Nature Podcast extra: Ben Goldacre

"oooh! It's much bigger than I expected!" Brolly_Dolly

via Nature Podcast extra:

Adam Rutherford talks to Ben Goldacre about his new book, Bad Pharma.

 

Big Pharma Amazon UK
Bad Pharma will be released on January 8, 2013 Amazon U.S. 

Thank you Ben Goldacre for knowing:
 "I had to ruin my life to write this 90,000 word monster"

Priceless...

A thirty day supply of the 4 teratogenic psychiatric drugs my son takes: $1,124.17

Number prescribed for Tardive Dyskinesia?: 1

Number of prescriptions taken daily known to cause iatrogenic injuries and cognitive impairment: 4

Number of drugs that were FDA-approved for pediatric: Zero.

Number of prescription drugs my son takes that the FDA has since approved for use in children 13 and older?: 0

My son was further victimized, traumatized and ultimately disabled by a doctor who acted with impunity; he abused my son, abused his medical authority, and disregarded medical ethics altogether.   More than a million dollars was stolen from the American people by the Children's Administration employees of Washington State that intentionally defrauded Federal programs by making my son a Ward of the State. In effect, public servants robbed my friends, my neighbors and my family to pay for what was done to my son. Knowing that I was deprived of my Constitutional Rights as a parent, and was not allowed to protect my own son is something I cannot forget. Knowing I was deprived of my parental rights to act in my son's best interest and make medical decisions on his behalf without Procedural or Substantive Due Process of Law by Jon McClellan. Aresearch psychiatrist and the medical director of CSTC said he didn't need my Informed Consent. A coerced assent from my traumatized child? Absolutely priceless!

This is a MadMother MasterCard moment...

I was told if I didn't sign A Consent to Place agreement, I would be portrayed by the State as being unwilling to ACT IN MY SON'S "Best Interests." There was a Team Child Attorney who had been involved for years--whose Federal mandate is to preserve and defend my son's Constitutional Rights as a disabled child; another Officer of the Court who failed their duty to my son...When I asked why can't the real reason for the Consent to Place Agreement (to provide for my son's medical care due to being beat up and put in a closet and never receiving the recommended treatment for his traumatic injuries) be stated on the petition; I was told that was not allowed!  They ALL knew what was being done was ILLEGAL and advised me to go along with it, or "it would make me look bad." Years later, I learned that day, at that hearing was the ONLY opportunity the Law allowed for me to state for the record the facts which the "professionals" said couldn't be used...My Attorney failed to advise me of my right to do so; in fact he advised I just go along or the State would make me look bad...I was assured that I retained my parental rights to provide Consent to all Medical Treatment for my son...Those parental rights are now, and were then, preserved according to State and Federal Law.  

I'm not the one who looks bad. I'm not an Officer of the Court. I have never perjured myself in a Court of Law. I learned what my rights are; I researched dependency and mental health law; and learned what Court Procedures needed to be followed and suuccessfully sought my son's release from a locked psychiatric facility. By the Grace of God, I finally brought my son home January 5, 2005. 

All I had was the Law, the truth, and a naive belief that in a Court of Law, the law and the truth are all that is required...

original June 2011 updated for accuracy

An Officer of the Court

I used this symbol because before Mr. McKenna was elected as Washington State's 

Attorney General, he was admitted to the Washington State Bar; which made him an 

Officer of the Court. 

via The Seattle Times:

August 28, 2012 at 10:30 AM
McKenna: Legalization of marijuana not a states’ rights issue
Posted by Andrew Garber

Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna said legalization of marijuana is not a states’ rights issue, when asked Tuesday what he’d do as governor if voters approved Initiative 502 in November.

“I don’t think it’s a states’ rights issue. I think you have federal supremacy when it comes to laws like this,” he told reporters in a conference call. “If our state attempts to legalize a product, which is still criminalized under federal law, the feds will move forward and prosecute under federal law.”

I-502 would legalize possession and sale of up to 1 ounce of marijuana. It would impose a steep excise tax on marijuana and cannabis-infused products at new state-licensed marijuana stores, and would allow state-regulated grow farms.

McKenna opposes the measure, as does his Democratic challenger Jay Inslee. When pressed for details about what he’d do if the measure was approved, McKenna declined comment.

“I don’t want to comment on what could happen with a law that’s not going to pass. If it passes in November, we’ll evaluate what actions we need to take,” he said.

McKenna also said Tuesday he would not release his income tax returns.

Inslee released five years of federal income-tax returns last week and called on McKenna to do the same. McKenna has said previously he wouldn’t release the documents, but his campaign indicated last week that he was reconsidering.

On Tuesday, McKenna reaffirmed his earlier position. “It’s a phony issue. Anyone who wants to know what my salary is, what property I own, what debts I have, etc., can look at that on my F1 (financial disclosure reports),” McKenna said.  read

Something is phony alright! I'm certain it is Mr. McKenna.  The man is entitled to his personal opinions, as are we all. However, recognizing what is and is not within the rights of the citizens who reside in the State of Washington, is not not simply a matter of his own personal opinions; but a matter of Law. McKenna seems to be confused about the Law itself; indeed, he is seems confused about the role of an Attorney General. Those who wish may look at Mr. McKenna's F1 file; he could simply be open, honest and forthright to save the voting public the trouble, couldn't he?    

I admit I'm biased...But I happen to know that Mr. McKenna as the Attorney General, has failed to prosecute people who victimize vulnerable adults and children; and I take that personally, it's impossible for me not to. He has failed to defend victims of crime, failed to investigate and prosecute crimes when the perpetrators are State employees, or contracted service providers, acting under the State's authority. One of the victims, is my son.  More than a year after informing Mr. McKenna's office of felony crimes having been committed in Superior  Court; I received a response from his office.  Since he is the AG, he is an Officer of the Court, and the head of Washington State Law Enforcement; I don't believe waiting to respond for over a year after a person contacts his office reporting the crimes of fraud and perjury being perpetrated by service providers operating under the authority granted to them by the State of Washington is doing his job ethically or honestly...The AG's Executive Assistant characterized my contact with Mr. McKenna's office as recent, which is not accurate.

As I stated, we're all entitled to our own opinions, and I have one I'd like to share.

 McKenna is a 

Friday Funny: hang up the keys and rap

via believingoutloud

via thekillerpoodle

cropped from a picture I found on facebook IDK where/who

via Hugh Atkin

ANOTHER blog post about Ben Goldacre: Bad Pharma with a little comedy

via Bad Science: Holy cow I just touched my new book!

via Ted Talks:

Ben Goldacre: What doctors don't know about the drugs they prescribe

via someDwarves

MUST READ:  Here’s the foreword to my new book Ben Goldacre @ Bad Science

The Illegality of Psychiatric Imprisonment, Forced Drugging and Forced Electroshock in the U.S.

via Jim Gottstein

via psychrights.org 

                   Law Project for
              Psychiatric Rights

The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights) is a non-profit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) public interest law firm whose mission is to mount a  strategic legal campaign against forced psychiatric drugging and electroshock in the United States akin to what Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP mounted in the 40's and 50's on behalf of African American civil rights.  The public mental health system is creating a huge class of chronic mental patients through forcing them to take ineffective, yet extremely harmful drugs. Currently, due to the massive growth in psychiatric drugging of children and youth and the current targeting of them for even more psychiatric drugging, PsychRights has made attacking this problem a priority.  Children are virtually always forced to take these drugs because it is the adults in their lives who are making the decision.  This is an unfolding national tragedy of immense proportions.  As part of its mission, PsychRights is further dedicated to exposing the truth about these drugs and the courts being misled into ordering people to be drugged and subjected to other brain and body damaging interventions against their will.

Powerpoint for The Illegality of Psychiatric Imprisonment, Forced Drugging and Forced Electroshock in the U.S. 

The AG sent me a message

 or at least his Executive Assistant did...

Let's just say I am disappointed that I finally receive a response on a FRIDAY, after business hours from a person who informs me she will be on vacation for the next few weeks, but will look for an email from me when she returns...  

 First, my response:

Ms. Gaul

I sent an email to Mr. McKenna on September 15, of 2011,  I then posted a copy of it to my website after it had been received by the AG's office. I posted it to my website because by that time I knew that there is some very serious corruption and lawlessness that is systemic in DSHS DBHR. Specifically, I had come to realize that there is no interest in preserving or defending the Constitutional Rights of people civilly committed in Washington State---or even pretending that those who are Court Ordered even have any rights, or that the State has any duty to ensure that the Rules of Evidence and  Standard Court Procedures are adhered to; Proper Notice given and Proof of Service filed; and Effective Assistance of Counsel provided. As a matter of fact, when I first filed a complaint on my son's behalf. I was told the State HAD NO DUTY.   

I voted for Mr. McKenna as I voted for Curtis King the Senator for this district, as well as Representatives Charles Ross and Norm Johnson. I received no response from your office. I received no response worthy of merit from my elected representatives. I also contacted every member of the Judiciary committee in the State Legislature NO response whatsoever. Perjury and fraud, specifically a forged Affidavit were used on July 28, 2010 to detain my son, by the DMHP, Nancy Sherman who lied to the court, lied to my elder son and myself and set in motion a chain of events that so traumatized my son, Isaac, that once I brought him home it was three weeks before I could convince him he was safe, and that he could go outside into our own fenced yard.  Nancy Sherman's employer shredded all of the Original Superior Court Documents, and the CEO Rick Weaver informed me there is nothing wrong with doing so, actually stating "We do it all the time."  

Frankly, I find the content of your message to be less than honest; since I am well aware that someone in the AG's office has visited my website and has read enough to know exactly what my criminal complaint entails.  I am also aware that representatives from the AG's office were consulted from the beginning. I am sadly disappointed to say the least.  Felony crimes were committed which have diminished the integrity of the Washington State Superior Court, and there has been NO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION launched in spite of a well documented complaint being filed promptly.  

My son has had so many felony crimes committed against him in this state by employees and contracted service providers that I have lost count.  The first of which was when he was three years old and was the victim of violent assault in a foster home that had 12 complaints filed against the foster mother alleging abuse of children prior to his placement.  This assault was followed by my little boy being put in a closet and it was covered up with further crimes including the Superior Court being told by DSHS that my son was home and doing fine; when he was in fact  in the hospital for what turned out to be 10 months...All I have ever asked for when filing complaints in the last 18+ years is for the right thing to be done at any given time. Not once, has anyone ever been held accountable for victimizing my son, violating the law, or the administrative code of the State of Washington, and failing to do their duty as a public servant; who owed an ethical and legal duty to my son.   The foster parent was Margaret Manson; the woman who killed four babies in this State, so I am grateful my son is alive.  

All due respect, as I stated previously, I find this email to be disingenuous for the reasons cited above.  That said, I would like to hear how the latest felony crimes committed against my son can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  If that is the intent of the Attorney General, I would be more than happy to assist in any way I can.  I have my son's Legal and Medical Powers of Attorney, as he is handicapped due to being used in the Drug Trials at CSTC without permission, by Jon McClellan and in spite of my vehement protests.   

Sincerely,

Becky Murphy

I have not included the entire text of Ms. Gaul's email; only the relevant part of her message: 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Gaul, Judy (ATG) JudyG@atg.wa.gov wrote:

Dear Ms. Murphy,

Hello, I am Attorney General McKenna’s assistant. He is currently away from the office, so I am helping him monitor his email. You have sent a couple emails to him recently, and it would be helpful if you could provide us with some of the pertinent facts related to your son’s situation, and what you are asking the Attorney General’s Office to do....

...I will be out of the office for two weeks, returning on October 8th. I will check my email when I return to see if I’ve received a message from you.

Thank you.
Sincerely,

Judy Gaul
Executive Assistant to the Attorney General
State of Washington
judyg@atg.wa.gov

Keeping up appearances in Washington State

Thank You For The Ominous Long-Term Health Risks

Quack Master Jack McClellan

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

Jon McClellan, the lead researcher for childhood schizophrenia in Washington State, is a doctor who should be stopped.  He is the psychiatrist who gave my son neuroleptic and other  psychotropic drugs without consent. He repeatedly told me I had no say in treatment decisions; no say about what drugs he gave my son.  He drugged my son without consent, much less, Informed Consent; while trialing neuroleptic drugs for FDA approval; so the drugs he used were not approved for use on children.  Drugged my son over my objections, into a state of profound disability. He told me I had no say in what drugs were given to my boy, who had an IQ of 146.  It is frightening that this man is still the Medical Director of the State-run psychiatric facility for children.

Schizophrenia is a diagnosis of exclusion.  What that means is that any and all other explanations for the symptoms must be excluded.  Until this researcher got a hold of him, my son was diagnosed with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and PTSD, the latter due to having been severely traumatized, in foster care.  Both of these can cause the symptoms which Dr. McClellan concluded were symptoms of schizophrenia.  When I asked him if he was going to do an EEG to rule out the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy; he said it was not necessary.  My protests were labeled denial, my input was dismissed; I was told I had no say.

Ultimately, McClellan put my son on Clozapine which between 1998 and 2005 was linked to 3,277 deaths in the U.S. and over 4,300 events that resulted in disability or required medical intervention, according to the data in the FDA Medwatch adverse events reporting system.  Dr. McClellan lied to me and said that since the drugs was  put back on market in the US, with mandatory blood draws, no one had died from it's use. He also told me that it was only over in Europe that anyone died at all.  This conversation happened only after he had put my son on the drug, as did all the conversations about what drugs he was using to treat my son. Like all of the drugs used by Jon McClellan, on my son, it was not approved for pediatric use for the reason McClellan prescribed them.

The reality is, no matter the diagnosis or the symptoms; this doctor had no right to use my son as a guinea pig---and he had no legal authority to drug him without my consent.  He did not have my son's consent---or his mother's permission; he did not comply with the Hippocratic oath, the ethics guidelines of the medical profession, the laws of the State of Washington, Federal Medicaid guidelines, the U.S. Constitution, or the Nuremberg Code.  There is no way in hell I would have given consent, had I been given the opportunity and actually been informed, which he did not think was necessary. Quack Master Jack, Jon McClellan, a "lead researcher" funded by NIMH, played God.

What is known and has been know about this class of drugs for decades, is that they cause iatrogenic, i.e. physician caused; diseases, neurological impairments, disability, and sudden, and early death.  These are know risks, and as such, should be information discussed prior to administration.  I found these facts out on my own, not in any conversation I had with "Dr. Jack," as he told the kids to call him.  My son, who still takes Clozapine, is unaware of these risks; no psychiatrist has discussed them with him.  McClellan used many anti-psychotics, on my son without adhering to any ethical, moral, or legal standard; knowing this, I am disgusted that this man never loses an opportunity to decry their over-use.  He had no problem using them to drug my son; without warning either my son or myself about the "Ominous Long-Term Health Risks."

It didn't matter to Quack Master Jack that he didn't have 
Informed Consent from the patient or his MadMother.

I was never asked if I wanted to sacrifice my son on the altar of corporate greed and have my son used in Drug Trials. Had I been asked, there's no way in hell I would have given consent. The TEOSS Drug Trial was a "seeding trial," the purpose of a "seeding trial" is gain FDA approval for a drug to treat a new condition, or a different population; to expand the drug market and ensure that BigPharma continues to make a killing

figuratively and literally...

It matters to this MadMother.

Does it matter to you?

Link to The Belmont Report and Nuremberg Code:


Originally published on December 17, 2010

Protocols of torture

fazes original painting by Reshma Valliappan

guest post by Reshma Valliappan

Protocols of torture: The predicted 'holocaust'

On September 3rd 2012, an article under The Hindustan Times speaks of the 'New Bill to Unshackle Mentally Ill Patients'.

It proposed and portrayed a flowery picture of the laws and practices in this so called Independent Nation. However, NAAJMI did not agree to any of the proposals and wrote to the author and editor. We are still awaiting their long due reply to our comments and suggestions.

On September 19th 2012, a 36 year old woman undergoing treatment at the state-run Lumbini Park Hospital was sexually assaulted by the hospital employee.
via Telegraph of India Sexual assault arrest at Lumbini

This is just one in the MILLION cases that are coming out and being heard. Such violence are still going on at many institutions and even homes.

There are round about 400 such institutions blossoming all around this country. All practicing the same. Giving no hope, yet continue portraying the violence and insane acts committed by the mentally ill and nothing about what is committed to them.

8th August 2012, the Indian Psychiatric Society is advocating for the usage of unmodified (direct) ECT ( Electro-Convulsive Therapy).
Position statement and guidelines on unmodified electroconvulsive therapy

What is ECT and what is unmodified ECT?

ECT also known as Electroshock is a psychiatric treatment in which seizures are electrically induced in anesthetized patients for therapeutic effect. Its mode of action is unknown. (WIKIPEDIA)

Unmodified ECT (direct ECT) is a administering electroshock without any muscle relaxants which can cause grave danger and significant amounts of side-effects to the person. WHO has BANNED this form of treatment, yet it is being practiced in many countries INCLUDING INDIA which has a high population of 'mentally ill' owing to the high population of people in the country.

As we all know, disability and mental illness or mental health issues can affect anyone at any point in their lives. The upcoming DSM V has a range of new 'disorders' which can mean any person will be entitled to psychiatric label and to be of 'unsound mind'.
via Disability News and Information Service Incapacity laws: A preliminary analysis shows how laws discriminate against various kinds of disabilities and not just people of ‘unsound mind’!

What does 'unsound mind' mean in lay words?

It means that at the hands of a pychiatric label, any one of us can be robbed off our fundamental rights which are 'supposed' to be guaranteed by The Constitution of India. Being of 'unsound mind', we have no legal capacity, no rights to education, no rights for employment, marriages are held void, no right to choose our treatment options. In other words, we are as good as being dead. The law does not recognize us as 'persons' or 'beings', but merely as a diagnosis. India has ratified the UNCRPD and yet these authority bodies are violating the very granted laws to protect the vulnerable sections of society.

The above ECT advocates state that, unmodified ECT can be used if there are no other alternatives available, etc.

Is this really true that no other ALTERNATIVE EXISTS? or the practitioners REFUSE to encourage alternatives BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DO WORK? Is this is a way of keeping a person constantly insane to pool in more financial gains and control and along that process destroy lives?

Who would not be afraid to consult a psychiatrist after this?

Where are the 'good' practitioners and why aren't they heard?

Why have they left out other people in the system who can play an important role in a 'mentally ill' person's recovery? The clinical psychologist, psychotherapist, service providers, alternative approaches, friends, neighbours? The term 'psycho-social' disability indicates that this is a 'social' problem and not an 'individual' problem.

There are statements such as 'informed consent' being taken before administering any treatment. If there is no legal capacity nor choice to one's own treatment where is the question of 'informed consent' here?

There are loads of money spent on research over the same treatment for many decades now.

The question we should be asking is 'Why have they not considered researching/speaking to those individuals who have 'recovered' or found their way back in society?' Would not these individuals have something to share and provide insights into the true nature of their illnesses and what works?

Perhaps, its the arragonce of such practitioners to keep the mentally insane forever insane and only provide a one way road.

I shudder at the very thought that even though I am recovered and 'functioning', my rights and life can be robbed away at any point. Where do I stand in the case I am forced treated without my consent. Where do some of my friends who are locked away inside find hope in such an atrocious system?

Is there hope in recovery at all?

Reshma Valliappan's Blog 

not looking good, in fact there's something terribly wrong here

photo courtesy National Park Service

via 1 Boring Old Man :
Saturday 22 September 2012
pilot error...
and few excerpts:
"Biological Basis of Mental Illness: While the focus of psychiatry has been biological, thedescriptive atheoretical DSM was well suited to other specialties involved in the treatment mental illness – psychology, social work, counselors, etc. The DSM-5, however, committed to the neuroscientific bent of most psychiatrists in high places – hardly atheoretical. So even with the failure to find biosignatures or define premonitory syndromes of adult illness, the DSM-5 is unmistakably biological, even proposing to change the definition of mental illness to "a behavioral or psychological syndrome that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction" – a definition that is unproven, self-serving, and surely incorrect. One can only wonder, "What were they thinking?" And even if they back off from that definition, the damage is done. As they say in games, "A card laid is a card played." We know what they’re thinking.


"The Revision: The DSM-IV had some areas that badly needed practical revision – Autism, ADHD, Major Depressive Disorder – the latter being the most blatantly in need. In the DSM-5 Revision, it was essentially untouched except to make it even less useful by adding grief to the already hopelessly over-inclusive category [removing the last vestige of common sense from the class]. And they were so busy doing other things, trying to do something new, that they ignored the basic task of revision.

"The Field Tests: As if driven to self destruction, they cancelled one of two scheduled sets of Field Tests and put all their eggs in one basket – then they dropped it. The Field Tests were a disaster, taking away the one concrete measure of their work – reliability, the bedrock justification for the existence of the DSM in the first place. And to compound the damage, they’ve kept the results largely to themselves. They’ve added un-reliable to non-atheoretical."  here

psychotropc talking points...

september 17, 2012

an excerpt:

At this point, I’d enjoy a rant eg "Who are these people? The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacologists?" but I’ll try to remain civil. And I’m not going to go on and on with this vetting of their web site. I think I’ve read enough. The AACAP is heavily infected with the pharmaceutical bug as far as I can see, and I find that disappointing [to say the least]. I’ve lived under the delusion that the reason they won’t retract Dr. Keller’s 2001 article about Study 329 is peculiar, maybe not wanting to hurt the feelings of the authors, or the editor. I retract that naive theory. They’re in the game. I didn’t know that, and it makes me feel kind of sad. It’s an organization I’ve looked up to in the past. I guess things change, sometimes for the worse… (emphasis mine) here 

something terribly wrong here...

Thursday 13 September 2012

a few excerpts:

"I actually doubt that because of the date, and because the quoted pieces above read like a travelogue of Gibbons publications [including the Netherlands reference]. But I frankly find it embarrassing that the APA and the AACAP are putting out pamphlets supporting off-label prescription and undermining the FDA Black Box warning. It seems like such a blatant drug industry message. And as for the AACAP, no wonder they are so resistant to retracting Study 329. They’re apparently part of the medication scene if these brochures and papers are any indication. And the guide for Bipolar Disorder in children and adolescents has been scrubbed of any mention of Dr. Biederman or his group except in the references, but the content is little changed from his heyday. But the most bothersome thing is that this brochure endorsing off label prescribing and demeaning the black box warning is recommended by this document:"

"This is a guide to protect vulnerable Medicare and Medicaid populations, yet it goes on to recommend the AACAP guide above.

"There’s something terribly wrong here…" here

1 Boring Old Man is right there's something terribly wrong here.

I hope you take the time to read what he has to say 

Friday Funny: A Little Ass, A Dildo, and A Dog

A Little Ass

A Dildo

and A Dog

 powered by Splicd.com

For those who don't recognize the dildo, AKA Thomas Insel, Director of NIMH

Washington State's Age of Consent Law for Psychiatric Treatment: Children At Risk

A 17 year old teenager I know shared with me that she had scabies. She went to get treated for it at a local medical clinic, but was refused treatment because she did not have a parent with her to provide consent.  I was immediately struck by the fact, that if she was depressed or distressed and had sought help at a  mental health clinic, she would not have needed a guardian to provide Informed Consent for treatment.  Had this teenager gone to a mental health clinic, or to an ER for help in an emotional crisis; she could have been labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis, and prescribed drugs; without a parent or guardian being informed at all. Psychotropic drugs have risks that require an individual taking the drugs be closely observed by others since a person would not always be able to recognize they are experiencing an adverse reaction.

The diagnosis and treatment for scabies is quite different from the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and behavioral difficulties.  Scabies can be objectively diagnosed based upon the presence of  a rash caused by mites, while "mental illness" is diagnosed based upon subjective opinion and observation, which is imprecise, and not scientific.  Scabies is a condition that is contagious, "mental illness" is not contagious. Since a psychiatric diagnosis is a subjective diagnosis, the same person can be labeled with totally different diagnoses by every diagnostician who assesses their symtoms. The treatment for scabies has risks which are minimal, and virtually always cure scabies. The drugs used to treat emotional and behavioral symptoms come with some very serious risks, and do not offer a cure. Conversely, psychiatric treatments have serious risks including increased suicide risk, (particularly for teenagers) with SSRI antidepressants; and neuroleptics, called  "antipsychotics" can cause akathisia, diabetes, obesity, and Tardive Dyskinesia, a neurological impairment, which can be permanent; even if a person stops taking the drug that caused it.

It seems that the Age of Consent being 13 in Washington State has intentionally or not, put children at risk. I have no doubt this law is being misused; effectively placing vulnerable children at further risk.  Are we to assume that adolescents do not need of the protection or the advice and support of a parent or guardian whose concern is primarily for their health and well-being when faced with a mental health diagnosis? Washington State Law allows an adolescent to be legally responsible for providing Informed Consent for mental health and substance abuse treatment; when the average adult would have difficulty knowing what questions to ask about the drugs being prescribed.

This Law is ill-advised primarily because it is established that humans brains are not fully developed until adulthood. Even a bright adolescent would be at a disadvantage due to lack of experience; being a kid means the balance of power puts teenagers at an even a greater disadvantage in effectively asserting their autonomy. The potential for being coerced and/or unfairly influenced by adults, particularly by adults who are often authority figures in and out of the clinical setting is incalculable; but may be profoundly greater than it is for adults. I can attest that coercion has been is used as a matter of course with impunity by the majority of mental health professionals I have dealt with over 20+ years.

How would the average teenager know what questions to ask? Making a decision to take a psychotropic drug to alter their emotions and behavior instead of learning coping skills to deal with the stresses of their day to day lives can be potentially disabling and even fatal; yet Washington State Law does not require a parent or guardian to be consulted. The law in fact prohibits their parents or guardians from being informed about prescribed drugs if a teenager does not consent. Instead of the unconditional love and support they need; kids are told they have a brain disease which requires taking teratogenic drugs to treat it. As stated by Dr. Marcia Angell, in The Illusions of Psychiatry, "At the very least, we need to stop thinking of psychoactive drugs as the best, and often the only, treatment for mental illness or emotional distress. Both psychotherapy and exercise have been shown to be as effective as drugs for depression, and their effects are longer-lasting, but unfortunately, there is no industry to push these alternatives and Americans have come to believe that pills must be more potent."

Parental Rights to protect their children, and to act in a child's best interest are effectively denied.
My rights were denied by Jon McClellan, while my son was at CSTC.  When I brought my seriously impaired son home, George Petzinger and  Philip Rodenberger, two psychiatrists at two different community mental health clinics in the community, also refused to talk about lowering the dosages of drugs each of them prescribed to my son. First prescribed to my son by Jon McClellan; the drugs were not FDA approved for pediatric use; and were known to cause permanent iatrogenic, or physician caused, diseases and impairments. Each of these three psychiatrists told me I had no say. All three used the same excuse: that I had no say because my son was over the age of 13. While at Child Study and Treatment Center, my son was told that he would not get to leave and go home if he did not take the drugs as prescribed; so naturally, he "took them willingly." George Petzinger claimed he had no idea how to lower the dosages, when I asked him; he also stated there was no one he could consult with about lowering the dosages either... Clearly, the decision to use my son as a guinea pig had been made by psychiatrists who also determined consent, informed, or otherwise was never required; an impaired adolescent's coerced assent would suffice...

Using the Age of Consent in this way is not the purpose of RCW. 71.34, as stated in RCW 71.34.010; but it is in fact used to exclude parents in standard clinical practice--I don't believe my son and I were singled out for "special treatment," or treated differently than other people.

RCW 71.34.010
Purpose — parental participation in treatment decisions — parental control of minor children during treatment.

It is the purpose of this chapter to assure that minors in need of mental health care and treatment receive an appropriate continuum of culturally relevant care and treatment, including prevention and early intervention, self-directed care, parent-directed care, and involuntary treatment. To facilitate the continuum of care and treatment to minors in out-of-home placements, all divisions of the department that provide mental health services to minors shall jointly plan and deliver those services.

It is also the purpose of this chapter to protect the rights of minors against needless hospitalization and deprivations of liberty and to enable treatment decisions to be made in response to clinical needs in accordance with sound professional judgment. The mental health care and treatment providers shall encourage the use of voluntary services and, whenever clinically appropriate, the providers shall offer less restrictive alternatives to inpatient treatment. Additionally, all mental health care and treatment providers shall assure that minors' parents are given an opportunity to participate in the treatment decisions for their minor children. The mental health care and treatment providers shall, to the extent possible, offer services that involve minors' parents or family.

It is also the purpose of this chapter to assure the ability of parents to exercise reasonable, compassionate care and control of their minor children when there is a medical necessity for treatment and without the requirement of filing a petition under this chapter.(emphasis mine)
[1998 c 296 § 7; 1992 c 205 § 302; 1985 c 354 § 1.]

via The New York Review of Books:

The Illusions of Psychiatry
the final paragraph:
"In particular, we need to rethink the care of troubled children. Here the problem is often troubled families in troubled circumstances. Treatment directed at these environmental conditions—such as one-on-one tutoring to help parents cope or after-school centers for the children—should be studied and compared with drug treatment. In the long run, such alternatives would probably be less expensive. Our reliance on psychoactive drugs, seemingly for all of life’s discontents, tends to close off other options. In view of the risks and questionable long-term effectiveness of drugs, we need to do better. Above all, we should remember the time-honored medical dictum: first, do no harm (primum non nocere)."    Marcia Angell, M.D. 

A final note: State Law also states that a juvenile's request to no longer assent or consent to taking psychotropic drugs must be in writing---my son repeatedly stated to Child Study and Treatment staff that he did not want to take the drugs; he was ignored. It is a reprehensible really, all things considered. The profound deleterious effects of the drugs Jon McClellan prescribed without Informed Consent almost totally incapacitated my son, he could barely walk or talk; and he couldn't hold up his head. There is no way in hell he could have written a statement...

portions of this post originally published on 1-27-2011 "Washington State Age of Consent Puts Children At Risk"
picture credit

Mental Health Advocacy and the Ethics of Journalism

The above quote could and does apply to many aspects of human life. I don't believe I will ever become adjusted to the manner in which mental health issues are reported by mainstream journalists. Specifically, the manner in which "the news" is presented is as if speculation, supposition and gossip are in "news."

Ethical journalism or reporting the news is (at least theoretically) an unbiased presentation of facts and information of interest to the public. Much of the journalism in our country is biased, it's used by some as a tool to further a specific agenda, or promote an ideology, idea, or perspective; i.e. as propaganda.

When there are fatalities and the supect is known to have, or is suspected of having a psychiatric diagnosis, the vast majority of what is initially reported is gossip and speculation. Depending upon the event, the amount of morbid or prurient interest, fear or revulsion that can be generated; influences how accurately "the news" will be reported. When a story titillates, awakens fear, revulsion or morbid fascination in the general public, our individual biases are reinforced. An individual’s biases are based on ignorance and fear; fed misinformation, our biases become bigotry. When the source of misinformation is the evening “news,” our biases are in effect, "validated." Our subsequent discriminatory perspective is in this way basically justified as "natural" or "normal;" if  recognized at all.

The subtle changes are gradual and because the changes are based on shared experiences the shift in our perspective is almost imperceptable. Biases grow into bigoted perspectives and discriminatory treatment. When our biases are fed and validated by the media, endorsed by advocacy groups, the people who do not agree with the biologically biased perspective or condone the discriminatory treatment, are "uninformed;" or perhaps even, one of those "mentally ill" people the advocates are advocating for. In the case of "advocates for the seriously mentally ill" individual members and individual groups can have self-interests that are contrary to the best interests of "the seriously mentally ill" they are advocating for. One major glaring Conflicts of Interest is being funded by pharmaceutical companies and advised by the unethical "professionals" who sell their products through the advocacy group's education and advocacy programs; these groups fail to advocate for the people who are disabled and otherwise harmed by the “safe and effective” drug or electro-shock treatments.

In some cases, the people are in fact Court Ordered to treatment that never "worked" or "successfully treated" their symptoms. Self-appointed advocates enthusiastically support and insist coercive treatment "saves lives;" and proclaim it is "necessary medical treatment. Some people say their lives were saved, or that involuntary treatment "helped" them personally; how do these anecdotes justify court ordering other individuals? While it is true that some people are "successfully treated," i.e. get better, become more functional; it is equally true that some are harmed grievously, including being permanently disabled and killed by psychiatric treatment.

Court Ordering people to special treatment with teratogenic drugs and/or electro-shock devices that are not safe, only minimally effective, illegally marketed or never safety tested, when the "treatment" risks are both disabling and fatal, is despicable; morally reprehensible.

When a person with a psychiatric diagnosis is the victim of interpersonal violence due to their symptoms making someone target them, it's not reported as a hate crime; incredibly, reporters and self-appointed advocates alike seem to believe it is acceptable to blame the victim, or to blame the victim's "untreated mental illness" for having been victimized. Advocates do not advocate for the victim by demanding that perpetrators be held accountable for victimizing people who are already in distress... In reality, it is tragic when anyone is victimized and a victim is killed. It is particularly heinous when the victim and/or their psychiatric diagnosis is used to excuse the criminal acts of a perpetrator who victimized them.

Psuedo-reporting compounds the tragedy, and inevitably it leads to calls for increased forced treatment, as if forced psychiatric treatment is the panacea which will cure society. Do people really believe that coercion, subterfuge, and inflicting distress is required to simply provide ethical "necessary medical treatment" eve that it is acceptable to mislead patients and the public about the subjective, (not scientific) nature of psychiatric diagnostic criteria and standard psychiatric treatment protocols, are based on subjective observations of psychiatric professionals which are then put to a vote to develop a consensus. Empirical data must be the foundation of a "standard" treatment; having  a statistical record of successfully treating a variety of patients for a particular illness or symptom it is HOW a particular treatment becomes the "standard" of care for a particular condition or symptom.

An ethical standard of care would not require using deceit, or justify it with an abuse of power and authority. An ethical standard of care would not rely upon coercion, force, and deceit; no ethical physician would purposely mislead or misinform a patient and/or their family members about the nature of their diagnosis and the actual effects of the recommended treatment, much less claim that it's a using subterfuge and social control tactics actually successfully treats "seriously mentally ill" people! We don't even count how many psychiatric patients are iatrogenically disabled or killed; there is no way to accurately, ethically, balance the hoped for benefits of psychiatric treatment against the potentially disabling, and fatal risks. Without considering all the data, including the adverse event data, there no way to ethically determine whether the benefits are worth the risks to and for a particular patient.

As a result of unethical reporting, the general public is misinformed, and consequently, is at a disadvantage when attempting to analyze the issues involved; unethical reporting in the main stream media misinforms the general public. Journalists are not reporting the news if they merely sharing of press releases from marketing departments or public relations firms. The results of psychiatric research, clinical trials, people with a diagnosed mental illness and pharmacological  treatments, are seldom reported ethically; i.e. reported after an independent verification of the facts. Just as importantly, when the results are controversial or disputed, the controversies are seldom reported; as the Ethics Guidelines for Journalism suggest. Reports in print or broadcast news are frequently only press releases written by marketing departments of the drug company that funded the study, or public relations departments of the University where research was conducted. Regardless of the source, without independent verification of the facts, this practice, is not ethical reporting. The failure to even attempt to provide an unbiased recitation of the facts or the issues involved when mental illness and the treatments used, is simply irresponsible, and it is not ethical journalism. It is in recognition of the fact that reporting events and issues without bias is difficult, since all people and groups of people have biases; that a Code of Ethics for Journalism was developed.

Mainstream media's quest for market share, increased ratings and profits contribute (unintentionally) to the innate biases of the uninformed general public. These biases are further fanned into flame when the pseudo-news reports misinform and the product of lax journalism ultimately becomes propaganda used by extremists, “grassroots” advocacy groups, columnists and other rightwing extremists to advocate for increasing the number of people legally compelled under Court Order to receive forced psychiatric treatment.

Lax ethical standards in journalism are intended to garner higher ratings, which in turn lead to increased revenue. Low standards are used because the intended goal of increased profits are realized. While I understand this is how business is 'done,' this is pseudo-reporting disseminating misinformation. This type of misinformation is used to put a veneer of legitimacy on bigotry; and used to gain the general public's acceptance of the mistreatment of people with a psychiatric diagnosis. It serves to increase the discrimination experienced by people with a psychiatric diagnosis in general; and in particular, of the people who are targeted for forced treatment.

From the Ethics Code for Journalism Preamble:

"Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice." more here.

Rightwing extremists in the United States "reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority." Rightwing extremists, "may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue,"  according to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Assessment Analysis. One example would be advocates who are propoments of forced psychiatric treatment, inpatient or in the community. Court ordering people to take neuroleptic drugs to prevent violence is a seriously flawed strategy. Many advocacy groups for the mentally ill appear to see nothing wrong when the Constitutional Rights of individuals Court Ordered to Involuntary Treatment are violated, because their intent is to be helpful. These protections must be effectively preserved and defended for all people; they are Human Rights.

It appears rightwing mental health advocacy extremists reject government authority entirely. When I read the document the above bold face statements are in, I could not help noticing the description is applicable to right-wing mental health advocates who focus their efforts almost exclusively towards the strengthening and implementation of forced psychiatric treatment laws. This is due to an apparent belief that forced treatment is THE Holy Grail which will save the general public from being victimized. The outrageous claim that their advocacy is only to ensure these "poor unfortunates" receive needed “medical treatment.” These advocates further claim the only reason that the “seriously mentally ill refuse or object to "medical treatment" is because they have NO INSIGHT WHATSOEVER; and protest because they "don't know what is good for them." It is further claimed this lack of insight is due having a "brain disease." The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence that "serious mental illness" results from "brain disease." Besides, in medicine, brain diseases are treated by neurologists, not psychiatrists!

via The Free Library:

The loss of client agency into the psychopharmaceutical--industrial complex

Those disorders listed in the DSM-IV-TR for which a clear, undeniable disease process is present (e.g., Alzheimer's disease and other various forms of dementia) or a clear genetic defect has been located (i.e., Rett's disorder) fall under the purview of neurology, not psychiatry (Ducommun-Nagy, 2003; Encyclopedia of Mind Disorders, 2005; Glasser, 2003). Psychiatrist Kenneth Kendler (2005), co-editor-in-chief of Psychological Medicine, stated, "We [psychiatrists] have hunted for big, simple neuropathological explanations for psychiatric disorders and have not found them. We have hunted for big, simple neurochemical explanations for psychiatric disorders and have not found them. We have hunted for big, simple genetic explanations for psychiatric disorders and have not found them" (pp. 434-435).

"Despite the lack of clear evidence for neuropathological, neurochemical, or genetic explanations for psychiatric disorders, the beliefs in such are heavily perpetuated by psychopharmacologists and physiological psychiatrists (Valenstein, 1998), who differ from the declining number of psychiatrists and psychiatric nurse practitioners who appreciate the contextual factors affecting mental health. Psychopharmacologists and physiological psychiatrists believe that mental health problems reduce down to chemical and electrical exchanges between brain cells (neurons). With this philosophy, psychotropic medications are marketed aggressively and prescribed indiscriminately (Rosenheck, 2005; Schultz, 2004, Wazana, 2000) with the message that these medications will correct alleged brain defects related to psychiatric disorders." read more here.

The US Constitution is the preeminent law in the United States; the provisions and protections of this document supersede any and all State, County, or Municipal Laws and Codes whether passed by legislation or statutory authority. Any Laws which diminish Individual Liberty must only be undertaken when such infringement has been determined necessary by a Court of Law, and is only done lawfully when the individual's Constitutional Rights to Procedural Due Process of Law are protected. These Rights include: Proper Notice given and Affidavits of Service being filed, Rules of Evidence followed, Standard Court Procedures used and Effective Assistance of Counsel provided. The Constitutional Rights of those who are court ordered are in fact NOT preserved, by being described within the law. These individual rights can only be effectively preserved and defended for individuals that are properly served, notice filed with the Court clerk, Rules of Evidence followed, Standard Court procedures adhered to, and Effective Assistance of Counsel is available. When any of these protections are denied an individual, Justice is conspicuously absent.

It is common for the Rules of Evidence to be modified by Involuntary Treatment statutes; an effective lowering of the standards required to deprive individuals of their Liberty. Mental health professionals and advocates believe that using coercion and gossip is not only acceptable, but that it's necessary to facilitate obtaining these Court Orders which deprive an individual of their liberty. In these cases, proper notice is often ignored altogether. When people are Court Ordered in this manner, whether it is to inpatient or outpatient involuntary treatment, the commitment orders are illegal since using these lower standards violates the individual's Constitutional Rights as a matter of course.

Mainstream media becomes complicit by the using biased reporting to garner ratings or sell more copies. Failing to report relevant facts in an unbiased ethical manner is irresponsible and capricious. The reasoning of right-wing extremist advocacy groups who claim to be advocates “for the seriously mentally ill” seems to be based on bigotry; and is fueled by ignorance and fear. It's no surprise that this type of advocacy effectively serves the advocacy groups primary benefactor's financial interests. The majority of mainstream advocacy groups receive a significant percentage of their financial support from drug companies, and it is the drug companies who are the primary beneficiaries of compulsive psychiatric treatment.

Right-wing extremists in the "Mental Health Advocacy" movement exploit a variety of social issues and political themes to increase visibility and recruit new members; this has always been the case with extremist groups throughout history. These extremists remain focused on a predetermined agenda, forced treatment, regardless of new information, legal ramifications, financial and societal costs, or the real world outcomes of the individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis who are victimized. It is patently absurd for any advocate to claim that any negative effect of their advocacy is justified by their altruistic intent.

Why does psychiatry, with it's history of lobotomies, water tortures, Electric Shock, forced sterilizations and other outrageous tortures and it's ongoing collusion in pharmaceutical fraud have Police Powers? What has this profession done that could conceivably justify granting it such power? How has society allowed psychiatry to effectively gain unprecedented authority and society's passive participation in the inhumane treatment of an entire class of people?

I doubt the families of American Veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq traumatized who have died in their sleep, here and here or who commit suicide/homicide here due to drug induced psychosis, would agree the drugs are "safe and effective." In 2008, 52 Marines taking psychiatric drugs took their own lives.

Children are given psychiatric drugs that are approved and not approved for pediatric use; psychiatry calls drugs which are not approved for pediatric use, "off label" drug use, the FDA, "experimental" drug use. Would the parents of children who have died suddenly from cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, other drug induced causes; or parents whose who child is now brain damaged and/or disabled by iatrogenic illness or disease from psychiatric drugs agree the drugs are "safe and effective?" Between 2000 and 2004 the FDA adverse drug reaction reporting system linked antipsychotic drugs to 45 child deaths and 1,300 serious adverse reactions, such as convulsions and low white blood cell count. These are the very same drugs recently approved by the FDA for widespread use in children. Child Deaths here and here.

Psychiatry does not, and never has held itself to the Ethical Guidelines of the Medical Profession, or to any law or social norm recognized. The tactics utilized and the position of power granted to psychiatry validate oppression, elevated the oppressors; placing them above the law.

Lobotomies and mass sterilizations were still happening when I was a kid, and I am the mother of a son who was used in Drug Trials. Drug trials of the "new safer more expensive" antipsychotics; now APPROVED based on these trials for WIDESPREAD use in children!? I am horrified. I am my son's caregiver, and I am grateful he is still alive. How many children will die or become disabled before the FDA and the Department of Justice prosecute the psychiatrists and other "mental health professionals" are complicit in a massive criminal enterprise that is defrauding public health systems and who fail to disclose the risks, and fail to obtain Informed Consent?

Psychiatry is a specialty whose methods are unethical; they are often not therapeutic, but harmful. These methods and treatments are killing our children, our traumatized Veterans and our elderly; with impunity. Claiming to be treating “brain diseases,” yet failing to provide any empirical data, e.g. scientific evidence “brain diseases;” even exist! Any and all signs and symptoms of distress are now considered evidence of "brain diseases;" if they actually were diseases, these "diseases" would be treated by a neurologist.

When will the general public realize that the "special treatment" provided by force is not therapeutic; not only does it not enable recovery, but it can cause those "treated" to die? Psychiatry now has been given Police Powers and has perverted the Court System to sentence people to treatments which can cripple and kill them; without preserving their individual rights to Procedural Due Process of Law. It is inhumane, unjust and is unconstitutional!

Members of America's Armed Forces take an oath to defend Our Country and The Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Some of those lucky enough to return home have then been killed by psychiatrists "practicing medicine." None of them have been jailed for their crimes, it is unconscionable. 

 

Jon McClellan, the psychiatrist who gave my son huge amounts of neuroleptic drugs without Informed Consent for either the drugs or for inclusion in the TEOSS drug trials; repeatedly stated my consent was not needed; my opinion was irrelevant, my parental rights denied. My boy's protests were met with coercive tactics: specifically, he was told he would never get to leave the locked psychiatric facility he was held in as a “voluntary” patient, if he did not take the drugs. The fact is, no psychiatrist who has caused death or iatrogenic illness and disability with "safe and effective treatments," drugs or Electrical Shock, has been held accountable.

Incredibly, unethical research psychiatrists like Harvard’s Biederman, can become a Scientific Advisor to the Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation, a "patient advocacy" group. Psychiatry continues to use his fraudulent research to teach those who diagnose and treat our Nation’s children. No articles in psychiatric journals from this or any other discredited researcher are redacted out of psychiatric journals. Jon McClellan is still the Medical Director of a Washington State Psychiatric Facility, and a professor at the University of Washington, and has participated in an ethics workshops at the The Hastings Center.

Psychiatry is more a system of political and social control than a "medical" specialty; of this, I have no doubt. Whether you agree with me or not, I urge you to consider if it's prudent to allow psychiatry to use the Police and the Courts as it's medical instruments of treatment compliance. These are the very same tactics used in Germany that enabled the Third Reich to "legally" torture and kill millions of people; and the very same standards that psychiatry utilized in the United States to "legally" strip people of their dignity and their Human Rights in order to lobotomize and/or sterilize them.

Psychiatry is still using the same tactics, calling the new ways of causing brain damage, terror, trauma, iatrogenic injury and iatrogenic disease "safe and efficacious medical treatment" for "brain diseases;" without producing any evidence of a disease pathology that is being treated, or even exists. Psychiatry has a history when carefully considered, does not justify the position of power and authority that it wields with impunity. As a medical specialty, it has not demonstrated the integrity required to be trusted or respected.

If psychiatry's treatments are safe and effective, why are so many children, the elderly and traumatized Veterans, (among others) disabled before dying prematurely? More importantly, why are the Courts and the Police needed to practice medicine? Why are psychiatric diagnoses legally adjudicated instead of medically diagnosed? Psychiatric diagnoses become a permanent legal record, even though the diagnoses are the result of subjective opinion, and are not verified by facts that would comply with the Rules of Evidence required for every other Civil or Criminal Court proceeding.

Do journalists who simply "report" without independently verifying facts have a conscience? Do they not remember World War II? It was psychiatry that provided the efficient methods of control used to exterminate millions--it was psychiatry that was already killing the "mental defectives" in institutions so efficiently that the Third Reich asked psychiatrists to help carry out Hitler’s diabolical plan.

People are inundated with direct-to-consumer marketing pf prescription drugs on the internet, in print and broadcast news stations; does this contribute to the type of "reporting" that is done by journalists? Has the income from the advertising and direct-to-consumer marketing of drugs created a Conflict of Interest and compromised the integrity of the Journalism profession?

My sense of morality will not allow me to adjust to unethical psychiatric standards. Advocacy groups champion unethical psychiatric standards and pharmaceutical fraud and corruption. Extremist mental health advocacy groups ignore victims whose lives are laid to waste, while proclaiming they are advocating for what is in the victim's "best interest." Victims are further traumatized and victimized in no small part due to this type of advocacy. I will not adjust to the Constitution being set aside for psychiatry to "safely treat" emotional and behavioral difficulties they rename "brain diseases" in an effort to validate their questionable practices. I will not adjust to psychiatry being given the power to maim and kill under Color of Law, by Court Order.

It is definitely unethical for advocacy groups for the seriously mentally ill to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and use the information developed by marketing departments of the pharmaceutical industry in educational and advocacy activities conducted "in the public interest."

If I were to adjust to how psychiatry is currently practiced, I would in effect be approving and supporting crimes against humanity, crimes that have been perpetrated by mental health professionals which have seriously harmed my son and my fellow man.

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

Richard B. Sanders

"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

I pray for Humanity to heal and hope to see evidence of it in my lifetime

Until then, I can only imagine...

First posted on January 21, 2011 in response to the shootings in Arizona, and titled, 

"Mental Health Advocacy Extremists are Aided by Lack of Journalism Ethics"

NIH Defends Grant To Psychiatrist Sanctioned For Taking Millions From Big Pharma

via Pharma WatchDog:

NIH Defends Grant To Psychiatrist Sanctioned For Taking Millions From Big Pharma:

A former Emory University psychiatrist caught for failing to disclose millions he received from Big Pharma is once again receiving federal grants. The decision to award the grants has sparked criticism from many, including a US Senator.

The federal grant were made 3 months ago to Charles Nemeroff, a former Emory University psychiatrist. Dr. Nemeroff was caught failing to tell his university about at least $1.2 million in consulting income from drug companies, such as GlaxoSmithKline. read here

More at Pharmalot

hat tip: Mark Sadaka

photo from Stop Rx Foundation

Is the primary ethical duty of a physician unknown to mainstream psychiatry?

"I am sure that we will recognize that there are some things in our society, 

some things in our world, to which we should never be adjusted." 

Martin Luther King Jr.

"I am sure that to be silent about psychiatric abuse and oppression is to be complicit."
MadMother

Although definitive evidence in support of the hypothesis that schizophrenia is a brain disease remains elusive, psychiatrists who firmly believe in the correctness of it, used their belief in this hypothetical explanation for the etiology of schizophrenia to justify the "Standard Practice" of prescribing neurotoxic teratogenic drugs as a necessary medical treatment. Calling it a "Standard Practice" is misleading; it is not an ethical medical standard, since it is a "standard" only because it was designated as such by consensus; i.e. a quasi-democratic political process, evidence only of an agreement of the meaning to be attached to behaviors. Psychiatry relies upon consensus, a quasi-democratic process in the absence of evidence gathered by using ethical scientific principles.  It is a standard that does not rely upon the use of sound ethical medical judgement; it is contradictory to the ethical standards of medical science. The standard clinical practices used by psychiatry to "medically treat" psychiatric diagnoses are validated by a political process; as a result, they are not ethical medical standards. In other medical specialties, the standards used in clinical practice are derived from and supported by the data collected in research, and includes documented "anecdotal" evidence from experienced clinicians;  i.e. the "evidence base." Theoretically, to be ethical medical care, care is offered with the primary purpose of serving the best interests of the patient; in the Hippocratic tradition to, "First, do no harm..."

In effect, the AACAP and the APA have determined by a quasi-democratic process, that psychiatric diagnoses are biological, neurodevelopmental brain diseases, or chemical imbalances that require "medical treatment." It is a determination that is not based on research, but on a political process; it is based on a vote. This is also how diagnoses and diagnostic criteria is standardized as well. So psychiatry recommends "treating" behaviors as if they are symptoms of disease; and this recommendation is not based upon the scientific method, or the ethical principles of medicine; which begs the question, why is it called, "medical treatment?"

The devotees of psychiatry's disease model have been frantically searching for proof of an elusive  hypothetical disease that causes psychiatric symptoms; and have yet to find definitive evidence despite decades of diligent searching for it. The fact that they have standards of practice that are based on the belief in an unidentified disease is despicable really, when one considers the loss of liberty, and life that has resulted from ego-maniacal hubris masquerading as "professional medical judgement." Belief in a hypothetical explanation for symptoms is not an ethical basis for any medical decision; it is a juvenile justification for bullying. Psychiatry is, in effect bullying psychiatric patients by using coercion, biased information, Police Powers, and Court Orders; none of which can ever magically transform what is being done into a valid or ethical medical treatment. Stating authoritatively, that a disease exists which requires medical treatment in order to compel or coerce "treatment compliance," is nothing but a fraud.

Do NOT misunderstand what I am saying--distress, social difficulties, emotional, behavioral and cognitive symptoms are all very real; but none have been proven to be the result of a neuro-biological disease, chemical imbalance or a genetic defect. This fact is acknowledged; by the APA, and AACAP and the NIMH. Yet all three of these entities disseminate educational materials for the general public that imply and literally state the exact opposite. At the same time, through NAMI, and other so-called patient advocacy groups, and in "peer-reviewed" professional journals the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, disseminate information that authoritatively states, in effect, that psychiatric diagnoses are medical illnesses (like diabetes!) that can be treated "safely and effectively." The claim is more of a hopeful exaggeration; and strictly speaking, is not a truthful claim. The new psychiatry, or "psychopharmacology," purports to be "treating diseases" whose etiology and/or pathology have never been defined, validated, much less understood well enough to ethically support the claim made that their symptoms can be effectively treated.

The diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual are based upon the most unreliable scientific data, subjective observation/opinion. The disease hypothesis is supposedly derived from the mechanism of action of the drugs, but the disease hypothesis predates the use of drugs. In the field of medicine, a phenomenon is studied, and a hypothesis is formulated and tested. In medicine, a disease or defect is studied, defined and validated through testing of the hypothesis, once understood, somatic treatments to reverse, prevent or inhibit the progression of the disease can be developed and tested... Psychotropic drugs can cause disease in major organs and alter the function of physiological processes; in effect, the drugs cause iatrogenic illnesses and impairments; and can cause sudden death. Psychopharmacology has a devotion to the bio-disease paradigm; but it is due to a hopeful belief, an illusion, not sucessful use of the drugs. Psychiatry; i.e. psychopharmacology, does not consistently use scientific standards; and worse yet, it is not grounded in, or even seem to value, ethical medical principles.

Psychiatry does not keep track of how many actually die, develop obesity, diabetes, akathisia, tardive dyskinesia, tachycardia, or any iatrogenic illness from the drugs which will shorten their patient's lives. This is indicative of how important the collection of relevant data necessary for an accurate risk vs. benefit assessment in real world practice is to psychiatry. Why would a belief in a particular etiology for psychiatric symptoms become a justification for adopting a clinical standard of practice unsupported by evidence, or for using force to compel the treatment Under Color of Law? How can it be ethically or morally justifiable to compel treatment with significant and fatal risks by Court Order?

Sudden fatality, the development of chronic conditions that are disabling, i..e. the rate of iatrogenesis, is  needed information for a meaningful risk vs. benefit analysis in real world clinical practice; yet this information is purposely not being collected. Those who are disabled, and the fatal outcomes are considered "anecdotal evidence." Ironically, unlike  the anecdotal evidence used to recommend prescribing the drugs to a patient, this outcome data, is "anecdotal evidence" that is ignored---it is not considered relevant when making treatment decisions.  This is in no small measure why children are being drugged in the manner that they are... Rarely, are iatrogenic, drug-induced deaths, recorded in the FDA AER database, as such. Based upon my own casual observation, child fatalities are commonly reported by a parent or an attorney; not a medical professional.

The twisted logic seems to be, if psychiatric diagnoses are "diseases" and psychiatrists are "doctors" who diagnose the diseases; that what they are do is provide necessary "medical treatment."  Whether a person gives consent or not, is not important. Psychiatry does not treat individuals so much as apply a label to the individual; then implement a treatment protocol.  Since Practice Parameters are based upon consensus, outcomes or overall improvement in the patients was not ever considered important enough to be quantified in any meaningful way, nor was the data considered important enough to collect. The patients' perspective,  physical health and general well being, doesn't appear to be given thoughtful consideration. The effect of treatment on the patient is certainly never as important as the patient never questioning the bio-disease model. A patient must always remain treatment compliant regardless of the actual effects of psychiatric treatment.

Without insisting on the absolute utility of the "treatments" of psychotropic drugs, how would psychiatry "practice medicine?" It would have to return to the "treatment" used prior to the drugs: lobotomy and insulin shock. Choosing to stop the using coercion to control, having respect and showing compassion for patients, considering patients to be worthy of kindness, and treating patients as equals would be an indication that the psychiatric profession may be worthy of trust. Choosing to use methods of control to main authority while continuing to deny the the plight of patients who are harmed, is evidence that psychiatry is not a profession that can be  trusted.

Psychiatry continues to defend the use of coercion, while wielding Police Powers; continues to mislead and lie to patients and the general public, continues to lie about patients and lie about the nature of the diagnoses that are applied to people in distress, with impunity. All of psychiatry's standard practices are anathema to ethical medical principles and the scientific understanding of disease. The manner in which psychiatry is practiced makes it impossible to earn the trust and respect of patients who have critical thinking skills; without mutual respect it is impossible to develop a therapeutic relationship.

It becomes obvious why Informed Consent is not really an important part of psychiatry's "standard clinical practices;" whether it is accidental oversight, careless disregard, or lack of appropriate training, doesn't really matter.  In the end, it is the real world outcomes of the patients themselves that matter; doing what is in a patient's best interest is supposed to be the primary focus in providing medical care.

The refusal to collect accurate data and to base treatment decisions upon ethical scientific methods and sound ethical medical principles, in effect, encourages psychiatrists to be wilfully blind to the countless, uncounted and discounted psychiatric patients they treat who are not "effectively treated;" but are instead grievously harmed. Psychiatry is blind to the plight of patients who are experiencing profound iatrogenic impairments and effectively dismisses the patients, and doesn't collect the data quantifying the harm done to them.

Psychiatric survivors are denigrated by mainstream advocates 'for the mentally ill' and by psychiatrists in "professional" journals. Patients who are liberated from psychiatric incarceration who have reclaimed their voices; refuse to be silent. Psychiatric survivors are the ONLY advocates who speak of and remember the lives that are lost forever. The psychiatric patients who are (de)voiced, who can no longer speak about what happened to them, whether they are alive or dead, are people worthy of respect. They are people who matter, and their real world outcomes are not "anecdotal evidence."

It is a choice to abdicate the primary ethical duty of a physician to, "First, do no harm..."

photo credit bipolarbears11 photobucket