Mental Health: Medical Science, Political Tool, Religion, or Fraud?

Mental health. The term itself makes people shudder with visions of people behaving like monsters, and insane asylums with thick padded walls which contain individuals wearing straight jackets muttering incomprehensive nothings with furious rage. Can anyone reading this point out what a person with a "mental health" problem looks like? What their personalities are like, what their inner-most passions are, or even if you know someone in this category?

I'll briefly speak of a recent incident that impacted many lives. I'm not speaking from the angle of media hype, because that's just plain old lame. I want to state myself in a manner as to give the victims and their families their right to grieve, their due respect. What needs to be put out in plain language is that all the well schooled, intricately trained, state licensed "mental health professionals" failed us again.

I'm talking about the Virginia Tech tragedy. There were warning signs and even a hospitalization with notification to law enforcement. I won't harp on law enforcement because these guys and gals are in a catch 22 no matter what, and it irritates them to no end. They are given the tools to do a job only to have those tools restricted or even taken away through a slick political process that favors anyone but the public.

Incidents in the recent past include a woman who threw her young children into a deep body of water, followed by by a series of unrelated family homicides that were topped off by a woman who burned her two young kids and herself in revenge for a spat with her husband. Common sense tells anyone that there were "red flags". Big incidents in the past in Illinois include Laurie Dann, who made poisonous lunch bags and gave them out to people and then shot herself in a stand - off with police. Also on the history books are John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer, along with scores of accused persons who are still facing criminal charges for over 30 incidents of school shootings in Chicago just this year. One of those shootings took place on a CTA bus in front of many witnesses, only to find that the victim was the wrong person. That excuse is the oldest one around..."I got the wrong person" as if it lessens the severity of the crime. A life was still taken without legal authorization in cold blood.

With the hands of the police being tied so severely and the mental health industry saying they can't be held liable, who's to be held accountable? Guilty offenders get off with a free pass because of the mental health excuse, even though school officials who are clinically licensed to detect and intervene in troubled lives hide behind the political process which consists of layers upon layers of policy.

Could it be that there are unspoken questions as to whether or not these so called professionals can recognize what they have held for years are symptoms of illness? Decades before any of us were born, those who had seizures were thrown into insane asylums because their condition was misunderstood to be anything else under the veil of superstition instead of people asking questions, performing clinical investigation into what it truly was. When it was finally accomplished, lives were gone that could have been saved. Those suffering from seizures were discovered to suffer from a genuine neurological illness that is easily treated, controlled, and managed today. These people now live successful lives because of those advances, late as they were.

160 Years of the American Psychiatric Association spell trouble because after all of the development documented there, one would think all was well. The foundation has been laid to prove that these very same professionals are in conflict with each other, and that something is truly amiss. Something in our nature as people makes it easier to dismiss facts simply because they are unpleasant or hard to believe. After all, these people have all this schooling, years of clinical experience, and had to pass a state board for their license, right? Why would they allow such a thing when they are all held to the hippocratic oath and strict state guidelines, right? WRONG!

Avoiding responsibility happens at all levels of society, even in those we are taught to trust. The first abuse has been proven in the form of violating the public trust. The late 80's marked the end of a good practice in mental health when masses of inpatient and out-patient programs switched their mode of treatment / treatment orientation from emotional to a behavioral focus. Sounds innocent, right? Think again! With the new mode and orientation of treatment came training for it's staff that taught a liberal militant approach that in our current day still has the effect of punishment for illness. If restraints were commonplace before these changes took place, they definitely became the answer with the new changes.

Patients report in scores that just having a bad moment unrelated to any behavioral symptomology became cause for being approached by clinical staffers in numbers, forced medication used, and restraints applied for up to 45 hours at a time without access to food, drink, or even a bathroom. Patients state that they have been verbally abused, physically abused, and worse while in restraints. There is mounting evidence that this is indeed true, but is however being downplayed and attributed to statements like "patient fought with restraints in attempts to physically assault staff, resulting in injury to patient from fighting with restraints." coming from a clinical staffer at a hospital, this would be believed instantly and not questioned.

Afterall, mental health patients CAN'T be a credible source of accurate information, right? Wrong! Staffers get burned out, they get tired of the behavioral displays by patients and are only human. These staffers do feel stress, they feel anxiety, they feel all the feelings in the spectrum that we feel. What is to keep the public from believing that these claims of patient abuse have occurred, or would occur? To delve further into this, we'll need to ask some questions about what causes human behavior to be pleasant vs. unpleasant, and what's expected.

Let's assume you have worked a hard 12 hour day. Your co-workers are idiots, and you have a boss who's a lid. Everyone is doing just theminimum which leaves you to do the work they leave behind. They do this just to take advantage of you, and it's been going on for 5 years. You'd not be too happy now, would you? You'd be in need of venting, in need of an out let for all of the emotions that come about as a result of the environment you have to work in and it's effect on you. You go home, slam the door behind you, and cuss up a storm at the loudest vocal volume you can muster.

While this is going on, the phone rings and you tell the person at the other end to go (expletives deleted) with explicit directions on how to achieve such a thing. Your spouse comes home and you then let loose which results in a screaming match. Are you now assumed to have a psychiatric disorder? According to the DSM - IVTR, you do. Unfair isn't it? Under these guidelines, if this has happened to you more than once, you have a disorder or a primary diagnosis with underlying or secondary diagnoses. This author is NOT a doctor, holds no clinical licensure of any sort, and has no clinical training beyond that of a first responder. Common sense interpretation was used to come to sound conclusions on matters discussed here. In doing so, proper research was conducted which is available to the public. Here is a sampling of the DSM-IVTR.

The DSM is considered the "bible" of psychiatric and psychological science, even used by clinical social workers. Because of the credentials held by those who authored this document, and because it is asserted by the organization that is recognized as the "union" of thousands of psychiatrists (the American Psychiatric Association), all is assumed to be credible. However, this author has found major flaws in that the very act of everyday living may very well be a psychiatric illness. Think about it, we all have a set routine consisting of a schedule that binds our work life, private life, social life, hygiene care, etc.

This is something repetitive that we hold to as the "holy grail" of our lives because it's orderly and structured. However, a psychiatrist or other licensed professional would praise it, but also lambast it. Their words in doing so would likely be something along the lines of "The patient's need to have a structured and orderly environment is symptomatic of a person with either personality disorder or obsessive compulsive disorder." The doc would then follow this up with the definition of these named disorders taken from the DSM.

One phraseology used here is that the requirement for a disorder "Interfere with daily life." One shortfall here and this is major...."Interference with daily life" is undefined. This would lead any reasonable person to suspect that this is arbitrary. Arbitrary will be said to be the opinion at a whim of the licensed clinical person. None of this makes any sense, does it?

Let's ask some other hard questions! Why is it that a patient asks questions to one of these people, only to get a reply that is vague at best? Why is it that these professionals become defensive at such NEEDED questions and then note that the patient is asking questions that are inappropriate which apears to be a paranoid quality? As far as anyone knows, the patient ALWAYS has the absolute right to ask questions about their diagnosis, treatment, and prescribed medication! People have a right to be informed about what a doctor or licensed clinical professional is doing with them to include questions about medication.

Psychiatric professionals have also made a habit of getting legal systems involved with their "patients" who use their God given right to refuse treatment to include medications for which there is no adequate explanation given by such professional. No one wants to undergo treatment that is largely unexplained. Why is it that no other "doctor" or other licensed clinical professional never gets these legal systems involved with their patients to force treatment on them? All medical conditions can have effects on a person's mood and even mental status for a time that is temporary at best. These conditions run the gamut for which there is no space to analyze here at least without licensed physicians to guide in such an effort.

Psychiatry with all of the other clinical professionals in it's employ has made a secret of answers to questions that the public has a right to. For instance, they claim that there is a difference in people because of brain structure for which they claim to have scans and other evidence for. The argument can easily be made that because everyone is made differently, that these differences would be expected as opposed to being an indication of a real mental disorder now known in the current day as a "brain disorder". I now lead to this question: If these are brain disorders, why aren't neurologists "in the know"? Brains are their area of specialization isn't it? We now have "Neuropsychiartrists" who also claim to not know much.

The answer, "We know some things, but we don't know enough" is too prevalent, and as such, appears to be just a convenient answer. We, the public hold these many professionals to a high degree of trust, a high degree of ethics. So, why are they not giving us the answers we know are there? After sampling teh DSM, I am confident that the common person such as myself is more than capable of rendering an opinion that the DSM paints with a wide brush stroke, and has gone unchallenged even today because challenge in the medical field goes against the grain, and is considered heresy. All of this to the demise of many.
Accepted medical theory that has been proven, regardless of the diagnosis, requires testing that is objective, definable, and objective. THERE IS NO SUCH TESTING FOR ALLEGED MENTAL HEALTH DISORDERS. Doctors admit to this fact openly and without promise or threat for doing so.

Demise is what it comes down to when psych meds are prescribed to people of all ages, especially children. People who are prescribed these drugs often show behavior that is disturbing, confusion, and the wandering of their minds involuntarily. They in effect, become vegetables. Only they are conscious and have to live with serious side effects that are disabling by themselves. Those who have stopped their meds because of these side effects, have had horrible "episodes" that have turned their lives upside down. They have even hurt or killed others or even themselves. The answer lies in the fact that these drugs are addictive, and there are no objective and RELIABLE tests / other research to even say that these drugs do anything but harm brain chemistry. The video above in which the doctors interviewed provides all the proof a person needs, although there is more evidence out there. SEE THESE FACTS! It's an on-going pattern of occurrences, yet it's downplayed so as the public thinks that it's just isolated incidents that rarely happen.

This author is NOT in any way affiliated with CCHR, nor am I a member or any other associate of the Church of Scientology. CCHR was founded and is sponsored by this church, but I have found their research to be sound because I have followed up at my own computer terminal, and have done the research at libraries as well. My independent findings support all of the information presented by CCHR. I issue the public and the psych industry a challenge to read the entire website entirely if you want to know what's true.

I quote a list of factual references from CCHR that I have followed up on personally and verified.

1
Transcript of Proceedings, FDA Psychopharmacological Drugs Advisory Committee, 20 Sept. 91, p. 290.
2
"Suicidality in Children and Adolescents Being Treated With Antidepressant Medications", FDA Public Health
Advisory, 15 Oct. 04.
3
"New Warning for Strattera," FDA Talk Paper, 17 Dec. 04.
4
"FDA Issues Public Health Advisory for Antipsychotic Drugs Used for Treatment of Behavioral Disorders in Elderly
Patients," FDA Talk Paper, 11 Apr. 05.
5
"European Medicines Agency finalises review of antidepressants in children and adolescents," European Medicines
Agency Press Release, 25 Apr. 05.
6
"Statement on Concerta and Methylphenidate," Statement posted on the FDA website, 28 June 05.
7
"Suicidality in Adults Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications," FDA Public Health Advisory, 30 June 05.
8
"Accompanying Statement by Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Chairman and President," Under the Counter: The Diversion
and Abuse of Controlled Prescription Drugs in the U.S., National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, July 05, pp. i-iii.
9
Joanna Moncrieff and Irving Kirsch, "Efficacy of Antidepressants in Adults," British Medical Journal, Vol. 331, 16
July 05, pp. 155-157.
10
"Accompanying Statement by Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Chairman and President," National Survey of American
Attitudes on Substance Abuse X: Teens and Parents, National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University, Aug. 05, pp. i-ii.
11
"Annex II," Commission Decision of 19-VIII-2005, Commission of the European Communities, 19 Aug. 05.
12
Ivar Aursnes, et al., "Suicide Attempts in Clinical Trials with Paroxetine Randomised Against Placebo," BMC
Medicine, Vol. 3, pp. 14-18.
13
Marian S. MacDonagh, PharmaD, and Kim Peterson, MS, "Drug Class Review on Pharmacologic Treatment for
ADHD: Final Report," Oregon Health and Science University, Sept. 05, pp. 13-20.
14
Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, et al., "Effectiveness of Antipsychotic Drugs in Patients with Chronic Schizophrenia,"
New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 353, No. 12, 22 Sept. 05, pp. 1209-1232.
15
Lauren Neergaard, "FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford Resigns," Associated Press, 23 Sept. 05; Robert Pear and
Andrew Pollack, "Leader of the F.D.A. Steps Down After a Short, Turbulent Tenure," New York Times, 24 Sept. 05.
16
"Depression in Children and Young People," National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Sept. 05, pp. 16, 18
and 28.
17
"Suicidal Thinking in Children and Adolescents Being Treated with Strattera (Atomoxetine)," FDA Public Health
Advisory, 29 Sept. 05.
18
"Concluding Observations (Australia)," UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 40
th
Session, 30 Sept. 05;
"Concluding Observations (Denmark)," UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 40
th
Session, 30 Sept. 05;
"Concluding Observations (Finland)," UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 40
th
Session, 30 Sept. 05.
19
"2005 Safety Alerts for Drugs, Biologics, Medical Devises, and Dietary Supplements," FDA MedWatch, 17 Oct. 05.
20
Lori Oliwenstein, "Study Notes Risks of Antipsychotic Drugs," University of Southern California Public Relations, 21
Oct. 05.
21
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, "Warning Urged for ADHD Drugs," Los Angeles Times, 10 Feb. 06.
22
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, "New Warning Advocated for ADHD Drugs," Los Angeles Times, 23 Mar. 06.

Also see this and here's some more extra research i've done:

From this source came all of the below information:

"In the November/December 1993 Psychology Today magazine, psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D., is quoted as saying psychiatry has experienced "five broad areas of failure" including "inadequate research and theory" and "an increasingly poor reputation" (p. 11). Similarly, a Wall Street Journal editorial in 1985 says "psychiatry remains the most threatened of all present medical specialties", citing the fact that "psychiatrists are among the poorest-paid American doctors", that "relatively few American medical-school graduates are going into psychiatric residencies", and psychiatry's "loss of public esteem"

"In 1988 in The New Harvard Guide to Psychiatry 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" (Harvard Univ. Press, p. 148). So-called mental or emotional "illnesses" are caused by unfortunate life experience - not biology. There is no biological basis for the concept of mental or emotional illness, despite speculative theories you may hear. The brain is an organ of the body, and no doubt it can have a disease, but nothing we think of today as mental illness has been traced to a brain disease. There is no valid biological test that tests for the presence of any so-called mental illness. What we think of today as mental illness is psychological, not biological. Much of the treatment that goes on in psychiatry today is biological, but other than listening and offering advice, modern day psychiatric treatment is as senseless as trying to solve a computer software problem by working on the hardware. As psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz, M.D., has said: Trying to eliminate a so-called mental illness by having a psychiatrist work on your brain is like trying to eliminate cigarette commercials from television by having a TV repairman work on your TV set (The Second Sin, Anchor Press, 1973, p. 99). Since lack of health is not the cause of the problem, health care is not a solution."

Despite all of this negative reporting rooted in facts, I also offer the following links below.

Science Considered In Ethcal, Religious Framework

Risk Of Birth Defects From SSRI Use Minimal

Suicide Attempts Decline With Psychotherapy or Use of Anti-Depressants

Normal Grief Linked To Major Depression

Since there is a variable here and there is no exact science, why is it apparent that some do get relief from "symptoms"? Why is it that there are those people who make progress even though there is no testing for such ailments or diseases listed in the DSM? There are those doctors in the Chicago area who are not proponents of the use of medications, let alone the protocol of labeling patients because they find it harmful, and find that it is a road block to finding out the real issues that are causing observed or perceived symptomology..

Working for more research funding to get solid answers, working for a more vast array of humane approaches with compassion and understanding seems to be the only answer that has proved to be an up-hill battle. Support groups such as Bipolar World make strong attempts to help through peer to peer interaction, but is it safe and effective? After browsing around here for a bit, questions have been raised regarding whether or not their ties with licensed clinical professionals are appropriate. Are they diagnosing people and offering treatment while pushing an agenda? See their main site for more insight.

Does any of this activity require clinical training and licensure? Is there a potential for harm even in the face of claims that they are only offering a place to interact with others? What is behind the closed doors of an operation such as this? At this juncture, these questions have not been answered. It has been called to the attention of this author that anyone asking these questions is "blacklisted" and unwelcome despite the validity of such questions.

A list of their administrators and moderators is provided here.

Administrators
Member Name Forums Location
allie All Forums
blackdog All Forums
bpw` All Forums
bpw`` All Forums
dxd3d All Forums somewhere btween blue 'n green
lordrastilian All Forums Anchorage, Alaska
maz All Forums New York

Global Moderators
Member Name Forums Location
Cross All Forums Texas
fickle All Forums Pennsylvania
saffron All Forums

If all is well on this front, then why are people hiding behind screen names? We have plenty of civil laws and state regulations that prohibit adverse treatment for those who have any disability, and this author has no idea why there is such secrecy. The leaders aren't given true names, just anonymous pseudonyms. One can see the validity of everyday users being guarded, but established leaders?

Only the most simple of rules can be advocated here. Those rules are said niocely in two words: BUYER BEWARE! As with anything else, when you go to the doctor for anything, you are buying a service, you are a consumer. Do your homework on mental health professionals before agreeing to anything and making that decision. All states have public listings of licensees along with their standing with the state. This is sometimes a risky proposition because if any action has been taken but resolved, the information may only be public for a time before it is sealed or otherwise done away with. Check with your respective state. Google is your friend! Search by using their names and credentials. You'll be surprised at what you find!

For instance, one licensed Clinical Psychologist in Illinois who works for the Cook County Circuit Court - Division Of Child Protection, has a history of giving generously to two different official Democratic organizations. This same Psychologist also wrote the "how to" manual for the Rorschak test which is in it's ninth edition. Questions of the use of political ties loom.

Again, buyer beware! Make your own decision and don't take it lightly!