Posts Tagged ‘alternatives’

If You’ve Got It, Flaunt It!

Monday, June 20th, 2022

[Flaunt: To show oneself off or move in an ostentatious way.]

Social media often emphasizes a need for one to promote oneself, to have a “brand”, to make oneself and one’s abilities known and available.

Saying “flaunt it” is somewhat of a dramatic usage, perhaps even melodramatic, but it serves to emphasize that there are things one can do to make oneself and one’s abilities known and used.

A much less vivid expression, perhaps, would be “If you’ve got it, use it; if you can’t use it, get rid of it.”

Why is this important?

There are group insanities that suppress people from being effective. It can be manifested in a number of ways.

Here are some examples:
1. Exclusion of others — an obvious example is a refusal to employ someone or allow them to belong.
2. A failure to use people — Making practical and effective use of people; if they are well-trained in an area but not allowed to perform in that area. There can also be a disparity between what someone is doing and what they consider is their purpose or interest.
3. The substitution of violence for reason, all too common in this current society.

We’re sure you can think of other examples. One’s optimum survival, and the optimum survival of all the groups to which one belongs, depends on being effective, having a high worthwhile purpose, and demonstrating a mutual confidence between the individual and the group.

Yet there is one group dedicated to suppressing these things.

It should be obvious by now that psychiatry is not an encouraging industry, neither by definition nor by example. Psychiatry is an Industry of Death.

The main resource in consideration here is people, the most critical building blocks of society. Yet psychiatry has no cures, and depends on damaging their patients to continue in business.

Psychiatrists proclaim a worldwide epidemic of mental health problems and urge massive funding increases as the only solution. Yet Community Mental Health programs have been an expensive and colossal failure, creating homelessness, drug addiction, crime and unemployment all over the world.

The end result of psychiatric treatment is not a cured patient, returned to society as a well-adjusted, functioning contributor, but rather a person with the same or worse mental symptoms, told they must remain on debilitating psychiatric drugs for life, because psychiatrists know of no other cure.

Psychiatry defines “self-promotion” as an aberration of presenting oneself to others as accomplished, and that it is boastful and obnoxious. An entire category of psychological research is devoted to so-called “Imposter Syndrome”, making people wonder if they are really competent or not, and heavily suggesting that one may need psychiatric treatment for such. There is a psychiatric lobby for including this fraudulent condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

We’re totally sure that you can promote yourself effectively without bragging or being obnoxious. After all, the whole subjects of Marketing and Public Relations are involved with making things known and well-liked. Just don’t depend on psychiatry to help you with that!

The many critical challenges facing societies today reflect the vital need to strengthen individuals through workable, viable and humanitarian alternatives to harmful psychiatric options.

Prolonged Grief Disorder is Now Official

Monday, April 18th, 2022

The latest update to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM-5-TR, 3/18/2022], the billing bible used by psychiatrists, includes a new officially voted-upon condition called “prolonged grief disorder” [PGD].

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) formally released on March 18, 2022 the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), with prolonged grief disorder added.

This so-called disorder has these salient points:
1. The bereaved individual has experienced the death of a person close to them at least 12 months ago (for an adult).
2. The bereaved individual continues to be upset about it nearly every day for the last month, and the grief interferes with normal activities.
3. “The duration and severity of the bereavement reaction clearly exceed expected social, cultural, or religious norms for the individual’s culture and context.”

There is a lot more mumbo-jumbo in the official text of the diagnosis. Essentially, it is the opinion of a psychiatrist, since there are no medical tests against which such a diagnosis can be confirmed (and no medical treatment, either.)

Allen Frances, the American psychiatrist best known for chairing the APA task force for DSM-IV, tweeted about DSM-5-TR, “Its only new new diagnosis ‘Prolonged Grief’ is a disaster”.

Psychiatrists who support this ridiculous diagnosis may hope that it explains the difference between “normal grief” and “abnormal grief.”

In point of fact, there is such a thing as an upset of long duration. But it’s not a mental illness; it’s a spiritual trauma.

Really, what is an upset?

An upset is a sudden drop or cutting of one’s Affinity, Reality, Communication or Understanding with someone or something. It’s a lack of Affinity, Reality, Communication or Understanding that is common to all upsets. If one discovers which of these points have been cut, one can bring about a rapid recovery. When such an upset continues over too long a period, they become sad and mournful. This condition is handled by finding the earliest such upset and indicating which of these points were cut.

Psychiatrists want to prescribe an antidepressant for this (or some other harmful and addictive mind-altering drug to suppress the symptoms) instead of actually dealing with the original trauma — primarily because they don’t know how to deal with it, so they default to the quickest way to make a buck off of it.

Such brutal treatment is all too common in psychiatric mental health care.

The APA’s DSM extends the reach of psychiatry deeply into daily life, making as many people as possible eligible for psychiatric diagnoses and thus for psychotropic drugs. More than ten per cent of American adults already take antidepressants, in spite of their horrific side effects such as violence and suicide.

With the DSM, psychiatry has taken countless aspects of human behavior, such as grief, and reclassified them as a “mental illness” simply by adding the term “disorder” onto them. While even key DSM contributors admit that there is no scientific or medical validity to these “disorders,” the DSM nonetheless serves as a diagnostic tool, not only for individual treatment, but also for child custody disputes, discrimination cases, court testimony, education and more. As the diagnoses completely lack scientific criteria, anyone can be labeled mentally ill, and subjected to dangerous and life threatening “treatments” based solely on opinion.

The psychiatricizing of normal everyday behavior by including personality quirks and traits is a lucrative business for the APA because by expanding the number of “mental illnesses” even ordinary people can become patients and added to the psychiatric marketing pool.

There are non–psychiatric, non–drug solutions for people experiencing mental difficulty, there are non–harmful alternatives.

Contact your State Legislators and ask them to remove all references to the DSM from State Law.

New Study Tells Consumers the Truth of Potential Lethal Electroshock and Antidepressant Risks

Monday, February 21st, 2022

Over 14,800 ECT patients were 16 times more likely to try to commit suicide than a control group of 58,369; antidepressants can also induce suicidal feelings and frightening long-term withdrawal effects.

By CCHR International
The Mental Health Industry Watchdog
February 7, 2022

A new study published in Psychological Medicine questions the two principle physical treatments recommended for depression: antidepressants and electroshock therapy (ECT) and raises the alarm about their adverse effects on the brain.[1] Citizens Commission on Human Rights International, a 53-year mental health industry watchdog, says the study contains vital information for consumers recommended for ECT, including the risk of suicide, all of which adds weight to the argument that the potentially brain-damaging practice should be prohibited as a mental health treatment.

The study by two UK experts, John Read, Ph.D., a psychologist and Joanna Moncrieff, M.D., a psychiatrist, discusses the need for non-harmful alternatives that are safe and effective. They cite the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates that ECT machines have signs stating: “The long-term safety and effectiveness of ECT treatment has not been demonstrated.” Yet, the practice is given to an estimated 100,000 Americans every year, including, in some states, children aged up to five years old.

Antidepressants can also cause long-term sexual dysfunction and severe withdrawal effects, the study shows.

The authors wrote: “With the World Health Association and the United Nations calling for a paradigm shift away from the medicalization of human distress, new evidence about millions of people struggling to get off antidepressants, and ongoing debate about the value and safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT),” and questions “biological psychiatry’s ‘medical model’ when we become sad or depressed.”

The authors debunk the theory that chemical imbalances cause depression and that treatments work by correcting underlying biological dysfunctions, triggered, for example, by a supposed genetic predisposition. They point that “there is no evidence that there are any neurochemical abnormalities in people with depression, let alone abnormalities that might cause depression.”

Many medical experts confirm there are no medical tests (X-rays, blood or urine tests, MRIs, etc.) that can prove a physical source for people’s emotional issues.[2]

Yet, the authors add, until January 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) website advised: “Psychiatric medications can help correct imbalances in brain chemistry that are thought to be involved in some mental disorders.” This is not true.

The authors went on to say, “At present, most drugs are assumed to work according to a ‘disease-centered’ model of drug action, which proposes that they act on the biological processes assumed to underpin symptoms, in the same way as drugs do in most medical conditions.” However, “Like other psychiatric drugs, [antidepressants] are psychoactive substances that cross the blood-brain barrier and alter normal mental processes and behavior by changing the normal functioning of the brain.” [emphasis added]

“That long-term antidepressant use may lead to persistent brain modifications is also evidenced by the prolonged and severe withdrawal state they can induce…around 56% of people experience withdrawal effects after discontinuing antidepressants, and for 46% of those the effects are severe. In general, the longer someone takes an antidepressant, the more likely they are to experience a withdrawal reaction, and the more severe it will be.”

The study also discloses:

  • Hundreds of placebo-controlled trials suggest that antidepressants are marginally better than placebo at reducing depressive symptoms as measured by depression rating scales.
  • The majority of placebo-controlled trials have been conducted by the pharmaceutical industry, which has an investment in inflating results, but government-funded research also fails to confirm that antidepressants have beneficial effects.
  • SSRI antidepressants cause “sexual dysfunction in a large proportion of users, and more worryingly, some people report that this persists after stopping the drug.”
  • “The adverse effects of withdrawal can be so intolerable that some people trying to discontinue treatment have to reduce by tiny amounts over many years, and accumulating evidence suggests that the effects may even persist for months or years after the drugs are finally stopped.” 

Electroshocking Harms Mental Health

As is the case for antidepressants, the various biological deficits that are supposedly corrected by ECT have never been demonstrated, the authors continue. “[T]he story of ECT appears to be one of a biological intervention being claimed to correct biological deficits, but in reality having negative effects on healthy brains, some of which are misconstrued as signs of improvement.” 

A neutral observer would assume that the effects on the brain of repeatedly passing sufficient electricity through it to cause seizures are likely to be negative. ECT advocates, however, “tend to interpret abnormal brain changes caused by multiple electrocutions as beneficial, sometimes even linking them to reduced depression. They don’t consider that the changes might be negative or might be characterized as brain damage.”

The authors further discuss inequities in ECT studies:

  • In the 84 years since the first ECT there have only been 11 randomized placebo-controlled studies (RCTs) for its target diagnosis, depression, all before 1986. A recent review, involving Dr. Irving Kirsch, Associate Director of Placebo Studies at Harvard Medical School, highlighted the poor quality of the 11 studies.
  • Only four studies describe their processes of randomization and testing the blinding (procedure in which one or more parties in a trial are unaware of which participants are subjects of the treatment and those who are not, and helps to reduce bias). None convincingly demonstrate that they are double-blind. Five selectively report their findings. Only four report any ratings by patients. None assess Quality of Life. The studies are small, involving an average of 37 people.
  • No studies showed that ECT outperforms placebo beyond the end of the treatment period.
  • Nevertheless, all five meta-analyses of these flawed studies somehow conclude that ECT is effective.
  • The meta-analyses failed to identify any evidence that ECT prevents suicide, as often claimed. Numerous studies have found ECT recipients are more likely than other patients to kill themselves.
  • In a 2020 study, 14,810 ECT patients were 16 times more likely to try to kill themselves than a matched control group of 58,369. Other studies cited so-called reduce suicides were so small as to be negligible and were not even for depression.
  • A 2021 U.S. study found that 1,524 homeless US veterans who received ECT had made significantly more suicide attempts, at 30 days follow up, than 3,025 matched homeless veterans who hadn’t had ECT. The difference remained significant at 90 days and 1 year.
  • A review of 82 studies found that one in 39 ECT patients (25.8 per 1000) experience ‘major adverse cardiac events,’ the leading cause of ECT-related deaths.
  • As well as the short-term memory loss, which is widely acknowledged, between 12% and 55% of ECT recipients suffer persistent or permanent memory loss (typically defined as six months or longer).
  • Even the APA acknowledges that “ECT can result in persistent or permanent memory loss.”

The fact that discrepancies and bias in ECT studies are exposed draws strong opposition from advocates of the procedure, as doctors Read and Moncrieff point out. The advocates’ “defense” is to “shoot the messenger.”

“Researchers and ECT recipients who question the efficacy and highlight the adverse effects of ECT, are often publicly denigrated, by ECT advocates, as ‘anti-psychiatry ideologues’, ‘extremists’ ‘Scientologists’ and ‘non-medical zealots,’” or “part of a ‘guild war’ between professions.” [See CCHR’s report, Why Psychiatry Sees Itself as a Dying Industry.]

Read and Moncrieff continue: “The President and Chair of the International Society for ECT and Neurostimulation recently accused authors (including two ECT recipients) who had published some inconvenient findings of being ‘ideologically driven,’ of ‘spreading misinformation’ and of having ‘questionable motives.’”

Of note, the Church of Scientology established CCHR in 1969 as an independent organization, along with eminent professor of psychiatry, the late Dr. Thomas Szasz. CCHR comprises members of the church and people of various faiths or none at all. It has been outspoken against electroshock since its inception and has been pivotal in obtaining laws that either introduced safeguards such as informed consent to treatment (and the right to refuse it), as well as banning use of ECT on minors. In Australia, CCHR obtained a ban on deep sleep treatment (DST) that involved ECT and drugs, with criminal penalties, including jail, should anyone administer it. Indeed, in 2002, U.S. psychiatrist Richard Abrams, co-owner of Somatics LLC, which manufacturers an ECT device, wrote: “Absent Scientology there would hardly be an organized anti-ECT movement in the United States or anywhere else.”[3] This, from a “doctor,” who egregiously and misleadingly claims that ECT is about ten times safer than childbirth![4]

A Call for Alternatives

Read and Moncrief call for non-harmful alternatives: “We propose an alternative understanding that recognizes depression as an emotional and meaningful response to unwanted life events and circumstances.” This alternative view, they say, “is increasingly endorsed around the world, including by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and service users who have suffered negative consequences of physical treatments that modify brain functions in ways that are not well-understood.”

Furthermore, “believing you have a brain disease requiring medical intervention can be profoundly disempowering. It encourages people to view themselves as the victims of their biology, to adopt pessimistic views about recovery, increases self-stigma and discourages people from taking active steps to improve their situation.”

“Common sense,” they add, “suggests that the conditions needed to lead an emotionally balanced and fulfilling life, relatively free of major ongoing worry and distress, include a dependable income, housing, secure and rewarding employment, engaging social activities, and opportunities to form close relationships. Some people may need relationship counselling or family therapy, others support with employment or finances. People who feel severely depressed for a long time may simply need to be cared for, reassured with kindness and hope, reminded of times when they have felt good, and kept safe until they feel better, which they often do with time. There is no scientific evidence for some of these suggestions. We learn how to support our fellow humans through our life experience, through being cared for ourselves, and sometimes through art and literature.”

As the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Dr. Dainius P?ras, a Lithuanian psychiatrist, wrote: “Current mental health policies have been affected to a large extent by the asymmetry of power and biases because of the dominance of the biomedical model and biomedical interventions. This model has led…to the medicalization of normal reactions to life’s many pressures, including moderate forms of social anxiety, sadness, shyness, truancy and antisocial behavior.”

In 2021, the World Health Organization echoed these sentiments in its “Guidance on Community Mental Health Services” which says the biological model has resulted in “an over-diagnosis of human distress and over-reliance on psychotropic drugs to the detriment of psychosocial interventions.”[5] The document offers 22 examples of alternatives to drugs and electricity, Read and Moncrieff stress.

CCHR’s has a strong position against ECT; it wants it prohibited. Over 125,000 people have supported its online petition calling for the ban. Sign here.

References:

[1] John Read, Ph.D., Joanna Moncrief, M.D., “Depression: why drugs and electricity are not the answer,” Psychological Medicine, Cambridge University Press, 1 Feb. 2022, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/depression-why-drugs-and-electricity-are-not-the-answer/3197739131D795E326AE6913720E6E37

[2] “No Medical Tests Exist,” CCHR International, https://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-disorders/no-medical-tests-exist/

[3] Richard Abrams, M.D., Electroconvulsive Therapy, Fourth Edition, (Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 10

[4] Richard Abrams, M.D., “The Mortality Rate with ECT,” Convulsive Therapy, 1997

[5] Jan Eastgate, “World Health Organization New Guidelines Are Vital To End Coercive Psychiatric Practices & Abuse,” CCHR International, 11 June 2021, https://www.cchrint.org/2021/06/11/world-health-organization-new-guidelines-are-vital-to-end-coercive-psychiatric-practices-abuse/

Psychiatry is Not a Sustainable Industry

Monday, March 8th, 2021

Reference:
United Nations Promoting Sustainable Development

Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Sustainable: Of, relating to, or being a method or lifestyle for using resources so that the resources can be maintained and continued, and are not depleted or permanently damaged.

[from Old French sustenir (French: soutenir), from Latin sustineo, sustinere, from sub– (under) + teneo (hold, uphold, possess, guard, maintain)]

The U.N. Sustainable Development Goals

The 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and their 169 associated targets adopted in 2015 and accepted by all Member States seek to realize the human rights of all and balance economic, social and environmental factors towards peace and prosperity for all.

To this end we examine some of the existing factors which block or inhibit the realization of these goals, and which must be eliminated so that the goals can be achieved in practice.

SDG 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global
Partnership for Sustainable Development.

Target 17.16: Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in all countries, in particular developing countries.

How Psychiatry Obstructs Target 17.16

It should be obvious by now that psychiatry is not a sustainable industry, neither by definition nor by example.

The main resource in consideration here is people, the most critical building blocks of society. Yet psychiatry has no cures, and depends on damaging their patients to continue in business.

We see the globalization of biomedical psychiatry as undemocratic, unsustainable and without a clear ethical focus.

Green Mental Health Care

Green Mental Health Care is based on the preservation and treatment of the mind and body (for they are not separate functions) using non-toxic, non-addictive, and non-invasive strategies that produces good mental health. Green Mental Health Care has not only proven to be superior in patient outcomes than any other treatment method, including the use of psychiatric drugs, but it achieves the patient’s health goals at a fraction of the cost while saving them from the life-threatening health risks associated with psychiatric drugs.

Unsustainable Psychiatric Practices

Unsustainable prescription drug costs will ultimately create pressures on health systems and insurers to reduce spending in other areas or to decrease benefits.

ElectroConvulsive Therapy (ECT), or shock therapy, is a highly lucrative but damaging psychiatric practice. The purpose of shock treatment is to create brain damage. This brain damage is what brings about the memory loss and learning disability, as well as the spatial and temporal disorientation which always follows shock treatments. All physical damage done to the brain by ECT is permanent and irreversible. There is evidence that the damage, once begun by ECT, is progressive and feeds on itself, leading to further brain deterioration, including physical shrinkage of the brain and a shortening of the life of the victim. This barbaric “treatment” is currently being pushed on an unsuspecting and vulnerable patient population for major depression, but in reality it creates a patient for life due to this brain damage. Sign the petition to Ban ECT.

With mental health treatment costing up to 300% more than general medical treatment, spiraling costs are unavoidable when mental health care is mandated.

Psychiatrists and psychologists proclaim a worldwide epidemic of mental health problems and urge massive funding increases as the only solution. Yet Community Mental Health programs have been an expensive and colossal failure, creating homelessness, drug addiction, crime and unemployment all over the world.

Whenever a “mental patient” commits an act of senseless violence, psychiatrists invariably blame the tragedy on the person’s failure to continue their medication. Such incidents are used to justify mandated community treatment and involuntary commitment laws. However, statistics and facts show it is psychiatric drugs themselves that can create the very violence or mental incompetence they are prescribed to treat.

The end result of psychiatric treatment is not a cured patient, returned to society as a well-adjusted, functioning contributor, but rather a person with the same or worse mental symptoms, told they must remain on debilitating psychiatric drugs for life, because psychiatrists know of no other cure.

“Biomedical psychiatry” has yet to validate a single psychiatric diagnosis as a disease, or as anything neurological, biological, chemically imbalanced or genetic. Decades of psychiatric monopoly over mental health has only lead to upwardly spiraling mental illness statistics and continuously escalating funding demands — the very definition of unsustainable.

The claim that only increased funding will cure the problems of psychiatry has lost its ring of truth. Psychiatry and psychology should be held accountable for the funds already given them, and irrefutably and scientifically prove the physical existence of mental disorders they claim should be treated and covered by insurance in the same way as physical diseases are.

The many critical challenges facing societies today reflect the vital need to strengthen individuals through workable, viable and humanitarian alternatives to harmful psychiatric options.

Psychiatric fraud and abuse must be eradicated so that SDG 17 can occur.

How psychiatry Promotes Homelessness

Monday, June 1st, 2020

Reference:
United Nations Promoting Sustainable Development
Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015 “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Sustainable: Of, relating to, or being a method or lifestyle for using resources so that the resources can be maintained and continued, and are not depleted or permanently damaged.

[from Old French sustenir (French: soutenir), from Latin sustineo, sustinere, from sub– (under) + teneo (hold, uphold, possess, guard, maintain)]

The U.N. Sustainable Development Goals

The 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and their 169 associated targets adopted in 2015 and accepted by all Member States seek to realize the human rights of all and balance economic, social and environmental factors towards peace and prosperity for all.

To this end we examine some of the existing factors which block or inhibit the realization of these goals, and which must be eliminated so that the goals can be achieved in practice.

SDG 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.
Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.

How Psychiatry Obstructs Target 11.1

We bet you have not yet made the connection between psychiatry and homelessness.

We’re here to tell you about it.

Community Mental Health Centers

The advent of Community Mental Health (CMH) 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.

CMH was 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. 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 “major tranquilizers,” 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. 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.”

Mental health courts are facilities established to deal with arrests for misdemeanors or non-violent felonies. Rather than allowing the guilty parties to take responsibility for their crimes, they are diverted to a psychiatric treatment center on the premise that they suffer from “mental illness” which will respond positively to antipsychotic drugs. It is another form of coercive “community mental health treatment.”

Homelessness

The homeless individuals commonly seen grimacing and talking to themselves on the street are exhibiting the effects of such psychiatric drug-induced damage. “Tardive dyskinesia” [tardive, late appearing and dyskinesia, abnormal muscle movement] and “tardive dystonia” [dystonia, abnormal muscle tension] are permanent conditions caused by tranquilizers in which the muscles of the face and body contort and spasm involuntarily.

For almost 50 years, psychiatry has promoted its theory that the only “treatment” for severe mental “illness” is neuroleptic drugs. However, this idea rests on a fault line. The truth is that not only is the drugging of severely mentally disturbed patients unnecessary — and expensive, thus profitable — it also causes brain- and life-damaging side effects.

The Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction reported that the CMH program in Europe created homelessness, drug addiction, criminal activities, disturbances to public peace and order, and unemployment.

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

The psychiatric establishment cries for more funding because “so many homeless people suffer from mental illness.” They dissemble, because the psychiatric establishment itself is creating the mental trauma which results in homelessness.

Recommendations

There are workable alternatives to psychiatry’s mind-, brain- and body-damaging treatments. With psychiatry now calling for mandatory mental illness screening for adults and children everywhere, we urge all who have an interest in preserving the mental health, the physical health and the freedom of their families, communities and nations, to find out for themselves. Something must be done to establish real help for those who need it.

Psychiatric fraud and abuse must be eradicated so that SDG 11 can occur.

The Promise of Disordered Proteins

Monday, December 16th, 2019
Various biotechnology companies are betting on the therapeutic potential of a certain class of proteins in researching possible new drugs.

Such proteins, called “intrinsically disordered proteins” (IDPs), look different from the proteins with rigid structures that are more familiar in cells. IDPs are shape-shifters, appearing as ensembles of components that constantly change configurations. This loose structure allows the IDPs to bring together a wide variety of molecules at critical moments, such as during a cell’s response to stress. Less flexible proteins tend to have a more limited number of binding partners. When IDPs do not function properly, disease can ensue. Medical researchers have  been trying to create treatments to eliminate or regulate malfunctioning IDPs.

In 2017 researchers demonstrated that an FDA-approved drug called trifluoperazine (which is prescribed for psychotic disorders and anxiety) bound to and inhibited NUPR1, a disordered protein involved in a form of pancreatic cancer.

The NUPR1 (nuclear protein 1) gene is an intrinsically disordered protein coding gene which is associated with pancreatic cancer, although the details of such functions are still unknown.

Trifluoperazine (brand name Novo-Trifluzine) is an older antipsychotic, also called a Major Tranquilizer or Neuroleptic. As with all such antipsychotics, possible side effects are: akathisia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, tardive dyskinesia, anxiety, depression, mood changes, hostility, pancreatitis, seizures, suicidal thoughts, and violence.

The point we want to make is that researchers are actively investigating psychotropic drugs to see if they can be re-purposed for other uses than for which the FDA currently approves. If such drugs, or offshoots of such drugs, are given permission to be prescribed for additional uses, then more people could be exposed to the side effects of such drugs.

“TFP [trifluoperazine] cannot be used in clinic for treating patients with cancer, due to the numerous undesirable side effects that occur at efficient anticancer doses.” Since TFP shows such strong central nervous system side effects, researchers try to develop TFP derivatives with less side effects. Of course, human clinical trials must be done to show the results before marketing a drug, since the research up to this point has been done on mice.

But again, the points we want to make are that 1) the details of how these drugs are supposed to “work” are often unknown; 2) this type of research is highly speculative; and 3) the base drugs have toxic side effects.

All this reflects back to the original use of such psychotropic drugs and their horrific side effects. And the point we really want to make about this is that the root problem is not even the drugs. The real problem is that psychiatrists fraudulently diagnose life’s problems as an “illness”, and stigmatize unwanted behavior or study problems as  “diseases,” using the fraudulent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as justification to prescribe these drugs and other coercive and abusive “treatments.” 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.

Decades of psychiatric monopoly over mental health has only lead to upwardly spiraling mental illness statistics, continuously escalating funding demands, and ever more addictive and harmful drugs which can cause violence and suicide.

The many critical challenges facing societies today reflect the vital need to strengthen individuals through workable, viable and humanitarian alternatives to harmful psychiatric options. Contact your local, state and federal representatives and let them know what you think about this.

Click here for more information.

The Remedy of Tiredness

Tuesday, November 12th, 2019

The fraudulent psychiatric billing bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), has quite a few entries related to one form or another of “sleep disorder,” many of which simply occur when a person is knocked out by some (legal or illegal) drug. And if a psychiatrist can’t find the real reason for a person’s troubled sleeping, they’ll just diagnose the catch-all “Unspecified sleep-wake disorder”. Psychiatrists assume that anything they can’t explain is a “mental illness.”

Of course, the psychiatric treatment of choice is a psychotropic drug, many of which have known side effects of difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep.

Lack of sufficient sleep, though, is only one cause of tiredness. There are quite a few medical and other reasons why someone might feel tired or exhausted, regardless of how much sleep they may or may not be getting. Clinical tests should be done by a competent, non-psychiatric health care professional, to determine if there are undiagnosed and untreated medical issues interfering with sleep. Oh, and the DSM also calls “sleep apnea” a psychiatric disorder, even though it may primarily be a medical or neurological issue.

Then there are a plethora of non-medical issues which might be causing tiredness. We’ll examine some, but not all of them, here.

We do not go deeply here into physical treatments; there are many good references on nutrition, exercise and body health which relate to the issues of sleep and tiredness.

What is Exhaustion?

Simple definition: Having wholly used up strength, patience, or resources; tired beyond endurance.

The surprising thing is that exhaustion can be a symptom of several things having nothing to do with extended effort. In fact, one thing that can cause exhaustion is inaction — the opposite of extended effort. Sitting around the house moping can make one just as tired as mountain climbing. It’s not real tiredness in this case; it’s psychosomatic.

Another thing tiredness can be traced to is some form of introversion or fixated attention. An example might be sitting in front of a computer or TV, eyes focused at a fixed distance for an extended period of time.

For these, the remedy is extroversion; go take a walk and look at the things around you.

Do You Feel Washed-Out?

Simple definition: Depleted in vigor or animation; faded.

When reading or studying, if you skip over words, symbols or abbreviations you don’t know and continue reading, you will start to feel washed-out. If you just now yawned, you are a good candidate for this remedy. The remedy is simple: go back, find the term you didn’t know, look it up in a dictionary, and use it in sentences until you understand it. Then re-read what you missed.

Have You Tried and Failed?

A blunted or abandoned purpose makes one feel tired or dopey. The remedy is to rekindle the failed purpose.

Are Your Efforts and Communications Cut or Incomplete?

Do you experience a lot of interruptions at work? Do people walk by, talk to you, and then walk away before you can respond?

When Cycles of Action or Cycles of Communication are cut or incomplete, you can experience tiredness that is otherwise unexplained. Again, the remedy is pretty simple: go back and complete the cycle of action or cycle of communication. Finish what was interrupted.

What Not To Do

These are not all the possible manifestations of tiredness, but these are fairly easy to recognize and have simple resolutions. The thing you must NOT do is think you have some “mental illness”, see a shrink, and take an antidepressant or other psychiatric drug which can be addictive and have horrific side effects. Take a nice long walk instead.

Psychiatrists Anxious to Treat All Child-bearing Women for Post-Partum Depression

Saturday, June 15th, 2019

The FDA approved the first drug treatment for post-partum depression (PPD) on March 19, 2019. Psychiatrists call this “peripartum depression”, which means depressive symptoms during pregnancy or after childbirth. While there is no  actual diagnostic test for this, the current revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) labels this with various alternative wordings of “depressive disorder” or “bipolar disorder” or “anxiety disorder” or “stress disorder,” sometimes with the specifier “with peripartum onset“, depending on the circumstances.

The diagnosis is totally subjective, and is a justification for making money for prescribing an antidepressant. Psychiatrists do not typically perform any clinical tests to find out if there is a real medical reason for the symptoms, such as thyroid problems or vitamin deficiencies. Research suggests that rapid changes in hormones and thyroid levels during and after delivery have a strong effect on moods, yet this is mostly ignored by the psychiatric industry since it is easier and more profitable to prescribe a psychotropic drug.

The drug is Zulresso (generic brexanolone), an intravenous infusion administered continuously over 60 hours (2.5 days) and requiring constant monitoring. There is a risk of serious harm due to a sudden loss of consciousness during the treatment, the appearance of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, or hypoxia (loss of oxygen in the blood). The drug passes into breast milk, but there is no data on the safety of brexanolone while breastfeeding. The cost has currently been set at $34,000 per course of treatment.

Sage Therapeutics says that this neurosteroid, a derivative of allopregnanolone, affects GABAA (Type-A gamma-Aminobutyric acid) neurotransmitter receptors in the brain, although the actual mechanism of action of this drug with respect to PPD (or any other condition) is unknown.

Many people think that post-partum depression is a mental illness. However, this is very misleading for a mother who has experienced the trauma of just giving birth. To have them think the emotional roller coaster they may be experiencing is the result of a “chemical imbalance in the brain,” requiring mind-altering medication, is false and potentially very harmful.

This does not mean that serious emotional difficulties do not exist. But it does mean that psychiatrists and psychologists have used such difficulties to their advantage, promoting powerful drugs as a “solution” for vulnerable individuals. This has been for the sake of profit, often at the expense of people’s lives.

Quite apart from such drugs causing harm, they are also unnecessary. Any competent medical doctor who takes the time to conduct a thorough physical examination of someone exhibiting signs of what psychiatrists say are “mental disorders,” including post-partum depression, can find undiagnosed, untreated physical conditions.

Instead, psychiatrists prefer to tell young mothers that their condition is an “illness,” requiring “medication,” potentially endangering the life of the mother and her child.

Women may experience drastic drops in hormone levels after the birth of a child that can deliver a major shock to the woman’s body. Nutritional and mineral depletion or deficiencies as well as a lack of sleep while caring for a baby can also cause the symptoms psychiatrists say are a “mental disorder.” It can be treated nutritionally.

For more information, download and read the CCHR bookletThe Drugging of ‘Post Partum Depression’ – Clearing up Misconceptions About ‘Chemical Imbalances,’ Antidepressant Drugs and Non-Drug Solutions“.

Are You Schizophrenic?

Friday, January 18th, 2019

“Mental health advocates are lobbying Congress to help them get schizophrenia classified as a brain disease like Parkinson’s or Alzheimers, instead of as a mental illness, a move that could reduce stigma and lead to more dollars for a cure.” This according to a January, 2019 article on Politico.com.

More and more health officials, scientists and doctors are recognizing that so-called “mental illnesses” such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are poorly understood and are really physical, medical issues — not some nebulous mental thing for which harmful and addictive psychotropic drugs are prescribed.

There are no clinical tests for these “mental” diagnoses. But there are clinical tests for whatever turns out to be the real medical issue. So why are psychiatrists handing out so many harmful drugs without performing blood or other well-known clinical tests? Could it be because it is profitable, and insurance will pay for them?

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

Linda Stalters, executive director of the schizophrenia alliance, said, “We are still treating people like they did in the medieval times.”

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, click here to download and read the full CCHR report “Schizophrenia—Psychiatry’s For Profit ‘Disease’“.

Guilty of Bad Taste

Thursday, September 20th, 2018

And we don’t mean the “Bad Taste” 1987 science-fiction comedy horror splatter film about aliens harvesting humans for their intergalactic fast food franchise.

We mean that something is in bad or poor taste when it exhibits poor judgment by being tasteless, unsuitable, unseemly, improper, inappropriate, politically incorrect, impolite, lewd, offensive, insensitive, vulgar, crude, rude, obscene, meanspirited, or uncalled for. It is not a morally wrong action, but the reporting of current events often hypes what is essentially just bad taste by elevating it to a crime or a mental illness.

It should be obvious that the judgment of what is in good or bad taste is pretty subjective, socially entangled, and can be described by hoards of synonymous words.

Of course, we all know what good taste is. It’s what we have, and other people don’t.

Then again, bad taste could just be a failure to police oneself due to some extremely distracting condition, such as intoxication.

It occurred to us, reviewing some of the recent “news” in main stream media, that psychiatry has been (horrors) guilty of labeling bad taste as mental disorders.

Here are some examples of what could be just incidents of bad taste, or related to incidents of bad taste, from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). These are the fraudulent psychiatric diagnoses for which harmful and addictive psychotropic drugs can be prescribed, and for which insurance will pay the cost.

Adult antisocial behavior
Alcohol intoxication
Caffeine intoxication
Caffeine withdrawal
Cannabis intoxication
Cannabis withdrawal
Child or adolescent antisocial behavior
Cocaine intoxication
Cocaine withdrawal
Conduct disorder
Discord with neighbor, lodger, or landlord
Disinhibited social engagement disorder
Exhibitionistic disorder
Histrionic personality disorder
Insomnia disorder
Intermittent explosive disorder
Narcissistic personality disorder
Opioid intoxication
Opioid withdrawal
Personal history of military deployment
Phase of life problem
Relationship distress with spouse or intimate partner
Sibling relational problem
Social exclusion or rejection
Target of (perceived) adverse discrimination or persecution
Tobacco withdrawal

There are undoubtedly more diagnoses that could fit this categorization.

In other words, by exhibiting bad taste one could be diagnosed with a mental disorder and prescribed harmful and addictive psychotropic drugs. And who among us has not slipped up and said something they later regret? The point is, bad taste is not a mental illness, but it has been used by the psychiatric industry as a money-maker and a control mechanism by psychiatrists who assert that they know how you should behave in every circumstance.

With the DSM, psychiatry has taken countless aspects of human behavior and reclassified them as a “mental illness” simply by adding the term “disorder” onto them. While even key DSM contributors admit that there is no scientific or medical validity to the “disorders,” the DSM nonetheless serves as a diagnostic tool, not only for individual treatment, but also for child custody disputes, discrimination cases, court testimony, education, immigration, and more. As the diagnoses completely lack scientific criteria, anyone can be labeled mentally ill, and subjected to dangerous and life threatening “treatments” based solely on opinion.

It used to be that the term “mentally ill” was limited to mean crazy people like those talking to themselves in the streets and those acting irrationally, oblivious to the world around them. However, the symptoms of mental illness, today, have been re-defined and broadened by psychiatry to fit under the umbrella of any non-optimum behavior, including what is considered normal for that age. Basically, “mentally ill” now is just an opinion about something that a psychiatrist doesn’t like.

Since there is no laboratory test that can identify mental illness or suicide risk, the diagnosis of a mental disorder or of a suicide risk is entirely subjective. Basically, it is the opinion of a psychiatrist who has decided he does not like what a person is thinking or feeling. This is what we mean when we say that psychiatry is being used as a social control mechanism.

The psychiatricizing of normal everyday behavior by including personality quirks and traits is a lucrative business for the American Psychiatric Association because by expanding the number of “mental illnesses” even ordinary people can become patients and added to the psychiatric marketing pool.

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