The Experts: The American Psychiatric Association Department of Government Relations, Assessing the Risk for Violence and Access to Firearms

No one should be surprised that the "experts," in the American Psychiatric Association do not have any plan, "Policy" or "Position Statement" on how the APA will act to mitigate the risk for violence caused by the adverse effects of the psychotropic drugs they use off label without any valid indication the drug will treat the symptom it is being prescribed to treat...In fact, there is no mention that the drugs they use are a factor in many school shootings. Obviously, the APA does not use all of the relevant information available when offering "expert opinions" on Public Policy. It is unprofessional and unethical for a psychiatrist, let alone a group of them, to use incomplete and biased information when offering a professional opinion. Psychiatrists offer professional opinions to people seeking treatment, to educate child-serving professionals, and the general public; and psychiatrists provide "expert" opinions on Public Policy.

The risks inherent in each of the contexts psychiatrists offer a "professional opinion" are serious; and potentially fatal. Apparently, the APA is not capable, or is simply unwilling to be honest. If it were honest, the APA would not pretend there is no elephant in the room, e.g. the adverse effects of psychotropic drugs. The adverse effects of the drugs must be considered in every honest discussion about the treatment of psychiatric diagnoses, and people who have a psychiatric diagnosis who have violent and aggressive behaviors. It's not possible to offer an "expert opinion" or make a treatment recommendation without dicussing the known risks of following a treatment recommendation. It is unethical to provide misleading and inaccurate information about drug risks.

via forums.officer.com

                 

AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION

DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

Statement of Paul S. Appelbaum, MD
Representing the American Psychiatric Association
January 9, 2013
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) appreciates this opportunity to submit comments to the Gun Violence Task Force. I am Paul Appelbaum, a former president of the APA and the Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine & Law at Columbia University. I have spent several decades studying violence and mental illness, and thinking about systemic issues in the delivery of mental health care.

It is important, by way of preface, to note some of the key realities related to violence and mental illness. Most violence in this country—96% by the best available estimate—is not committed by people with mental illness, and most people with mental illness are not violent. Indeed, people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of violence; for example, women with mental illness have five times greater risk than other women of being the victims of domestic abuse.

Thus, America’s problem with violence is not mostly a mental illness problem. Whatever is done to reduce violence among the mentally ill will have only a small impact on the overall rate of violence, including firearm violence. That is not an argument for inaction, but it does suggest that focusing on people with mental illness alone is not likely to be a successful strategy for gun violence reduction.

However, the Newtown tragedy—coming so soon after the mass shootings in Tucson and Aurora—has opened a discussion about how we might improve the treatment of mental illness. Given the great needs for improved delivery of care for mental illnesses, this is too important an opportunity to allow it to pass. We may currently have an opportunity to begin rebuilding a system of care that has been decimated over the last several decades by the progressive withdrawal of resources in both the private and public sectors. As the task force heard, public sector appropriations alone have dropped by $4 billion dollars over the last 4 years.

In response, I would like to suggest 4 approaches to this issue that I think are worth of attention.

1) Appointment of a Presidential Commission to Develop a Vision for a System of Mental Health Care – It is a truism in discussions about mental health in America that no real system of care exists. Evaluation and treatment are difficult to access, often unaffordable, and fragmented across a variety of providers and payers. Families of children with mental illness in particular can recount horror stories of their efforts to find someone to treat their loved ones. Transitions from inpatient to outpatient treatment often result in patients falling through the cracks, and mental health and general medical treatment are rarely coordinated. Substance abuse treatment frequently takes place in an entirely different system, again with little coordination with mental health care. Auxiliary interventions of the sort essential to many people with serious mental illnesses—supported housing, employment training, social skills training—to the extent that they are available, may be offered through other agencies altogether. Our mental health system is a non-system.

The last major reconceptualization of how to deliver mental health care in this country began in 1955 with an act of Congress that resulted in the appointment of the Joint Commission on Mental Health. The Commission’s report, Action for Mental Health, provided a vision of a community-based mental health treatment system that included preventive and supportive services, along with community outreach and education. This vision helped to motivate the downsizing of large state hospitals and in 1963 culminated in the passage of the Community Mental Health Services Act. The Act envisioned the creation of a network of mental health centers spanning the country, so that every citizen would have a single point of access to the care they required.

Unfortunately, fewer than half of the centers envisioned were ever built, and adequate support for their operation was never provided. The promise of an effective community-based system of care was unfulfilled. But the Act represents the last thoroughgoing effort to conceptualize what a system of mental health care for all Americans should look like. We are now 50 years later, in a different world, for which a different vision may be required. However, the essential notion of having an integrated system of care is too important to relinquish. President Obama has the opportunity to initiate a process that would think creatively about the how a genuine system of mental health care could be created today. Establishment of a Presidential Commission to propose a vision for the mental health system and suggest realistic steps to implement that vision could be a landmark contribution. It would shape the next half-century of mental health and constitute a positive legacy from the tragic events that led to the creation of this task force.

2) Creating a Mechanism for Facilitating Response to Key Mental Health Issues – In addition to the long-term issues regarding mental health care that a Commission could address, there are a large number of more immediate concerns. These range from ensuring that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act operationalizes the promise of parity for mental health treatment to reintegrating returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with their high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury. Response to these issues by the Administration would be facilitated by the designation of a member of the White House staff as the point person (perhaps a “mental health coordinator’”) for mental health issues as they affect domestic policy. Such an appointment would also be seen as a strong statement about the importance that the Administration places on mental health issues.

3) Improving Early Identification of Young People with Mental Health Problems – Many of the organizations represented at this meeting emphasized the importance of early identification and treatment of children and adolescents with mental health problems. The need for such mechanisms has been underscored by the murders in Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown, among similar tragic events, which frequently have been carried out by troubled adolescents and young adults who have not received necessary mental health care.

Fortunately, the American Psychiatric Foundation, an arm of the APA, developed in the wake of the Columbine shootings a highly effective program for outreach to schools called Typical or Troubled?® School Mental Health Education Program that trains teachers to distinguish between students who are “just being adolescents” and those manifesting early signs of mental disorders. Typical or Troubled?® has trained staff in 500 schools across 38 states, and recently developed a culturally competent Spanish version of the program. It could serve as a model for early identification programs of the sort that should be available in every school. I left information about Typical or Troubled?®with Ms. Feldman of the Vice President’s staff, but we would be delighted to provide further information about the program if that would be helpful.

4) Sensible, Non-Discriminatory Approaches to Keeping Firearms Out of the Hands of Dangerous People – While we attend to meeting unmet mental health treatment needs, consideration also needs to be given to concrete approaches to restricting firearms access for persons who are likely to use those guns to harm themselves or others. Nearly 20,000 gun suicides occur in the U.S. each year, and guns are used in over two-thirds of all murders. Much of the public’s attention has been focused on means of limiting access to guns by people with mental illnesses. However, as is clear from the statistics cited earlier, people with mental illness account for approximately 4% of violence in the U.S. Thus, focusing on this group is not likely to be a highly effective strategy, and runs the risk of reinforcing the stigmatizing association in public perceptions between mental illness and violence.

In contrast, an Indiana statute provides an alternative approach. Indiana empowers law enforcement officers to seize weapons from persons who by their behavior indicate a likelihood of committing violent acts. One provision addresses people with mental illness, but a second does not require that the person be mentally ill. A judicial hearing follows within a prescribed period of time at which the state bears the burden of proof that the weapons should not be restored. Evaluation of the statute’s operation has shown that although a majority of people whose weapons are seized are perceived to have a mental illness (though they are far more often believed dangerous to themselves than to others), many are not. The latter include people involved in substance abuse, domestic disputes, and other behaviors presenting a serious risk of violence. Although there is no single cure-all for the problem of violence, Indiana’s law (Connecticut has a somewhat different statute that requires a court order for seizure) offers a model for a commonsense approach to reducing the risk of gun violence that does not overtly discriminate against people with mental illness. (See Indiana Code, Title 35, Article 47, Chapter 14)


AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 1000 WILSON BLVD, SUITE 1825, ARLINGTON, VA 22209
Tel: 703-907-7800 Fax: 703-907-1083 www.psychiatry.org

Position Statement on Assessing the Risk for Violence

Approved by the Board of Trustees, July 2012
Approved by the Assembly, May 2012

"Policy documents are approved by the APA Assembly and Board of Trustees…These are…position statements that define APA official policy on specific subjects…"

– APA Operations Manual.

This position statement was proposed by the Workgroup on Violence Risk of the Council on Psychiatry and Law. During their careers most psychiatrists will assess the risk of violence to others. While psychiatrists can often identify circumstances associated with an increased likelihood of
violent behavior, they cannot predict dangerousness with definitive accuracy. Over any given period some individuals assessed to be at low risk will act violently while others assessed to be at high risk will not. When deciding whether a patient is in need of intervention to prevent harm to others, psychiatrists should consider both the presence of recognized risk factors and the most likely precipitants of violence in a particular case.
The members of the Workgroup on Violence Risk are Alec Buchanan, M.D. (Chairperson), Michael A. Norko, M.D., Renee L. Binder, M.D., and Marvin Swartz, M.D.

via Daniel Mackler

Misunderstanding Psychiatry (and philosophy) at the Highest Level Bullshit II

 

"to paraphrase a line from the film Cool Hand Luke—

“What we got here is a failure to communicate!"

No doc, what we got here is Bullshit. 

WARNING:

Believing Bullshit activates Bullshit's placebo effect.

Bullshit is safe and effective. 

That's NO BULLSHIT! 

Learned scholars who write defensive Bullshit in response to criticism

may be Bullshit Artists disguised as psychiatrists...

Supposedly, "learned scholars" are psychiatry's academic elite, and Key Opinion Leaders; i.e. the idiots who seem to believe strongly held opinions are evidence of validity, idiots who have distorted clinical drug trial data; researchers who used biased, or otherwise unethical methodology when structuring how a clinical trial is conducted and how results are reported. Commonly, these elite research psychiatrists report their corrupt work in "peer reviewed" professional journals, at professional conferences, and teach their corrupted work product at Institutions of Higher Learning and Continuing Medical Education programs, and use it as if it is valid information when authoring medical textbooks . 

In reality, these research psychiatrists lied by exaggerating the benefits and downplaying the risk profiles for the psychotropic drugs they used in clinical trials. Consequently, people have died; including children who were prescribed teratogenic drugs to "treat" a brain "disorder," "disease" or "chemical imbalance" i.e. a psychiatric diagnosis. Kids and their parents were basically (mis)informed by psychiatrists who told patients, faimily members and the general public that the psychiatric diagnosis requires "medical treatment" with teratogenic drugs. Since there has been no pathology or dysfunction actually identified, this is a fraudulent claim. The children are then "treated" with neurotoxic drugs which can actually cause dysfunction, i.e. iatrogenic dysfunction and iatrogenic diseases. After psychiatric treatment with neurotoxic drugs, many children and adolescents develop recognizable brain disorders and other diseases, drug-induced iatrogenisis.

I am not a doctor, but I could play one on TV. I'm not (mis)educated and have not been adjudicated by a court (mis)informed by a psychiatrist, i.e. a bullshit artist. I can explain the "misunderstanding" to the (mis)educated; which should clarify any misunderstanding. I'll explain the philosophy first, then the psychiatry. 

Who is right about the science---is not what matters most. What matters most is what is being done to real human beings behind the indiscriminate, prolific prescription of drugs; i.e. the Real World Outcomes of psychiatric patients. Psychotropic drugs were FDA approved based on utter Bullshit in some cases. Then, the "Highest Level" Bullshit artists, i.e. Academic psychiatrists, Key Opinion Leaders, peer-review Journal editors publish, but never retract Bullshit from their 'professional' journals, once identified as biased, unethical and/or fraudulent. The 'professional journals' are 'resources' in the "evidence-base" that is being used by psychiatrists and other professionals who prescribe psychotropic drugs to patients according to Bullshit contained in psychiatry's corrupted "evidence base."

Holy Cow! Psychiatric Standard Treatment Protocols based on Bullshit is what Pies is defending! Pies defends the various unethical psychiatrists who are Bullshit artists,who are considered leaders in the "medical" specialty of psychiatry despite their lack of ethical medical principles and a refusal to adhere to ethical  research standards?! WTF kind of willful blindness allows a group of 'medical professionals' to utterly and completely fail to hold colleagues accountable for unethical behavior? A professional association  that does not discredit, discipline, or even censure individual psychiatrists for unethical conduct, is itself unethical. Psychiatrists with questionable ethical integrity are not questioned for ethical lapses, but are given positions of power and authority representing professionals in psychiatric professional associations and teach in institutions of Higher Learning. Unethical psychiatric researchers are not held accountable, criminal behavior is not censured; instead, it's rewarded with federal grants to conduct more research. The academic elite have harmed patients and have intentionally misinformed other professionals which has led untold millions of patients to be iatrogenically harmed by the dissemination of bullshit by Bullshit Artists; the KOLs and "thought leaders" who are the "Medical Professionals" who rely on corrupt data, defend corrupt data, use unethical standards of care and defend unethical psychiatrists who are purposely perpetrating and carelessly perpetuating medical fraud. 

Since it is psychiatrists at the 'Highest Level' who consistently and vehemently defend unethical psychiatric bullshit, is it any wonder psychiatry is not considered a "real" medical specialty by some victims, survivors and critics of all of this psychiatric bullshit? Why would anyone believe psychiatric bullshit is based on  any scientific evidence, or a medical finding? Only a psychiatrist, a Bullshit Artist, would think a huge steaming load of Psychiatric Bullshit-based medicine is in a patient's "best interest." It's a poor substitute for ethical medical treatment which actually requires obtaining a patient's fully informed consent. No Bullshit!

Now there's a philosophy right there!
Some psychiatrists at the "Highest Level" seem to lack ethical integrity altogether...
No Bullshit!

4 out of 5 psychiatrists at the Highest Level recommend that professionals who prescribe neurotoxic drugs to children and adolescents 'off-label' take 'Ethic-Eze' to suppress professional judgement and ethical conduct.
Off Label psychotropic prescriptions: the right financial prescription for psychiatry and for pHARMa !

Philosophically, it doesn't matter, whose analysis is correct. Real World Outcomes matter. For the patients, treatment outcome matters most. In the aggregate, psychiatry has Real World Outcomes that are lousy and indefensible. Attempting to defend them is despicable; adds insult to injury. Defending psychiatry while failing to defend, assist or even acknowledge the psychiatric patients who are harmed by the Highest Level Bullshit "treatment' is morally reprehensible. Psychiatric drugs are thrown by the handfuls onto the playgrounds and into school classrooms; sprayed like scatter shot at traumatized veterans; and used to sedate grandpa and grandma into early graves. The Highest Level Bullshit artists seem to be willfully blind, conflicted elitists who castigate ethical professionals who question the rates of disability and fatality caused by psychiatric treatment the Highest Level Bullshit artists attest in Courts of Law is "necessary medical treatment" required to "successfully treat" psychiatric patients--apparently, psychiatric patients are "successfully treated" when they are treatment compliant, not if they are cured or recovered. The patient is successfully treated even when the psychiatric treatment results in a permanent disability or kills the patient. 

It is one thing to defend a hypothesis that is not yet validated while continuing to look for the evidence to validate it; it's quite another to allow one's belief in it, i.e. one's personal conviction of it's inherent truth, be the justification for using coercion and and fraudulent claims to compel patients to believe psychiatric Bullshit and subvert the Courts to adjudicate a person and legally apply a psychiatric diagnosis to force Bullshit down the patient's neck. Doing so, is contrary to the philosophy of medicine in the Hippocratic tradition. It is unethical. It is criminal. It is not therapeutic. 

It is unsafe and ineffective to use teratogenic drugs indiscriminately across diagnostic categories and population groups. It is not in a "patient's best interest" to prescribe drugs regardless of safety and effectiveness, and fail to warn the patient about the serious risks or adverse effects to watch for. The fact that some "off-label" prescriptions are without empirical support, is stunning; obviously, not "evidence-based" or even ethical--how can it be a "standard practice?" Even worse, drugs are commonly prescribed in spite of evidence it is not a safe and effective treatment for the condition or symptom being 'treated.' This is standard clinical practice because psychiatric treatment algorithms are developed by consensus, as a marketing strategy, such as the psychiatric treatment guidelines written and marketed by Expert Knowledge Systems e.g. TMAP. 

Still used in  Washington State, TMAP was considered an evidence-based "standard clinical practice" until it was discredited as part of an illegal marketing strategy financed by Johnson and Johnson to mass market the neuroleptic drug, Risperdal. In effect, what is being defended by Pies and others are unethical standards of care that are harmful to patients, and that lack empirical support and the use of sound medical judgement, in a word, unethical unprofessional . Standards of practice in psychiatry were developed using a quasi-democratic political process; called consensus. Professionals voting to achieve a "consensus of professional opinions" is not a valid scientific process; it is a quasi-democratic political process. Consensus is evidence of agreement, even agreed upon well-educated opinions and observations can only ethically support, not replace.

Consensus alone can not validate a hypothetical etiology for psychiatric symptoms or psychiatric diagnoses.

Human Experimentation has in effect, become a standard clinical practice by consensus.

Standard Clinical Practice: originally instituted as a means to protect patients from harmful medical practices; now some standards primarily serve to protect psychiatrists and other medical professionals from being held legally liable for causing iatrogenic injury or iatrogenic disease to a patient IF the professional uses a recognized "standard of care" or treatment algorithm. In real world practice, Clinical Care Standards are an affirmative defense for medical malpractice for the drug-induced iatrogenic injury, disease and disability  inflicted upon patients with impunity.

How anyone interprets psychiatric Bullshit 
never has been as important as 
a patient's Real World Outcome!

Intent on preserving a sense of integrity for the profession, with outcomes not worthy of defending at all, psychiatry is clearly understood to be robbing people of cognitive and intellectual abilities while causing neurological, autonomic, metabolic, endocrine and hormonal dysfunction; known, common effects--(direct effects caused by a drug's mechanism of action are NOT in truth, "side" effects!)

Given the profound deleterious effects of 'Bullshit-Based' psychiatric treatment, the current incarnation of psychiatry called psychopharmacology, takes lives at an alarming rate and is reclassififying drug-induced deaths, as 'natural deaths." Stripped of basic human rights, people are 'legally' forced to have psychiatric treatment. WHY does this not sound like Medicine?

Claiming that Psychiatry (and Philosophy) at the Highest Level is misunderstood... 

is a common side-effect of believing psychiatric Bullshit!

Bullshit-Based Psychiatry causes iatrogenic injury and disease.

NO Bullshit!

SUMMARY 

Misunderstanding Psychiatry (and philosophy) at the Highest Level Bullshit II:

Any professional who questions psychopharmacology and/or the bio-disease model, and/or lousy real world treatment outcomes, may lack "insight," according to Ronald Pies, a faithful believer and defender of psychiatric bullshit and a Bullshit Artist with acquired immunity to Psychiatric Bullshit.

Whatever deceives men seems to produce a magical enchantment.

Plato

I'm not deceived or enchanted...

I'm a MadMother immune to Psychiatric Bullshit.

Bullshit pics from photobucket

Misunderstanding Psychiatry (and philosophy) at the Highest Level Bullshit

"to paraphrase a line from the film Cool Hand Luke—
“What we got here is a failure to communicate!"

No doc, what we got here is Bullshit.

WARNING:

Believing Bullshit activates Bullshit's placebo effect.
 Bullshit is safe and effective. 

That's NO BULLSHIT!  

I've read quite a few learned scholars who write Bullshit
This one appears to be full of it!

Psychiatry's "protected" academic elite, i.e. the idiots who have lied about the Drug Trial data; the researchers who used biased, unethical methodology in clinical trial research harming real people; ultimately reporting their corrupt data in "peer reviewed" professional journals and at conferences.  In effect, these research psychiatrists lied about the benefit risk profiles of the drugs.  People have died. Millions of children have been told there is something wrong with their brains, and that they need to take teratogenic psychiatric drugs; when there in fact has been no pathology or dysfunction identified.  The children are then drugged using neurotoxins which can actually cause dysfunction, i.e. iatrogenic dysfunction.  Only after psychiatric treatment, do the children have something diagnostically wrong with their brain!?  I am not a doctor, but I could play one on TV. I'm not smart and adjudicated by psychiatry and philosophy, so I'll pretend I'm a real live doctor; but I'm gonna do the philosophy first.  Alrighty then!

Who is right about the science---is not what matters most.  What matters is what is being done to real human beings behind the indiscriminate, prolific prescribing of drugs.  Drugs approved based on utter Bullshit in some cases.  Then, the Highest Level Bullshit artists (such geniuses) don't retract Bullshit from their 'professional' journals.  The 'professional journals' are considered 'Resources' to physicians who then treat their patients with drugs based on this 'peer-reviewed' Bullshit. Holy Cow! Standard Treatment Protocols based on Bullshit are used, and now the Bullshit is what is being vehemently defended along with the Bullshit artists, who are still considered Leaders in the "medical" specialty of Psychiatry?!  WTF kind of willful blindness allows a group of 'professionals' to utterly and completely fail to discipline, censure and strip the licenses from it's members who have participated in blatant criminal behavior?! The academic elite have harmed patients and caused other professionals who relied on their Bullshit research to harm patients, and yet they are still "leaders." 

"Medical Professionals" who rely on this corrupt data, are defending it, and the criminals who have purposely perpetrated fraud; if this is the 'Highest Level' ---why would anyone believe this Bullshit?!!  Only a psychiatrist at the Highest Level would think a big huge steaming load of Bullshit is "Evidence-Based Medicine."

Now there's a philosophy right there, I tell ya what!  I think I've about wrapped it up...

oh wait, psychiatry is medicine, that is supposedly misunderstood...

Well, not by me!  I'm not believing the Bullshit Pies...

Philosophically, it doesn't matter, whose analysis is correct.  The Real World Outcomes matter.   For the patients, it is all that matters.  In the aggregate, Psychiatry at the Highest Level has  Real World 'treatment' Outcomes that are lousy and indefensible.  Attempting to defend them is despicable; doing so adds insult to injury to say the very least.  Defending psychiatry while failing to defend, assist or even acknowledge the psychiatric patients who have been harmed by this Highest Level Bullshit, is morally reprehensible.  Psychiatric drugs are thrown by the handfuls onto the playgrounds and into school classrooms; sprayed like scatter shot at traumatized veterans; and used to sedate grandpa and grandma into early graves.  The Highest Level Bullshit artists seem to be willfully blind, conflicted elitists who castigate other professionals who have the audacity to think critically of the disability and death toll that the Highest Level Bullshit has had on the patients 'successfully treated;' i.e. treatment compliant, or not. 

It is one thing to defend a hypothesis that is not yet validated; and to continue to look for the evidence to validate it. It is quite another to use belief in it's validity, i.e. one's personal conviction of it's inherent truth, as a justification for using coercion and and fraud to compel patient's to believe your Bullshit, or use the Courts to force your Bullshit down patient's necks.  Doing so, is contrary to the philosophy of medicine in the Hippocratic tradition. It is unethical. It is criminal.  It is not therapeutic. It is unsafe and inefficacious to use teratogenic drugs indiscriminately across diagnostic categories and population groups. It is not in a patient's "best interest" to prescribe drugs regardless of the safety and fail to warn about the serious risks. That the prescriptions can be entirely without sufficient empirical support, is stunning; obviously, unethical.  Even worse, drugs are commonly prescribed in spite of evidence that it is not safe or efficacious; and this is done using treatment algorithms in endless combinations, i.e. polypharmacy; and this is called, a standard clinical practice, in spite of not being supported by valid empirical research or patient outcome data.  What exactly is being defended is standards of care that are not based on medical science, medical ethics, or using ethical medical judgement. The standards were developed through a quasi-democratic political process. Professionals voting to achieve a "consensus of professional opinions" is not a scientific process, it is a political endeavor. In this way leaders in psychiatry have made it a "legal" standard clinical practice to conduct Human Experimentation; and call it a "standard of care."  

How anyone interprets Bullshit

 has never been 

as important as 

Real World Outcomes.

Intent on preserving a sense of integrity for the profession, with outcomes not worthy of defending at all, psychiatry is clearly understood to be robbing people of cognitive and intellectual abilities while causing neurological, autonomic, metabolic, endocrine and hormonal dysfunction all common negative effects--(not side effects) of psychiatry's Bullshit 'treatments.'  Given the broad spectrum effects of 'Bullshit-Based Medicine,' psychiatry, in it's present incarnation of 'psycho' pharmacology, takes lives at an alarming rate; and calls drug-induced deaths, 'natural' instead of acknowledging it is iatrogenic homicide. After being striped of their basic human rights, people can be legally forced to take teratogens...WHY does this not sound like Medicine?  Is it because treatment could actually cause the patient iatrogenic illnesses, and ultimately a decades early death?  

Claiming Psychiatry (and Philosophy) is Misunderstood, is Bullshit;

it's a common side-effect of believing your own Bullshit Pies.

Bullshit-Based Medicine causes one hell of a 
iatrogenic injury.

(NO Bullshit!)

SUMMARY
Misunderstanding Psychiatry (and philosophy) at the Highest Level Bullshit: Any professional who questions psychopharmacology and use of the bio-disease model, or the lousy real world treatment outcomes, lacks insight; "Misunderstanding Psychiatry (and Philosophy) at the Highest Level." Apparently, Bullshit Artists become immune to Bullshit.

Whatever deceives men seems to produce a magical enchantment.

~ Plato

Let's just say I am neither deceived, nor enchanted.

I'm a MadMother immune to Bullshit.


Bullshit pics from photobucket