Patients For Life

A leading cause of death in patients diagnosed with a serious mental condition (such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression) has been preventable medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes, metabolic disorders which are typical side effects of being treated with second generation (atypical) antipsychotics.

The majority of those who screen positive for these types of metabolic disorders do not receive treatment for these medical conditions. Even worse, the majority of patients being treated with these antipsychotics are not even screened, with simple blood tests, for these side effects.

A tremendous amount of effort, lasting over at least the last 15 years, has been expended in trying to change the U.S. medical system to implement simple blood test screening protocols for patients being prescribed antipsychotics. Many reasons have been given for this reluctance to change, but the most obvious reasons were not among them — the fact that no one knows how these drugs work, that they are addictive, harmful, and are causing side effects that produce continuing income from these patients for life, a life albeit shortened by the metabolic disorders caused by the drugs.

The general attitude of the mental health care industry is that mental disorders are comorbid with metabolic disorders. This means that there is a simultaneous presence of these two chronic conditions in a patient, with little thought given to the fact that metabolic disorders can be the side effect of the drugs being given for the mental disorder. Since the drugs are addictive, harmful, and have nasty side effects, the obvious solution is to stop prescribing the drugs and use one or more of the many non-drug alternatives. This, however, would deprive the industry of one of its top money-makers.

Patients already presenting with CVD or diabetes, or who have known risk factors for these, should not even be considered as candidates for antipsychotics, and should also be screened for any other undiagnosed and untreated medical conditions which may be causing mental symptoms.

A case could be made for malpractice if blood test screening for metabolic disorders is not being performed for patients vulnerable to these diseases, especially since the medications that psychiatrists prescribe increase vulnerability to metabolic syndrome. [Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of metabolic disorders, usually including increased blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol or triglyceride levels — that occur together, increasing the risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.]

Psychiatrists should be responsible for monitoring any potential side effects associated with the drugs that they prescribe; therefore, it is negligent if monitoring is not being done.

We are seeing a huge increase in the rate of antipsychotic prescriptions among younger pediatric patients, yet the younger one is, the lower one’s chances of being monitored.

Based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), statistics are touted about near “epidemic” rates of mental illness in order to demand more government funds and sell more harmful drugs, making people “patients for life” as the drug adverse events then require more drugs to handle these harmful side effects.

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.

What is Happiness?

If you want happiness for an hour — take a nap.
If you want happiness for a day — go fishing.
If you want happiness for a year — inherit a fortune.
If you want happiness for a lifetime — help someone else.

[Chinese Proverb]

What is happiness, really? Is it “happy pills?” Mother’s little helper? Is “happiness” the opposite of “depression,” so that an anti-depressant should make one happy? Unfortunately, what anti-depressants do is actually detach one from reality; and the only happiness accrues to pharmaceutical companies who rake in $80 billion a year worldwide for psychiatric drugs.

As is usual with English words, “happiness” has more than one definition: 1) transient pleasure; 2) overcoming not unknowable obstacles toward a known goal; 3) a condition or state of well-being, contentment, pleasure; 4) joyful, cheerful, untroubled existence; 5) the reaction to having nice things happen to one.

Psychiatry, however, redefines happiness as a manic or hypomanic indication (associated with a bipolar diagnosis) which occurs in 14 separate entries in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5.)

Manic: characterized by frenetic activity or wild excitement; excitement of psychotic proportions manifested by mental and physical hyperactivity, disorganization of behavior and elevation of mood.
Hypomanic: A mild form of mania, marked by elation and hyperactivity; a mood state characterized by persistent dis-inhibition and pervasive euphoria.

“Treatment” generally includes psychotropic mood stabilizers, unless the state is a result of drug abuse or drug side effects — in which case the “treatment” may include psychotropic sedatives. All of these psychotropic drugs are addictive, mess up the central nervous system, and can have many disastrous side effects including violence and suicide.

For more information about mood stabilizers such as Lithium, Depakote (sodium valproate), Depakene (sodium valproate), Lamictal (lamotrigine), Lamictin (lamotrigine), Lamogine (lamotrigine); download and read the booklet Mood Stabilizers — the facts about the effects.

One psychologist even overtly proposed happiness as a psychiatric disorder. [From the website of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, a division of the National Institutes of Health]. One might think this was an April Fool’s joke, except that it was published in June.

Published in the Journal of Medical Ethics – J Med Ethics. 1992 Jun;18(2):94-8
“A proposal to classify happiness as a psychiatric disorder”
Richard P Bentall, Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Liverpool in the UK:

“It is proposed that happiness be classified as a psychiatric disorder and be included in future editions of the major diagnostic manuals under the new name: major affective disorder, pleasant type. In a review of the relevant literature it is shown that happiness is statistically abnormal, consists of a discrete cluster of symptoms, is associated with a range of cognitive abnormalities, and probably reflects the abnormal functioning of the central nervous system. One possible objection to this proposal remains–that happiness is not negatively valued. However, this objection is dismissed as scientifically irrelevant.”

We think we can safely say this psychologist’s attitude is a misanthropic manifestation; the DSM-5 might call it “Adult antisocial behavior”, “Antisocial personality disorder”, or maybe just “Unspecified anxiety disorder”.

It is true that a euphoric condition is often associated with certain hallucinogenic drugs. We wouldn’t actually call that “happiness”, however; and the mania associated with many psychiatric drugs is not sustainable.

What would promote happiness is an actual cure for mental distress. The psychiatric industry itself admits it has no capacity to cure. We generally take cure to mean the elimination of some unwanted condition by some effective treatment. The primary purpose of any mental health treatment must be the therapeutic care and treatment of individuals who are suffering emotional disturbance. The only effective measure of this treatment must be “patients recovering and being sent, sane, back into society as productive individuals.” This, we would call a cure.

While it is illegal for FDA-regulated products to make cure claims, there are in fact many non-drug and non-psychiatric alternatives which may prove effective in handling traumatic conditions. The trick is in finding out what is really wrong and fixing that, not just suppressing the central nervous system with drugs so that one does not feel the bad emotions.

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

Click here for the truth about psychiatric drugs.

Click here for The Way To Happiness, the first moral code based wholly on common sense, containing twenty-one basic principles that guide one to a better quality of life.

Passage of the 21st Century Cures Act

If you contacted your Senators and Representative about the dangers of the 21st Century Cures Act, thank you very much.

Unfortunately it passed — 392 to 26 in the House, and 94 to 5 in the Senate.

While some of the $6.3 Billion funded by this legislation is not controversial and may even be beneficial, a large chunk of the money will go to fund suicide-prevention programs, mental health services for children, and programs for court-ordered psychiatric outpatient treatment. It reinforces current laws that require insurers to treat mental illness as they do any other illness in terms of benefits (“parity“). And it creates a new position in the US Department of Health and Human Services called the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use for coordinating mental health programs across the federal government.

The bill also lowers the regulatory bar of the Food and Drug Administration,  which may result in less safe and effective products reaching the market by putting less emphasis on clinical trials, which has caused some critics to label it the 21st Century Quackery Act. The FDA insists it will not compromise safety and efficacy; but they have already shown their fake reliance on safety and efficacy by approving psychotropic drugs and trying to make it easier to approve electric shock machines.

How concerned should we be? Very concerned. Proliferation of coercive and abusive mental health “care” by the current psychiatric industry is a waste of lives and funding.

Instead, here is what we should be doing:
1. Mental health hospitals must be established to replace coercive psychiatric institutions, where appropriate medical diagnostics and treatments can be performed. Proper medical screening by non-psychiatric diagnostic specialists could eliminate more than 40% of psychiatric admissions.
2. Establish rights for patients and insurance companies to receive refunds for harmful and abusive mental health treatment.
3. Clinical and financial audits must be done for all psychiatric facilities to uncover and correct fraud and abuse.
4. All mental disorders in the DSM should be validated by scientific, physical evidence.
5. Abolish mental health courts and mandated community mental health treatment.
6. Citizens groups and responsible government officials should work together to expose and abolish psychiatry’s hidden manipulation of society.

The Cure Conundrum

The Cure Conundrum

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

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

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

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

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

We generally take cure to mean the elimination of some unwanted condition with some effective treatment. The primary purpose of any mental health treatment must be the therapeutic care and treatment of individuals who are suffering emotional disturbance. The only effective measure of this treatment must be “patients recovering and being sent, sane, back into society as productive individuals.” This, we would call a cure.

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

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

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

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

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

21st Century Cures Act

21st Century Cures Act

H.R.6, the 21st Century Cures Act, is rushing through Congress now. This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget, and to make some major changes in the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Medicare, the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

We are pretty sure that not all of these changes are going to be benign. We invite you to read the Act and read the rebuttal, decide for yourself, and contact your Congressmen now with your personal opinions.

Warning: the text of the Act is difficult to read in the context of the laws it is proposing to change, since it does not print the revisions in line of the original law, as in proposed Missouri legislation for example, but instead just prints the text being removed and the text being inserted.

Here are some salient quotes from the rebuttal:

“The Act is a give-away to the pharmaceutical industry, removing many of the safety mechanisms in place that are supposed to keep the public protected from unsafe drugs and medical devices.”

“The 21st Century Cures Act will diminish another bedrock of modern medicine – informed consent.”

“But if pharmaceuticals are no longer required to have evidence that they improve health outcomes, how are they any better than snake oils? One only needs to look as far as the recent history of psychiatry to see that the line between snake oils and ‘evidence based medicine’ is already woefully thin.”

“The 21st Century Cures Act diminishes the rocks on which modern medicine are based – informed consent, individual body autonomy, the Hippocratic Oath, and basing medicine on scientific evidence.”

Obviously we are not diagnosing or recommending treatments here. We want to alert you to this Congressional action, and make sure you are informed so that you can exercise your own judgment. While sections of this proposed legislation are likely useful, there are other sections that may be damaging in the long term and may be passed into law in haste.

Here is an example of a section called out in the rebuttal (“With the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, drugs will be rushed to market with little testing required.”):

“SEC. 2022. Accelerated approval development plan. In the case of a drug that the Secretary determines may be eligible for accelerated approval in accordance with subsection (c), the sponsor of such drug may request, at any time after the submission of an application for the investigation of the drug under section 505(i) of this Act or section 351(a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, that the Secretary agree to an accelerated approval development plan described in paragraph (2).”

This refers to paragraph (2) which describes the use of a “surrogate endpoint” in an accelerated approval development plan. The term “surrogate endpoint” means a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure, that is not itself a direct measurement of clinical benefit. So a result of this could be that clinical trials no longer measure the clinical benefit of a new drug on the fast track to approval, just unspecified changes in various measurements that may, or may not, be beneficial to the patient. This is the kind of change that causes us to question the haste and wisdom of this proposed Act.

Let us know when you contact your Congressmen about this, and any response you may receive.

And read what we have to say about Informed Consent.

Medical Ethics – Outcomes

Medical ethics is a system of principles that applies values and judgments to the practice of medicine. One of the purposes of ethics is to remove the barriers toward optimum survival. And an outcome is an end result or consequence.

When we think about the quality and outcomes of health care, we can think in terms that are important to the patient, or alternatively in terms that are important to others such as family, teachers, insurance companies, or the attending medical professionals.

Joe Jimenez, the CEO of Novartis (a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland), was recently quoted in Business Week (4/5/12) as saying, “Increasingly, in every part of the world, pharmaceutical companies will not be paid on the number of pills they sell but on the outcomes they produce. In the U.S., we spend about 17 percent of GDP on health care. Singapore spends 1.3 percent and gets better health outcomes. Something is very wrong.”

While it is refreshing to hear a pharmaceutical executive allude to poor outcomes in the pharmaceutical industry, we must not forget what the real problems are in health care, and what the real solutions are.

Naturally, in an industry as complex and burdened with problems as health care, there is not going to be just one solution. There needs to be one or more solutions for each problem. One of the problems is that mental health care has lost sight of what is a good patient outcome.

The Real Problem in Mental Health Care

In a nutshell, there is a lack of science and results within the mental health industry. Despite its lack of scientific validity, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used heavily as a diagnostic tool, not only for individual treatment but also for child custody battles, court testimony, education, and more. While medicine’s scientific procedures are verifiable, psychiatry’s lack of any systematic approach to mental health and its continued lack of measurable results has contributed greatly to its declining reputation.

In spite of record spending for mental health care, the U.S. now faces record levels of child abuse, suicide, drug abuse, violence and crime – very real problems for which the psychiatric industry can identify neither causes nor solutions. Community Mental Health programs have been an expensive and colossal failure, creating homelessness, drug addiction, crime and unemployment. Mental health courts assert that criminal behavior is caused by a psychiatric problem and that treatment will stop the behavior; there is no evidence, however, to support this supposition. Many medical studies reveal that psychiatric drugs create violence.

The claim that only increased psychiatric funding will cure the problems of psychiatry has lost its ring of truth. In 2002, the U.S. President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education found that 40% of American children in Special Education programs labeled with “learning disorders” had simply never been taught to read.

More than 6 million U.S. children have been put on mind-altering psychiatric drugs for an invented mental disorder called “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.” Talk about an unethical outcome! Giving a child psychotropic drugs for a learning disorder when the correct outcome should be teaching the child to read! Whose outcome is this? Not the child’s, for sure.

From these facts it is safe to conclude that a reduction in the funding of psychiatric programs will not cause a worsening of mental health. Less funding for harmful psychiatric practices will, in fact, improve the state of mental health.

Fortunately, many non-psychiatric, humane and workable practices exist in the quest for the achievement and recovery of mental health, even for the most severely disturbed individuals. While psychiatrists strenuously deny it, much knowledgeable and skillful help is administered by non-psychiatric professionals whose focus is on positive patient outcomes.

The same waste of lives and funding occurs whenever the DSM is used to evaluate an individual’s mental health or actions. It is vital that the DSM diagnostic system is universally rejected before any chance of meaningful mental health reform and advancement can occur.

Become a member of CCHR St. Louis today and receive a complimentary copy of the CCHR documentary “Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) — Psychiatry’s Deadliest Scam.”

You Paid For It, Missouri

First, some facts. The Missouri Department of Mental Health (DMH) budget for the current fiscal year is $1,199,029,884; that’s nearly $1.2 billion. Of that total, $575,426,388 is from General Revenue (state taxes), $578,775,972 is Federal dollars, and $44,827,524 is from other sources such as state trust funds. Based on current state population, that’s $200 per person per year going to the MO DMH for facilities, personnel, administration, and rugs. Missouri will spend $466 million this fiscal year on non-Medicaid mental health treatment. For another perspective, if you drive or walk through downtown St. Louis, just count the number of homeless people sleeping on park benches or panhandling on street corners.

For the last five years, Missouri has received grants of Federal money funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), roughly $750,000 per year, and managed by a Governor-appointed committee called the Transformation Working Group.

SAMHSA is the federal agency that recently published a report falsely stating that 1 out of 5 people in the U.S. is mentally ill.

The Missouri Mental Health Transformation Working Group published its Comprehensive Plan for Mental Health, 2011 Action Plan Update on September 30, 2010. Let’s see what they did with your money:

  • They incorporated a non-profit agency and appointed a board of directors.
  • They sponsored a banquet for fund raising.
  • They held a conference for consumers of mental health services.
  • They created a new website to promote their activities.
  • They trained some people on mental health in early childhood education.
  • They pushed a program called Positive Behavior Support into 597 schools.
  • They expanded the number of older adults eligible for mental health treatment for depression.
  • They added a new Medicaid mental health billing code for Federally Qualified Health Centers.
  • They worked on electronic claims reporting systems for Medicaid.
  • They trained some people in Motivational Enhancement Therapy.
  • They trained some people on how to access their mental health services.
  • They conducted some surveys and gathered some statistics about people’s quality of life.

Are you seeing the pattern here yet? I’m going to shout it out:

NONE OF THEIR GOALS SPECIFIED IMPROVED PATIENT OUTCOMES (CURES) AND BETTER MENTAL HEALTH FOR INDIVIDUALS.

NONE OF THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS INDICATED ANY IMPROVED PATIENT OUTCOMES (CURES) OR BETTER MENTAL HEALTH FOR INDIVIDUALS.

THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR ACTIVITIES WERE FOR MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS, AND TRAINING PEOPLE ON HOW TO PUSH HARMFUL PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENTS INTO SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES.

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: the real problem, the one that this “transformation” program does not address, 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.

People can have problems in life; these are not, however, some mental illness caused by a deficiency of psychotropic drugs in their brains. There are workable alternatives to harmful psychiatric drugs and treatments.

Find Out!

Fight Back!

Write your state and local legislators and officials now, today, and demand that funding for fraudulent and harmful psychiatric practices be stopped.