Gang Stalking, Multi-Stalking

Antipsychotic Drug Implant

2012-03-21T20:13:00.000-07:00

The drug implant caused a lesion in my artery, caused me to have a stroke, caused me to have a stent.

The drug implant causes me so much stress, depression, and anxiety from the constant humming, buzzing, electrical feeling. I lay in bed and weep for hours upon hours, unable to sleep, because I know that this drug is destroying my memory and destroying the very essence of me. This is the reason my heart races, palpitates, and beats so hard I can feel it in my back. Because of this implant.

Antipsychotic drugs are not about helping people. They are about destroying anyone who resists the system.

You would think my family would have learned not to trust the system after they MURDERED my Mother, allowing her to get beaten and not taking her to the hospital when she had severe brain damage, then, poisoning her with pharmaceutical drugs, and finally, not giving her those drugs once her body had become accustomed to them, thus causing her to go into insulin shock. Why? So, they can sell off her body parts? So, they could collect insurance on her? So, they didn't have to be bothered with her anymore? The day she was dying, they were already showing her room at the nursing home to visitors. I heard a staff member taking a family on a tour, telling them that her room would soon be available. She wasn't even dead yet.

Look at my nephew, on antipsychotics for years. He lost all of his hair. He gained over 100 pounds. He has back problems because of the weight. He has high blood pressure because of these drugs. He slept 12 years of his life away. He had a bright, promising future with an IQ of 160. The drugs ruined him--caused physical and mental health problems. They dulled his brain.

I HATE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE THIS TO ME. YOU ARE EVIL BEYOND BELIEF. YOU ARE DESTROYING MY BRAIN. I CAN FEEL THE NERVES IN MY BRAIN BURNING AWAY WITH THESE TOXIC CHEMICALS.

I HOPE THAT YOU BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY. YOU WILL ANSWER TO GOD FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO ME YOU CHILDREN OF SATAN.

Cardiotoxicity of antipsychotic drugs

2012-03-21T18:07:00.002-07:00

For those who don't believe Dr. Peter Breggin about antipsychotics causing heart problems, perhaps you will believe what is published on a government website about the cardiotoxicity of antipsychotics.

Torsadogenic cardiotoxicity of antipsychotic drugs: a structural feature, potentially involved in the interaction with cardiac HERG potassium channels.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15544470

2012-03-19T20:20:00.004-07:00

To all of you evil stalkers. To all who conspired to end my life by placing these instruments of death in my body: My death and my funeral will be unannounced. You will not have the satisfaction of spitting on my grave.

Your evil knows no bounds. But, someday, you will face your evil deeds and you will pay for them when you stand before the final judgment and Jesus tells you "Depart from me, you lawless ones. I never knew you."

Stalking is breaking the law. It is an invasion of privacy. It is harassment. ALLWHO DO THIS ARE TERRORISTS. Whatever your reason--the end does not justify the means.

Get off your lazy, fat asses riding around in your vehicles and thinking you are some kind of important "spy." Get a real job where you actually have to work for a living, where you actually have to have some skills and talent. You have no skills, no talent. You are part of a terrorist group. You can't think for yourself. You are nothing but a terrorist. You are evil.

2012-03-19T08:18:00.000-07:00

I would rather be dead than live the rest of my life hearing this buzzing/humming and feeling electric currents/sparks hitting my brain.

My family is not welcome at my funeral since they have conspired with the evil doers to have this poison put in my system.

What Happens When You Take Away Every Thing a Person Finds Pleasure In?

2012-03-16T21:41:00.000-07:00

Dr. Mercola recently issued a newsletter with a topic on depression. The article stated that when you take every thing away from a person that they find pleasure in, you take away their will to live.

I hope you stalkers are happy.

You will stand before God and be judged for the evil that you have done to me.

You have caused me to lose my family, friends, church, and my health. You have taken away my spirit, my independence, my self-reliance. You have taken away my peace of mind.

Because of you, I suffered a heart attack.

I believe that somehow you had me implanted with antipsychotic drug implants and also a biotelemetry implant heart monitor--that is why I hear constant humming/buzzing and why I feel electric current sensations in my body. YOU decided against what I know about neuroleptics--that they are mind-numbing, dangerous drugs that shorten a person's life by 15-20 years.

Your worst sin? You convinced my family that you were doing this for my own good, while you slowly murder me by putting these poisonous antipsychotic drugs into my system.

That is why I hear beeping--it is coming from the heart monitor. That is why my heart races and palpitates and pounds so hard it feels like it is coming out of my back.

I am no longer able to exercise as I used to--I can no longer bike-ride, swim, hike, etc. Because of this, I have gained 60 pounds, which causes further stress on my heart, and further depression.

You took away everything in life that I found pleasure in.

Just as the medical system killed my Mother, you now plan to slowly murder me. You can delude yourself that it isn't murder--but, it is. Just because you don't do it outright. You are slowly poisoning me with these antipsychotic drugs, that, no doubt, are responsible for my heart attack, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, and high cholesterol.

You continue to stalk me online and offline--constantly trying to convince me that there are all of these coincidences.

You are evil. You were spawned by the Devil and when you die, you will spend eternity in Hell with him.

Buzzing/Electric Currents in Brain and Heart

2012-01-17T17:35:00.000-08:00

Since March of 2011, I have had electric current sensations in my brain, heart, and skeletal frame. At times, it feels like I swallowed a cell phone set on vibrate.

Right now, it feels like I am being "pinged" with electrical sparks. I hate it. I cry over it every day. I forget things a lot because of it.

Most of the time, it is worse on the left side of my brain, but today, for some reason, it decided to switch sides and is now pinging the right side of my brain more. Remotely controlled monitor?

Plus, I have the constant beeping in the background like a heart monitor would make.

Because of all this, my health has declined. I have gained 60 pounds, become border-line diabetic, cholesterol has soared to 300, and I have now have heart disease.

All because my family refused to help me escape my stalkers. They would prefer that I stay where I can be watched and die an early death, than to have me move out of the area.

Up until this stalking started four years ago, I had no history of mental illness. Now, of course, because my family refuses to believe this is happening.....they would rather believe I am crazy than believe that there are situations that can't be controlled.

Brain Stimulation

2012-01-12T21:23:00.000-08:00

Dr. Mercola warns that there is still not much known about electrically or magnetically stimulating the brain.

I, for one, would not opt to be a guinea pig for this.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/26/Dial-H-for-Happiness-How-Neuroengineering-May-Change-Your-Brain.aspx

When I Die I Still Want to be Me

2012-01-12T21:18:00.000-08:00

Now that they have made me ill, they think they can control me better. But,when I die, I still want to die as me.

I believe something has been put inside of me. I hear constant beeping and feel electric currents running through my body. My doctors tell me they have never heard of this, but when I Google it, there are literally thousands of people posting on health forums with the same symptoms.

It would be interesting to see how many of them have had surgery--making them vulnerable to involuntary implants of some kind.

This has changed my life. I used to be a happy go-lucky person. Now, I can't do any of the things that made life enjoyable--swimming, hiking, biking, even just walking.

My own family has turned on me. My youngest sister has called me horrible names and accused me of the most vile things. When I tried to talk to her about it, she told me she wasn't going to argue with me and hung up on me. Her mantra in life is "No drama." Which I find odd because she is the one creating the drama by calling me names and accusing me of things that are untrue.

SAY NO TO ANTI-PSYCHOTIC DRUGS

2011-12-04T14:38:00.001-08:00

THIS IS WHAT MY FAMILY HAS WANTED TO DO TO ME.

WHY? BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD HAVE THAT MUCH TIME THAT THEY COULD FOLLOW ME AROUND ALL DAY IN RED VEHICLES.

AND YET, NONE OF THEM HAD SOUGHT TO HELP ME PROVE IT OR DISPROVE IT. TO ME, THAT IS LIKE SAYING BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO THE MOON, NO ONE ELSE HAS EITHER.

THAT IS WHY I NO LONGER HAVE CONTACT WITH MY FAMILY. ANY SANE PERSON WILL DISCONNECT FROM THOSE WHO WISH TO CAUSE THEM MENTAL OR PHYSICAL HARM.

Psychiatric Drug Adverse Reactions (Side Effects) and Medication Spellbinding

Dr. Peter Breggin’s new concept of medication spellbinding provides insights into why so many people take psychiatric drugs when the drugs are doing more harm than good.

Psychiatric drugs, and all other drugs that affect the mind, spellbind the individual by masking their adverse mental effects from the individual taking the drugs. If the person experiences a mental side effect, such as anger or sadness, he or she is likely to attribute it to something other than drug, perhaps blaming it on a loved one or on their own “mental illness.”

Often people taking psychiatric drugs claim to feel better than ever when in reality their mental life and behavior is impaired. In the extreme, medication spellbinding leads otherwise well-functioning and ethical individuals to commit criminal acts, violence or suicide.

http://www.drugawareness.org/recentcasesblog/antidepressant-mother-of-columbine-killer-tells-of-horror-10-yrs-after-massacre

^ Luvox and the Columbine High School massacre. breggin.com.

The concept of medication spellbinding is a unifying theme in Dr. Breggin’s newest book, Medication Madness (2008), which describes dozens of cases of otherwise self-controlled people who became spellbound by psychiatric drugs, leading them to perpetrate bizarre acts, including mayhem, murder and suicide.

Dr. Breggin’s other recent book, Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry (2008), presents the science beyond the concept of medication spellbinding in great depth.

The majority of Dr. Breggin's books focus on harmful medication effects on the brain, mind and behavior. Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry (2008) is the most up-to-date and thorough presentation of his overall views on the dangers associated with psychiatric medication.

It describes how the supposed therapeutic effects of psychiatric drugs are in fact the result of drug-induced mental disabilities. The following very abbreviated summary should not substitute for the more thorough explanations in Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry (2008):

• Antidepressants cause emotional anesthesia and numbing or sometimes euphoria, providing a fleeting, artificial relief from emotional suffering.

Neuroleptic or antipsychotic drugs disrupt frontal lobe function, causing a chemical lobotomy with apathy and indifference, making emotionally distressed people more submissive and less able to feel.

• Mood stabilizers slow down overall brain function, dampening emotions and vitality.

• Benzodiazepines suppress overall brain function, sedating the individual, with temporary relief of tension or anxiety at the cost of reduced mental function.

• Stimulants blunt spontaneity and enforce obsessive behaviors in children, making them less energetic, less social, less creative and more obedient.

The individual taking the drugs or the doctor, family and classroom teacher can mistakenly interpret these effects as an improvement when they reflect dysfunction of the brain and mind.

As an egregious example, millions of school children are prescribed these drugs because schools find them easer to deal with when their spontaneity is impaired and when they become more compulsively obedient.

In the long run, all psychiatric drugs tend to disrupt the normal processes of feeling and thinking, rendering the individual less able to deal effectively with personal problems and with life’s challenges. They worsen the individual’s overall mental condition and produce potentially irreversible harm to the brain.

Most recent books by Dr. Breggin:

Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex (2008)

Medication Madness: A Psychiatrist Exposes the Dangers of Mood-Altering Medications (2008)

Categories of scientific papers by Dr. Breggin:

Stimulants and ADHD
Ritalin®, Concerta® Adderall®, amphetamines and other stimulant medications

SSRIs and other antidepressants
Prozac®, Zoloft®, Paxil®, Luvox®, Celexa®, Effexor®, Wellbutrin®, and other antidepressants.

Benzodiazapines or tranquilizers and sleeping pills
Xanax®, Valium®, Ativan®, Klonopin® and other sedative drugs

Neuroleptics or antipsychotic drugs
Thorazine® , Trilafon®, Zyprexa®, Risperdal®, Geodon®, Seroquel®, Abilify®, and other antipsychotic medication

Special Topics:

[ Back ]

Peter R. Breggin, MD is no longer affiliated with the Center for the Study of Psychiatry, informally known as International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP changed to ISEPP), which he founded and led from 1972-2002, and Dr. Breggin is no longer involved in its conferences. Dr. Breggin and his colleagues have founded a new organization, The Center for the Study of Empathic Therapy, Education and Living (a 501C3) which holds its annual conference in April of each year (www.empathictherapy.org).

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 books, Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex (New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2008) and Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2008).

How Electric Shock Therapy Destroys Your Brain

2011-12-04T11:23:00.001-08:00

By far the most up-to-date information of the dangers associated with ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY (ECT) Psychopharmaceutical Complex, Second Edition (2008). Dr. Breggin brings together and evaluates dozens of articles demonstrating permanent brain damage from ECT including irreversable severe memory loss and wide spread cognitive disabilities.

Many patients lose their ability to practice their professions or to conduct their lives in a normal fashion. Dr. Breggin was the medical expert in the first and only electroshock malpractice suit won by the injured patient.

He was also the expert in a recent malpractice suit against an ECT doctor that resulted in a settlement of more than $1 million.

In 2007 a long-term follow-up study of ECT patients conducted by a team of shock-advocates lead by Harold Sackeim confirmed Dr. Breggin's observations that the "treatment" is devastating to the mental functions, frequently causing dementia with permanent disruption of memory and a variety of other cognitive functions.

The acronym ECT stands for "ElectroConvulsive Therapy" (also called EST, for ElectroShock Therapy) a psychiatric treatment in which electricity is applied to the head and passed through the brain to produce a grand mal or major convulsion. The seizure brought about by the electric stimulus closely resembles, but is more rigorous or strenuous than that found in idiopathic epilepsy or in epilepsy following a wide variety of insults to the brain.

Patients given ECT are administered an electric current of sufficient intensity and duration to produce an acute organic brain syndrome, characterized by the classic symptoms of disorientation to time, place, and person; mental deterioration in all intellectual spheres such as abstract reasoning, judgment, and insight; emotional lability with extremes of apathy or euphoria; and overall childlike helplessness.

Animal studies show diffuse brain damage following ECT: the most common findings are petechial or pinpoint hemorrhages throughout the brain and surrounding blood vessels, as well as areas of gliosis and neuronal degeneration, with patches of cell death (ghost cells and neuronophagia).

Occasionally larger hemorrhages and edema of the brain are found. These findings are also seen on human autopsies performed on ECT patients.

Electroshock treatment (ECT) was developed in 1938 at a time that lobotomy and insulin coma therapy were already in use. Pioneer advocates of ECT openly admitted that it caused irreversible brain damage.

In 1979 Dr. Breggin published the first medical book critical of ECT, Electroshock: Its Brain-Disabling Effects (New York: Springer Publishing Company). Dr. Breggin has advocated the banning of ECT, but it continues to be used extensively in most psychiatric facilities.

In 1985 Dr. Breggin presented as the scientific expert on the brain-damaging effects of the treatment at the NIH Consensus Development Conference on ECT.

The best source of up-to-date information on ECT memory loss and brain damage can be found in a chapter in Dr. Breggin’s book Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry (2008).

The following articles present some additional details and a historical perspective on the campaign against ECT.

Articles on Electroshock Therapy (ECT) and its dangers by Dr. Breggin or about his work

The FDA should test the safety of ECT machines Iatrogenic helplessnes in authoritarian psychiatry Electroshock therapy and brain damage (PDF)

Electroshock: scientific, ethical, and political issues (PDF)

Neuropathology and cognitive dysfunction from ECT (PDF) Shock Treatment III: Resistance in the 1980s (PDF)

The return of ECT (PDF) Brain-disabling therapies (PDF) Jury awards $635,000 in ECT case Proposals for the regulation of ECT

From Dr. Breggin's blog at the Huffington Post: Disturbing news for patients and shock docs alike.

For books by Dr. Breggin, see his website.

UNLESS YOU REPENT, YOU WILL BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY FOR THIS

2011-09-16T20:44:00.000-07:00

We can break down the teaching of Psalm 37 into seven major areas:

1. David cautions us not to worry about the prosperity of the wicked. He writes:

Do not fret because of evildoers, nor be envious of the workers of iniquity. . . . Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way. . . . Do not fret—it only causes harm. (verses 1, 7-8)

Jesus includes this point in the sermon on the mount, telling us not to worry about our life, our food and clothing and the troubles of tomorrow (Matthew 6:25-34). Calm down! Do not become worked up over it!

2. David describes the character of the wicked:

The wicked plots against the just, and gnashes at him with his teeth. . . . The wicked have drawn the sword and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, to slay those who are of upright conduct. . . . The wicked borrows and does not repay. . . . The wicked watches the righteous, and seeks to slay him. (verses 12, 14, 21, 32)

Their evil is obvious to all, especially God. We can be certain that the wicked have not fooled Him.

3. David contrasts the character of the wicked to the righteous:

But the righteous shows mercy and gives. . . . He is ever merciful, and lends; and his descendants are blessed. . . . The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom, and his tongue talks of justice. The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide. (verses 21, 26, 30-31)

The difference in their characters is sharply defined, and we can rest assured that character is what dictates the outcome of our lives.

4. David shows the end of the wicked:

[Evildoers] shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. . . . For evildoers shall be cut off. . . . For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; indeed, you will look diligently for his place, but it shall be no more. . . . The Lord laughs at him, for He sees that his day is coming. . . . But the wicked shall perish; and the enemies of the Lord, like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish. Into smoke they shall vanish away. . . . [T]he descendants of the wicked shall be cut off. . . . I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a native green tree, yet he passed away, and behold, he was no more; indeed I sought him, but he could not be found. . . . But the transgressors shall be destroyed together; the future of the wicked shall be cut off. (verses 2, 9-10, 13, 20, 28, 35-36, 38)

We can know for a certainty that the unrighteous will get what is coming to them. God always gives the correct punishment at exactly the right time. It is out of our hands, so we need not concern ourselves over it.

5. David proclaims the reward of the upright:

He shall give you the desires of your heart. . . He shall bring forth your righteousness as the light, and your justice as the noonday. . . . But those who wait on the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. . . . But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. . . . [T]heir inheritance shall be forever. They shall not be ashamed in the evil time, and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied. . . . For those who are blessed by Him shall inherit the earth. . . . [T]hey are preserved forever. . . . The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell in it forever. . . . He shall exalt you to inherit the land. . . . But the salvation of the righteous is from the Lord. (verses 4, 6, 9, 11, 18-19, 22, 28-29, 34, 39)

If God is on our side, we have nothing to fear from the wicked, and we can look forward to blessings beyond anything we could ever imagine (Ephesians 3:20)!

6. David explains that we can expect these blessings and rewards, not because we are innately wonderful and good, but because God is faithful:

[T]he Lord upholds the righteous. The Lord knows the days of the upright. . . . The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, and He delights in his way. Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the Lord upholds him with His hand. I have been young, and now am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his descendants begging bread. . . . For the Lord loves justice, and does not forsake His saints. . . . The Lord will not leave [the righteous] in [the wicked's] hand, nor condemn him when he is judged. . . . He is their strength in the time of trouble. And the Lord shall help them and deliver them; He shall deliver them from the wicked, and save them, because they trust in Him. (verses 17-18, 23-25, 28, 33, 39-40)

The picture in verse 24 is very comforting. David describes God as a Father, holding His child by the hand. The child has just learned to walk and is not very steady. When he stumbles—and he will—he does not fall completely because the Father pulls him back upright. God perfectly fulfills all the obligations He placed on Himself to do on our behalf. This is another reason we have no need to fear or worry.

7. Lastly, David provides us with solutions to this dilemma:

Trust in the Lord, and do good; dwell in the land, and feed on His faithfulness. Delight yourself also in the Lord. . . . Commit your way to the Lord, trust also in Him, and He shall bring it to pass. Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him. . . . Cease from anger, and forsake wrath. . . . Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell forevermore. . . . Wait on the Lord, and keep His way. . . . Mark the blameless man, and observe the upright; for the future of that man is peace. (verses 3-8, 27, 34, 37)

These are David's instructions on how we should handle our envy of the wicked man's prosperity: Do good, trust God and don't worry! If we patiently continue doing the things that God has commanded us to do—focusing on our own character, rather than complaining about another's—the scales of justice will come into their proper balance in God's time.

No Concern of Ours

Why do the wicked prosper? Some succeed due to Satan's influence. God may allow others to grow wealthy to try our character. Many have natural talents, a kind of Midas' touch, whereby everything they do brings them gain. A few, like the lottery winners, roll in wealth because of time and chance. There are many reasons why uncalled and unrepentant people seem so successful.

In the end it doesn't matter! Our neighbors' fortunes are completely out of our hands. God will deal with them when it is appropriate, and only He knows when that time will come. What is under our control is how we respond to it and—far more importantly—how we handle what God has given us. Rather than gaze enviously at our neighbors' wealth, we should strive to reach the apostle Paul's example: "I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content" (Philippians 4:11). He writes in I Timothy 6:8-10:

And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

The pursuit of wealth is a path that is likely to end in trouble and unhappiness. If we keep God's way, the blessings will come automatically, as God sees fit. Whether we prosper financially or not, we know that God has our best interests at heart (Romans 8:28). We can rely on Jesus' promise in Matthew 6:33 that God will give us all that we could ever need if we keep our focus on the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

It is that simple. Do good, trust God and don't worry!

© 1998 Church of the Great God
PO Box 471846
Charlotte, NC 28247-1846
(803) 802-7075

Read more: http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/RA/k/245/Why-Do-Wicked-Prosper.htm#ixzz1YB5kewLe

Nazi Hired Red Vehicles Stalked Me Again

2011-09-16T20:40:00.000-07:00

As soon as I left a friend's house tonight, red vehicles, about 20 all in a row, came up behind me and approaching me.

You people, whether you are working for the government (FBI, CIA, Task Force) or for criminals or wealthy corporations, it doesn't matter, you are all the same. EVIL. You will stand before God and answer for this harassment and stalking.

It's easy to be a bully isn't it when you can pick on someone who doesn't know who you are? You are also COWARDS.

Proverbs 11:3--The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity. God will DESTROY YOU.

Acts 13:10--"You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?

Those who worship the devil do not receive ministering and comfort from the angels in heaven. They have to seek after the things the devil has to offer them such as a quick fix on some kind of a drug or drinks of alcohol or money, power--whatever else the devil can present to them as comforters.

former Secret Service and FBI contractor, Bill Taylor PI shed light on government's secret program targeting individuals in their homes, communities and everywhere they try to escape for relief and survival.

2011-09-12T17:09:00.000-07:00

http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/ex-ss-fbi-agent-on-rfid-implanted-walbert-and-many-others

Human Right to Private Life - The right to privacy is the right to individual autonomy that is violated when states interfere with, penalise or prohibit actions which essentially only concern the individual. The right to privacy encompasses the right to protection of a person’s intimacy, identity, name, gender, honour, dignity, appearance, feelings and sexual orientation and extends to the home, the family and correspondence.

In the first segment of this interview, Secretly forced implants Part III, former Secret Service and FBI contractor, Bill Taylor PI shed light on government's secret program targeting individuals in their homes, communities and everywhere they try to escape for relief and survival. Part III highlighted Taylor's intelligence career of over 50 years including Chief Investigator of high-profile cases such as the Karen Silkwood Case, the 3-Mile Island case, the Iran Contra Scandal and Phoenix Program case in Vietnam.

Although Targeted Individuals do not require implants to be kept under technological surveillance, harassment, and torture, in this segment of the interview, Taylor answered questions specifically about the James Walbert case of forced brain and other implants. He revealed that trusted medical professionals are implanting children and adults, and explains the military value of implanted subjects. The hidden crime brutally taking lives of Targeted Individuals is more widespread than Americans have known or want to know according to credible self-identified targets' testimonies and Bill Taylor PI. The media and professional blackout on this atrocity continues.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Secretly forced brain implants Pt IV: Intel expert on the doctors, children, military research - National Human Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/ex-ss-fbi-agent-on-rfid-implanted-walbert-and-many-others#ixzz1Xmp1rdzc

Glass

2011-09-11T17:47:00.000-07:00

Husband and I got into a heated discussion about his "mind games." I told him we needed to stop because I was having chest pains, but he kept on talking about it anyway.

I walked outside to get laundry, putting my tennis shoes on before walking out. He came outside and left, saying he needed to get away.

I was reading at the website freedom from covert stalking about FOOD GRADE diatomaceous earth and how eating it can get rid of parasites.

I Googled this and someone said it was made of glass crystals.

I walked around the yard a little bit, and then felt something gouging me in the bottom of the foot. I took my shoe off and had blood in it. I took the shoe inside and pulled out the object that had been gouging my foot--it was a piece of glass.

Heritage Manor

2011-09-11T17:41:00.000-07:00

I was at my sister's house today and we discussed Heritage Manor, a nursing home. As soon as I came home, my husband invited me to see him and his band play at "Heritage Manor."

Do What You Love

2011-09-11T17:40:00.000-07:00

Two days ago a friend and I were talking and said that to earn a living, one should "do what you love."

Went home and husband came home shortly with groceries. He always buys Total cereal, but, that day, he bought Cheerios. He made sure to point out the back of the box to me--it said "Do what you love."

Widely Prescribed Drug No Better than a Placebo & Has Serious Side Effeccts

2011-09-03T17:05:00.000-07:00

The Widely Prescribed Drug that's No Better than a Placebo
Posted By Dr. Mercola | September 03 2011 | 26,440 views

Researchers have found that antipsychotic drugs which are widely prescribed to treat severe post-traumatic stress symptoms for veterans are no more effective than placebos. In addition, the drugs come with serious side effects.

The finding is such a serious blow to current treatment standards so directly that some experts say it could change treatment practices in the near future. Although the study focused on one medication, Risperdal, the results most likely extend to an entire class of drugs, including Seroquel, Geodon and Abilify.

According to the New York Times:

"The use of such drugs has grown sharply over the past decade, as thousands of returning soldiers and Marines have found that their post-traumatic stress symptoms do not respond to antidepressants, the only drugs backed by scientific evidence for the disorder. Doctors have turned to antipsychotics, which strongly affect mood, to augment treatment, based almost entirely on their experience with them and how they expect them to work."

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

A sizable number of U.S. combat troops are now taking either antidepressants or antipsychotic drugs to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy combat tours. But according to the results from the largest study of its kind in war veterans, even some of the most potent of these mind-altering drugs are no different from sugar pills in terms of the relief they provide.

According to the New York Times, this finding "challenges current treatment standards so directly" that the treatment practice for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) might soon be altered.

After all, why take a drug fraught with dangerous side effects if it's been proven ineffective? I truly believe we need to start looking at other alternatives, because clearly, these veterans need help.

The question is what kind of treatment will actually work?

I think it's impossible to make any sort of blanket recommendation that would cover every case of PTSD. It's an extremely challenging situation, and different individuals may find relief using a variety of different methods. Here, I will only attempt to highlight a few suggestions that I believe can play an important role in the mental health of most people, but that's certainly not to say that these strategies will be successful for everyone—especially not when you're talking about combat-induced PTSD.

However, the evidence indicates that drugs are not the right answer for the majority of people suffering with various degrees of mental problems, including PTSD, and therefore I recommend making a concerted effort to seek to avoid them, if at all possible, and to carefully consider trying other alternatives first.

If you haven't read my recent comprehensive report on the dangers of using antidepressants, I would strongly encourage you to do so as it has a very detailed report that includes all my many concerns about this therapy.

Antipsychotic Drugs No More Effective than Placebo in PTSD Treatment

Of the enlisted who see heavy combat, 10-20 percent develop persistent symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and about 20 percent of those who seek treatment end up getting a prescription for an antipsychotic drug.

The reason why so many veterans are now prescribed antipsychotics is because PTSD symptoms were found to be unresponsive to antidepressants. Antipsychotics like Risperdal are more potent in terms of affecting and altering mood. However, according to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the drug Risperdal is no more effective than a placebo, and is associated with a long list of potentially devastating side effects.

The study included 123 veterans with PTSD who received Risperdal, and another 124 who received a placebo. After six months of treatment, about five percent of the participants in both groups recovered, and between 10-20 percent in each group reported minor improvement.

According to the lead author, Dr. John H. Krystal, who is also the director of the clinical neurosciences division of the Department of Veterans Affairs' National Center for PTSD:

"We didn't find any suggestion that the drug treatment was having an overall benefit on their lives."

Although the study focused on just one drug, Risperdal, experts have stated that these results most likely extend to the entire class of similar drugs, which also include:

Seroquel
Geodon
Abilify
Risperdal

Risperdal is known as an "atypical antipsychotic," used to treat schizophrenia and biopolar disorder in adults, and irritability associated with autistic disorder in children. Side effects, some of which may be permanent, include:

Somnolence and fatigue Increased appetite and weight gain Upper respiratory tract infection
Restlessness Metabolic disorders Muscular tics, tremors, muscle stiffness
Vomiting, coughing, fever Indigestion Urinary incontinence
More serious side effects include:

Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome, which can be fatal
Hormone disruption (including breasts producing milk and breast development in males)
High blood sugar and diabetes
Abilify

Abilify (aripiprazole) is a newer psychotropic medication, licensed for the treatment of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, autism—and major depression when taken with antidepressants. I.e. it is used to augment the effects of the antidepressants—because, of course, antidepressants have also been found to be about as effective as a placebo, and sometimes less effective than a sugar pill...

Abilify is a perfect example of how polypharmacy is spreading and increasing, as ineffective drugs are simply "boosted" by yet another drug. The word 'polypharmacy' means "many drugs," and essentially refers to instances where an individual is taking too many drugs--either because more drugs are prescribed than clinically indicated, or when the sheer number of pills simply becomes a burden for the patient. Polypharmacy is a significant problem, because the more drugs you mix together, the greater the chances of serious side effects.

People (of all ages and walks of life) taking psychiatric drugs appear to be particularly prone to polypharmacy, which is disturbing since these drugs are quite potent and potentially dangerous when taken singularly. Abilify, for example, has 75 different side effects associated with it, including:

Low thyroid (hypothyroidism) or high thyroid (hyperthyroidism) Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) Yeast infections Carpal tunnel syndrome
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) Gallstones and kidney stones Arthritis Impotence
Antidepressants Frequently Prescribed without Psychiatric Diagnosis

While surveys have discovered that only about half of those thought to need treatment for mental problems actually seek it out, other research shows that a large portion of the growth in antidepressant prescriptions is driven by an increase in antidepressant prescriptions by non-psychiatrist providers -- without any accompanying psychiatric diagnosis.

Over the course of the past two decades, the use of antidepressants in the U.S. has grown significantly, making them the third most commonly prescribed class of medications in the country. Between 2005, and 2008 nearly nine percent of Americans took at least one prescription in this drug class during any given month!

On August 4, Eurekalert reported:

"Between 1996 and 2007, the number of visits where individuals were prescribed antidepressants with no psychiatric diagnoses increased from 59.5 percent to 72.7 percent, and the share of providers who prescribed antidepressants without a concurrent psychiatric diagnosis increased from 30 percent of all non-psychiatrist physicians in 1996 to 55.4 percent in 2007."

As you can see, there are a number of concurrent problems festering in the field of mental health. Many who need help aren't getting it, while at the same time, a great many are being overtreated with potentially dangerous drugs... All in all, what this tells me is that we need to become more open-minded when it comes to the treatment of psychiatric problems. And we need to become more adept at addressing lifestyle issues that contribute to deteriorating mental health.

If Drugs Don't Work, What Does?

There's no cut and dry answer to that question.

"[S]tudies suggest that talk therapy, alone or in combination with antidepressants, can accelerate the relief of common symptoms, like nightmares and reclusive behavior. These psychotherapies tend to include relaxation skills; incrementally increased exposure to stress triggers; and challenging some inaccurate assumptions that fuel anxiety," the New York Times reports, adding:

"… Dr. Krystal said the benefits many doctors thought they were getting from the drugs "quite possibly came from simply engaging the patient in treatment, and not from the medication."

Additionally, according to other research, it takes about twice as long for your body to 'reset' itself physiologically once you return from combat deployment. This means that if you've been in a combat zone for 12 months, you can expect it to take about 24 months to recover once you get back home, so give yourself enough time to work through it.

As mentioned above, learning relaxation skills along with reprogramming of emotional triggers are likely to be some of the most important treatment strategies.

Energy Psychology, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) and other similar techniques can help accomplish both of those simultaneously. Although most forms of energy psychology are easy to learn and eventually perform on yourself, when it comes to the treatment of PTSD, I would highly recommend seeking out a trained professional that you feel comfortable with, rather than trying to do it on your own.

Important Lifestyle Factors to Consider to Help Strengthen Mental Stability

Even if you have a decent diet, nutritional deficiencies are pervasive and can easily contribute to depression, as can other "lifestyle deficiencies." Dietary factors have also been linked to other more serious psychiatric disorders.

Here are a few of the most important lifestyle factors that you'll want to address, whether you're trying to address depression, PTSD, or any other mental health problem:

Animal based Omega-3 fat: This is one of the most common nutritional deficiencies that can have a major impact on your mental health. Many people don't realize that their brain is 60 percent DHA, which is an animal-based omega-3 fat. Dr. Stoll is a Harvard psychiatrist and was one of the early leaders in compiling the evidence supporting the use of animal based omega-3 fats for the treatment of depression. He wrote an excellent book that details his experience in this area called The Omega-3 Connection.
Another vitamin deficiency that can contribute to depression is vitamin B12, which affects about one in four people.
Vitamin D is also important. One study found that people with the lowest levels of vitamin D were 11 times more prone to be depressed than those who had normal levels. Additionally, a study published in the September 9, 2010 issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry found that maintaining proper levels of vitamin D in utero and during early infancy can even help prevent schizophrenia later in life.

The best way to get vitamin D is through regular year-round exposure to sunshine. Remember, SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) is a type of depression that we know is related to sunshine deficiency, so it would make sense that the perfect way to get your vitamin D is through sun exposure, or a safe tanning bed if you can't have regular access to the sun. Your next option, if these two superior options are not available, is to use a vitamin D supplement—just make sure to check your levels regularly to make sure you’re maintaining optimal levels.
Another important deficiency is exercise. There’s a veritable mountain of well-done scientific research pointing to the fact that exercise is one of the most potent treatments we have for depression. Unlike drugs, it is FAR more consistently effective than placebo when done properly.
Sound sleep is another critical issue. You can have the best diet and exercise program possible but if you aren't sleeping well your mental health can suffer. Sleep and depression are so intimately linked that a sleep disorder is actually part of the definition of the symptom complex that gives the label depression.
If You or Someone You Love Has Just Returned From Military Duty …

Please make sure to take steps to help heal the emotional wounds. Left untended, emotional trauma like the experience of battle can lead to serious health problems down the road -- anything from depression to heart attacks and cancer is possible. Be sure to pay VERY careful attention to the above physical cofactors as they will make any emotional technique work that much more effectively.

Learning to address your stress is imperative both for mental and physical health, particularly if you're suffering with symptoms of PTSD. Exercise is very helpful for this aspect. Other common stress reduction tools with a high success rate include prayer, meditation and yoga, for example.

By applying techniques such as Energy Psychology in conjunction with other stress reduction tools, you can teach your body how to try and maintain an alert yet relaxed state, which will help strengthen your inherent coping mechanisms when faced with stressful situations that trigger your anxiety symptoms.

Last, but certainly not least, please remember that your mind and mood is significantly affected by your diet, so don't dismiss that part. While it may not be a miracle cure in and of itself, it can be extremely difficult to achieve mental health without the proper foundation of a sound diet and exercise plan. For an inspiring testament of how one man (who had suffered with a debilitating anxiety disorder for 11 years) managed to resolve his anxiety through dietary changes alone when everything else had failed, please read this previous article.

My heart goes out to you if you, or someone you love, have experienced a situation or tragedy in life that resulted in PTSD. I hope you will find encouragement, strength, hope, true heaing and complete recovery from your symptoms.

There is NO SUCH THING AS BIPOLAR

2011-09-02T18:15:00.000-07:00

MENTAL ILLNESS AS BRAIN DISEASE:
A BRIEF HISTORY LESSON
by

Thomas S. Szasz, M.D.

A 1999 White House Conference on Mental Health concluded: "Research in the last decade proves that mental illnesses are diagnosable disorders of the brain."

President William Clinton was more specific: "Mental illness can be accurately diagnosed, successfully treated, just as physical illness." Persons who reject the view that mental illnesses are physical diseases are dismissed by today's opinion-makers as intellectual troglodytes, on a par with "flat earthers."

That the claim that "mental illnesses are diagnosable disorders of the brain" is a lie ought to be evident to anyone who thinks for himself. Here I want to show that the claim that "research in the last decade proves [this]" is also a lie, one more in a very long list in the history of psychiatry. The contention that mental illness is brain disease is as old as psychiatry itself: it is an integral part of the grand lie that psychiatry is a branch of medicine and healing, when in fact it is a branch of the law and social control. Hannah Arendt was right when she observed: "There are no limits to the possibilities of nonsense and capricious notions that can be decked out as the last word in science."

The idea that mental illness is a bodily disease dates back to the premodern medical conception of disease as a "humoral imbalance," comically prefiguring the modern, supposedly scientific conception of it as "chemical imbalance." In the United States, the idea of mental illness as humoral imbalance was famously espoused by Benjamin Rush (1746-1813), the founding father American psychiatry. Rush did not discover that certain behaviors are diseases; he decreed that they are: "Lying," he declared, "is a corporeal disease." In a letter to his friend, John Adams, he wrote: "The subjects [mental diseases] have hitherto been enveloped in mystery. I have endeavored to bring them down to the level of all other diseases of the human body, and to show that the mind and the body are moved by the same causes and subject to the same laws."

In the nineteenth century, the scientific concept of disease as lesion replaced the Galenic concept of disease as humoral imbalance. Now, physicians postulated that mental diseases are diseases of the brain. From about 1850 until past World War I, German (more precisely, German-speaking) psychiatry ruled the field. The very term psychiatry (Psychiatrie) was a German invention, coined by Johann Christian Reil (1759-1813) in 1808. Reil, not an alienist (psychiatrist), was one of the outstanding medical scientists and physicians of his age. He was a friend and physician of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. In addition to coining the term "psychiatry," he also coined the term "noninjurious torture," to describe the methods of frightening mental patients that he considered effective and legitimate "treatments."

It is important to keep in mind that the German asylum system was created, in 1805, by the autocratic Prussian state: specifically, by Karl August von Hardenberg (1759-1822), a Prussian statesman. Hardenberg declared, "The state must concern itself with all institutions for those with damaged minds, both for the betterment of the unfortunates and the advancement of science. In this important and difficult field of medicine only unrelenting efforts will enable us to carve out advances for the good of suffering mankind. Perfection can be achieved only in such institutions."

Writing in 1917, at the height of World War I, Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926) -- creator of the first system of psychiatric classification, today widely considered the father of modern "scientific" psychiatry -- offered these revealing remarks about Hardenberg's achievement: "The great war in which we are now engaged has compelled us to recognize the fact that science could forge for us a host of effective weapons for use against a hostile world. Should it be otherwise if we are fighting an internal enemy seeking to destroy the very fabric of our existence?"

Kraepelin's remarks make clear that he regarded psychiatry as an arm of the state, similar to the military forces, whose duty is to protect the fatherland from "an internal enemy" that, like a hostile army, seeks to destroy it. The evil genius of psychiatry lay, and continues to lie, in its ability to convince itself, the legal system, and the public that, in matters defined as psychiatric, there is no conflict between the legitimate interests of the individual and the legitimate interests of the political class in charge of the state.

Of course, the German psychiatric pioneers had to answer the question, "What is mental illness?" Answer it, they did. Wilhelm Griesinger (1817-1868), considered one of the founders of German psychiatry -- and also of the famed Zurich insane asylum, the Burghölzli -- declared: "Psychological diseases are diseases of the brain. ... Insanity is merely a symptom complex of various anomalous states of the brain."

Theodor Meynert (1833-1892) -- a German-born Viennese neuropsychiatrist and one of Freud's teachers -- began his textbook, Psychiatry (1884), with this statement: "The reader will find no other definition of 'Psychiatry' in this book but the one given on the title page: Clinical Treatise on Diseases of the Forebrain. The historical term for psychiatry, i.e., 'treatment of the soul,' implies more than we can accomplish, and transcends the bounds of accurate scientific investigation."

In a review of Swedish psychiatry in the nineteenth century, historian of science Roger Qvarsell states: "In the 1860s, the debate among psychiatrists about the real nature of mental disease was over ... Almost all medical scientists and medical authorities were at this time convinced that mental diseases were of the same nature as somatic disorders." Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Infringement of Freedom

What inferences did and do doctors draw from their concepts of mental illness as brain disease? First, as Carl Wernicke (1848-1905), a prominent nineteenth-century German neuropsychiatrist observed, "The medical treatment of [mental] patients began with the infringement of their personal freedom." In addition, it began with "benevolent tortures," such as frightening them by throwing them into a pit of snakes, the origin of the term "snake pit" for insane asylum. More specifically, the humoral imbalance theory led Rush to employ "bleeding, purging, low diet, and the tranquilizing chair. "The tranquilizing chair was a chair-like contraption for confining the patient and rotating him until he became dizzy or lost consciousness. This was supposed to rebalance the circulation in the brain. It was but a small step from the nineteenth-century's tranquilizing chair to the twentieth century's tranquilizing drug, supposed to rebalance the chemical imbalance in the patient's brain.

Psychiatric practice today requires that doctors and patients ignore evidence and be ignorant of history. There was no evidence for a humoral imbalance causing illness, but the doctrine prevailed for two thousand years. There is no evidence for a chemical imbalance causing mental illness, but that does not impair the doctrine's scientific standing or popularity. Neither the American Psychiatric Association nor American presidents remind people of the caveat of the great nineteenth-century English neurologist, John Hughlings Jackson (1835-1911): "Our concern as medical men is with the body. If there be such a thing as disease of the mind, we can do nothing for it."

Psychiatrist, Peter Breggin, Criticizes anti-psychotic drugs

2011-08-29T08:17:00.000-07:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Breggin

A large portion of Breggin's work concentrates on the iatrogenic effects (negative side effects) of psychiatric medications, arguing that the harmful side effects typically outweigh any benefit. Breggin also argues that psychosocial interventions are almost always superior in treating mental illness. He has argued against psychoactive drugs, electroshock (ECT), psychosurgery, coercive involuntary treatment, and biological theories of psychiatry.

According to Breggin, the pharmaceutical industry propagates disinformation which is accepted by unsuspecting doctors, saying "the psychiatrist accepts the bad science that establishes the existence of all these mental diseases in the first place. From there it’s just a walk down the street to all the drugs as remedies". He points out problems with conflicts-of-interest (such as the financial relationships between drug companies, researchers, and the American Psychiatric Association). Breggin states psychiatric drugs, "...are all, every class of them, highly dangerous". He asserts: "If neuroleptics were used to treat anyone other than mental patients, they would have been banned a long time ago. If their use wasn't supported by powerful interest groups, such as the pharmaceutical industry and organized psychiatry, they would be rarely used at all. Meanwhile, the neuroleptics have produced the worst epidemic of neurological disease in history. At the least, their use should be severely curtailed."[26]

In his book, Reclaiming Our Children, he calls for the ethical treatment of children. Breggin argues that the mistreatment of children is a national (U.S.) tragedy, including psychiatric diagnoses and prescription of drugs for children whose needs were not otherwise met. He especially objects to prescribing psychiatric medications to children, arguing that it distracts from their real needs in the family and schools, and is potentially harmful to their developing brains and nervous systems.[27]

[edit]Criticism of ADHD and Ritalin

The New York Times has labeled Breggin as the nation's best-known Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) critic. As early as 1991 he sardonically coined the acronym DADD, stating, "...most so-called ADHD children are not receiving sufficient attention from their fathers who are separated from the family, too preoccupied with work and other things, or otherwise impaired in their ability to parent. In many cases the appropriate diagnosis is Dad Attention Deficit Disorder (DADD)". Breggin has written two books specifically on the topic entitled, Talking Back to Ritalin and The Ritalin Factbook. In these books he has made controversial claims, such as "Ritalin 'works' by producing malfunctions in the brain rather than by improving brain function. This is the only way it works".[28]

Together with Fred Baughman, Breggin testified about ADHD to the United States Congress. In Congress Breggin claimed "that there were no scientific studies validating ADHD", that children diagnosed with ADHD needed "discipline and better instruction" rather than psychiatric drugs, and that therapeutic stimulants "are the most addictive drugs known in medicine today."[29] Baughman and Breggin were also the major critics in a PBS Frontline TV series about ADHD entitled 'Medicating Kids'.[30] In an interview during this time period he referred to ADHD as a fiction. This increased critical attention to Ritalin resulted in the Ritalin class action lawsuits against Novartis, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and CHADD in which the plaintiffs sued for fraud. Specifically, they charged that the defendants had conspired to invent and promote the disorder ADHD to create a highly profitable market for the drug Ritalin. All five lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn before they went to trial.

Breggin has been very critical of psychologist Russell Barkley's work on ADHD claiming that he exaggerates the benefits of stimulants and minimizes their hazards.[31]

[edit]Criticism of SSRI antidepressants

In the early 1990s, Breggin suggested there were problems with the methodology in the research of SSRI antidepressants. As early as 1991 in Talking Back to Prozac, he warned that Prozac was causing violence, suicide and mania. Breggin elaborated on this theme in many subsequent books and articles about newer antidepressants. In 2005, the FDA began requiring black box warnings on SSRIs, warning of an association between SSRI use and suicidal behavior in children,[32] and later extended it to young adults. New general warnings were added along with the aforementioned black box warnings.[citation needed] These warnings confirmed many of the adverse effects first emphasized by Breggin in Toxic Psychiatry with specific mentions by the FDA of drug-induced "hostility," "irritability," and "mania".[citation needed][improper synthesis?] In 2006, the FDA expanded the warnings to include adults taking Paxil, which is associated with a higher risk of suicidal behavior as compared to a placebo.[33]

In contrast to Breggin's Talking Back to Prozac, which was largely ignored by the press on its release,[citation needed] Prozac Backlash, a critique of SSRIs by Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen was widely praised by high-profile media sources.[34] Breggin complained about this in a subsequent book, The Antidepressant Fact Book:

"Glenmullen's (2000) scientific analysis of how SSRIs can cause suicide, violence, and other behavioral aberrations is essentially the same as my earlier detailed analyses... my hundreds of media appearances, and my testimony in court cases that Glenmullen also had available. Glenmullen also interviewed my wife and coauthor Ginger Breggin for his book and was sent research documents from our files that he was otherwise unable to obtain. Disappointingly, in his book, Glenmullen literally expurgates our contribution, never mentioning my origination of the ideas he was espousing and never acknowledging my efforts.... Nonetheless, his book provides a service...."[35]

Glenmullen has never countered Breggin's assertion and they both presented at the annual conference (in Queens, NY in 2004) of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology. Breggin continues to voice his respect for Glenmullen's work.[citation needed][relevant? – discuss]

In 1994, Breggin said that Eli Lilly and Company (maker of the antidepressant Prozac) attempted to discredit him and his book Talking Back to Prozac by linking him to the Church of Scientology and labeling his views as "Neo-Scientology."[36] Breggin denied any connection to Scientology.[36] Breggin later clarified that he was still in agreement with some of CCHR's anti-psychiatric views, supporting Tom Cruise's public stance against psychiatry.[37]

[edit]Criticism of ECT

Breggin has written several books and scientific articles critical of electroconvulsive therapy. He claims that "...the damage produces delirium so severe that patients can't fully experience depression or other higher mental functions during the several weeks after electroshock". He was one of nineteen speakers at the 1985 NIH Consensus Development Conference on ECT. The Consensus panel (of which Breggin was not a member) found that ECT could be a useful therapy in some carefully defined cases.[38]

[edit]Expert witness

In South Carolina, Breggin testified on behalf of Peggy S. Salters, a psychiatric nurse who sued her doctors and Palmetto Baptist Hospital after ECT left her incapacitated in 2000. A jury found in favor of her and awarded her $635,177 in actual damages.[39]

Breggin testified as an expert witness in the Wesbecker case (Fentress et al., 1994), a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac. Ultimately, the jury found for Eli Lilly. Breggin later claimed that this was because the plaintiffs and defendants had secretly settled behind closed doors.[40]

Breggin alleges that pharmaceutical manufacturers, particularly Eli Lilly, have committed ad hominem attacks upon him in the form of linking him to Scientology campaigns against psychiatric drugs. Breggin acknowledges that he did work with Scientology starting in 1972, but states that by 1974 he "found [himself] opposed to Scientology's values, agenda, and tactics", and in consequence "stopped all cooperative efforts in 1974 and publicly declared [his] criticism of the group in a letter published in Reason."[41] Breggin has also stated that he has a personal reason to dislike Scientology: His wife, Ginger, was once a Scientologist,[41][42] and when they first met she was urged by other Scientologists to have no association with him because he was not also.

In 2002, Breggin was hired as an expert witness by a survivor of the Columbine High School massacre in a case against the makers of an anti-depressant drug. In his report, Breggin failed to mention the Columbine incident or one of the killers, instead focusing on the medication taken by the other, "...Eric Harris was suffering from a substance induced (Luvox-induced) mood disorder with depressive and manic features that had reached a psychotic level of violence and suicide. Absent persistent exposure to Luvox, Eric Harris probably would not have committed violence and suicide."[47] However, according to The Denver Post, the judge of the case "...was visibly angry that the experts failed to view evidence prior to their depositions" even though they had months to do so. The evidence would have included hundreds of documents including a significant amount of video and audio tape that the killers had recorded. The judge stated, "...lawyers will be free to attack them on the basis of the evidence they haven't seen and haven't factored into their opinions."[48] The lawsuit was eventually dropped with the stipulation that the makers of Luvox donate $10,000 to the American Cancer Society.[47]
In 2005, the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas disqualified the testimony of Breggin because it did not meet the scientific rigor established by the Frye standard. The judge stated "...Breggin spends 14 pages critiquing the treatment provided not because it ran counter to the acceptable standards of care, but because it ran counter to Breggin's personal ideas and ideologies of what the standards ought to be.”[49]

[edit]Criticism of Breggin

Due to his outspoken criticisms of many aspects of psychiatry, Breggin has become a controversial figure who is regularly at odds with the mental health establishment.[50] He uses terms like "fraud" to describe the biological and genetic theories of mental disorders. He is critical of the medications used to treat these disorders, and the political process that determines the labels used for diagnosing mental disorders. He has also consistently warned about conflict of interest problems.[42] These claims often challenge accepted standards of care within the mental health field and have led to highly critical rebuttals.[51] In 1994, the president of the American Psychiatric Association called Breggin a "flat-earther" (suggesting he embraced outdated theories); the head of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) called Breggin "ignorant"; and the former head of the National Institute of Mental Health called him an "outlaw."[5]

Breggin points out that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and NAMI first began criticizing him after he conducted a successful campaign to stop the return of lobotomy and psychosurgery in the early 1970s. Among other actions, Breggin wrote scientific critiques of psychosurgery, participated in court cases against psychosurgery, and worked with the U.S. Congress to form the psychosurgery commission that declared the treatment experimental and unfit for routine clinical use. Both the APA and NAMI supported lobotomy as a legitimate medical treatment. Their criticism of Breggin escalated after he disclosed in Toxic Psychiatry that both organizations had substantial financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Before he called Breggin an "outlaw", Fredrick Goodwin lost his job as a result of a national campaign conducted by Breggin and his wife Ginger against Goodwin's "violence initiative," a large federal program aimed at unearthing genetic and biological defects in "inner city" children that supposedly made them violent. In their book, The War Against Children of Color, the Breggins called Goodwin's programs "racist" and their campaign caused Goodwin to leave the federal government. Funding for the "violence initiative" was stopped.[52]

NOTE: If you have never read the history of psychiatry, especially lobotomies, you need to read this. What was done in the name of "mental health," was nothing more than barbaric torture. Rose Marie "Rosemary" Kennedy (September 13, 1918 – January 7, 2005) was the third child and first daughter of Rose Elizabeth Kennedy née Fitzgerald and Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr., born little more than a year after her brother, future U.S. President John F. Kennedy. She underwent a prefrontal lobotomy at age 23, which left her permanently incapacitated. Why was this done to her? Because in her teenage years she became rebellious.

Even Experts Who Don't Oppose Electric Shock Therapy Admit it Can Damage Brain & CNS

2011-08-28T13:47:00.001-07:00

http://www.breggin.com/ECT/ElectroshockBrainChanges.pdf

Why Psychiatry Should be Abolished as a Medical Speciality

2011-08-28T11:22:00.000-07:00

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/abolish.htm

The disadvantage to the whole of the medical profession of recognizing psychiatry as a legitimate medical specialty occurred to me when I consulted a dermatologist for diagnosis of a mole I thought looked suspiciously like a malignant melanoma. The dermatologist told me my mole did indeed look suspicious and should be removed, and he told me almost no risk was involved.

This occurred during a time I was doing research on electroshock, which I have summarized in a pamphlet titled "Psychiatry's Electroconvulsive Shock Treatment - A Crime Against Humanity".

I found overwhelming evidence that psychiatry's electric shock treatment causes brain damage, memory loss, and diminished intelligence and doesn't reduce unhappiness or so-called depression as is claimed. About the same time I did some reading about psychiatric drugs that reinforced my impression that most if not all are ineffective for their intended purposes, and I learned many of the most widely used psychiatric drugs are neurologically and psychologically harmful, causing permanent brain damage if used at supposedly therapeutic levels long enough, as they often are not only with the approval but the insistence of psychiatrists. I have explained my reasons for these conclusions in another pamphlet titled "Psychiatric Drugs - Cure or Quackery?"

Part of me tended to assume the dermatologist was an expert, be trusting, and let him do the minor skin surgery right then and there as he suggested. But then, an imaginary scene flashed through my mind: A person walks into the office of another type of recognized, board-certified medical specialist: a psychiatrist. The patient tells the psychiatrist he has been feeling depressed.

The psychiatrist, who specializes in giving outpatient electroshock, responds saying: "No problem. We can take care of that. We'll have you out of here within an hour or so feeling much better. Just lie down on this electroshock table while I use this head strap and some electrode jelly to attach these electrodes to your head..." In fact, there is no reason such a scene couldn't actually take place in a psychiatrist's office today. Some psychiatrists do give electroshock in their offices on an outpatient basis. Realizing that physicians in the other, the bona-fide, medical and surgical specialties accept biological psychiatry and all the quackery it represents as legitimate made (and makes) me wonder if physicians in the other specialties are undeserving of trust also.

I left the dermatologist's office without having the mole removed, although I returned and had him remove it later after I'd gotten opinions from other physicians and had done some reading on the subject. Physicians in the other specialties accepting biological psychiatry as legitimate calls into question the reasonableness and rationality not only of psychiatrists but of all physicians.

a Violation of Substantive Due Process?

2011-08-28T11:14:00.000-07:00

Is Involuntary Commitment for "Mental Illness"

by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.

According to Lockhart, Kamisar & Choper's textbook Constitutional Law, substantive due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is "a limitation of the substance of legislative action by the state and federal governments" (West Pub. Co., 1970, p. 454, emphasis added). A majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1887 written by Justice Harlan said: "Under our system that power is lodged with the legislative branch of the government. It belongs to that department to exert what are known as the police powers of the state, and to determine, primarily, what measures are appropriate or needful for the protection of the public morals, the public health, or the public safety. ... [But] It does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for the promotion of these ends is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the state. There are, of necessity, limits beyond which legislation cannot rightfully go. While every possible presumption is to be indulged in favor of a statute, the courts must obey the constitution rather than the law-making department of government, and must, upon their own responsibility, determine whether, in any particular case, these limits have been passed. ... The courts...are under a solemn duty, to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law [the constitution], it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby to give effect to the constitution" (Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 at 661).

In his book The Myth of Mental Illness, psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz, M.D., says "It is customary to define psychiatry as a medical specialty concerned with the study, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illnesses. This is a worthless and misleading definition. Mental illness is a myth. Psychiatrists are not concerned with mental illnesses and their treatments. In actual practice they deal with personal, social, and ethical problems in living" (Dell Pub. Co., 1961, p. 296). According to the cover article in the July 6, 1992 Time magazine, schizophrenia is the "most devilish of mental illnesses" (p. 53). But in his book Against Therapy, published in 1988, Jeffrey Masson, Ph.D., a psychoanalyst, says "There is a heightened awareness of the dangers inherent in labeling somebody with a disease category like schizophrenia, and many people are beginning to realize that there is no such entity" (Atheneum/Macmillan Pub. Co., 1988, p. 2). If there is no such entity as mental illness, can laws which authorize incarcerating people not because they have performed unlawful acts but merely because they have "mental illness" be constitutional?

Suppose that instead of believing in mental illness, people today believed in evil spirit possession and explained weird or unacceptable behavior as the product of evil spirits. Suppose some or all of the states then enacted laws authorizing the incarceration of people who are possessed by evil spirits (instead of people who supposedly are possessed by mental illnesses). Would this be a proper and constitutional exercise of legislative power? Evil spirit possession has no objective reality and exists only in the imaginations of people who believe in evil spirits. Mental illness also has no objective reality and exists only in the imaginations of people who believe in mental illness. The behavior that gets people labeled mentally ill (or possessed by evil spirits) isn't imaginary; but mental illness or evil spirit possession as an explanation of why they behave as they do is.

Today in many states of the United States there are laws which permit the involuntary commitment (incarceration) of people for mental illness alone without requiring a showing the person has ever committed an illegal act. If we want to incarcerate people because they seem peculiar to us or because they say things that are not true or that don't make sense, or because we think that despite a past that includes no unlawful activity they might do something bad in the future, then that's what the laws should say - although doing so might raise constitutional questions. Using "mental illness" as the justification for incarceration is as illogical and unjustified as explaining behavior we dislike and don't understand as the product of evil spirit possession and having commitment laws for people who are possessed by evil spirits.

Since laws in some states use "mental illness" as the sole justification for incarcerating people who may have never done anything illegal (or sometimes as one required element coupled with alleged need for hospitalization or predicted future conduct - "dangerousness"), and since there is no such thing as mental illness, are not these statutes violations of substantive due process?

There are a few groups in particular who tend to be the target of America's involuntary psychiatric commitment laws. Included in these are the young, the old, and the homeless. Sometimes old people are placed in mental hospitals just to get them out of the way. In most cases, nursing homes would be more appropriate, but often nursing homes are not preferred by the family because they are more costly and must be paid for by the family. Involuntary psychiatric commitment laws are used to get homeless people off the streets and sidewalks. Adolescents are committed by parents as a way of shifting the balance of power towards parents in intra-family conflicts, parents usually being the ones who have the money to hire psychiatrists to incarcerate their family member adversaries and define their opposing views and disliked behaviors as illnesses.

In many states parents have statutory power to commit their children who are under age 18 without judicial proceedings, in large part because of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). This Supreme Court decision in 1979 is probably largely responsible for the fact that in the years immediately following it "adolescent admission rates to psychiatric units of private hospitals have jumped dramatically, increasing four-fold between 1980 and 1984" (Lois A. Weithorn, Ph.D., "Mental Hospitalization of Troublesome Youth: An Analysis of Skyrocketing Admission Rates", 40 Stanford Law Review 773). According to another report, "private psychiatric hospital admissions for teenagers are the fastest-growing segment of the hospital industry. ... Between 1980 and 1987 the number of people between 10 and 19 discharged from psychiatric units increased 43 percent, from 126,000 to 180,000. One reason is the aggressive advertising used by for-profit psychiatric facilities" (Christina Kelly, "She's Not Crazy But 14-year-old Sara got committed anyway", Sassy magazine, March 1990, p. 44). According to another report, between 1971 and 1991 "the number of teenagers hospitalized for psychiatric care has increased from 16,000 to 263,000" (Time magazine, August 26, 1991, p. 12). According to University of Michigan Professor Ira Schwartz, "psychiatric hospitals are turning into jails for kids" (Sassy magazine, March 1990, p. 44).

Of course, mental "hospitals" are jails for all persons detained there against their will. Furthermore, they are places where people may be incarcerated with no showing of prior illegal (or otherwise harmful) conduct - only "mental illness".

Yet statutes authorizing commitment for mental illness do not define mental illness but let supposed professionals (psychiatrists) define it any way they see fit. If subjected to proper constitutional scrutiny, such laws would be void for vagueness, as would a statute allowing imprisonment for something called "crime" but which failed to define crime - leaving potential "criminals" in doubt about whether marijuana or alcohol use is legal, whether driving 65 mph on the highway is legal, or whether the age of consent for what in the presence of a statute would be called statutory rape is 16 or 18 or some other age - allowing each prosecuting attorney to determine after the fact whether a particular act is definable as "crime", much as psychiatrists often determine after the fact whether a particular act or expression of ideas constitutes "mental illness".

Have we forgotten that America is supposed to be a nation where all law-abiding persons are guaranteed liberty? How can a person know what behavior is prohibited if the laws are not clearly written? People like myself who believe strongly in individual freedom argue that violation of the rights of others should be the only acts prohibited by law; others will defend victimless crime laws. In either case, violation of law should be the only basis for depriving a person of his or her liberty over his or her protest.

One 14 year old girl who had been involuntarily committed to a private psychiatric hospital after an argument with her parents said "My parents would always threaten me with the hospital" (Sassy magazine, March 1990, p. 82). But it isn't only adolescents and old people who are threatened with psychiatric incarceration in their conflicts with family members. In her autobiography, Will There Really Be a Morning?, actress Frances Farmer tells how even when she was 30 years old her mother in seemingly every dispute would threaten her with commitment to a mental hospital near her home in Seattle, Washington:
"'I'm just about at the end of my rope with you,' she warned. 'I've just about had all I can take. I've put up with you for years and what do I get for it? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! But you're my daughter and you're going to do exactly as I say, or back [to the mental hospital] you go. Do You understand me? Back you go! And this time for keeps! ... You're a disgusting brat!' she spat contemptuously.
"'I'm a thirty-year-old woman,' I answered bitterly. 'And I know damn good and well that you'll send me back the first chance you get.' ... I could not cope with another fight. 'I'm going back to bed,' I said flatly. 'This whole thing is absurd.'
"I started up the stairs, but her reply stopped me short. 'I'm sending you back, Frances.' I was chilled by her sudden calm. 'And this time,' she went on, `I'll see you that you stay.' ...
"It was morning, and I heard my mother rise. It startled me when she knocked softly at my door.
"'Frances,' she said calmly. `I'd like you to get dressed and come down stairs. There are some people here who want to meet you.' ...
"My mother was in the living room with two uniformed men...and I knew! ... They straddled me, and I felt the rough canvas of the straitjacket wrap around me and buckle into place" (Dell Publishing Co., 1972, pp. 15-33).

In America and other nations that claim to value freedom and defend human rights, legislators writing "mental health" laws and those making personal or judicial decisions about what to do with a so-called mentally ill person or persons should keep in mind that America's guarantees of personal freedom are the basis for American patriotism.

Listen, for example, to the words of a patriotic song, "God Bless the USA": "If tomorrow all the things were gone I'd worked for all my life, and I had to start again with just my children and my wife, I'd thank my lucky stars to be living here today. 'Cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they can't take that away! And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. 'Cause there is no doubt I love this Land. God bless the USA!" (emphasis added).

Similarly, a Russian immigrant to the United States said this in an article published in Reader's Digest in 1991: "I looked up at the [United States] flag, fluttering in the breeze. ... Suddenly, I understood ... America isn't about school sweaters or Johnny Mathis records or shiny new cars. It's about freedom and opportunity - not just for the privileged or the native-born - but for everyone" (Constantin Galskoy, "How I Became an American", Reader's Digest, August 1991, p. 76). The USA's official national anthem "The Star Spangled Banner" refers to America as "the land of the free". The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America ends with the words "...with liberty and justice for all." One of America's most popular and prominent symbols is the Statue of Liberty. Another statue, this one sitting atop the dome of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., is called the Statue of Freedom.

In 1987 in a law journal article discussing constitutional due process, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., said "every enactment of every state...may be challenged at the Bar of the Court on the ground that such action, such legislation, is a deprivation of liberty without due process of law...those ideals of human dignity - liberty and justice for all individuals - will continue to inspire and guide us because they are entrenched in our Constitution" (Case & Comment, September-October 1987, p. 21). Imagine how empty and meaningless these patriotic words in these articles, patriotic songs, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the names of these national monuments, and the U.S. Constitution sound to a law-abiding person who has been imprisoned (involuntarily "hospitalized") for so-called mental illness in the USA merely because others dislike his or her thoughts, ideas, emotions, lifestyle, personality, or lawful (even if irritating) behavior, or because he or she gets along poorly with others in his or her family.

A reason involuntary psychiatric commitment of law-abiding people is a violation of constitutionally guaranteed substantive due process is it is contrary to the most important values America and other democracies claim to stand for. This is just as true for those under the arbitrarily defined age of majority as it is for adults. In his inaugural address on January 20, 1989, President George Bush said "Great nations, like great men, must keep their word. When America says something, America means it - whether a treaty, or an agreement, or a vow made on marble steps." One of the consequences of belief in the myth of mental illness is America's failure to live up to one of its most fundamental promises: liberty for all law-abiding Americans.

THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric "patients". His pamphlets are not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for distribution to those who you think will benefit.

Is Mental Illness Real?

2011-08-28T10:54:00.000-07:00

http://www.dovechristiancounseling.com/Does-Mental-Illness-Really-Exist-.html

But when it comes to "mental illness" they have done autopsies on the brains of societies most evil and horrendous killers and found NOTHING in their brains that would look abnormal from your brain. Their brains were NORMAL. So what was it that caused them to act so abnormal and evil? Pure and simple, it was SIN.

Jesus taught that the primary cause of sickness in the world was a force of evil loose in the world which was hostile to God and the divine way. He believed that people sometimes fell into the hands of this power, which then exerted a destructive influence in their lives, morally, psychologically, mentally and physically. You may call this force Satan, the devil, evil spirits, demons, autonomous complexes, or what you will. But it is NOT mental illness. There is no such thing, according to the Bible and to Jesus and to God.

The bottom line is the only protection against the evasion of this evil into the personalities of men and women is to be filled with God's Holy Spirit. Sickness and disease never come from God. They come from the devil. And without God's spirit living inside of you, the human being, on their own is helpless in keeping the devil out of their lives. We need Jesus' and God's help every single day to keep evil from us or from getting into us. The part that is under our control is our decision to ask for God's protection and help, or to choose to do it on our own, which is when we get into trouble.

In the Lord's prayer we say, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from Evil." So evidently we can be tempted and evil is a reality that we need prayer for to be delivered from on a daily basis.

All diagnosis and treatment in psychiatry, especially biological psychiatry, presupposes the existence of something called mental illness, also known as mental disease or mental disorder. What is meant by disease, illness, or disorder? In a semantic sense disease means simply dis-ease, the opposite of ease. But by disease we don't mean anything that causes a lack of ease, since this definition would mean losing one's job or a war or economic recession or an argument with one's spouse qualifies as "disease". In his book Is Alcoholism Hereditary? psychiatrist Donald W. Goodwin, M.D., discusses the definition of disease and concludes "Diseases are something people see doctors for. ... Physicians are consulted about the problem of alcoholism and therefore alcoholism becomes, by this definition, a disease" (Ballantine Books, 1988, p. 61).

Accepting this definition, if for some reason people consulted physicians about how to get the economy out of recession or how to solve a disagreement with one's mate or a bordering nation, these problems would also qualify as disease. But clearly this is not what is meant by "disease". In his discussion of the definition of disease, Dr. Goodwin acknowledges there is "a narrow definition of disease that requires the presence of a biological abnormality" (ibid). In this pamphlet I will show that there are no biological abnormalities responsible for so-called mental illness, mental disease, or mental disorder, and that therefore mental illness has no biological existence. Perhaps more importantly, however, I will show that mental illness also has no non-biological existence - except in the sense that the term is used to indicate disapproval of some aspect of a person's mentality.

The idea of mental illness as a biological entity is easy to refute. In 1988, Seymour S. Kety, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Neuroscience in Psychiatry, and Steven Matthysse, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychobiology, both of Harvard Medical School, said "an impartial reading of the recent literature does not provide the hoped-for clarification of the catecholamine hypotheses, nor does compelling evidence emerge for other biological differences that may characterize the brains of patients with mental disease" (The New Harvard Guide to Psychiatry, Harvard Univ. Press, p. 148). In 1992 a panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment concluded: "Many questions remain about the biology of mental disorders. In fact, research has yet to identify specific biological causes for any of these disorders. ... Mental disorders are classified on the basis of symptoms because there are as yet no biological markers or laboratory tests for them" (The Biology of Mental Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1992, pp. 13-14, 46-47).

In his book The Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs, Columbia University psychiatry professor Jack M. Gorman, M.D., said "We really do not know what causes any psychiatric illness" (St. Martin's Press, 1990, p. 316). In his book The New Psychiatry another Columbia University psychiatry professor, Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., said "It is generally unrecognized that psychiatrists are the only medical specialists who treat disorders that, by definition, have no definitively known causes or cures. ... A diagnosis should indicate the cause of a mental disorder, but as discussed later, since the etiologies of most mental disorders are unknown, current diagnostic systems can't reflect them" (Mentor, 1985, pp. 19 & 36 - emphasis in original). In his book Toxic Psychiatry, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., said "there is no evidence that any of the common psychological or psychiatric disorders have a genetic or biological component" (St. Martin's Press, 1991, p. 291).

It is sometimes argued that psychiatric drugs "curing" (stopping) the thinking, emotions, or behavior that is called mental illness proves the existence of biological causes of mental illness. This argument is easily refuted: Suppose someone was playing the piano and you didn't like him doing that. Suppose you forced or persuaded him to take a drug that disabled him so severely that he couldn't play the piano anymore. Would this prove his piano playing was caused by a biological abnormality that was cured by the drug? As senseless as this argument is, it is often made. Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability. So they do stop disliked behavior and may mentally disable a person enough he can no longer feel angry or unhappy or "depressed". But calling this a "cure" is absurd. Extrapolating from this that the drug must have cured an underlying biological abnormality that was causing the disliked emotions or behavior is equally absurd.

When confronted with the lack of evidence for their belief in mental illness as a biological entity, some defenders of the concept of mental illness will assert that mental illness can exist and can be defined as a "disease" without there being a biological abnormality causing it. The idea of mental illness as a nonbiological entity requires a more lengthy refutation than the biological argument.

People are thought of as mentally ill only when their thinking, emotions, or behavior is contrary to what is considered acceptable, that is, when others (or the so-called patients themselves) dislike something about them. One way to show the absurdity of calling something an illness not because it is caused by a biological abnormality but only because we dislike it or disapprove of it is to look at how values differ from one culture to another and how values change over time.

In his book The Psychology of Self-Esteem, Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D., a psychologist, wrote: "One of the prime tasks of the science of psychology is to provide definitions of mental health and mental illness. ...But there is no general agreement among psychologists and psychiatrists about the nature of mental health or mental illness - no generally accepted definitions, no basic standard by which to gauge one psychological state or other. Many writers declare that no objective definitions and standards can be established - that a basic, universally applicable concept of mental health is impossible. They assert that, since behavior which is regarded as healthy or normal in one culture may be regarded as neurotic or aberrated in another, all criteria are a matter of 'cultural bias.' The theorists who maintain this position usually insist that the closest one can come to a definition of mental health is: conformity to cultural norms. Thus, they declare that a man is psychologically healthy to the extent that he is 'well-adjusted' to his culture.

The obvious questions that such a definition raises, are: What if the values and norms of a given society are irrational? Can mental health consist of being well-adjusted to the irrational? What about Nazi Germany, for instance? Is a cheerful servant of the Nazi state - who feels serenely and happily at home in his social environment - an exponent of mental health?" (Bantam Books, 1969, pp. 95-96, emphasis in original). Dr. Branden is doing several things here: First, he is confusing morality and rationality, saying that respect for human rights is rational when in fact it is not a question of rationality but rather of morality. So psychologically and emotionally locked into and blinded by his values is he that Dr. Branden is evidently incapable of seeing the difference.

Additionally, Dr. Branden is stating some of his values. Among these values are: Respect for human rights is good; violation of human rights (like Nazism) is bad. And he is saying: Violating these values is "irrationality" or mental illness. Although their practitioners won't admit it and often are not even aware of it, psychiatry and "clinical" psychology in their very essence are about values - values concealed under a veneer of language that makes it sound like they are not furthering values but promoting "health".

The answer to the question Dr. Branden poses is: A person living in Nazi Germany and well-adjusted to it was "mentally healthy" judged by the values of his own society. Judged by the values of a society which respects human rights he was as sick (metaphorically speaking) as the rest of his culture. A person like myself however says that such a person is morally "sick" and recognizes that the word sick has not its literal but a metaphorical meaning. To a person like Dr. Branden who believes in the myth of mental illness, such a person is literally sick and needs a doctor. The difference is that a person like myself is recognizing my values for what they are: morality. Typically, the believer in mental illness, such as Dr. Branden in this quoted passage, has the same values as I do but is confusing them with health.

One of the most telling examples is homosexuality, which was officially defined as a mental disease by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973 but hasn't been since then. Homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder on page 44 of the American Psychiatric Association's standard reference book, DSM-II: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the 2nd Edition), published in 1968. In that book, "Homosexuality" is categorized as one of the "Sexual deviations" on page 44. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from it's official diagnostic categories of mental illness. (See "An Instant Cure", Time magazine, April 1, 1974, p. 45). So when the third edition of this book was published in 1980 it said "homosexuality itself is not considered a mental disorder" (p. 282). The 1987 edition of The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy states: "The American Psychiatric Association no longer considers homosexuality a psychiatric disease" (p. 1495).

If mental illness were really an illness in the same sense that physical illnesses are illnesses, the idea of deleting homosexuality or anything else from the categories of illness by having a vote would be as absurd as a group of physicians voting to delete cancer or measles from the concept of disease. But mental illness isn't "an illness like any other illness." Unlike physical disease where there are physical facts to deal with, mental "illness" is entirely a question of values, of right and wrong, of appropriate versus inappropriate. At one time homosexuality seemed so weird and hard to understand it was necessary to invoke the concept of mental disease or mental illness to explain it. After homosexuals made a big enough spectacle of themselves and showed their "strength in numbers" and successfully demanded at least a small measure of social acceptance, it was no longer necessary and no longer seemed appropriate to explain homosexuality as a disease.

A cross-cultural example is suicide. In many countries, such as the United States and Great Britain, a person who commits suicide or attempts to do so or even thinks about it seriously is considered mentally ill. However, this has not always been true throughout human history, nor is it true today in all cultures around the world. In his book Why Suicide?, psychologist Eustace Chesser points out that "Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism have any intrinsic objections to suicide and in some forms of Buddhism self-incineration is believed to confer special merit." He also points out that "The Celts scorned to wait for old age and enfeeblement. They believed that those who committed suicide before their powers waned went to heaven, and those who died of sickness or became senile went to hell - an interesting reversal of Christian doctrine" (Arrow Books Ltd., London, England, 1968, p. 121-122).

In his book Fighting Depression, psychiatrist Harvey M. Ross, M.D., points out that "Some cultures expect the wife to throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre" (Larchmont Books, 1975, p. 20). Probably the best known example of a society where suicide is socially acceptable is Japan. Rather than thinking of suicide or "hara-kiri" as the Japanese call it as almost always caused by a mental disease or illness, the Japanese in some circumstances consider suicide the normal, socially acceptable thing to do, such as when one "loses face" or is humiliated by some sort of failure.

Another example showing suicide is considered normal, not crazy, in Japanese eyes is the kamikaze pilots Japan used against the U.S. Navy in World War II. They were given enough fuel for a one-way trip, a suicide mission, to where the attacking U.S. Navy forces were located and deliberately crashed their airplanes into the enemy ships. There has never been an American kamikaze pilot, at least, none officially sponsored by the United States government. The reason for this is different attitudes about suicide in Japan and America. Could suicide be committed only by people with psychiatric illnesses in America and yet be performed by normal persons in Japan? Or is acceptance of suicide in Japan a failure or refusal to recognize the presence of psychological abnormalities which necessarily must be present for a person to voluntarily end his or her own life? Were the kamikaze pilots mentally ill, or did they and the society they come from simply have different values than we do?

Even in America, aren't virtually suicidal acts done for the sake of one's fellow soldiers or for one's country during wartime thought of not as insanity but as bravery? Why do we think of such persons as heros rather than lunatics? It seems we condemn (or "diagnose") suicidal people as crazy or mentally ill only when they end their own lives for selfish reasons (the "I can't take it any more" kind of reasons) rather than for the benefit of other people. The real issue seems to be selfishness rather than suicide.

What these examples show is that "mental illness" is simply deviance from what people want or expect in any particular society. "Mental illness" is anything in human mentality greatly disliked by the person describing it.

The situation was aptly summed up in an article in the November 1986 Omni magazine: "Disorders come and go. Even Sigmund Freud's concept of neurosis was dropped in the original DSM-III (1980). And in 1973 APA [American Psychiatric Association] trustees voted to wipe out almost all references to homosexuality as a disorder. Before the vote, being gay was considered a psychiatric problem. After the vote the disorder was relegated to psychiatry's attic. 'It's a matter of fashion,' says Dr. John Spiegel of Brandeis University, who was president of the APA in 1973, when the debate over homosexuality flared. 'And fashions keep changing'" (p. 30).
What is wrong with this approach is describing people as having a psychiatric "disease" or "illness" only because he or she doesn't match up with a supposed diagnostician's or with other people's idea of how a person "should" be in standards of dress, behavior, thinking, or opinion. When it involves violating the rights of others, nonconformity with social norms or values must be curbed or stopped with various measures, criminal law being one example. But calling nonconformity or disliked behavior a "disease" or assuming it must be caused by a disease only because it is unacceptable according to currently prevailing values makes no sense. What causes us to do this is not knowing the real reasons for the thinking, emotions, or behavior we dislike. When we don't understand the real reasons, we create myths to provide an explanation. Today most of us instead believe in the myth of mental illness.

Calling disapproved thinking, emotions, or behavior a mental illness might be excusable if mental illness was a useful myth, but it isn't. Rather than helping us deal with troubled or troublesome persons, the myth of mental illness distracts us from the real problems that need to be faced. Rather than being caused by a "chemical imbalance" or other biological problem, the nonconformity, misbehavior, and emotional reactions we call mental illness are the result of difficulties people have getting their needs met and the behavior some people have learned during their lifetimes. The solutions are teaching people how to get their needs met, how to behave, and using whatever powers of enforcement are needed to force people to respect the rights of others.

THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric "patients". He has published a series of pamphlets about various aspects of psychiatry, including psychiatric drugs, electroshock, and psychotherapy. His pamphlets are not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for distribution to those you think will benefit.

1996 UPDATE:
"... modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness." David Kaiser, M.D., Commentary: Against Biologic Psychiatry, December 1996 Psychiatric Times.
...there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder." From a letter dated December 4, 1998 by Loren R. Mosher, M.D., a psychiatrist, resigning from the American Psychiatric Association.

1999 UPDATES:
"... all 5 million to 6 million children on these drugs [for hyperactivity] are normal. The country's been led to believe that all painful emotions are a mental illness and the leadership of the APA [American Psychiatric Association] knows very well that they are representing it as a disease when there is no scientific data to confirm any mental illness." Neurologist Fred Baughman, quoted in Insight magazine, June 28, 1999, p. 13 (underline added).
...there is no evidence that these mental illnesses, such as ADHD, exist." Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, quoted in Insight magazine, June 28, 1999, p. 13. ADHD is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

2000 UPDATES:
"In medicine, strict criteria exist for calling a condition a disease. In addition to a predictable cluster of symptoms, the cause of the symptoms or some understanding of their physiology must be established. ... Psychiatry is unique among medical specialties in that... We do not yet have proof either of the cause or the physiology for any psychiatric diagnosis. ... In recent decades, we have had no shortage of alleged biochemical imbalances for psychiatric conditions. Diligent though these attempts have been, not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later proven false. ... No claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation." Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, in his book Prozac Backlash (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000), pages 192-193, page 196, and page 198.

2001 UPDATE:
"Remember that no biochemical, neurological, or genetic markers have been found for attention deficit disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, compulsive alcohol and drug abuse, overeating, gambling, or any other so-called mental illness, disease, or disorder." Bruce Levine, Ph.D. (psychologist), Commonsense Rebellion: Debunking Psychiatry, Confronting Society (Continuum, New York 2001), p. 277.

Inhuman Experimentation

2011-08-27T06:59:00.000-07:00

For those who think the government would never experiment on innocent citizens:

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=188

If you Love Someone Don't Suggest or Insist on Anti-Psychotics

2011-08-25T19:39:00.000-07:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychotic