Psychiatry, Medical Treatment, and FDA Approved Fraud

1956 ADVERTISEMENT

From the above advertisement, it more than plain that neuroleptic drugs called,  "antipsychotics" were marketed and prescribed to control children's "unruly behavior" from the time they were first developed...

It is plain that every Federal authority with a legal duty to protect the American people from the adverse effects of prescription drugs, has failed to do so diligently. The illegal marketing continues, while the off-label prescriptions for dangerous teratogens, i.e., FDA-approved psychotropic drugs, are fraudulently billed to the Federal Medicaid program.  Fraud continues unabated while mental health professionals "monitor" the prescription rates of teratogenic drugs prescribed to children that can disable and even kill them. These young patients and their parents are often not informed or the risks.; many are never told what the drugs mechanism of action is, nor are they told of the potential for experiencing serious adverse drug effects that may disable, or eve kill them. Corporate criminals are aided and abetted by regulatory failure; unethical medical professionals who use "standard practice" as an affirmative defense i.e. off label prescriptions that are unsupported by definitive evidence of safety and effectiveness; and Key opinion Leaders whose professional opinions are used to aid and abet the criminal marketing of FDA approved drugs. They're making a killing...

FDA-approved drugs kill far more people 

than alcohol and illicit drugs combined...

via Public Citizen
(a nonprofit organization that does not participate in partisan political activities or endorse any candidates) 


In 2008, Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D. testified before a House subcommittee that, "The situation at the FDA has never been worse than now and this can be attributed to a confluence of 3 factors:

  1.Terrible leadership at the FDA, including the Commissioner and most of the Center                          

• Directors
• 
  
• 2. Increasing reliance on industry to fund FDA activities, with almost 2/3 of the drug approval     budget coming out of the $400 million+ Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) drug  allocation for FY 2008

  3. Relative to the 1970’s and 1980’s, a perilously low level of Congressional oversight and 

   oversight hearings by the same Congresses that have, since 1992, increasingly turned 

   over FDA funding to the industry" read here

via PloS Medicine:

Questionable Advertising of Psychotropic Medications and Disease Mongering

Jeffrey R. Lacasse1*, Jonathan Leo2 1 Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States of America, 2 Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, Tennesseee, United States of America 

an excerpt:
"Wayne Goodman, Chair of the FDA Psychopharmacological Advisory Committee, admitted that the serotonergic theory of depression is a “useful metaphor”—and one that he never uses within his own psychiatric practice [6]." read here

via the FDA Warning Letters and Notice of Violation Letters to Pharmaceutical Companies:

Shire Pharmaceuticals Warning Letter 2011 for Vyvanse an excerpt: "the subject of this letter is dated March 2008" --a warning sent three years after the fact?!

Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc warning letter for Pexeva® (paroxetine mesylate) Tablets here

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation Focalin XR® here

Pfizer Inc. CHANTIX®  (varenicline) Tablets CADUET®  (amlodipine besylate/atorvastatin calcium) Tablets NORVASC®  (amlodipine besylate) Tablets here

Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. warning letter for Latuda, a neuroleptic, or 'antipsychotic' drug an excerpt: "The sales representative’s statements are false or misleading because they promote an unapproved use and minimize the risks associated with Latuda.  Thus, this promotional activity misbrands Latuda in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act"(emphasis mine) here these are all of the warning letters sent for psychiatric drugs in 2011 listed on the FDA website here.

via Mad in America Should the Medical Literature Be Cleansed of All STAR*D Articles?

Posted on May 5, 2011 by Robert Whitaker   a brief excerpt:

"In short, the falsely-reported results are driving prescribing practices and instilling a medical delusion about the effectiveness of these drugs." read here

The Code of Federal Regulations states that prescription drug advertisements must contain, "a true statement of the effectiveness of the drug for the selected purpose(s) for which the drug is recommended or suggested in the advertisement. The information relating to effectiveness shall include specific indications for use of the drug for purposes claimed in the advertisement"

Well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the drug companies do not adhere to Federal Law.  Even when the drug industry is caught breaking the Law, the penalty does not serve as a sufficient deterrent; pharma has not stopped using illegal methods to gain FDA approval, or market it's products.  The FDA is failing as a regulatory authority; providing little, to no protection for the American people from iatrogenic harm and fatalities caused by FDA-approved drugs. It appears the drug industry is directing FDA approval and regulatory activity.  

The SSRIs (as the story goes) supposedly, 'safely treats depression thought to be caused by a 'serotonin imbalance.'   It is a disproved hypothesis, that became a fraudulent claim; a myth that has been used for decades to market SSRI antidepressants, and used to convince patients to take their antidepressants.  No serotonin imbalance, or any other neurotransmitter has ever been identified or validated as an actual biological cause of depression, or any psychiatric diagnosis!  It appears this hypothesis took on mythological proportions, and came to be accepted as a "fact, " but it is an "urban legend," without any basis in reality. This hypothetical myth, is a fraudulent claim that was repeated incessantly in drug advertisements, in professional journal articles, and in doctor's offices in "informed consent" discussions with patients and parents.  It is, and always was, a drug marketing strategy---a very lucrative and successful marketing strategy that has defrauded billions of dollars mainly from publicly funded medical programs...The FDA never sent a single warning letter to any of the drug manufacturers or the medical professionals who were promoting the chemical imbalance / brain disease mythology to advertise and market drugs; and to coerce patients into treatment compliance. The FDA allowed drug manufacturers, salesmen, medical professionals and Key Opinion Leaders to perpetrate fraud in order to sell FDA approved drugs with serious risks; risks that the FDA helped unethical researchers and manufacturers bury.  Not informing doctors or informing the American people in order to protect them from harm, makes it an FDA-approved fraud.

via NIMH Directors Blog December 14, 2011

Treatment Development: The Past 50 Years 

a few excerpts:

"Over the past year, several companies, including Astra Zeneca, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Sanofi Aventis, and recently Novartis, have announced either a reduction or a re-direction of their programs in psychiatric medication R&D. Some of these companies (such as Novartis) are shifting from clinical trials to focus more on the early phases of medication development where they feel they can identify better targets for treating mental disorders. Others are shifting from psychiatry to oncology and immunology, which are viewed by some as lower risk.

"There are multiple explanations for these changes. For instance, many of the blockbuster psychiatric medications are now available in inexpensive generic form. In addition, there are few validated new molecular targets (like the dopamine receptor) for mental disorders. Moreover, new compounds have been more likely to fail in psychiatry compared to other areas of medicine. Studying the brain and the mind has proven to be much more difficult than the liver and the heart. Most experts feel the science of mental disorders lags behind other areas of medicine. The absence of biomarkers, the lack of valid diagnostic categories, and our limited understanding of the biology of these illnesses make targeted medication development especially difficult for mental disorders." emphasis mine read here

The last sentence emphasized above is ample evidence that Thomas Insel does not understand basic scientific principles; yet, he is the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health. The absence of an identified biological dysfunction or disease pathology, i.e. a treatment target, is characterized as a "difficulty" by Thomas Insel; it is a barrier. In medical research, development of targeted treatments follow the identification of a biological dysfunction or disease that is then "targeted" for treatment. Is it possible that Thomas Insel is unaware that conforming to scientific principles is required in ethical research?  An unknown, unidentified biological dysfunction or disease is a 'hypothetical' cause for psychiatric diagnoses; it cannot ethically become a target for treatment, unless it is a validated cause of a mental disorder. Without identifying a biological dysfunction or biological disease, it's impossible to validate the disease hypothesis. To proceed without valid evidence of a disease pathology, is unethical, unscientific and belies the ethical principles of scientific research. Using a hypothesis as means of explaining a diagnosis is entirely unethical, and dishonest; yet it is standard clinical practice, and has been for decades. Pharmachological treatment for undesirable emotional and behavioral symptoms in the belief they are caused by biological dysfunction or disease, without ever identifying or validating a biological dysfunction or disease that is validated as a cause of any mental disorder, is not and cannot be a valid or ethical medical treatment. Psychiatry's "medical diagnoses" that are not supported and validated by ethically conducted research, are mythological "diseases." Psychiatry's treatment standards that are supported not by empirical evidence, but by errors of attribution, corrupt data, and subjective, i.e. biased opinions;  are not medical treatments that conforms to ethical medical principles, or even "medical treatment"...

It is Human Experimentation and it is Standard Clinical Practice. 

It is standard "medical treatment" that can be forced Under Color of Law. 
Does that sound like good medicine that is "therapeutic? 

Update February 2, 2011 at 7 pm
Six FDA scientists and doctors have filed a Federal Lawsuit alleging the FDA retaliated against them  for voicing safety concerns about medical machines the FDA approved. 

via The Washington Post Federal Eye Blog on February 1, 2011 Grassley Investigates FDA monitoring of whistleblowers By Lisa Rein and Ellen Nakashima

an couple excerpts:  

"The plaintiffs contend the monitoring was a blatant form of retaliation. Information gathered this way eventually contributed to the harassment or dismissal of all six workers, the suit alleges.

"Grassley warned Hamburg that it is illegal for a government agency to interfere with an employee’s right to air concerns to members of Congress. He said the FDA had “no evidence” that one of the device reviewers, Paul J. Hardy, disclosed confidential business information about the devices, yet fired him after he exchanged Gmail messages with congressional staff, including an investigator who worked for Grassley."

“It is troubling to me to see your Agency actively pursue the dismissal of an employee ... not because they violated procedure and leaked genuinely confidential classified information, but simply because you “cannot trust him,” Grassley wrote. He told Hamburg the FDA’s retaliation against Hardy “directly contradicts” testimony she gave during her 2009 confirmation hearings of her intent to protect whistleblowers by “creating a culture that enables all voices to be heard.” read here

Fox in the hen house source
Vintage Drug ad source 
Regulatory and Ethical Failure in Mental Health Treatment and Drug Advertising 2-2-12

Strange answers to the psychopath test and Bruce Levine's solicited response bear repeating

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. J.F.K.

“It's a lot harder to convince people you're sane than it is to convince them you're crazy.”

Jon Ronson 

Huffington Post has a feature called TED weekends in which a TED talk is featured and various writers are invited to write a blog post addressing the subject matter. The Huffington Post recently  solicited a response to Jon Ronson's talk titled, "Strange answers to the psychopath test," from Bruce E. Levine, which it subsequently rejected. The reason given for the rejection is asinine, all things considered. Apparently, it was rejected for the manner in which he shared his perspective, the words he used; i.e. the language was "too strong." Since Bruce E. Levine is a blogger on the Huffington Post, one would assume, his perspective and the language he uses to express himself, is known to the Huffington Post.  

Which begs the question, why make the editorial decision to reject his solicited response?  Ronson's TED Talk and Bruce E. Levine's bear repeating. 

via TED Talks:

Jon Ronson: Strange answers to the psychopath test

via Bruce Levine Blog:

Imperialist Psychiatrists, Psychopathic Corporatists
But I Repeat Myself

April 4, 2013           

Mark Twain famously said, “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” My immediate reaction to Jon Ronson’s TED talk? Imperialist psychiatrists, psychopathic corporatists — but I, too, repeat myself.

Ronson reminds us that the media’s poster boy for psychopathic corporatists in the 1990s was “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap. In the 2000s, the media’s poster boy for imperialist psychiatrists has been Joseph Biederman. You decide how much difference there is between imperialist psychiatrists and psychopathic corporatists.

Dunlap, the infamous “asset stripper” of the 1990s, cut 11,000 jobs as CEO of Scott Paper and walked away in 1995 with $100 million after Scott merged with Kimberly-Clark. “And,” Ronson reports, “he’d quite often fire people with a joke.”

Psychiatric imperialism? Ronson notes that “this is a country that over-diagnoses certain mental disorders hugely. Childhood bipolar—children as young as four are being labeled bipolar because they have temper tantrums, which scores them high on their bipolar checklist.” How did this happen?

Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Biederman, according to pediatrician and author Lawrence Diller, “single-handedly put pediatric bipolar disorder on the map.” Due in great part to Biederman’s influence, the number of American children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder increased 40-fold from 1994 to 2003. And as Bloomberg News reported in 2007, “The expanded use of bipolar as a pediatric diagnosis has made children the fastest-growing part of the $11.5 billion U.S. market for antipsychotic drugs.” Today this market has grown to $18 billion.

Biederman’s relationships with drug companies was discovered by the public in 2008, when the New York Times reported the following about him: “A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but for years did not report much of this income to university officials.”

As part of legal proceedings, Biederman was forced to provide documents about his interactions with Johnson & Johnson, the giant pharmaceutical company. In 2009, the New York Times reported Biederman pitched Johnson & Johnson that his proposed research studies on its antipsychotic drug Risperdal would turn out favorably for Johnson & Johnson—and then Biederman delivered the goods. In a deposition given by Biederman to several states attorneys, he was asked what rank he held at Harvard:

“Full professor,” Biederman answered.

“What’s after that?” asked one state attorney, Fletch Trammell.

“God,” Biederman responded.

“Did you say God?” Trammell asked.

“Yeah,” Biederman said.

Al Dunlap and Joseph Biederman share with the late mobster John Gotti (the “Dapper Don”) not only a certain grandiose sense of self-worth; all also brought attention to their deeds, embarrassing their fellow professional plunderers who would rather their business remain in the shadows.

In Al Dunlap’s era, Newsweek ran a cover story “Corporate Killers: The Hit Men” (February 26, 1996) with mug shots of CEOs along with the number of jobs they had cut. Among the 12 severe offenders were Louis Gerstner, CEO of IBM (salary: $2,625,000, layoffs in July 1993: 60,000) and Edward Brennan CEO of Sears, Roebuck (salary $3,075,000, layoffs in January 1993: 50,000). And of course today, CEOs continue to get rewarded for whacking/downsizing/firing workers.

Biedeman is not alone among psychiatrists lining their pockets with drug company money. In 2008, the New York Times (“Top Psychiatrist Didn’t Report Drug Makers’ Pay”) reported this about Charles Nemeroff: “One of the nation’s most influential psychiatrists earned more than $2.8 million in consulting arrangements with drug makers from 2000 to 2007, failed to report at least $1.2 million of that income to his university and violated federal research rules, according to documents provided to Congressional investigators.” In 2008, Congress also discovered that Alan Schatzberg, then president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, had $4.8 million in stock holdings in a drug development company. In its investigation, Congress found that Biederman, Nemeroff, and Schatzberg were among many psychiatrists financially connected to drug companies.

Ronson tells us that psychopath expert Robert Hare concludes that capitalism, at its most ruthless, rewards psychopathic behavior—glibness, the lack of empathy, cunning manipulativeness. And Hare believes that capitalism, at its most remorseless, is a manifestation of psychopathy that has come down to affect us all. So, perhaps in their own view and through the lens of fundamentalist capitalism, Al Dunlap and Joseph Biederman are not psychopaths but simply high achievers.

Bruce Levine: The Rebel Yell

censorship graphic students.oneonta.edu

The Unquiet Mind

DSM-1, 1952: 106 disorders DSM-II , 1968: 185 disorders DSM-III, 1980: 265 disorders DSM-IV, 1994: 357 disorders

via Bonkers Institute for Nearly Genuine Research

via npr.org TED Radio Hour:

The Unquiet Mind

"People need depth, and depth means the possibility of unhappiness and frustration and sometimes torment — though hopefully not madness." — Oliver Sacks

We've all had that moment. The moment where you might see or hear something and you wonder: Am I going crazy? In this hour, TED speakers share their experiences straddling that line between madness and sanity — and question if we're all in the gray area between the two.

Part 1 of the TED Radio Hour episode The Unquiet Mind. 

Part 2 of the TED Radio Hour episode The Unquiet Mind.

Part 3 of the TED Radio Hour episode The Unquiet Mind.

Part 4 of the TED Radio Hour episode The Unquiet Mind.

hat tip: Harold Hopkins @hoppy212ny

Prosecute Psychiatrists

via the OC Register Letters to the editor:

Prosecute psychiatrists  

GARDEN GROVE, Clay Bock: The deadliest mass murder that has ever occurred in Orange County ends the lives of eight wonderful people, most of whom are in the prime of their lives. Hundreds of family members and their friends lives are terribly damaged forever after the loss of their loved ones. As it turns out, as in just about every one of these bizarre, brutal acts of violence, Scott Dekraai was in the hands of a psychiatrist and on psychiatric drugs. 

The second-deadliest O.C. mass murderer, according to the newspaper, Edward Allaway, also had a long history of psychiatric “treatment” before he killed seven people at Cal State Fullerton in 1976. There are hundreds of those treated by psychiatrists in between, including the man who killed innocent shoppers with the sword in Irvine or Eric Harris at Columbine.  

Psychiatrists know that these drugs cause a certain number of people to become violent. Here is a list of a few of the side effects for their drugs from the National Institute of Mental Health website: Irritability, aggressive or violent behavior, acting without thinking, extreme increase in activity or talking, sudden or unusual changes in behavior and even suicide.


If Dr. Conrad Murray can be prosecuted for Michael Jackson’s death due to misapplication of prescription drugs, it is time to prosecute psychiatrists behind these mass murderers. read here

Neuroleptic Origin: 1955–60;  French neuroleptique, equivalent to neuro- neuro- + -leptique < Greek lēptikós disposed to take, equivalent to lēp- (verbid stem of lambánein to seize) + -tikos -tic; see -lepsy  via Dictionary.com 

It is a relatively new concept for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia to be considered "violent."  Violence has only been associated with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the last 50 or so years----after the introduction of neuroleptic drugs.  It is significant that this shift in perception occurred around the time it became apparent that people treated with what were then, relatively new drugs, the neuroleptic, or "antipsychotic" drugs became aggressive or violent.   The neurological and cognitive impairment many attribute to the psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia are in reality caused by the teratogenic, neuroleptic drugs.

When one considers how little we know about the pathophysiology of schizophrenia for which these nerve-seizing or "nerve affecting" drugs were initially prescribed; it is more than a little frightening.  The neuroleptic drugs have been used for 60 years, and we know they cause cardio-vascular, metabolic and neurological dysfunction; we know that neuroleptics cause intellectual, neurological, cognitive and physical impairments, that are disabling; and can cause sudden or early death.  Neurological impairment was not identified as a symptom attributed to the progression of schizophrenia before the advent of these teratogenic drugs; but it is listed along with aggression and violence and now attributed to the diagnosis of schizophrenia; which seems less than acurate, or honest to say the the very least. 

via The Lancet:

“Why are the mentally ill still bearing arms?”

an excerpt:"As but one example, the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published in 1968, redefined paranoid schizophrenia as a condition of “hostility” and “aggression” and projected anger in ways that encouraged psychiatrists to conceptualise(sic) violent acts as symptoms of mental illness." read           

In psychiatry, "successful treatment" is defined totally differently than in any other medical specialty. In psychiatry, successful treatment is not dependent upon diagnostic validity or the effectivenss of the treatment; it is solely based upon the patient's willingness to be "treatment compliant."

via the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, a personal paper asks, Does psychiatry stigmatize? The author concludes "psychiatry may have very little specific to offer" to many with a psychiatric diagnosis.  The paper asks whether it is possible that psychiatry harms some, and also agrees this is probably so, due to the limited ability to explain problems caused or exacerbated by social and environmental conditions.  read the paper here. 

via Reuters:

French psychiatrist sentenced after patient commits murder

A French psychiatrist whose patient hacked an elderly man to death was found guilty of manslaughter on Tuesday in a groundbreaking case that could affect the way patients are treated.

A court in Marseilles said Daniele Canarelli, 58, had committed a "grave error" by failing to recognize the public danger posed by Joel Gaillard, her patient of four years.

Gaillard hacked to death 80-year-old Germain Trabuc with an axe in March 2004 in Gap, in the Alps region of southeastern France, 20 days after fleeing a consultation with Canarelli at Marseilles's Edouard Toulouse hospital.

Canarelli was handed a one-year prison sentence and ordered to pay 8,500 euros to the victim's children, in the first case of its kind in France. Defense lawyers said the ruling would have serious repercussions for treatment of the mentally ill.

"If a psychiatrist lives in fear of being sentenced, it will have very real consequences and probably lead to harsher treatment of patients," said Canarelli's lawyer, Sylvain Pontier.

The court said Canarelli should have requested Gaillard be placed in a specialized medical unit or referred him to another medical team, as one of her colleagues suggested. Her stubborn refusal had equated to a form of "blindness", the court president Fabrice Castoldi said.

Gaillard had already been forcibly committed to a secure hospital on several occasions for a series of increasingly dangerous incidents.

The victim's son, Michel Trabuc, said he hoped the case would set a legal precedent.

"There's no such thing as zero risk, but I hope this will move psychiatry forward and, above all, that it will never happen again," he said.

Gaillard was not held responsible for his actions and was freed under medical supervision.

(Reporting by Jean-François Rosnoblet; Writing by Vicky Buffery; Editing by Alison Williams) here

Is the primary ethical duty of a physician unknown to mainstream psychiatry?

"I am sure that we will recognize that there are some things in our society, 

some things in our world, to which we should never be adjusted." 

Martin Luther King Jr.

"I am sure that to be silent about psychiatric abuse and oppression is to be complicit."
MadMother

Although definitive evidence in support of the hypothesis that schizophrenia is a brain disease remains elusive, psychiatrists who firmly believe in the correctness of it, used their belief in this hypothetical explanation for the etiology of schizophrenia to justify the "Standard Practice" of prescribing neurotoxic teratogenic drugs as a necessary medical treatment. Calling it a "Standard Practice" is misleading; it is not an ethical medical standard, since it is a "standard" only because it was designated as such by consensus; i.e. a quasi-democratic political process, evidence only of an agreement of the meaning to be attached to behaviors. Psychiatry relies upon consensus, a quasi-democratic process in the absence of evidence gathered by using ethical scientific principles.  It is a standard that does not rely upon the use of sound ethical medical judgement; it is contradictory to the ethical standards of medical science. The standard clinical practices used by psychiatry to "medically treat" psychiatric diagnoses are validated by a political process; as a result, they are not ethical medical standards. In other medical specialties, the standards used in clinical practice are derived from and supported by the data collected in research, and includes documented "anecdotal" evidence from experienced clinicians;  i.e. the "evidence base." Theoretically, to be ethical medical care, care is offered with the primary purpose of serving the best interests of the patient; in the Hippocratic tradition to, "First, do no harm..."

In effect, the AACAP and the APA have determined by a quasi-democratic process, that psychiatric diagnoses are biological, neurodevelopmental brain diseases, or chemical imbalances that require "medical treatment." It is a determination that is not based on research, but on a political process; it is based on a vote. This is also how diagnoses and diagnostic criteria is standardized as well. So psychiatry recommends "treating" behaviors as if they are symptoms of disease; and this recommendation is not based upon the scientific method, or the ethical principles of medicine; which begs the question, why is it called, "medical treatment?"

The devotees of psychiatry's disease model have been frantically searching for proof of an elusive  hypothetical disease that causes psychiatric symptoms; and have yet to find definitive evidence despite decades of diligent searching for it. The fact that they have standards of practice that are based on the belief in an unidentified disease is despicable really, when one considers the loss of liberty, and life that has resulted from ego-maniacal hubris masquerading as "professional medical judgement." Belief in a hypothetical explanation for symptoms is not an ethical basis for any medical decision; it is a juvenile justification for bullying. Psychiatry is, in effect bullying psychiatric patients by using coercion, biased information, Police Powers, and Court Orders; none of which can ever magically transform what is being done into a valid or ethical medical treatment. Stating authoritatively, that a disease exists which requires medical treatment in order to compel or coerce "treatment compliance," is nothing but a fraud.

Do NOT misunderstand what I am saying--distress, social difficulties, emotional, behavioral and cognitive symptoms are all very real; but none have been proven to be the result of a neuro-biological disease, chemical imbalance or a genetic defect. This fact is acknowledged; by the APA, and AACAP and the NIMH. Yet all three of these entities disseminate educational materials for the general public that imply and literally state the exact opposite. At the same time, through NAMI, and other so-called patient advocacy groups, and in "peer-reviewed" professional journals the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, disseminate information that authoritatively states, in effect, that psychiatric diagnoses are medical illnesses (like diabetes!) that can be treated "safely and effectively." The claim is more of a hopeful exaggeration; and strictly speaking, is not a truthful claim. The new psychiatry, or "psychopharmacology," purports to be "treating diseases" whose etiology and/or pathology have never been defined, validated, much less understood well enough to ethically support the claim made that their symptoms can be effectively treated.

The diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual are based upon the most unreliable scientific data, subjective observation/opinion. The disease hypothesis is supposedly derived from the mechanism of action of the drugs, but the disease hypothesis predates the use of drugs. In the field of medicine, a phenomenon is studied, and a hypothesis is formulated and tested. In medicine, a disease or defect is studied, defined and validated through testing of the hypothesis, once understood, somatic treatments to reverse, prevent or inhibit the progression of the disease can be developed and tested... Psychotropic drugs can cause disease in major organs and alter the function of physiological processes; in effect, the drugs cause iatrogenic illnesses and impairments; and can cause sudden death. Psychopharmacology has a devotion to the bio-disease paradigm; but it is due to a hopeful belief, an illusion, not sucessful use of the drugs. Psychiatry; i.e. psychopharmacology, does not consistently use scientific standards; and worse yet, it is not grounded in, or even seem to value, ethical medical principles.

Psychiatry does not keep track of how many actually die, develop obesity, diabetes, akathisia, tardive dyskinesia, tachycardia, or any iatrogenic illness from the drugs which will shorten their patient's lives. This is indicative of how important the collection of relevant data necessary for an accurate risk vs. benefit assessment in real world practice is to psychiatry. Why would a belief in a particular etiology for psychiatric symptoms become a justification for adopting a clinical standard of practice unsupported by evidence, or for using force to compel the treatment Under Color of Law? How can it be ethically or morally justifiable to compel treatment with significant and fatal risks by Court Order?

Sudden fatality, the development of chronic conditions that are disabling, i..e. the rate of iatrogenesis, is  needed information for a meaningful risk vs. benefit analysis in real world clinical practice; yet this information is purposely not being collected. Those who are disabled, and the fatal outcomes are considered "anecdotal evidence." Ironically, unlike  the anecdotal evidence used to recommend prescribing the drugs to a patient, this outcome data, is "anecdotal evidence" that is ignored---it is not considered relevant when making treatment decisions.  This is in no small measure why children are being drugged in the manner that they are... Rarely, are iatrogenic, drug-induced deaths, recorded in the FDA AER database, as such. Based upon my own casual observation, child fatalities are commonly reported by a parent or an attorney; not a medical professional.

The twisted logic seems to be, if psychiatric diagnoses are "diseases" and psychiatrists are "doctors" who diagnose the diseases; that what they are do is provide necessary "medical treatment."  Whether a person gives consent or not, is not important. Psychiatry does not treat individuals so much as apply a label to the individual; then implement a treatment protocol.  Since Practice Parameters are based upon consensus, outcomes or overall improvement in the patients was not ever considered important enough to be quantified in any meaningful way, nor was the data considered important enough to collect. The patients' perspective,  physical health and general well being, doesn't appear to be given thoughtful consideration. The effect of treatment on the patient is certainly never as important as the patient never questioning the bio-disease model. A patient must always remain treatment compliant regardless of the actual effects of psychiatric treatment.

Without insisting on the absolute utility of the "treatments" of psychotropic drugs, how would psychiatry "practice medicine?" It would have to return to the "treatment" used prior to the drugs: lobotomy and insulin shock. Choosing to stop the using coercion to control, having respect and showing compassion for patients, considering patients to be worthy of kindness, and treating patients as equals would be an indication that the psychiatric profession may be worthy of trust. Choosing to use methods of control to main authority while continuing to deny the the plight of patients who are harmed, is evidence that psychiatry is not a profession that can be  trusted.

Psychiatry continues to defend the use of coercion, while wielding Police Powers; continues to mislead and lie to patients and the general public, continues to lie about patients and lie about the nature of the diagnoses that are applied to people in distress, with impunity. All of psychiatry's standard practices are anathema to ethical medical principles and the scientific understanding of disease. The manner in which psychiatry is practiced makes it impossible to earn the trust and respect of patients who have critical thinking skills; without mutual respect it is impossible to develop a therapeutic relationship.

It becomes obvious why Informed Consent is not really an important part of psychiatry's "standard clinical practices;" whether it is accidental oversight, careless disregard, or lack of appropriate training, doesn't really matter.  In the end, it is the real world outcomes of the patients themselves that matter; doing what is in a patient's best interest is supposed to be the primary focus in providing medical care.

The refusal to collect accurate data and to base treatment decisions upon ethical scientific methods and sound ethical medical principles, in effect, encourages psychiatrists to be wilfully blind to the countless, uncounted and discounted psychiatric patients they treat who are not "effectively treated;" but are instead grievously harmed. Psychiatry is blind to the plight of patients who are experiencing profound iatrogenic impairments and effectively dismisses the patients, and doesn't collect the data quantifying the harm done to them.

Psychiatric survivors are denigrated by mainstream advocates 'for the mentally ill' and by psychiatrists in "professional" journals. Patients who are liberated from psychiatric incarceration who have reclaimed their voices; refuse to be silent. Psychiatric survivors are the ONLY advocates who speak of and remember the lives that are lost forever. The psychiatric patients who are (de)voiced, who can no longer speak about what happened to them, whether they are alive or dead, are people worthy of respect. They are people who matter, and their real world outcomes are not "anecdotal evidence."

It is a choice to abdicate the primary ethical duty of a physician to, "First, do no harm..."

photo credit bipolarbears11 photobucket

Leonard Roy Frank on Psychiatry's Bible the DSM

via MindFreedom

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

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

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

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

Leonard Roy Franks, Anti-psychiatry activist and psychiatric survivor discusses 

the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorder which is put our by the 

American Psychiatric Association.

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

nonconformists in society.

Franks edited the best-selling Random House Webster's Quotationary in 1998

 and The History of Shock Treatment in 1978. Active in the psychiatric survivors 

movement since 1972, he is a member of MindFreedom International, a coalition 

of more than 100 grassroots groups working for human rights in psychiatry, and 

also The Coalition for the Abolition of Electroshock.

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

The Electroshock Quotationary may be downloaded free of charge at

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

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

This video maybe displayed in public, copied and redistributed for 

any strictly non-commercial use in its entire unedited form. Alteration 

or commercial use is strictly prohibited.

photo credit Low-Ki photobucket

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

Jeffrey Lieberman's lame defense of the APA's "ethical integrity" and the DSM-5 process is not credible

The President-elect of the APA, Jeffrey Lieberman, needs to know the loss of public trust in psychiatry is a direct result of the lack of scientific research standards and lack of ethical clinical practice standards; i.e. the lack of Medical Ethics and integrity.  The evidence of which are the horrific Real World Outcomes achieved.  Jeffrey Lieberman's OP-Ed in response to Dr. Keith Ablow's, May 14th 2012 article, "Be Wary of the American Psychiatric Association," is an attempt to defend the professional organization of psychiatrists that Lieberman is President-elect of.

Lieberman did not support his statements by citing any facts to support of his criticism of Keith Ablow. Indeed, Lieberman did not identify which of Ablow's comments he believed were, "inaccurate and unsubstantiated by scientific evidence."  Lieberman failed to support any of his statements regarding the APA, the DSM-5 process, and the DSM-5 committee members Conflicts of Interest with any relevant source of information.  He simply stated his viewpoint as if being  President-elect of the APA gives his personal opinions scientific validity; an erroneous belief that is common among bio-medical devotees practicing 'psycho' pharmacology.  The belief may be due to the profession's reliance on consensus, for determining diagnostic criteria, practice parameters and psychotropic drug algorithms.  I suspect this may be why Lieberman's claim of great strides being made to "establish a strong scientific basis for our understanding of human behavior..." is not supported by any relevant data; simply a statement of his personal belief... Jeffrey Lieberman's lame defense of the APA's integrity and the DSM-5 process is simply not credible without scientific support...

via FoxNews.com
Counter-argument: Changes to DSM-V bring needed improvements
By Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman Published May 22, 2012 a couple of excerpts:

"In his article, Ablow made comments about the APA and DSM-V, which I believe are inaccurate and unsubstantiated by scientific evidence. Moreover, they are misleading to the public and potentially harmful in that by undermining the credibility of the psychiatric profession and its scientific underpinnings. They may even deter people in need from seeking treatment.

"For this reason, I offer the following comments in response. I believe that I am qualified to do so as Professor and Chair of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and the President Elect of the APA." 

"These experts in neuroscience, biology, genetics, statistics, epidemiology, social and behavioral sciences, and public health were rigorously vetted for any conflict of interest using guidelines derived from other academic professional organizations and from the federal government itself and have worked assiduously for over five years to scour the scientific literature and determine whether any changes to existing DSM-4 diagnoses and additions were warranted."

"However, through biomedical research and enhancement of public awareness we have made great strides in the U.S. to establish a strong scientific basis for our understanding of human behavior and brain disorders that affect mental functions and bring them out of the shadows so that people can recognize symptoms and seek treatment."

Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman is the chairman of Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and director at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. read here

via Dissident Voice
Psychiatrists Seek New Patients At Annual Meeting
Watch For These New Diseases
by Martha Rosenberg / May 22nd, 2012 a couple of excerpts:

"This is the year the APA puts the finishing touches on DSM-5, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a compendium that determines what treatments insurers will cover, what disorders merit funding as “public health” threats and, of course, Pharma marketing and profits. Some question the objectivity of a disorder manual written by those who stand to benefit from an enlarged patient pool and new diseases. Furthering the appearance of self-dealing is the revelation that 57 percent of the DSM-5′s authors have Pharma links.

"No kidding. Present at this year’s meeting were former APA president Alan F. Schatzberg, MD and Charles Nemeroff, MD, both investigated by Congress for murky Pharma income. Schatzberg and Nemeroff are co-editors of the APA-published Textbook of Psychopharmacology whose 2009 edition cites the work of Richard Borison, MD former psychiatry chief at the Augusta Veterans Affairs medical center who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for a $10 million clinical trial fraud. Also present was S. Charles Schulz, MD, who was investigated for financial links to AstraZeneca believed to alter his scientific conclusions.

"Even though Assistant Secretary of Defense Jonathan Woodson sent a memo to all branches of the military in February about over-prescription of antipsychotic medications like Seroquel and Risperdal for PTSD, military figures closely linked to that over-prescription were also listed in attendance at the APA meeting." read it here

via 1 Boring Old Man to take us seriously...a couple of excerpts:

"Psychiatry has been plagued with scientific distortion for a long time. It’s a matter of public record that any number of studies and articles have overstepped the rational bounds of scientific enterprise – overblowing the results of clinical trials, withholding information about adverse events, renaming things like suicidality – spinning the data rather than just reporting it. It’s time for that to stop. We know it, but more importantly, the rest of the medical community and our patients know it."

"We can’t do that with our diagnostic system. We can’t cook the books or spin the results of the Field Trials. It’s time to reclaim our commitment to scientific discipline, and the way to do that is to go back to first base and run the play again – including both another review of the Disorders  and another set of Field Trials.  It is much more important for psychiatry to restore our integrity and our commitment to the rigors of science than it is to get the DSM-5 published. We simply can’t go forward with those Field Trial results and expect anyone to take us seriously. Until we can publish a DSM-5 that we’re proud of, we shouldn’t publish one at all…" read here

photo credit foxnews.com