:
1) impaired control over gaming (e.g., onset, frequency, intensity, duration, termination, context);
2) increasing priority given to gaming to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other life interests and daily activities; and
3) continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences.

The behaviour pattern is of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. The pattern of gaming behaviour may be continuous or episodic and recurrent. The gaming behaviour and other features are normally evident over a period of at least 12 months in order for a diagnosis to be assigned, although the required duration may be shortened if all diagnostic requirements are met and symptoms are severe.

6D11 has three subdivisions:
6D11.0 Gaming disorder, predominantly online
6D11.1 Gaming disorder, predominantly offline
6D11.Z Gaming disorder, unspecified

Wait, there’s more.

QF02 Hazardous gaming
Hazardous gaming refers to a pattern of gaming, either online or offline that appreciably increases the risk of harmful physical or mental health consequences to the individual or to others around this individual. The increased risk may be from the frequency of gaming, from the amount of time spent on these activities, from the neglect of other activities and priorities, from risky behaviours associated with gaming or its context, from the adverse consequences of gaming, or from the combination of these. The pattern of gaming often persists in spite of awareness of increased risk of harm to the individual or to others.

Basically, ICD claims that Gaming Disorder is an addictive behavior, and any form of addiction is a mental disorder. Other forms of addiction categorized by ICD are substance abuse, gambling, and other impulse control issues such as pyromania, kleptomania and promiscuity.

Infiltration into the gaming world on behalf of psychiatrists is not totally recent. They have been personally entering the online realm of WoW (World of Warcraft) for some time now, to supposedly deliver therapeutic services inside the game.

The DSM already has Gambling Disorder, more Substance Abuse disorders than you can shake a bong at, pyromania, kleptomania, and more sexual disorders than you can shake — well, you get the idea.

So what are these various behaviors if they are not mental illnesses? They’re called lapses in ethics and morals, and when treated as such there is hope that they can be corrected. Unfortunately, calling them “mental illness” and treating them with psychotropic drugs precludes any possibility of finding out the true root causes and effectively addressing those.

We think the whole thing comes back to what Professor Thomas Szasz originally had to say about this:
• “The term ‘mental illness’ refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish.”
• “If we recognize that ‘mental illness’ is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of Psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior.”

These so-called mental disorders are just what psychiatry and psychiatrists have inappropriately labeled as “undesirable behavior.” So, WHO is the Loser in this game? It’s you, if you buy psychiatry’s pronouncement of “mental disorder.”