The over-diagnosis of early onset schizophrenia and other irregularities in psychiatry

Judith L. Rapoport, M.D.
		Judith L. Rapoport M.D. is Chief of the Child Psychiatry Branch NIMH. She is a graduate of Harvard Medical School. She did her clinical and research training at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center (Boston), Children's Hospital (DC), and the Karolinska Hospital (Stockholm). Her research has focused on diagnosis in child psychiatry, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Over the past decade, her group has been studying the clinical phenomenology, neurobiology and treatment of Childhood Onset Schizophrenia. She is an author or coauthor of over 300 scientific papers, a member of the Institute of Medicine, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

A brief clip of a recent webinar:

Out of 361 kids initially screened as potential participants in a phenomenology, neurobiology and pharmacologic response study, 37% of them, a total of 132 kids were determined to have been incorrectly diagnosed with schizophrenia, and were excluded. 229 were presumed to have been accurately diagnosed with schizophrenia, and 228 of these were observed at an inpatient setting over a period of several weeks. Upon discharge, only 126 of the 228 were believed to have a diagnosis of schizophrenia, e.g. 34.9% of the original 361 kids who had been diagnosed and were screened for potential participation in this study by Rapoport and her colleagues had been (presumably) accurately diagnosed with schizophrenia....

Diagnostic disagreement is not simply a problem caused by a lack of inter-rater diagnostic agreement, it is more a problem caused by the lack of empirical data to support and validate the diagnostic criteria. The rate of diagnostic disagreement in this study effectively demonstrates how dangerous and unreliable the DSM is.



The current psychiatric treatment guidelines adopted by the APA and the AACAP are developed using a quasi-democratic process to achieve consensus. The first line treatment always recommended for a diagnosis of schizophrenia in professional guidelines, practice parameters, and treatment algorithms is neuroleptic drugs. 

Expert opinions are not a valid substitute for empirical evidence; nonetheless, expert opinions are relied on (presumably) because the available evidence does not support the treatment recommendations promulgated through a political process in which psychiatrist's expert opinions are used to pseudo-validate the recommendations and used to justify the prolific prescription of teratogenic drugs, as a "necessary medical treatment" regardless of the therapeutic value to psychiatric patients who are labeled and targeted for psychiatric treatment... 

Psychiatry is obviously NOT an ethical medical specialty! 

watch on youtube      the slides for Judith Rapoport's presentation

Here is what the NIMH website says about this project:

"Since 1990, the NIMH has been recruiting patients with onset of schizophrenia before age 13. Major goals are to study brain development during childhood and adolescence in early onset schizophrenia patients. Preliminary genetic studies show association with a number of schizophrenia risk genes such as GAD and NRG1, supporting continuity with the adult disorder. In addition, abnormal brain developmental trajectories in patients and their full healthy siblings are seen in relation to risk alleles for these genes. Treatment studies have shown the unique benefit of clozapine for treatment resistant patients. A new study of transient cortical electrical stimulation has begun for control of selected symptoms. (emphasis mine)

"Children and adolescents meeting DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia are being recruited nationally for a study of the phenomenology, neurobiology and pharmacologic response of childhood onset schizophrenia. Over 300 medical records have been reviewed from which 320 patients and their families, appearing to meet DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia with onset of psychosis prior to age 12, were screened in person. Of these 225 were hospitalized for medication free observation.  A total of 112 received the diagnosis of schizophrenia at NIMH screening. A large number of children are receiving the diagnosis of schizophrenia improperly resulting in inappropriate treatment, even at academic centers. " here

Remember, according to Judith Rapoport's webinar and the slides she used, of the 361 kids screened for potential participation in the study, only 126 (34.9%) were believed to have schizophrenia at discharge.

The lack of empirical validity means psychiatric diagnosis is unreliable; the fact that mental health professionals have police powers to detain people make psychiatric diagnosis and treatment a risky proposition. The risk of disability and premature fatality are inherent, unavoidable risks for people of all ages who take psychotropic drugs; children and adolescents are known to be have an even greater risk for experiencing adverse effects, including drug-induced fatality. These pertinent facts make Jeffrey Lieberman's claims utterly irresponsible; being without a factual basis, his claims are unethical.

via Hearing Voices Network:

Basic information about voices and visions

via Intervoice:

Children Hearing Voices: What you need to know and what you can do

Free booklets for parents and supporters

What you can do if your child tells you they are hearing voices

1. Try not to over react, although you will be understandably worried, work hard not to communicate your anxiety to your child.
2. Accept the reality of the voice experience for your child: Ask them about their voices, how long they have been hearing them, who or what they are, do they have names, what they say etc.
3. Let your child know that lots of children hear voices and mostly they go away after a while.
4. Even if the voices do not disappear your child can learn to live in harmony with his/her voices
5. It is important to breakdown your child’s sense of isolation and differentness from other children. Your child is special, unusual perhaps, but normal.
6. Find out if your child has any difficulties or problems that they are finding very hard to cope with and work on trying to fix these problems. Think back to when the voices first started, what was happening to your child when they first heard voices? When did the voices arise for the first time? Was there anything unusual or stressful that might have occurred?
7. If you think you need outside help, find a therapist who is prepared to accept your child’s experience and work with your child in a systematic way to understanding and cope with their voices better.
8. Be ready to listen to your child if they want to talk about their voices and use drawing, painting, acting and other creative ways to help them describe what is happening to them.
9. Get on with your lives and try not to let the voice experience become the centre of your child’s life or your own.
10. Most children who live well with their voices have supportive families living around them who accept the experience as part of who their child is. You can do this too!

My informed consent wasn't necessary

When I wrote about Jeffrey Lieberman in Caught Being Offensive...I focused on Lieberman's ridiculous assertion that critics of the DSM and the American Psychiatric Association are "prejudiced against psychiatrists, and psychiatry." Lieberman implied that any criticisms specific to psychiatric treatments used at an ephemeral point in the past; a point in time that is never clarified by Lieberman. Perhaps it is because Lieberman characterized mental health professionals and psychiatric survivors who are critical of the DSM and the American Psychiatric Association as being "anti-psychiatry" in a Scientific American blog post titled, DSM-5: Caught between Mental Illness Stigma and Anti-Psychiatry Prejudice. 

Unlike Dr. Judy Stone's articulate response to Lieberman's strange diatribe castigating critics of psychiatry, my response is that of a betrayed parent who now takes care of a 25 year-old son who was iatrogenically disabled as an adolescent in a research facility by neuroleptic drugs prescribed off label without Informed Consent by a federally funded psychiatric researcher, Jon McClellan. McClellan, acting as an agent of Washington State, repeatedly told me my informed consent wasn't necessary. He claimed I had no say in my son's psychiatric treatment. This unethical psychiatric researcher actually claimed telling me anything about how he was "medically treating" my son by repeatedly traumatizing and torturing him was only done as a "courtesy" to me.

My vehement protests were used to malign me as a parent. The psychiatrist who disabled my son recorded in my son's medical record that I am an "unreliable" source of information about his psychiatric history, symptoms and problems. Every other professional up to that point had noted that I have a great deal of insight and understanding of my son's issues. My complaints of unethical and illegal behavior include an estimated $1 million being defrauded from the federal child welfare and Medicaid programs, and Civil Rights violations intentionally perpetrated by agents of the state acting Under Color of Law using perjured testimony and fraud for "evidence." 

Human Experimentation without fully informed consent is a violation of the Nuremberg Code. Grievous harm was inflicted upon my son by unethical mental health and child welfare "professionals" acting Under Color of Law.  These public servants violated both my son's and my Civil Rights repeatedly with impunity, they broke State, Federal, and International Laws as agents of the state. None of these crimes have been investigated by Law Enforcement...

My son was repeatedly traumatized; in reality, tortured, abused and used as a human guinea pig by a federally-funded research psychiatrist and co-investigator in the TEOSS drug trials, namely, Jon McClellan who is the Medical Director of Child Study and Treatment Center in Lakewood, Washington and a professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington.  

For over twenty years, employees of the State of Washington and it's contracted providers have consistently abdicated their legally mandated responsibilities and have failed to ethically perform duties owed to my son, Isaac. The initial failures when my son was a pre-schooler, were criminally negligent. Instead of acting in defense of my 3-year-old son when he was victimized by a Washington State licensed foster parent, public employees who were mandated reporters working in Washington State's federally-funded child welfare program violated the ethical guidelines of their chosen profession and violated State law to cover up the felony assault of my 3 year old son by a foster parent who is suspected of killing four infants. 

I have good damned reason to be angry---I have been proceeded against in child welfare custody hearings by public employees who proffered perjured testimony and fraud as 'evidence;' to  'legally' strip me of my parental rights and prevent me from acting on my son's behalf.  I bore witness to my son being repeatedly assaulted, traumatically abused, medically neglected and ultimately disabled by mental health "professionals" who were aided and abetted by child welfare workers who violated federal law and claimed that it was necessary that my son to be made a ward of the state for his medical treatment to be reimbursed by the Federal Medicaid program---I later discovered since my son was already on Medicaid and his eligibility was never at risk, it was against Federal Law to require me to give up custody.

I believe this lie was offered in order to coerce my cooperation to sign an "Agreed Order to Place" to make my son a ward of the state, which would enable Washington State to commit fraud by illegally claiming child welfare funds for my son from the Federal Child Welfare program. 

I was misled by the state's publicly funded mental health program employees as well who falsely claimed Child Study and Treatment Center, CSTC, is a hospital; it is licensed as a psychiatric research facility for children and adolescents---it is not a hospital. Once at CSTC, the medical director, research psychiatrist, Jon McClellan, violated the ethical guidelines for Informed Consent of the medical profession while breaking multiple State, Federal and International laws governing the treatment of human beings, and the protection of children who are wards of the State of Washington.  

In the last three years, 3 different psychiatrists have lied to us; the last two actually had the audacity to immediately demand my "respect" after denying the drugs prescribed to my son do in fact cause brain damage. The third psychiatrist told me 3 times that the drugs do not cause brain damage, he then demanded my respect...

Caught Being Offensive: DSM-5, Caught Between Mental Illness Stigma and Anti-Psychiatry Prejudice

Jeffrey Lieberman, president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, wrote an invited commentary for Scientific American's MIND Guest Blog.  Lieberman's commentary is most remarkable for the lack of respect Lieberman apparently has for other professionals and for others with a different perspective than his own about the DSM, which has a profound influence on how we, as a society, treat people who experience emotional and/or behavioral difficulties.  I don't believe that Lieberman is unaware, uninformed or ignorant; however, in this commentary, he attempts to paint professionals and others who are critical of harmful, discriminatory psychiatric practices that are coercive and cause serious iatrogenic impairments; some fatal, as "real people who don’t want to improve mental healthcare."  

It's as if Lieberman believes there is only one way to look at the issues involved; if one's perspective in not aligned with his own, one is unworthy of consideration, possibly mentally ill, and undeserving of respect.  Presumably, Lieberman states, professionals who are "against the diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses;" i.e. biological based hypotheses firmly believed in by the folks who arrive at the diagnostic criteria and treatment standards a consensus of p subjective opinions. Consensus is the foundation of psychiatry. Lieberman presumes too much about a diverse group of people. He seems to be intentionally misleading readers about the core issues the American Psychiatric Association and it's bible, The  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual are widely criticized for.  The DSM is being boycotted by some concerned professionals. 

a few excerpts from  "DSM-5: Caught between Mental Illness Stigma and Anti-Psychiatry Prejudice" via Scientific American:

"But there’s another type of critique that does not contribute to this goal. These are the groups who are actually proud to identify themselves as “anti-psychiatry.”

"These are real people who don’t want to improve mental healthcare, unlike the dozens of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and patient advocates who have labored for years to revise the DSM, rigorously and responsibly. Instead, they are against the diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses—which improves, and in some cases saves, millions of lives every year—and “against” the very idea of psychiatry, and its practices of psychotherapy and psychopharmacology. They are, to my mind, misguided and misleading ideologues and self-promoters who are spreading scientific anarchy."

"Being “against” psychiatry strikes me as no different than being “against” cardiology or orthopedics or gynecology—which most people, I think, would find absurd. No other medical specialty is targeted by such an “anti” movement."

"This relatively small “anti-psychiatry” movement fuels the much larger segment of the world that is prejudiced against people with disorders of the brain and mind and the professions that treat them. Like most prejudice, this one is largely based on ignorance or fear–no different than racism, or society’s initial reactions to illnesses from leprosy to AIDS. And many people made uncomfortable by mental illness and psychiatry, don’t recognize their feelings as prejudice. But that is what they are." end quote (emphasis mine)

The dubious claim that "mental illness is like any other illness" is (allegedly) used to "fight stigma."  According to grass roots advocates for the seriously mentally ill, who "fight the stigma" by claiming that having a "psychiatric disease" or "mental illness," is like having diabetes, and taking teratogenic drugs is like using insulin to regulate blood sugar...

Let's be real, this comparison is a spurious claim purportedly made to "bust the stigma of mental illness" and encourage people to seek psychiatric diagnosis and treatment.  The depression is caused by a chemical imbalance "metaphor" is a discarded hypothesis, a disproved hypothetical explanation for what was once called "endogenous depression." It was utilized to manipulate patients, and the general public in order to sell the psychiatric diagnosis = brain disease idea. Just as importantly these compaisons were drawn from thin air as part of a mass marketing strategy to sell psychopharmacology as an ethical, evidence based Standard Treatment for EVERY psychiatric diagnosis AS a putative disease. Once the general public in effect believe that any psychiatric diagnosis is evidence a person has a brain disease,  the public supported legislation allowing psychiatrists to have unwilling patients adjudicated as a person with a brain disease requiring psychiatric treatment...

Lieberman uses some sort of pseudo-logical nonsense to assert psychiatry is the like any other medical specialty. In reality, there are glaring exceptions: the primary one being psychiatrists, subjugate both the Police and the Courts, utilizing them as medical instruments to have unwilling patients adjudicated in Courts of Law---No other medical specialty substitutes legal adjudication for a medical diagnosis.  Once a psychiatrist or other designated mental health professional asserts the person has a brain disease, and further attests the alluded to "disease" can be effectively treated with neuroleptic and/or other psychotropic drugs and/or electrical shocks to the brain. 

The Rules of Evidence used by the Police and the Courts in any and every other type of legal procedure or process, are not required for these adjudicative procedures. The designated medical professional's claims are a professional opinion proffered in accordance with a political process developed by consensus. Ironically, the lowered standards are seemingly "justified" by widespread acceptance of, and presumably belief in the idea that a psychiatric diagnosis, or a mental illness means one is less than one once was, one is less than "normal;" one is less human. That  a person has a disease is at best, a shared professional opinion that is substituted for "evidence."  Serving in effect, as the evidence, this "fact" becomes the sole justification for mandating psychiatric treatment regardless of any actual benefit or adverse effect experienced by the person who is legally adjudicated and Court Ordered to psychiatric treatment under color of law.  

"tolerable side effects of diagnosis and treatment"

evidence of actual iatrogenic,  
"physician caused" harm

Conveniently,  Lieberman and biological psychiatry practitioners in general minimize the nature of the psychotropic drugs used by psychiatrists, psychopharmacologists develop the treatment standards by consensus. Imagine an oncologist diagnosing and treating cancer using diagnostic criteria and treatment standards derived through a political process, consensus. Imagine the uproar at "treating sick people like that!" The neuroleptic or so-called "anti-psychotic" drugs are only minimally effective for a minority of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.  Teratogenic drugs, they cause a myriad of iatrogenic diseases and impairments that are then medically neglected; increasing the risk a person will die an untimely iatrogenic, death.  Common drug-induced impairments specifically drug-induced brain damage, impairs a person's ability to realize they have been harmed, prevent further iatrogenic harm.  

Can there be any doubt medically neglected iatrogenic injuries and impairments have a profound effect on a psychiatric patient, adversely effecting length and quality of life?

The civil commitment laws in the U.S. lower the evidentiary standards used in civil and criminal legal procedure. Court hearings do not follow standard court procedures--- The courts in the U.S. do not require any evidence the person has a disease, to support a psychiatrist's expert opinion.   Psychiatrists need not offer any evidence the recommended treatment will "effectively treat" the person who is being adjudicated.  Psychiatric diagnoses and the treatment protocols used by psychiatry were created using a quasi-democratic political processes; not medical or scientific processes.  When any other medical specialist  testifies in a court of law, they are required to submit empirical evidence of the factual basis of their testimony in compliance with the Rules of Evidence used in Police procedure and Courts of Law. For example, psychiatrists who offer professional opinions in court in person or by affidavit, will attest, "patient x has schizophrenia, a brain disease that requires medical treatment." However, no supporting evidence to substantiate the assertions made is offered, or required. Evidence that psychiatric drugs and/or electroshock will effectively treat the person isn't needed to obtain a Court Order to force treatment upon a person who has been adjudicated.  That unsupported attestations instead of factual evidence can be accepted on faith, then used as a basis to deprive a person of their liberty, is evidence that attorneys assigned to defend people facing adjudication proceedings, are failing to defend their client's Constitutional Rights.

The DSM5 has been much discussed and debated, but it is more than an exaggeration to state the DSM5, "ignited a broad dialogue on mental illness and opened up a conversation about the state of psychiatry and mental healthcare in this country."   While the DSM5 has, and continues to be a catalyst for debate and discussion, it seems to me that the APA and the professionals involved with the DSM5, have stifled debate, and have refused to acknowledge, or respectfully listen to critics.  The fact is, Lieberman like most psychiatrists, is disparaging of people who self-identify as psychiatric survivors, ex-patients, or as "anti-psychiatry;" some of whom have been "discussing the state of psychiatry and mental healthcare in this country" longer then I've been alive...  

All due respect to Jeffrey Lieberman, his commentary reads like a juvenile justification, proffering lame excuses and abdicating having any personal or professional responsibility while offering no explanation for the lack of scientific basis for his "medical" specialty. The misguided attempt to rewrite history with the strange claim that asylums were, "humane warehouses," and opining that Freudian theory was a "brilliant fiction;" borders on being sci-fi fantasy. The first assertion evinces a bias for the psychiatric disease hypothesis, as well as willful blindness to the grievous harm done to real people in standard psychiatric practice. read  here

Lieberman and the American Psychiatric Association collectively refuse to acknowledge psychiatry's victims; in effect, invalidating an entire class of people. It's utterly despicable and adds insult to injury that the doctors who vehemently defend themselves, and their chosen profession, are willfully blind to those grievously injured by psychiatric treatment.

Psychiatry is failing to perform an ethical medical duty: to HELP those with iatrogenic injuries recover, psychiatry forgets to "First, do no harm..." Lieberman, is not unusual, he abdicates responsibility for the harm caused real people by treatments he vehemently defends as effective and necessary medical treatments.  Lieberman seems to be encouraging a perspective that pretends my son, Isaac, and others with profound, disabling iatrogenic injuries from psychiatric treatment aren't worthy of being respected or having their human rights preserved. Equally important, Lieberman seems unaware of having an ethical duty to the victims, the countless current and former psychiatric patients who are in critical need of medical treatment for their profound iatrogenic injuries and impairments.

I'm biased from the experience of witnessing the horrifying manner psychiatrists have treated, and in reality, mistreated and disabled my son before he was an adult.  My son at the age of 7 had an IQ of 146, and could do triple digit addition in his head, without using his fingers.

Christmas 2011, he used his fingers to count the seven remaining days until Christmas. He is 25 years old and I take care of my precious son, who was disabled by psychiatrists who acted with impunity. It is a bittersweet privilege; it is an honor. Lieberman's attitude seems prejudiced to me, but like I said, I'm biased. I'm a MadMother who knows that my son deserved to be heard, who knows he needed to be helped to process the violence which caused the traumatic injuries he sustained as the victim of violent crime at 3 years old. Instead, he was repeatedly traumatized by mental health professionals, social workers who allowed psychiatrists to inflict the iatrogenic injuries that he will likely die from. 

@href="https://twitter.com/drjlieberman">drjlieberman Your implication that any conceptual critique of psychiatric assumptions must be motivated by ideology or self-promotion is >>
— Sam Thompson (@uilleannair) May 21, 2013

@drjlieberman >> deeply offensive. Many are sceptical of the medical model because they feel it serves distressed people poorly. You may >>
— Sam Thompson (@uilleannair) May 21, 2013

@drjlieberman >> disagree, but to impugn bad faith on behalf of psychiatry's critics is insulting, and unworthy of someone in your position.
— Sam Thompson (@uilleannair) May 21, 2013

. @nasw @apa @unboundradionet Jeffrey Lieberman, incoming president of the APA---> #DoucheCentral twubs.com/DoucheCentral
— SocialWorkUnplugged (@URTRiPiN) May 21, 2013

Jeffrey Lieberman's lame defense of the APA's "ethical integrity" and the DSM-5 process is not credible

The President-elect of the APA, Jeffrey Lieberman, needs to know the loss of public trust in psychiatry is a direct result of the lack of scientific research standards and lack of ethical clinical practice standards; i.e. the lack of Medical Ethics and integrity.  The evidence of which are the horrific Real World Outcomes achieved.  Jeffrey Lieberman's OP-Ed in response to Dr. Keith Ablow's, May 14th 2012 article, "Be Wary of the American Psychiatric Association," is an attempt to defend the professional organization of psychiatrists that Lieberman is President-elect of.

Lieberman did not support his statements by citing any facts to support of his criticism of Keith Ablow. Indeed, Lieberman did not identify which of Ablow's comments he believed were, "inaccurate and unsubstantiated by scientific evidence."  Lieberman failed to support any of his statements regarding the APA, the DSM-5 process, and the DSM-5 committee members Conflicts of Interest with any relevant source of information.  He simply stated his viewpoint as if being  President-elect of the APA gives his personal opinions scientific validity; an erroneous belief that is common among bio-medical devotees practicing 'psycho' pharmacology.  The belief may be due to the profession's reliance on consensus, for determining diagnostic criteria, practice parameters and psychotropic drug algorithms.  I suspect this may be why Lieberman's claim of great strides being made to "establish a strong scientific basis for our understanding of human behavior..." is not supported by any relevant data; simply a statement of his personal belief... Jeffrey Lieberman's lame defense of the APA's integrity and the DSM-5 process is simply not credible without scientific support...

via FoxNews.com
Counter-argument: Changes to DSM-V bring needed improvements
By Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman Published May 22, 2012 a couple of excerpts:

"In his article, Ablow made comments about the APA and DSM-V, which I believe are inaccurate and unsubstantiated by scientific evidence. Moreover, they are misleading to the public and potentially harmful in that by undermining the credibility of the psychiatric profession and its scientific underpinnings. They may even deter people in need from seeking treatment.

"For this reason, I offer the following comments in response. I believe that I am qualified to do so as Professor and Chair of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and the President Elect of the APA." 

"These experts in neuroscience, biology, genetics, statistics, epidemiology, social and behavioral sciences, and public health were rigorously vetted for any conflict of interest using guidelines derived from other academic professional organizations and from the federal government itself and have worked assiduously for over five years to scour the scientific literature and determine whether any changes to existing DSM-4 diagnoses and additions were warranted."

"However, through biomedical research and enhancement of public awareness we have made great strides in the U.S. to establish a strong scientific basis for our understanding of human behavior and brain disorders that affect mental functions and bring them out of the shadows so that people can recognize symptoms and seek treatment."

Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman is the chairman of Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and director at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. read here

via Dissident Voice
Psychiatrists Seek New Patients At Annual Meeting
Watch For These New Diseases
by Martha Rosenberg / May 22nd, 2012 a couple of excerpts:

"This is the year the APA puts the finishing touches on DSM-5, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a compendium that determines what treatments insurers will cover, what disorders merit funding as “public health” threats and, of course, Pharma marketing and profits. Some question the objectivity of a disorder manual written by those who stand to benefit from an enlarged patient pool and new diseases. Furthering the appearance of self-dealing is the revelation that 57 percent of the DSM-5′s authors have Pharma links.

"No kidding. Present at this year’s meeting were former APA president Alan F. Schatzberg, MD and Charles Nemeroff, MD, both investigated by Congress for murky Pharma income. Schatzberg and Nemeroff are co-editors of the APA-published Textbook of Psychopharmacology whose 2009 edition cites the work of Richard Borison, MD former psychiatry chief at the Augusta Veterans Affairs medical center who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for a $10 million clinical trial fraud. Also present was S. Charles Schulz, MD, who was investigated for financial links to AstraZeneca believed to alter his scientific conclusions.

"Even though Assistant Secretary of Defense Jonathan Woodson sent a memo to all branches of the military in February about over-prescription of antipsychotic medications like Seroquel and Risperdal for PTSD, military figures closely linked to that over-prescription were also listed in attendance at the APA meeting." read it here

via 1 Boring Old Man to take us seriously...a couple of excerpts:

"Psychiatry has been plagued with scientific distortion for a long time. It’s a matter of public record that any number of studies and articles have overstepped the rational bounds of scientific enterprise – overblowing the results of clinical trials, withholding information about adverse events, renaming things like suicidality – spinning the data rather than just reporting it. It’s time for that to stop. We know it, but more importantly, the rest of the medical community and our patients know it."

"We can’t do that with our diagnostic system. We can’t cook the books or spin the results of the Field Trials. It’s time to reclaim our commitment to scientific discipline, and the way to do that is to go back to first base and run the play again – including both another review of the Disorders  and another set of Field Trials.  It is much more important for psychiatry to restore our integrity and our commitment to the rigors of science than it is to get the DSM-5 published. We simply can’t go forward with those Field Trial results and expect anyone to take us seriously. Until we can publish a DSM-5 that we’re proud of, we shouldn’t publish one at all…" read here

photo credit foxnews.com

The Brain Damage Neuroleptic Drugs Cause

Patients were being poisoned.
Patients who said they were being poisoned,
were labeled with "paranoia."

This post was first published on May 24, 2011, I posted this the morning that I met the psychiatrist who is my son's new doctor, for the first time. My eldest son, my brother, and I met with the doctor first thing in the morning. I had asked my brother to come to appointments with us because I feel as though my concerns about the obvious marked decline in my son's over-all health are ignored. I believe that it is beneficial to have a support person present. One who has no psychiatric diagnosis and has an education in science , and more importantly, one whose primary concern is Isaac's best interest. I have to confess, the fact of the matter is, I was also afraid that my anger at this "dorktor" would cause me to lose my composure---I had no reason to believe this meeting would be any different than any other meeting with a dorktor of psychiatry who has "treated" my son. What I mean is, I anticipated being disrespected by this dorktor and expected he would also be unwilling to give honest answers to questions that we asked him. I was disappointed that my expectations of the dorktor's professional demeanor were validated in this meeting.

All of three of us have had serioious concerns about the adverse effects the neuroleptic and  other psychotropic drugs continue to have on Isaac's over-all well being. These effects are manifested in a marked decline in Isaac's physical health, his cognitive functioning, and his over-all well-being. This hospitalization, like the one last July, was precipitated by Isaac becoming seriously physically ill with a bacterial infection--which coincidentally, could cause a person without a psychiatric diagnosis to become disoriented and confused... My son has iatrogenic brain damage and is not aware when he is becoming physically ill; he is unable to perceive if/when he is hot or cold; when he's in pain, he cannot discern where the pain is coming from. These are COMMON effects of neuroleptics, called 'antipsychotic' drugs. I do not consider these 'side effects' as this is a term used for extra effects for a drug which is actually treating an identified pathology, or correcting an identified dysfunction . The neuroleptic drugs have never "effectively treated" my son's symptoms; they have caused profound iatrogenic harm however.

I actually thought that the dorktor wouldn't lie to my brother. My brother is an astrophysicist, he still naively believed I might be exaggerating the callous disregard shown my son, and myself. I am not exaggerating. I have never had a respectful, fact based, e.g. ethical, conversation with any psychiatrist  who has prescribed neuroleptic and other psychotropic drugs to my son. The psychiatrist we met with was treating my son, and he is the Medical Director of the mental health facility. The man actually implied he may not 'allow' me to see my son, and offered no reason when I asked why he would imply such a thing?! I told him he lacked understanding. I informed him there was no way in hell I would go into any proceeding and speak on my son's behalf without speaking to him and setting eyes on my son. Period. I believe the reason for his initial refusal to "allow" us to see my son, is because he did not want us to see the devastating impact his 'treatment' was having on my son.

We went to meet with this quack with an agenda: We wanted to know what we can do to prevent further iatrogenic harm... NOT once have these concerns been validated by any of the psychiatrists who have prescribed drugs to my son--ever. I am talking several psychiatrists over more than a decade---not one of them has been thoroughly honest and forthright about the risks; most seem willfully blinded to the iatrogenic injuries they cause. As a result, my son is medically neglected. My son has had Tardive Dyskinesia and Akathisia since he was thirteen... 

My brother was blown away by what he learned that morning. We went in there with an agenda: Isaac's heart damage, brain damage and neurological damage that is becoming more and more apparent. This "doctor" had no first hand knowledge about Isaac, or myself. He is unaware that I write this blog; being unaware, he had no way of knowing I had written about an article in APA's newsletter discussing the brain damage neuroleptic drugs cause--just prior to meeting with him. So, when this dorktor in a condescending tone told me while shaking his head, "the drugs don't cause brain damage," I wanted to sock him right in the mouth. He told me this lie three times. When I told him I didn't believe he was being honest with me; he got pissed off, and demanded that I, "must respect him!" The best I could do to fulfill this unrealistic request, was to walk out of the meeting.

Nathan and my brother, Mark, continued talking to the dorktor. After a few minutes, I returned to hear my brother voice our concerns calmly and respectfully, he then asked the "doctor" this question, "What can we do to help Isaac to feel safe?" (He was terrified to be there---bad things have happened to him on psychiatric units) His question was ignored totally. So, my brother asked him again; he was ignored again. 

I was so thoroughly disgusted, it took everything I had not to spit in this quacks face---a wicked thought; but there it is. I told the quack, in fact I demanded that he stop the twice a day B-52 (Haldol Ativan combo)shots immediately. I told him he had no right to drug my son and risk further brain damage so recklessly, and to have done so without speaking to any one of us, who have his Medical Power of Attorney was unethical. He stated that he was not obligated to consult or speak to anyone when prescribing additional teratogenic drugs to my son, because the Involuntary Treatment Laws negate entirely this form of Legal Protection for Involuntary patients... I told him I expected him to respect my authority, and pointed out to him that this was an ethical matter. I told him I didn't care what the Law said, he needed to respect my request. It simply is not moral or ethical to exclude a patient's chosen proxy who is legally appointed. I insisted that he did not have permission to give my son another B-52 injection; period. 

Amazingly, he complied---the next day the nurse called to report Isaac was doing much better; I brought him home the following day.

It was not until this hospital stay that a nurse asked me how long has Isaac had Tardive Dyskinesia? I told her that it never had been diagnosed, but that he has had it for years. I have told every doctor starting with the lead research quack at CSTC, Jon McClellan when he was still a kid. I noticed the involuntary movements and recognized them as the tell tale sign of permanent neurological damage being done, known as Tardive Dyskinesia-(video) I had read about it in the scientific literature, but my concerns for my son have always been summarily dismissed. The significance of her next comment did not truly register until later. While we were talking, she commented, "oh here it is, I see it noted in his chart." 

via: The Psychiatric Times:

Jeffrey Lieberman, a psychiatric researcher, a member of the APA, (and a researcher colleague of Quack Master Jack, Jon McClellan in the TEOSS drug trials) is quoted in the Psychiatric Times article, Brain Volume Shrinkage Parallels Rise in Antipsychotic Drug Dosage "The reduction in brain volume in schizophrenia occurs not because brain cells die off but rather because dendrites shrink and dendritic spines shrink, causing shrinkage in the synaptic connections in the cortex, explained Jeffrey Lieberman, M.D., another schizophrenia researcher not affiliated with the Iowa study.

“That's why in people with schizophrenia, thinking becomes more stereotyped, routinized, and concrete,” said Lieberman, a professor and chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

“They don't have the elaborate richness of synaptic connections to allow for the cognitive and intellectual processes to occur,” he said in an interview with Psychiatric News. 

So, this "psychiatric researcher" wants me to believe that how the brain damage is manifested matters more than the fact that it is iatrogenic?!---Lieberman seems to be trying to convince readers that 'brain shrinkage' is not 'the problem;' THE PROBLEM is the lack of synaptic connections that are a consequence of the brain shrinkage!?! As if whether it's the brain shrinkage itself, or the fact that synaptic connections can no longer be made, really fucking matters!!! The drugs have caused my son to lose cognitive and intellectual abilities. He was victimized, not medically treated; I assure you that is what matters. My efforts to protect my son were treated with derision and ridiculed by the "professionals."   The cavalier attitude of psychiatrists about the iatrogenic injuries they inflict upon their patients is disturbing; it is also obviously criminal. 

In the TEOSS Drug Trials 12% of trial participants were reportedly effectively treated; 2 died and who knows what the Real World outcomes are for the others who were enrolled. There are two different figures for the number of children who participated in the TEOSS trials; some authors report 116, while others report 119. The American people paid for TEOSS, and continue to pay for the vast majority of neuroleptics prescribed both on, and off label. 

I've only found one update, a case report on one other kid who was in the TEOSS trials---I would think given the cost and the disappointing results, the TEOSS data needs to undergo an independent review. One would think that the raw data collected would be available five years after a Federally funded drug trial has ended! One would think the latest investigation into psychotropic drug use in Medicaid children would find the TEOSS trials germane to the investigation... Neuroleptic and other psychotropic drugs are teratogens; and while the drugs may be effective for a small minority of people with psychosis, why are teratogenic drugs being prescribed off label without any evidence to support the prescription?

I can honestly say that it doesn't matter to me if it is the brain shrinkage or that connections in the synapses can no longer be made. What matters to me is that my son and I were never informed, or given any choice...I was not ALLOWED to protect my own child; I was stripped of my Constitutional Rights as a parent to act on my son's behalf by an unethical psychiatric researcher who acted with impunity and assumed an authority he had no ethical or legal right to assume. Jon McClellan broke State, Federal and International Laws---that is a fact. Jon McClellan, told me I had no say---repeatedly---apparently, "lead researchers" do not need INFORMED CONSENT; the coerced assent of children in locked psychiatric wards who are told they will never be allowed to leave if they don't take the drugs like a good guinea pig is all that's necessary when one is a federally funded clinical research psychiatrist.

My son should have never been given any neuroleptic drug---he was and is a trauma victim. He deserved respect, compassion, and protection. Instead, my son was denied the protection of his mother, and the protection of his Individual Rights under the Constitution. My son was blamed for his injuries, slandered and stigmatized then stripped of his innate intelligence; all of which further traumatized him. The "treatment" in reality, was Human Experimentation; not valid medical treatment. Calling it "treatment" is a misnomer, it was forced upon him, without any alternative or escape; a kid forced to participate in unethical pseudo-medical research, an effort to gain FDA approval of some of the neuroleptic drugs for use in children. TEOSS was a seeding trial.

How did this "benefit" my son? Not at all.

Psychiatry, as I have experienced it does not tell the truth about the nature of psychiatric diagnoses or about the risks of taking psychiatric drugs. Doctors have a duty, "First, do no harm..," Professionals who "practice medicine" without integrity, violate a sacred trust. Medical treatment is not supposed to be "done to" a patient, as it was in my son's case. Ethical medical treatment requires that treatment be provided for a patient's benefit first, and foremost and always--especially for children. 

Some members of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry are failing to uphold the Hippocratic Oath, and are not even paying lip-service to the Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, these practitioners have seriously damaged the integrity of the medical profession. Researchers have knowingly substituted purposely biased incomplete data for ethically collected data and corrupted the Science-Based Medicine evidence base, careless of the damage and suffering caused by their selfish unethical behavior. 

In my opinion, the article in the APA's newsletter is an attempt to justify "Standard Practices," that are not supported by the scientific evidence base, do not correct dysfunction, and are not therapeutic for many psychiatric patients. When this treatment is forced, coerced or prescribed without Informed Consent being first ethically obtained, and permanent impairments, dysfunction and early death result; it is a Human Rights crime.

How can anyone believe it is ethical to not share the known risks openly and honestly? How can it possibly be justifiable to give children whose brains are still developing these drugs at all? How can these drugs actually be in widespread use when parents are not being fully informed about the serious risks AND without significant certain benefits which would justify the serious risks? It can not be justified ethically and certainly should not be tolerated, accepted excused--or legally required.

What totally gets me is I can not get any medical professional to refer my son for a neurology or a neuro-psychiatric exam; or the annual EKG he is supposed to have. It should be the part of his psychiatric care program (I would think) to have the iatrogenic conditions caused by the psychiatric drugs to be attended to. 

via psychrights Evidence for the Neurotoxicity of Antipsychotic Drugs Dr. Grace Jackson Affidavit 

retro drug ad found at Bonkers Institute