It's alright to be in the dark because I know there is light

Everybody has heard the adage that what does not kill you, makes you stronger.  I think it's funny in a way because although I believe this to be true; when I am in the process of going through something, I don't feel strong at all--I feel utterly powerless.  

Spiritually, recognizing and accepting my powerlessness is what gives me any power at all; it is the only thing that ever has.  I have to accept that I am powerless in order to have any ability to transcend whatever difficulty I have.  It is only in accepting that I am powerless, that I have developed, learned, or been granted whatever it is that enables me to being strong.  

It's alright to be in the dark because I know there is light   

via PsyPost:

Whatever does not kill you: Traumatic experiences have silver lining

an excerpt:
In one study, Seery and his colleagues found that people who experienced many traumatic life events were more distressed in general—but they also found that people who had experienced no negative life events had similar problems.  read here.


photo credit

Daryl Davis, Musician, Author and Lecturer

via Hella Heaven:


This is a letter written to the Ana, the author of Hella Heaven from Daryl Davis, author of Klan-Destine Relationships.  It is only part of a awesome post you can find here.

"Yes, you are correct; I am very fond of Martin Luther King and his work. The original Black Panthers with Huey Newton was a good group and did a lot of good for the Black community when they had no one else to help them. They encouraged education and they made sure children in the community always had food to eat. Unfortunately, as is the case with many groups, someone goes astray and causes problems and ruins the reputation of the group with whom they are associated. Naturally, when they were pushed illegally by racist law enforcement, they would stand up for themselves even if it meant the use of violence.

"There are about 3 groups today using the name Black Panthers. None of these groups are associated with the original group and I'm sure any of the original members who are still alive, would have nothing to do with these new groups. I know a couple of these new groups and they advocate violence. I am not a big fan of violence unless I am under attack and must defend myself or my loved ones.

"Yes, Roger Kelly is now out of the Klan. He no longer believes in the principles of hating people because of their race. When his first child was born, I was her godfather. But he received a lot of criticism over that, so I told him, to let someone else do it. You must take things one step at a time. I don't care what anyone's race is. I respect all people and only judge them based upon how they treat others and how they treat me. But when you grow up in a family and environment filled with hate, it will take others a while to accept the changes you chosen to make in your life, if they ever accept it.

"What have I achieved with my book? I would say my biggest achievement was a complete surprise to me. I never set out to cause people to quit the KKK. I simply wanted to interview them and get information for my book. But during the time of interviewing many of them, we saw that we all were human beings and friendships started to evolve. Eventually, many of these people began questioning their own beliefs and many eventually quit the Klan. We are still good friends today. So it has given me hope that we can change for the better and all is not lost. But, more people in my country need to take the step to get to know each other and sit down and talk. We fear each other too much for no reason. Just because of the color of someone's skin.

"It bothers me when I hear my fellow Americans call this country the greatest nation on Earth. Yes, we have achieved many things that other countries have not achieved. We have the ability to put a man on the moon. While that man is walking around on the moon, we can talk to him live via satellite radio phone. You have a cell phone and you have email. You and I can communicate all the way from Brazil to the USA. So my question is: If we can communicate with someone walking around on the moon instantly and we can communicate with people on another continent, WHY can't we communicate with the person who lives right next door, just because he/she is a different skin color, religion, nationality, ethnicity or whatever????? So before my country can talk about how great we are, out ideology needs to catch up with our technology. I am doing my part to try to get my fellow Americans to come into the 21st century and I hope they will do their part."


via University of Richmond
"Musician and maverick Daryl Davis breaks down barriers striving to understand stereotypes, the Ku Klux Klan and the roots of hate. Davis' lecture was part of the Jepson Student Government Association's Kaleidoscope: Leading in a Diverse Society series. January 31, 2011"

the blues make life so much better...

You can purchase Daryl Davis' music and his book at daryldavis.com Store

hat tip: Ana

photo credit

The Blind Eye of Moral Authority

Recently, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Heath and Human Services, overruled the FDA's decision to make Plan B available over the counter.  The FDA finally made a decision based on available science, which is medically sound; so it is overruled by Health and Human Services...

A morality that is not consistently applied is imperfect, to say the very least.   People who claim the moral authority to impose upon the powerless a moral code while failing to live by the same moral code themselves; are amoral.  Evidence of a supposed moral authority's amoral nature becomes manifest when self-appointed moral authorities justify failure to live by a moral code when doing so would mean a loss of money, power, privilege or prestige.   Self-appointed moral authoritarians who claim their authority is derived from their religious faith and claim they are acting on a moral imperative, need to first remove the plank that clouds their own vision; then lead by example.

Separation of Church and State does not permit the 'faithful' to impose their religious beliefs upon others.  When does religious belief grant the believer such authority or power?   It doesn't.  It is not piety, it is fanaticism that leads people to act as if religious beliefs bestow power and moral authority.



Photo by Nuno Rebelo

Some expert! Jon McClellan claims he has no clue, maybe he has anosognosia

Jon McClellan

The recent reports by ABC News and Congressional Hearings held by Senator Tom Carper are only the latest investigation, announced with fanfare about an ongoing Human Rights tragedy of epic proportions.   The GAO's report was about ALL children on Medicaid, not only those in foster care; although the children in foster care have been what the 20/20 reports and the Senate Hearing focused on.


The fact that this is happening to kids who live with their parents who are on Medicaid is equally tragic; and is even less comprehensible, given the serious risks of the drugs being discussed.  It is because parents are not being informed of the known risks of the drugs, and are being misled about the nature of a psychiatric diagnosis?  The claim that any psychiatric diagnosis is a genetic or acquired defect is only a belief; yet parents are told their child has a  "disease," "chemical imbalance" or "neurobiolgoical" condition; as if it is a matter of fact. It is unethical it is only a belief that a psychiatric diagnosis is caused by a brain disease. A belief is evidence that a disease exists, the claim is not based on identifying any disease, so it is not a medical finding.


There is a lack of accountability, accompanied by an abdication of responsibility which underlies the entire issue of using psychotropic drugs broadly and indiscriminately on children whose brains are not fully developed.   The beginning of this failure to be accountable was evident in the testimony given by Jon McClellan. When he was asked why so many children are being drugged off label for behavioral and emotional difficulties, he claimed to have no insight whatsoever into the situation.  This is an answer which defies reason; and entirely lacks credibility.


Jon McClellan could have offered testimony in answer to the Senator's question by stating why he himself prescribed multiple drugs "off-label" to countless children who were Wards of the State of Washington, and who are, or have been, inpatients at what he referred to as, "my hospital,' Child Study and Treatment Center. Instead, he said he had no idea.  Currently and historically, about half of the 47 patients at CSTC are Wards of the State of Washington, "foster children" whose psychiatric care is Jon McClellan's responsibility.  My son was at this facility twice, the first time for seven months when he was seven years old.  Jon McClellan wrote the discharge summary for this hospitalization; he states that my son may have early onset schizophrenia--that the diagnosis needed to be 'ruled out.' He states this in spite of the fact that he knew my son had Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, a neurological condition. This neurological  condition is validated by Jon McClellan, who recorded it as a current diagnoses upon the my son's discharge summary the first time Isaac was at CSTC. 

Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is a condition which can cause the very same symptoms as schizophrenia, and which could explain all of my son's symptoms, which years later, Jon McClellan used to diagnose schizophrenia.  Schizophrenia is a diagnosis of EXCLUSION which means conditions which are known to cause the very same symptoms must not be present.  Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is thought to be caused by Brain Trauma.  My son was in foster care as a preschooler and was in fact brutally assaulted in foster care.  This assault is acknowledged by Jon McClellan, who recorded it in my son's medical record during his first hospitalization at CSTC, along with the notation that Child Protective Services were notified of the assault, as required by law.


When this "doctor" diagnosed my son with schizophrenia, I asked him wasn't it necessary to rule out the neurological condition he was known to have? Perhaps perform another EEG?  He said that it wasn't necessary.  I have since found out Jon McClellan ruled the Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy out by removing the diagnosis from my son's medical record; a felony crime.


So, when I watched this hearing, and I heard him state he has no idea why children are being prescribed psychotropic drugs at such an alarming rate; I literally yelled at my computer screen, calling him a liar.  He could have shared the fact that he has written Practice Parameters and Treatment Protocols himself which are used by other medical professionals and which recommend using psychotropic drugs off-label for children.  He could have shared why he prescribed Ativan/lorazepam to my son in order to "control impulses" --- not an approved use.  It is a Benzodiazepine which is highly addictive, and meant for short term use only.  It is in fact standard practice for psychiatrists to prescribe this class of drugs long term.  It is also well known to cause brain damage.   Once Jon McClellan prescribed lorazepam it was prescribed to my son for the remainder of his 4+ year hospitalization.  Jon McClellan could have testified about how he prescribed Divalproex ER known as Depakote, "for aggression;" another drug Jon McClellan prescribed "off-label" which is contraindicated  for concomitant use with clozapine, a neuroleptic drug also known to cause brain damage, that he also prescribed "off-label."  None of these drugs were approved for pediatric use for the reasons Jon McClellan prescribed them to my son.  Some of the drugs are still not FDA approved for pediatric use over a decade after they were first prescribed to my son. Both clozapine and Divalproex ER are contraindicated for people with a diagnosis of epilepsy, and/or a history of brain trauma.  

If what Jon McClellan did to my son is not Human Experimentation, then I am Mary Freaking Poppins!

He could have testified that he did all of this while participating in a federally-funded drug trial.  A drug trial he claims that my son was not enrolled in, a drug trial testing the same neuroleptic drugs for pediatric use for children with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.  I am expected to believe that while he was one of the researchers who is listed as an investigator on the most comprehensive (read EXPENSIVE) trial of neuroleptic drugs called, "Atypical Antipsychotics" on children, he was also "trialing" the exact same drugs on my son, by coincidence? Am I to believe he was doing it for kicks? He certainly wasn't doing it for my son's benefit!  At one point, Jon McClellan prescribed three neuroleptic drugs concurrently, in addition to the other psychiatric drugs he prescribed to my; son; all of them "off-label" prescriptions.  I thought my son was going to die... literally.  I used to dream of hiring mercenaries to rescue him.  In addition to excluding the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy my son has by taking it off my son's medical record, Jon McClellan also claimed that the severe PTSD my son had ever since he was a preschooler from being victimized by a violent crime, was not important; and had nothing to do with his emotional and behavioral difficulties.


For Jon McClellan to have given an honest answer when asked by Senator Tom Carper on December 1, 2011, he would have to admit he does have some idea about why the outrageous prescribing of psychiatric drugs which are disabling and killing America's children are being used.  Perhaps, he is incapable of being honest; he certainly was never honest with me, or with my son.


What really gets me is this "doctor" is a lead researcher; an authority.  I know there is no way in hell that I am the only one that knows Jon McClellan's failed to comply with, or conform to ANY Ethical or Legal Standards in his "MIS-treatment" of my son---which should in all reality disqualify him from the practice of medicine.  It is simply not just a case of disagreement about a psychiatric diagnosis!  This "doctor" violated every single Ethical and Legal parameter applicable to the practice of medicine and bio-medical research which involves human subjects as my son's "doctor."  Can anyone reasonably believe that children in the State of Washington's custody are safe being treated by a psychiatrist with so little ethical integrity? 

Jon McClellan has ample experience prescribing psychotropic drugs off-label over the last couple of decades.  He has taught students at the University of Washington, and advises other medical professionals in phone consultations in a program the Washington State implemented.  In spite of these facts, and 2 + decades of doing these jobs in his professional career; he claims to have no insight whatsoever into the prescribing practices of psychiatric drugs which continues to defraud the Medicaid program.  Worse than the decimated budgets and robbing of the American taxpayers, is the plight of the primary victims of Human Experimentation in standard psychiatric practice: the children whose lives have been forever altered, like my son's was; and the  children whose lives have been lost altogether---like Rebecca Riley and Gabriel Meyers.  There are in fact countless thousands of children, who have been sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed by medical professionals.  Doctors paid by Medicaid and conducting Federally Funded research like Jon McClellan, are working for ALL of US.  It is the American taxpayers who these miscreants are working for---and I am wondering why more of us are not doing more to see that they are not allowed to keep killing and maiming America's children; while claiming it is MEDICINE?!


Does anyone really believe Jon McClellan has absolutely no insight into why neuroleptic drugs are being prescribed to children off label, since he wrote treatment guidelines recommending their off label use?  Does anybody wonder what the FDA does to doctors whose prescribing of drugs off-label results in a child's death?  The "doctor" that "treated" Gabriel Meyer to death, got a "warning letter" and still has a medical license.  The "doctor" that "treated" Rebecca Riley to death was granted immunity for testifying against the girl's mother at trial.  As usual, Jon McClellan is quoted in news reports when these events happen:  The expert who claims he has NO IDEA why these drugs are being commonly used with such ill effects, without being first tested or approved as safe and/or efficacious for pediatric use, on thousands of children across the Country----always has something to say when a child dies as a result. But, when asked in a Senate hearing about the issue, he has nothing substantial to offer...It is simply an unethical medical practice that McClellan himself uses and apparently, he has no idea why...

Advocacy, Ethics and Journalism: A MadMother's Perspective

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. 

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. 

The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; 

but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, 

for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." 

C.S. Lewis

Just day before yesterday I was talking about how this article featuring a mother and son disturbed me. The mother's insistence that her son tell the story of his arrest now, when "for years," both mother son, "have resisted talking about his arrest. Now she decides it is time: time to talk, to learn, to understand." (emphasis mine) My initial thought was how self-serving and disrespectful of her son's wishes the mother's insistence that her son share his personal story is. How are his best interests served if/when a decision is made for him? Particularly, if a decision is made without respecting his right to privacy and/or contrary to his stated wishes and obvious reticence?

My intent when I started to write a blog post, was to write a post about some changes that are being made to Washington's Medicaid program. I came across this story again, along with the announcement that the writer was given an Ethics in Journalism award for the  article. I wondered how in the hell is that even possible?!

A grown man's mother insists it is now time to tell HIS story. In his mid-fifties, his stated wishes are minimized, if not ignored.  Devastating as the impact of her son's criminal acts and his subsequent institutionalization were to his mother; the story is the son's, not his "advocate" mother's!  It is a story that should only be told if and when he chooses; not to highlight Eleanor Owen's "advocacy!" 

I am a mother whose son was given the diagnosis of schizophrenia. To me, this is also the story of  a grown man in his fifties who is in effect being treated as if he has no ability to determine for himself whether or not to share his own personal and painful story.  It is more than a little sad that a grown man's autonomy is denied so that his own mother can utilize her son's story as an object lesson on "advocacy for the mentally ill." It is the antithesis of advocacy.

To me, the story illustrates how those with a psychiatric diagnosis are so effectively de-voiced by people whose intent is to "advocate" for the best interests of people with a psychiatric diagnosis. There is an implied assumption that the expressed opinions and wishes of the people diagnosed as "mentally ill" are less important or irrelevant; thus they can be minimized, if not ignored altogether. Many adults with a psychiatric diagnosis have their stated wishes ignored as a matter of course. Incredibly, many advocates see nothing wrong with depriving people whom they claim to be advocating for of their voice. If the tables were turned, most mental health advocates would feel disrespected; invalidated.  John Owen is a man in his mid-fifties who has to do what Mom says...

He has, I will assume, been on neuroleptics for three decades--these drugs which commonly cause cognitive impairment, i.e. brain damage. In reality, this is the story of a potentially brain-damaged man who is manipulated and coerced by his mother, an advocate "for the mentally ill," in order to teach a lesson in "advocacy."

The overall gist of article, is the story of how wonderful his mother is. This is an article to celebrate the mother's birthday and her advocacy. It is not a story about mental illness per se; or even a story about the people labeled with psychiatric diagnoses. The one person identified as having a "mental illness" is treated disrespectfully by his own advocate/mother. The irony is simply stunning.

That said, it's difficult to find a news story highlighting mental health issues which positively portrays people labeled with mental illness for an Ethics in Journalism award. None of the three stories which were finalists, conform to the standards which are outlined in the Society of Professional Journalism's Ethics in Journalism. e.g. an unbiased reporting of facts---all three articles which were finalists for this award actually were written with biased opinions about mental illness of interviewees used as if they are statements of fact. Specifically: what is and is not known about the etiology of mental illnesses and the safety and effectiveness of the drugs used to treat them. The lack of journalism ethics is the standard in this country; with rare exception.

In my personal opinion, NAMI's brand of advocacy is not helping, so much as it is misinforming, further stigmatizing, and ultimately hurting those who have a psychiatric diagnosis. This brand of advocacy does not speak for me or my son; indeed, this type of advocacy doesn't even acknowledge that individuals like my son, and families like ours, even exist! NAMI advocates for people who choose to believe that opinions are FACTS.

NAMI advocates for forced treatment under Court Order. Human Rights are for everybody, and in a just society, only facts should be admissible as evidence in Courts of Law. However, in Civil Commitment proceedings, gossip, innuendo, and speculation will suffice for people who are being adjudicated as mentally ill, and in need of treatment. Individuals are Court Ordered either to inpatient or outpatient forced drugging or electric shock treatment regimens; regardless of the effects upon the individual, or the basis in fact for the petition which was used to obtain the Court Order. These Court Orders are obtained in Court proceedings without Proper Notice being given; Proof of Service being filed; the Rules of Evidence being followed; Standard Court Procedures being used; and without Effective Assistance of Counsel being provided to the individuals being adjudicated. These Civil Commitments are contrary to the very foundation on which Our Justice System is built; it makes a mockery of the Courts. Thanks to NAMI advocacy, Individual Rights which are Human Rights supposedly protected by the 5th, the 8th and the 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution, are denied to those who have a psychiatric diagnosis, as a matter of course, and as a matter of fact.

In my son's case last summer, I was, (and still am!) outraged that mental health professionals were allowed to submit perjured and forged testimony; one even claimed to be petitioning the Court because I wanted her to! These people violated my son's dignity, his Human Rights and pissed me the hell off! My son's Rights to Substantive and Procedural Due Process of Law were violated; and these "mental health pseudo-professionals" were aided and abetted in committing these FELONY CRIMES by a Deputy Prosecutor and a Defense Attorney assigned to represent my son. I know now, beyond a shadow of any doubt, after almost twenty years of advocating for my son, that his Human Rights are in effect, NON EXISTENT--and have been ever since he was given a psychiatric diagnosis after being the victim of a violent crime. He is apparently no longer considered to be a human being, with Human Rights by the State of Washington.

Thanks to NAMI's hero advocate, toasted in The Seattle Times, using the platform of NAMI, and the guidance of NAMI's "research" arm, the Treatment Advocacy Center, this advocate and other's in NAMI has made sure that Washington State has ONLY the newest, most expensive, neuroleptic drugs on the it's State Medicaid list of 'approved' drugs to be used as First Line treatment for schizophrenia. Although the drugs are not any safer or more efficacious, they are a whole heck of a lot more expensive. The newer "Atypical antipsychotics," are neuroleptic drugs that were developed to treat schizophrenia, but are prescribed "off-label" and have become the most prescribed psychotropic drugs---in spite of their causing a host of iatrogenic illnesses. Who benefits most from having these newer drugs being 'preferred'? NAMI's chief benefactors; the drug companies.

Washington State also has some of the harshest laws in the Nation thanks to NAMI's beneficent advocacy "for the mentally ill"; the laws are stripping individuals of their dignity, their Human Rights, their Liberty and potentially their life, in order to enforce "treatment compliance," using these expensive drugs. Even though only a small percentage of people who are diagnosed with schizophrenia are known to substantially benefit from taking the teratogenic drugs. 26% of adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia actually achieve enough of a symptom reduction, or 'benefit' to offset the serious, well known risks of iatrogenic illness, disability and death from "antipsychotic" drugs.

Thanks to the hero advocates of NAMI, taxpayers here in Washington State are continuing to be defrauded by the drug companies, through Medicaid, Medicare and Tri-care and the public is continuing to be misinformed by NAMI's education and outreach activities performed as a "public service;" which is continuing to cause more harm to some of the most vulnerable members of society, under the guise of benevolent assistance.

It is morally unconscionable that human beings can be forced to take drugs which are well known for causing a variety of iatrogenic illnesses, including brain damage and neurological impairments that can be permanent and disabling and fatal. Particularly, since it is also well documented these drugs are only "effective" treatment for a little more than a quarter of of adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia! Everyone who takes the drugs are at risk for experiencing debilitating, deleterious effects; children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to the drugs negative effects. In spite of this increased risk, children and the elderly are prescribed the drugs at an alarming rate; including being prescribed the drugs for conditions that the drugs are not even known to actually treat; and are not approved for. When this is the case, and Medicare or Medicaid pays for the prescription, it is Medicaid and Medicare FRAUD.

The drug companies have used the desperation of family members, and have enlisted their assistance and have even convinced NAMI members that they are acting as advocates for the mentally ill; when in effect, they are performing rather well as unpaid lobbyists. The dissemination of drug company funded and produced multimedia "educational and advocacy materials" through NAMI also functions as a marketing tool---additional volunteer marketing is done by the enlisted families, friends and the mentally ill themselves. All in all, a pretty slick plan that is working out pretty well for the drug industry; but not so well for those who are disabled, killed or forced to comply under Court Order without their rights to Substantive and Procedural Due Process being protected or defended. Without hope, or escape.

It is in no small part due to NAMI's willing assistance Nationwide, (giving the term 'grassroots' advocacy a whole new meaning!) the pharmaceutical companies have in fact defrauded Medicaid, Medicare, and Tricare programs of billions of dollars, and have been heavily fined. The drug companies persist in their successful fraud; using corrupt business practices and capitalizing on NAMI members complicit, cheerful assistance.

The failure of journalists to adhere to the Ethics of Journalism, when "reporting," stories about mental health, e.g. independently verifying facts--Reporting is not simply publishing announcements developed by marketing departments, or restating an academic's biased interpretation and conclusion of what data gathered in research means. Reporting ethically doesn't actually allow for Conflicts of Interest or other types of ethically questionable behavior to go without being mentioned at all... Any "news story" in which a reporter does these things--is not 'reporting" in an ethical, or real sense. The three articles which were finalists for this award, published personal opinions, i.e. the biased views of the individuals interviewed, as if the interviewees opinions about the nature and etiology of mental illnesses; were facts.

Are you folks at The Coalition to Improve Mental Health Reporting and the University of Washington teaching Journalism Ethics and Social Work even aware that the funding for the Behavioral Health Care Conference held in Yakima, Washington, at which this award was bestowed upon Maureen Hagen, is funded by the Eli Lilly drug company? I wonder, do you even care? Ms Hagen's article was not a "news story" worthy of being honored for "Ethics of Journalism;" although, in some ways it's ethical lapses were less than the other two finalists. This article is a fluff piece written to recognize a woman's birthday, and her successful mission; which is pushing a biased agenda supported by NAMI National and the Treatment Advocacy Center. This is not the same thing as writing a news article which exemplifies the ethical principles of journalism about mental illness, or the people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness... It isn't even close...

The fact that NAMI provides neither advocacy nor assistance to my son, or to families like ours, who have been misled, and outright lied to by psychiatrists, belies their claim to be the Nation's voice on Mental Illness. It calls the intent of their "advocacy" into question, since NAMI ignores 'the sickest of the sick;' who are in fact further victimized by the policies and programs NAMI aggressively lobbies for. Families whose loved ones are used like animals in unethical drug trials, (like my son was) have been cast aside like yesterdays trash.

How does NAMI get away with getting both State and Federal funds, while blatantly functioning as lobbyists promoting legislation, and pushing for Public Policies which benefit it's Drug industry benefactors; and the source of the majority of NAMI's income? These benefactors are the very same perpetrators of the ongoing fraud which is decimating the very public programs NAMI then claims to be trying to save! No mention is made of this obvious Conflict of Interest, is it not worthy of reporting!? I am sure that the lack of integrity, and the lack of ethics with which journalists report these stories has everything to do with the income derived from direct to consumer marketing of drugs; so it is apparent that the ongoing rampant fraud and corruption that permeates everything to do with the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness will continue unchecked and unreported.

It really gets me that journalists who fail to ethically report the news are actually given awards for ETHICS in journalism! This one is simply staggering---kudos for a writer's journalistic integrity and ethics praising a woman who founded and led a parent's advocacy group that functions more like a booster club for psychiatric drugs; than it does as advocates for Washington State's sons and daughters who actually take them. A writer being lauded for an article featuring a local leader in a powerful national special interest lobby that intentionally or not, has for all intents and purposes, become willing co-conspirators in the ongoing fraud being committed by it's drug industry benefactors.

This type of article which ignores the ethics of journalism, has, in no small part, contributed to the lack of public knowledge about events in the public interest. This article is given an award for ethics in journalism, when the article shows no evidence whatsoever that the writer even knows what the Ethics of Journalism are. This article misinforms the public about the effects of the advocate being celebrated, and the group to which she belongs. The group itself purposely misinforms the public about psychiatric drugs and diagnoses; which allows it's benefactors to continue pilfering the publicly funded medical programs and fleecing the pockets of the taxpaying public. And journalists continue to write biased articles misinforming the public about the effects of this group's advocacy; which also allows the ongoing fraud and corruption to continue unabated and unquestioned by the misinformed public. Now they are being given awards for it!?!

I am not a writer for the State's largest newspaper, nor am I a professional journalist. I am just a mother who has had to make it my business to actually validate information about mental illnesses, psychiatry, mental health advocacy, journalism and ethics in order to hopefully help my son have a life worth living with whatever time he has left, and hopefully to prevent what happened to him from happening to any other child here in Washington State, or anywhere else. It is the lack of ethics and integrity in the people who work in the professions of psychiatry, advocacy, journalism and public service, that have enabled and at times, who have worked collaboratively with the pharmaceutical industry that is to blame for plight of the people who are diagnosed as mentally ill. I see the people themselves, before I see the diagnostic labels they are given.

I am a MadMother for good damned reason. 

Sometimes, I am a MadMother who roars for good damn reason.

here is one of them:

As a psychiatrist, a professor at the U of W, and the Medical Director of the State of Washington's only psychiatric facility for children, Child Study and Treatment Center, Jon McClellan ignored State and Federal Law, the Ethical Guidelines for Informed Consent, the Hippocratic Oath and the Nuremberg Code:  Jon McClellan is a federally funded clinical researcher who used my son as a guinea pig prescribing numerous neuroleptic drugs to treat schizophrenia...in spite of my son having Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, a neurological condition which excludes a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

QUACK MASTER JACK HAD HIS OWN CONSENT;
he claimed he didn't need anyone else's...

Jon McClellan, M.D.
AKA
"Quack Master Jack"

Lois Lane Cartoon credit

mother and son silhouette credit