Explosive: Psychiatric Diagnosis, Surveillance State Linked

TruthFact
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
July 23, 2017

Pay close attention to this one. It’s the future coming at you like a strong wind.

First, a bit of background. As my readers know, I’ve assembled conclusive proof that psychiatric diagnosis of mental disorders is a fraud. It’s pseudoscience. There are no defining lab tests. No definitive blood, saliva, hair, brain, genetic tests.

Instead, committees of psychiatrists meet and discuss arbitrary clusters of behaviors, group them and label them with “mental-disorder” names.

But diehards insist that one of the earliest and oldest disorders, schizophrenia, is the exception. That one is solid. That one isn’t pseudoscience. That one is the “gold standard.”

Wrong.

As fiercebiotech.com reports, “…Diagnosing schizophrenia relies on subjective methods…There is no single test for schizophrenia, so diagnosis typically involves observing symptoms and ruling out other potential causes for them…”

Want more? Fiercebiotech: “And while scientists have observed differences in brain scans of healthy people and those with schizophrenia…these are not currently used to diagnose the neurological disorder, according to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).” Not used because the brain scans aren’t precise or definitive.

Same old, same old. Committees of psychiatrists “observe symptoms” (behaviors) and invent rules for diagnosis of schizophrenia.

As usual, the public is the last to know.

Now, there is a new project afoot that aims to change the non-objective diagnosis, using MRI images of the brain. IBM and the University of Alberta are working on it:

Fiercebiotech (see also this press release): “The team used machine learning to create a model that identifies schizophrenia based on connections in the brain, IBM said. The fMRI data was taken from different sites, using different machines, but the algorithm could differentiate between the patients with schizophrenia and without 74% of the time.”

No one is popping champagne corks. This was a small pilot study using 95 volunteers. Typically, these projects die out when larger studies are done, because the results aren’t specific enough.

That’s why NO brain tests, for ANY so-called mental disorder, are labeled definitive in the psychiatric bible, the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

However, the computer boys and medical pros keep trying—and here is where the Surveillance State enters the scene in an ugly way.

Fiercebiotech: “Mindstrong Health, cofounded by former NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health, a federal agency] chief Tom Insel, is working on technology that analyzes smartphone data to determine a person’s mental state. The company’s tech collects information on which words are used, or a person’s location when using certain apps, for example, and turns them into objective measures of brain function. The company recently raised $14 million…”

“Meanwhile, Boston-based Akili Interactive and Pfizer reported data last year showing that a video game-based diagnostic test could distinguish between people with and without brain amyloidosis, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. And PureTech’s Sonde Health is working on the analysis of ‘vocal biomarkers,’ or changes in nonlinguistic characteristics of a person’s voice, to indicate changes in health.”

To make a long story short: spy on everybody through their cell phones and computers, in order to diagnose them with ANY mental disorder.

The Surveillance State gets a new justification, and the psychiatric establishment gets to play Big Brother, “to protect us all” from mentally ill persons.

This research was kicked into a higher gear by Obama’s Brain Mapping Project, which he announced in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting. The Project is necessary, he claimed, to help prevent such future tragedies.

No, the Project is necessary to expand surveillance of the population, for the sake of control.

Psychiatric diagnosis, and the toxic drugging that follows, IS a form of control.

“Well, we have a red-flagged subject in Boston who’s been using key words in his cell phone calls, and the non-linguistic pauses and voice inflections indicate he’s demonstrating a schizoid pattern. According to outlined procedures, we need to step up surveillance on him, do a deep check on his financials, quietly interview a few of his friends and co-workers, determine his voting record, find out what groups he belongs to. He’s a college professor. He teaches American history. Do we have anything on how he interprets the Founding Fathers, the Constitution…oh look, he seems to be making statements about the need to return to limited central government…we’ve got a live one, guys. Get busy…”

Diagnose the prof with schizoid tendencies and put him on an anti-psychotic drug, which will sink him into a brain haze and slow down his motor reflexes, at minimum.

Psychiatry and the Surveillance State:

Kissing cousins.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The Violence-Inducing Effects of Psychiatric Medication

The Violence-Inducing Effects of Psychiatric Medication
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Kelly Brogan, M.D.
May 23, 2017

Originally published on KellyBroganMd.com

Psychiatric medications have some dangerous, often-overlooked side effects, which could include suicide and homicide.

On May 17, 2017, we learned that Chris Cornell of Soundgarden had reportedly committed suicide by hanging. His family reports knowing a different Chris than one who would make this fatal decision, and suspect his anti-anxiety prescription in the altered state he was witnessed to be in the night he died. Perhaps an “addict turned psychiatric patient”, like so many, Chris Cornell seemed to have left the frying pan of substance abuse for the fire of psychiatric medication risks.

For reasons that remain mysterious, those under the influence of psychiatric medication often specifically choose to hang themselves in their moment of peak impulsivity. Some, like Kim’s husband Woody who was never depressed a day in his life but prescribed Zoloft by his internist, even verbalize a felt experience of his head coming apart from his body in the days before he was found hanged in his garage.

Then there’s 14 year old Naika, a foster child in Florida who hanged herself on a FB livestream after being treated with 50mg of Vyvanse, a drug treatment for ADHD that leads to a domino effect of diagnoses and psychiatric meds including a 13 fold increase in likelihood of being prescribed an antipsychotic medication and 4 fold increase in antidepressant medications than controls.[1]

Are these just rare anecdotes? Is this just the cost of treatment that is helpful for most? Are we blaming medication for what might have been severe mental illness that was undertreated and/or undiagnosed?

Informed consent: the premise of ethical medicine

I believe first and foremost in informed consent. If you are informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a given treatment, you will be empowered to make the best decision for yourself based on your personal, family, philosophical, and religious life context. But the truth is that prescribers are not in a position to share the known risks of medications because we learn only of their purported benefits with a short-tagline of dismissively rare risks that are thought to be invariably outweighed by the presenting clinical concern.

But what about serious risks – including impulsive suicide and homicide – surely we are informing patients of that possibility, right?

Wrong.

In fact, the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry have gone to great lengths to conceal multiple signals of harm so we certainly can’t expect your average prescriber to have done the investigative work required to get at the truth.

In fact, from 1999-2013, psychiatric medication prescriptions have increased by a whopping 117% concurrent with a 240% increase in death rates from these medications[2]. So let’s review some of the evidence that suggests that it may not be in your best interest or the best interest of those around you for you to travel the path of medication-based psychiatry. Because, after all, if we don’t screen for risk factors – if we don’t know who will become the next victim of psych-med-induced violence – then how can we justify a single prescription? Are we at a point in the history of medicine where random acts of personal and public violence are defensible risks of treatment for stress, anxiety, depression, inattention, psychosocial distress, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue, and even stress incontinence?

Let the science speak

Suicide

Prescribed specifically to “prevent” suicide, antidepressants now come with a black box warning label of suicide risk since 2010. Multi-billion dollar lawsuits like the settlement of Study 329[3] have been necessary to unlock the cabinet drawers of an industry that cares more about profit than human lives. A reanalysis of study 329[4] which initially served as a landmark study in 2001 supporting the prescription of antidepressants to children, has now demonstrated that these medications are ineffective in this population and play a causal role in suicidal behavior. Concealing and manipulating data that shows this signal of harm, including a doubling of risk of suicide with antidepressant treatment,[5] [6] [7] has generated seeming confusion around this incomprehensibly unacceptable risk profile. In fact, a reanalysis[8] of an influential US National Institute of Mental Health 2007 study, revealed a four-fold increase in suicide despite the fact that the initial publication[9] claimed no increased risk relative to placebo.

According to available data – 3 large meta-analyses – more psychiatric treatment means more suicide.[10] [11] [12] Well, that might seem a hazard of the field, right? Where blaming medications for suicide would be like saying that umbrellas cause the rain.

That’s why studies in non-suicidal subjects[13] and even healthy volunteers who went on to experience suicidality after taking antidepressants are so compelling[14].

Benzodiazepines (like what Cornell was taking) and hypnotics (sleep and anxiety medications) also have a documented potential to increase risk of completed and attempted suicide[15] and have been implicated in impulsive self-harm including self-inflicted stab wounds during changes to dosage[16]. We also find the documented possibility that suicidality could emerge in patients who are treated with this class of medications even when they are not suicidal with recent research stating, “benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics can cause parasomnias, which in rare cases may lead to suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior in persons who were not known to be suicidal”[17]. And, of course, these medications themselves provide the means and the method with a known lethal poisoning profile[18].

Homicide

Clearly murderers are mentally ill, right? What if I told you that the science supports the concern that we are medicating innocent civilians into states of murderous impulsivity?

When Andrew Thibault began to research the safety of a stimulant drug recommended to his son, he entered a rabbit hole he has yet to emerge from. After literally teaching himself code to decrypt the data on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System website, he was able to cull 2000 pediatric fatalities from psychotropic medications, and 700 homicides. A Freedom of Information Act and a lawsuit later, he continues to struggle with redacted and suppressed information around 24 homicides directly connected to the use of psychotropics including the homicide by a 10 year old treated with Vyvanse of an infant. Another case, ultimately recovered, involved statements from a 35 year old perpetrator/patient, who murdered her own daughter, as directly implicating as “When I took nortriptyline, I immediately wanted to kill myself. I’d never had thoughts like that before”.

To begin to scientifically explore the risk of violence induced by psychotropic medication, a study sample needs to be representative, the reason for taking the drug needs to be taken into consideration, the effect needs to be controlled for, as do any other intoxicants. Professor Jari Tiihonen’s research group analysed the use of prescription drugs of 959 persons convicted of a homicide in Finland and found that pre-crime prescription of benzodiazepines and opiates resulted in the highest risk (223% increase) of committing homicide[19].

Relatedly, eleven antidepressants, six sedative/hypnotics and three drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder represented the bulk of 31 medications associated with violence reported to the FDA[20]. Now an international problem, a Swedish registry study identified a statistically significant increase in violence in males and females under 25 years old prescribed antidepressants[21].

Implicated in school shootings, stabbings, and even the Germanwings flight crash, prescribing of psychotropics prior to these incidences has been catalogued on https://ssristories.org/ leading me to suspect psychiatric prescribing as the most likely cause in any and all reports of unusually violent behavior in the public sphere.

Is Association Really Causation?

Beyond the cases where violence to self or others was induced in a non-violent, non-depressed, non-psychotic individual, what other evidence is there that speaks to how this could possibly be happening?

The most seminal paper in this regard, in my opinion, was published in 2011 by Lucire and Crotty[22]. Ten cases of extreme violence were committed by patients who were prescribed antidepressants – not for major mental illness or even for depression – but for psychosocial distress (ie work stress, dog died, divorce). What these authors identified was that these ten subjects had variants to liver enzymes responsible for drug metabolism exacerbated by co-administration of other drugs and substances including herbs. All returned to their baseline personalities when the antidepressant was discontinued.

Now referred to as akathisia-induced impulsivity[23], the genetic risk factors for this Russian Roulette of violence are not screened for prior to psychotropic prescribing. Akathisia is a state of severe restlessness associated with thoughts of suicide and homicide. Many patients describe it as a feeling-less state of apathy – and what I would describe as a disconnection from their own souls, their own experience of human connection, and any measure of self-reflection.

The genetic underpinnings of this kind of medication-induced vulnerability are just beginning to be explored[24] with identification of precursor symptoms to violence including severe agitation. In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, healthy volunteers exhibited an almost 2 fold increased risk of symptoms that can lead to violence[25]. A 4-5 fold increased risk was noted in patients prescribed a generic version of the antidepressant Cymbalta, off-label, for stress urinary incontinence (a non-psychiatric indication)[26].

There is another way

Perhaps it’s as if we are offering the blade edge of a knife to those falling off the cliff of struggle and suffering. Because the idea of managing a chemical imbalance with chemicals seems to make sense. But at what cost? The laundry list of acute and chronic adverse effects is growing, and the unpredictable risk of medication-induced violence should lead to an urgent cessation of all psychotropics. Because it takes 17 years[27] for physician practice to reflect published science, we need grassroots level information sharing. We need to inform ourselves before we consent to engage a system that regards you as an impersonal statistic.

We live in a cultural context that makes no room for the relevance, meaning, and significance of symptoms – symptoms are simply bad and scary and they must be managed. We don’t make room for patients to ask why they are not ok.

If you knew that your symptoms were reversible, healable, transformable, you might consider walking that path instead of assuming this level of risk for placebo-level efficacy of psychotropic medication. We would only euthanize a “mental patient” if we felt their condition was lifelong and unremitting. In fact, every woman I have ever tapered off of psychiatric drugs into experiences of total vitality once believed that she would be a medicated psychiatric patient for life. If you knew that radical self-healing potential lies within each and every one of us, if you only knew that was possible, you might start that journey today. It’s side effect free…

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com

References

[1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0706743716689055

[2] http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data_files_results.jsp?cboDataYear=All&cboDataTypeY=2%2CHousehold+Event+File&buttonYearandDataType=Search&cboPufNumber=All&SearchTitle=Prescribed+Medicines

[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11437014 

[4] http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4320

[5] http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7488/396

[6] http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i65?etoc=

[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12601224

[8] http://content.iospress.com/articles/international-journal-of-risk-and-safety-in-medicine/jrs0645

[9] http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=210055

[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15555028 

[11] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26713983_The_Relationship_Between_General_Population_Suicide_Rates_and_Mental_Health_Funding_Service_Provision_and_National_Policy_a_Cross-National_Study 

[12] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252713000587 

[13] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2301661/

[14] http://davidhealy.org/articles/#Suicide_Articles

[15] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28257172

[16] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2047018/ 

[17] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27609243

[18] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303061

[19] https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uoef-fsa052515.php

[20] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002271/ 

[21] http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001875

[22] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3513220/ 

[23] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27138119 

[24] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27324805 

[25] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0141076816666805

[26] http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/5/E194 

[27] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22179294

Diagnosisgate: A Major Media Blackout Mystery

FakeNews
Source: MadInAmerica.com
Paula J. Caplan Ph.D.
October 30, 2015

Remember “Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with the candlestick”?  From the game called “Clue” in which you tried to solve a murder mystery?  There’s a current, all-too-true and serious mystery involving devastating consequences – even death – for uncounted but vast numbers of people, but in this one the culprits are known to a very few, while their motives remain mysterious.

Until their identities are widely exposed, and their motives are known, the full story of the harm will never be known. It is astonishing that despite six stories in the major media — including a recent, groundbreaking Huffington Post series — and the filing of numerous lawsuits, the names and conduct of the culprits have consistently been omitted.

The story that has been called “Diagnosisgate”[1] starts in 1995, when the man widely considered the world’s most important psychiatrist split a payoff of nearly one million dollars with two colleagues in exchange for doing two patently unethical and illegal things that created the groundwork for a major drug company to market falsely one of the most dangerous psychoactive drugs.

Part one: In return for almost half a million dollars, they ignored what was known about the drug in order to manufacture a practice guideline holding up that drug as the best drug among two whole classes of related drugs for treating people who were classified as “schizophrenic,” the other drugs being marketed by other drug companies. This created what is widely considered the “standard of care,” the treatment that therapists are supposed to follow and that they can use in the knowledge that they are well protected from lawsuits if they follow it and their patients are harmed. The very foundation of the guideline, that it was about “Schizophrenia,” is illegitimate, because – though this will surprise many people – that category has been shown to be unscientifically created and indeed has been called a wastebasket for a wide variety of feelings and behavior, many of which are caused by psychiatric drugs.[2]

Part two: After the triumvirate received a bonus of $65,000 for creating the guideline speedily, their top psychiatrist  wrote to the same drug company, announcing that the three had constituted themselves as an entity that was prepared, in return for about another half million dollars, to create a marketing plan for the drug. The details included finding “key opinion leaders” (KOLs), who were prominent professionals in powerful positions – such as heads of state mental health or prison systems – and having them teach the Continuing Education courses that professionals are required to take, the ultimate message of those courses being that that particular drug was the best one to prescribe. Another section of their marketing plan was to have a great many articles published in what are considered scientific or medical journals, all concluding that that drug was effective and should be prescribed.

It is not clear whether the three psychiatrists were directly involved in choosing the content of the journal articles, but the plan to produce such articles was carried out, leading to publication of pieces recommending use of the drug to treat not only Schizophrenia but also Childhood Onset Schizophrenia, Schizo-affective Disorder, Bipolar Disorder in Children and Adults, Mania, Autism, Pervasive Developmental Disorder other than Autism, Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Psychosis, Aggression Agitation, Dementia, below average IQ, and disruptive behavior. Thus, a staggering array of psychiatric categories – many of which are as scientifically sketchy as Schizophrenia – was used to promote the drug. This massive marketing campaign proceeded despite the many major negative effects of Risperdal, including drowsiness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, heartburn, dry mouth, increased saliva production, increased appetite, weight gain, stomach pain, anxiety, agitation, restlessness, difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep, decreased sexual interest or ability, vision problems, muscle or joint pain, dry or discolored skin, difficulty urinating, muscle stiffness, confusion, fast or irregular pulse, sweating, unusual and uncontrollable movements of face or body, faintness, seizures, Parkinsonian symptoms such as slow movements or shuffling walk, rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing or swallowing, gynecomastia in male children,  painful erection of penis lasting for hours…and death.

Who are the characters in this mystery? Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a division of Johnson & Johnson, is the drug company, and Risperdal is the drug in question. The marketing term for Risperdal and similar drugs is “anti-psychotic,” but the accurate term is “neuroleptic,” reflecting the mechanism of suppressing the brain’s activity as a powerful tranquilizer. Dr. David Rothman, who wrote the expert witness report for one of the lawsuits about the marketing of Risperdal, revealed after scrupulous examination of vast numbers of internal emails between Janssen staff and the representative of the three psychiatrists, is a specialist in medical ethics and the Bernard Schoenberg Professor of Social Medicine at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, the medical school of Columbia University. He is also director of the Center for the Study of Science and Medicine at Columbia and at the time of writing his expert witness report was president of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession.  Rothman stated in his report that the guidelines were constructed “in disregard of professional medical ethics and principles of conflict of interest,” and that they “subverted scientific integrity, appearing to be a purely scientific venture when it was at its core, a marketing venture for Risperdal.”

The psychiatrist who spearheaded these efforts is Dr. Allen Frances, who the year before teaming with Janssen oversaw the publication of the fourth volume of the “Bible” of hundreds of categories of mental illness, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, sales of which topped $100 million as a result of marketing by the lobby group called the American Psychiatric Association, which published it.  By virtue of this position, he has been called the world’s most important psychiatrist. At the time, he was also Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University. The two psychiatrists who with Frances shared the nearly $1 million in payments from Janssen are Dr. John P. Docherty, who was then Professor and Vice Chairman of Psychiatry at Cornell University at the time, and Dr. David A. Kahn, who was Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University.

Now back to the mystery: Despite five individual stories in major media outlets in 2011, 2012, and 2014 about two huge Risperdal court cases filed by the state of Texas and joined by many other states, neither a single writer of any of these stories nor even the papers filed for the court cases named Frances, Docherty, or Kahn or described the fundamental roles played by their Practice Guideline and their marketing plan in the scandal. The mystery is deepened, because the authors of the media stories and the court documents did name and describe the roles of some of the KOLs, who assuredly were guilty of unethical conduct but whose participation was conceived of by Frances and his colleagues. And some of those who reaped huge financial profits from Risperdal’s false marketing – most notably Harvard University’s Dr. Joseph Biederman, who created an empire based on claims that “Bipolar Disorder in Children” had been woefully underdiagnosed and untreated – have been royally outed for the enormous sums they earned. But even respected investigative journalist Steve Brill, who recently completed a unique, 15-part story of the Risperdal scandal for Huffington Post, and who described in detail many of its players and some of the patients who suffered terrible harm from the drug and who elegantly described the way that Janssen covered up data about some of the harm, left out the essential roles the Frances triumvirate played.  Activist Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection published an online article about the Rothman Report and included the names of Frances and those two colleagues, her article was apparently picked up by only two or three bloggers and none of the major media reporters who read what she posts.

The Rothman Report has for some years been available online,[3] and information from many of the major media articles came from that report, so their blackout of information about Diagnosisgate is all the more puzzling. Indeed, it is difficult to read about the Risperdal scandal without coming across the Rothman Report, where Rothman’s scrupulous documentation of the Diagnosisgate portion appears on pages 14-17 of the 86-page document, so it is hard to miss.

It has not been possible as yet to determine the reason for the blackout, but it is alarming, given the powerful, influential positions held by Frances, Docherty, and Kahn, and in the interests of not only their own patients and trainees but also of anyone who hears the claims they make about treatments, as well as for anyone who enters the mental health system and is subject to being diagnosed as mentally ill. It is also alarming that the vast majority of therapists are far less likely to know about Diagnosisgate – and thus about the shocking extent to which conflicts of interest have driven diagnosis and drug marketing – than to have read the massive number of journal articles in which Risperdal is recommended for a wide array of “indications.”

Brill goes to great lengths – in 15 chapters published one per day – to document a vast amount of the Risperdal story, so it is perplexing to try to imagine whether he might have missed those crucial pages near the beginning of the Rothman Report or whether something else happened. And if it is the latter, what could it possibly be? Because I am a psychologist, people often believe that I can read their minds, but of course I cannot. I do not even wish to speculate about what maintains the blackout. What is clear is that the effect it has is to keep from the public some of the most crucial information about how those who promote and benefit from the widespread use of psychiatric labels have sometimes worked hand-in-glove with Pharma, riding roughshod over the truth – especially information that is harmful to patients, ignoring professional ethics and good scientific methodology, and after all that, not being held accountable, not to mention liable, for the harm they cause. No matter how or why the blackout has been created and has persisted, it is time for it to end.

* * * * *

Read More At: MadInAmerica.com
____________________________________________________

Paula J. Caplan, PhD, is a clinical and research psychologist, activist, Associate at the DuBois Institute, Harvard University, and the author of 11 books, including one that won three national awards for nonfiction and two about psychiatric diagnosis. Her books include They Say You’re Crazy: How the World’s Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who’s Normal and the edited Bias in Psychiatric Diagnosis.
_____________________________________________________________

References:

[1] Caplan, Paula J. (2015). Diagnosisgate: Conflict of interest at the top of the psychiatric apparatus. APORIA:The Nursing Journal 7(1), 30-41. http://www.oa.uottawa.ca/journals/aporia/articles/2015_01/commentary.pdf

[2] See Caplan, Paula J. (1995). They Say You’re Crazy: How the World’s Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who’s Normal. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, and Poland, Jeffrey, & Caplan, Paula J. (2004) The deep structure of bias in psychiatric diagnosis. In Paula J. Caplan & Lisa Cosgrove (Eds.), Bias in psychiatric diagnosis. Livingston, NJ: Jason Aronson.

[3] For instance, at http://psychrights.org/States/Texas/exrelJonesvJanssen/ David_Rothman_Expert_Report_300dpi.pdf  

SSRI Antidepressants Increase Risk Of Intracranial Hemorrhage

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
April 30, 2017

From healthline.com: “Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) refers to acute bleeding inside your skull or brain. It’s a life-threatening emergency. You should go to the emergency room right away or call 911 if you think you or someone you know is experiencing ICH.”

The public has learned about the increased risk of suicide and violent behavior (including murder) stemming from the use of SSRI antidepressants. Now there is more:

Psychiatric News reports (4/7/17): “A study published in February in JAMA Neurology has found that patients taking antidepressants that are strong inhibitors of serotonin reuptake (SSRIs) may be at an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage, particularly during the first month of use…”

“The results showed that compared with patients taking [the older] tricyclic antidepressants, patients being treated with SSRIs had a 17 percent increased risk of experiencing an intracranial hemorrhage. The risk was highest during the first 30 days the patients were taking the medications.”

SSRIs include: Celexa; Prozac; Paxil; Zoloft; Lexapro; Luvox.

Here are quotes from other Psychiatric News articles about SSRI use and bleeding:

“Physicians prescribing selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should make patients aware of the possibility of gastrointestinal bleeding, especially if they have pre-existing risk factors or are taking other drugs that increase risk, said a University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist.”

From a January 2014 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry—“Short-term SSRI use—even as little as 7 days—elevated the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, especially in male patients. Just as with NSAIDs and aspirin, physicians should carefully monitor for this side effect.”

Note: Suddenly withdrawing from these drugs can be very dangerous. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin publishes this warning: “Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, sometimes including life-threatening emotional and physical withdrawal problems. In short, it is not only dangerous to start taking psychiatric drugs, it can also be dangerous to stop them. Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision. Methods for safely withdrawing from psychiatric drugs are discussed in Dr. Breggin’s new book, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.”

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Big Government Special: CPS seizes child after parents challenge ADHD diagnosis

Image: CPS seizes child after parents challenge ADHD diagnosis
Source: NaturalNews.com
April 27, 2017

An Ohio couple, Christian and Katie Maple, lost custody of one of their children after they disagreed with the school’s mental health assessment of their child.

Camden Maple, a seven-year-old boy, has five siblings and enjoys Star Wars, Pokémon, football, video games, and Legos. He loves to write stories and draws comic books. While this sounds like an ordinary, creative, imaginative American little boy who can, according to his mom, be “rambunctious” at times, his school said that he needed mental health help.

While the school diagnosed him with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), his parents, who know him better than anyone else, believe that his “rambunctious” actions stem mostly from boredom and not being challenged in the classroom. Camden has been tested a full grade above his current one and often finishes assignments before the rest of the class. When he spends the extra time doodling, Camden gets punished for his creativity.

Does that make him a disobedient or bad child? According to administrators at the public Bowman Primary School in Lebanon, Ohio, it does. They insisted that Camden is “mentally unstable” and needs professional mental health assistance to deal with his disability.

“We as parents do not have the problems the school claims to have with him, at home. We know how to deal with a rambunctious 7 year old, but the school is content with making him believe that he is a bad child; we disagree,” the Maples said.

CPS seizes little boy after a twisted joke at school

Following an incident at school, Christian and Katie were called to pick up their son. He had been a little disruptive in class and told one of the school counselors that he wanted to “erase himself from the earth” because he was a bad kid.

Instead of seeking professional mental health help, the Maples decided to have an extended conversation with their son first, sorting out the issues on a family level. As reported by his parents, there was no reason for concern. During their long talk, Camden explained that he did not want to hurt himself and just said it because he was upset and wanted to see what the counselor would say. His parents added that before this statement, Camden never said anything about harming himself.

The school thinks he is ADHD; we as parents disagree,” the Maples explained. “We believe that it stems mostly from boredom and not being challenged in the classroom. The school has tried on several occasions to get us to have him diagnosed, so that he can be medicated.”

The Maples made suggestions to his teachers about how to handle Camden. They explained that Camden doodles or becomes restless because he is bored, not because he has ADHD. Their comments and suggestions all got ignored, and the school decided to call Child Protective Services (CPS), accusing them of “health neglect.”

After several visits to their home, eight police officers surrounded the couple’s house on March 3, 2017, and took Camden away based on false accusations and ADHD diagnosis. Rather than addressing the issues – by skipping a grade or giving him extra assignments – the CPS abducted a healthy, little boy from his loving family, stamped him with the label of a mental disease, and put him on damaging ADHD medication and mandatory therapy.

Camden never showed any signs of depression or the intention to hurt himself or others. He is just too smart for his age and bored. Nonetheless, the school called the CPS when the Maples did not comply with their demand to get their child diagnosed with ADHD and medicated.

The Maples are still fighting to get their son back and wonder if they fell victim to a money greedy school that wanted funding by having him diagnosed as a special needs child.

Has the world gone mad? Find more twisted news stories at Twisted.news.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

thenewamerican.com

healthimpactnews.com/

Dr. Kelly Brogan – Depression: Busting Myths & Finding Answers

TheBreakaway
Vid Source: SacredScienceDoc
Zy Marquiez
April 3, 2017

Dr. Kelly Brogan’s book, A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression, was one of the top 3 Books of the Year for 2016 at The Breakaway. The depth and scope of the information presented within that book was not unlike what Dr. Peter Breggin did in his quintessential Toxic Psychiatry.

Interviewed below, Dr. Brogan goes into many of the pervasive myths taking place within the field while offering her insights on issues within psychiatry.
__________________________________________________________________________

To learn more about alternative ways of treating depression and other conditions, visit us at http://www.thesacredscience.com/.

A few months ago we had the chance to sit down with Dr. Kelly Brogan, a NYC-based psychiatrist who’s offering a new approach to healing.

Trained in the ways of Western Medicine, but having seen first hand the way the system has evolved into what it is today, under the influence of pharmaceuticals, she is shining the light on some very important truths and turning everything we know about the topic of depression on its head.

The question “is pain and suffering a good thing?” might seem like something only the Dalai Llama would ask, but in our interview, Kelly discusses how going through tough times and hardships actually make us stronger, and equip us with the tools to combat even harder struggles down the line.

If you’re interested in learning about the true meaning of depression and how to treat it the right way, or what we may be losing by the death of the rites of passage, or why all mainstream media outlets said no to sharing the information in her new book “A Mind of Your Own,” even though it was backed by one of the biggest names in publishing, you should definitely watch this interview.

The knowledge she shares will change the way you think about what you or your loved ones have gone through, or are going through now, and more importantly, how to move forward in the best way possible…