Revisiting Psychopathy

Source: CorbettReport.com
James Corbett
July 24, 2017

SHOW NOTES & MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=3515 Previously on The Corbett Report we examined the topic of psychopathy. A number of articles, papers, documentaries and books have emerged to shed more light on the issue. But as this growing understanding of psychopathy begins to shape the way we understand the global economic collapse and the moves toward political tyranny, do we run the risk of starting a new witch hunt? Link to ‘I Am Fishead’ documentary: http://bit.ly/2urqoHP

I Am Fishead: Are Corporate Leaders Egotistical Psychopaths?
Time Reference: 04:36

 

Episode 090 – Our Leaders Are Psychopaths
Time Reference: 06:23

 

Weeding out corporate psychopaths
Time Reference: 07:43

 

The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis
Time Reference: 10:16

 

Interview 423 – Clive Boddy
Time Reference: 10:29

 

Defense Against the Psychopath (Video)
Time Reference: 18:20

 

Defense Against the Psychopath (Book Excerpt)
Time Reference: 27:22

 

Website of Dr. Robert Hare
Time Reference: 29:44

 

Blade Runner VK Test on Leon
Time Reference: 31:20

 

Bladerunner – Film, Literature and the New World Order
Time Reference: 34:22

 

The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson
Time Reference: 35:27

Read This One – It’s About Over-Crowding The Space Your Mind & Rendering It Inoperative

breakaway3
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 5, 2017

“Don’t give me more information. My mind is full. I can’t accept more messages. I have to tune out.”

This is about a psychological operation that, lately, has risen to new heights—the over-crowding of the mind.

I’m talking about the efforts of mainstream news to invent a new “scandal” every day, based on the smallest detail. Trump misspelled a word in a tweet. It could be a secret code. Somebody on Trump’s team talked on the phone with a Russian: treason.

There are twitter battles about which political side has the upper hand in the war between the Left and “Alt.-right.”

Now add in news about terror attacks.

People’s minds are pumped full, and the result is: “I can’t think about anything else. Don’t give me anything else to read or look at. Don’t give me deep analysis—I don’t have the ability to process it. I’m overwhelmed. I have to tune out.”

This effect is being taken to new levels, and as a result, IQ is dropping. Logical capacity is being swamped. The natural desire to get smarter and sharper is diminishing.

The very capacity to put events in a deeper overall perspective—which is exactly what people need—is placed on hold, is jammed up.

In my 35 years as a reporter, I’ve been through this many times. I research an area, and the data are a mess. They’re jumbled and out of order, and filled with lies and half-truths. I’ve learned what it takes to get to the bottom of things, and I can tell you—IT’S WORTH IT.

This is why I keep writing about logic and the need for it. This is why I keep giving readers the news behind the news. This is why I write about how complex systems can become a massive distraction when they exceed common sense and trap the mind.

Reducing the rationality of the individual is the path to futility and surrender. We have to go the other way. The individual’s ability to analyze information in the age of disinformation is primary, vital, and liberating. It always was; and this is a time where it is being tested.

There is the temptation to oversimplify writing and analysis—don’t write a thousand words, shave it down to two hundred, do it all in a tweet. But that’s nonsense. It doesn’t work. Not if empowering people with truth is the goal. And that is the goal.

A person should be proud of his capacity to follow a line of thought and reasoning. He should increase that capacity. He should want to be smarter, always.

No matter what is happening around him.

That effort pays off in clarity. Inessential information falls by the wayside. The space of the mind opens up. Individual power trends upward. This is a good thing.

Now, more than ever.

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.

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  

Shocking study finds that penicillin changes childrens’ brains, causing them to grow up angry and violent

Image: Shocking study finds that penicillin changes childrens’ brains, causing them to grow up angry and violent
Source: NaturalNews.com
Russel Davis
April 18, 2017

Antibiotic treatment during late pregnancy and early childhood spurred aggression and long-term behavioral changes in animal models, a recent study showed. A team of researchers at the McMaster University and St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton in Ontario, Canada examined the effects of low-dose penicillin treatment in pregnant mice and their offspring, and found that the antibiotic triggered neurochemical changes in the brain and spurred a gut bacteria imbalance in mice. These changes coincided with increased aggression and reduced anxiety in the animal models, researchers said. However, the study revealed that giving mice a lactobacillus strain of bacteria helped prevent the onset of these negative behaviors.

“In this paper, we report that low-dose penicillin taken late in pregnancy and in early life of mice offspring, changes behaviour [sic] and the balance of microbes in the gut. While these studies have been performed in mice, they point to popular increasing concerns about the long-term effects of antibiotics. Furthermore, our results suggest that a probiotic might be effective in preventing the detrimental effects of the penicillin,” said lead author Dr. John Bienenstock in an article in ScienceDaily.com.

The findings were published in the journal Nature Communications.

Antibiotics’ potential impact on children’s behavior

The lead author also noted that children were exposed to antibiotics during infancy, and stressed on the potential effects of early antibiotic treatments on the children’s future behavioral development. “There are almost no babies in North America that haven’t received a course of antibiotics in their first year of life. Antibiotics aren’t only prescribed, but they’re also found in meat and dairy products. If mothers are passing along the effects of these drugs to their as yet unborn children or children after birth, this raises further questions about the long-term effects of our society’s consumption of antibiotics,” Dr. Bienenstock said.

Another study has demonstrated a similar effect on animal models. Canadian researchers examined healthy mice and used antibiotics to alter their gut bacteria. According to the study, mice that received antibiotics displayed increased eagerness and less apprehension compared with those in the control group. The researchers also found that antibiotics-treated mice had higher levels of a brain protein associated with depression and anxiety compared with the controls. The findings were published in the journal Gastroenterology.

A meta-analysis published in 2014 also confirmed that using antibiotics to treat inflammation leads to a chemical imbalance in intestinal bacteria. These effects spur changes in the gut function and behavior of hosts, the review noted. The results appeared in the journal Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology.

Modern society and the vicious cycle of aggression

A vast number of studies show that certain behavioral changes such as early aggression in children could manifest well into adolescence and adulthood. An analysis by the Frances McCleland Institute in Tucson, Arizona revealed that boys were more likely than girls to engage in aggressive acts such as hitting and punching others. However, the review also showed that girls were more likely than boys to use social aggression. The study also revealed that both genders tend to use these two forms of aggression simultaneously.

Aggressive behavior in adolescence was also associated with more violent behaviors — such as sexual abuse, child abuse, domestic violence, and homicide — in adulthood, a meta-analysis revealed. A report by the U.S. Department of Justice showed that young adults ages 18 to 24 years had the highest rates of homicide. Data also showed that 7.7% of all American women suffered sexual violence, while 22% were subject to domestic abuse. The results were published in the Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. (Related: Know more about the current state of violence in the U.S. at Violence.news and Civilwar.news)

A number of research, collectively known as “Bobo doll” studies, by renowned psychologist Albert Bandura demonstrate a vicious cycle of aggression that can be transmitted between parents and their children. According to Bandura’s studies, parents who exhibit aggression were more likely to have children displaying similar behaviors.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources: 

DailyMail.co.uk

ScienceDaily.com

LiveScience.com

McClellandInstitute.Arizona.edu

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

PsychologyToday.com