Take Action – Missouri Legislature – Abolish ECT on Children

Periodically we let you know the progress of various proposed legislation making its way through the Missouri General Assembly and suggest ways for you to contribute your viewpoint to your state Representative and state Senator.

The Missouri General Assembly is the state legislature of the State of Missouri and is composed of two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate. The General Assembly is responsible for creating laws for governing the State of Missouri. The Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo) are electronically available on this site:  http://revisor.mo.gov/.

You can find your Representative and Senator, and their contact information, by entering your 9-digit zip code here.

We’d like you to write your legislators about the bill discussed below. Please write from your viewpoint as an individual or professional, and not as a representative of any organization. Let us know the details and any responses you get. The full text of this bill can be found here.

Check out our handy discussion about How to write to a legislator.

If you are not a voting resident of Missouri, you can find out about legislation in your own state and write your own state legislators; also, we are looking for volunteers to monitor legislation in Missouri and the states surrounding Missouri — let us know if you’d like to help out.

Very Good Bill
This bill supports human rights, particularly those of children. Please express your support and opinion about this to your Missouri State Representative.

HB1451 – House Bill 1451 – sponsored by Representative Karla May (Democrat, District 84, St. Louis City).

This bill prohibits the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) on children under 16 years of age. Any person or mental health facility that administers electroconvulsive therapy to someone under 16 years of age will be fined up to $100,000 or imprisoned for two years, or both, and will be liable for compensation to the person that was given the electroconvulsive therapy.

What can we say? You are being hoodwinked by a small group of psychiatric industry special interests who claim that electroshock is good for you. About time to get this one passed! Write your legislators now! Stick your finger in an electric socket if you think ECT is good for anyone!

In fact, we just heard about a case in Missouri where a 5-year-old child was given electroshock. This is unconscionable, and a no-brainer to pass into law.

When we speak with people about electroshock, the typical response is, “We didn’t know that was still being done.” In fact, ECT is a huge money-maker for psychiatry in Missouri, because the damage it does to the brain makes a patient for life. Barbaric practices like shock treatment need to be eradicated.

Despite modern ECT being promoted as “new and improved,” there is much evidence that contradicts this claim. California, Colorado, Tennessee and Texas have already banned the use of ECT on those aged 0-12 and 0-16. The Western Australian government banned the use of ECT on those younger than 14, with criminal penalties if this is violated. ECT should never be used on children.

In light of the fact that the FDA admits ECT can cause cardiovascular complications, memory loss, cognitive impairment, brain damage and death and that psychiatrists admit they do not know how ECT “works,” we call upon the Missouri legislature to pass HB1451 into law this session.

Mental Health “Care” Coming to Your Community

News articles extolling “Community Mental Health” continue to be published across the United States and abroad. We thought you should know more about this.

These articles generally discuss funding, either the lack or availability of public funding, for various mental health care programs — such as Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC), police Crisis Intervention Teams, Suicide Programs, Veterans Programs, Mental Health Courts, Emergency Management or Crisis Counseling, Violence Prevention, School Safety, or other public/private ventures in the mental health care industry. They also generally complain about the lack of a sufficient number of psychiatrists or psychologists in relation to the target population. Let us help put the record straight about this.

History of CMHC

In 1955, a five-year inquiry by the U.S. Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health recommended replacing psychiatric institutions with Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs). According to Henry A. Foley, Ph.D., and Steven S. Sharfstein, M.D., authors of Madness in Government, “Psychiatrists gave the impression to elected officials that cures were the rule, not the exception,” a claim that the psychiatric industry could not and still cannot substantiate.

The advent of Community Mental Health psychiatric programs in the 1960s would not have been possible without the development and use of neuroleptic drugs, also known as antipsychotics, for mentally disturbed individuals. Neuroleptic is from Greek, meaning “nerve seizing”, reflective of how the drugs act like a chemical lobotomy.

These community facilities and programs were promoted as the solution to all institutional problems. The premise, based almost entirely on the development and use of neuroleptic drugs, was that patients could now be successfully released back into society as long as they were taking these drugs. Ongoing service would be provided through government-funded units called Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC). These centers would tend to the patients from within the community, dispensing the neuroleptics that would keep them under control. Governments would save money and individuals would improve faster. The plan was called “deinstitutionalization.”

The first generation of neuroleptics, now commonly referred to as “typical antipsychotics” or “typicals,” appeared during the 1960s. They were heavily promoted as “miracle” drugs that made it “possible for most of the mentally ill to be successfully and quickly treated in their own communities and returned to a useful place in society.”

These claims were false, as neuroleptics are now known to have devastating side effects. In an article in the American Journal of Bioethics in 2003, Vera Sharav stated, “The reality was that the therapies damaged the brain’s frontal lobes, which is the distinguishing feature of the human brain. The neuroleptic drugs used since the 1950s ‘worked’ by hindering normal brain function: they dimmed psychosis, but produced pathology often worse than the condition for which they have been prescribed — much like physical lobotomy which psychotropic drugs replaced.”

Author Peter Schrag wrote in Mind Control, by the mid-seventies enough neuroleptic drugs and antidepressants “were being prescribed outside hospitals to keep some three to four million people medicated fulltime – roughly ten times the number who, according to the [psychiatrists’] own arguments, are so crazy that they would have to be locked up in hospitals if there were no drugs.”

After a decade of the Community Mental Health program, consumer advocate Ralph Nader called it a “highly touted but failing social innovation.” It “already bears the familiar pattern of past mental health promises that were initiated amid great moral fervor, raised false hopes of imminent solutions and wound up only recapitulating the problems they were to solve.”

As for the funding of CMHCs and psychiatric outpatient clinics, the fact is that psychiatry’s budget in the United States soared from $143 million in 1969 to over $9 billion in 1997 – a more than 6,000% increase in funding, while increasing by only 10 times the number of people receiving services. The estimated costs today are over $11 billion.

If collecting these billions in inflated fees for non-workable treatments wasn’t bad enough, in 1990 a congressional committee issued a report estimating that Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs) had diverted between $40 million and $100 million to improper uses, and that a quarter of all CMHCs had so thoroughly failed to meet their obligations as to be legally subject to immediate recovery of federal funds.

Psychiatrists have consistently blamed the failure of deinstitutionalization on a lack of community mental health funding. In reality, they create the drug-induced crisis themselves and then, shamelessly, demand yet more money.

The CMHCs became legalized drug dealerships that not only supplied drugs to former mental hospital patients, but also supplied psychiatric prescriptions to individuals not suffering from “serious mental problems.” Deinstitutionalization failed and society has been struggling with the resultant homelessness and other disastrous results ever since.

Accompanying the psychiatric push for expanded community mental health programs is their demand for greater powers to involuntarily commit individuals. Psychiatrists disingenuously argue that involuntary commitment is an act of kindness, that it is cruel to leave the disturbed in a tormented state. However, such claims are based on the dual premises that 1) psychiatrists have helpful and workable treatments to begin with, and 2) psychiatrists have some expertise in diagnosing and predicting dangerousness. Both suppositions are patently false.

In spite of receiving huge increases in funding in the United States, psychiatry and psychology not only failed but managed to make things drastically worse; rates of drug abuse, suicide, illiteracy and crime continue to rise.

The real message is this: in spite of an investment of billions of dollars for psychiatric promises, the world has received nothing but presumptuous demands from psychiatric vested interests for more money.

Contact your local, state and federal authorities and legislators and demand that funding for psychiatric promises be revoked until the mental health industry can prove its effectiveness with actual cures.

“Shoot ’em up” Is No Longer Just for Westerns

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”
[with thanks to Charles Stross in The Apocalypse Codex.]

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a mental health watchdog that has investigated school and other mass shootings since the Columbine High School Shooting in 1999, warns about pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into more mental health services in response to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on Valentine’s Day.

An investigation into the shooting must include what psychotropic drugs the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, has been prescribed and the fact that he had apparently undergone “behavioral health” treatment which did nothing to prevent the murderous outcome. A 2016 Florida Department of Children and Family Services report indicated that he was regularly taking “medication” for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); these types of psychotropic drugs are known to have violence and suicide as potential side effects.

CCHR International’s investigation into school violence reveals that at least 36 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 172 wounded and 80 killed.

At least 27 international drug regulatory agency warnings have been issued on psychiatric drugs being linked to mania, violence, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and homicidal ideation (thoughts or fantasies of homicide that can be planned).

Cruz, 19, charged over the Parkland, Florida shooting, is a prime example of the failure of the mental health system. Expecting better mental health treatment to solve these problems is a forlorn hope, since it promises something that has not and cannot be delivered.

Pouring more funds into a mental health system that keeps failing and continues to use “treatments” that may induce violent and suicidal behavior in a percentage of those taking them, is a recipe for future disaster. Recognize that the repeated violence caused by psychiatric drugging of school children is neither happenstance nor coincidence, and is in fact an enemy action, and the enemy is psychiatry.

The survivors of the Parkland shooting, the families of those killed and the community at large deserves answers and accountability. CCHR is calling on families with knowledge of a loved one who has experienced treatment abuse and for whistleblowers who have concerns about any behavioral facility to contact CCHR by reporting the abuse here.

For more information read this news release.

The Russians Are Coming? No, They Never Left!

In 1966 the movie “The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!” dramatized the Cold War as a plot to make the world die laughing.

We had to laugh about it, because the reality of Soviet infiltration to topple America was too serious to confront.

In fact, as current events are unfolding, the Russians are apparently still at it — attempting to infiltrate via fake news and social media and destabilize American society for their own evil purposes. But frankly, this is nothing new; they’ve been at it since communism began around 1844, in one form or another.

For a communistic state to exist, slaves to the state need to exist. The marriage of psychiatry with communist regimes has spanned countries across the globe as an effective means to deal with political dissension by making people into slaves. They have been using psychiatry ever since as a significant part of the plot.

Wilhelm Wundt of Leipzig University, who founded “experimental psychology” in 1879, declared that man is an animal with no soul, claiming that thought was merely the result of brain activity — a false premise that has remained the basis of psychiatry until this day. In 1884, Russian psychologist and physiologist Ivan Pavlov and his countryman Vladimir Bekhterev studied under Wundt. They later developed what they called “conditioned reflex” which laid the groundwork for much of behavioral psychology used in schools today. What is not well known is that Pavlov performed the same type of experimentation on children to see if humans could be conditioned that way, too.

The 1920’s Russian Revolutionary Communistic plan for world domination as originally conceived used psychiatry as a weapon designed to undermine the social fabric of the target country. Using psychiatrists trained as agents provocateurs that were sent in by the KGB (Soviet Secret Police), the Communists of Russia controlled a vast empire. Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria (1899-1953), the founder of the KGB, using his crude and brutal methodology of beating a person half to death in his version of brainwashing, created a feared and dangerous spy network. Eventually surer techniques were stolen from the American intelligence services and then taught at the Lenin University in Moscow. It has been estimated that 80 million people have died as a result of coercive psychiatry in Russia.

Here are some relevant quotes from BRAIN-WASHING – A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics (Charles Stickley, 1955; from Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria). Click here to download and read this manual. You have to know what the enemy is up to in order to fight back against it.

“PSYCHOPOLITICS—the art and science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses, and the effecting of the conquest of enemy nations through ‘mental healing’.”

“To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil.”

“You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of ‘psychology’.”

“With the institutions for the insane you have in your country prisons which can hold a million persons and can hold them without civil rights or any hope of freedom. And upon these people can be practiced shock and surgery so that never again will they draw a sane breath. You must make these treatments common and accepted. And you must sweep aside any treatment or any group of persons seeking to treat by effective means.”

“Entirely by bringing about public conviction that the sanity of a person is in question, it is possible to discount and eradicate all of the goals and activities of that person. By demonstrating the insanity of a group, or even a government, it is possible, then, to cause its people to disavow it. By magnifying the general human reaction to insanity, through keeping the subject of insanity itself forever before the public eye, and then, by utilizing this reaction by causing a revulsion on the part of a populace against its leader or leaders, it is possible to stop any government or movement.”

“Exercises in sexual attack on patients should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative to demonstrate the inability of the patient under pain-drug hypnosis to recall the attack, while indoctrinating a lust for further sexual activity on the part of the patient.”

“Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics on the broad field. Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices, and national heroes must be systematically carried out.”

“Mental health organizations must carefully delete from their ranks anyone actually proficient in the handling or treatment of mental health.”

“The psychopolitical operative should also spare no expense in smashing out of existence, by whatever means, any actual healing group… .”

“Should any whisper, or pamphlet, against psychopolitical activities be published, it should be laughed into scorn, branded an immediate hoax, and its perpetrator or publisher should be, at the first opportunity, branded as insane, and by the use of drugs the insanity should be confirmed.”

“By various means, a public must be convinced, at least, that insanity can only be met by shock, torture, deprivation, defamation, discreditation, violence, maiming, death, punishment in all its forms. The society, at the same time, must be educated into the belief of increasing insanity within its ranks. This creates an emergency, and places the psychopolitician in a saviour role, and places him, at length, in charge of the society.”

“The psychopolitician has his reward in the nearly unlimited control of populaces, in the uninhibited exercise of passion, and the glory of Communist conquest over the stupidity of the enemies of the People.”

Vraylar to the Vrescue

We are now seeing TV ads for Vraylar (generic cariprazine) for “manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder.” An atypical antipsychotic, it alters levels of dopamine and serotonin in the brain. Vraylar was first approved by the FDA to treat schizophrenia in 2015. It can be compared to the antipsychotic risperidone, which is now available as a generic and thus not as expensive as the newer drug Vraylar. They say cariprazine is “less risky” than risperidone, but we think it was approved because it is more expensive.

Hungarian drugmaker Gedeon Richter, the developer of the drug, licensed it to the Dublin pharmaceutical company Allergan and receives royalties on its sales. It cost about $400 million to develop, and its projected income at the time was $300 million per year. Allergan’s Vraylar revenue for 2017 was $287.8 million. A month’s supply for one person costs approximately $1,050 (depending on dosage.)

The exact way Vraylar is supposed to work is totally unknown. It is another example of the debunked medical model of psychiatry which fraudulently supposes that messing with the levels of neurotransmitters in the brain can help. The prevailing psychiatric theory is that mental disorders result from a chemical imbalance in the brain; however, there is no biological or other evidence to prove this.

Basically, psychiatrists gave it in clinical trials to a bunch of people with mental disturbances and performed extensive statistical analyses to “prove” that symptoms of mental distress were less severe while taking the drug than while taking a placebo; while at the same time recording, but discounting, all the adverse reactions.

The most common side effects during clinical tests were uncontrolled movements of the face and body (tardive dyskinesia), muscle stiffness, indigestion, vomiting, sleepiness, and restlessness (akathisia). Other possible side effects are stroke, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, falls, seizures, agitation, anxiety — basically most of the adverse reactions we’ve come to associate with similar psychotropic drugs. This particular formulation stays in the body for weeks even after you stop taking it, so that side effects may occur long after you start or stop taking it.

During clinical trials, 12% of the patients who received Vraylar for a diagnosis of bipolar I discontinued treatment due to an adverse reaction. They say that the drug is not habit-forming, but it has withdrawal symptoms. The trials did not run long enough to actually test for physical addiction, although withdrawal symptoms were reported in newborns whose mothers were exposed to it during the third trimester of pregnancy. Also, the drug carries a black box warning that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis are at an increased risk of death, just like any other atypical antipsychotic.

“Bipolar I disorder” used to be called “manic-depressive”. All it means is that a person roller-coasters — sometimes being up and other times being down. Bipolar disorder is characterized by unusual shifts in a person’s mood, energy and ability to function. Its symptoms are severe mood swings from one extreme of overly high or irritable (mania) to sad and hopeless (depression), then back again. In the 1800s, bipolar was known as manic depression, a term invented by German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin. In 1953, another German psychiatrist, Karl Kleist coined the term “bipolar.” There is no objective clinical medical test for the condition.

Psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia and bipolar is complicated by high rates of relapse, indicating that the treatments do not really work. The failures to adequately treat bipolar apparently caused the psychiatric industry to split up the diagnosis into bipolar I and bipolar II, where bipolar II means that the individual has not experienced a full manic episode, just an elevated state of irritable mood that is less severe than a full manic episode. It’s splitting a hair that is completely irrelevant to anything except which drug to prescribe.

An estrogen imbalance, hypoglycemia (abnormal decrease in blood sugar), allergies, caffeine sensitivity, thyroid problems, vitamin B deficiencies, stress, and excessive copper in the body can all cause the symptoms fraudulently labeled as  “bipolar disorder.”

“Schizophrenia,” “bipolar,” and all other psychiatric labels have only one purpose: to make psychiatry millions in insurance reimbursement, government funds and profits from drug sales. If you are told that a psychiatric condition is due to a brain-biochemical imbalance, ask to see the test results.

The global bipolar drug market is growing, possibly due to increasing stress in life. For information about how stress can cause someone to roller-coaster, see our blog here. Click here for more information about bipolar, and here for more information about schizophrenia.

Smoking is So Last Year

“Given the disproportionate burden of tobacco health harms in psychiatric patients, e-cigarettes are being considered as a potential tool for harm reduction.”

E-cigs are battery-powered devices that typically contain nicotine, flavorings, and other chemicals. The liquid is heated into an aerosol that the user inhales. The use of an electronic cigarette is colloquially called “vaping” as a contraction of the inhaled “vapor”. More than 2 million middle and high school students were current users of e-cigarettes in 2016. While E-cigs are not tobacco, the fact that they generally contain nicotine means that they are often considered as tobacco products. In fact, as of 2016 the FDA considers “Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems” as regulated tobacco products, although the deadline for regulatory compliance has been extended.

Within an 18-month tobacco-treatment clinical trial with smokers with serious mental illness over a five-year period, electronic cigarette use by those recruited for the trial increased over time, from 0% in 2009 to 25% in 2013. From this data the authors concluded that serious study should be given to the use of e-cigs as a psychiatric treatment for smoking cessation and/or mental disorders.
[“E-Cigarette Use among Smokers with Serious Mental Illness“, Judith J. Prochaska & Rachel A. Grana, 11/24/2014]

Psychiatric “best practices” recommend that psychiatrists assess tobacco use at every patient visit, since tobacco addiction is covered in the DSM-V under eight separate items, and disorders related to inhalant use have 33 entries. Therefore, the psychiatric industry considers that smoking cessation therapies are their territory, which now extends into vaping.

The DSM considers that addiction is a mental illness. It is not a mental illness and cannot be fixed with psychiatric drugs. This debunked medical model of mental distress is what justifies the prescription of harmful and addictive psychiatric drugs. There is certainly such a thing as addiction and mental distress. There can be physical addiction, which requires physical detoxification; and the mental distress, resulting from a lapse of ethics and morals and not from some hokey chemical imbalance in the brain, requires its own effective treatments.

We’ve written previously about harmful psychotropic drugs being used as smoking cessation therapies. One would expect there to be new psychiatric initiatives to use these for vaping addiction, since it opens up a new class of potential [-victims-] patients for the psychiatric industry. Don’t be fooled. There are non-drug methods to stop smoking or handle other forms of addiction, including addiction to psychiatric drugs themselves. Treating substance abuse with drugs is a major policy blunder; contact your state and federal representatives and let them know you disapprove of this trend.

The White House Taking Action on Veteran Suicides

Presidential Executive Order on Supporting Our Veterans During Their Transition From Uniformed Service to Civilian Life (January 9, 2018)

Relevant quotes from the Presidential Executive Order:

“It is the policy of the United States to support the health and well-being of uniformed service members and veterans. … our Government must improve mental healthcare and access to suicide prevention resources available to veterans … Veterans, in their first year of separation from uniformed service, experience suicide rates approximately two times higher than the overall veteran suicide rate. To help prevent these tragedies, all veterans should have seamless access to high-quality mental healthcare and suicide prevention resources as they transition, with an emphasis on the 1-year period following separation.”

Mr. Trump’s order makes a wide range of mental health services available to all veterans as they transition back to civilian society.

It sounds nice; it sounds appropriate; it sounds like everyone would support it. What’s the “but?”

But, in this society at this time, “mental health services” generally means psychotropic drugs. “Psychotropic” means “acting on the mind; affecting the mental state,” meaning that that the drugs change brain function and result in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness or behavior. They don’t actually fix anything, they just suppress both good and bad feelings.

There is another “but” — these drugs also have serious adverse side effects, and three of the most troubling of these are addiction, violence and suicide.

So the preferred “treatment” for veterans’ mental health and suicide are drugs which have suicide as a side effect. Which came first? The drugs, of course.

The psychiatric industry protests that they have many services available, not just drugs. Well, let’s see —

  1. They can talk about it, which they call “cognitive-behavioral therapy” — which is when a therapist evaluates for the patient and tells them what behaviors they need to change.
  2. They can cut out part of the brain with surgery; like you’re going to let them do that to you.
  3. They can shock the brain with high-voltage electricity; and if you believe that is going to help, we’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn we know you’ll be eager to buy; and once you’ve had a course of electroshock treatments you won’t remember we told you so.
  4. They can wire your vagus nerve, which controls such things as heart rate, to send short bursts of electricity directly into the brain. Uh-huh.
  5. They can wrap a huge magnet around your head, called transcranial magnetic stimulation, and zap the brain with induced electric currents. You might as well just shoot yourself. Whoops, many veterans are already doing that.
And then there are all the other efforts to prescribe “breakthrough” drugs, since the normal psychotropic ones are so damaging — drugs like marijuana, magic mushrooms, MDMA (Ecstasy), Ketamine, etc. Talk about desperation!

What are the alternatives? What can the White House and the Veterans Administration do that would actually be effective help for veterans? If enough people tell the White House and the VA about the horrors of psychiatric treatments and the availability of workable alternatives, they might start to listen. Can you call the White House and make a comment about this?

Contact the White House at https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ and/or leave your comments at 202-456-1111. Contact the various key White House personnel mentioned in the President’s Executive Order as well, but WH musical chairs may make it difficult to nail down their names and contact information. Last we knew, here are some of the names:

Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council- Andrew Bremberg
Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council – either Paul Winfree or Lance Leggitt
Healthcare Policy- Katy Talento
Secretary of Defense – Gen. James Mattis, USMC
Secretary of Homeland Security – Kirstjen Nielsen
Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Dr. David J. Shulkin

You can reference the CCHR STL blog here for more information.

The Loneliness Epidemic

A recent Scientific American has an extensive article about loneliness.
[“Loneliness Can Be Toxic“, by Francine Russo, January 2018]

Here are some relevant quotes from this article (plus our comments):
“Loneliness is defined as perceived social isolation and the experience of being cut off from others.”

[The dictionary basically says, “the sadness of being alone,” from Middle English alone, al all + one one.]

“…researchers have been probing the nature of different types of loneliness, their biological mechanisms and their effects on mind and body.”

[Recognize here the emphasis on the discredited biological (medical) model of psychiatry.]

“…insufficient social connection … is a major public health concern”.

[Recognize here the inference of a dangerous environment.]

“Growing evidence has linked loneliness to a marked vulnerability to a host of psychological and physiological ills…”

[Recognize here the invocation of a psychological aspect plus the psychiatric medical model.]

“Part of the problem in the scientific literature is that the standard tools for measuring loneliness do not necessarily gauge the same things.”

[Recognize here the admission that psychologists don’t really understand the issue.]

“The most commonly used measure of loneliness, the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale, assesses individuals’ perceived dissatisfaction with the quality or quantity of their relationships.”

[This is a 20-item questionnaire purported to measure one’s subjective feelings of loneliness as well as feelings of social isolation. Participants rate each item on a scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (Often).]

The psychiatric billing bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) has no shortage of items that could be related to loneliness, covering pretty much all the bases — in other words, regardless of what the patient says is the matter, a diagnosis could be found here.

[The purpose of which is to be able to bill insurance for counseling or drugs for any of these diagnoses:]

“Problem related to living alone”
“Disinhibited social engagement disorder”
“Other problem related to psychosocial circumstances”
“Social (pragmatic) communication disorder”
“Social anxiety disorder (social phobia)”
“Social exclusion or rejection”
“Unspecified problem related to social environment”
“Unspecified problem related to unspecified psychosocial circumstances”
“Psychological factors affecting other medical conditions”
“Other personal history of psychological trauma”
“Unspecified personality disorder”

In 1959 a German psychoanalyst, Frieda Fromm-Reichmann, thought that loneliness might arise from premature weaning; her own severe loneliness was apparently related to her own and familial deafness. In 2012 and 2016, published research reported that loneliness was age-related. Other studies reported loneliness factors related to being married, or being employed, or relations with parents, or issues with trust, or with health or discrimination. Again, psychologists don’t really understand it, but they can sure get funds for researching whatever symptoms they think could be related to it.

Then, too, a scan through the side effects of psychotropic drugs gives one the impression that many of these adverse reactions could certainly lead to feelings of loneliness.

At first we thought it was a joke when we read that Prime Minister Theresa May appointed a Minister for Loneliness on January 17, 2018, based on a report from The Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness claiming that over 9 million people in the United Kingdom are lonely. But they are entirely serious; perhaps too serious. One suspects, however, that this is really just another drug marketing campaign diagnosing common life situations such as sadness and loneliness as “mental illness.”

The main “treatment” for symptoms of loneliness is cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is a form of psychotherapy that attempts to modify dysfunctional emotions, behaviors, and thoughts — by evaluating and challenging a person’s behaviors and getting the person to change those behaviors, often in combination with psychiatric drugs. Some recommendations are for drug treatment with allopregnanolone, a neurosteroid related to progesterone, although this is still being researched (naturally, since they don’t really understand it.)

So, what is loneliness, and how should it be treated?

Well, let’s stop explaining it in terms of symptoms and then trying to treat those individual symptoms with evaluative psychotherapy or harmful drugs. Let’s find a root cause.

The root cause of any feelings of loneliness is an absence or scarcity of communication. Communication is livingness.

There is certainly no scarcity of silence, which would be another way to describe aloneness, but silence itself is death. The answer is to provide more communication.

The American Psychological Association (APA) states that “Our mission is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.” How unfortunate it is that the APA does not actually use communication as a treatment.

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.