Psychiatric Drug Facts via breggin.com :

“Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, sometimes including life-threatening emotional and physical withdrawal problems… Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision.” Dr. Peter Breggin
Showing posts with label Psychetruth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Psychetruth. Show all posts

Apr 29, 2013

Electroshock

electroshock photo:  electroshock.jpg


via Psychetruth on youtube:
Uploaded on Jul 8, 2007
Diana Loper. "It only takes a minute to destroy a brain. At 24, Diana Loper was given electroshock for post-partum depression and an inability to sleep after the birth of her child. After 24 treatments, she was released in a far worse condition, and could no longer care for herself or her family . As a result, her husband divorced her and her child was taken away by the courts. This is her story: "My story is many stories. There are thousands. Over a hundred thousand persons per year receive ECT I don't even like to use the term therapy--this is only a procedure. "I had a premature child, post-partum depression, and sleep deprivation. The post-partum depression is, of course, what we call the baby blues, and the sleep deprivation was from having a very sick child. I was married to a preacher and we decided to go to a psychiatrist to talk about what was going on with me. This psychiatrist decided that I needed shock treatments. "I didn't go for everything they said but my husband did. The psychiatrist told my husband, 'Well, you know, she's very depressed, and all we have to do is put her to sleep. There will be a little bit of a jolt through her body, and she'll have a little convulsion. It will be like going to sleep. And then she'll wake up the next day and everything will be fine. She'll be happy again. She won't be depressed. 'I remember looking at that psychiatrist and saying, 'Let's get real here. What are you going to do to me? Are you going to wipe out all the bad that ever happened to me. . . ?' My husband then said, 'Now, honey, listen to me. You cry all the time. Let's try this procedure. It won't hurt. It will only take a minute.' "So, they gave me 24 shock treatments for my post-partum depression and sleep deprivation. If I had been allowed to go ahead and play this out and let it go through its natural course, I probably would have been alright. But young, new husband, new baby, away from home, you go to these people you supposedly trust. My husband signed for the treatments believing that this was going to do some good. God only knows how he thought that but that's what he thought. And so, I was shocked against my will. I was straitjacketed and forcibly shocked. "What happens with ECT is they give you a certain drug that puts you to sleep. Then, when you wake up, your grief is supposedly over. After this procedure had been given to me, I woke up in a room by myself and didn't know where I was or who I was because what this procedure does is it puts you on a euphoric high, a brain-damage high. They might as well just take a sledge hammer and knock you in the head with it because after a head injury you walk around like, what's going on? The world is wonderful. The world is fine. It will put you on this high. . . But six months after shock~, after your brain-damage high is over, you're suicidal. I did not go into the hospital because I was suicidal. After they got through shocking me, I was. "After the insurance money runs out, they will put you on the street. Well, they put me on the street. I had no way of starting life because they did no follow-up. . . "

The Coalition for the Abolition of Electroshock in Texas

Visit Dr. Breedings website.

More information on ECT

Original Footage by Mary Marvel

This video was produced by psychetruth.




 Leonard Roy Frank

Leonard Roy Frank's written testimony to FDA on ECT 1-2011


THE ELECTROSHOCK MACHINE IS AN INSTRUMENT OF INFAMY


My name is Leonard Roy Frank. I’m 78 years old, live in San Francisco and have been active in the struggle against electroshock for almost 40 years. In 1974 I co-founded the Network Against Psychiatric Assault (NAPA) and published The History of Shock Treatment, in 1978 and The Electroshock Quotationary, an e-book, in 2006. I am here today to urge the commission to recommend that electroshock devices not be reclassified from a “high-risk” to a “low-risk” category because these instruments of infamy can and often do cause tremendous harm.
I know this from having studied the professional literature on electroshock for many years, from having spoken with and read about hundreds of people who have been electroshocked, and from having undergone the procedure myself.
In 1963 I was forced to endure 85 shock procedures, 50 insulincomas and 35 electroshocks. As a result, my memory for the three most recent years of my life was obliterated. In addition, my high school and college educations were effectively destroyed. Every part of me – spiritual, intellectual, emotional, and physical – was less than what it had been. I believe I never recovered fully from these repeated brain assaults which rendered my life since then less abundant.
The brain is a terrible thing to damage, and brain damage is electroshock’s bottom line. The surest indicator of this brain damage is memory loss which is practically universal among survivors. But electroshock psychiatrists deny that electroshock causes brain damage. 
The American Psychiatric Association’s Task Force Report, The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy: Recommendations for Treatment, Training, and Privileging (2nd edition, 2001) stated that “In light of the accumulated body of data dealing with structural effects of ECT, ‘brain damage’ should not be included [in the ECT consent form] as a potential risk of treatment.”
This is one of modern psychiatry’s biggest lies. The scientific evidence contradicts this claim. The best example of such evidence I’m familiar with is the 1957 report by psychiatrist David Impastato, a leading electroshock advocate who some believe introduced electroshock in the United States in 1940. In the largest and most detailed review of electroshock-related deaths ever published, Impastato studied 254 deaths, all but 40 from published reports, and found that “66 patients” died from “cerebral” causes. In other words, they died from electroshock-caused brain damage. There’s no mention of Impastato’s findings in the APA’s Task Force Report; nor is the study listed among the 1,200 articles in the Report’s reference section.
The telling remarks at a meeting of electroshock psychiatrists by another leading electroshock proponent supplies anecdotal support for the fact that the procedure causes brain damage. Psychiatrist Paul H. Hoch, a past commissioner of the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene, said “This brings us for a moment to a discussion of the brain damage produced by electroshock.... Is a certain amount of brain damage not necessary in this type of treatment? Frontal lobotomy indicates that improvement takes place by a definite damage of certain parts of the brain.” 
Electroshock psychiatrists have had more than 70 years to prove that their procedure is “safe and effective,” and they haven’t been able to. During that time, with no moral or scientific justification, more than 7,000,000 people in the United States alone have been electroshocked. Even today more than 100,000 people a year in this country are being electroshocked, along with— according to one electroshock psychiatrist’s estimate — another 1 to 2 million people throughout the world. The time is now to call the psychiatric profession to account for its inhumanity and criminality, and the Food and Drug Administration is the place to begin. I say “criminality” because electroshock is rarely, if ever, administered with genuine informed consent: the absence of the brain-damage risk from the consent form makes the electroshock consent process entirely fraudulent. If the law considers touching another person without their consent an assault, then administering an electric shock with an electroshock device to another person without their genuine informed consent should be regarded as aggravated assault, a felony punishable by a term in a state prison.  
Because it destroys memories and ideas, electroshock violates these hallmarks of American liberty: freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. This leads me to say, there is no place for electroshock in a free society, and no society where it is sanctioned or tolerated is justified in calling itself free.
 If the body is the temple of the spirit, the brain may be seen as the body’s inner sanctum, the holiest of holy places. To invade, violate, and injure the brain, as electroshock unfailingly does, is a crime against the spirit, a desecration of the soul.
via Psychiatric Drug Facts with Dr. Peter Breggin:
Jury Awards $635,000 in ECT Malpractice Case

Appeals Court Affirms Dr. Breggin's Testimony here
 
electroshock picture credit: manictrader on photobucket

Aug 26, 2012

Leonard Roy Frank on Psychiatry's Bible the DSM

Electro-Shock Treatment

Leonard Roy Frank is a long-time activist in the psychiatric survivor movement. He survived forced electroshock and forced insulin coma therapy. 

Leonard, who is a resident of San Francisco, has written widely about his experiences, and about electroshock. He is also the editor of a number of books of quotes.

Electroshock Survivors on MFI Web Radio



Psychiatry’s Bible – DSM - Leonard Frank - ... by psychetruth


Psychiatry’s Bible – The DSM – Leonard Roy Franks – Anti-Psychiatry

Leonard Roy Franks, Anti-psychiatry activist and psychiatric survivor discusses 
the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorder which is put our by the 
American Psychiatric Association.

He gives an overview of mental disorders and role of psychiatry in controlling the 
nonconformists in society.

Franks edited the best-selling Random House Webster's Quotationary in 1998
 and The History of Shock Treatment in 1978. Active in the psychiatric survivors 
movement since 1972, he is a member of MindFreedom International, a coalition 
of more than 100 grassroots groups working for human rights in psychiatry, and 
also The Coalition for the Abolition of Electroshock.

Coalition for the Abolition of Electroshock
http://www.endofshock.com 

The Electroshock Quotationary may be downloaded free of charge at

http://www.endofshock.com/102C_ECT.PDF 

This video was produced by Psychetruth
http://www.youtube.com/psychetruth 
http://www.myspace.com/psychtruth 
Copyright © CAEST 2007. All Rights Reserved.

This video maybe displayed in public, copied and redistributed for 
any strictly non-commercial use in its entire unedited form. Alteration 
or commercial use is strictly prohibited.

photo credit Low-Ki photobucket

portions of this post were first published on July 13, 2011 

Aug 12, 2011

Without Informed Consent: When the State Decides Children Should Be Drugged


CPS: Abuse of Power and Authority 
Violation of Parental Rights


Originally posted December 17, 2010, the video features Liza Ortez, a mother from the State of Texas whose 13 year old son died from the effects of neuroleptic drugs. 


"Liza Ortez was having trouble with her and son and turned to Mental Health and Mental Retardation, MHMR for help. Her son was put a number of psychiatric drugs including antidepressants and antipsychotics by a psychiatrist. CPS or Child Protective Services soon became involved and demanded that Liza adhere to the mental health treatment or CPS threatened to take her child away. After being in the system her son become(sic) worse and eventually died from an overdose of antipsychotic drugs." via psychetruth on youtube


The reality is this is happening around the Country---When did CPS, a Federally-funded program, assume the authority to deny parents their Constitutional Rights Without Procedural Due Process of Law?  When was it determined that if a psychiatrist or other "mental health professional" prescribes drugs and a parent does not give an Informed Consent for their child to take them, that CPS will take over?!  CPS will threaten to remove or actually call for police to remove a child from a parent's custody and care (Maryanne Godboldo)---not due to abuse or neglect, but because a parent exercised their judgement, and their Constitutional Rights?!  The woman in the videos below buried her thirteen year old son because he was given unsafe and ineffective psychiatric drugs---at the insistence of CPS; whose involvement in this case, (and in every case where a parent does not give CONSENT to dangerous psychiatric drugs being used to "treat" their child) is a blatant abuse of power and authority.  It is also A Violation  UNDER COLOR OF LAW of Lisa Ortez's Parental Rights protected (in theory) by the United States Constitution.  
 Individual Rights are only a theory when they are not preserved or defended! 


4. Parham v. J.R., 442 US 584, 602-606 (1979)
"This case involves parent’s rights to make medical decisions regarding their children’s mental health. The lower Court had ruled that Georgia’s statutory scheme of allowing children to be subject to treatment in the state’s mental health facilities violated the Constitution because it did not adequately protect children’s due process rights. The Supreme Court reversed this decision upholding the legal presumption that parents act in their children’s best interest. The Court ruled:  Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course; our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally “have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations." (emphasis mine)




video produced by psychetruth

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted
(C) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.