http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Breggin
A large portion of Breggin's work concentrates on the iatrogenic effects (negative side effects) of psychiatric medications, arguing that the harmful side effects typically outweigh any benefit. Breggin also argues that psychosocial interventions are almost always superior in treating mental illness. He has argued against psychoactive drugs, electroshock (ECT), psychosurgery, coercive involuntary treatment, and biological theories of psychiatry.
According to Breggin, the pharmaceutical industry propagates disinformation which is accepted by unsuspecting doctors, saying "the psychiatrist accepts the bad science that establishes the existence of all these mental diseases in the first place. From there it’s just a walk down the street to all the drugs as remedies". He points out problems with conflicts-of-interest (such as the financial relationships between drug companies, researchers, and the American Psychiatric Association). Breggin states psychiatric drugs, "...are all, every class of them, highly dangerous". He asserts: "If neuroleptics were used to treat anyone other than mental patients, they would have been banned a long time ago. If their use wasn't supported by powerful interest groups, such as the pharmaceutical industry and organized psychiatry, they would be rarely used at all. Meanwhile, the neuroleptics have produced the worst epidemic of neurological disease in history. At the least, their use should be severely curtailed."[26]
In his book, Reclaiming Our Children, he calls for the ethical treatment of children. Breggin argues that the mistreatment of children is a national (U.S.) tragedy, including psychiatric diagnoses and prescription of drugs for children whose needs were not otherwise met. He especially objects to prescribing psychiatric medications to children, arguing that it distracts from their real needs in the family and schools, and is potentially harmful to their developing brains and nervous systems.[27]
[edit]Criticism of ADHD and Ritalin
The New York Times has labeled Breggin as the nation's best-known Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) critic. As early as 1991 he sardonically coined the acronym DADD, stating, "...most so-called ADHD children are not receiving sufficient attention from their fathers who are separated from the family, too preoccupied with work and other things, or otherwise impaired in their ability to parent. In many cases the appropriate diagnosis is Dad Attention Deficit Disorder (DADD)". Breggin has written two books specifically on the topic entitled, Talking Back to Ritalin and The Ritalin Factbook. In these books he has made controversial claims, such as "Ritalin 'works' by producing malfunctions in the brain rather than by improving brain function. This is the only way it works".[28]
Together with Fred Baughman, Breggin testified about ADHD to the United States Congress. In Congress Breggin claimed "that there were no scientific studies validating ADHD", that children diagnosed with ADHD needed "discipline and better instruction" rather than psychiatric drugs, and that therapeutic stimulants "are the most addictive drugs known in medicine today."[29] Baughman and Breggin were also the major critics in a PBS Frontline TV series about ADHD entitled 'Medicating Kids'.[30] In an interview during this time period he referred to ADHD as a fiction. This increased critical attention to Ritalin resulted in the Ritalin class action lawsuits against Novartis, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and CHADD in which the plaintiffs sued for fraud. Specifically, they charged that the defendants had conspired to invent and promote the disorder ADHD to create a highly profitable market for the drug Ritalin. All five lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn before they went to trial.
Breggin has been very critical of psychologist Russell Barkley's work on ADHD claiming that he exaggerates the benefits of stimulants and minimizes their hazards.[31]
[edit]Criticism of SSRI antidepressants
In the early 1990s, Breggin suggested there were problems with the methodology in the research of SSRI antidepressants. As early as 1991 in Talking Back to Prozac, he warned that Prozac was causing violence, suicide and mania. Breggin elaborated on this theme in many subsequent books and articles about newer antidepressants. In 2005, the FDA began requiring black box warnings on SSRIs, warning of an association between SSRI use and suicidal behavior in children,[32] and later extended it to young adults. New general warnings were added along with the aforementioned black box warnings.[citation needed] These warnings confirmed many of the adverse effects first emphasized by Breggin in Toxic Psychiatry with specific mentions by the FDA of drug-induced "hostility," "irritability," and "mania".[citation needed][improper synthesis?] In 2006, the FDA expanded the warnings to include adults taking Paxil, which is associated with a higher risk of suicidal behavior as compared to a placebo.[33]
In contrast to Breggin's Talking Back to Prozac, which was largely ignored by the press on its release,[citation needed] Prozac Backlash, a critique of SSRIs by Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen was widely praised by high-profile media sources.[34] Breggin complained about this in a subsequent book, The Antidepressant Fact Book:
"Glenmullen's (2000) scientific analysis of how SSRIs can cause suicide, violence, and other behavioral aberrations is essentially the same as my earlier detailed analyses... my hundreds of media appearances, and my testimony in court cases that Glenmullen also had available. Glenmullen also interviewed my wife and coauthor Ginger Breggin for his book and was sent research documents from our files that he was otherwise unable to obtain. Disappointingly, in his book, Glenmullen literally expurgates our contribution, never mentioning my origination of the ideas he was espousing and never acknowledging my efforts.... Nonetheless, his book provides a service...."[35]
Glenmullen has never countered Breggin's assertion and they both presented at the annual conference (in Queens, NY in 2004) of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology. Breggin continues to voice his respect for Glenmullen's work.[citation needed][relevant? – discuss]
In 1994, Breggin said that Eli Lilly and Company (maker of the antidepressant Prozac) attempted to discredit him and his book Talking Back to Prozac by linking him to the Church of Scientology and labeling his views as "Neo-Scientology."[36] Breggin denied any connection to Scientology.[36] Breggin later clarified that he was still in agreement with some of CCHR's anti-psychiatric views, supporting Tom Cruise's public stance against psychiatry.[37]
[edit]Criticism of ECT
Breggin has written several books and scientific articles critical of electroconvulsive therapy. He claims that "...the damage produces delirium so severe that patients can't fully experience depression or other higher mental functions during the several weeks after electroshock". He was one of nineteen speakers at the 1985 NIH Consensus Development Conference on ECT. The Consensus panel (of which Breggin was not a member) found that ECT could be a useful therapy in some carefully defined cases.[38]
[edit]Expert witness
In South Carolina, Breggin testified on behalf of Peggy S. Salters, a psychiatric nurse who sued her doctors and Palmetto Baptist Hospital after ECT left her incapacitated in 2000. A jury found in favor of her and awarded her $635,177 in actual damages.[39]
Breggin testified as an expert witness in the Wesbecker case (Fentress et al., 1994), a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac. Ultimately, the jury found for Eli Lilly. Breggin later claimed that this was because the plaintiffs and defendants had secretly settled behind closed doors.[40]
Breggin alleges that pharmaceutical manufacturers, particularly Eli Lilly, have committed ad hominem attacks upon him in the form of linking him to Scientology campaigns against psychiatric drugs. Breggin acknowledges that he did work with Scientology starting in 1972, but states that by 1974 he "found [himself] opposed to Scientology's values, agenda, and tactics", and in consequence "stopped all cooperative efforts in 1974 and publicly declared [his] criticism of the group in a letter published in Reason."[41] Breggin has also stated that he has a personal reason to dislike Scientology: His wife, Ginger, was once a Scientologist,[41][42] and when they first met she was urged by other Scientologists to have no association with him because he was not also.
In 2002, Breggin was hired as an expert witness by a survivor of the Columbine High School massacre in a case against the makers of an anti-depressant drug. In his report, Breggin failed to mention the Columbine incident or one of the killers, instead focusing on the medication taken by the other, "...Eric Harris was suffering from a substance induced (Luvox-induced) mood disorder with depressive and manic features that had reached a psychotic level of violence and suicide. Absent persistent exposure to Luvox, Eric Harris probably would not have committed violence and suicide."[47] However, according to The Denver Post, the judge of the case "...was visibly angry that the experts failed to view evidence prior to their depositions" even though they had months to do so. The evidence would have included hundreds of documents including a significant amount of video and audio tape that the killers had recorded. The judge stated, "...lawyers will be free to attack them on the basis of the evidence they haven't seen and haven't factored into their opinions."[48] The lawsuit was eventually dropped with the stipulation that the makers of Luvox donate $10,000 to the American Cancer Society.[47]
In 2005, the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas disqualified the testimony of Breggin because it did not meet the scientific rigor established by the Frye standard. The judge stated "...Breggin spends 14 pages critiquing the treatment provided not because it ran counter to the acceptable standards of care, but because it ran counter to Breggin's personal ideas and ideologies of what the standards ought to be.”[49]
[edit]Criticism of Breggin
Due to his outspoken criticisms of many aspects of psychiatry, Breggin has become a controversial figure who is regularly at odds with the mental health establishment.[50] He uses terms like "fraud" to describe the biological and genetic theories of mental disorders. He is critical of the medications used to treat these disorders, and the political process that determines the labels used for diagnosing mental disorders. He has also consistently warned about conflict of interest problems.[42] These claims often challenge accepted standards of care within the mental health field and have led to highly critical rebuttals.[51] In 1994, the president of the American Psychiatric Association called Breggin a "flat-earther" (suggesting he embraced outdated theories); the head of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) called Breggin "ignorant"; and the former head of the National Institute of Mental Health called him an "outlaw."[5]
Breggin points out that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and NAMI first began criticizing him after he conducted a successful campaign to stop the return of lobotomy and psychosurgery in the early 1970s. Among other actions, Breggin wrote scientific critiques of psychosurgery, participated in court cases against psychosurgery, and worked with the U.S. Congress to form the psychosurgery commission that declared the treatment experimental and unfit for routine clinical use. Both the APA and NAMI supported lobotomy as a legitimate medical treatment. Their criticism of Breggin escalated after he disclosed in Toxic Psychiatry that both organizations had substantial financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Before he called Breggin an "outlaw", Fredrick Goodwin lost his job as a result of a national campaign conducted by Breggin and his wife Ginger against Goodwin's "violence initiative," a large federal program aimed at unearthing genetic and biological defects in "inner city" children that supposedly made them violent. In their book, The War Against Children of Color, the Breggins called Goodwin's programs "racist" and their campaign caused Goodwin to leave the federal government. Funding for the "violence initiative" was stopped.[52]
NOTE: If you have never read the history of psychiatry, especially lobotomies, you need to read this. What was done in the name of "mental health," was nothing more than barbaric torture. Rose Marie "Rosemary" Kennedy (September 13, 1918 – January 7, 2005) was the third child and first daughter of Rose Elizabeth Kennedy née Fitzgerald and Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr., born little more than a year after her brother, future U.S. President John F. Kennedy. She underwent a prefrontal lobotomy at age 23, which left her permanently incapacitated. Why was this done to her? Because in her teenage years she became rebellious.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Why Psychiatry Should be Abolished as a Medical Speciality
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/abolish.htm
The disadvantage to the whole of the medical profession of recognizing psychiatry as a legitimate medical specialty occurred to me when I consulted a dermatologist for diagnosis of a mole I thought looked suspiciously like a malignant melanoma. The dermatologist told me my mole did indeed look suspicious and should be removed, and he told me almost no risk was involved.
This occurred during a time I was doing research on electroshock, which I have summarized in a pamphlet titled "Psychiatry's Electroconvulsive Shock Treatment - A Crime Against Humanity".
I found overwhelming evidence that psychiatry's electric shock treatment causes brain damage, memory loss, and diminished intelligence and doesn't reduce unhappiness or so-called depression as is claimed. About the same time I did some reading about psychiatric drugs that reinforced my impression that most if not all are ineffective for their intended purposes, and I learned many of the most widely used psychiatric drugs are neurologically and psychologically harmful, causing permanent brain damage if used at supposedly therapeutic levels long enough, as they often are not only with the approval but the insistence of psychiatrists. I have explained my reasons for these conclusions in another pamphlet titled "Psychiatric Drugs - Cure or Quackery?"
Part of me tended to assume the dermatologist was an expert, be trusting, and let him do the minor skin surgery right then and there as he suggested. But then, an imaginary scene flashed through my mind: A person walks into the office of another type of recognized, board-certified medical specialist: a psychiatrist. The patient tells the psychiatrist he has been feeling depressed.
The psychiatrist, who specializes in giving outpatient electroshock, responds saying: "No problem. We can take care of that. We'll have you out of here within an hour or so feeling much better. Just lie down on this electroshock table while I use this head strap and some electrode jelly to attach these electrodes to your head..." In fact, there is no reason such a scene couldn't actually take place in a psychiatrist's office today. Some psychiatrists do give electroshock in their offices on an outpatient basis. Realizing that physicians in the other, the bona-fide, medical and surgical specialties accept biological psychiatry and all the quackery it represents as legitimate made (and makes) me wonder if physicians in the other specialties are undeserving of trust also.
I left the dermatologist's office without having the mole removed, although I returned and had him remove it later after I'd gotten opinions from other physicians and had done some reading on the subject. Physicians in the other specialties accepting biological psychiatry as legitimate calls into question the reasonableness and rationality not only of psychiatrists but of all physicians.
The disadvantage to the whole of the medical profession of recognizing psychiatry as a legitimate medical specialty occurred to me when I consulted a dermatologist for diagnosis of a mole I thought looked suspiciously like a malignant melanoma. The dermatologist told me my mole did indeed look suspicious and should be removed, and he told me almost no risk was involved.
This occurred during a time I was doing research on electroshock, which I have summarized in a pamphlet titled "Psychiatry's Electroconvulsive Shock Treatment - A Crime Against Humanity".
I found overwhelming evidence that psychiatry's electric shock treatment causes brain damage, memory loss, and diminished intelligence and doesn't reduce unhappiness or so-called depression as is claimed. About the same time I did some reading about psychiatric drugs that reinforced my impression that most if not all are ineffective for their intended purposes, and I learned many of the most widely used psychiatric drugs are neurologically and psychologically harmful, causing permanent brain damage if used at supposedly therapeutic levels long enough, as they often are not only with the approval but the insistence of psychiatrists. I have explained my reasons for these conclusions in another pamphlet titled "Psychiatric Drugs - Cure or Quackery?"
Part of me tended to assume the dermatologist was an expert, be trusting, and let him do the minor skin surgery right then and there as he suggested. But then, an imaginary scene flashed through my mind: A person walks into the office of another type of recognized, board-certified medical specialist: a psychiatrist. The patient tells the psychiatrist he has been feeling depressed.
The psychiatrist, who specializes in giving outpatient electroshock, responds saying: "No problem. We can take care of that. We'll have you out of here within an hour or so feeling much better. Just lie down on this electroshock table while I use this head strap and some electrode jelly to attach these electrodes to your head..." In fact, there is no reason such a scene couldn't actually take place in a psychiatrist's office today. Some psychiatrists do give electroshock in their offices on an outpatient basis. Realizing that physicians in the other, the bona-fide, medical and surgical specialties accept biological psychiatry and all the quackery it represents as legitimate made (and makes) me wonder if physicians in the other specialties are undeserving of trust also.
I left the dermatologist's office without having the mole removed, although I returned and had him remove it later after I'd gotten opinions from other physicians and had done some reading on the subject. Physicians in the other specialties accepting biological psychiatry as legitimate calls into question the reasonableness and rationality not only of psychiatrists but of all physicians.
a Violation of Substantive Due Process?
Is Involuntary Commitment for "Mental Illness"
by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.
According to Lockhart, Kamisar & Choper's textbook Constitutional Law, substantive due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is "a limitation of the substance of legislative action by the state and federal governments" (West Pub. Co., 1970, p. 454, emphasis added). A majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1887 written by Justice Harlan said: "Under our system that power is lodged with the legislative branch of the government. It belongs to that department to exert what are known as the police powers of the state, and to determine, primarily, what measures are appropriate or needful for the protection of the public morals, the public health, or the public safety. ... [But] It does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for the promotion of these ends is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the state. There are, of necessity, limits beyond which legislation cannot rightfully go. While every possible presumption is to be indulged in favor of a statute, the courts must obey the constitution rather than the law-making department of government, and must, upon their own responsibility, determine whether, in any particular case, these limits have been passed. ... The courts...are under a solemn duty, to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law [the constitution], it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby to give effect to the constitution" (Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 at 661).
In his book The Myth of Mental Illness, psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz, M.D., says "It is customary to define psychiatry as a medical specialty concerned with the study, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illnesses. This is a worthless and misleading definition. Mental illness is a myth. Psychiatrists are not concerned with mental illnesses and their treatments. In actual practice they deal with personal, social, and ethical problems in living" (Dell Pub. Co., 1961, p. 296). According to the cover article in the July 6, 1992 Time magazine, schizophrenia is the "most devilish of mental illnesses" (p. 53). But in his book Against Therapy, published in 1988, Jeffrey Masson, Ph.D., a psychoanalyst, says "There is a heightened awareness of the dangers inherent in labeling somebody with a disease category like schizophrenia, and many people are beginning to realize that there is no such entity" (Atheneum/Macmillan Pub. Co., 1988, p. 2). If there is no such entity as mental illness, can laws which authorize incarcerating people not because they have performed unlawful acts but merely because they have "mental illness" be constitutional?
Suppose that instead of believing in mental illness, people today believed in evil spirit possession and explained weird or unacceptable behavior as the product of evil spirits. Suppose some or all of the states then enacted laws authorizing the incarceration of people who are possessed by evil spirits (instead of people who supposedly are possessed by mental illnesses). Would this be a proper and constitutional exercise of legislative power? Evil spirit possession has no objective reality and exists only in the imaginations of people who believe in evil spirits. Mental illness also has no objective reality and exists only in the imaginations of people who believe in mental illness. The behavior that gets people labeled mentally ill (or possessed by evil spirits) isn't imaginary; but mental illness or evil spirit possession as an explanation of why they behave as they do is.
Today in many states of the United States there are laws which permit the involuntary commitment (incarceration) of people for mental illness alone without requiring a showing the person has ever committed an illegal act. If we want to incarcerate people because they seem peculiar to us or because they say things that are not true or that don't make sense, or because we think that despite a past that includes no unlawful activity they might do something bad in the future, then that's what the laws should say - although doing so might raise constitutional questions. Using "mental illness" as the justification for incarceration is as illogical and unjustified as explaining behavior we dislike and don't understand as the product of evil spirit possession and having commitment laws for people who are possessed by evil spirits.
Since laws in some states use "mental illness" as the sole justification for incarcerating people who may have never done anything illegal (or sometimes as one required element coupled with alleged need for hospitalization or predicted future conduct - "dangerousness"), and since there is no such thing as mental illness, are not these statutes violations of substantive due process?
There are a few groups in particular who tend to be the target of America's involuntary psychiatric commitment laws. Included in these are the young, the old, and the homeless. Sometimes old people are placed in mental hospitals just to get them out of the way. In most cases, nursing homes would be more appropriate, but often nursing homes are not preferred by the family because they are more costly and must be paid for by the family. Involuntary psychiatric commitment laws are used to get homeless people off the streets and sidewalks. Adolescents are committed by parents as a way of shifting the balance of power towards parents in intra-family conflicts, parents usually being the ones who have the money to hire psychiatrists to incarcerate their family member adversaries and define their opposing views and disliked behaviors as illnesses.
In many states parents have statutory power to commit their children who are under age 18 without judicial proceedings, in large part because of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). This Supreme Court decision in 1979 is probably largely responsible for the fact that in the years immediately following it "adolescent admission rates to psychiatric units of private hospitals have jumped dramatically, increasing four-fold between 1980 and 1984" (Lois A. Weithorn, Ph.D., "Mental Hospitalization of Troublesome Youth: An Analysis of Skyrocketing Admission Rates", 40 Stanford Law Review 773). According to another report, "private psychiatric hospital admissions for teenagers are the fastest-growing segment of the hospital industry. ... Between 1980 and 1987 the number of people between 10 and 19 discharged from psychiatric units increased 43 percent, from 126,000 to 180,000. One reason is the aggressive advertising used by for-profit psychiatric facilities" (Christina Kelly, "She's Not Crazy But 14-year-old Sara got committed anyway", Sassy magazine, March 1990, p. 44). According to another report, between 1971 and 1991 "the number of teenagers hospitalized for psychiatric care has increased from 16,000 to 263,000" (Time magazine, August 26, 1991, p. 12). According to University of Michigan Professor Ira Schwartz, "psychiatric hospitals are turning into jails for kids" (Sassy magazine, March 1990, p. 44).
Of course, mental "hospitals" are jails for all persons detained there against their will. Furthermore, they are places where people may be incarcerated with no showing of prior illegal (or otherwise harmful) conduct - only "mental illness".
Yet statutes authorizing commitment for mental illness do not define mental illness but let supposed professionals (psychiatrists) define it any way they see fit. If subjected to proper constitutional scrutiny, such laws would be void for vagueness, as would a statute allowing imprisonment for something called "crime" but which failed to define crime - leaving potential "criminals" in doubt about whether marijuana or alcohol use is legal, whether driving 65 mph on the highway is legal, or whether the age of consent for what in the presence of a statute would be called statutory rape is 16 or 18 or some other age - allowing each prosecuting attorney to determine after the fact whether a particular act is definable as "crime", much as psychiatrists often determine after the fact whether a particular act or expression of ideas constitutes "mental illness".
Have we forgotten that America is supposed to be a nation where all law-abiding persons are guaranteed liberty? How can a person know what behavior is prohibited if the laws are not clearly written? People like myself who believe strongly in individual freedom argue that violation of the rights of others should be the only acts prohibited by law; others will defend victimless crime laws. In either case, violation of law should be the only basis for depriving a person of his or her liberty over his or her protest.
One 14 year old girl who had been involuntarily committed to a private psychiatric hospital after an argument with her parents said "My parents would always threaten me with the hospital" (Sassy magazine, March 1990, p. 82). But it isn't only adolescents and old people who are threatened with psychiatric incarceration in their conflicts with family members. In her autobiography, Will There Really Be a Morning?, actress Frances Farmer tells how even when she was 30 years old her mother in seemingly every dispute would threaten her with commitment to a mental hospital near her home in Seattle, Washington:
"'I'm just about at the end of my rope with you,' she warned. 'I've just about had all I can take. I've put up with you for years and what do I get for it? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! But you're my daughter and you're going to do exactly as I say, or back [to the mental hospital] you go. Do You understand me? Back you go! And this time for keeps! ... You're a disgusting brat!' she spat contemptuously.
"'I'm a thirty-year-old woman,' I answered bitterly. 'And I know damn good and well that you'll send me back the first chance you get.' ... I could not cope with another fight. 'I'm going back to bed,' I said flatly. 'This whole thing is absurd.'
"I started up the stairs, but her reply stopped me short. 'I'm sending you back, Frances.' I was chilled by her sudden calm. 'And this time,' she went on, `I'll see you that you stay.' ...
"It was morning, and I heard my mother rise. It startled me when she knocked softly at my door.
"'Frances,' she said calmly. `I'd like you to get dressed and come down stairs. There are some people here who want to meet you.' ...
"My mother was in the living room with two uniformed men...and I knew! ... They straddled me, and I felt the rough canvas of the straitjacket wrap around me and buckle into place" (Dell Publishing Co., 1972, pp. 15-33).
In America and other nations that claim to value freedom and defend human rights, legislators writing "mental health" laws and those making personal or judicial decisions about what to do with a so-called mentally ill person or persons should keep in mind that America's guarantees of personal freedom are the basis for American patriotism.
Listen, for example, to the words of a patriotic song, "God Bless the USA": "If tomorrow all the things were gone I'd worked for all my life, and I had to start again with just my children and my wife, I'd thank my lucky stars to be living here today. 'Cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they can't take that away! And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. 'Cause there is no doubt I love this Land. God bless the USA!" (emphasis added).
Similarly, a Russian immigrant to the United States said this in an article published in Reader's Digest in 1991: "I looked up at the [United States] flag, fluttering in the breeze. ... Suddenly, I understood ... America isn't about school sweaters or Johnny Mathis records or shiny new cars. It's about freedom and opportunity - not just for the privileged or the native-born - but for everyone" (Constantin Galskoy, "How I Became an American", Reader's Digest, August 1991, p. 76). The USA's official national anthem "The Star Spangled Banner" refers to America as "the land of the free". The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America ends with the words "...with liberty and justice for all." One of America's most popular and prominent symbols is the Statue of Liberty. Another statue, this one sitting atop the dome of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., is called the Statue of Freedom.
In 1987 in a law journal article discussing constitutional due process, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., said "every enactment of every state...may be challenged at the Bar of the Court on the ground that such action, such legislation, is a deprivation of liberty without due process of law...those ideals of human dignity - liberty and justice for all individuals - will continue to inspire and guide us because they are entrenched in our Constitution" (Case & Comment, September-October 1987, p. 21). Imagine how empty and meaningless these patriotic words in these articles, patriotic songs, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the names of these national monuments, and the U.S. Constitution sound to a law-abiding person who has been imprisoned (involuntarily "hospitalized") for so-called mental illness in the USA merely because others dislike his or her thoughts, ideas, emotions, lifestyle, personality, or lawful (even if irritating) behavior, or because he or she gets along poorly with others in his or her family.
A reason involuntary psychiatric commitment of law-abiding people is a violation of constitutionally guaranteed substantive due process is it is contrary to the most important values America and other democracies claim to stand for. This is just as true for those under the arbitrarily defined age of majority as it is for adults. In his inaugural address on January 20, 1989, President George Bush said "Great nations, like great men, must keep their word. When America says something, America means it - whether a treaty, or an agreement, or a vow made on marble steps." One of the consequences of belief in the myth of mental illness is America's failure to live up to one of its most fundamental promises: liberty for all law-abiding Americans.
THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric "patients". His pamphlets are not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for distribution to those who you think will benefit.
by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.
According to Lockhart, Kamisar & Choper's textbook Constitutional Law, substantive due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is "a limitation of the substance of legislative action by the state and federal governments" (West Pub. Co., 1970, p. 454, emphasis added). A majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1887 written by Justice Harlan said: "Under our system that power is lodged with the legislative branch of the government. It belongs to that department to exert what are known as the police powers of the state, and to determine, primarily, what measures are appropriate or needful for the protection of the public morals, the public health, or the public safety. ... [But] It does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for the promotion of these ends is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the state. There are, of necessity, limits beyond which legislation cannot rightfully go. While every possible presumption is to be indulged in favor of a statute, the courts must obey the constitution rather than the law-making department of government, and must, upon their own responsibility, determine whether, in any particular case, these limits have been passed. ... The courts...are under a solemn duty, to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law [the constitution], it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby to give effect to the constitution" (Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 at 661).
In his book The Myth of Mental Illness, psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz, M.D., says "It is customary to define psychiatry as a medical specialty concerned with the study, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illnesses. This is a worthless and misleading definition. Mental illness is a myth. Psychiatrists are not concerned with mental illnesses and their treatments. In actual practice they deal with personal, social, and ethical problems in living" (Dell Pub. Co., 1961, p. 296). According to the cover article in the July 6, 1992 Time magazine, schizophrenia is the "most devilish of mental illnesses" (p. 53). But in his book Against Therapy, published in 1988, Jeffrey Masson, Ph.D., a psychoanalyst, says "There is a heightened awareness of the dangers inherent in labeling somebody with a disease category like schizophrenia, and many people are beginning to realize that there is no such entity" (Atheneum/Macmillan Pub. Co., 1988, p. 2). If there is no such entity as mental illness, can laws which authorize incarcerating people not because they have performed unlawful acts but merely because they have "mental illness" be constitutional?
Suppose that instead of believing in mental illness, people today believed in evil spirit possession and explained weird or unacceptable behavior as the product of evil spirits. Suppose some or all of the states then enacted laws authorizing the incarceration of people who are possessed by evil spirits (instead of people who supposedly are possessed by mental illnesses). Would this be a proper and constitutional exercise of legislative power? Evil spirit possession has no objective reality and exists only in the imaginations of people who believe in evil spirits. Mental illness also has no objective reality and exists only in the imaginations of people who believe in mental illness. The behavior that gets people labeled mentally ill (or possessed by evil spirits) isn't imaginary; but mental illness or evil spirit possession as an explanation of why they behave as they do is.
Today in many states of the United States there are laws which permit the involuntary commitment (incarceration) of people for mental illness alone without requiring a showing the person has ever committed an illegal act. If we want to incarcerate people because they seem peculiar to us or because they say things that are not true or that don't make sense, or because we think that despite a past that includes no unlawful activity they might do something bad in the future, then that's what the laws should say - although doing so might raise constitutional questions. Using "mental illness" as the justification for incarceration is as illogical and unjustified as explaining behavior we dislike and don't understand as the product of evil spirit possession and having commitment laws for people who are possessed by evil spirits.
Since laws in some states use "mental illness" as the sole justification for incarcerating people who may have never done anything illegal (or sometimes as one required element coupled with alleged need for hospitalization or predicted future conduct - "dangerousness"), and since there is no such thing as mental illness, are not these statutes violations of substantive due process?
There are a few groups in particular who tend to be the target of America's involuntary psychiatric commitment laws. Included in these are the young, the old, and the homeless. Sometimes old people are placed in mental hospitals just to get them out of the way. In most cases, nursing homes would be more appropriate, but often nursing homes are not preferred by the family because they are more costly and must be paid for by the family. Involuntary psychiatric commitment laws are used to get homeless people off the streets and sidewalks. Adolescents are committed by parents as a way of shifting the balance of power towards parents in intra-family conflicts, parents usually being the ones who have the money to hire psychiatrists to incarcerate their family member adversaries and define their opposing views and disliked behaviors as illnesses.
In many states parents have statutory power to commit their children who are under age 18 without judicial proceedings, in large part because of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). This Supreme Court decision in 1979 is probably largely responsible for the fact that in the years immediately following it "adolescent admission rates to psychiatric units of private hospitals have jumped dramatically, increasing four-fold between 1980 and 1984" (Lois A. Weithorn, Ph.D., "Mental Hospitalization of Troublesome Youth: An Analysis of Skyrocketing Admission Rates", 40 Stanford Law Review 773). According to another report, "private psychiatric hospital admissions for teenagers are the fastest-growing segment of the hospital industry. ... Between 1980 and 1987 the number of people between 10 and 19 discharged from psychiatric units increased 43 percent, from 126,000 to 180,000. One reason is the aggressive advertising used by for-profit psychiatric facilities" (Christina Kelly, "She's Not Crazy But 14-year-old Sara got committed anyway", Sassy magazine, March 1990, p. 44). According to another report, between 1971 and 1991 "the number of teenagers hospitalized for psychiatric care has increased from 16,000 to 263,000" (Time magazine, August 26, 1991, p. 12). According to University of Michigan Professor Ira Schwartz, "psychiatric hospitals are turning into jails for kids" (Sassy magazine, March 1990, p. 44).
Of course, mental "hospitals" are jails for all persons detained there against their will. Furthermore, they are places where people may be incarcerated with no showing of prior illegal (or otherwise harmful) conduct - only "mental illness".
Yet statutes authorizing commitment for mental illness do not define mental illness but let supposed professionals (psychiatrists) define it any way they see fit. If subjected to proper constitutional scrutiny, such laws would be void for vagueness, as would a statute allowing imprisonment for something called "crime" but which failed to define crime - leaving potential "criminals" in doubt about whether marijuana or alcohol use is legal, whether driving 65 mph on the highway is legal, or whether the age of consent for what in the presence of a statute would be called statutory rape is 16 or 18 or some other age - allowing each prosecuting attorney to determine after the fact whether a particular act is definable as "crime", much as psychiatrists often determine after the fact whether a particular act or expression of ideas constitutes "mental illness".
Have we forgotten that America is supposed to be a nation where all law-abiding persons are guaranteed liberty? How can a person know what behavior is prohibited if the laws are not clearly written? People like myself who believe strongly in individual freedom argue that violation of the rights of others should be the only acts prohibited by law; others will defend victimless crime laws. In either case, violation of law should be the only basis for depriving a person of his or her liberty over his or her protest.
One 14 year old girl who had been involuntarily committed to a private psychiatric hospital after an argument with her parents said "My parents would always threaten me with the hospital" (Sassy magazine, March 1990, p. 82). But it isn't only adolescents and old people who are threatened with psychiatric incarceration in their conflicts with family members. In her autobiography, Will There Really Be a Morning?, actress Frances Farmer tells how even when she was 30 years old her mother in seemingly every dispute would threaten her with commitment to a mental hospital near her home in Seattle, Washington:
"'I'm just about at the end of my rope with you,' she warned. 'I've just about had all I can take. I've put up with you for years and what do I get for it? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! But you're my daughter and you're going to do exactly as I say, or back [to the mental hospital] you go. Do You understand me? Back you go! And this time for keeps! ... You're a disgusting brat!' she spat contemptuously.
"'I'm a thirty-year-old woman,' I answered bitterly. 'And I know damn good and well that you'll send me back the first chance you get.' ... I could not cope with another fight. 'I'm going back to bed,' I said flatly. 'This whole thing is absurd.'
"I started up the stairs, but her reply stopped me short. 'I'm sending you back, Frances.' I was chilled by her sudden calm. 'And this time,' she went on, `I'll see you that you stay.' ...
"It was morning, and I heard my mother rise. It startled me when she knocked softly at my door.
"'Frances,' she said calmly. `I'd like you to get dressed and come down stairs. There are some people here who want to meet you.' ...
"My mother was in the living room with two uniformed men...and I knew! ... They straddled me, and I felt the rough canvas of the straitjacket wrap around me and buckle into place" (Dell Publishing Co., 1972, pp. 15-33).
In America and other nations that claim to value freedom and defend human rights, legislators writing "mental health" laws and those making personal or judicial decisions about what to do with a so-called mentally ill person or persons should keep in mind that America's guarantees of personal freedom are the basis for American patriotism.
Listen, for example, to the words of a patriotic song, "God Bless the USA": "If tomorrow all the things were gone I'd worked for all my life, and I had to start again with just my children and my wife, I'd thank my lucky stars to be living here today. 'Cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they can't take that away! And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. 'Cause there is no doubt I love this Land. God bless the USA!" (emphasis added).
Similarly, a Russian immigrant to the United States said this in an article published in Reader's Digest in 1991: "I looked up at the [United States] flag, fluttering in the breeze. ... Suddenly, I understood ... America isn't about school sweaters or Johnny Mathis records or shiny new cars. It's about freedom and opportunity - not just for the privileged or the native-born - but for everyone" (Constantin Galskoy, "How I Became an American", Reader's Digest, August 1991, p. 76). The USA's official national anthem "The Star Spangled Banner" refers to America as "the land of the free". The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America ends with the words "...with liberty and justice for all." One of America's most popular and prominent symbols is the Statue of Liberty. Another statue, this one sitting atop the dome of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., is called the Statue of Freedom.
In 1987 in a law journal article discussing constitutional due process, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., said "every enactment of every state...may be challenged at the Bar of the Court on the ground that such action, such legislation, is a deprivation of liberty without due process of law...those ideals of human dignity - liberty and justice for all individuals - will continue to inspire and guide us because they are entrenched in our Constitution" (Case & Comment, September-October 1987, p. 21). Imagine how empty and meaningless these patriotic words in these articles, patriotic songs, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the names of these national monuments, and the U.S. Constitution sound to a law-abiding person who has been imprisoned (involuntarily "hospitalized") for so-called mental illness in the USA merely because others dislike his or her thoughts, ideas, emotions, lifestyle, personality, or lawful (even if irritating) behavior, or because he or she gets along poorly with others in his or her family.
A reason involuntary psychiatric commitment of law-abiding people is a violation of constitutionally guaranteed substantive due process is it is contrary to the most important values America and other democracies claim to stand for. This is just as true for those under the arbitrarily defined age of majority as it is for adults. In his inaugural address on January 20, 1989, President George Bush said "Great nations, like great men, must keep their word. When America says something, America means it - whether a treaty, or an agreement, or a vow made on marble steps." One of the consequences of belief in the myth of mental illness is America's failure to live up to one of its most fundamental promises: liberty for all law-abiding Americans.
THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric "patients". His pamphlets are not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for distribution to those who you think will benefit.
Is Mental Illness Real?
http://www.dovechristiancounseling.com/Does-Mental-Illness-Really-Exist-.html
But when it comes to "mental illness" they have done autopsies on the brains of societies most evil and horrendous killers and found NOTHING in their brains that would look abnormal from your brain. Their brains were NORMAL. So what was it that caused them to act so abnormal and evil? Pure and simple, it was SIN.
Jesus taught that the primary cause of sickness in the world was a force of evil loose in the world which was hostile to God and the divine way. He believed that people sometimes fell into the hands of this power, which then exerted a destructive influence in their lives, morally, psychologically, mentally and physically. You may call this force Satan, the devil, evil spirits, demons, autonomous complexes, or what you will. But it is NOT mental illness. There is no such thing, according to the Bible and to Jesus and to God.
The bottom line is the only protection against the evasion of this evil into the personalities of men and women is to be filled with God's Holy Spirit. Sickness and disease never come from God. They come from the devil. And without God's spirit living inside of you, the human being, on their own is helpless in keeping the devil out of their lives. We need Jesus' and God's help every single day to keep evil from us or from getting into us. The part that is under our control is our decision to ask for God's protection and help, or to choose to do it on our own, which is when we get into trouble.
In the Lord's prayer we say, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from Evil." So evidently we can be tempted and evil is a reality that we need prayer for to be delivered from on a daily basis.
All diagnosis and treatment in psychiatry, especially biological psychiatry, presupposes the existence of something called mental illness, also known as mental disease or mental disorder. What is meant by disease, illness, or disorder? In a semantic sense disease means simply dis-ease, the opposite of ease. But by disease we don't mean anything that causes a lack of ease, since this definition would mean losing one's job or a war or economic recession or an argument with one's spouse qualifies as "disease". In his book Is Alcoholism Hereditary? psychiatrist Donald W. Goodwin, M.D., discusses the definition of disease and concludes "Diseases are something people see doctors for. ... Physicians are consulted about the problem of alcoholism and therefore alcoholism becomes, by this definition, a disease" (Ballantine Books, 1988, p. 61).
Accepting this definition, if for some reason people consulted physicians about how to get the economy out of recession or how to solve a disagreement with one's mate or a bordering nation, these problems would also qualify as disease. But clearly this is not what is meant by "disease". In his discussion of the definition of disease, Dr. Goodwin acknowledges there is "a narrow definition of disease that requires the presence of a biological abnormality" (ibid). In this pamphlet I will show that there are no biological abnormalities responsible for so-called mental illness, mental disease, or mental disorder, and that therefore mental illness has no biological existence. Perhaps more importantly, however, I will show that mental illness also has no non-biological existence - except in the sense that the term is used to indicate disapproval of some aspect of a person's mentality.
The idea of mental illness as a biological entity is easy to refute. In 1988, Seymour S. Kety, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Neuroscience in Psychiatry, and Steven Matthysse, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychobiology, both of Harvard Medical School, said "an impartial reading of the recent literature does not provide the hoped-for clarification of the catecholamine hypotheses, nor does compelling evidence emerge for other biological differences that may characterize the brains of patients with mental disease" (The New Harvard Guide to Psychiatry, Harvard Univ. Press, p. 148). In 1992 a panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment concluded: "Many questions remain about the biology of mental disorders. In fact, research has yet to identify specific biological causes for any of these disorders. ... Mental disorders are classified on the basis of symptoms because there are as yet no biological markers or laboratory tests for them" (The Biology of Mental Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1992, pp. 13-14, 46-47).
In his book The Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs, Columbia University psychiatry professor Jack M. Gorman, M.D., said "We really do not know what causes any psychiatric illness" (St. Martin's Press, 1990, p. 316). In his book The New Psychiatry another Columbia University psychiatry professor, Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., said "It is generally unrecognized that psychiatrists are the only medical specialists who treat disorders that, by definition, have no definitively known causes or cures. ... A diagnosis should indicate the cause of a mental disorder, but as discussed later, since the etiologies of most mental disorders are unknown, current diagnostic systems can't reflect them" (Mentor, 1985, pp. 19 & 36 - emphasis in original). In his book Toxic Psychiatry, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., said "there is no evidence that any of the common psychological or psychiatric disorders have a genetic or biological component" (St. Martin's Press, 1991, p. 291).
It is sometimes argued that psychiatric drugs "curing" (stopping) the thinking, emotions, or behavior that is called mental illness proves the existence of biological causes of mental illness. This argument is easily refuted: Suppose someone was playing the piano and you didn't like him doing that. Suppose you forced or persuaded him to take a drug that disabled him so severely that he couldn't play the piano anymore. Would this prove his piano playing was caused by a biological abnormality that was cured by the drug? As senseless as this argument is, it is often made. Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability. So they do stop disliked behavior and may mentally disable a person enough he can no longer feel angry or unhappy or "depressed". But calling this a "cure" is absurd. Extrapolating from this that the drug must have cured an underlying biological abnormality that was causing the disliked emotions or behavior is equally absurd.
When confronted with the lack of evidence for their belief in mental illness as a biological entity, some defenders of the concept of mental illness will assert that mental illness can exist and can be defined as a "disease" without there being a biological abnormality causing it. The idea of mental illness as a nonbiological entity requires a more lengthy refutation than the biological argument.
People are thought of as mentally ill only when their thinking, emotions, or behavior is contrary to what is considered acceptable, that is, when others (or the so-called patients themselves) dislike something about them. One way to show the absurdity of calling something an illness not because it is caused by a biological abnormality but only because we dislike it or disapprove of it is to look at how values differ from one culture to another and how values change over time.
In his book The Psychology of Self-Esteem, Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D., a psychologist, wrote: "One of the prime tasks of the science of psychology is to provide definitions of mental health and mental illness. ...But there is no general agreement among psychologists and psychiatrists about the nature of mental health or mental illness - no generally accepted definitions, no basic standard by which to gauge one psychological state or other. Many writers declare that no objective definitions and standards can be established - that a basic, universally applicable concept of mental health is impossible. They assert that, since behavior which is regarded as healthy or normal in one culture may be regarded as neurotic or aberrated in another, all criteria are a matter of 'cultural bias.' The theorists who maintain this position usually insist that the closest one can come to a definition of mental health is: conformity to cultural norms. Thus, they declare that a man is psychologically healthy to the extent that he is 'well-adjusted' to his culture.
The obvious questions that such a definition raises, are: What if the values and norms of a given society are irrational? Can mental health consist of being well-adjusted to the irrational? What about Nazi Germany, for instance? Is a cheerful servant of the Nazi state - who feels serenely and happily at home in his social environment - an exponent of mental health?" (Bantam Books, 1969, pp. 95-96, emphasis in original). Dr. Branden is doing several things here: First, he is confusing morality and rationality, saying that respect for human rights is rational when in fact it is not a question of rationality but rather of morality. So psychologically and emotionally locked into and blinded by his values is he that Dr. Branden is evidently incapable of seeing the difference.
Additionally, Dr. Branden is stating some of his values. Among these values are: Respect for human rights is good; violation of human rights (like Nazism) is bad. And he is saying: Violating these values is "irrationality" or mental illness. Although their practitioners won't admit it and often are not even aware of it, psychiatry and "clinical" psychology in their very essence are about values - values concealed under a veneer of language that makes it sound like they are not furthering values but promoting "health".
The answer to the question Dr. Branden poses is: A person living in Nazi Germany and well-adjusted to it was "mentally healthy" judged by the values of his own society. Judged by the values of a society which respects human rights he was as sick (metaphorically speaking) as the rest of his culture. A person like myself however says that such a person is morally "sick" and recognizes that the word sick has not its literal but a metaphorical meaning. To a person like Dr. Branden who believes in the myth of mental illness, such a person is literally sick and needs a doctor. The difference is that a person like myself is recognizing my values for what they are: morality. Typically, the believer in mental illness, such as Dr. Branden in this quoted passage, has the same values as I do but is confusing them with health.
One of the most telling examples is homosexuality, which was officially defined as a mental disease by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973 but hasn't been since then. Homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder on page 44 of the American Psychiatric Association's standard reference book, DSM-II: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the 2nd Edition), published in 1968. In that book, "Homosexuality" is categorized as one of the "Sexual deviations" on page 44. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from it's official diagnostic categories of mental illness. (See "An Instant Cure", Time magazine, April 1, 1974, p. 45). So when the third edition of this book was published in 1980 it said "homosexuality itself is not considered a mental disorder" (p. 282). The 1987 edition of The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy states: "The American Psychiatric Association no longer considers homosexuality a psychiatric disease" (p. 1495).
If mental illness were really an illness in the same sense that physical illnesses are illnesses, the idea of deleting homosexuality or anything else from the categories of illness by having a vote would be as absurd as a group of physicians voting to delete cancer or measles from the concept of disease. But mental illness isn't "an illness like any other illness." Unlike physical disease where there are physical facts to deal with, mental "illness" is entirely a question of values, of right and wrong, of appropriate versus inappropriate. At one time homosexuality seemed so weird and hard to understand it was necessary to invoke the concept of mental disease or mental illness to explain it. After homosexuals made a big enough spectacle of themselves and showed their "strength in numbers" and successfully demanded at least a small measure of social acceptance, it was no longer necessary and no longer seemed appropriate to explain homosexuality as a disease.
A cross-cultural example is suicide. In many countries, such as the United States and Great Britain, a person who commits suicide or attempts to do so or even thinks about it seriously is considered mentally ill. However, this has not always been true throughout human history, nor is it true today in all cultures around the world. In his book Why Suicide?, psychologist Eustace Chesser points out that "Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism have any intrinsic objections to suicide and in some forms of Buddhism self-incineration is believed to confer special merit." He also points out that "The Celts scorned to wait for old age and enfeeblement. They believed that those who committed suicide before their powers waned went to heaven, and those who died of sickness or became senile went to hell - an interesting reversal of Christian doctrine" (Arrow Books Ltd., London, England, 1968, p. 121-122).
In his book Fighting Depression, psychiatrist Harvey M. Ross, M.D., points out that "Some cultures expect the wife to throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre" (Larchmont Books, 1975, p. 20). Probably the best known example of a society where suicide is socially acceptable is Japan. Rather than thinking of suicide or "hara-kiri" as the Japanese call it as almost always caused by a mental disease or illness, the Japanese in some circumstances consider suicide the normal, socially acceptable thing to do, such as when one "loses face" or is humiliated by some sort of failure.
Another example showing suicide is considered normal, not crazy, in Japanese eyes is the kamikaze pilots Japan used against the U.S. Navy in World War II. They were given enough fuel for a one-way trip, a suicide mission, to where the attacking U.S. Navy forces were located and deliberately crashed their airplanes into the enemy ships. There has never been an American kamikaze pilot, at least, none officially sponsored by the United States government. The reason for this is different attitudes about suicide in Japan and America. Could suicide be committed only by people with psychiatric illnesses in America and yet be performed by normal persons in Japan? Or is acceptance of suicide in Japan a failure or refusal to recognize the presence of psychological abnormalities which necessarily must be present for a person to voluntarily end his or her own life? Were the kamikaze pilots mentally ill, or did they and the society they come from simply have different values than we do?
Even in America, aren't virtually suicidal acts done for the sake of one's fellow soldiers or for one's country during wartime thought of not as insanity but as bravery? Why do we think of such persons as heros rather than lunatics? It seems we condemn (or "diagnose") suicidal people as crazy or mentally ill only when they end their own lives for selfish reasons (the "I can't take it any more" kind of reasons) rather than for the benefit of other people. The real issue seems to be selfishness rather than suicide.
What these examples show is that "mental illness" is simply deviance from what people want or expect in any particular society. "Mental illness" is anything in human mentality greatly disliked by the person describing it.
The situation was aptly summed up in an article in the November 1986 Omni magazine: "Disorders come and go. Even Sigmund Freud's concept of neurosis was dropped in the original DSM-III (1980). And in 1973 APA [American Psychiatric Association] trustees voted to wipe out almost all references to homosexuality as a disorder. Before the vote, being gay was considered a psychiatric problem. After the vote the disorder was relegated to psychiatry's attic. 'It's a matter of fashion,' says Dr. John Spiegel of Brandeis University, who was president of the APA in 1973, when the debate over homosexuality flared. 'And fashions keep changing'" (p. 30).
What is wrong with this approach is describing people as having a psychiatric "disease" or "illness" only because he or she doesn't match up with a supposed diagnostician's or with other people's idea of how a person "should" be in standards of dress, behavior, thinking, or opinion. When it involves violating the rights of others, nonconformity with social norms or values must be curbed or stopped with various measures, criminal law being one example. But calling nonconformity or disliked behavior a "disease" or assuming it must be caused by a disease only because it is unacceptable according to currently prevailing values makes no sense. What causes us to do this is not knowing the real reasons for the thinking, emotions, or behavior we dislike. When we don't understand the real reasons, we create myths to provide an explanation. Today most of us instead believe in the myth of mental illness.
Calling disapproved thinking, emotions, or behavior a mental illness might be excusable if mental illness was a useful myth, but it isn't. Rather than helping us deal with troubled or troublesome persons, the myth of mental illness distracts us from the real problems that need to be faced. Rather than being caused by a "chemical imbalance" or other biological problem, the nonconformity, misbehavior, and emotional reactions we call mental illness are the result of difficulties people have getting their needs met and the behavior some people have learned during their lifetimes. The solutions are teaching people how to get their needs met, how to behave, and using whatever powers of enforcement are needed to force people to respect the rights of others.
THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric "patients". He has published a series of pamphlets about various aspects of psychiatry, including psychiatric drugs, electroshock, and psychotherapy. His pamphlets are not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for distribution to those you think will benefit.
1996 UPDATE:
"... modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness." David Kaiser, M.D., Commentary: Against Biologic Psychiatry, December 1996 Psychiatric Times.
...there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder." From a letter dated December 4, 1998 by Loren R. Mosher, M.D., a psychiatrist, resigning from the American Psychiatric Association.
1999 UPDATES:
"... all 5 million to 6 million children on these drugs [for hyperactivity] are normal. The country's been led to believe that all painful emotions are a mental illness and the leadership of the APA [American Psychiatric Association] knows very well that they are representing it as a disease when there is no scientific data to confirm any mental illness." Neurologist Fred Baughman, quoted in Insight magazine, June 28, 1999, p. 13 (underline added).
...there is no evidence that these mental illnesses, such as ADHD, exist." Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, quoted in Insight magazine, June 28, 1999, p. 13. ADHD is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
2000 UPDATES:
"In medicine, strict criteria exist for calling a condition a disease. In addition to a predictable cluster of symptoms, the cause of the symptoms or some understanding of their physiology must be established. ... Psychiatry is unique among medical specialties in that... We do not yet have proof either of the cause or the physiology for any psychiatric diagnosis. ... In recent decades, we have had no shortage of alleged biochemical imbalances for psychiatric conditions. Diligent though these attempts have been, not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later proven false. ... No claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation." Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, in his book Prozac Backlash (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000), pages 192-193, page 196, and page 198.
2001 UPDATE:
"Remember that no biochemical, neurological, or genetic markers have been found for attention deficit disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, compulsive alcohol and drug abuse, overeating, gambling, or any other so-called mental illness, disease, or disorder." Bruce Levine, Ph.D. (psychologist), Commonsense Rebellion: Debunking Psychiatry, Confronting Society (Continuum, New York 2001), p. 277.
But when it comes to "mental illness" they have done autopsies on the brains of societies most evil and horrendous killers and found NOTHING in their brains that would look abnormal from your brain. Their brains were NORMAL. So what was it that caused them to act so abnormal and evil? Pure and simple, it was SIN.
Jesus taught that the primary cause of sickness in the world was a force of evil loose in the world which was hostile to God and the divine way. He believed that people sometimes fell into the hands of this power, which then exerted a destructive influence in their lives, morally, psychologically, mentally and physically. You may call this force Satan, the devil, evil spirits, demons, autonomous complexes, or what you will. But it is NOT mental illness. There is no such thing, according to the Bible and to Jesus and to God.
The bottom line is the only protection against the evasion of this evil into the personalities of men and women is to be filled with God's Holy Spirit. Sickness and disease never come from God. They come from the devil. And without God's spirit living inside of you, the human being, on their own is helpless in keeping the devil out of their lives. We need Jesus' and God's help every single day to keep evil from us or from getting into us. The part that is under our control is our decision to ask for God's protection and help, or to choose to do it on our own, which is when we get into trouble.
In the Lord's prayer we say, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from Evil." So evidently we can be tempted and evil is a reality that we need prayer for to be delivered from on a daily basis.
All diagnosis and treatment in psychiatry, especially biological psychiatry, presupposes the existence of something called mental illness, also known as mental disease or mental disorder. What is meant by disease, illness, or disorder? In a semantic sense disease means simply dis-ease, the opposite of ease. But by disease we don't mean anything that causes a lack of ease, since this definition would mean losing one's job or a war or economic recession or an argument with one's spouse qualifies as "disease". In his book Is Alcoholism Hereditary? psychiatrist Donald W. Goodwin, M.D., discusses the definition of disease and concludes "Diseases are something people see doctors for. ... Physicians are consulted about the problem of alcoholism and therefore alcoholism becomes, by this definition, a disease" (Ballantine Books, 1988, p. 61).
Accepting this definition, if for some reason people consulted physicians about how to get the economy out of recession or how to solve a disagreement with one's mate or a bordering nation, these problems would also qualify as disease. But clearly this is not what is meant by "disease". In his discussion of the definition of disease, Dr. Goodwin acknowledges there is "a narrow definition of disease that requires the presence of a biological abnormality" (ibid). In this pamphlet I will show that there are no biological abnormalities responsible for so-called mental illness, mental disease, or mental disorder, and that therefore mental illness has no biological existence. Perhaps more importantly, however, I will show that mental illness also has no non-biological existence - except in the sense that the term is used to indicate disapproval of some aspect of a person's mentality.
The idea of mental illness as a biological entity is easy to refute. In 1988, Seymour S. Kety, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Neuroscience in Psychiatry, and Steven Matthysse, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychobiology, both of Harvard Medical School, said "an impartial reading of the recent literature does not provide the hoped-for clarification of the catecholamine hypotheses, nor does compelling evidence emerge for other biological differences that may characterize the brains of patients with mental disease" (The New Harvard Guide to Psychiatry, Harvard Univ. Press, p. 148). In 1992 a panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment concluded: "Many questions remain about the biology of mental disorders. In fact, research has yet to identify specific biological causes for any of these disorders. ... Mental disorders are classified on the basis of symptoms because there are as yet no biological markers or laboratory tests for them" (The Biology of Mental Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1992, pp. 13-14, 46-47).
In his book The Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs, Columbia University psychiatry professor Jack M. Gorman, M.D., said "We really do not know what causes any psychiatric illness" (St. Martin's Press, 1990, p. 316). In his book The New Psychiatry another Columbia University psychiatry professor, Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., said "It is generally unrecognized that psychiatrists are the only medical specialists who treat disorders that, by definition, have no definitively known causes or cures. ... A diagnosis should indicate the cause of a mental disorder, but as discussed later, since the etiologies of most mental disorders are unknown, current diagnostic systems can't reflect them" (Mentor, 1985, pp. 19 & 36 - emphasis in original). In his book Toxic Psychiatry, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., said "there is no evidence that any of the common psychological or psychiatric disorders have a genetic or biological component" (St. Martin's Press, 1991, p. 291).
It is sometimes argued that psychiatric drugs "curing" (stopping) the thinking, emotions, or behavior that is called mental illness proves the existence of biological causes of mental illness. This argument is easily refuted: Suppose someone was playing the piano and you didn't like him doing that. Suppose you forced or persuaded him to take a drug that disabled him so severely that he couldn't play the piano anymore. Would this prove his piano playing was caused by a biological abnormality that was cured by the drug? As senseless as this argument is, it is often made. Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability. So they do stop disliked behavior and may mentally disable a person enough he can no longer feel angry or unhappy or "depressed". But calling this a "cure" is absurd. Extrapolating from this that the drug must have cured an underlying biological abnormality that was causing the disliked emotions or behavior is equally absurd.
When confronted with the lack of evidence for their belief in mental illness as a biological entity, some defenders of the concept of mental illness will assert that mental illness can exist and can be defined as a "disease" without there being a biological abnormality causing it. The idea of mental illness as a nonbiological entity requires a more lengthy refutation than the biological argument.
People are thought of as mentally ill only when their thinking, emotions, or behavior is contrary to what is considered acceptable, that is, when others (or the so-called patients themselves) dislike something about them. One way to show the absurdity of calling something an illness not because it is caused by a biological abnormality but only because we dislike it or disapprove of it is to look at how values differ from one culture to another and how values change over time.
In his book The Psychology of Self-Esteem, Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D., a psychologist, wrote: "One of the prime tasks of the science of psychology is to provide definitions of mental health and mental illness. ...But there is no general agreement among psychologists and psychiatrists about the nature of mental health or mental illness - no generally accepted definitions, no basic standard by which to gauge one psychological state or other. Many writers declare that no objective definitions and standards can be established - that a basic, universally applicable concept of mental health is impossible. They assert that, since behavior which is regarded as healthy or normal in one culture may be regarded as neurotic or aberrated in another, all criteria are a matter of 'cultural bias.' The theorists who maintain this position usually insist that the closest one can come to a definition of mental health is: conformity to cultural norms. Thus, they declare that a man is psychologically healthy to the extent that he is 'well-adjusted' to his culture.
The obvious questions that such a definition raises, are: What if the values and norms of a given society are irrational? Can mental health consist of being well-adjusted to the irrational? What about Nazi Germany, for instance? Is a cheerful servant of the Nazi state - who feels serenely and happily at home in his social environment - an exponent of mental health?" (Bantam Books, 1969, pp. 95-96, emphasis in original). Dr. Branden is doing several things here: First, he is confusing morality and rationality, saying that respect for human rights is rational when in fact it is not a question of rationality but rather of morality. So psychologically and emotionally locked into and blinded by his values is he that Dr. Branden is evidently incapable of seeing the difference.
Additionally, Dr. Branden is stating some of his values. Among these values are: Respect for human rights is good; violation of human rights (like Nazism) is bad. And he is saying: Violating these values is "irrationality" or mental illness. Although their practitioners won't admit it and often are not even aware of it, psychiatry and "clinical" psychology in their very essence are about values - values concealed under a veneer of language that makes it sound like they are not furthering values but promoting "health".
The answer to the question Dr. Branden poses is: A person living in Nazi Germany and well-adjusted to it was "mentally healthy" judged by the values of his own society. Judged by the values of a society which respects human rights he was as sick (metaphorically speaking) as the rest of his culture. A person like myself however says that such a person is morally "sick" and recognizes that the word sick has not its literal but a metaphorical meaning. To a person like Dr. Branden who believes in the myth of mental illness, such a person is literally sick and needs a doctor. The difference is that a person like myself is recognizing my values for what they are: morality. Typically, the believer in mental illness, such as Dr. Branden in this quoted passage, has the same values as I do but is confusing them with health.
One of the most telling examples is homosexuality, which was officially defined as a mental disease by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973 but hasn't been since then. Homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder on page 44 of the American Psychiatric Association's standard reference book, DSM-II: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the 2nd Edition), published in 1968. In that book, "Homosexuality" is categorized as one of the "Sexual deviations" on page 44. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from it's official diagnostic categories of mental illness. (See "An Instant Cure", Time magazine, April 1, 1974, p. 45). So when the third edition of this book was published in 1980 it said "homosexuality itself is not considered a mental disorder" (p. 282). The 1987 edition of The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy states: "The American Psychiatric Association no longer considers homosexuality a psychiatric disease" (p. 1495).
If mental illness were really an illness in the same sense that physical illnesses are illnesses, the idea of deleting homosexuality or anything else from the categories of illness by having a vote would be as absurd as a group of physicians voting to delete cancer or measles from the concept of disease. But mental illness isn't "an illness like any other illness." Unlike physical disease where there are physical facts to deal with, mental "illness" is entirely a question of values, of right and wrong, of appropriate versus inappropriate. At one time homosexuality seemed so weird and hard to understand it was necessary to invoke the concept of mental disease or mental illness to explain it. After homosexuals made a big enough spectacle of themselves and showed their "strength in numbers" and successfully demanded at least a small measure of social acceptance, it was no longer necessary and no longer seemed appropriate to explain homosexuality as a disease.
A cross-cultural example is suicide. In many countries, such as the United States and Great Britain, a person who commits suicide or attempts to do so or even thinks about it seriously is considered mentally ill. However, this has not always been true throughout human history, nor is it true today in all cultures around the world. In his book Why Suicide?, psychologist Eustace Chesser points out that "Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism have any intrinsic objections to suicide and in some forms of Buddhism self-incineration is believed to confer special merit." He also points out that "The Celts scorned to wait for old age and enfeeblement. They believed that those who committed suicide before their powers waned went to heaven, and those who died of sickness or became senile went to hell - an interesting reversal of Christian doctrine" (Arrow Books Ltd., London, England, 1968, p. 121-122).
In his book Fighting Depression, psychiatrist Harvey M. Ross, M.D., points out that "Some cultures expect the wife to throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre" (Larchmont Books, 1975, p. 20). Probably the best known example of a society where suicide is socially acceptable is Japan. Rather than thinking of suicide or "hara-kiri" as the Japanese call it as almost always caused by a mental disease or illness, the Japanese in some circumstances consider suicide the normal, socially acceptable thing to do, such as when one "loses face" or is humiliated by some sort of failure.
Another example showing suicide is considered normal, not crazy, in Japanese eyes is the kamikaze pilots Japan used against the U.S. Navy in World War II. They were given enough fuel for a one-way trip, a suicide mission, to where the attacking U.S. Navy forces were located and deliberately crashed their airplanes into the enemy ships. There has never been an American kamikaze pilot, at least, none officially sponsored by the United States government. The reason for this is different attitudes about suicide in Japan and America. Could suicide be committed only by people with psychiatric illnesses in America and yet be performed by normal persons in Japan? Or is acceptance of suicide in Japan a failure or refusal to recognize the presence of psychological abnormalities which necessarily must be present for a person to voluntarily end his or her own life? Were the kamikaze pilots mentally ill, or did they and the society they come from simply have different values than we do?
Even in America, aren't virtually suicidal acts done for the sake of one's fellow soldiers or for one's country during wartime thought of not as insanity but as bravery? Why do we think of such persons as heros rather than lunatics? It seems we condemn (or "diagnose") suicidal people as crazy or mentally ill only when they end their own lives for selfish reasons (the "I can't take it any more" kind of reasons) rather than for the benefit of other people. The real issue seems to be selfishness rather than suicide.
What these examples show is that "mental illness" is simply deviance from what people want or expect in any particular society. "Mental illness" is anything in human mentality greatly disliked by the person describing it.
The situation was aptly summed up in an article in the November 1986 Omni magazine: "Disorders come and go. Even Sigmund Freud's concept of neurosis was dropped in the original DSM-III (1980). And in 1973 APA [American Psychiatric Association] trustees voted to wipe out almost all references to homosexuality as a disorder. Before the vote, being gay was considered a psychiatric problem. After the vote the disorder was relegated to psychiatry's attic. 'It's a matter of fashion,' says Dr. John Spiegel of Brandeis University, who was president of the APA in 1973, when the debate over homosexuality flared. 'And fashions keep changing'" (p. 30).
What is wrong with this approach is describing people as having a psychiatric "disease" or "illness" only because he or she doesn't match up with a supposed diagnostician's or with other people's idea of how a person "should" be in standards of dress, behavior, thinking, or opinion. When it involves violating the rights of others, nonconformity with social norms or values must be curbed or stopped with various measures, criminal law being one example. But calling nonconformity or disliked behavior a "disease" or assuming it must be caused by a disease only because it is unacceptable according to currently prevailing values makes no sense. What causes us to do this is not knowing the real reasons for the thinking, emotions, or behavior we dislike. When we don't understand the real reasons, we create myths to provide an explanation. Today most of us instead believe in the myth of mental illness.
Calling disapproved thinking, emotions, or behavior a mental illness might be excusable if mental illness was a useful myth, but it isn't. Rather than helping us deal with troubled or troublesome persons, the myth of mental illness distracts us from the real problems that need to be faced. Rather than being caused by a "chemical imbalance" or other biological problem, the nonconformity, misbehavior, and emotional reactions we call mental illness are the result of difficulties people have getting their needs met and the behavior some people have learned during their lifetimes. The solutions are teaching people how to get their needs met, how to behave, and using whatever powers of enforcement are needed to force people to respect the rights of others.
THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric "patients". He has published a series of pamphlets about various aspects of psychiatry, including psychiatric drugs, electroshock, and psychotherapy. His pamphlets are not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for distribution to those you think will benefit.
1996 UPDATE:
"... modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness." David Kaiser, M.D., Commentary: Against Biologic Psychiatry, December 1996 Psychiatric Times.
...there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder." From a letter dated December 4, 1998 by Loren R. Mosher, M.D., a psychiatrist, resigning from the American Psychiatric Association.
1999 UPDATES:
"... all 5 million to 6 million children on these drugs [for hyperactivity] are normal. The country's been led to believe that all painful emotions are a mental illness and the leadership of the APA [American Psychiatric Association] knows very well that they are representing it as a disease when there is no scientific data to confirm any mental illness." Neurologist Fred Baughman, quoted in Insight magazine, June 28, 1999, p. 13 (underline added).
...there is no evidence that these mental illnesses, such as ADHD, exist." Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, quoted in Insight magazine, June 28, 1999, p. 13. ADHD is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
2000 UPDATES:
"In medicine, strict criteria exist for calling a condition a disease. In addition to a predictable cluster of symptoms, the cause of the symptoms or some understanding of their physiology must be established. ... Psychiatry is unique among medical specialties in that... We do not yet have proof either of the cause or the physiology for any psychiatric diagnosis. ... In recent decades, we have had no shortage of alleged biochemical imbalances for psychiatric conditions. Diligent though these attempts have been, not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later proven false. ... No claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation." Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, in his book Prozac Backlash (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000), pages 192-193, page 196, and page 198.
2001 UPDATE:
"Remember that no biochemical, neurological, or genetic markers have been found for attention deficit disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, compulsive alcohol and drug abuse, overeating, gambling, or any other so-called mental illness, disease, or disorder." Bruce Levine, Ph.D. (psychologist), Commonsense Rebellion: Debunking Psychiatry, Confronting Society (Continuum, New York 2001), p. 277.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Inhuman Experimentation
For those who think the government would never experiment on innocent citizens:
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=188
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=188
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Neuroscientist states anti-psychotics are chemical lobotomy
http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/08/fda_approves_chemical_lobotomy.php
Neuro-scientist states anti-psychotics are chemical lobotomy. Who would know better than someone who sees the physical effects of anti-psychotics?
The studies cited by the FDA in approving Risperdal for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in children are discussed in this FDA report.
The FDA tells us the safety for schizophrenia was based on 3 studies. One was placebo-controlled (6 weeks), one low-dose controlled (8 weeks), and one open-label (6 months).
The safety for bipolar disorder was also based on 3 studies. One was placebo-controlled (3 weeks), one was the same "long-term" open-label study mentioned above (6 months), and one was a "pharmacokinetic" study (length of study not mentioned).
WHY DID THE FDA OMIT THE LENGTH OF THIS STUDY? THE ANSWER CAN BE FOUND IN ANOTHER FDA DOCUMENT:
"The population pharmacokinetic study was done in 472 children and adolescents patients, ages 6-18. Study durations were from 12-21 days."
THERE YOU HAVE IT:
AS LITTLE AS 12 DAYS! 3 WEEKS AT THE MOST!
This allows the FDA to declare with a straight face:
"There were no reports of tardive dyskinesia in the pediatric study populations."
If you want to see the real-world incidence of tardive dyskinesia caused by Risperal in children, you won't find it ANYWHERE on the FDA web site. But you will find a glimpse here.
For a real-world look at Risperdal prescribing patterns in a state Medicaid program, go here.
The above web page lists all 7,327 New Jersey Medicaid Risperdal prescriptions for children under age 18 written in 2006. The Risperdal prescriptions are sorted by age and dosage.
Note the number of children on Risperdal rises steadily until ages 11 or 12, then the numbers begin to decline. This is NOT because the number of children on antipsychotics begins to decline. Risperdal is the GATEWAY antipsychotic, but after a year or two the kids are often switched to a different antipsychotic (usually Seroquel or Abilify first, then Zyprexa or Geodon, and/or back to Risperdal later).
Meanwhile all sorts of other psychiatric drugs are thrown into the mix, and before you know it these kids are REALLY sick... thanks to the wonders of modern medicine, and thanks to all the doctors who write all the prescriptions, and thanks to all the taxpayers who foot the bill.
In October 2006 the FDA approved Risperdal for autistic irritability in children, based on two 8-week trials of 76 kids on Risperdal and 80 kids on placebo, detailed here:
Adverse Reaction Risperdal Placebo
Tremor 12% 1%
Dystonia 12% 6%
Automatism (tics) 7% 1%
Dyskinesia 7% 0%
Parkinsonism 8% 0%
Reviewing these trial results, I have a question:
How is it that 6% of the kids on placebo develop dystonia, while only 1% develop tremor? Can anyone out there offer possible explanations???
One more thing:
The average dose in the Risperdal autism trials was under 2mg/day. The FDA approved Risperdal for kids over age 5, 0.5 mg/day for 15-20 kg body weight, and 1mg/day for those over 20 kg. Look again at the New Jersey Medicaid prescriptions for Risperdal, and count the number of 2mg, 3mg and 4mg scrips. Not to mention all the kids under age 5 on doses ranging from 0.25mg to 3mg.
When the FDA approves a psychiatric drug at a certain dose for a certain age, history shows that doctors often ignore the FDA guidelines.
On the subject of Risperdal's pediatric dosage, the author of the FDA report had this to say:
"While I believe we should certainly label the drug with the information learned from the clinical trials, and even identify target doses of 3 mg/day for pediatric schizophrenia and 2.5 mg/day for pediatric bipolar I disorder, I think it would be too restrictive to the prescriber to limit the dose to a maximum when we know that doses up to 6 mg/day were also shown to be efficacious in the same studies that demonstrated efficacy for the lower dose ranges."
Yes that's what FDA Deputy Director, Dr. Mitchell V. Mathis really said. You can read his full report here.
Ben Hansen
Traverse City, Michigan
_________________________________________________________
Psychiatry is to medicine what astrology is to astronomy.
-- Leonard Roy Frank
Bonkers Institute for Nearly Genuine Research
www.bonkersinstitute.org
Posted by: Ben Hansen | August 28, 2007 11:05 AM
23
You sure know how to poke the hornet's nest, don't you, Mo? ;)
Seriously, I agree with you, for a practical reason I rarely see brought up, and I'll try to explain. We all have to learn to live in our own heads and develop coping strategies for our personal psychological difficulties. Putting kids on pharmaceuticals interferes with that painful process.
A weak analogy: my mother never allowed me to skip grades in school (or be homeschooled) because she didn't want me to miss out on socialization. Not because it was "fun", but because I would need those high school traumas later to navigate the adult world, where so many people have barely advanced past cliquishness and jealousy. I hated high school, and I'm very thankful it's over, but I'm also glad I got the skill set I did from it.
Similarly, I'm glad no one tried to put me on pharmaceuticals when young. My personality and brain were changing so fast, had they been perturbed by drugs, how would I have ever figured out what my "baseline" was, or how to recognize the signs that I was in trouble? Not all psychoactive drugs can be taken indefinitely; patients usually need to be weaned off and/or switched to different medications during their lives. Don't they need some sort of baseline experience of who they are without drugs, to calibrate their responses to those medications? Even if they can't live that way for their entire lives?
Obviously imminent suicide would be an exception, but I'd hate to see medicating children or teenagers become routine, and I fear it already has.
Posted by: bioephemera | August 30, 2007 9:56 AM
24
Very interesting discussion. My story is not about children, but I do have recent experience with the effects of Risperdal on a young adult.
My daughter (age 24) was put on Risperdal (shots and pills) for one week in one hospital. She was then released to me, and I drove her 200 miles to my home. During that drive she became less and less able to function, was shaking mildly and drooling profusely. In the morning she could not swallow and could barely speak, but indicated that she wanted a shower. She was able to walk to the bathroom and step into the shower, but she could not turn on the water and she certainly could not wash herself. All the while, drool was spilling in a steady and uncontrollable stream from her mouth, which she could not even close at this point.
I immediately transported her to the emergency room of a local hospital. The staff there were incredulous that she had not taken more than what was prescribed to her. The psychiatrist who had seen her two weeks before at that same hospital was shocked to see the terrible change in her condition. She immediately put her on cogentin and began the process of detoxifying her, which took well over a month.
The doctor pronounced my daughter allergic to Risperdal and gave her a totally different diagnosis than the doctor at the other hospital. It was at this point that that I began to reassess my trust in these doctors and their medications.
After the weeks she spent recovering, with new meds that did not appear so toxic to her, my daughter seemed very healthy, happy and pretty much back to her old self. But because of a prior suicide attempt, she was committed and transferred to the state mental hospital.
I drove 10 hours to that hospital to visit my daughter one week after her transfer. There I learned that a nurse practitioner had changed all her meds upon her arrival (a real doctor had not even seen her there!). Guess what they wanted to put her on: Risperdal. Thank goodness she was able to tell them that she was allergic to it and was not forced to take it again.
Neuro-scientist states anti-psychotics are chemical lobotomy. Who would know better than someone who sees the physical effects of anti-psychotics?
The studies cited by the FDA in approving Risperdal for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in children are discussed in this FDA report.
The FDA tells us the safety for schizophrenia was based on 3 studies. One was placebo-controlled (6 weeks), one low-dose controlled (8 weeks), and one open-label (6 months).
The safety for bipolar disorder was also based on 3 studies. One was placebo-controlled (3 weeks), one was the same "long-term" open-label study mentioned above (6 months), and one was a "pharmacokinetic" study (length of study not mentioned).
WHY DID THE FDA OMIT THE LENGTH OF THIS STUDY? THE ANSWER CAN BE FOUND IN ANOTHER FDA DOCUMENT:
"The population pharmacokinetic study was done in 472 children and adolescents patients, ages 6-18. Study durations were from 12-21 days."
THERE YOU HAVE IT:
AS LITTLE AS 12 DAYS! 3 WEEKS AT THE MOST!
This allows the FDA to declare with a straight face:
"There were no reports of tardive dyskinesia in the pediatric study populations."
If you want to see the real-world incidence of tardive dyskinesia caused by Risperal in children, you won't find it ANYWHERE on the FDA web site. But you will find a glimpse here.
For a real-world look at Risperdal prescribing patterns in a state Medicaid program, go here.
The above web page lists all 7,327 New Jersey Medicaid Risperdal prescriptions for children under age 18 written in 2006. The Risperdal prescriptions are sorted by age and dosage.
Note the number of children on Risperdal rises steadily until ages 11 or 12, then the numbers begin to decline. This is NOT because the number of children on antipsychotics begins to decline. Risperdal is the GATEWAY antipsychotic, but after a year or two the kids are often switched to a different antipsychotic (usually Seroquel or Abilify first, then Zyprexa or Geodon, and/or back to Risperdal later).
Meanwhile all sorts of other psychiatric drugs are thrown into the mix, and before you know it these kids are REALLY sick... thanks to the wonders of modern medicine, and thanks to all the doctors who write all the prescriptions, and thanks to all the taxpayers who foot the bill.
In October 2006 the FDA approved Risperdal for autistic irritability in children, based on two 8-week trials of 76 kids on Risperdal and 80 kids on placebo, detailed here:
Adverse Reaction Risperdal Placebo
Tremor 12% 1%
Dystonia 12% 6%
Automatism (tics) 7% 1%
Dyskinesia 7% 0%
Parkinsonism 8% 0%
Reviewing these trial results, I have a question:
How is it that 6% of the kids on placebo develop dystonia, while only 1% develop tremor? Can anyone out there offer possible explanations???
One more thing:
The average dose in the Risperdal autism trials was under 2mg/day. The FDA approved Risperdal for kids over age 5, 0.5 mg/day for 15-20 kg body weight, and 1mg/day for those over 20 kg. Look again at the New Jersey Medicaid prescriptions for Risperdal, and count the number of 2mg, 3mg and 4mg scrips. Not to mention all the kids under age 5 on doses ranging from 0.25mg to 3mg.
When the FDA approves a psychiatric drug at a certain dose for a certain age, history shows that doctors often ignore the FDA guidelines.
On the subject of Risperdal's pediatric dosage, the author of the FDA report had this to say:
"While I believe we should certainly label the drug with the information learned from the clinical trials, and even identify target doses of 3 mg/day for pediatric schizophrenia and 2.5 mg/day for pediatric bipolar I disorder, I think it would be too restrictive to the prescriber to limit the dose to a maximum when we know that doses up to 6 mg/day were also shown to be efficacious in the same studies that demonstrated efficacy for the lower dose ranges."
Yes that's what FDA Deputy Director, Dr. Mitchell V. Mathis really said. You can read his full report here.
Ben Hansen
Traverse City, Michigan
_________________________________________________________
Psychiatry is to medicine what astrology is to astronomy.
-- Leonard Roy Frank
Bonkers Institute for Nearly Genuine Research
www.bonkersinstitute.org
Posted by: Ben Hansen | August 28, 2007 11:05 AM
23
You sure know how to poke the hornet's nest, don't you, Mo? ;)
Seriously, I agree with you, for a practical reason I rarely see brought up, and I'll try to explain. We all have to learn to live in our own heads and develop coping strategies for our personal psychological difficulties. Putting kids on pharmaceuticals interferes with that painful process.
A weak analogy: my mother never allowed me to skip grades in school (or be homeschooled) because she didn't want me to miss out on socialization. Not because it was "fun", but because I would need those high school traumas later to navigate the adult world, where so many people have barely advanced past cliquishness and jealousy. I hated high school, and I'm very thankful it's over, but I'm also glad I got the skill set I did from it.
Similarly, I'm glad no one tried to put me on pharmaceuticals when young. My personality and brain were changing so fast, had they been perturbed by drugs, how would I have ever figured out what my "baseline" was, or how to recognize the signs that I was in trouble? Not all psychoactive drugs can be taken indefinitely; patients usually need to be weaned off and/or switched to different medications during their lives. Don't they need some sort of baseline experience of who they are without drugs, to calibrate their responses to those medications? Even if they can't live that way for their entire lives?
Obviously imminent suicide would be an exception, but I'd hate to see medicating children or teenagers become routine, and I fear it already has.
Posted by: bioephemera | August 30, 2007 9:56 AM
24
Very interesting discussion. My story is not about children, but I do have recent experience with the effects of Risperdal on a young adult.
My daughter (age 24) was put on Risperdal (shots and pills) for one week in one hospital. She was then released to me, and I drove her 200 miles to my home. During that drive she became less and less able to function, was shaking mildly and drooling profusely. In the morning she could not swallow and could barely speak, but indicated that she wanted a shower. She was able to walk to the bathroom and step into the shower, but she could not turn on the water and she certainly could not wash herself. All the while, drool was spilling in a steady and uncontrollable stream from her mouth, which she could not even close at this point.
I immediately transported her to the emergency room of a local hospital. The staff there were incredulous that she had not taken more than what was prescribed to her. The psychiatrist who had seen her two weeks before at that same hospital was shocked to see the terrible change in her condition. She immediately put her on cogentin and began the process of detoxifying her, which took well over a month.
The doctor pronounced my daughter allergic to Risperdal and gave her a totally different diagnosis than the doctor at the other hospital. It was at this point that that I began to reassess my trust in these doctors and their medications.
After the weeks she spent recovering, with new meds that did not appear so toxic to her, my daughter seemed very healthy, happy and pretty much back to her old self. But because of a prior suicide attempt, she was committed and transferred to the state mental hospital.
I drove 10 hours to that hospital to visit my daughter one week after her transfer. There I learned that a nurse practitioner had changed all her meds upon her arrival (a real doctor had not even seen her there!). Guess what they wanted to put her on: Risperdal. Thank goodness she was able to tell them that she was allergic to it and was not forced to take it again.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Microchip Mind Control
Microchip Mind Control,
Implants And Cybernetics
12-6-1
Actual 1974 Congressional Testimony of Dr. Jose Delgado -
"We need a program of PSYCHOSURGERY for POLITICAL CONTROL of our society. The purpose is PHISICAL CONTROL OF THE MIND. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be SURGICALLY MUTILATED.
"The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective.
"Man does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must ELECTRICALLY CONTROL THE BRAIN. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain."
Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado Director of Neuropsychiatry Yale University Medical School Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118 February 24, 1974
(Author of "PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE MIND" 1969)
Implants And Cybernetics
12-6-1
Actual 1974 Congressional Testimony of Dr. Jose Delgado -
"We need a program of PSYCHOSURGERY for POLITICAL CONTROL of our society. The purpose is PHISICAL CONTROL OF THE MIND. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be SURGICALLY MUTILATED.
"The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective.
"Man does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must ELECTRICALLY CONTROL THE BRAIN. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain."
Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado Director of Neuropsychiatry Yale University Medical School Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118 February 24, 1974
(Author of "PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE MIND" 1969)
Psychiatrist uses antipsychotics as a chemical lobotomy to the brain. Science now shows that antipsychotics shrinks the frontal lobe of the brain.
Frontal Lobe
The frontal lobe:
==> Controls impulses
==> Controls judgment
==> Language production
==> Working memory
==> Motor function
==> Working the memory
==> Problem solving
==> Socialization
==> Spontaneities
==> Planning
==> Coordination
==> Controlling
==> Executing behavior
People who damage the frontal lobe might be unable to plan or make good judgments, and some people believe damage to this area causes most brain defects.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_brain's_frontal_lobe_do#ixzz1VgSZPWEP
The longer you stay on it, the harder to go off it. If you used it for awhile, it will become impossible to go off it. They become drug addicts with serious side effects. Psychiatrist uses antipsychotics really as a social control! Use antipsychotics no more than a month! After that,a psychiatrist should prescribe a psychologist.
Psychiatrist invented "schizophrenia" to describe people who are emotionally overwhelmed. Schizophrenia is a healing process of the brain once the brain could not process all the infomation. It is like a crash in a computer and schizophrenia is the rebooting of the compute
Read more: Schizophrenia Forum - Do Antipsychotic drugs increase psychosis ? http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic119401.html#b#ixzz1VgRwDv9m
Frontal Lobe
The frontal lobe:
==> Controls impulses
==> Controls judgment
==> Language production
==> Working memory
==> Motor function
==> Working the memory
==> Problem solving
==> Socialization
==> Spontaneities
==> Planning
==> Coordination
==> Controlling
==> Executing behavior
People who damage the frontal lobe might be unable to plan or make good judgments, and some people believe damage to this area causes most brain defects.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_brain's_frontal_lobe_do#ixzz1VgSZPWEP
The longer you stay on it, the harder to go off it. If you used it for awhile, it will become impossible to go off it. They become drug addicts with serious side effects. Psychiatrist uses antipsychotics really as a social control! Use antipsychotics no more than a month! After that,a psychiatrist should prescribe a psychologist.
Psychiatrist invented "schizophrenia" to describe people who are emotionally overwhelmed. Schizophrenia is a healing process of the brain once the brain could not process all the infomation. It is like a crash in a computer and schizophrenia is the rebooting of the compute
Read more: Schizophrenia Forum - Do Antipsychotic drugs increase psychosis ? http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic119401.html#b#ixzz1VgRwDv9m
Thursday, August 18, 2011
I Have Become an Experiment
I remember when my poor mother had a heart attack and was code blue. She was flown by helicopter to a hospital specializing in heart surgeries. Somewhere along the way, she was overdosed on a medication, which caused her to have a stroke.
The hospital then began experimenting on her. The doctor in charge began giving her dilantin by injection. Dilantin is an anti-seizure medication. After a week of this, she was no better, but was in intense pain. When the doctor was asked why she curled into the fetal position everytime the drug was injected into her, he replied "The Dilantin is an abrasive drug and as she has just had heart surgery, it is creating pain." When we asked if it would not be better for her to take a pill, he turned on his heel and walked away, refusing to answer.
That did it for my youngest sister and me. We got her out of that hell hole. Now, here I find myself in the same hell hole, but, with no one to help me.
The hospital then began experimenting on her. The doctor in charge began giving her dilantin by injection. Dilantin is an anti-seizure medication. After a week of this, she was no better, but was in intense pain. When the doctor was asked why she curled into the fetal position everytime the drug was injected into her, he replied "The Dilantin is an abrasive drug and as she has just had heart surgery, it is creating pain." When we asked if it would not be better for her to take a pill, he turned on his heel and walked away, refusing to answer.
That did it for my youngest sister and me. We got her out of that hell hole. Now, here I find myself in the same hell hole, but, with no one to help me.
FDA report on brain implant
If you read my earlier post about a patient reporting electric shocks from a Vagus Nerve Stimulator implant, you might have noticed that the FDA said no harm was done to the patient.
No harm! For months that patient, if like me, was unable to enjoy a normal life. For months, that patient had buzzing, ringing in their ears/head from the device. For months, that patient had jolts to the heart, causing permanent, irreparable damage to the heart--lesions on the Vagus Nerve.
How many lies will be told to the American public to sell these devices?
No harm! For months that patient, if like me, was unable to enjoy a normal life. For months, that patient had buzzing, ringing in their ears/head from the device. For months, that patient had jolts to the heart, causing permanent, irreparable damage to the heart--lesions on the Vagus Nerve.
How many lies will be told to the American public to sell these devices?
Buzzing in Ears
I can not focus on a task for any length of time. I can not exercise with out my heart racing and palpitating. Everything that I enjoy doing in life has been taken away from me. Why?
Ears Still Buzzing Today
Someone in this world must hate me very much to cause me all of this physical, emotional, and mental pain.
I would like to tell you a few things.
God made me the way I am. God gives all people FREE WILL. He wants all men (meaning men, women, and children) to repent and come to HIM. But, He doesn't force anyone to do that.
When human beings try to forcefully change another person, they are putting themselves above God.
1. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the brain. There is no blood test, no xray, no CT, no MRI, etc. that will show a chemical imbalance. This is a theory, just like evolution is a theory without any concrete evidence.
That is a bunch of hype that pharmaceutical companies have paid psychiatrists to say so they can sell drugs.
2. The drugs and brain implants change the brain--but, is that a good thing? No. The side effects include cancer, stroke, hypertension, infection, and, in effect, you are taking away an innate part of that person's personality--that God gave them, so that YOU can control them.
3. God will punish those who set themselves above God. When a person messes around with someone else's brain, to try and change their personality, that is setting themselves above God--whether that person be a lay person, a psychiatrist, a surgeon, a police officer, whatever.
4. I believe in mental therapy--that is talking about one's problems and looking for solutions. But, trying to change the personality through drugs and surgery is wrong, wrong, wrong.
5. Only God can change the heart. (the heart is used as a metaphor for thinking in the Bible--not talking about the physical heart). http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/God.Can.Change.A.Heart.html
Who opposeth - That is, he is distinguished as an opposer of the great system which God has revealed for human salvation, and of those who would serve God in purity in the gospel of his Son.
And exalteth himself above all that is called God - That is, whether among the pagans or the Jews; above a false God, or the true God. This could be true only of one who set aside the divine laws; who undertook to legislate where God only has a right to legislate, and whose legislation was contrary to that of God.
Any claim of a dominion over conscience; or any arrangement to set aside the divine laws, and to render them nugatory, would correspond with what is implied in this description. It cannot be supposed that any one would openly claim to be superior to God, but the sense must be, that the enactments and ordinances of the "man of sin" would pertain to the province in which God only can legislate, and that the ordinances made by him would be such as to render nugatory the divine laws, by appointing others in their place.
So that he, as God - That is, claiming the honors due to God. This expression would not imply that he actually claimed to be the true God, but only that he sits in the temple, and manifests himself as if he were God. He claims such honors and such reverence as the true God would if he should appear in human form.
Showing himself that he is God - This does not necessarily mean that he actually, in so many words, claimed to be God; but that he usurped the place of God, and claimed the prerogatives of God. If the names of God are given to him, or are claimed by him; if he receives the honors due to God; if he asserts a dominion like that of God, then all that the language fairly implies will be fulfilled.
The temple of God, as understood in the New Testament, is the body of man. Anyone who tries to control another human being is trying to control the temple of God, therefore, he is acting as if he were God.
I would like to tell you a few things.
God made me the way I am. God gives all people FREE WILL. He wants all men (meaning men, women, and children) to repent and come to HIM. But, He doesn't force anyone to do that.
When human beings try to forcefully change another person, they are putting themselves above God.
1. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the brain. There is no blood test, no xray, no CT, no MRI, etc. that will show a chemical imbalance. This is a theory, just like evolution is a theory without any concrete evidence.
That is a bunch of hype that pharmaceutical companies have paid psychiatrists to say so they can sell drugs.
2. The drugs and brain implants change the brain--but, is that a good thing? No. The side effects include cancer, stroke, hypertension, infection, and, in effect, you are taking away an innate part of that person's personality--that God gave them, so that YOU can control them.
3. God will punish those who set themselves above God. When a person messes around with someone else's brain, to try and change their personality, that is setting themselves above God--whether that person be a lay person, a psychiatrist, a surgeon, a police officer, whatever.
4. I believe in mental therapy--that is talking about one's problems and looking for solutions. But, trying to change the personality through drugs and surgery is wrong, wrong, wrong.
5. Only God can change the heart. (the heart is used as a metaphor for thinking in the Bible--not talking about the physical heart). http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/God.Can.Change.A.Heart.html
Who opposeth - That is, he is distinguished as an opposer of the great system which God has revealed for human salvation, and of those who would serve God in purity in the gospel of his Son.
And exalteth himself above all that is called God - That is, whether among the pagans or the Jews; above a false God, or the true God. This could be true only of one who set aside the divine laws; who undertook to legislate where God only has a right to legislate, and whose legislation was contrary to that of God.
Any claim of a dominion over conscience; or any arrangement to set aside the divine laws, and to render them nugatory, would correspond with what is implied in this description. It cannot be supposed that any one would openly claim to be superior to God, but the sense must be, that the enactments and ordinances of the "man of sin" would pertain to the province in which God only can legislate, and that the ordinances made by him would be such as to render nugatory the divine laws, by appointing others in their place.
So that he, as God - That is, claiming the honors due to God. This expression would not imply that he actually claimed to be the true God, but only that he sits in the temple, and manifests himself as if he were God. He claims such honors and such reverence as the true God would if he should appear in human form.
Showing himself that he is God - This does not necessarily mean that he actually, in so many words, claimed to be God; but that he usurped the place of God, and claimed the prerogatives of God. If the names of God are given to him, or are claimed by him; if he receives the honors due to God; if he asserts a dominion like that of God, then all that the language fairly implies will be fulfilled.
The temple of God, as understood in the New Testament, is the body of man. Anyone who tries to control another human being is trying to control the temple of God, therefore, he is acting as if he were God.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Ears are Buzzing Today
Tried wearing ear plugs to minimize noise. It worked, but may have caused ear infection.
Now, I am on antibiotics. My ears are buzzing so loud. Unless you have dealt with this, you can't imagine the physical and emotional pain it can cause.
God please help me.
Now, I am on antibiotics. My ears are buzzing so loud. Unless you have dealt with this, you can't imagine the physical and emotional pain it can cause.
God please help me.
Health Problems Began December 2010
My health problems began December 2010, when every finger and toe, overnight, swelled to 1 1/2 x it's normal size--looking like Smokey Link Sausages and every finger and toe had at least one, some two to three, bony nodes. The swelling went away, the nodes didn't.
Then, in March 2011, I awoke with a deep, bass-sounding buzzing at the base of my skull. Touching a metal medicine cabinet, I felt electrical currents running from my fingers to my elbows and from my toes to my knees, and up and down my spine. The buzzing went away to be replaced with constant electrical sounding noise in my ears, that at first was beep-beep-beep, which began to fade into the background. The foreground sound, now sounds like a computer running all the time. IT DRIVES ME CRAZY! Next, came electrical jolts to my heart, awakening me every two hours; these also went down into my abdomen with a feeling of a nerve quivering from my heart to my abdomen.
I used to be able to walk 6-8 miles a day--back in March 2011--before all this began. Now, when I attempt to walk, electrical currents start racing through my body causing my heart to race and palpitate.
I am so sad over this most of the time. It has ruined my life. The things that I enjoy doing most in life, I can no longer do--hiking, swimming, bike-riding, tennis, etc.
I don't sleep well, awakening sometimes every 2 to 3 hours. On a good night, I awaken every 4 hours.
I would give all the money that I have in the world (which isn't much) to make this noise in my ears and the weird electric currents running through my body, go away.
Then, in March 2011, I awoke with a deep, bass-sounding buzzing at the base of my skull. Touching a metal medicine cabinet, I felt electrical currents running from my fingers to my elbows and from my toes to my knees, and up and down my spine. The buzzing went away to be replaced with constant electrical sounding noise in my ears, that at first was beep-beep-beep, which began to fade into the background. The foreground sound, now sounds like a computer running all the time. IT DRIVES ME CRAZY! Next, came electrical jolts to my heart, awakening me every two hours; these also went down into my abdomen with a feeling of a nerve quivering from my heart to my abdomen.
I used to be able to walk 6-8 miles a day--back in March 2011--before all this began. Now, when I attempt to walk, electrical currents start racing through my body causing my heart to race and palpitate.
I am so sad over this most of the time. It has ruined my life. The things that I enjoy doing most in life, I can no longer do--hiking, swimming, bike-riding, tennis, etc.
I don't sleep well, awakening sometimes every 2 to 3 hours. On a good night, I awaken every 4 hours.
I would give all the money that I have in the world (which isn't much) to make this noise in my ears and the weird electric currents running through my body, go away.
The device in question is a Vagus Nerve Stimulator that is implanted within the patient to give electrical stimulation to the Vagus Nerve. The Vagus Nerve is one of the longest nerves in the body, running from the brain to the heart and down to the abdomen. This is a fairly new device and is being used to treat everything from epilepsy to depression.
Funny, the patient who reported problems with the VNS device had many of the same symptoms I have complained about --
Electrical current/shock sensations through body--from heart down to abdomen.
MAUDE Adverse Event Report
510(k) | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA
CYBERONICS DEMIPULSE CYBERONICS VNS PULSE GENERATOR Back to Search Results
Event Date 01/05/2011
Event Type No Answer Provided
Event Description
Explantation of cyberonics vns demipulse model 103 from left upper anterior chest due to malfunction. Patient reported shock-like sensation on the site extending up to the neck and down to left arm and left upper abdomen. Patient did not experience permanent harm.
Search Alerts/Recalls
New Search | Submit an Adverse Event Report
Brand Name DEMIPULSE
Type of Device CYBERONICS VNS PULSE GENERATOR
Manufacturer (Section F)
CYBERONICS
100 Cyberonics Blvd.
Houston TX 77058
Manufacturer (Section D)
CYBERONICS
100 Cyberonics Blvd.
Houston TX 77058
Device Event Key 2092423
MDR Report Key 2061420
Event Key 1958396
Report Number 2061420
Device Sequence Number 1
Product Code LYJ
Report Source User Facility
Reporter Occupation RISK MANAGER
Type of Report Initial
Report Date 03/08/2011
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received 04/07/2011
Is This An Adverse Event Report? No
Is This A Product Problem Report? No
Device Operator Physician
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? No Answer Provided
Was the Report Sent to FDA? Yes
Date Report Sent to FDA 04/07/2011
Event Location Hospital
Is the Device an Implant? Yes
Is this an Explanted Device? No Answer Provided
Patient TREATMENT DATA
Date Received: 04/07/2011 Patient Sequence Number: 1
# Treatment Treatment Date
1,NOT KNOWN
Funny, the patient who reported problems with the VNS device had many of the same symptoms I have complained about --
Electrical current/shock sensations through body--from heart down to abdomen.
MAUDE Adverse Event Report
510(k) | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA
CYBERONICS DEMIPULSE CYBERONICS VNS PULSE GENERATOR Back to Search Results
Event Date 01/05/2011
Event Type No Answer Provided
Event Description
Explantation of cyberonics vns demipulse model 103 from left upper anterior chest due to malfunction. Patient reported shock-like sensation on the site extending up to the neck and down to left arm and left upper abdomen. Patient did not experience permanent harm.
Search Alerts/Recalls
New Search | Submit an Adverse Event Report
Brand Name DEMIPULSE
Type of Device CYBERONICS VNS PULSE GENERATOR
Manufacturer (Section F)
CYBERONICS
100 Cyberonics Blvd.
Houston TX 77058
Manufacturer (Section D)
CYBERONICS
100 Cyberonics Blvd.
Houston TX 77058
Device Event Key 2092423
MDR Report Key 2061420
Event Key 1958396
Report Number 2061420
Device Sequence Number 1
Product Code LYJ
Report Source User Facility
Reporter Occupation RISK MANAGER
Type of Report Initial
Report Date 03/08/2011
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received 04/07/2011
Is This An Adverse Event Report? No
Is This A Product Problem Report? No
Device Operator Physician
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? No Answer Provided
Was the Report Sent to FDA? Yes
Date Report Sent to FDA 04/07/2011
Event Location Hospital
Is the Device an Implant? Yes
Is this an Explanted Device? No Answer Provided
Patient TREATMENT DATA
Date Received: 04/07/2011 Patient Sequence Number: 1
# Treatment Treatment Date
1,NOT KNOWN
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Microchip Implants, Mind Control, and Cybernetics
By Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, MD
Former Chief Medical Officer of Finland
December 6, 2000
From: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/microchip_implants_mind_control.htm
In 1948 Norbert Weiner published a book, Cybernetics, defined as a neurological communication and control theory already in use in small circles at that time. Yoneji Masuda, "Father of the Information Society," stated his concern in 1980 that our liberty is threatened Orwellian-style by cybernetic technology totally unknown to most people. This technology links the brains of people via implanted microchips to satellites controlled by ground-based supercomputers.
The first brain implants were surgically inserted in 1974 in the state of Ohio, USA and also in Stockholm, Sweden. Brain electrodes were inserted into the skulls of babies in 1946 without the knowledge of their parents. In the 1950s and 60s, electrical implants were inserted into the brains of animals and humans, especially in the U.S., during research into behavior modification, and brain and body functioning. Mind control (MC) methods were used in attempts to change human behavior and attitudes. Influencing brain functions became an important goal of military and intelligence services.
Thirty years ago brain implants showed up in X-rays the size of one centimeter. Subsequent implants shrunk to the size of a grain of rice. They were made of silicon, later still of gallium arsenide. Today they are small enough to be inserted into the neck or back, and also intravenously in different parts of the body during surgical operations, with or without the consent of the subject. It is now almost impossible to detect or remove them.
It is technically possible for every newborn to be injected with a microchip, which could then function to identify the person for the rest of his or her life. Such plans are secretly being discussed in the U.S. without any public airing of the privacy issues involved. In Sweden, Prime Minister Olof Palme gave permission in 1973 to implant prisoners, and Data Inspection's ex-Director General Jan Freese revealed that nursing-home patients were implanted in the mid-1980s. The technology is revealed in the 1972:47 Swedish state report, Statens Officiella Utradninger (SOU).
Implanted human beings can be followed anywhere. Their brain functions can be remotely monitored by supercomputers and even altered through the changing of frequencies. Guinea pigs in secret experiments have included prisoners, soldiers, mental patients, handicapped children, deaf and blind people, homosexuals, single women, the elderly, school children, and any group of people considered "marginal" by the elite experimenters. The published experiences of prisoners in Utah State Prison, for example, are shocking to the conscience.
Today's microchips operate by means of low-frequency radio waves that target them. With the help of satellites, the implanted person can be tracked anywhere on the globe. Such a technique was among a number tested in the Iraq war, according to Dr. Carl Sanders, who invented the intelligence-manned interface (IMI) biotic, which is injected into people. (Earlier during the Vietnam War, soldiers were injected with the Rambo chip, designed to increase adrenaline flow into the bloodstream.) The 20-billion-bit/second supercomputers at the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) could now "see and hear" what soldiers experience in the battlefield with a remote monitoring system (RMS).
When a 5-micromillimeter microchip (the diameter of a strand of hair is 50 micromillimeters) is placed into optical nerve of the eye, it draws neuroimpulses from the brain that embody the experiences, smells, sights, and voice of the implanted person. Once transferred and stored in a computer, these neuroimpulses can be projected back to the person’s brain via the microchip to be reexperienced. Using a RMS, a land-based computer operator can send electromagnetic messages (encoded as signals) to the nervous system, affecting the target's performance. With RMS, healthy persons can be induced to see hallucinations and to hear voices in their heads.
Every thought, reaction, hearing, and visual observation causes a certain neurological potential, spikes, and patterns in the brain and its electromagnetic fields, which can now be decoded into thoughts, pictures, and voices. Electromagnetic stimulation can therefore change a person's brainwaves and affect muscular activity, causing painful muscular cramps experienced as torture.
The NSA's electronic surveillance system can simultaneously follow and handle millions of people. Each of us has a unique bioelectrical resonance frequency in the brain, just as we have unique fingerprints. With electromagnetic frequency (EMF) brain stimulation fully coded, pulsating electromagnetic signals can be sent to the brain, causing the desired voice and visual effects to be experienced by the target. This is a form of electronic warfare. U.S. astronauts were implanted before they were sent into space so their thoughts could be followed and all their emotions could be registered 24 hours a day.
The Washington Post reported in May 1995 that Prince William of Great Britain was implanted at the age of 12. Thus, if he were ever kidnapped, a radio wave with a specific frequency could be targeted to his microchip. The chip’s signal would be routed through a satellite to the computer screen of police headquarters, where the Prince’s movements could be followed. He could actually be located anywhere on the globe.
The mass media has not reported that an implanted person's privacy vanishes for the rest of his or her life. S/he can be manipulated in many ways. Using different frequencies, the secret controller of this equipment can even change a person's emotional life. S/he can be made aggressive or lethargic. Sexuality can be artificially influenced. Thought signals and subconscious thinking can be read, dreams affected and even induced, all without the knowledge or consent of the implanted person.
A perfect cyber-soldier can thus be created. This secret technology has been used by military forces in certain NATO countries since the 1980s without civilian and academic populations having heard anything about it. Thus, little information about such invasive mind-control systems is available in professional and academic journals.
The NSA's Signals Intelligence group can remotely monitor information from human brains by decoding the evoked potentials (3.50HZ, 5 milliwatt) emitted by the brain. Prisoner experimentees in both Gothenburg, Sweden and Vienna, Austria have been found to have evident brain lesions. Diminished blood circulation and lack of oxygen in the right temporal frontal lobes result where brain implants are usually operative. A Finnish experimentee experienced brain atrophy and intermittent attacks of unconsciousness due to lack of oxygen.
Mind control techniques can be used for political purposes. The goal of mind controllers today is to induce the targeted persons or groups to act against his or her own convictions and best interests. Zombified individuals can even be programmed to murder and remember nothing of their crime afterward. Alarming examples of this phenomenon can be found in the U.S.
This “silent war” is being conducted against unknowing civilians and soldiers by military and intelligence agencies. Since 1980, electronic stimulation of the brain (ESB) has been secretly used to control people targeted without their knowledge or consent. All international human rights agreements forbid nonconsensual manipulation of human beings — even in prisons, not to speak of civilian populations.
Under an initiative of U.S. Senator John Glenn, discussions commenced in January 1997 about the dangers of radiating civilian populations. Targeting people’s brain functions with electromagnetic fields and beams (from helicopters and airplanes, satellites, from parked vans, neighboring houses, telephone poles, electrical appliances, mobile phones, TV, radio, etc.) is part of the radiation problem that should be addressed in democratically elected government bodies.
In addition to electronic MC, chemical methods have also been developed. Mind-altering drugs and different smelling gasses affecting brain function negatively can be injected into air ducts or water pipes. Bacteria and viruses have also been tested this way in several countries.
Today's supertechnology, connecting our brain functions via microchips (or even without them, according to the latest technology) to computers via satellites in the U.S. or Israel, poses the gravest threat to humanity. The latest supercomputers are powerful enough to monitor the whole world’s population. What will happen when people are tempted by false premises to allow microchips into their bodies? One lure will be a microchip identity card. Compulsory legislation has even been secretly proposed in the U.S. to criminalize removal of an ID implant.
Are we ready for the robotization of mankind and the total elimination of privacy, including freedom of thought? How many of us would want to cede our entire life, including our most secret thoughts, to Big Brother? Yet the technology exists to create a totalitarian New World Order. Covert neurological communication systems are in place to counteract independent thinking and to control social and political activity on behalf of self-serving private and military interests.
When our brain functions are already connected to supercomputers by means of radio implants and microchips, it will be too late for protest. This threat can be defeated only by educating the public, using available literature on biotelemetry and information exchanged at international congresses.
One reason this technology has remained a state secret is the widespread prestige of the psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV produced by the U.S. American Psychiatric Association (APA) and printed in 18 languages. Psychiatrists working for U.S. intelligence agencies no doubt participated in writing and revising this manual. This psychiatric "bible" covers up the secret development of MC technologies by labeling some of their effects as symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia.
Victims of mind control experimentation are thus routinely diagnosed, knee-jerk fashion, as mentally ill by doctors who learned the DSM “symptom” list in medical school. Physicians have not been schooled that patients may be telling the truth when they report being targeted against their will or being used as guinea pigs for electronic, chemical and bacteriological forms of psychological warfare.
Time is running out for changing the direction of military medicine, and ensuring the future of human freedom.
This article was originally published in the 36th-year edition of the Finnish-language journal SPEKULA (3rd Quarter, 1999). SPEKULA (circulation 6500) is a publication of Northern Finland medical students and doctors of Oulu University OLK (Oulun Laaketieteellinen Kilta). It is mailed to all medical students of Finland and all Northern Finland medical doctors.
Read more: http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_societies/Conspiracies/NWO/microchip_implants.htm#ixzz1Uy4YiIVz
By Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, MD
Former Chief Medical Officer of Finland
December 6, 2000
From: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/microchip_implants_mind_control.htm
In 1948 Norbert Weiner published a book, Cybernetics, defined as a neurological communication and control theory already in use in small circles at that time. Yoneji Masuda, "Father of the Information Society," stated his concern in 1980 that our liberty is threatened Orwellian-style by cybernetic technology totally unknown to most people. This technology links the brains of people via implanted microchips to satellites controlled by ground-based supercomputers.
The first brain implants were surgically inserted in 1974 in the state of Ohio, USA and also in Stockholm, Sweden. Brain electrodes were inserted into the skulls of babies in 1946 without the knowledge of their parents. In the 1950s and 60s, electrical implants were inserted into the brains of animals and humans, especially in the U.S., during research into behavior modification, and brain and body functioning. Mind control (MC) methods were used in attempts to change human behavior and attitudes. Influencing brain functions became an important goal of military and intelligence services.
Thirty years ago brain implants showed up in X-rays the size of one centimeter. Subsequent implants shrunk to the size of a grain of rice. They were made of silicon, later still of gallium arsenide. Today they are small enough to be inserted into the neck or back, and also intravenously in different parts of the body during surgical operations, with or without the consent of the subject. It is now almost impossible to detect or remove them.
It is technically possible for every newborn to be injected with a microchip, which could then function to identify the person for the rest of his or her life. Such plans are secretly being discussed in the U.S. without any public airing of the privacy issues involved. In Sweden, Prime Minister Olof Palme gave permission in 1973 to implant prisoners, and Data Inspection's ex-Director General Jan Freese revealed that nursing-home patients were implanted in the mid-1980s. The technology is revealed in the 1972:47 Swedish state report, Statens Officiella Utradninger (SOU).
Implanted human beings can be followed anywhere. Their brain functions can be remotely monitored by supercomputers and even altered through the changing of frequencies. Guinea pigs in secret experiments have included prisoners, soldiers, mental patients, handicapped children, deaf and blind people, homosexuals, single women, the elderly, school children, and any group of people considered "marginal" by the elite experimenters. The published experiences of prisoners in Utah State Prison, for example, are shocking to the conscience.
Today's microchips operate by means of low-frequency radio waves that target them. With the help of satellites, the implanted person can be tracked anywhere on the globe. Such a technique was among a number tested in the Iraq war, according to Dr. Carl Sanders, who invented the intelligence-manned interface (IMI) biotic, which is injected into people. (Earlier during the Vietnam War, soldiers were injected with the Rambo chip, designed to increase adrenaline flow into the bloodstream.) The 20-billion-bit/second supercomputers at the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) could now "see and hear" what soldiers experience in the battlefield with a remote monitoring system (RMS).
When a 5-micromillimeter microchip (the diameter of a strand of hair is 50 micromillimeters) is placed into optical nerve of the eye, it draws neuroimpulses from the brain that embody the experiences, smells, sights, and voice of the implanted person. Once transferred and stored in a computer, these neuroimpulses can be projected back to the person’s brain via the microchip to be reexperienced. Using a RMS, a land-based computer operator can send electromagnetic messages (encoded as signals) to the nervous system, affecting the target's performance. With RMS, healthy persons can be induced to see hallucinations and to hear voices in their heads.
Every thought, reaction, hearing, and visual observation causes a certain neurological potential, spikes, and patterns in the brain and its electromagnetic fields, which can now be decoded into thoughts, pictures, and voices. Electromagnetic stimulation can therefore change a person's brainwaves and affect muscular activity, causing painful muscular cramps experienced as torture.
The NSA's electronic surveillance system can simultaneously follow and handle millions of people. Each of us has a unique bioelectrical resonance frequency in the brain, just as we have unique fingerprints. With electromagnetic frequency (EMF) brain stimulation fully coded, pulsating electromagnetic signals can be sent to the brain, causing the desired voice and visual effects to be experienced by the target. This is a form of electronic warfare. U.S. astronauts were implanted before they were sent into space so their thoughts could be followed and all their emotions could be registered 24 hours a day.
The Washington Post reported in May 1995 that Prince William of Great Britain was implanted at the age of 12. Thus, if he were ever kidnapped, a radio wave with a specific frequency could be targeted to his microchip. The chip’s signal would be routed through a satellite to the computer screen of police headquarters, where the Prince’s movements could be followed. He could actually be located anywhere on the globe.
The mass media has not reported that an implanted person's privacy vanishes for the rest of his or her life. S/he can be manipulated in many ways. Using different frequencies, the secret controller of this equipment can even change a person's emotional life. S/he can be made aggressive or lethargic. Sexuality can be artificially influenced. Thought signals and subconscious thinking can be read, dreams affected and even induced, all without the knowledge or consent of the implanted person.
A perfect cyber-soldier can thus be created. This secret technology has been used by military forces in certain NATO countries since the 1980s without civilian and academic populations having heard anything about it. Thus, little information about such invasive mind-control systems is available in professional and academic journals.
The NSA's Signals Intelligence group can remotely monitor information from human brains by decoding the evoked potentials (3.50HZ, 5 milliwatt) emitted by the brain. Prisoner experimentees in both Gothenburg, Sweden and Vienna, Austria have been found to have evident brain lesions. Diminished blood circulation and lack of oxygen in the right temporal frontal lobes result where brain implants are usually operative. A Finnish experimentee experienced brain atrophy and intermittent attacks of unconsciousness due to lack of oxygen.
Mind control techniques can be used for political purposes. The goal of mind controllers today is to induce the targeted persons or groups to act against his or her own convictions and best interests. Zombified individuals can even be programmed to murder and remember nothing of their crime afterward. Alarming examples of this phenomenon can be found in the U.S.
This “silent war” is being conducted against unknowing civilians and soldiers by military and intelligence agencies. Since 1980, electronic stimulation of the brain (ESB) has been secretly used to control people targeted without their knowledge or consent. All international human rights agreements forbid nonconsensual manipulation of human beings — even in prisons, not to speak of civilian populations.
Under an initiative of U.S. Senator John Glenn, discussions commenced in January 1997 about the dangers of radiating civilian populations. Targeting people’s brain functions with electromagnetic fields and beams (from helicopters and airplanes, satellites, from parked vans, neighboring houses, telephone poles, electrical appliances, mobile phones, TV, radio, etc.) is part of the radiation problem that should be addressed in democratically elected government bodies.
In addition to electronic MC, chemical methods have also been developed. Mind-altering drugs and different smelling gasses affecting brain function negatively can be injected into air ducts or water pipes. Bacteria and viruses have also been tested this way in several countries.
Today's supertechnology, connecting our brain functions via microchips (or even without them, according to the latest technology) to computers via satellites in the U.S. or Israel, poses the gravest threat to humanity. The latest supercomputers are powerful enough to monitor the whole world’s population. What will happen when people are tempted by false premises to allow microchips into their bodies? One lure will be a microchip identity card. Compulsory legislation has even been secretly proposed in the U.S. to criminalize removal of an ID implant.
Are we ready for the robotization of mankind and the total elimination of privacy, including freedom of thought? How many of us would want to cede our entire life, including our most secret thoughts, to Big Brother? Yet the technology exists to create a totalitarian New World Order. Covert neurological communication systems are in place to counteract independent thinking and to control social and political activity on behalf of self-serving private and military interests.
When our brain functions are already connected to supercomputers by means of radio implants and microchips, it will be too late for protest. This threat can be defeated only by educating the public, using available literature on biotelemetry and information exchanged at international congresses.
One reason this technology has remained a state secret is the widespread prestige of the psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV produced by the U.S. American Psychiatric Association (APA) and printed in 18 languages. Psychiatrists working for U.S. intelligence agencies no doubt participated in writing and revising this manual. This psychiatric "bible" covers up the secret development of MC technologies by labeling some of their effects as symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia.
Victims of mind control experimentation are thus routinely diagnosed, knee-jerk fashion, as mentally ill by doctors who learned the DSM “symptom” list in medical school. Physicians have not been schooled that patients may be telling the truth when they report being targeted against their will or being used as guinea pigs for electronic, chemical and bacteriological forms of psychological warfare.
Time is running out for changing the direction of military medicine, and ensuring the future of human freedom.
This article was originally published in the 36th-year edition of the Finnish-language journal SPEKULA (3rd Quarter, 1999). SPEKULA (circulation 6500) is a publication of Northern Finland medical students and doctors of Oulu University OLK (Oulun Laaketieteellinen Kilta). It is mailed to all medical students of Finland and all Northern Finland medical doctors.
Read more: http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_societies/Conspiracies/NWO/microchip_implants.htm#ixzz1Uy4YiIVz
Saturday, August 6, 2011
From the Washington Post Publication:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/cia_brain_experiments_pursued.html
Posted at 3:22 PM ET, 11/24/2010
CIA brain experiments pursued in veterans’ suit
By Jeff Stein
The CIA is notorious for its Cold War-era experiments with LSD and other chemicals on unwitting citizens and soldiers. Details have emerged in books and articles beginning more than 30 years ago.
But if military veterans have their way in a California law suit, the spy agency’s quest to turn humans into robot-like assassins via electrodes planted in their brains will get far more exposure than the drugs the CIA tested on subjects ranging from soldiers to unwitting bar patrons and the clients of prostitutes.
It’s not just science fiction -- or the imaginings of the mentally ill.
In 1961, a top CIA scientist reported in an internal memo that "the feasibility of remote control of activities in several species of animals has been demonstrated…Special investigations and evaluations will be conducted toward the application of selected elements of these techniques to man," according to “The CIA and the Search for the Manchurian Candidate,” a 1979 book by former State Department intelligence officer John Marks.
“[T]his cold-blooded project,” Marks wrote, “was designed … for the delivery of chemical and biological agents or for ‘executive action-type operations,’ according to a document. ‘Executive action’ was the CIA's euphemism for assassination.”
The CIA pursued such experiments because it was convinced the Soviets were doing the same.
Victims have sought justice for years, in vain. Now, almost 40 years later, a federal magistrate has ordered the CIA to produce records and witnesses about the LSD and other experiments “allegedly conducted on thousands of soldiers from 1950 through 1975,” according to news accounts.
U.S. Magistrate Judge John Larsen’s Nov. 17 order exempted the agency from having to testify about electrode tests on humans, but Gordon P. Erspamer, lead attorney for the veterans, says “we are pursuing this as well.”
“There is no question that these experiments were done,” Erspamer said by e-mail Tuesday, “but defendants say that they used private researchers and test subjects drawn from prisons, hospitals and nursing homes as subjects, not active duty military [personnel]. CIA said it had no one knowledgeable on this topic.”
Erspamer, senior counsel in the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster, said “several” CIA witnesses “are…still alive,” naming some that have been publicly identified, but opting to keep secret others before he calls them.
Papers filed in the case describe “electrical devices implanted in brain tissue with electrodes in various regions, including the hippocampus, the hypothalamus, the frontal lobe (via the septum), the cortex and various other places,” Erspamer said, drawing on [research papers] (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/spytalkheathdocument.pdf) written by government scientists.
“We believe that one of our plaintiffs was given a septal implant at [Edgewood Arsenal] (www.edgewoodtestvets.org),” he said, based on an MRI he has “showing a ‘foreign body’ on the border between the septum and the frontal lobe.”
“A lot of this work was done out of Tulane University using a local state hospital and funding from a cut-out (front) organization called the Commonwealth Fund,” he continued, again drawing on the research papers.
“We tried to get docs from Tulane, but they told us that they were destroyed in the hurricane flooding.”
The CIA claims that at least some of the documents should remain classified as “state secrets.” But Magistrate Larson told the agency to come back with a better rationale, a "supplemental declaration explaining with heightened specificity" why the documents should be protected after all these years.
*More from SpyTalk: *
Pot growers portrayed as terrorist threats by U.S. government.
AIPAC spy scandal turns sordid.
Aviator tapped to run big explosion lab.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/cia_brain_experiments_pursued.html
Posted at 3:22 PM ET, 11/24/2010
CIA brain experiments pursued in veterans’ suit
By Jeff Stein
The CIA is notorious for its Cold War-era experiments with LSD and other chemicals on unwitting citizens and soldiers. Details have emerged in books and articles beginning more than 30 years ago.
But if military veterans have their way in a California law suit, the spy agency’s quest to turn humans into robot-like assassins via electrodes planted in their brains will get far more exposure than the drugs the CIA tested on subjects ranging from soldiers to unwitting bar patrons and the clients of prostitutes.
It’s not just science fiction -- or the imaginings of the mentally ill.
In 1961, a top CIA scientist reported in an internal memo that "the feasibility of remote control of activities in several species of animals has been demonstrated…Special investigations and evaluations will be conducted toward the application of selected elements of these techniques to man," according to “The CIA and the Search for the Manchurian Candidate,” a 1979 book by former State Department intelligence officer John Marks.
“[T]his cold-blooded project,” Marks wrote, “was designed … for the delivery of chemical and biological agents or for ‘executive action-type operations,’ according to a document. ‘Executive action’ was the CIA's euphemism for assassination.”
The CIA pursued such experiments because it was convinced the Soviets were doing the same.
Victims have sought justice for years, in vain. Now, almost 40 years later, a federal magistrate has ordered the CIA to produce records and witnesses about the LSD and other experiments “allegedly conducted on thousands of soldiers from 1950 through 1975,” according to news accounts.
U.S. Magistrate Judge John Larsen’s Nov. 17 order exempted the agency from having to testify about electrode tests on humans, but Gordon P. Erspamer, lead attorney for the veterans, says “we are pursuing this as well.”
“There is no question that these experiments were done,” Erspamer said by e-mail Tuesday, “but defendants say that they used private researchers and test subjects drawn from prisons, hospitals and nursing homes as subjects, not active duty military [personnel]. CIA said it had no one knowledgeable on this topic.”
Erspamer, senior counsel in the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster, said “several” CIA witnesses “are…still alive,” naming some that have been publicly identified, but opting to keep secret others before he calls them.
Papers filed in the case describe “electrical devices implanted in brain tissue with electrodes in various regions, including the hippocampus, the hypothalamus, the frontal lobe (via the septum), the cortex and various other places,” Erspamer said, drawing on [research papers] (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/spytalkheathdocument.pdf) written by government scientists.
“We believe that one of our plaintiffs was given a septal implant at [Edgewood Arsenal] (www.edgewoodtestvets.org),” he said, based on an MRI he has “showing a ‘foreign body’ on the border between the septum and the frontal lobe.”
“A lot of this work was done out of Tulane University using a local state hospital and funding from a cut-out (front) organization called the Commonwealth Fund,” he continued, again drawing on the research papers.
“We tried to get docs from Tulane, but they told us that they were destroyed in the hurricane flooding.”
The CIA claims that at least some of the documents should remain classified as “state secrets.” But Magistrate Larson told the agency to come back with a better rationale, a "supplemental declaration explaining with heightened specificity" why the documents should be protected after all these years.
*More from SpyTalk: *
Pot growers portrayed as terrorist threats by U.S. government.
AIPAC spy scandal turns sordid.
Aviator tapped to run big explosion lab.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Contrived Coincidences
For those who say that these stalkers couldn't possibly come up with this stuff this fast, let me clue you in on how this works.
1) First they get you involved with someone (like Rick Zehr), who asks a million questions about you, your family, your interests, your favorite restaurants, clothes, where you like to go on vacation, family and friends who live out of state. Even, if you have family members who are deceased, where they are buried.
2) Next, they began buying and renting property around you and calling the troops in to live there with high-tech gadgetry, including GPS, hidden cameras, lasers, high-frequency sound blasters, etc.
3) They have license plates printed up corresponding to your interests. They also have a license database they can refer to. So, if you begin talking about your niece, Katie, showing horses at the fair. Bingo, they look through their license database and call one of the troops/perpetrators to place that license on a red vehicle and wait for you to drive to an intersection. The minute you arrive at the intersection, the red vehicle will speed up to get in front of you, so that you will be sure to see the license plates.
4) They note what you watch on TV (you did know that information on every tv program you watch is sent back to your digital tv provider, didn't you?)
r) They go to all of the car dealers within a 100 mile area and rent cars from them, using phony government ids. They even plant some of their phony government employees as employees at local businesses. That way, where ever you go, you are monitored.
6) They get you sensitized to a color, usually red or yellow, by following you en masse to make sure you know that you are being followed. This is to intimidate you.
7) Their ultimate goal is to drive you to suicide, a mental breakdown, or homelessness.
8) Why? remains the biggest question for targets. Evidently, you ticked someone off and they are taking revenge to discredit, and nullify you.
9) By contacting all of your family and friends, telling them they are with a special government agency, and swearing them to secrecy, it is open season on you.
10) They will even do this at doctors' offices and hospitals. If you go into a mental ward, they will follow you even in there. There is no mercy, no relief from them, ever.
For more on this read http://www.freedomfchs.com/
1) First they get you involved with someone (like Rick Zehr), who asks a million questions about you, your family, your interests, your favorite restaurants, clothes, where you like to go on vacation, family and friends who live out of state. Even, if you have family members who are deceased, where they are buried.
2) Next, they began buying and renting property around you and calling the troops in to live there with high-tech gadgetry, including GPS, hidden cameras, lasers, high-frequency sound blasters, etc.
3) They have license plates printed up corresponding to your interests. They also have a license database they can refer to. So, if you begin talking about your niece, Katie, showing horses at the fair. Bingo, they look through their license database and call one of the troops/perpetrators to place that license on a red vehicle and wait for you to drive to an intersection. The minute you arrive at the intersection, the red vehicle will speed up to get in front of you, so that you will be sure to see the license plates.
4) They note what you watch on TV (you did know that information on every tv program you watch is sent back to your digital tv provider, didn't you?)
r) They go to all of the car dealers within a 100 mile area and rent cars from them, using phony government ids. They even plant some of their phony government employees as employees at local businesses. That way, where ever you go, you are monitored.
6) They get you sensitized to a color, usually red or yellow, by following you en masse to make sure you know that you are being followed. This is to intimidate you.
7) Their ultimate goal is to drive you to suicide, a mental breakdown, or homelessness.
8) Why? remains the biggest question for targets. Evidently, you ticked someone off and they are taking revenge to discredit, and nullify you.
9) By contacting all of your family and friends, telling them they are with a special government agency, and swearing them to secrecy, it is open season on you.
10) They will even do this at doctors' offices and hospitals. If you go into a mental ward, they will follow you even in there. There is no mercy, no relief from them, ever.
For more on this read http://www.freedomfchs.com/
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Tried out a vehicle yesterday
I was at K-Mart talking to someone who works there and showing her a pair of capris I wanted to buy. I left them on a box and went to the bathroom. When I came back, someone had changed the capris for a pair of long paints in the same color.
On the way out, I looked at all of the yard art clearance stuff that K-Mart has upfront, particularly the birds perched on ceramic planters.
Decided to go test drive a vehicle. As soon as I walked in, a woman standing there asked me where I was from. I told her and she said, "Oh, I know someone from there named Byrd, that lives behind Caseys."
On the way out, I looked at all of the yard art clearance stuff that K-Mart has upfront, particularly the birds perched on ceramic planters.
Decided to go test drive a vehicle. As soon as I walked in, a woman standing there asked me where I was from. I told her and she said, "Oh, I know someone from there named Byrd, that lives behind Caseys."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)