 |
| Isaac before Risperdal Psychiatric Mythology: Evidence-Based Diagnosis and Treatment |
The fraud and corruption of Johnson and Johnson, and all the other pharmaceutical industry thugs could not have been done without the willing participation of psychiatric researchers who conducted biased trials that were part of a drug marketing agenda, then published biased reports in 'peer- reviewed' professional journals. The research was structured and conducted to serve the marketing agenda and profit goal of the Pharmaceutical industry. This formula became psychiatry's gold standard, since the marketing goals were spectacularly achieved using these unethical methods. Apparently, the ends justified the means.
I am disgusted by the errors of attribution, flawed methodology, half-truths and outright lies; essentially what amounts to 'psychiatric mythology' which was developed to 'standardize' psychiatric diagnoses and psycho-pharmacological treatment. All of this was done to institute a bio-disease paradigm in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and behavioral issues within the publicly-funded mental health treatment system. No genetic defect or dysfunction, no neuro-biological pathology of known or unknown etiology had been identified; yet this lack of empirical evidence does not stop these 'doctors' of psychiatry from authoritatively stating psychiatry is in fact treating 'brain diseases' that are incurable. Why would this be done?
Apparently, it is done to coerce and manipulate patients and their family members to gain their cooperation and maintain 'treatment compliance.' Stating false claims in order to alter through the use of deception a person's behavior, is fraud. It is a crime. It is not an ethical method to medically diagnosis and prescribe medical treatment to a suffering patient.
Misinformation that psychiatrists have falsely claimed is medical knowledge, specifically, the disease metaphor; i.e. Psychiatric Mythology, became the foundation of Public Policy for the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and behavioral difficulties and extreme states experienced by people given psychiatric labels. Legislation depriving people with psychiatric diagnoses of basic Human Rights and individual protections people without a psychiatric label take for granted have been passed in 46 states. Rules of Evidence are not required, so gossip, innuendo and even perjury are allowed.
Involuntary Treatment Laws "deal with the mentally ill" who are purported by bio-psychiatry to lack insight; and cannot know whether psychiatric treatment hurts or helps them--and supposedly this is the primary reason they must be forced by Court Order. Bio-psychiatry practitioners and advocates who are proponents of drugging emotional distress and behavioral difficulties as diseases, are seemingly not troubled by the fact that a significant percentage of individuals diagnosed and targeted by their teratogenic treatment, do not experience an appreciable reduction in symptoms from taking these dangerous psychiatric drugs; but do experience the iatrogenic diseases and disabilities. The traumatizing, disabling effects of the drugs and the dishonest, coercive and manipulative methods used to gain 'treatment compliance' are why treatment is unwanted and avoided by some; OBVIOUSLY. It is unwanted and avoided according to these all-knowing (apparently psychic) 'medical advocates,' and psychiatrists, because their unwilling patients/victims just 'don't know what's good for them!'
Proponents of forced treatment do not even acknowledge the people who have experienced lasting harm from the negative impact of neuroleptic and other psychiatric drugs; or the coercive and manipulative methods used to trick patients. The fact that some, like my son, have been "treated" without consent, into states of cognitive and physical disability; is criminal. This damage is compounded by the failure of mainstream advocacy groups, Federally-funded Protection and Advocacy Attorneys, and Assigned Counsel, appointed to represent people facing involuntary psychiatric treatment under Court Order. Rarely, are victims of psychiatric abuse even acknowledged by public servants who have a duty to protect, serve and defend them.
Pretending that these survivors, and those who were killed by inefficacious and unethical "treatment" do not exist, is morally reprehensible. My son is real, and so are all people with a psychiatric diagnosis; whether they are complying with psychiatric treatment or not. All of us have Human Rights. A psychiatrist claiming an ability to discern accurately when and if a diagnosed person lacks insight, is ludicrous. There is no statistically relevant empirical data, evidence of 'disease' so this merely a ploy used to justify abuse of authority. Standard Practice and Treatment Protocols and algorithms are based on subjective opinions, e.g. biases, errors of attribution and prejudices included. Psychiatry continues to use treatments and treatment protocols developed using fraudulently collected and/or reported data. This being the case, the assertion that treatment refusal is due to a person's 'lack of insight' is truly ironic; ethically questionable, all things considered.
Neuroleptics are called antipsychotics, but for a significant percentage of people who experience symptoms of psychosis, the drugs are in fact not 'anti' psychotic. Neuroleptics are in fact terotagenic drugs which can cause multiple biological systems to become dysfunctional, and lead to disability. The risk of taking neuroleptics includes sudden death--even children have died from taking them as prescribed. Long term use can cause brain damage and decrease life expectancy by 25 to 30 years. Proponents of forced treatment also do not talk about the rampant fraud in academia, which has propelled the prescribing of the newest and most expensive drugs to Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries, often "off-label" in spite of the lack evidence justifying making indiscrimiate use of teratogenic drugs off-label a "Standard Practice." This is not ethical medicine; and when 'off-label" prescribing is coupled with not being given complete and accurate and information, it is a massive betrayal of trust and negligent.
My son is now twenty-four and the vast majority of the drugs he was prescribed as a minor, were prescribed "off label" and not approved for pediatric use at all---I was not ever told this; nor was I ever told of the risks which are inherent with neuroleptic use: Risks which include dependency, diabetes, obesity, heart damage, neurological impairment, cognitive impairment, akasthisia, and tardive dyskinisia. The deleterious effects of the drugs on my son's health were attributed to his diagnosis; even though the adverse effects are documented in the professional literature. I am so angry about the enormous betrayal of being lied to by psychiatrists, who are 'medical professionals.' The negative effects of neuroleptic and other psychotropic drugs were the symptoms used by psychiatrists to diagnose co-morbid metal illnesses and behavioral disorders.
There is no doubt that there are those who need help accessing effective treatment and support services. Proponents of "Court Ordered Treatment" whether inpatient or in the community focus on psychiatric drugs, to the exclusion of other Evidence-Based treatments and rehabilitative services. Psychiatric drugs are not "safe" in any real sense of the word, and are not medicinal treatment in the Hippocratic tradition. They are more like the drugs used in oncology yet are marketed widely to particularly vulnerable people as safe and effective. All psychiatric drugs have very serious risks; risks which are rarely discussed openly and honestly. To this day neither I, nor my now grown son has ever had even one respectful or honest dialogue with a psychiatrist who has ever prescribed neuroleptic or other psycho-active drugs to him.
The facts are ugly:
1. The risks, once known, were hidden on purpose--lied about and covered up by psychiatric researchers, and their pharmaceutical industry co-conspirators and financial benefactors.
2. The harm done to countless thousands (millions actually) has in fact been minimized as the "necessary risks" of "effective treatment," or worse, dismissed as, "tolerable side effects" by psychiatrists and others who prescribed the drugs. This is why it is claimed the patients lack insight, and their complaints are ignored !
3. The drugs are dangerous; neuroleptics and other psychiatric drugs are known to cause cognitive and intellectual decline---and we Court Order people to take them based on psychiatric fraud and deception. Brain damage occurs with long-term use; I've seen it happen, suddenly and profoundly as well...
Given these facts, how is is justifiable that children are being given these drugs, to treat symptoms for which there is no valid medical justification to prescribe them? Why are parents and guardians, or adult patients not being given the information necessary to determine whether the potential benefits outweigh the possible risks? Given the serious risks, how can we as a society, justify forcing people to take drugs which can cause them to develop serious debilitating metabolic and neurological illnesses, that can be disabling, and lead to early and/or sudden death? This does not "help" those who are vulnerable, in crisis, and in need of kind, compassionate care. It is not "helpful" to force people to take drugs which cause parasympathetic nervous system dysfunction, cognitive decline, and limits their abilities; putting them at further risk of sudden or early death. Just because a drug is prescribed, does not mean the drug is "medicinal," "therapeutic," or even ethical treatment that is being provided to the patient. Without Informed Consent, it is in fact criminal.
I am only a mother whose child was prescribed neuroleptic drugs "off-label" in a surreal horror story: It is as if some very twisted combination of a marketing scheme and a pseudo-medical horror movie about Psychiatry. The goal is convince people that symptoms of emotional distress and behavioral difficulties, regardless of their etiology, are symptoms of a life-long biological diseases or genetic dysfunction. The "treatment," is always drugs and/or electroshock which can and does cause disease and dysfunction.
Patients are purposely misinformed when they are told they have a disease or imbalance; then when drug-induced dysfunction is recognized it is attributed to the progression of the "disease." Psychiatrists have told family members that their loved one with a psychiatric diagnosis has a "brain disease;" and just don't know they should take their medicine; they have 'no insight.' Telling parents and other family members that, 'the 'side effects' are unpleasant, but your loved one must take the drugs is a social control tactic. Implicit is the idea/judgement/"support" to help you believe you need to use manipulation and coercion; you need to lie to them, 'for their own good.' Is it really surprising the lack of trust many people have for "mental health treatment providers" and for psychiatry? Why would anyone trust an individual who lies; let alone a group of professionals whose knowledge base is riddled with falsehoods and believe lying to and about patients is ethical and is necessary to implement a 'medical treatment' strategy? These are in reality, bullying tactics.
Outcomes for the patients are obviously not as important as never questioning the medical model of "mental health treatment," and being compliant---Consent, or a psychiatrist or other mental health professional ethically sharing information about the risks and potential benefits of psychiatric drugs with adult patients or parents of diagnosed children, is not necessary---people with a psychiatric diagnosis, and family advocates are to be told no more than necessary to gain compliance with the chosen Practice Parameter and Treatment Protocol. Charles Huffine, M.D. told me, "Parents who objected to medical treatment they (psychiatrists) would see as at best ill informed and at worst impaired themselves."
There it is Ladies and Gentlemen: The unvarnished, unadulterated truth of bio-psychiatry: Parents who do not agree to drug their children must be ill-informed, or impaired themselves! Ironic really, when you consider parents may be ill-informed by the psychiatrists who are making this judgment! Implicit in this statement is the belief that parents have no right to refuse consent to psychiatric treatment on behalf of their children, or make any decision for their child which a psychiatrist or other mental health professional disagrees with. In effect, the risk vs. benefit analysis and consent is solely the provenance of the psychiatrist, or other mental health professional?!
When a prescriber fails to fully inform adult patients and/or parents of child and adolescent patients, and fails to engage the diagnosed person and support persons in an honest, respectful dialog which culminates in a shared decision---there is no consent, let alone, Informed Consent! In this way, parents are effectively denied their Constitutional Rights as parents to make medical decisions about mental health treatment for their children without Due Process of Law; and often don't even know this has occurred. In fact it continues to be a threat---even though I have the legal authority to act on my son's behalf, when he is unable. Parental Rights and Family Rights mean nothing to some psychiatrists or "mental health professionals" in my experience.
Judi Chamberlin Debates E. Fuller Torrey
First published June 11, 2011 edited and links added
No comments:
Post a Comment