"I believe we must speak our conscience in moments that demand it, even if we are but one voice"

"I believe we must speak our conscience in moments that demand it even if we are but one voice"  

Richard B. Sanders

This article was first posted on October 6, 2011. In light of the recent publicity from the ABC News investigation and the Senate Hearings which were held by Senator Tom Carper last week; I have updated it.

I was thoroughly disgusted, and I have felt physically ill since I read Jon McClellan's testimony offered in last week's Senate Hearing on the drugging of children in foster care.  As I see it, this psychiatrist decrying the drugging of foster children is questionable at the very least; in my opinion, the man is either disingenuous, delusional, or simply lacks any professional insight.  I say this primarily due to my personal experience with how unethically he conducted himself when he "treated" my son at what he referred to as, "my State hospital," in his testimony.  I  also say this because I know that he has in fact written the book, so to speak, on how to drug children in distress, using teratogenic drugs off-label.  He advises and teaches other professionals how to do this very thing, and actually is the AUTHOR of the Practice Parameters and Treatment Protocols which guide other professionals in this disgusting practice!  So, the real question is HOW can he not realize his own writing and teaching has had a great deal to do with the drugging of children with dangerous drugs?!  

The fact of the matter is, the way the man ignored State, Federal and International Law in the "treatment" of my son, leaves absolutely no doubt in my mind he should not even have a medical license.  Much less, be relied upon to give truthful testimony; allowed to treat children; or teach students of psychiatry.  Jon McClellan has committed Crimes against Humanity in his role as Medical Director of Child Study and Treatment Center, and he should be in Federal Prison; not being hailed as a "lead researcher" funded by the NIMH!

"DOCTORS and academics risk "professional suicide" if they reveal the adverse side-effects of anti-depressants and other psychiatric medicines, a leading academic psychiatrist has claimed."  Dr. David Healey, is quoted in  the The Irish Examiner on September 24, 2011 under the title, "Doctors risk 'professional suicide' with drug alerts" This is one of the ways used to exert power and control over people and the dissemination of information while stifling dissent.

Evidence or Science-Based medical research is conducted within parameters: ethically and honestly; seeking scientifically valid information, that can be reliably duplicated and validated, by others.   All data from research is valid; while not all data collected may be relevant for the purpose that the research is being conducted, it is still data that should not be hidden, even data considered "statistically insignificant." 


Historically, pharmacological research with respect to psychiatric conditions has relied heavily on poorly constructed research models, discarding of data which does not serve the outcomes hoped for---usually to validate prescribing a particular drug for another purpose or for submitting a drug for FDA approval.  True scientific inquiry requires safeguards be established and adhered to, to minimize the potential for bias and maintain the ethical integrity of the scientific method.  Ethical research also recognizes that subjective observation is the weakest type of data and should not be relied upon without being validated by data gathered by other means.  The potential for subjective bias and errors of attribution--which are part and parcel to being a human being; can not be entirely "controlled for," this reality is taken seriously by ethical  researchers.  


We now know, as a society, that a great deal of fraud and corruption have in fact occurred in the FDA drug approval process, and in the marketing of drugs.  Conflicts of Interest have permeated every aspect of psychiatric research, education, and practice; including public policy formation.  Students of psychiatry in medical training are taught utter bullshit about the history of the practice of psychiatry; the efficacy and safety of the drugs used; and what is and is not known about the etiology of mental illnesses, and even the validity of psychiatric diagnoses themselves.  Students in our Institutions of Higher Learning are using texts written by some of the worst offenders known for conducting unethical, or otherwise questionable research; which is then falsely or incompletely reported.  Conflicts of Interest and corrupt reporting of Federally funded research; i.e., academic fraud.   Moral and ethical deficits that allow a psychiatrist/researcher to ignore scientific research ethics, the Hippocratic Oath, the Ethical Guidelines of the Medical profession and/or the Nuremberg Code, would certainly make an individual unsuitable to inform the next generation of psychiatrists, and/or to treat patients?  

The same psychiatric researchers have then relied on this unethical psychiatric drug research, to suppport the researched drug becoming FDA-approved.  Many have then participated in illegally marketing of the drugs to boost corporate profits; in careless disregard for patient safety.   Illegal marketing schemes rely on the fact that the FDA allows drugs once approved for any purpose or population to be used "off-label;" for anyone and any diagnosis.  "Off-label" prescribing is in reality, is more accurately described as "EXPERIMENTAL."  In effect, and by definition, "off-label" prescribing of psychiatric drugs is HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; which is now STANDARD PRACTICE.


Another result of unethical psychiatric research and unethical psychiatric standard practice, is  that we now have Laws which mandate that people who are given a psychiatric diagnosis lose upon diagnosis the equal protection under the law of their individual rights.  The standards for obtaining a Court Order lower this standard, so that Rules of Evidence, Proper Notice and Proof of Service, Standard Court Procedures, and Effective Assistance of Counsel that people without a diagnosis have, are diminished for people with a psychiatric diagnosis.  This is to make it easier for them to be Court Ordered to take teratogenic drugs which are, in all reality, mimimally effective for a minority of the people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.  


Whether the drugs are effective for a particular patient or not, the people who take them risk developing the debilitating iatrogenic illnesses the drugs are known to cause.  Illnesses that can be disabling; and include the risk of sudden death.  Neuroleptics, called 'antipsychotics,' can cause permanent brain damage: e.g., loss of intellectual and cognitive abilities; loss of executive function, the very thing that makes us human.  The treatment protocols for treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are now legally mandated in most states as "necessary medical treatment;" even though these treatment protocols exist in spite of the evidence, they are not derived from the evidence; but are in fact validated by a consensus of subjective opinions in committee and voted on; as is the diagnostic criteria itself.  This is not a 'scientific' process; it is a quasi-democratic process.

Instead of being held accountable for their crimes, psychiatrists are allowed to continue damaging the ethical integrity of the medical profession while subverting the purpose of genuine ethical medical research; causing real harm to real people, directly and indirectly.   All the while attempting to maintain political control over valid academic inquiry.  All medical research and scientific discovery which is conducted for the benefit of man should be conducted ethically, openly, and honestly; with uninhibited respectful debate being encouraged.  This is not how psychiatric research is done under the auspices of the NIMH; under Thomas Insel's leadership.  

The lack of open honest discussion and valid scientific inquiry is distorted by commercially driven motives.   Drug treatment protocols are developed, then implemented using coercion and abuse of authority.  These methods are used on other professionals, on the patients/victims, and on family members of those with a psychiatric diagnosis.  Not like any other field of medicine, this is how psychiatry is practiced.  Thoughtful criticism is treated with contempt and those who are critical of the effects of the drugs and the real world outcomes of the patients themselves are censured or ridiculed instead of simply being  responded to, respectfully.   Valid medical science can always stand up to being challenged; it  can even be invalidated when research leads to new information, or when analysis of existing information leads to a different perspective or a deeper understanding. 



How did the practioners of bio-psychiatry get away with using unethical procedures and manipulation of data to subvert the scientific integrity of medical research?  By using political control to quell dissent.  Bio-psychiatric research is sometimes a very weak imitation of scientific inquiry; in reality, pseudo-science.  The reality is that much of standard practice relies on Practice Parameters and treatment protocols which were developed by a quasi-democratic process; not a scientific one, and often are entirely unsupported by clinical research data.


Psychiatric diagnoses and Practice Parameters are developed by a consensus of subjective  opinions, and loosely based on scientific evidence; if at all.  The Evidence-Base consists of: clinical trial data---all of it--not just what is published, or favorable to using a particular drug.  It also includes the real world outcomes of those who have been treated with the drugs---including adverse events and fatal outcomes.  (it is estimated only 10% of adverse events are reported--Prescribers are not required to report fatal outcomes or other adverse events, so we are actually not collecting the very data needed to quantify risk vs. benefit in Real World Practice.  The evidence base also includes the people with a psychiatric diagnosis, who have not been treated with psychiatric drugs.  


In the bio-medical pardaigm of care, psychiatry relies on anecdotal evidence and consensus to develop treatment protocols.  The bio-medical model uses manipulation, coercion and abuse of authority and claims that "medical treatment" is absolutely necessary.  It uses these same social control strategies to institute and enforce "treatment compliance protocols;" and now has Court and Police powers to force treatment compliance.  Simultaneously, psychiatrists attempt to control the dissemination of information; including attempting to stifle dissent or discredit any professional who is critical of the bio-medical model.  The methods used in clinical psychiatric practice and the methods used to censure or discredit professionals who are critical of psychiatry's standard practices have much in common with social and/or political control strategies.   These methods are contradictory to open scientific inquiry and contradictory to the principles required to provide therapeutic psychiatric care in compliance with the Ethical Guidelines of Informed Consent of the American Medical Association.


The supposed "elite" who are Key Opinion Leaders, "KOLs," are also the same psychiatric researchers who have conducted the unethical research and participated in illegal marketing schemes; and who do not taking kindly to having their work critically analyzed; to say the least.  Many are defensive and disrespectful of those whose question how they arrived at their conclusions.  


Some are strangely callous towards those who have been grievously harmed, and family members who are witness to psychiatric malfeasance as well as those who grieve a loved one killed by psychiatric drugs.  The real world outcomes of those who are killed, disabled and who are not "effectively treated" are dismissed, as irrelevant.  People who have been harmed are not even quantified for statistical purposes, in spite of valid scientific reasons to do so.  Surely it is important to consider not only the benefits experienced by these Court Ordered 'patients' but also the harm done the victims?  


Mainstream advocacy groups apparently do not consider the people who speak of harm done to them by psychiatry or their families as people in need of advocacy, support or consideration.  These people are in effect, considered collateral damage by bio-psychiatry practitioners and are not acknowledged, let alone supported by mainstream " 'advocates' for the 'seriously mentally ill'."

Watch out for people who begin with another's concern to end with their own. 

Balthasar Gracian

God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.

Chester W. Nimitz

Whenever a doctor cannot do good, he must be kept from doing harm.
Hippocrates

Psychiatry: 60 Years in an Increasingly Corrupt Specialty Dr. Nathaniel S. Lehrman  


Integrity and Misconduct in Research Report 1995


Psychrights: ADHD Total 100% fraud By Fred A. Baughman Jr., Neurologist, Pediatric Neurologist


Mind Freedom: A list of investigations of the undue influence by companies producing psychiaric medications


POGO: Chair of Obama's Bioethics Commission Ignores Ghostwriting on Her Own Campus


Psychology Today: Child Bipolar Disorder Imperiled by Conflict of Interest