Psychiatric Drug Facts via :

“Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, sometimes including life-threatening emotional and physical withdrawal problems… Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision.” Dr. Peter Breggin

May 2, 2012

Ask your doctor if psychiatric diagnosis and treatment is right for you!

stabilizing the person's behavior must be the first concern

This morning I read the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) Medical Directors Council report, on Morbidity and Mortality in People with Serious Mental Illness from 2006.  The report does not mention, or attempt to quantify any of the negative effects on a person's life the psychiatric diagnosis itself has.  Discriminatory attitudes have become entrenched within the public mental health treatment system, the Justice system, and within mainstream mental health advocacy groups.  The pharmaceutical-funded advocacy groups serve as boosters and lobbyists for the drug industry and unethical researchers who are the Key Opinion Leaders who also serve as Scientific Advisers and Board Members for the advocacy groups and pig pharma.  Discrimination based on the diagnosis, and it's accompaying real or perceived disability is so entrenched because it originates with the diagnosis and the systemic way it is perpetuated. It originates from within the bio-maniacal 'psycho' pharmacology bio-medical treatment paradigm. That is, the discrimination is a direct effect, and a natural consequence of the manner in which the bio-disease paradigm is practiced; it is embedded in the language used. For the bio-maniacal faithful, personal conviction validates the disease hypothesis. Belief requires no definitive, statistically relevant, reliably replicable empirical evidence. I used to believe that the practice of medicine required more than a subjective opinion validated by a consensus of subjective opinions; used in place of the empirical foundation that is unsupportive or simply nonexistent...

Psychiatric bullying is not 'therapeutic' for traumatized people!  

At the very least, the claim is premature.  The stigma of mental illness is a natural consequence of a fraudulent claim, which invariably accompanies a psychiatric diagnosis.  The claim is a psychiatric diagnosis means that the person has a brain disease, which cannot ever be cured, AND this 'disease' must be 'medically treated.'   The claim, some actually seem to believe, is only made for the patient's own good. This is a nothing more than juvenile justification; it is proffered to coerce the patient and their family. The claim that mental illness is a neuro-biological disease is fraudulent; it is a claim made in the hopes that when believed, it would alter the patient's and the patient's family's behavior, for the primary purpose of gaining 'treatment compliance;' i.e. to control the person and the 'medical treatment' of their psychiatric diagnosis. The claim  is not supported by any empirical data; and is entirely void of sound medical principles and ethics.  It is a claim made to coerce the patient to be 'treatment compliant' and to gain assistance from family and society at large in coercing and even legally compelling the patient under Court Order.

In 'psycho' pharmacology it is considered 'successful treatment' when a patient remains  'treatment compliant.'  Safety and efficacy of the drugs for a particular patient or diagnosis, and the risk vs. benefit analysis of using the drugs which have disabling and fatal adverse effects are 'monitored' and the medical diseases the drugs cause are often not even recognized for the iatrogenic, 'physician caused' diseases and disabling injuries that they are; instead they are attributed to the psychiatric diagnosis/disease.  The majority of iatrogenisis is also medically neglected by the doctors who cause it; and other medical professionals simply go along with this inhumane charade...These people are grievously harmed.  In the real world.  Every day and as a matter of course.
Psychiatric treatment has horrific Real World Outcomes    

The idea that neuroleptic drugs (or any psychiatric drug, and/or ECT) should be forced upon people under Court Order  for their own good, is a skeptical claim at best; skeptical because it relies on another claim which is also not supported by any empirical data to validate it.  The claim is that people don't take their medicine or remain 'treatment compliant' because they don't know they are sick and 'need' the drugs to treat their 'disease'!   To believe such a claim without valid scientific evidence to support it, a reasonable person would need to suspend all critical thought, suspend disbelief, and enter the world of fantasy and illusion; in effect, to become willfully blind.

It is nothing more than an irresponsible rationalization, a childish attempt to justify dishonesty about the nature of the psychiatric diagnoses, and the  of the mechanism of action of the drugs used.  The effects can be disabling and fatal. It is incredible the amount of serious harm that is quantified in the NASMHPD report.  It is even more incredible that two factors which contribute to the increased mortality and morbidity are not even mentioned; nor is it mentioned that a massive amount of Medicaid and Medicare fraud has been committed which means the American people in effect pay psychiatrists to disable and kill vulnerable children and adults on Medicaid and Medicare.  The first of these contributing factors is the the brain damage, a well-known negative effect of ALL neuroleptic and other psychotropic drugs.  It is a direct effect, not a 'side effect.'  This iatrogenic injury that is known to be caused by neuroleptic drugs would obviously have an impact on a person's ability to do everything---including impairing a person's ability to defend one's self against psychiatric bullying and abuse.

The second contributory factor is the the immediate socio-political consequences of a psychiatric diagnosis, the stigma----once a psychiatric diagnosis is applied, a person is 'less-than;' the person no longer has the same individual autonomy, Human Rights, or Constitutional Rights after diagnosed.  A psychiatric diagnosis is not so much a medical diagnosis; it is a determination of legal and political status.  A pseudo-legal procedure allows psychiatry, to 'practice medicine' and use the law as some kind of 'medical instrument'?!  A patient's best interest is not the primary concern, compliance is. Maintain control over implementing the prescribed "treatment;"  i.e. coerce and manipulate the patient and the family use psychoeducation and relevant statutory authority when needed, to maintain treament compliance.

When I read the last paragraph of this report, I wondered if it was written by a person who was unaware of what had been reported, and also totally oblivious to the reality of how public mental health treatment services are often 'done to' not necessarily 'for' or 'with' the people and little value is placed on trust, positive kind regard and how they are required to have a therapeutic relationship with people... This sentence was like a slap in the face: "It is the person who makes the important choices that affect his or her health and well being, and indeed it is the person who is in control and experiences the consequences of his or her choices."  The reality is that many are in fact stripped of their right to make choices about treatment when they are bestowed with a psychiatric diagnosis, these people are robbed of their dignity and their right to advocate for themselves; and any true autonomy, the rest of us may take for granted.  How is it believable or justifiable that those who are disabled and die suddenly or decades early--is an ends which justifies the means?   How is this, "for their own good?"

The illusive 'neurobiological disease' may one day be found (Tom Insel is sure it's right around the proverbial translational corner!)  The fact is, it is not an identified pathology so there is no way in hell it is anything more than an article of faith to say the illusive illusory disease is being 'medically treated' with teratogenic drugs we mass marketed and prescribed for virtually any symptom while LYING, and politely calling it 'minimizing the actual risks and exaggerating the perceived benefits.'  Treating an entirely unidentified pathology as a disease, with treatments which cause actual diseases is an illusion masquerading as medicine which uses the authority of the Law, yet is not required to conform to any of the ethical principles or standards of Medicine or Jurisprudence, let us continue to 'monitor' what we're doing.  What the fuck is the deal with that?  A relationship in which one party has been consistently dishonest to hide harm being done to patients and these are the guys who are gonna fix stop the genocide?  By monitoring what they're doing.

What is not an illusion: The disability and death toll that is quantified in this report; it effectively and clearly demonstrates the common real world outcome of psychiatric treatment is iatrogenic brain damage; being disabled and dying suddenly, regardless of age. The outcomes of disability and death are acceptable, apparently because the APA's party line is 'the drugs are safe and efficacious treatments...The people who are disabled and dead are a testament to how false this specious claim is, and evidence of an ongoing criminal enterprise and Human Rights disaster.  According to the 'professionals' we need to 'monitor' the rates of disability and death, and strengthen and enforce coercive and legally mandated psychiatric treatment.  The plan is to just keep on keeping track of how many people are disabled and killed with FDA-approved, pseudo-medical treatments using pseudo-legal procedures and proceedings. AS IF legally mandating psychiatric treatment makes this  pseudo-medical treatment ethical, or validates psychiatry's false claim!  AS IF neuro-toxins a Court Order legitimates this, supposedly, 'necessary medical treatment.'

Under Color of Law, disability and death are 'effective treatment' outcomes.

One sentence was a like slap in the face--it is a fundamental truth, but not a universal one; it is a promise for those who are free to determine for themselves or their loved ones, how to 'treat' symptoms of distress. If there were no discriminatory lowering of one's political and legal status, whether a diagnosis is a disease, a genetic defect or simply the valiant attempt to survive repeated traumas, no human being should be relegated to 'less than equal status.' I know that children are deprived of parental protection, that children and adults alike are deprived of their human dignity, and their fundamental Human Rights without Due Process of Law. 

It is discrimination based on disability, and the disability is the psychiatric diagnosis itself. 
If that is not a fucking Civil Rights crime under Color of Law, I don't know what is.   

The slap is this sentence: "It is the person who makes the important choices that affect his or her health and well being, and indeed it is the person who is in control and experiences the consequences of his or her choices."  This is not true for people who have been stigmatized with a psychiatric diagnosis.  Parents whose children are diagnosed can have their children taken from them absent any evidence of abuse or neglect.  No one has Individual Rights if they are not preserved or defended.   My son was in effect, kidnapped so that his care could be fraudulently billed to the Federal Government.  He was used in Drug Trials and disabled---it was in fact a psychiatrist, a 'Lead Researcher' and KOL who repeatedly told me I had NO SAY in what he was doing.  I was not allowed to stop the iatrogenic harm, or stop the repeated traumatic injuries inflicted upon my own already traumatized child.  Quack Master Jack was 'medically treating' him in Drug Trials and he didn't need anyone's permission but his own.  No one thought having a traumatized adolescent boy's permission, or his mother's fully Informed Consent was necessary, or required.
What stigma?
There's no stigma!
Psychiatry is a medical specialty. 
Treatment does not require consent. 
It requires compliance. 
Psychiatrists 'practice medicine' Under Color of Law.
The Police and the Courts are "Medical Instruments."

Ask your doctor: if psychiatric diagnosis and treatment is right for you! 

Drug Advertisement found at Bonkers Institute
Loxapac loxapine advertisement, 
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, June 1992.

When aggressive behavior in the elderly is the problem

"Regardless of etiology the physician is often in the position of having to intervene in a potentially dangerous situation. Stabilizing the person's behavior must be the first concern." 1. (Ancill) 

Loxapac may be particularly beneficial for elderly patients with aggressive behavior. 

* Loxapac controls aggressive behavior in both elderly patients and patients sufferring from acute schizophrenia.

* Loxapac produces significant improvement of psychopathology and social functioning in elderly patients compared to haolperidol. 2. (Petrie) 

"When treating these [elderly] patients the physician should choose as specific acting a drug as possible, avoiding those with a wide range of actions and resulting side effects." 1. (Ancill) 

* Loxapac has fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than holoperidol. 5. (Paprocki)

* Loxapac also has less sedation, orthostatic hypotension and anticholinergic side-effects than lower potency neuroleptics, chlorpromazine and thioridazine. 6. (Bernstein) 

Dosage Flexifility For Elderly Patients * Lower initial doses and more gradual titration are recommended for elderly and debilitated patients.

LOXAPAC loxapine succinate Effective Control of Aggression With Moderate Side-Effects   Suggested initial oral dose=5 mg BID 

LEDERLE     Cyanamid Canada Inc. Markham     Loxapac is a Registered Trademark of Cyanamid Canada Inc.

For brief prescribing information see page A45 

Special thanks to Our Voice ~ Notre Voix magazine for submitting this ad to our online gallery.

No comments:


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted
(C) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.