I'm no ding a ling...if it walks like and talks like a duck, it must be

"PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill as that he knows not it tolls for him.  And perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. "

John Donne

A short time ago Robert Whitaker wrote a post, that I was personally grateful he wrote.  "The Taint of Eugenics in NIMH Research Today"   I was grateful because based on my own research on history and psychiatry, and my lived experience, I had come to realize that the NIMH has focused it's efforts on finding 'proof' of genetic defect and/or biological disease in people who have symptoms of 'mental illness.'  While it very well may make good sense to look for a disease or defect; to do so at the expense of neglecting other valid areas of research, into etiology, diagnosis and treatment is not scientific, ethical or wise!  That is exactly what the NIMH has done, and Tommy Insel is continuing with his 'Stay the Course' translational neuroscience marketing agenda  in the desperate quest for the disease, or the gene that causes madness; searching for proof people with a 'mental illness' are genetically defective is the #1 priority.  

Why?  Because bio-psychiatry desperately wants to validate it's Standards of Practice used in clinical practice; particularly the standards which recommend using neuroleptic drugs as a first-line treatment for schizophrenia as an 'Evidence Based practice;' which is ludicrous---ALL the treatment algorithms, and practice parameters for using psychiatric drugs particularly the neuroleptic drugs, are not based on the evidence base, but were "standardized" by consensus---which offers protection to psychiatrists from liability claims, but offers none for patients, which is the purpose of having standards of care--to protect the patients.  In psychiatry what a Standard Practice is is an affirmative defense based on what psychiatrists do in clinical practice to "treat mental illness." Absent a show of the evidence that the standards are derived from, a reasonable person would wonder, how in the world does a treatment become a standard treatment without definitive evidence it is effective and safe? CAN a treatment be an ethical standard medical treatment absent definitive supporting evidence of it's safety and effectiveness? Evidence is a requirement for validity to be determined--do psychiatrists not understand that? I don't believe so. The psycho-pharmacological treatment first, bio-disease paradigm lacks the sort of evidence required to validate diagnoses, it lacks evidence that any particular prescription drug is an "Evidence-Based" treatment for any diagnosis; so simply mixes and matches diagnoses and drugs.

THAT is the real (potentially fatal) elephant in the room.

The evidence on neuroleptic drugs has always been substandard, which is not a big deal--unless you wish to exaggerate the drugs effectiveness while minimizing the very real life changing risks of disability and early fatality.  Psychiatry has some Standard Practices that are not therapeutic that is reality violate people's Human Rights; coercion, misleading patients and family members about what is and is not known about psychiatric diagnoses and 'treatments,' abuse of authority, are some of them. The Civil Commitment Laws in this Country mean psychiatrists in effect have, police powers when as a profession, psychiatry has been misleading patients and families, the general public, Legislatures and Courts of Law how have they earned so much "trust" without the ability to tell the truth?

Indeed, E. Fuller Torrey, the "Brain Collector," forced psychiatric treatment demagogue, and NAMI's hero psychiatrist, has been quoted in the press recommending lying to the police, and courts--why would perjury be necessary to "practice medicine?" How is open deceit, and "metaphorical" explanations of a supposed "disease" ethically ACCEPTABLE in the practice medicine? If it is the practice of Medicine, medicine has been redefined with disability and death being the "successful treatment" outcome.  It's so "effective" and desirable in fact, we legally compel people to be "treated" with drugs which more often than not, are disabling and fatal to the patient, taken as prescribed. Calling it 'necessary medical treatment' is true if early death and disability are the desired end points; because in Real World Practice, any therapeutic value to the patient, is irrelevant.

The most sickening ugly part of my experiences with psychiatry is seeing what the drugs do to a human being; not being allowed to have any say, let alone stop it.  My son was tortured; I'm a MadMother, because I witnessed the crime.  Neuroleptics are no 'first-line treatment,' a treatment of desperation, or of last resort maybe--but certainly not something to be considered safe and effective or prescribed coercing treatment compliance using fraudulent claims. The neuroleptics in truth do not "treat" so much as they alter physiological processes which may not be dysfunctional; much less, need to be altered.  Specifically, the neuroleptics alter cognition, metabolism, and cadio-vascular processes; indeed they effect the parasympathetic nervous system, which regulates all major processes in human beings. This broad spectrum effect is why neuroleptic drugs have a myriad of serious, adverse effects and fatal risks. Characterizing neuroleptic drugs as effective medical treatment in a Court of Law, or anywhere else, is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

We are once again 'investigating' instead of STOPPING how this Nation is drugging poor children who are on Medicaid in vast numbers with drugs that have a significant risks for disability, sudden and/or early death. The leaders in the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry estimate in their Practice Parameters for Schizophrenia 50 % of the children given neuroleptic drugs will develop Tardive Dyskinesia, a neurological disorder which can be permanent and disabling; even if the neuroleptic is discontinued.  "As described above, the main symptoms of TD are continuous and random muscular movements in the tongue, mouth and face, but sometimes the limbs and trunks are affected as well. Rarely, the respiration muscles may be affected resulting in grunts and even breathing difficulties. Sometimes, the legs can be so severely affected that walking becomes difficult."

Opinions, even a whole bunch of educated opinions--are not scientific evidence.  It is 'Standard Practice' to drug people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia 'for their own good; it is not based not on empirical data, but on subjective opinions.'  This is a Standard Practice has killed more people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia than are allowed to survive, to perhaps, one day recover.  Court Orders that do not need to comply with the Rules of Evidence or Standard Legal procedures without meeting the burden of proof required in any other type of Legal proceeding. Conveniently, the FDA does not require 'adverse events' caused by FDA approved drugs be reported.  Fatalities caused by the drugs are drug induced deaths; in all reality, iatrogenic, or 'physician caused' homicide.  It is a common Real World Outcome in Standard Practice; such deaths are said to be "natural" although it is drug-induced.

It may be legal, but it is not ethical, or moral.  

It is not 'medicine.'  

It is eugenics.  

From the Director's Blog:

After a century of studying schizophrenia, the cause of the disorder remains unknown. Treatments, especially pharmacological treatments, have been in wide use for nearly half a century, yet there is little evidence that these treatments have substantially improved outcomes for most people with schizophrenia. These current unsatisfactory outcomes may change as we approach schizophrenia as a neurodevelopmental disorder with psychosis as a late, potentially preventable stage of the illness. This ‘rethinking’ of schizophrenia as a neurodevelopmental disorder, which is profoundly different from the way we have seen this illness for the past century, yields new hope for prevention and cure over the next two decades. here. 

This does this help explain the focus on early intervention. Basically, 'pre-treatment' for those targeted as being 'vulnerable' to perhaps, maybe, at some point in the future, as maybe, having a chance of experiencing psychosis. 

These services target poor children, the traumatically wounded, and the elderly; and since Alcohol and Substance Abuse was melded with Mental Health into SAMHSA, alcoholics and addicts are another demographic now targeted as well. 

nothing to see here...move along.

update from over the weekend, apparently they're a slow reader...

 bell photo credit

forget where I got the elephant it's in another post though