Epes Tut Zikh (Something Is Happening)

September 20th, 2021

The Yiddish idiom “epes tut zikh” (????? ??? ???) loosely translates to “something is happening”. It expresses the idea that one does not know the reason for whatever is happening. For example, being stuck in traffic without knowing why is “epes tut zikh.”

Things are happening today on many fronts with no discernible reasons to explain exactly why.

Now, the physical Universe in which we live is unthinking, and there are no “reasons” for things that happen solely in the physical Universe, in the sense that the Universe has “thought” about it with some purpose.

However, living beings do think and have purposes, and so can have (but do not have to have) a reason for doing something.

When we look around we see any number of events and situations with no clearly discernible reasons. If there are reasons, they might be considered hidden. Or in many cases, there are so many possible reasons that no one can agree on them, provoking constant and debilitating argumentation.

If one actually knew all the true reasons for some unwanted event or situation, it could theoretically be terminatedly handled. Whenever such an event or situation occurs which persists and resists being handled, the true reasons are generally widely unknown or unacknowledged; and speculation, gossip, and arguments predominate.

Examples:

Antisemitism
Random senseless violence
School shootings
Motiveless and unpredictable suicide
Racism
War
Terrorism
Religious intolerance
Sexual discrimination
Pandemic outbreak

It is to the advantage of certain professions to let, or even encourage, this kind of negative situation to persist. This is called “the dangerous environment,” in which it is thought that one’s livelihood would be compromised or endangered if the situation were to be totally handled.

This includes professions which require a dangerous environment for their continued existence, because they make their living off of it — such as the politician, the policeman, the newspaperman, the insurance salesman, the undertaker, the terrorist, the psychiatrist, and others.

Why Does psychiatry Persist?

Since 1969 CCHR has documented and exposed the failures, fraud and abuse of psychiatry; yet psychiatry persists in its relentless quest to harm as many people as it can.

“So, why is the truth of psychiatry’s consistent record of getting it wrong and doing damage not setting society free to toss psychiatry on the garbage heap of history?”
[10 Reasons Why Psychiatry Lives On, by Bruce Levine, PhD]

“How is it that governments keep investing billions of dollars into psychiatry—known within the mental health system as a “non-science”—to improve conditions it admits it cannot cure?”
[“Why Psychiatry Sees Itself As A Dying Industry“]

These references highlight many of the hidden reasons psychiatry continues its fraudulent and abusive practices. Underlying these is a common human failing — the inability to confront evil.

Evil takes a bit of confronting. One must start with observation and education. The information is there; the reasons are there; we’ve pointed you to it. Find Out! Fight Back!

Psychiatry does not commit human rights abuse. It is a human rights abuse.
Psychiatry does not commit human rights abuse. It is a human rights abuse.

Antipsychotic Antics

September 15th, 2021

Paliperidone, sold under the trade name Invega among others, is an atypical antipsychotic. Paliperidone is the primary active metabolite of the older antipsychotic risperidone, although its specific mechanism of action with respect to any psychiatric diagnosis is unknown. It blocks the action of dopamine and serotonin in the brain, which as we’ve previously observed is playing Russian Roulette with the brain.

On September 1, 2021 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a 6-month injection form of the long-acting atypical antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate (Invega Hafyera, manufactured by Janssen Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of what is fraudulently diagnosed as schizophrenia in adults.

Adverse reactions, or side effects, can include upper respiratory tract infection, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, seizures, high blood sugar, diabetes, decreased blood pressure, fainting, falls, low white blood cell count, headache, tachycardia, somnolence, insomnia, sexual dysfunction, cough, dystonia, akathisia, muscle rigidity, parkinsonism, weight gain, anxiety, indigestion, constipation, and an increased risk of death in elderly people with dementia-related psychosis.

It can be addictive and have acute withdrawal symptoms (euphemistically called “discontinuation syndrome”), including rapid relapse, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, restlessness, increased sweating, trouble sleeping, a feeling of the world spinning, numbness, muscle pains, tardive dyskinesia, and psychosis.

The primary reason for prescribing a drug that has only two doses per year is to handle the situation where a patient stops taking their daily prescribed drugs because of their unpleasant side effects.

Psychiatric Fraud

Psychiatrists remain committed to calling “schizophrenia” a mental disorder despite, after a century of research, the complete absence of objective proof that it exists as a physical brain abnormality.

Psychiatry clings tenaciously to antipsychotics as the treatment for “schizophrenia,” despite their proven risks and studies which show that when patients stop taking these drugs, they improve.

The late Professor Thomas Szasz stated that “schizophrenia is defined so vaguely that, in actuality, it is a term often applied to almost any kind of behavior of which the speaker disapproves.”

These are normal people with medical, disciplinary, educational, or spiritual problems that can and must be resolved without recourse to drugs. Deceiving and drugging is not the practice of medicine. It is criminal.

Bear in mind that the drug “treatments” being prescribed are for “disorders” that are not physical illnesses—essentially, they are being prescribed for something that does not exist.

Any medical doctor who takes the time to conduct a thorough physical examination of a child or adult exhibiting signs of what a psychiatrist calls Schizophrenia can find undiagnosed, untreated physical conditions. Any person labeled with so-called Schizophrenia needs to receive a thorough physical examination by a competent medical—not psychiatric—doctor to first determine what underlying physical condition is causing the manifestation.

Any person falsely diagnosed as mentally disordered which results in treatment that harms them should file a complaint with the police and professional licensing bodies and have this investigated. They should seek legal advice about filing a civil suit against any offending psychiatrist and his or her hospital, associations and teaching institutions seeking compensation.

No one denies that people can have difficult problems in their lives, that at times they can be mentally unstable, subject to unreasonable depression, anxiety or panic. Mental health care is therefore both valid and necessary. However, the emphasis must be on workable mental healing methods that improve and strengthen individuals and thereby society by restoring people to personal strength, ability, competence, confidence, stability, responsibility and spiritual well–being. Psychiatric drugs and psychiatric treatments are not workable.

Psychiatry’s Dying Industry

September 6th, 2021

Report On Failed Mental Health Programs

A new resource on failed psychiatric treatment programs serves as advice to policymakers being asked to support and fund a resurgence of psychedelic drug therapies when in the sixties these caused harm and violence in the community.

The mental health watchdog Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) has launched its online report and resource about failed mental health programs which are impacting psychiatric policy today. The release of Why Psychiatry Sees Itself as a Dying Industry—A Resource on Its Failures and Critics coincides with California legislators considering passing a law that will legalize possession of psychedelic hallucinogens and promote researching the mind-altering chemicals as treatment for “mental illness.”

A petition that CCHR’s Sacramento chapter posted online opposes this, joining many others concerned about resurrecting psychedelics that were a past failed psychiatric experiment. In California, LSD was also linked to the horrific Charles Manson murders in the 1960s.

It was the street use of and research into LSD in the 60s and 70s that led to Congress shutting down all LSD mind-control research in 1977.

CCHR says resurrecting LSD—a failed and dangerous therapy—to replace current failed treatments shows a fundamental disregard for human life because of the drugs’ mind-altering properties, also borne out by the psychiatric-intelligence community’s past research of LSD, psilocybin and amphetamines. As extensively researched in Tom O’Neill’s book, Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties, LSD helped create the mindset of the Charles Manson Family who, after many months of use of the drug, gruesomely murdered nine-month pregnant actress, Sharon Tate and four others in California August 1969.

CCHR’s report highlights similar failed mental treatment programs using a hefty body of evidence showing the lack of science behind psychiatry’s diagnostic system that led to unworkable and potentially damaging treatments, which includes psychedelics. United Nations Special Rapporteur and psychiatrist Dainius P?ras, M.D., recently noted that with psychiatry’s reliance upon biomedical interventions, we shouldn’t be surprised that “global psychiatry is facing a crisis, which to a large extent is a moral crisis, or a crisis of values.”

In October 2020, the World Psychiatric Association issued a Position Statement about improving mental health care, because widespread coercion in psychiatry violates patients’ “rights to liberty; autonomy; freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment….”

CCHR says that when treatments fail and psychotropic drug patents run out, there are usually efforts to resurrect old treatments as “new miracles,” such as electroshock treatment and now psychedelics. The reason for the new market is there’s profit to be made. The psychedelic “therapy” industry is predicted to reach $7 billion by 2027.

CCHR, which was established in 1969, is responsible for over 190 laws that inform and protect consumers about mental health treatment risks. It suggests policymakers and appropriations committees apprise themselves of past psychedelic drug research risks, read CCHR’s report to prevent funding programs that have failed and involve dangerous practices, and base reforms on CCHR’s Mental Health Declaration of Human Rights.

Psychiatry an Industry of Death
Psychiatry an Industry of Death

Putting Profit Above Children’s Lives

August 30th, 2021

The child mental health industry is a system that puts profit above children’s lives, preying on unsuspecting parents and taking advantage of disadvantaged children, such as those covered under Medicaid (state and federal health coverage for lower income families and those with disabilities). It is rife with abuse, yet this hugely profitable industry is rarely held to account for its rampant abuse of our most vulnerable—children.

It is an industry which milks the foster care system for huge profit, where children are four times more likely to be given mind-altering psychotropic drugs than non-foster care children, and much more likely to be prescribed cocktails of these drugs.

It is an industry that electroshocks children including babies, using state funds for lower income families (Medicaid).

It is a business masquerading as healthcare which sells parents and legislators on the idea of helping troubled children. Yet this help is more often simply incarcerating children in behavioral schools or psychiatric wards, where treatment consists of psychiatric drug cocktails, degradation, solitary confinement, and brutal restraint procedures which have killed children. And all of this is done under the guise of helping children.

The abuse is not limited to one chain of psychiatric facilities or one mode of psychiatric behavioral “treatment.” This abuse in the child mental health industry is systemic—yet unknown to most of the public.

For example: Information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reveals that 19 states are currently administering electroshock to children, with 7 of those states electroshocking children aged 0-5 years old. These are all children being electroshocked while psychiatrists and facilities bill Medicaid for their “treatment.”

Yet another example — Only one month after the world witnessed the tragic death of George Floyd, unable to breathe as he was physically restrained and held to the ground, 16-year-old Cornelius Frederick, an African American, was physically restrained at Sequel Youth & Family Services’ facility in Michigan, and also cried out, “I can’t breathe!” before passing out. Thirty hours later, on May 1, 2020, he was dead. Cornelius had gone into cardiac arrest while being restrained by Lakeside Academy staff, a residential psychiatric facility that treated foster care and other kids with behavioral issues. A witness to Cornelius’s restraint said, “[T]his kid threw a sandwich. He was being unruly and they couldn’t control him. So, four guys…the size of rugby players tackled him.”

Cornelius is not alone; countless children have suffocated and died after being subjected to deadly restraints within these psychiatric facilities and behavioral treatment centers.

This is not healthcare. This is child abuse. And it is just the tip of the iceberg.

Please help us to support the cause and end the abuse of children in the psychiatric industry. We are making incredible progress, as many of the psychiatric facilities abusing these children are now under investigation. And many state legislators want to put an end to this abuse. There is more to be done, and so we ask you to continue to support our Fight For Kids campaign. Please support the cause and also watch our latest video here.

For more information, visit our Child Psychiatric Treatment page here.

Childhood Is Not A Mental Disorder

Mental Health vs Mental Illness

August 23rd, 2021

We’ve heard a lot recently about Mental Health. The Olympics have brought to light the stresses of competition, grueling routines and being under constant public pressure and expectations to win—and carping criticism from spectators if the athlete fails to meet those expectations. It stands to reason that having a solid mental health outlook is a vital part of such challenges. And that it can falter.

We applaud all the athletes for not just their dedication and courage but also their service to sport and their respective countries.

While CCHR exposes psychiatric abuse, ultimately this is so that people can achieve true mental health—a positive outlook both emotionally and in thoughts and actions that enables a better life, not hampered by physically damaging “treatments.”

“Mental health,” as viewed in the psychiatric industry is seen as mental “illness:” using descriptive names based on biased observation to redefine not doing well mentally as a physical disease—with not a single medical test to confirm this. This often leads to the use of physically damaging treatments, but no cures. It is important to differentiate between psychiatry’s definition of “mental disorder” and what is mental health, and not confuse the two.

Rest assured, psychiatrists and psychologists will abuse the current mental health awareness to slip in the need for biochemical “solutions.” Like a Johns Hopkins university psychologist who claims a “really well-structured psychedelic” drug session is “equal to several years of ordinary psychotherapy.”

CCHR has always warned that psychiatry’s power rests on force and that true informed consent does not exist in the mental health system when it fails to inform those needing help that a mental disorder diagnosis is not based on scientific tests and that drugs and electroshock given in the absence of fully informed consent constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Recent United Nations and World Health Organization (WHO) reports agree—vindicating what CCHR has been fighting for for over 50 years!

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) issued a statement acknowledging the international outrage over psychiatric coercion and called for alternatives to psych drugs and restraint use.

A former United Nations Special Rapporteur on health, Dr. Dainius P?ras, recently was interviewed for Psychiatric Times in the U.S. and condemned coercive psychiatry. He said that psych diagnoses perpetuate discrimination; biological psychiatry hasn’t worked and equated it with “totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.” He called for the “elimination of all forced psychiatric confinement and treatment.”

Relevant to the recent awareness about mental health, Dr. P?ras also said: “There is now unequivocal evidence of the failures of a system that relies too heavily on the biomedical model,” including psychotropic drugs.

Then the WHO issued a new guideline for mental health treatment in July, attacking “coercive psychiatry” as “pervasive” and that it must change. It supported a ban on “forced hospitalization and forced treatment,” including drugs and electroshock.

It is important for people to know the differences between mental health and psychiatric “disease,” and to be informed of the failures of this profession in ensuring mental health is achieved as opposed to creating mental ill-health.

Failed Mental Health Programs

A new major resource from CCHR International answers questions about why is psychiatry so controversial? Why do critics think psychiatry creates unhappiness, rather than curing it? How is it that psychiatric treatment causes harm? Why is that other doctors don’t think psychiatrists are “real doctors”? Why are psychiatrists their own worst enemies, while blaming their failures on both their patients and an “anti-psychiatry” movement that they, in fact, started?

Download and read this new publication, “Why Psychiatry Sees Itself as a Dying Industry  A Resource on its Failures and Critics.”

Support CCHR

Your support in helping CCHR would mean a great deal. Your help, as always, is an integral part of our success in raising awareness and being able to deliver the facts. Please donate to support the cause.

Volunteer help is also appreciated.

California Plan To Legalize Psychedelics

August 16th, 2021

California policy makers are being asked to support the resurgence of a past failed and dangerous psychiatric-psychedelic drug practice that went from a research lab to the couch to the streets, to the CIA and now back again to the lab, to again put patients at risk.

California legislators are considering passing a law, SB 519 that will legalize possession of psychedelic drugs and promote researching the mind-altering chemicals as treatment for “mental illness.”

This bill would make lawful the possession for personal use of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine, mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA).

It stands to reason that for the market to reappear there’s profit to be made. The psychedelic “therapy” industry is predicted to reach $7 billion by 2027. Laws like the proposed California one will help make that target sooner, along with all the horrific side effects of these harmful and addictive drugs.

A petition that Citizens Commission on Human Rights Sacramento posted online opposes the bill, joining many others who disagree with it. CCHR International, the headquarters of which are based in Los Angeles, said the bill is part of a growing concern that psychiatrists’ failure to effectively treat substance abuse, addiction and mental problems can be helped by past failed “therapies.” The bill is dangerous to people’s mental health, given the known risks of these drugs.

Such research being resurrected today demonstrates a fundamental disregard for human life because of the drugs’ mind-altering properties, also borne out by the psychiatric-intelligence community’s past research of LSD, psilocybin and amphetamines.

CCHR suggests California legislators apprise themselves of past psychedelic drug research risks and prevent a re-occurrence of this failed and dangerous practice.

Britney Spears’ Conservatorship Challenge

August 9th, 2021

[Condensed from Jan Eastgate, President, CCHR International]

The pop icon’s traumatic story of being held captive by a punitive guardianship law, with abusive psychiatric evaluations and forced mood-altering drugs, has prompted legislators to act. But proposed laws, while applaudable, fall short on needed protections.

Conservatorships, which place guardians over the control of a person’s life when deemed incompetent, are often based on a subjective psychiatric evaluation. As such, while it is very easy for someone to be placed under a conservatorship order because of a psychiatric diagnosis, it’s very hard to get out of one. The diagnosis is stigmatizing and is hard to disprove because of its subjectivity. It can also expand over the years, especially where there may be deterioration in the individual from powerful psychotropic drugs prescribed to them.

The late professor of psychiatry and co-founder of Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) Dr. Thomas Szasz, warned against state intervention that allows psychiatry to circumvent individual and constitutional rights. He called it “The Therapeutic State,” where the state gives psychiatry the power to be an institution of social control. “When I use the term therapeutic state, I use it ironically, it’s therapeutic for the people who are doing the locking up, who are doing the therapy, it’s not therapeutic for the victims, for the patients,” Szasz said. “The therapeutic state seeks to remedy personal and social problems defined as diseases; its beneficiaries are often ‘helped’ against their will; it is a totalitarian state, governed by the rule of therapeutic discretion.”

CCHR asks legislators to review the World Health Organization’s recent guideline for protections of people with mental health disabilities. WHO recommends countries “repeal guardianship and other substitute decision-making legislation and replace it with laws that recognize legal capacity and promote supported decision-making, including the use of advance plans [living wills] and best interpretation of will and preference.”

In Britney’s case, the conservatorship was put into place in 2008, while she struggled with her mental health, and gave her father broad control over her life and finances. Britney obtained a court order recently to reinforce her inherent right to obtain the legal counsel of her choice. Her new attorney must petition the court to have the current conservatorship removed.

Britney pleaded that the conservatorship over her affairs has made her feel “demoralized and enslaved.” She has been subjected to numerous psychiatric evaluations and medications, stating: “I want to end the conservatorship without being evaluated,” she said. The system in place is “abusive,” Britney said in court, accusing her conservators of forcing her to take mood-stabilizing drugs and perform against her will.

Britney also told the court that her previous psychiatrist (who died in 2019) was abusive in his treatment of her. She alleged that she was subjected to lengthy psychological evaluations, forced into a $60,000-a-month inpatient facility and told that she wouldn’t be able to see her children if she failed to comply. “To be totally honest with you, when [the doctor] passed away, I got on my knees and thanked God,” she said. She was then forced to see a therapist three days a week. Paparazzi humiliated her by taking photos of her crying after the emotional sessions. She asked the judge last month to be allowed to be part of her own care plan.

NBC News reported that allegations of abusive psychiatrists in conservatorships are not uncommon. Doctors are asked to file capacity declarations with the court which form about 75 percent of how judges base their decisions to keep someone under court-ordered guardianship.

The WHO’s “Guidance on community mental health services: Promoting person-centered and rights-based approaches” released in June 2021, is very clear about abuse in the mental health system: “Many people with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities are denied the right to exercise their legal capacity; that is, the right to make decisions for oneself and to have those decisions respected by others. Based on stigmatizing assumptions about their status – that their decisions are unreasonable or bring negative consequences, or that their decision-making skills are deficient, or that they cannot understand and make decisions for themselves or communicate their will and preferences – it has become acceptable in services in countries throughout the world, for others to step in and make decisions for people with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities. In many countries, this is implemented through schemes like guardianship, supervision and surrogacy, and is legitimized by laws and practices.”

As an organization that has exposed abuses in the mental health industry for more than fifty years, CCHR has definitely come across unscrupulous guardians that have been able to secure the help of psychiatrists to maintain control over an individual, especially their finances. The diagnostic aspect of conservatorship needs closer scrutiny.

State laws need to ensure that someone who is subject to a psychiatric evaluation also has freedom of choice and the right to obtain a second medical—as opposed to a psychiatric—opinion. Contact your state legislators and express your viewpoint about this.

The WHO guidelines are clear about protecting individual rights to choose. It also recommends people sign a Living Will to express their treatment and guardianship preferences should their liberty be threatened by competency issues.

Psychiatrists Redefine “Recovery”

August 2nd, 2021

Because psychiatry doesn’t work, psychiatrists have had to redefine the idea of “recovery” to ensure their own survival.

The lexicon of psychiatry engenders a false view of the human condition. When such words are used, one should be warned that psychiatry borrows from the language of medicine to look legitimate, but this is only to disguise its utter lack of claim to any authority. An example is the term “mental illness,” a fraudulent usage that implies a medical condition, when psychiatrists know that there is no valid medical, clinical test for any psychiatric diagnosis.

Would you go to a practitioner to treat an illness if you knew that practitioner couldn’t cure that illness? Likely not.

Such is the case with psychiatry – their treatments are not cures. Psychiatric drugs are more akin to over-the-counter cold remedies. They seek to minimize the symptoms of the so called “illness” without ever addressing its cause.

For psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies, long term treatment of symptoms is far more profitable than a cure. After all, a person with an infection can be cured in very short order with a small regimen of relatively inexpensive antibiotic medications. A person taking expensive new generation antidepressants is a long term customer and far more profitable.

According to the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (Final Report July 22, 2003), “The discovery of effective treatments using medications currently on the market is also encouraging. However, since these medications are treatments and not cures, some individuals with chronic illnesses, including children, are expected to use these medications over an extended period of time.”

So, psychiatry has had a problem. How do you attract patients if you can’t cure them? The solution to this problem is Public Relations (PR), a careful selection of words and the redefinition of the concept of “recovery”.

Psychiatric front groups openly promote that mental trauma is “treatable” but will never say that it is curable.

Psychiatric proponents believe that people don’t seek psychiatric care because of their negative attitudes about mental trauma and treatments. One of the main negative attitudes is that psychiatric disorders are not curable. To counter public fear and negative attitudes the psychiatric PR machines heavily promote the idea of “recovery”.

We think it is important that you know exactly what psychiatrists mean when they say, “recovery”.

Traditional (allopathic) medical science says, “You’re ill. There is a pathogen or source of your illness. By identifying the cause of the illness we will give you treatment (e.g. medicine or surgery) to eliminate the illness at its source and you will no longer be ill.”

Psychiatry says “You’re ill. We don’t know what causes “mental illness”. We can randomly give you some medications which are known to minimize your symptoms in some people, some of the time. Although we cannot cure your condition there is some hope that over time with adherence to your medication that you may feel not as bad. When you have learned to come to terms with your condition, accept it and function in life despite it, we will consider that you have recovered.”

According to A. Kathryn Power, former Director for the Center for Mental Health Services in the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Recovery does not necessarily mean a cure. Recovery is a process, sometimes lifelong, through which a person achieves independence, self-esteem, and a meaningful life in the community.”

Certainly no one will disagree that people should have hope, independence, self-esteem, and a meaningful life in the community. We would wish these things for anyone. But by changing the very nature of the word “recovery” from “cured” to “has hope and is able to live despite a mental condition” we have moved psychiatry even farther away from a science and into the realm of a philosophy or even a religion. One could get the idea of a mental health consumer struggling his whole life to achieve this mythical state called, “recovery”.

You may see a number of public service announcements in the media showing mental health consumers who have “recovered.” Recognize them for what they are. They have not been cured. It’s debatable if they were even ill in the first place. They are however, life-long customers of the psychiatric industry and followers of the new religion of “recovery”.

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.

Contact your local, state and national officials and tell them what you think about this.

Surprise, Another New Antipsychotic Drug

July 26th, 2021

Cerevel Therapeutics announced June 29, 2021 the “CVL-231 Phase 1b Clinical Trial Results” for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. They say the trial participants had statistically significant scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) compared to placebo.

CVL-231 is a muscarinic M4-selective Positive Allosteric Modulator. While that’s quite a mouthful, it basically means that it is supposed to reduce dopamine neurotransmitter activity in the brain.

The purpose of this new antipsychotic drug is the same as other dopamine-related antipsychotic drugs, but the emphasis with this drug is on reducing the side effects such as headaches, nausea, gastrointestinal upsets, exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, and debilitating movement disorders (e.g. akathisia, dyskinesia.)

They still don’t have a real clue about why messing with dopamine has any relationship to psychotic behavior, and as we’ve said before messing with neurotransmitters is playing Russian Roulette with your brain.

The PANSS Scale is used for assessing the severity of psychotic symptoms. The patient is rated by the opinion of an interviewer during a 45-minute interview covering 30 items about the patient’s symptoms on a scale of 1 (absent) to 7 (extreme).

The psychiatrist’s problem with side effects is that patients often stop taking the drugs because of the painful side effects and they relapse. The drugs don’t actually cure anything, they just temporarily relieve the pressure that an underlying problem may be causing, by breaking into the routine rhythmic flows and activities of the nervous system. Once the drug has worn off the original problem remains, and the body is worse off from the nerve damage.

Any medical doctor who takes the time to conduct a thorough physical examination of a child or adult exhibiting signs of what a psychiatrist fraudulently calls “schizophrenia” can find undiagnosed, untreated physical conditions. The correct action on a seriously mentally disturbed person is a full, searching clinical examination by a competent non-psychiatric medical doctor to discover and treat the true cause of the problem.

CCHR’s cofounder the late Professor Thomas Szasz stated that “schizophrenia is defined so vaguely that, in actuality, it is a term often applied to almost any kind of behavior of which the speaker disapproves.”

Today, psychiatry clings tenaciously to antipsychotics as the treatment for “schizophrenia,” despite their proven risks and studies which show that when patients stop taking these drugs, they improve.

No one denies that people can have difficult problems in their lives, that at times they can be mentally unstable, subject to unreasonable depression, anxiety or panic. Mental health care is therefore both valid and necessary. However, the emphasis must be on workable mental healing methods that improve and strengthen individuals and thereby society by restoring people to personal strength, ability, competence, confidence, stability, responsibility and spiritual well–being. Psychiatric drugs and psychiatric treatments are not workable.

Any person falsely diagnosed as mentally disordered which results in treatment that harms them should file a complaint with the police and professional licensing bodies and have this investigated. They should seek legal advice about filing a civil suit against any offending psychiatrist and his or her hospital, associations and teaching institutions seeking compensation.

Side Effects

Something is Rotten in Canton

July 19th, 2021

Let’s Electroshock Children Who Misbehave

In March of 2020 the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) banned the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Canton, Massachusetts from using electric shock devices on their autistic and other mentally troubled children. In July of 2021 a federal appeals court removed the ban. The school is once again electro shocking about 60 students a day.

The school administers electric skin shocks in a form of “aversion therapy” for aggressive or self-injurious behavior. School staff trigger a shock to a child by using a remote control that zaps children with electric current when they misbehave. The school calls this a “medical device.” Since 1987 a state court must determine that such forced treatment is appropriate.

This electrical stimulation device delivers a powerful and painful electric shock to the wearer’s skin in an effort to punish. This school is the only facility in the country that uses coercive electric shock therapy to “treat” individuals who severely self-injure or are aggressive.

The FDA finally recognized in March 2020 (after 20 years) that these devices “present substantial psychological and physical risks and, in fact, can worsen underlying symptoms—while leading to heightened anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Unfortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned the FDA ban on July 6, 2021, stating that the ban was a regulation of the practice of medicine, which is outside the FDA’s area of authority.

The History of Abuse

In April 2016, the FDA first proposed banning electrical stimulation devices for self-injurious or aggressive behavior.

In 2018, the media reported that the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center would be allowed to continue administering electric shocks to its special needs students after a judge ruled the procedure conformed to the “accepted standard of care,” in spite of the practice being condemned by disability rights groups and the ACLU.

On December 3, 2018, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of The Organization of American States published a Precautionary Measure calling for the school to immediately cease electroshocking special needs children as a disciplinary measure.

In March 2020 the FDA finally determined that the devices presented a substantial and unreasonable risk to self-injurious and aggressive patients, justifying banning the devices for that purpose.

The Appeals Court

The appeals court examined the question, “Does the FDA have legal authority to ban an otherwise legal device from a particular use?”

The court concluded that current law prohibits the FDA from regulating the practice of medicine, and therefore it vacated the FDA’s rule banning electrical stimulation devices for self-injurious and aggressive behavior. There was one dissenting opinion; the Chief Judge found in favor of the FDA. [Read the full court opinion here.]

Of course, the lie in the argument is that electro shocking children is “practicing medicine.” In fact it is torture, not medicine.

The Case Against Torture

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has remarked that Electro Convulsive Treatment (ECT) amounts to torture. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also stated that there are no indications for the use of ECT on minors. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) calls for a ban on “forced treatment.”

Granted that ECT is more severe than electric skin shocks, just have someone force you to stick your finger into an electric wall socket and tell us that this is not torture.

Disguising social control as medical treatment is a deceit which conceals an abuse.” This is a de facto abuse of power, as it seeks to limit and control the individual instead of helping the individual to get better and improve their conditions in life.

In the United Nations July 24, 2018 Annual Report of the High Commissioner “Mental health and human rights,” it states, “States should ensure that all health care and services, including all mental health care and services, are based on the free and informed consent of the individual concerned, and that legal provisions and policies permitting the use of coercion and forced interventions, including involuntary hospitalization and institutionalization, the use of restraints, psychosurgery, forced medication, and other forced measures aimed at correcting or fixing an actual or perceived impairment, including those allowing for consent or authorization by a third party, are repealed. States should reframe and recognize these practices as constituting torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and as amounting to discrimination against users of mental health services, persons with mental health conditions and persons with psychosocial disabilities.”

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formally adopted on December 10, 1948 states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

CCHR’s own Mental Health Declaration of Human Rights, written in 1969, states these rights, among others:
“The right to refuse any treatment the patient considers harmful.”
“No person shall be given psychiatric or psychological treatment against his or her will.”

Sign the petition to ban electroshock here.