Nearly Half of Preschoolers Diagnosed with ADHD Are Prescribed Drugs Before Changes in Managing Their Behavior Are Tried

Posted on November 3, 2025 by cchrstl

Prescribing drugs for preschoolers soon after diagnosis of ADHD conflicts with American Academy of Pediatrics guideline for nondrug approaches first. Research has indicated the ADHD label itself and the stimulant drugs that may be prescribed as treatment can be harmful to children, while evidence of benefit is uncertain.

by  CCHR National Affairs Office

Nearly half of preschool-age children who are diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in primary care settings are prescribed drugs as treatment before changes in managing their behavior are attempted, a new study finds.  This is at odds with the American Academy of Pediatrics guideline that nondrug behavioral interventions, such as parent training in behavior management, should be tried first when children 4-5 years old are diagnosed with ADHD because of their overactive or impulsive behavior.

Observing that ADHD is being increasingly diagnosed in children who have not yet entered school, the study investigated the rates of ADHD drug prescriptions and the period of time between diagnosis and the prescribing of drugs to preschoolers by primary care physicians. 

An examination of the medical records of over 700,000 U.S. children 4-5 years old revealed that 1.4% of the young children received a diagnosis of ADHD.  (Notably, African American children accounted for 31% of the preschoolers diagnosed with ADHD, roughly twice their proportion in the general population.  This is an apparent continuation of the disproportionate diagnosing of African Americans with disruptive, defiant and psychotic mental disorders as a result of the systemic racism that the American Psychiatric and American Psychological Associations have admitted is ingrained in their practices.)

Of the preschool-age children diagnosed with ADHD, 42% were prescribed an ADHD drug within 30 days of their diagnosis, indicating that nondrug interventions were not attempted or were not tried for very long.  The study’s researchers note that this finding conflicts with the American Academy of Pediatrics guideline to first try behavioral interventions because of the stronger evidence of their effectiveness than drugs for preschoolers.  The researchers called for further investigation into why there are such high rates of drug treatment and low rates of nondrug treatment for these young children.

For three-quarters (78%) of the children on ADHD drugs, the first drug prescribed was a stimulant, such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Concerta.  Harmful side effects of stimulant-type ADHD drugs include headache, decreased appetite, weight loss, difficulty sleeping, anxiety, depression, upset stomach, nausea, abnormal behavior, increased blood pressure, and increased heart rate, with the risk of heart disease increasing the longer the drugs are taken.  Stimulant drugs also carry the potential for dependency and addiction, according to a drug safety warning issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Beyond the risk of side effects, a recent analysis of evidence on ADHD diagnosis and treatment concluded that the diagnosis itself, as well as the stimulant drugs that may be prescribed as treatment, carry the risk of harmful consequences for children, while evidence of benefit is uncertain.  The study’s researchers called for a greater focus on appropriate care and support of children with behavioral issues, rather than on diagnosing ADHD. 

Even more fundamentally, ADHD is a psychiatric label subjectively applied to a collection of behaviors common to children.  The “diagnosis” has no scientific validity, making it a label that is far too easy to pin on children.  With roughly one in nine American children labeled with ADHD, researchers in a 2021 study found convincing evidence that ADHD is overdiagnosed in children.

This view was also held by the late psychologist Keith Conners, who conducted the first formal trials on the stimulant-type ADHD drug methylphenidate.  He later realized that ADHD diagnoses were out of control, calling ADHD misdiagnoses “an epidemic of tragic proportions.”

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) took concerns about the rampant diagnosing and drugging of children for ADHD to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, which responded with hearings and a recommendation in 2015 for the establishment of a system for “monitoring of the excessive use of psychostimulants for children.”  The U.N. Committee also said that governments should “take the necessary measure to prevent any pressure on children and parents to accept treatment with psychostimulant drugs.”

Many undiagnosed physical conditions – infections, injuries, illnesses, allergies, nutritional deficiencies, reactions to drugs – as well as problems with schoolwork, can result in children’s behavioral problems that may be misdiagnosed and wrongly treated as ADHD, missing the opportunity to address and handle the real underlying cause.

As physician Mary Ann Block, author of No More ADHD, says: “By taking a thorough history and giving these children a complete physical exam as well as doing lab tests and allergy testing, I have consistently found that these children do not have ADHD, but instead have allergies, dietary problems, nutritional deficiencies, thyroid problems and learning difficulties that are causing their symptoms.  All of these medical and educational problems can be treated, allowing the child to be successful, without being drugged.”

The content on this site is for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for personal medical advice given by a licensed physician. Anyone wishing to discontinue or change the dose of an ADHD drug or any other psychiatric drug is cautioned to do so only under the supervision of a physician because of potentially dangerous withdrawal symptoms or other complications. 

Posted in Big Muddy River Newsletter | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Nearly Half of Preschoolers Diagnosed with ADHD Are Prescribed Drugs Before Changes in Managing Their Behavior Are Tried

Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising on U.S. Television

Posted on October 27, 2025 by cchrstl

Please make a tax deductible contribution to CCHR St. Louis. Our current two major expenses are paper and postage for psychiatric abuse cases, and secure storage for the hundreds of abuse cases we have processed since our Missouri nonprofit incorporation in 1989. Your continued support ensures we can keep driving reform, protect patients, and hold this industry accountable.

The ubiquitous presence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug ads on U.S. TV is not the result of any authorizing legislation, but rather a regulatory relaxation allowed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1997, leading to a massive surge in industry spending and market influence.

While DTC advertising may prompt some patients to seek appropriate care for under-diagnosed conditions, evidence derived from clinical trials and public health analyses demonstrates that these ads actively promote inappropriate prescribing for unclear or questionable indications.

Current efforts to regulate this $13.8 billion yearly ad blitz, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeking a total ban, and the FDA seeking to reinstate effective restrictions, are ongoing.

Why Regulate Ads in the First Place?

The main impetus for regulation is to prevent fraudulent therapeutic claims. 

The fact that this had to be regulated in the first place is a sad commentary on our health system. Initial attempts at regulation were to provide consumers with a “brief summary” of the product label to enforce a “fair balance” of information. This was much too vague to effectively define and enforce. The incredibly long list of potential side effects for many drugs, and the vagueness of what a “fair balance” of information meant, led to the pharmaceutical industry’s dissatisfaction with the status quo and the resultant high cost of advertising.

The Emergence of Broadcast Advertising

In 1997, the FDA issued draft regulatory guidance on broadcast advertising (finalized in 1999) that changed disclosure requirements by redefining “brief summary” and “fair balance.”

By making broadcast promotion more economically viable, there was an immediate explosion of TV advertising, incidentally favoring expensive, newly branded products over older, cheaper generics, leading also to significant national healthcare cost inflation.

The immense financial resources allocated to DTC ads combined with research data showing a poor scientific quality of the ads form the core justification for the current political movement seeking a ban.

A 2024 review found that 62% of DTC video ads were of “poor scientific quality,” 48% were classified as “misleading,” and 34% were considered “potentially harmful”.

The Legal Environment

The Judicial System, particularly the Supreme Court, is heavily involved in this regulatory process, regarding the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) and the Government’s right of regulation (Laws and Rules). Primary considerations are the government compelling disclosure (like safety warnings), and government restricting speech (like a total ban). This is no small effort, and it remains to be seen how it plays out with the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, and the courts; all ultimately to mitigate documented financial and public health harms from both fraudulent drug claims and TV drug advertising.

The Psychiatric Connection and Your Mental Health

Physicians are significantly more likely to diagnose Depression or Adjustment Disorder when the patient requests a drug compared to when no request is made, particularly a brand-specific request; and apparently DTC advertising also stimulates such diagnosis and drug prescriptions more strongly when the patient’s symptoms do not indicate a clear-cut diagnosis, leading to a higher volume of unnecessary drugging.

Which of course is of great economic benefit to the psychopharmaceutical industry.

Knowing that the “campaign to stop the stigma of mental illness” is a pharmaceutical marketing campaign and not a public benefit campaign, one might wonder if DTC drug ads actually increase the public perception of stigma associated with mental trauma, as some research suggests.

The DSM and ICD

Behind all this debate is the very real harm done by The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (current version DSM-5-TR). Unofficially called the psychiatric “billing bible,” this publication from the American Psychiatric Association (and its international equivalent the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) from the World Health Organization), delineate the official diagnoses for which psychiatric drugs can be prescribed, and for which insurance reimbursements can be made.

In fact in Missouri, the DSM is built into state law, as it is defined in Chapter 376 Section 1550 of the Missouri Revised Statutes:
““Mental health condition”, any condition or disorder defined by categories listed in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders“. Furthermore, insurance carriers in Missouri are required to provide health benefit coverage for these mental health conditions, which generally means a prescription for a psychiatric drug.

Taking the two diagnoses previously mentioned (Depression and Adjustment Disorder), we note that there are 77 diagnostic entries in the DSM using the words “depressed”, “depressive”, “depression”, or “antidpressant”, and 7 entries for various “adjustment disorder” diagnoses.

To ensure a comprehensive ability to diagnose these, there are also the all-encompassing diagnoses of “Unspecified depressive disorder” and “Adjustment disorder, Unspecified”. Together, all these diagnoses mean that pretty much anyone can be diagnosed with one or another disorder and prescribed an antidepressant or other psychiatric drug paid for by insurance.

No small wonder then, that DTC TV advertisements have markedly increased the incidence of these diagnoses and the subsequent increase in psychiatric drug prescriptions.

But wait, that’s not all.

Using the DSM, a psychiatrist need only label the patient with one of these “mental disorders” (regardless of any clinical tests), prescribe a drug and bill the patient’s insurance or Medicaid. The psychiatrist with the DSM in hand can try various labels on the patient as if they were different sizes of apparel until he finds one that either fits the patient’s symptoms or comes close enough to allow him to bill the patient’s insurance.

These mental “disorders” are voted into and out of existence and edited into the DSM based on factors that have nothing to do with medicine, or indeed with any clinical tests.

Did we just say “clinical tests?” For the record, there are NO clinical tests for any of these diagnoses; no blood tests, no x-rays, no MRI’s, etc. The defining factor of such a diagnosis is the psychiatrist’s opinion, which we can say with some certainty is something of which the psychiatrist just disapproves or dislikes.

People can and do experience depression, anxiety and sadness, children do act out or misbehave, and some people can indeed become irrational or psychotic. This does not make them “diseased.” There are non–psychiatric, non–drug solutions for people experiencing mental difficulty, there are non–harmful medical alternatives.

Safe and effective medical treatments for mental difficulties are often kept buried. The fact is, there are many medical conditions that when undetected and untreated can appear as psychiatric “symptoms.” The psychiatric pharmaceutical industry is making a killing — $84 billion per year — based on people being labeled with mental disorders that are not founded on science or medicine, but on marketing campaigns designed to sell drugs such as DTC TV Ads.

What Can Be Done About This

Start by contacting your State Legislators and asking them to remove all references to the DSM from State Law.

Then help us investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights by making a tax deductible donation to CCHR St. Louis.

Posted in Big Muddy River Newsletter | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising on U.S. Television

CCHR International’s Expanding Global Impact

Posted on October 20, 2025 by cchrstl

Psychiatric Hospitals Closing, Legislative Reforms and ECT Exposed

CCHR International’s continued advocacy against psychiatric abuses is driving measurable change in government, the courts, and the public sphere.

Psychiatric Hospital Closures Following Abuse Scandals

CCHR International’s relentless work to expose abuse and neglect in the for-profit psychiatric hospital industry is continuing to bring real results. These aren’t small, local clinics — they’re chains of psychiatric hospitals owned by large corporations that make billions each year from government and insurance payments for mental health treatment. One of the biggest is Acadia Healthcare, which owns and operates hundreds of psychiatric and behavioral centers across the U.S. and abroad.

For years, CCHR International has filed tens of thousands of complaints against such facilities including Acadia with healthcare and fraud oversight bodies, citing patient abuse, neglect, and dangerous conditions. Increasingly, media investigations and government actions have confirmed the same problems CCHR has been documenting. 

Case in point: In just the past week, media reports confirm that five Acadia-owned facilities are now being shut down after repeated state violations and community complaints. These closures reflect the same pattern of abuse and neglect that CCHR International has long exposed within the for-profit psychiatric industry.
Driving Legislative Reform on Psych Drugs and Violence

CCHR International has been at the forefront of exposing the link between psychiatric drugs and violence for decades. As far back as 1993, CCHR helped organize a landmark hearing before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the connection between the newer antidepressants and incidents of suicide and violence. 

Since then, CCHR International has continued to lead public awareness efforts through national television exposés and broad distribution of its 69-page booklet, Psychiatric Drugs: Create Violence & Suicide – School Shootings & Other Acts of Senseless Violence, which has been provided to law enforcement agencies, state and federal legislators, and healthcare oversight bodies.

In recent years, several major influencers and leading podcasters have begun raising similar questions about the role of psychiatric drugs in acts of senseless violence. Reflecting this growing concern, several states have introduced bills to investigate the issue further—and one state has already enacted a law requiring toxicology testing on any mass shooter. 

CCHR International staff continue to work closely with its allies and state legislators to advance these efforts and ensure this vital issue receives the full investigation it deserves.  

CCHR’s Progress towards Ban on Electroshock

CCHR’s campaign to expose electroshock’s devastating effects on the brain is gaining powerful traction—in courts, the media, and among human rights advocates worldwide. In a recent Nebraska court case challenging the safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) devices, the court acknowledged evidence that echoes what CCHR has warned for decades: ECT causes brain damage and permanent memory loss.

The decision credited testimony from respected medical experts confirming that the seizures produced by ECT are not therapeutic—they are signs of brain injury. Most importantly, the court recognized that permanent memory loss is brain damage—a landmark validation of CCHR’s position and an encouraging step toward the global ban we are fighting for.

Public outrage is also mounting. The Times (UK) recently exposed that more than 1,000 patients in Scotland were forced to undergo ECT against their will under the Mental Health Act, despite well-documented risks of memory loss, seizures, and heart complications. This revelation has sparked calls for the practice to be suspended—further proof that the tide is turning against electroshock.

With these hard-won advances—from exposing the dangers of psychiatric drugs and electroshock to prompting long-overdue government action—CCHR International’s work is making a real difference. Your continued support ensures we can keep driving reform, protect patients, and hold this industry accountable.

Donate to CCHR International

Donate to CCHR St. Louis
Posted in Big Muddy River Newsletter | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on CCHR International’s Expanding Global Impact

Don’t Be Fooled By Those Selling LSD for Mental Health

Posted on October 13, 2025 by cchrstl

Much of what you hear about drugs actually comes from those selling them. Don’t be fooled. You need facts to make accurate judgments.

Clinical Tests for LSD as a Mental Health Drug

On September 4, 2025, several psychiatrists published a clinical trial concluding that “A single 100 ?g dose of MM120 (lysergide D-tartrate, LSD) significantly reduced anxiety symptoms in adults with generalized anxiety disorder.”
[JAMA.doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.13481]

Wow, sounds great! Until you read the fine print.

Forty people received the 100 ?g dose.
158 people received other dose amounts or placebo.
The most common adverse reactions were hallucinations, which occurred in 92.5% who received the 100 µg dose. No surprise there, LSD is a hallucinogen. We should point out here that hallucinations are not good mental health. Hallucinations are a serious disconnection from reality.

Only 65% of the subjects taking the 100 ?g dose had a measurable, positive effect (clinical response rate); and there was a 48% clinical remission rate sustained to week 12 (meaning only 48% of the 40 people taking the 100 µg dose showed their symptoms gone or reduced at the end of 12 weeks of observation.)

Obviously this is not a cure, since so many of the subjects had no benefit, and many would have to continue taking the drug to see any continuing reduction of symptoms.

Yet the psychiatrists conducting the study were elated that roughly half of their subjects had no lasting benefit, and most experienced hallucinations. Drug dealers, all. Who benefits? The ones selling the drugs.

LSD Facts

Lysergide D-tartrate (MM120) is a specific formulation of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) being tested for “Generalized anxiety disorder”, a diagnosis in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

Note that the very same DSM-5 lists hallucinogens as causing anxiety disorder with the diagnosis of “Other hallucinogen-induced anxiety disorder”. So psychiatrists want to “treat” an anxiety disorder with the very drug that can cause it.

Other known side effects of LSD, besides hallucinations, are mood swings and impairment of one’s ability to make sensible judgments. Many taking LSD experience flashbacks, a recurrence of the LSD trip, long after taking the drug, because LSD accumulates in the body and can be released again into the blood stream without warning. Some develop a tolerance for the drug, meaning that they have to take it in increasingly higher doses to achieve the same effect.

An oral dose of as little as 25 ?g (equal in weight to a few grains of salt) is capable of producing vivid hallucinations; and this study recommends a dose of 100 ?g.

LSD was popularized in the 1960’s by psychologists and psychiatrists, creating an entire drug abuse culture, and government experiments to use LSD to control populations continued until the U.S. banned the drug in 1967.

Street drug dealers, also including the psychiatrists currently promoting LSD for your “mental health”, will say anything to get you to buy their drugs. They say it will “expand your mind”, and in this particular case they say it will “reduce your anxiety.”

LSD though directly affects the mind. It can distort one’s perception of what is happening around them. It blocks off all sensations, the desirable ones along with the unwanted anxiety ones. It muddy’s one’s thinking in order to make one less anxious.

We call this Informed Consent. Now that you know how LSD really “works”, do you still want to take it?

Replacing Prozac with LSD is Like Switching Seats on the Titanic

Today’s propaganda surrounding psychedelics smacks of the false assurances made in the 1990s about the chemical imbalance myth and how SSRIs were a revolutionary new treatment to correct the imbalance and improve depression. And in the same way this was done in the 1960s and ’70s when psychedelics were guaranteed as mental health improvers.

The theories behind how psychedelics “work” today remain hype rather than science. The dangers are already known.

We are seeing the same rapturous reception given psychedelics, buoyed by a re-hashed brain chemical theory and claims of a “renaissance” in mental health treatment. It took 30 years for the “chemical-imbalance-in-the-brain-causes-depression” myth to be fully recognized as pseudoscience and dangerously misleading to consumers. We should recognize the trademark signs of this same marketing scam with psychedelics and prevent America from “turning on and tuning out” to these mind-altering drugs before it is too late.

Read more about what anxiety really is and how to deal with it here.

Help us investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights. Make a tax deductible donation to CCHR St. Louis.

Posted in Big Muddy River Newsletter | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Don’t Be Fooled By Those Selling LSD for Mental Health

What to Ask a Psychiatrist Before Treatment

Posted on October 6, 2025 by cchrstl

In a world where mental health is a growing concern, it is vital to approach any psychiatric care with a critical eye and a full understanding of your rights as a patient. Organizations like the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) emphasize the need for “Full Informed Consent” to ensure that patients are protected from potential fraud and abuse in the psychiatric field, given that there is more suspected fraud and abuse in psychiatric mental health care than in any other area of health care.

Since there are no clinical tests for the mental disorder psychiatric diagnoses from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the correct action on a mentally disturbed person is a full searching clinical examination by a competent non-psychiatric health care practitioner, in order to find and treat any undiagnosed and untreated real medical conditions.

Understanding Full Informed Consent

According to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a patient’s right to “Full Informed Consent” is a fundamental human right in the mental health field. It goes beyond a simple agreement to treatment and includes:

The Right to Know: You have the right to be fully informed about the medical legitimacy of a psychiatric diagnosis. This includes asking if there are any clinical tests to show that the “disorder” is a known medical disease.

The Right to Understand Risks: You must be made aware of all documented risks and potential adverse side effects of any proposed psychiatric drugs or other treatments. Psychiatric drugs can be dangerous and potentially lethal.

The Right to Alternatives: You should be informed of all available medical or non-psychiatric alternatives to the proposed treatment.

The Right to Refuse: You have the right to refuse any treatment, including psychiatric drugs, if you believe it is harmful or not in your best interest.

Questions to Ask a Psychiatrist

Based on the principle of Full Informed Consent, here are some questions to ask before starting treatment:

1. What scientific or medical tests can you provide to confirm my diagnosis is a physical disease?

2. What are the documented risks and side effects of the drugs you are prescribing? Are there any international drug regulatory warnings I should know about?

3. What are the success rates of this treatment, and what is your personal experience with it?

4. What are the non-drug alternatives to this treatment, and what are their benefits and risks?

5. How long will I be on this medication, and what is the process for tapering off?

6. What are my rights if I feel this treatment is not working or is causing more harm than good?


Warning About Fraud and Abuse in Psychiatry

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights was founded to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights because the psychiatric industry has a history of fraud and abuse.

CCHR points to a lack of scientific basis for psychiatric diagnoses, arguing that they are not rooted in medical tests like diagnoses for other physical illnesses. This can lead to patients being wrongly labeled and prescribed potentially harmful and addictive drugs. 

CCHR also raises concerns about involuntary commitment and treatments such as electroshock and psychosurgery, which are also abusive and harmful. The organization warns that by being a vigilant and informed consumer, you can protect yourself and your loved ones from these potential abuses.

If you know someone who has been abused by psychiatry, encourage them to file a complaint here.

Help us investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights. Make a tax deductible donation to CCHR St. Louis.

Posted in Big Muddy River Newsletter | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on What to Ask a Psychiatrist Before Treatment

Why is a Pratfall Funny?

Posted on September 29, 2025 by cchrstl

Pratfall:
–a fall on to one’s buttocks
–a staged tumble, often onto one’s buttocks, for comedic effect
–a stupid and humiliating action
[Etymology: A compound word, combining “prat,” slang for “buttocks,” and “fall”.]

Why do we laugh at a pratfall? Why do we laugh at someone’s misfortune? More generally, why do we laugh at all?

These may all have different reasons, they may all stem from the same general considerations, or they may have no reason at all.

Psychiatry and psychology, not to be left out of any discussion that may produce a new patient or treatment, have their own contributions. Here is one: The Pratfall Effect is a theory developed by psychologist Elliot Aronson in 1966, and according to the theory one can become more appealing or likeable by admitting or demonstrating one’s own flaws [“the attractiveness of a superior person is enhanced if he commits a clumsy blunder; the same blunder tends to decrease the attractiveness of a mediocre person.”]

To be sure, these dubious conclusions were made from observing only 48 male sophomores recruited from an introductory psychology course at the University of Minnesota.

But it does not answer the question “why is it funny?”

Psychiatry does pose this question, but gets lost in the complexities of neurobiological psychiatry. By ascribing it all to the brain and various chemical neurotransmitters, psychiatry loses its way.

Here are some good observations. The visible sign of these is often laughter.

1. Humor may arise from the sudden perception of something that defies our expectations. In other words, the rejection of something incongruous or illogical. This depends upon an individual’s ability to differentiate and to see and reject situations which do not fit. The individual is surprised into rejecting.

2. Humor may arise from the release of nervous energy or painful emotional tension. This relief is actually rejection as well, since the person has now found out the truth of some situation or consideration and is rejecting the falsity under which they were previously laboring.

3. Humor may arise from the perceived flaws or misfortunes of others. In this case, however, the laughter expresses antagonism or other lower-toned emotions such as fear, and may be disparaging of others. In other words, not really funny. A person exhibiting this kind of “humor” is unable to differentiate; they identify things as the same which are really not the same, and reject things that may be restimulative.

The tendency of psychiatry to say “it’s all in the brain” unfortunately leads to the use of harmful drugs for treating any perceived impairments in one’s sense of humor, such as when one’s emotional responses do not align with the social context. Ultimately these conclusions come from psychiatric observations of people with a physically damaged brain or nervous system. Diagnoses of autism, for example, may follow from neurological dysfunction.

Psychiatry has a tendency to needlessly complicate the simplicity of humor and laughter, with extensive characterizations of humor styles, stress hormones, brain injuries, mental disorders, the ethics of using humor in psychiatric or psychological counseling, endless speculation about how to measure humor in a clinical setting, differences in humor due to some imagined difference in social, racial, genetic, age, or other category; so they can call their treatments “evidence-based.”

Let’s just make it quite simple. Laugh until you can enjoy a laugh without any reason whatsoever.

Support CCHR STL’s mission to expose and eradicate violations of human rights by the field of psychiatry by making a tax deductible donation. CCHR STL is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.

Posted in Big Muddy River Newsletter | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Why is a Pratfall Funny?

Missouri Unnecessarily Institutionalizes Adults with Mental Health Disabilities

Posted on September 22, 2025 by cchrstl

On June 18, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division sent a letter to the Missouri Attorney General’s Office regarding the completion of its investigation into whether the State of Missouri unnecessarily institutionalizes adults with mental health disabilities in nursing facilities.

The DOJ investigation concluded that the State of Missouri violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide services to adults with mental health disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.

Missouri was warned that if an appropriate resolution was not forthcoming, a lawsuit would be the result.

Copied on the letter were the Governor, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Social Services, and the Department of Health & Senior Services.

Here are some salient quotes from the investigation:

“Almost uniformly, adults with mental health disabilities in Missouri’s nursing facilities do not want to live in these institutions.”

“We found that almost none of the adults with mental health disabilities living in nursing facilities in Missouri need to be in these institutions.”

“Involuntarily committing a person to a psychiatric hospital is a severe restriction of their liberty. … In contrast, people under guardianship can have their liberty restricted in almost the same manner—by being locked in a nursing facility and forced to take medication against their will—indefinitely.”

“Missouri fails to connect adults cycling in and out of psychiatric hospitals with community-based mental health services, including services proven to work for individuals skeptical of or resistant to care.”

“Because of deficiencies in its community-based service array and the manner in which the State administers its adult mental health system, the State relies on segregated settings to serve adults with mental health disabilities who could be served in their homes and communities.”

Coercive Psychiatric Mental Health Care

This investigation points up the coercive nature of psychiatric mental health care, particularly in Missouri. There is an urgent need worldwide for a shift away from coercive psychiatric treatments.

Overmedication and coercive psychiatric practices—such as forced drugging, institutionalization without consent, and diagnostic overreach—are gaining increasing public attention. Especially concerning is how these practices affect marginalized groups and how they are justified in the name of “mental health care.”

Even more disturbing is how this coercion becomes routine. People are prescribed harmful and often addictive psychiatric drugs not because it’s proven to help them recover, but because it makes them easier to manage.

Governments like the state of Missouri enable and legitimize these actions, often without any real oversight or accountability, in this case leaving the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce corrective measures.

Guidance issued jointly in 2023 by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) lays out steps towards ending coercive practices and “establishing mental health services that are respectful of human dignity and comply with international human rights norms and standards.”

Let’s stop pretending that coercion is care. Let’s start listening.

Have you or someone you love been impacted by overmedication or coercive psychiatric practices? Report your experience here.

Your mental health, and the mental health of your family, friends and associates, can be questioned by just about anyone. If this makes you uncomfortable, execute a Living Will (Letter of Protection from Psychiatric Incarceration and/or Treatment).

Contact your State or other Government Representatives and let them know what you think. In Missouri go here, and email a copy to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Help us investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights. Make a tax deductible donation to CCHR St. Louis.

Posted in Big Muddy River Newsletter | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Missouri Unnecessarily Institutionalizes Adults with Mental Health Disabilities

St. Louis Area Psychiatrists Sentenced for Health Crimes

Posted on September 15, 2025 by cchrstl

In 2005 an investigation of the Malik family of psychiatrists in the Greater St. Louis Metropolitan area revealed that they were the top fraud violators of the psychiatric profession in the St. Louis area.

Dr. Mohd Azfar Malik, 71, pleaded guilty in April 2025 to making false statements related to health care matters.

Dr. Asim Muhammad Ali, 54, an internal medical specialist working for Malik, also pleaded guilty to illegally distributing controlled substances (ketamine) and several other crimes.

They have now both been sentenced for their crimes.

Malik was sentenced in August 2025 to five years of probation, fined $20,000, and ordered to pay $19,442 in restitution.

Ali was sentenced in September 2025 to 70 months in prison and ordered to pay $1,846,818.

If you know someone who has been abused by psychiatry, encourage them to file a complaint here.

Help us investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights. Make a tax deductible donation to CCHR St. Louis.

Posted in Big Muddy River Newsletter | Tagged , | Comments Off on St. Louis Area Psychiatrists Sentenced for Health Crimes

CCHR International Executives Address United Nations in Geneva— Calling for Global Ban on Coercive Psychiatry

Posted on September 1, 2025 by cchrstl

Dear Supporters,

I wanted to share an important step forward in our fight to end coercive psychiatric practices worldwide. I recently returned from a landmark visit to the United Nations in Geneva — the UN’s main center for human rights — where I had the honor of testifying before the Committee for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This UN committee makes sure governments are in compliance with the Convention, which is a global agreement that protects the rights of people with disabilities, including those impacted by mental health practices. 

The Convention guarantees basic rights such as personal autonomy, informed consent, and freedom from forced institutionalization and treatment. If governments fully honored these protections, there would be no legal or ethical justification for coercive psychiatric treatment or detention. 

Together with our Executive Director, Fran Andrews, we presented evidence against harmful practices such as forced institutionalization, electroshock, and psychiatric drugging, including their use on children.

This testimony both affirmed our decades of work exposing psychiatric abuse and also how we achieved reforms worldwide—including securing bans on electroshock and psychosurgery for minors.

It was evident from our presentation that there is an urgent need for a global shift away from coercive psychiatric treatments. The CRPD Committee has long been committed to ending such practices, and their response to our evidence was encouraging.  

This visit marked the beginning of a larger, coordinated international campaign led by CCHR International. We are now preparing for further actions at the UN. 

The fight is far from over, and our success depends upon continued advocacy and support from individuals like you. Together, we can help shine a light on the abuses occurring in mental health institutions around the world and work towards real change. 

To make this vision a reality, we count on your continued support. The actions we are undertaking require significant resources to maintain momentum and expand our global outreach. Please consider donating today, so that we can press forward with the next steps of our campaign to eradicate psychiatric coercion and abuse.

With your partnership, we can achieve a future where all individuals have the right to live free from psychiatric abuse and forced treatment. 

Thank you for your unwavering commitment to human rights and the protection of vulnerable individuals everywhere.

Sincerely,

Jan Eastgate, President CCHR International

Make a donation to CCHR International.

Make a donation to CCHR St. Louis.

Posted in Big Muddy River Newsletter | Tagged , , | Comments Off on CCHR International Executives Address United Nations in Geneva— Calling for Global Ban on Coercive Psychiatry

Psychiatric Corruption of Our Judicial System

Posted on August 25, 2025 by cchrstl

“The introduction of psychiatric considerations into the administration of the criminal law – for example, the insanity plea and verdict, diagnoses of mental incompetence to stand trial, and so forth – corrupt the law and victimize the subject on whose behalf they are ostensibly employed.” [Thomas Szasz, late Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, in his book The Myth of Mental Illness]

Have you ever thought that a particular court case was frivolous and should just be thrown out of court without any further consideration? I have; and it got me thinking about what exactly is the purpose of the Judicial system.

Constitutionally, the Judicial system is laid out in the very short six paragraphs of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. It is rather specific about what cases shall be referred to a court; I suggest you read it to find out exactly what a court should be able to adjudicate.

Practically, the Judicial system acts as a check and balance against the other two branches of the government, the Legislative and Executive branches.

A check or balance against what? Basically, against controversies or crimes.

I can think of these two main purposes for a court case. 

One purpose is to settle disputes arising from ambiguities in the Constitution, or in the actions and decisions of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of the government, or between individuals or other legal entities.

One purpose is to provide Justice for perceived wrongdoing, serving as a means of establishing guilt or innocence and awarding damages to an injured party.

Generally, the popular view of a court case is to enforce civil or criminal laws.

When used for revenge or for securing advantages, Justice is misused.

[Etymology of “Justice”: Middle English, from Anglo-French justise, from Latin justitia, from justus, “just, upright, righteous, honorable”.]

The Psychiatric Influence

When psychiatry entered the justice and penal systems, it did so under the subterfuge that it understood Man, that it knew not only what made Man act as he did, but that it knew how to improve his lot. This was a lie. Psychiatry has had opportunity to prove itself. The experiment has been a miserable failure.

There is a hidden influence in our courts, one which, while loudly asserting its expertise and desire to help, has instead betrayed our most deeply held values and brought us a burgeoning prison population at soaring public costs. That influence is psychiatry and psychology.

In 1946, Canadian Psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm [a co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health and the first Secretary General of the United Nations’ World Health Organization] proclaimed the psychiatric intention to infiltrate the field of the law and bring about the “re–interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong.”

And they did, with the consequence that today, because of their influence, the system is failing. Now it is up to the many conscientious, hardworking and increasingly disheartened people within the system to realize this and rid it of these destructive intruders.

The psychiatric “insanity defense” and its derivatives have done the most damage. The psychiatric industry jumping on the “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) bandwagon has lead to a massive erosion of public confidence in the justice system’s ability to mete out swift and equitable justice.

“Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” is defined in the Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 552 Section 30 as “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect such person was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of such person’s conduct.”

Although the insanity defense is introduced in less than 2% of all criminal trials, it is one of the most controversial and hotly debated issues in American and British criminal law.

It all started in 1812, when psychiatrist Benjamin Rush claimed that crime was a mental disease, curable by psychiatry.

Once there was the idea that a person is responsible for his own actions. How is it that we face the absurd situation of psychiatrists testifying to excuse the wrongdoers’ actions? Especially in view of the fact they have proven beyond doubt their inability to agree with each other, let alone cure anyone.

The late Dr. Thomas Szasz said, “Crimes are acts we commit. Diseases are biological processes that happen to our bodies. Mixing these two concepts by defining behaviors we disapprove of as diseases is a bottomless source of confusion and corruption.” 

If a dangerous offense is committed by a person, then the fact remains criminal statutes exist to address this. As Szasz also said, “All criminal behavior should be controlled by means of the criminal law, from the administration of which psychiatrists ought to be excluded.”

Psychiatry’s attempt to eradicate the concept of right and wrong and thereby destroy personal responsibility by inventing excuses for the most flagrant misconduct, undermines the justice system.

Recommendations

1. First and foremost it should be recognized that every person is responsible for his or her own actions and must be held accountable for their actions.

2. State and federal legislators should repeal any laws permitting the insanity defense and diminished capacity pleas.

3. Judges, attorneys and law enforcement officers need to ensure that psychiatric evidence is removed from the courts and that psychiatrists and psychologists are no longer afforded “expert” status.

4. Remove psychiatrists and psychologists as advisors or as counselors from police forces, prisons and criminal rehabilitation and parole services. Because psychiatrists have no scientific foundation for their claims, do not permit them to render opinions about or to treat drug addiction, criminal behavior and delinquency, or to probe for alleged dangerous behavior.

Support CCHR STL’s mission to expose and eradicate violations of human rights by the field of psychiatry by making a tax deductible donation. CCHR STL is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.

Posted in Big Muddy River Newsletter | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Psychiatric Corruption of Our Judicial System