Posts Tagged ‘psychotic’

American psychiatrists are the craziest of them all

Monday, November 26th, 2012

Pravda – Russia – November 26, 2012
by John Flemming
Author of Word Power

Psychiatrists are considered dregs even by their professional brethren-a fact that abets their disgraceful lack of devotion to what is supposed to be a humane profession.

American psychiatrists (A) incorporate themselves to avoid taxes; (B) have no compunction about skewering their clients with in-American-society highly stigmatic labels like “schizophrenic,” “paranoid schizophrenic,” and “psychotic depression”; (C) charge inflated fees, and, after devoting all of five or ten minutes to a patient, turn around and bill the insurance company for a thirty-minute session; (D) make their patients unnecessarily wait a long time in their office to see them, sometimes for as long as two or three hours without so much as a “sorry”; (E) are ignorant of many basic medical subjects, such as alternative and complementary medicine, nutrition, the history of medicine, vitamins and nutritional supplements, behavioral and cognitive therapy, milieu therapy, holistic medicine, social psychiatry and European medical innovations; (F) are devoid of compassion, including compassion for the welfare of their patients; (G) refuse to return the customary once-a-month phone call to disliked patients; (H) employ still the discredited, mind-destroying lobotomy, in the guise of the “leucotomy,” “orbital undercutting,” and “cingulotomy”; (I) automatically label “paranoid,” without any contradicting evidence, anyone who complains of harassment, despite the fact that in this Manichean world harassment is ubiquitous; (J) mindlessly refer to “DSM” (“Diagnostic and Statistical Manual,” published by the American Psychiatric Association in its latest bizarre edition), despite trenchant criticism of it as unscientific medical imperialism (there is an alternative to “DSM” in the “ICD”); (K) uncritically accept psychoanalytic quackery, crediting pseudoscientific Freudian imbecility, without any evidence, with having made important contributions to psychology and psychiatry; (L) look down on their patients as dirt, “pulgas,” as a sort of subhuman malingerers-an attitude that conditions their don’t-give-a-damn treatment; (M) employ more insurance billing clerks and debt-collectors than nurses; (N) constantly whine and complain about the cost of liability insurance and working with the fee-adjusting insurance industry but never about their own profiteering fees; and, finally (O) view free health clinics for the poor and impoverished as purgatory, and in fact there are none in the U.S.

An overwhelming majority of medical school students, as professional polls have discovered, admit that they chose the field to make much money

An overwhelming majority of medical school students, as professional polls have discovered, admit that they chose the field to make much money. Considerable time in medical school is devoted to how to set up a physician practice, incorporating oneself, inflating the status of physicians, attacking vitamin therapy and rival self-help therapies, and maximizing profit. The practice leaves that much less time for learning anatomy, physiology, nutrition and the like. Spaces in medical schools are deliberately limited in order to minimize competition and ensure high incomes for physicians. The limitation has led to a serious shortage of doctors, who, victims of their own greed, now are given to the “Beklagung” that they are overworked. It is hence common to find lecture halls in medical schools where one-third or less of the seats are taken.

The status of the American M.D. is very high, as is his income. Surgeons make the most money, while certain specialties like psychiatry and pediatrics are at the bottom of the medical hierarchy. Somewhere in the middle are endocrinologists, hepatologists, ear-nose-throat doctors, immunologists, ophthalmologists, gastroenterologists, and so forth. Psychiatrists are considered dregs even by their professional brethren-a fact that abets their disgraceful lack of devotion to what is supposed to be a humane profession.

The tragicomic psychoanalysts (“depth psychology” charlatans) are actually marginalized in the U.S., despite the fact that Freud caught on nowhere so great as the States. The international headquarters of psychodynamic tomfoolery is New York City. American psychoanalysts must earn a regular M.D. or osteopathy license, since there is no accreditation for the mere study of Freud’s cocaine-intoxicated delusions. Psychoanalysis per se is as therapy singularly worthless. Not many psychiatrists practice the laughable art. American psychoanalysts constantly fight a rear-guard battle for occupational survival, claiming intellectual freedom and patient-choice rights. Fortunately, most Americans are skeptical of the nonempirical bogus “science.” Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego!

The lobotomy was popularized by a Portuguese miscreant named Egas Moniz, who received the 1949 Nobel Prize for his crimes. A 1972 psychiatric text blandly remarked “the treatment of chronic psychotic patients by frontal lobotomy spread throughout the world, and for a time was the treatment of choice in such cases.” Two famous American lobotomy victims were an actor, Warner Baxter, and, in 1941, Rosemary Kennedy (sister of President  Kennedy), at the behest of father Joseph Kennedy-the founder of the clan of arch heirs and heiresses-allegedly because he wanted to silence Rosemary after having had incestuous sex with her. In reality, the lobotomy is nontherapeutic and should be permanently outlawed as a crime against humanity.

The sociological purpose of American psychiatry is to detect deviance, apply a stigmatic label to deviants and proceed to punish them. See Thomas Szasz’ book, “Cruel Compassion: Psychiatric Control of Society’s Unwanted” (1994). There are doctors who tour the country trying in lectures, conferences and workshops to destigmatize emotional illness. Yet it is like attempting to drain the ocean through splashing, since the stigma, in a society that has a long appalling list of stigmas (the mortification of the aged, any dummy “slow on the uptake,” the “slanty eyes” of Chinese-Americans), is deeply culturally ingrained.

Read the rest of the article here

« Return to news items


Share

Confronting Bigots Intolerant of Alternative Mental Health Treatment

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

Huffington Post, October 6, 2010

by Bruce E. Levine

“Webster’s Dictionary” defines bigot as “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” Despite the success of alternative mental health treatments for many people, there still exists bigotry against these approaches.

For many self-defined “ex-mental health patients,” “mental health treatment consumers,” and “psychiatric survivors” who attended Alternatives 2010 Conference (September 29 through October 3 in Anaheim, California), D.J. Jaffe’s September 30, 2010 The Huffington Post piece, “People with Mental Illness Shunned by Alternatives 2010 Conference in Anaheim” was insulting. Mr. Jaffe writes of the Alternatives 2010 Conference:

By failing to include ‘people with mental illness’ in the list of ‘consumers’ and ‘survivors’ who are invited, they are sending a not-so-subtle message: mentally ill not welcome.

Mr. Jaffe’s statement can most politely be described as disingenuous. Mr. Jaffe knows full well that the Alternatives Conferences are attended by many people who have been in fact diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and other serious mental illnesses, but who have found that neither their diagnoses nor their standard treatments have been helpful. In other words, not only does the Alternative Conference welcome people who have been labeled as mentally ill, the conference celebrates them, and provides them an arena and a platform.

Why is there a need for alternatives to standard drug treatments? A long-term outcome study of schizophrenic patients who were treated with and without psychiatric drugs was published in 2007 in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders. Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, research psychologist Martin Harrow, at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, discovered that after 4.5 years, 39 percent of the non-medicated group were “in recovery” and 60 percent had jobs. In contrast, during that same time period, the condition of the medicated patients worsened, with only six percent in recovery and few holding jobs. At the fifteen-year follow-up, among the non-drug group, only 28 percent suffered from any psychotic symptoms; in contrast, among the medicated group, 64 were actively psychotic.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/confronting-bigots-intole_b_749836.html

For more information on the success of treating patients diagnosed “schizophrenic” without the use of psychiatric drugs,  read about the work of psychiatrist Loren Mosher, former Chief of Schizophrenic Research for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and founder of Soteria House http://www.moshersoteria.com/about.htm

« Return to news items


Share

Hidden Facts About Ritalin; Side Effects include brain damage, psychosis, severe dependence, paranoia

Monday, July 5th, 2010

New With Views
By Jon Rappoport
July 5, 2010

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a very important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

• Paranoid delusions
• Paranoid psychosis
• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
• Activation of psychotic symptoms
• Toxic psychosis
• Visual hallucinations
• Auditory hallucinations
• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
• Effects pathological thought processes
• Extreme withdrawal
• Terrified affect
• Started screaming
• Aggressiveness
• Insomnia
• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
• Psychic dependence
• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
• Decreased REM sleep
• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
• Convulsions
• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

Many parents around the country have discovered that Ritalin has become a condition for their children continuing in school. There are even reports, by parents, of threats from social agencies: “If you don’t allow us to prescribe Ritalin for your ADHD child, we may decide that you are an unfit parent. We may decide to take your child away.”

This mind-boggling state of affairs is fueled by teachers, principals, and school counselors, none of whom have medical training. Yet even if they did…

The very existence of the “illnesses” for which Ritalin would be prescribed is unproven. It is merely assumed.

In commenting on Dr. Lawrence Diller’s book, Running on Ritalin, Dr. William Carey, Director of Behavioral Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, has written, “Dr. Diller has correctly described… the disturbing trend of blaming children’s social, behavioral, and academic performance problems entirely on an unproven brain deficit…”

On November 16-18, 1998, the National Institute of Mental Health held the prestigious “NIH Consensus Development Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD].” The conference was explicitly aimed at ending all debate about the diagnoses of ADD, ADHD, and about the prescription of Ritalin. It was hoped that at the highest levels of medical research and bureaucracy, a clear position would be taken: this is what ADHD is, this is where it comes from, and these are the drugs it should be treated with. That didn’t happen, amazingly. Instead, the official panel responsible for drawing conclusions from the conference threw cold water on the whole attempt to reach a comfortable consensus.

Read entire article:  http://www.newswithviews.com/Rappoport/jon101.htm

« Return to news items


Share

Seriously great article: “New Psychiatry Manual Defines Almost Anyone as Insane”

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Loewak
By Martijn Benders
June 27, 2010

What is wrong with a psychiatric industry that is financed by drug companies? Well isn’t that very obvious: they will try and try to classify more and more mental conditions as ‘diseases’ simply because their financers want them to do so. Nowadays children can’t behave like children anymore or they are ‘hyperactive’ or diagnosed as ‘ADHD’ and pumped full of drugs of which no one knows what the long term consequences of their use are.

At the same time, digg this, there was a recent research into which jobs have the highest suicide rates. Guess what? Yes, doctors and Psychiatrists rank amongst the highest, the most number of suicides take place in that job catagory.

Ask yourself this: why do these rather suicidally depressed people want to drug everyone? Because that’s basically what the new ‘Psychiatric Manual’ named ‘the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

“With DSM-V, American psychiatry is headed in exactly the opposite direction: defining ever-widening circles of the population as mentally ill with vague and undifferentiated diagnoses and treating them with powerful drugs,” Professor Shorter of the University of Toronto writes in the Wall Street Journal.

New diseases in the thick manual include the ‘Psychosis Risk Syndrome’ which is a particular type of ‘disease’ that can be streched to encompass half the world population. Twitch your eye? Behave a little weird? Have a stutter? Well, those might be signs of you having PSR which basically means you have the potential to become psychotic and, according to the manual, must be treated with drugs.

Symptoms of “psychosis risk syndrome” include vague descriptors as “disorganized speech.”

“Minor neurocognitive disorder” describes a reduction in cognitive function over time, such as that normally experienced by people over the age of 50, while “temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria” refers to children who suffer from outbursts of temper.

The psychiatric industry has become a drugdealer culture. All these drugs do not just effect the people that take them but dissapear and mix with the environment. So ALL OF US are effected by these billions of tuns of chemical drugs that are pumped into the various water systems.

Read entire article:  http://www.loewak.nl/2010/06/27/new-psychiatry-manual-defines-almost-anyone-as-insane/

« Return to news items


Share

The Total Failure of Modern Psychiatry

Sunday, June 27th, 2010

Natural News
By David Gutierrez
June 27, 2010

Modern psychiatry went wrong when it embraced the idea that the mind should be treated with drugs, says Edward Shorter of the University of Toronto, writing in the Wall Street Journal.

Shorter studies the history of psychiatry and medicine.

Modern U.S. psychiatry has adopted a philosophy that psychological diseases arise from chemical imbalances and therefore have a very specific cluster of symptoms, he says, in spite of evidence that the difference between many so-called disorders is minimal or nonexistent. These “disorders” are then treated with expensive drugs that are no more effective than a placebo.

“Psychiatry seems to have lost its way in a forest of poorly verified diagnoses and ineffectual medications,” he writes.

Shorter calls for U.S. psychiatry to abandon its emphasis on “psychopathology” and instead adopt the European approach, which focuses on the symptoms and needs of people as individuals. Yet the draft of the latest edition of psychiatric diagnostic “Bible,” the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), shows that U.S. psychiatry has no intention of changing course.

“With DSM-V, American psychiatry is headed in exactly the opposite direction: defining ever-widening circles of the population as mentally ill with vague and undifferentiated diagnoses and treating them with powerful drugs,” Shorter writes.

U.S. psychiatry was not always obsessed with psychopharmacology, he notes. Its early years were marked by a psychoanalytic approach that categorized mental disorders in broad, fluid categories such as “nerves,” “melancholia” or “manic-depressive illness.” These categories sufficed because similar treatments would work for people suffering from any version thereof: lithium treated both mania and severe depression, for example, while the specific symptoms experienced by an anxious person had little influence on the therapies needed.

“Our psychopathological lingo today offers little improvement on these sturdy terms,” Shorter said. “A patient with the same symptoms today might be told he has ‘social anxiety disorder’ or ‘seasonal affective disorder.’ … The new disorders all respond to the same drugs, so in terms of treatment, the differentiation is meaningless and of benefit mainly to pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for these niches.”

In the 1950s and ’60s, a new wave of psychiatrists sought to turn away from psychoanalysis — perceiving it as focusing excessively on “unconscious psychic conflicts” — and toward a more “scientific” model instead. As a result, the DSM-III introduced the vague new categories of “major depression” and “bipolar disorder,” even though evidence suggests that there is no substantial difference between the two conditions. At the same time, “major depression” absorbed what Shorter calls two very different conditions, “neurotic depression” and “melancholia.”

“This would be like incorporating tuberculosis and mumps into the same diagnosis, simply because they are both infectious diseases,” he writes.

DSM-V only continues the trend of extending the disordered label to more and more normal people, Shorter warns: “To flip through the latest draft of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, in the works for seven years now, is to see the discipline’s floundering writ large.”

For example, the new disorder of “psychosis risk syndrome” associates a whole new class of people with full-blown schizophrenia, under the logic, Shorter says, that “even if you aren’t floridly psychotic with hallucinations and delusions, eccentric behavior can nonetheless awaken the suspicion that you might someday become psychotic.” The implication, of course, is that such people should be treated with antipsychotics.

Symptoms of “psychosis risk syndrome” include such vague descriptors as “disorganized speech.”

Other new “disorders” include hoarding, mixed anxiety-depression and binge eating. “Minor neurocognitive disorder” describes a reduction in cognitive function over time, such as that normally experienced by people over the age of 50, while “temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria” refers to children who suffer from outbursts of temper.

“DSM-V accelerates the trend of making variants on the spectrum of everyday behavior into diseases,” Shorter says, “turning grief into depression, apprehension into anxiety, and boyishness into hyperactivity.”

Read entire article:  http://www.naturalnews.com/029088_psychiatry_failure.htmll

« Return to news items


Share

Children turning psychotic with ADHD drugs; kids as young as five attempting suicide on stimulant drugs

Monday, October 12th, 2009

Kate Sikora
The Courier-Mail
October 12, 2009

CHILDREN as young as five have attempted suicide or are severely depressed while on the controversial drugs to treat ADHD.

The Daily Telegraph has obtained the adverse reaction reports from the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which showed at least 30 children have had severe psychotic episodes and wanted to kill themselves.

One seven-year-old boy last year became so depressed while on Ritalin he tried to commit suicide.

The number of serious reactions to ADHD drugs has doubled in three years, now up to 827.

But the true extent of the side effects is unknown, with many doctors and parents under-reporting the impact, experts said.

The use of heavy stimulants has been questioned by child experts who believe the drugs, including the failed adult anti-depressant Strattera, could be masking true psychological problems of children.

Read entire article: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26201402-5006012,00.html

« Return to news items


Share