Insel's assumptions are biased beliefs predicated on a hypothetical etiology that is reminiscent of eugenics

via NIMH The Director's Blog

Transforming Diagnosis

an excerpt: 

NIMH has launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project to transform diagnosis by incorporating genetics, imaging, cognitive science, and other levels of information to lay the foundation for a new classification system. Through a series of workshops over the past 18 months, we have tried to define several major categories for a new nosology (see below). This approach began with several assumptions:

A diagnostic approach based on the biology as well as the symptoms must not be constrained by the current DSM categories,

Mental disorders are biological disorders involving brain circuits that implicate specific domains of cognition, emotion, or behavior, (emphasis mine)

Each level of analysis needs to be understood across a dimension of function,

Mapping the cognitive, circuit, and genetic aspects of mental disorders will yield new and better targets for treatment.

Apparently, Thomas Insel is unaware that in order to ethically determine the direction and the focus of scientific research requires an open mind; not a pre-determined agenda. Insel's announcement that the NIMH will no longer use the DSM is a political decision. Insel acknowledges the NIMH adopted a biological research focus based on assumptions; instead of using ethical scientific principles, and allowing the existing empirical data to guide the direction of psychiatric research; he says, "because we lack the data"!? What a crock! Insel knows there is little to no scientific basis in his assertion that "Mental disorders are biological disorders."

It is an assumption that is and has been embedded in the language of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, an assumption that was entrenched along with the eugenic theories that spawned it. Eugenic theories which are still used in an attempt to justify the inhumane "standards of care" that are without empirical support, standards without empirical support should not be considered "standards of care" since by definition, standards are theoretically to be derived from the evidence base; instead, psychiatry validated their standards of care by consensus,  a quasi-democratic political process, not using ethical medical judgement and empirical data from psychiatric research.  By consensus, psychiatry effectively determined that some people with certain  psychiatric diagnoses don't need their Human Rights protected; people of all ages are effectively stripped of their Human Rights by psychiatry, based on a belief that a diagnosis of mental illness is evidence the person has an incurable brain disease, that requires life-long treatment with teratogenic drugs. Without any definitive evidence to validate the brain disease hypothesis, it's simply a hope-filled belief in a hypothesis that is still seeking validation; it's not even a theory...let alone an actual disease.

Insel's assumptions are beliefs reminiscent of eugenics.  The eugenics movement in this country also proceeded without any empirical evidence to validate it's ignorant assumptions. 

The NIMH will assume that the brain disease hypothesis is a brain disorder or disease in the absence of  empirical evidence that would validate the hypothesis. According to Thomas Insel, the NIMH is going to proceed as if an assumption, i.e."Mental disorders are biological disorders," is a sufficient substitute for using critical thinking skills, and for relying on the existing research data on "mental disorders" exercising sound judgment to determine what the focus and direction for psychiatric research should be. I wonder, if the best interests of those who experience cognitive, emotional and behavioral symptoms were even considered? Is there empirical data that supports Insel's use of biased assumptions that are without empirical support to justify this biased and myopic focus on brain biology for psychiatric research? Insel's announcement that the NIMH will focus on seeking evidence that "mental illness" is caused by a brain disease is not 'news;' the NIMH has been focused on seeking the evidence which would validate the brain disease hypothesis for decades...Insel's announcement that research funded by NIMH will no longer be guided by the DSM, due to it's lack of validity; is long overdue. The irony is, in the same blog post, Insel uses biased assumptions as if bigotry-based assumptions are a sufficient substitute for valid information when making mental health research policy decisions (theoretically) in the public interest. There is no ethical justification for the NIMH to continue to fund research looking for the still illusive genetic defects, brain diseases and bio-markers as it's  main agenda. The pre-occupation with proving schizophrenia and/or any other psychiatric diagnosis, is caused by a biological defect or disease seems to purposely exclude research on known and suspected social and environmental risk factors that cause cognitive and emotional difficulties; worse it neglects the cognitive/behavioral/psycho/social/ therapeutic treatments that can help people right now in real world practice, if the treatments were actually available...

In effect, Insel is announcing all cognitive and emotional symptoms of distress, including undesirable, or disapproved of behavior, is caused by a yet to be identified, biological disorder or disease process---while simultaneously ignoring the overwhelming evidence of environmental causal factors such as  sexual, physical, and emotional abuse and neglect, poverty, malnutrition, environmental violence, socio-economic-political status and intra- and inter-personal conflicts are highly correlated with, and known to exacerbate (if not cause) what Insel 'assumes' are biological disorders...

Allen Frances, had a OP-Ed published in New Scientist, which concludes with the statement, "Anything that goes into the manual should already have passed rigorous research testing; the manuals are far too important to include untested hypotheses. DSM-5 is not, and cannot be, an appropriate guide to future research." 

I agree. I would add that assumptions about the scientific validity of a hypothetical, neuro-biological cause for any psychiatric diagnoses (or anything else) is also inappropriate. An assumption is not an ethical scientific basis for psychiatric research; it is not an ethical foundation for a new nosology either.  

I wonder if Insel can explain why dangerous neuroleptic, or "antipsychotic" drugs that are minimally effective for a minority of people diagnosed with schizophrenia, are prescribed off label, to children? 

Human Experimentation is "effective psychiatric treatment." 

It's the standard of care used in psychiatric practice. 

via National Advisory Mental Health Council 219th Meeting September 18-19, 2008 

NIMH Director's Report: 

an excerpt:

"Results from the NIMH-funded 6-year multisite Treatment of Early Onset Schizophrenia Study (TEOSS) found no significant differences in outcomes with first- or second-generation antipsychotic medications. There was a striking difference in side effects, but there was no evidence that any of the medications was the best choice for the entire group of people being treated. Similar results were obtained in the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) trial, the Cost Utility of The Latest Antipsychotics in Severe Schizophrenia (CUtLASS) trial from the United Kingdom, and the large-scale Veterans Administration trial. Despite the lack of a clear superiority in overall effectiveness of the second-generation drugs, they account for more than 90 percent of the market and cost about 20 times more than the first-generation compounds." Thomas Insel 

via National Institutes of Health:

The NIH Public Access Policy ensures that the public has access to the published results of NIH funded research. It requires scientists to submit final peer-reviewed journal manuscripts that arise from NIH funds to the digital archive PubMed Central upon acceptance for publication. To help advance science and improve human health, the Policy requires that these papers are accessible to the public on PubMed Central no later than 12 months after publication.

photo credit:Psychiatry is junk science

PACT: A Program Which Discriminates Against People With a Psychiatric Diagnosis

Mount Rainier from above Myrtle Falls

A few excerpts from a study on the effectiveness of the "Program of Assertive Community Treatment: A Review"

"Various authors claim that PACT is significantly more effective than alternate treatments in reducing hospitalization rates, that it is more cost effective, that it provides greater client satisfaction than alternate treatments, that it improves client functioning and symptomatology, and that it improves vocational functioning (Burns & Santos, 1990; Mueser et al., 1998; Olfson, 1990; Scott & Dixon, 1995; Solomon, 1992). However, an in−depth review of the 27 randomized clinical trials of PACT suggests that the PACT approach does not, contrary to these claims, demonstrate any significant positive effects (Gomory, 1998).

"This review further suggests that the prime mechanism of PACT is coercion, backed by the biomedical model, which justifies the very high "maintenance" (common or routine) use of psychotropic medication. The coercive and biomedical characteristics of PACT are well expressed in two statements: The program was "assertive"; if a patient did not show up for work, a staff member immediately went to the patient’s home to help with any problem that was interfering. Each patient’s medical status was carefully monitored and treated.  Medication was routinely used for schizophrenic and manic depressive clients. (Stein & Test, 1980, p. 394)

"Congruent with our conceptual model, we tell our patients that indeed we believe they are ill, otherwise we would not be prescribing medication for them. (Stein & Diamond, 1985, p. 272)
This paper will review the research findings on PACT, describe the development and utilization of coercion, and show how the medical model drives PACT."

"By using the biopsychosocial model to explain mental illness, PACT researchers are not using a scientific, but a scientistic model of explanation, not testable even in principle. By definition, this model allows any rationale for etiology: nothing is excludable (refutable) and ad hoc statements may explain away any potential falsifications. Its vague and imprecise nature provides a fertile environment for the growth of endless numbers of alleged etiological explanations. Strauss and Carpenter (1981, chapters 7 and 8) offer genetic, biochemical, psychophysiological, psychological, and social explanations for "serious mental illness".

"Further, psychiatry´s inability to demonstrate the existence of a discrete non−random syndrome of schizophrenia undermines a scientifically meaningful explanation of schizophrenia as a "real" disease (Boyle, 1990; Gomory, 1998). The failure to identify a specific biological dysfunction further impedes the likelihood of finding disease specific treatments."

"PACT a long−term, expensive, potentially abusive program˙continues to be promoted despite research results that demonstrate its lack of effectiveness."

From the National Empowerment Center:
"As the concept of “recovery” gains traction, however, there is also a risk that recovery principles and practices will become watered down and meaningless. It has happened  before. Consider the terms “empowerment” and “peer support.” Consumer/survivors use the word “empowerment” to mean that people who use mental health services make choices, control their own lives, and accept responsibility for their choices and decisions. True empowerment means a reversal in the power structure of traditional mental health service delivery, so that people can no longer be forced to do things against their will.

"The word “empowerment” is often stripped of much of this meaning, as mental health services claim to “empower” their clients while still retaining much or all of the decision-making power. When service providers talk about providing “empowerment services” or “empowering” their clients, they reveal a lack of understanding about the basic concept. Empowerment is something that comes from within an individual. No  one can “empower” someone else, although certainly others from the community or family can provide environments that facilitate empowerment. When we assist people to become empowered, we assist them to find their own voice, to make their own decisions, and to take personal responsibility and be accountable for finding their own pathways to recovery."

"Similarly, the term “peer support” originally meant people helping one another to achieve their own goals. Peer supporters, whether volunteer or paid, were there to  assist and encourage people to define what they wanted in life and to help them to  advocate for themselves. Peer supporters were also meant to function as role models, showing others that it is possible for people who have been diagnosed with mental illness issues to live fuller and more satisfying lives."

"Unfortunately, in many mental health programs today, people who are called “peer supporters” are used to encourage and even enforce the system’s goals rather than those of the individual. When “peer supporters” are part of a team that stresses compliance with treatment as the primary value, they are not able to provide true peer support, which means people working together to achieve self-defined goals."

summary
PACT is a program that is based on the "medical model" and relies on psychiatric drugs that are expensive and statistically inefficacious for roughly 75% of people diagnosed with chronic or residual schizophrenia. Drugs used can potentially cause a wide variety of iatrogenic illnesses and co-morbid conditions like Heart Disease, Diabetes, Obesity and Tardive Dyskinesia.  Drugs which have a serious impact on both quality of life and longevity, are forced upon people, with coercive methods for ensuring compliance routinely being used.   The medical model and it's inefficacious "medical treatments" are forced upon those targeted; under color of law.  The people who are labeled are targeted for "special treatment," with drugs and/or electroshock. These "treatments" are not safe or effective, and have fatal risks.  The PACT program stigmatizes the very people PACT proponents declare "benefit" from it.

Seriously, why would denying a person the right to refuse harmful ineffective treatments be justifiable?   How could using misinformation, manipulation and coercion to gain the person's 'cooperation' thought to be justifiable?  How is this Ethical conduct for a mental health professional?  How can manipulation of the truth, coercive and manipulative tactics be 'therapeutic' for the person treated in this manner?  Calling it 'medical treatment' does not in fact make coercion therapeutic; nor does declaring the drugs "safe and effective" change the fact that the claims are not supported by the evidence, but are perhaps based on wishful thinking, false advertising, willful blindness and fraud.

Involuntary Treatment Laws deprive people with a psychiatric diagnosis of their Induvidual Rights to Substantive and Procedural Due Process of Law.  It is in all reality, discrimination against an entire class of people under color of law. When psychiatry is "practiced" using these methods it is criminal, not medical.  A psychiatric diagnosis stigmatizes those who are labeled; once diagnosed, people are effectively denied the same rights a person without a diagnosis takes for granted.  A person with a psychiatric diagnosis is in reality, denied what the Founding Fathers declared to be universal, inalienable rights necessary for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  A psychiatric diagnosis is an obvious stigma, that is culturally entrenched.  The stigma and the resultant increase in discrimination people with a psychiatric diagnosis experience is a direct adverse effect of telling a lie repeatedly with authority, the lie: a psychiatric diagnosis is evidence of a brain disease, defect, chemical imbalance, or neuro-biological condition. 

Ultimately, there is no question that psychiatry uses unscientific methods.   Psychiatry substitutes a consensus of subjective opinions for empirical data to develop criteria for all the psychiatric diagnoses.  Worse, psychiatry develops treatment protocols, which do not rely on the clinical trial data, indeed, which ignore the data altogether, to  use consensus.  The Evidence Base does not support psychiatry's Practice Parameters for the treatment of schizophrenia in particular, yet people with this diagnosis can be forced under Court Order to be treated with teratogenic drugs with fatal risks.

Is there any doubt the source of the stigma is the diagnostic label itself?  Intentional or not, matters not even a little; bio-psychiatry has in effect, validated bigotry towards those it diagnoses, and teaches discriminatory attitudes towards them by using coercion, manipulation and subterfuge as 'treatment tools' and encouraging family members and others to use them as well.

Psychiatry has Police Powers and uses the Courts to force people to get treatment with inherent risks that include disability and death; for a diagnosis that is based on a hypothesis, not a medical certainty,  or even a THEORY, being a yet to be validated hypothesis...  This abuse of power and authority is fueled by conjecture, gossip and inuendo and results in thousands of people across the globe being effectively stripped of their Human Rights.

Here in the US, the Court Orders for inpatient or community based "assertive treatment" can rely on gossip as a basis for the order, ignoring the Rules of Evidence.   In my son's case outright lies were used---forgery and perjury---were used to strip my son of his rights.  My son's individual rights, under the US Constitution were not effectively secured or defended.  This not unusual, it is the norm.  The crimes committed by mental health professionals, and Officers of the Court were not investigated when reported, and this is also the norm.   It is discrimination based on a psychiatric diagnosis.  This was all done under Color of Law and is evidence that the diagnosis is the source of the stigma; and the discrimination starts with the way that psychiatry is practiced.  

Effectiveness of Antipsychotics in Patients With Chronic Schizophrenia


Program of Assertive Community Treatment: A Review


Voices of Transformation

Originally published July 3, 2011
photo credit: wikipedia

Who Lacks Insight in Washington State?

Seattle Times columnist, Nicole Brodeur, recently wrote about an innovative project jointly operated by MultiCare Health System and OptumHealth Pierce Regional Support Network to bring primary health care to the people who receive mental health services at Community Mental Health Clinics in Pierce County.  Awesome idea and the program is reportedly successful and cost efficient, which is not surprising.  I am however disappointed that a columnist at the State of Washington's largest newspaper missed the opportunity to inform the public more accurately about some things she mentions.


The cost savings was mentioned, as an obvious advantage to the taxpayer; better health care for those who used the mobile unit since they are at an increased risk for illness and co-morbid conditions like diabetes and heart disease--and as Nicole also mentioned, early death.  She stated that the people who receive care at Community Mental health clinics, "die on average 25 years earlier than the rest of us due to lack of care according to the National Association of State Mental Health Directors."   The statistic is accurate the reason cited however, is only part of the truth.   

In the only study thus far to ask , "Why are people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia dying so much earlier?" The answer: the neuroleptic drugs they are prescribed to "treat" their schizophrenia is causing them to die sooner.  After adjusting for lifestyle issues and co-morbid conditions like diabetes and obesity, which incidentally, are actually conditions the drugs are known to cause; people who are diagnosed with schizophrenia die young because of the drugs themselves.  


The study took place in Finland, and was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, it states, "It has been claimed that the contemporary high natural mortality in schizophrenia results from a variety of lifestyle factors (Brown, 1997; Mortensen, 2003). Of these factors we were able to consider several (smoking, exercise, body mass index, blood pressure, serum total and HDL cholesterol), but not all (e.g. dietary factors). However, after adjustment for these factors the excess mortality of people with schizophrenia persisted. Similarly, comorbid somatic diseases did not account for the mortality. Obviously there are other factors associated with mortality in schizophrenia and the association with neuroleptic drugs was very clear. This remained after adjustment for many different potentially confounding factors." (emphasis mine)


Now it has been reported the news that the new much more expensive "Atypical" neuroleptics are no more effective than the older drugs and they all cause diabetes, heart disease and tardive dyskinisia, and a range of other health problems, and since they cause brains to literally shrink---they cause cognitive and intellectual decline as well.  So, this really begs the question "Why has the State of Washington allowed the "medical model" of mental health care to predominate?"  This erroneous approach to "helping the mentally ill" in all reality has devastated the Medicaid budget.  Even so, "advocacy" groups (pharmaceutically funded and 'advised') have successfully lobbied for stricter Involuntary Treatment laws--to force people to take drugs which according to the latest evidence are ineffective; and cause a wide range of physical and neurological illnesses.   In effect, Washington State's Mental Health Division and the State Legislature have allowed special interest groups with obvious Conflicts of Interest to be the driving force in the "mental health transformation;" and to bankrupt our social service system.   


One of the premises behind the Involuntary Treatment Act including the "Program for Assertive Community Treatment," is that the people who have a diagnosis of schizophrenia lack insight and this is why they will not take the drugs willingly, and have to be forced under court order to do so--Another premise is that the drugs have risks, but are effective.  Well, we know now that the scientific data shows that the drugs are not effective for the majority of people with schizophrenia.  The  new "Atypical" neuroleptics  are not safer or more effective, just much more expensive.  The old and the new neuroleptic drugs cause physical illnesses and neurological disabilities; and many people with a diagnosis (even if they do lack insight!) are aware of both adverse effects and the increased mortality.  Since many people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia do not lack the capacity to feel their own bodies, they notice the deleterious effects they experience; and since the majority are not blind either, they notice when their friends die young. 


The American people have been sold a bill of goods by unethical psychiatric researchers and the pharmaceutical industry, who have colluded to commit massive Medicaid and Medicare fraud, lied about what is known about the etiology and pathology (or lack thereof) of mental illnesses; and lied about the safety and efficacy of the drugs used to treat them; it is  obvious to me that people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are not the only ones who may be lacking insight.


Willful blindness, and society's collective lack of insight is victimizing far more people with a psychiatric diagnosis than it is helping; I'd be willing to bet on it.  


Nicole Brodeur's Column


British Journal of Psychiatry Article


New England Journal of Medicine Effectiveness of Antipsychotics

Psychiatry Has Anosognosia

I started this blog when I realized that no one was ever going to be held accountable for crimes committed against my son. My thinking was that I know that I can not make anyone do anything; but I can tell the world what has been done to my son and my family. Hopefully, by sharing our story, we can prevent others from experiencing what we have. I am truly humbled by what I have learned in the short time since I started to "tell the world" about my family's American Experience. 

I named my youngest son Isaac; because it means laughter. In retrospect, it is ironic that I gave him the name of the son Abraham was asked to sacrifice in the Old Testament to prove his loyalty to God. Unlike Abraham, I was not given a choice; neither one of us were asked if we were willing to make the sacrifices that were forced upon us. I am a mother whose son has been victimized by unethical mental health "professionals;" people who work for the State of Washington directly, and contracted "providers;" none of whom have been charged for their felony crimes. Some, still have the State paid jobs or publicly funded mental health jobs as contracted providers that they had when they committed these crimes; others have retired with pensions. The latest crimes victimizing my son occurred in July and August of 2010. 

What I have come to learn about how public mental health policy is developed and implemented in the United States of America, is horrifying. I can not tell you what is worse: my suspicions being founded; or coming to know it is so very much worse than I ever imagined...

Here is what Wikipedia says about anosognosia:

Psychiatry

"Although largely used to describe unawareness of impairment after brain injury or stroke, the term 'anosognosia' is occasionally used to describe the lack of insight shown by some people who suffer from psychosis, and who therefore do not have the insight to recognize that they suffer from a mental illness. There is also evidence that schizophrenic anosognosia may be the result of frontal lobe damage."

The term anosognosia is used by bio-psychiatry devotees more often than "occasionally."  It is used as a justification for laws which force "treatment" upon those labeled with psychiatric illness. Forced treatment robs human beings of their dignity and their Constitutional Rights to Procedural Due Process. According to my son, neuroleptic drugs have robbed him of his intelligence. Liberty and a Constitutional Right to Procedural Due Process of Law are something most Americans take for granted; some claim these are God-given rights; both are in fact denied as a matter of course for those people who are labeled "mentally ill." The Constitutional Rights of parents are stripped from parents whose child has been labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis, as well; it happened to me. 

I know liberty was denied my son for long periods as a child without his Constitutional Rights being preserved or defended. My Rights as a parent were repeatedly violated; my rights to make mental health treatment decisions for my son were illegally stripped from me by a "lead researcher" and psychiatrist. This 'doctor' ignored my pleas to stop using my son in Drug Trials; to stop drugging my son without Informed Consent. I was told I had NO SAY, by Jon McClellan, "Quack Master Jack." Incredibly, the man is still the Medical Director of Child Study and Treatment Center the only State run psychiatric facility for children, and he is still a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Washington. Jon McClellan is one of the investigators who was funded by the NIMH to conduct the TEOSS Drug Trials. I know my son trusts no one but family, for good damned reason...

How have so many psychiatrists victimized patients, lied to, manipulated and coerced family members? The American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have forged an alliance with the pharmaceutical industry; then solicited the cooperation of desperate family members in 'grassroots' advocacy groups to spread the myth that "mental illnesses" are brain diseases that can be "safely and effectively treated" with neurotoxic drugs. It is a fraud that was perpetrated in order to push a bio-medical "psychiatric treatment" paradigm regardless of the outcome for the individual patients. 

The "Involuntary Commitment" agenda is advocated for by grassroots advocates who are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. This so-called "medically necessary treatment" has caused a significant percentage of patients iatrogenic injuries, permanent disability and early death for countless hundreds of thousands. The public mental health system which is paid by Medicaid and Medicare, and Child Welfare workers are all taken in by this fraud. The fraud could not be effectively perpetrated without the unethical 'psycho' pharmacologists, who claim psychiatric symptoms are evidence of a pathology, and that teratogenic drugs which cause diseases is 'safe and effective treatment." The forced treatment agenda and bio-medical psychiatric fraud have enabled a public policies to be adopted which make what happened to my little boy, possible.

It appears the underlying agenda of the Treatment Advocacy Center and the Stanley Medical Research Institute is to supply NAMI and other "advocacy" groups with propaganda, called "educational and informational" materials. In a little over twenty years more than $300 million was spent by the Stanley Family Foundation to further a forced treatment agenda and lobby for the implementation of involuntary treatment laws in virtually every State in the Nation. The materials were disseminated by advocacy groups and are nothing more than thinly disguised direct to consumer advertising developed by the pharmaceutical company's marketing deprtments. The primary purpose of the so-called advocacy and education materials distributed in the public interest is to increase industry profits. KOLs who are members of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent psychiatrists, professors, and researchers have willingly aided and abetted an ongoing criminal enterprise which continues to defraud publicly funded programs. This endeavor has been extremely profitable for the pharmaceutical industry; while it has decimated Medicaid, Medicare and Veteran Health Care budgets. Even worse, this bio-medical agenda has caused devastating and permanent disabilities and has caused the early deaths of vulnerable people who needed care and protection.

This video is about an Anti-Terrorism program which was developed to identify potential domestic terrorists. When I first watched this video in October 2010, I was shocked to learn that according to this report I could be identified as a "potential terrorist" because of what I write about on this blog.

This following link is the first in a four part message delivered by Dr. Peter Breggin who has the ethical integrity to produce research on the practice of psychiatry that is largely ignored. Our ignorance has meant that we, as a society have become unwitting accomplices to psychiatric practices that are are Human Rights crimes based on eugenic theories; not therapeutic medicine. Under a guise of benifi- cence,  public mental health policy strips the "mentally ill" of their Human Rights "for their own good."

Each of the videos is ten minutes. You will be able to access the subsequent videos on youtube.

Please say a prayer for my son, and for all the victims of iatrogenic illness.

this was originally written and posted on October 26, 2010 with the title "Psychiatric Anosognosia: Historically and In the Present." I have made minor changes and updated


comic by Jen Sorenson at Slowpoke Comics