Modern Medicine; what is it all about?

by **Sokolova** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:47 am

Check this site out: <a href="http://www.ritalindeath.com">www.ritalindeath.com/</a> I’m also linking it to the <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=518.topic">‘role of science today’</a> thread as I think they are all part of the same issue. I’m hoping RI will create a subject heading ‘Science and Medicine’, because the fascism developing in our society will show up in these things before anything else; as in Germany, they will be used in the vanguard to provide rationalisation and validation of the means of social control. They’ll turn ‘difference’ into a disease or a crime and provide many cogently argued and peer-reviewed studies to ‘prove’ it. The story below and the general corruption of the Psychiatric profession and its increasing willingness to identify any unusual or even slightly 'anti-social' behavior as a pathology, shows in fact it is already happening. We need to keep the abuse of science and medicine right at the center of this ongoing debate we are all having. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>April 15, 2001 this website was created in hopes of providing parents and guardians with information about the truth behind ADHD and the drugs used to treat children diagnosed with ADD or ADHD. We built this website because we didn't want other children to die or suffer side effects because of their parents lack of knowledge. The Biblical scripture that reads "My people parish from lack of knowledge" really hit home. We did all we could to convince state and federal government about the methods used in the miss-diagnosing of thousands of children with in ADD - attention deficit disorder and ADHD hyperactivity disorder of ADHD and psychotropic drugging of children with Ritalin and other drugs. Since the death of our 14-year-old son Matthew caused from the use of Ritalin prescribed for ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) our family has been informing others world wide via the internet about ADHD and the dangers of psychotropic drugs in memory of our son and countless other children that have died over the years as a direct result of using psychotropic drugs. We wish to expose the health risks, dangers, deaths and suicides that are a direct result of administering Ritalin and other psychiatric drugs to children. We hope our story and information will in some way benefit your family and prevent our tragedy from being your families’ reality and nightmare. Between 1990 and 2000 there were 186 deaths from methylphenidate reported to the FDA MedWatch program, a voluntary reporting scheme, the numbers of which represent no more than 10 to 20% of the actual incidence. http://www.adhdfraud.org/commentary/1-6-02-2.htm In 1998 at the National Institutes of Health Consensus on ADHD, the following statement was issued: "We do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there is no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction". Dr. Fred Baughman has methodically exposed the fraud and corruption of ADHD. Despite the tragic loss of our son Matthew, caused from Ritalin used for ADHD, Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD has been my inspiration for creating this website from the start. I am helping to get the truth out to all parents and guardians, countering the lies and deception put out by CHADD and other deceitful groups that profit from the lethal drugging of innocent children. Warning, for the safety of your children stay as far away from the pro ADHD, pro drugging of children group called CHADD, CHADD is an acronym for Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity. CHADD is responsible for misleading millions of Americans into believing in subjective disorders like ADD and ADHD, supposed disorders which have NO valid test. Furthermore, the very companies that makes the drugs for ADD and ADHD finance CHADD. I encourage any parent or guardian pressured to diagnose and drug their child for what the drug pushers call ADHD to visit Fred's eye opening website http://adhdfraud.com. like ADHD, ADD, ODD, LD etc are in no sense true diseases. There are no reliable diagnostic methods. Psychiatrists cannot even agree among themselves about how to diagnose ADD/ ADHD. In addition, your child needs to, be put on a medication that is a close cousin to amphetamine because of the ADHD labeled. I urge everyone to take the time to Preview Fred's video it will send chills down your back. While you are at Fred Baughman's website please make a contribution, there are many expenses involved in travels, video productions, books and promotions which get this invaluable indisputable information to you and many others. Let us face it, the truth Fred Baughman offers freely, could save the life of your child. Children do have learning and behavioral difficulties. This does does not mean they have mental disorders, that need to be masked with lethal psychiatric drugs, they need to be handled. Many conditions mimic the behaviors the pro drugers like to call ADD or ADHD http://ritalindeath.com/conditions_that_mimic_ADHD.htm Our 14-year-old Son Died from Ritalin Use Our fourteen year old son Matthew suddenly died on March 21, 2000. The cause of death was determined to be from the long-term (age 7-14) use of Methylphenidate, a drug commonly known as Ritalin. According to Dr. Ljuba Dragovic, the Chief Pathologist of Oakland County, Michigan, upon autopsy, Matthew's heart showed clear signs of small vessel damage caused from the use of Methylphenidate (Ritalin). *The certificate of death reads: "Death caused from Long Term Use of Methylphenidate, (Ritalin)." I was told by one of the medical examiners that a full-grown man's heart weighs about 350 grams and that Matthew's heart's weight was about 402 grams. Dr. Dragovic said this type of heart damage is smoldering and not easily detected with the standard test done for prescription refills. The standard test usually consists of blood work, listening to the heart, and questions about school behaviors, sleeping and eating habits. *What is important to note here is that Matthew did not have any pre-existing heart condition or defect. Matthew's story started in a small town within Berkley, Michigan. While in first grade Matthew was evaluated by the school, who believed he had ADHD. The school social worker, Monica Higer, kept calling us in for meetings. One morning at one of these meetings while waiting for the others to arrive, Monica told us that if we refused to take Matthew to the doctor and get him on Ritalin, child protective services could charge us for neglecting his educational and emotional needs. My wife and I were intimidated and scared. We believed that there was a very real possibility of losing our children if we did not comply with the schools threats. Monica further explained ADHD to us, stating that it was a real brain disorder. She also went on to tell us that the Methylphenidate (Ritalin) was a very mild medication and would stimulate the brain stem and help Matthew focus. We gave into the schools pressure and took our son to a pediatrician that they recommended. His name was Dr. John Dorsey of Birmingham, Michigan. While visiting Dr. Dorsey with the schools recommendation for Methylphenidate (Ritalin) in hand, I noted that he seemed frustrated with the school. He asked us to remind the school that he was not a pharmacy. I can only conclude from his comment that we were not the first parents sent to him by this school. Dr. John Dorsey officially diagnosed Matthew with ADHD. The test used for the diagnosis was a five minute pencil twirling trick, resulting in me being handed a prescription for Methylphenidate/Ritalin. *It is important to note that the schools insistence and role in our son's drugging was documented in a letter written by Monica to the pediatrician stating: "We would have hoped you would have started Matthew on a trial of medication by now". At no time were my wife and I ever told significant facts regarding the issue of ADHD and the drugs used to "treat it". These significant facts withheld from us inevitably would have changed the road that we were headed down by ultimately altering the decisions we would have made. We were not told that The Drug Enforcement Administration had classified Methylphenidate (Ritalin) as a Schedule II drug, comparable to Cocaine. We were not told that Methylphenidate is also one of the top ten abused prescription drugs. At no time were we informed of the unscientific nature of the disorder. We were not told that there was widespread controversy among the medical establishment in regards to the validity of the disorder. Furthermore, we were not provided with information involving the dangers of using Methylphenidate (Ritalin) as "treatment" for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. One of these dangers includes the fact that Methylphenidate, Ritalin causes constriction of veins and arteries, causing the heart to work overtime and inevitably leading to damage to the organ itself. We were not made aware of the large number of children's deaths, that have been linked with these types of drugs used as "treatment". While Matthew was taking Methylphenidate (Ritalin), at no time, were we informed of any test: EKG, echo-cardiogram. These types of tests could have detected the damage done to his heart. These test are not considered "standard" in monitoring "treatment" of ADHD they are usually never administered to children. Sadly death is inevitable without the possibility of detection. *I want to ask every parent to ask themselves these important questions: How different would your decisions be if information was withheld from you? How different would your decisions be if you receive only distorted data? I, myself, know that our families and Matthews outcome would have been quite different had we received all information. If I had known certain facts I would have acted differently and my son would be alive today. This I am sure of. Informed Consent", which states in part A person's agreement to allow something to happen (such as surgery) that is based on a full disclosure of the facts needed to make the decision intelligently; i.e. knowledge of risks involved, alternatives etc" and "the probable risks against the probable benefits" The violation of parent's rights is when they are not told of the unscientific nature of so-called disorders such as ADHD or the risks of the treatments involving drugs like Ritalin, and they certainly are not told of alternatives to their child's behavior such as undiagnosed allergies or food sensitivities, which could manifest with the symptoms of what psychiatry calls ADHD. *Here are some facts that are being withheld from parents that could possibly alter their life decisions and outcomes. Did you know that schools receive additional money from state and federal government for every child labeled and drugged? This clearly demonstrates a possible "financial incentive" for schools to label and drug children. It also backs up the alarming rise/increase in the labeling and drugging that has taken place in the last decade within our schools. Did you know that parents receiving welfare money from the government can get additional funds for every child that they have labeled and drugged? In this way, many lower socio-economic parents (many times single mothers) are reeled into the drugging by these financial incentives waved in front of them in hard times, making lifestyle changes possible. Did you know that by labeling your child with ADHD, you are actually labeling them with a mental illness listed in the DSM-IV, the unscientific billing bible for psychiatry? Did you know that a child taking a psycho-tropic, psycho-stimulant drugs like Ritalin after the age of 12 is ineligible for military service? Did you know that the subjective checklists that are being used as criteria for diagnosis are very similar to the checklists used to determine Gifted and Talented Children? These two checklists are almost identical. The Drug Enforcement Administration clearly states in their report on Methylphenidate: "However, contrary to popular belief, stimulants like methylphenidate will affect normal children and adults in the same manner that they affect ADHD children. Behavioral or attentional improvements with methylphenidate treatment therefore is not diagnostic of ADHD." (p.11) This statement thoroughly contradicts what is being told to many parents by the many "professionals" that have a vested stake in the diagnosis itself. The DEA further states that: "Of particular concern is that most of the ADHD literature prepared for public consumption by CHADD and other groups and available to parents, does not address the abuse potential or actual abuse of methylphenidate. Instead, methylphenidate (usually referred to as Ritalin by these groups) is routinely portrayed as a benign, mild substance that is not associated with abuse or serious side effects. In reality, however, there is an abundance of scientific literature which indicates that methylphenidate shares the same abuse potential as other Schedule II stimulants." (p.4) Did you know that groups like CHADD and others available to parents are being supported financially by pharmaceutical companies? This is a red flag and demonstrates a conflict of interest in the role that these groups have regarding our children's health and well-being. Did you know that there are studies such as the Berkeley Study that contends that Ritalin and other stimulants further raise the risk of drug abuse? From the Wall Street Journal, Monday, May 17, 1999 by Marilyn Chase: "Nadine Lambert, a professor of education, followed almost 500 children for 26 years. She argues that exposure to Ritalin makes the brain more susceptible to the addictive power of cocaine and doubles the risk of abuse." This study seems to never make it into the hands of parents because it doesn't support the theories of those using the diagnosis to profit off of our children. What does seem to make it into many parents’ hands is research indicating that if children go "untreated", which corresponds with "unmedicated" they will "self-medicate" or end up as juvenile delinquents. Sadly many of these parents are not aware that many of this biased and unproven research (one such is the Beiderman study) infiltrating our schools are actually being distributed by pharmaceutical companies, such as Novartis. This in itself is another red flag and conflict of interest surrounding our children's health. I leave you with this question: How many more 11 year old Stephanie Hall's, 14 year old Matthew Smith's and 10 year old Shaina Dunkle's need to die before we realize what is happening and speak out and act to put an end to it? One toy might be recalled if 1 or 2 children die from it. How many children have to die from these drugs before we realize and put an end to this horror. Why should hundreds or thousands have to die before we are outraged and act? Is the profit of so many, worth more than our children's safety and lives? Sadly the deaths of these children have remained unexposed and suppressed for so long because there is a tremendous amount of money and profit at stake for so many. My son's voice will not be one of those suppressed and quieted. Matthew's Voice in Death Will be Heard by All 9/1/1995 - 3/21/2000 Photo Below is a copy of the letter Monica, the school social worker sent to the doctor. Letter from school psychologist asking doctor for our six-year-old to be put on medication 11/22/91 IEP will be on December 6. We have recognized his learning difficulties. We'll likely give him maximum time in a resource room (3 hours/day). Our concern is that his psychological testing has shown strong average intelligence. Sub-scores are weakest in the areas of attention and memory (which our psychologist believes are indications of ADHD) He has had a long history of impulsive over-activity. We (social worker-psychologist witnessed this in Matt's pre-school at Miss Molly's, That's why we certified him eligible for PPI - pre- primary-impaired. He had his PPI year, then kindergarten year and now 1st grade. Many environmental changes have been tried to help Matt concentrate and focus, yet he is still at a beginning kindergarten readiness. We believe his high level of distraction is even more of a handicap than his learning deficits. We had hoped by September you and Matt's parents would have begun a trial of medication so that we could assess whether his learning would have benefited by increased focus and concentration. Would you consider simultaneously having Matt begin his 3 hours in a resource room with a prescribed medical therapy? Parents indicate they would feel comfortable with this decision if you do. We are so concerned that Matt has begun to see himself as "bad" and doing "bad things" I, as the school social worker, will continue to work with Matt on self-esteem and social skills. Matthew supposedly needed this drug Ritalin because of a subjective diagnosis called ADHD until it silenced him forever on March 21, 2000, even sadder I have learned that thousands of children have died as a direct result of using psychotropic medications over the years. IEP (Individualized Education Program) Parents if your Childs school wants to set up an IEP (Individualized Education Program) meeting, make sure you do your home work prier to the meeting; Know all your rights, you as the parent carry a lot of weight when it comes to making the decision for your Childs educational programs. Google Search Parents rights at IEP meetings. Sample Parent-Rights Letter This is a sample letter to the school district delineating parents rights to demand that school counselors/psychologists NOT counsel a student without prior permission and/or their presence. Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) PPRA is intended to protect the rights of parents and students in two ways The Truth Behind ADHD I give Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD all the credit for teaching me about the truth behind ADHD. Who is Dr. Fred Baughman Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD has been an adult & child neurologist, in private practice, for 35 years. Making "disease" (real diseases--epilepsy, brain tumor, multiple sclerosis, etc.) or "no disease" (emotional, psychological, psychiatric) diagnoses daily, he has discovered and described real, bona fide diseases. Labels like ADHD, ADD, ODD, LD etc are in no sense true diseases. There are no reliable diagnostic methods. Psychiatrists cannot even agree among themselves about how to diagnose ADD/ ADHD. It is this particular medical and scientific background that has led him to view the "epidemic" of one particular "disease"--Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)--with increasing alarm. Dr. Baughman describes this himself. Referring to psychiatry, he says: "They made a list of the most common symptoms of emotional discomfiture of children; those which bother teachers and parents most, and in a stroke that could not be more devoid of science or Hippocratic motive--termed them a 'disease.' Twenty five years of research, not deserving of the term 'research.,' has failed to validate ADD/ADHD as a disease. Tragically--the "epidemic" having grown from 500 thousand in 1985 to between 5 and 7 million today--this remains the state of the 'science' of ADHD." In addition to scientific articles that have appeared in leading national and international medical journals, Dr. Baughman has testified for victimized parents and children in ADHD/Ritalin legal cases, writes for the print media and appears on talk radio shows, always making the point that ADHD is fraudulent--a creation of the psychiatric-pharmaceutical cartel, without which they would have nothing to prescribe their dangerous, addictive, Schedule II, stimulants for--namely, Ritalin (methylphenindate), Dexedrine (dextro-amphetamine), Adderall (mixed dextro- and levo-amphetamine) and, Gradumet, and Desoxyn (both of which are methamphetamine, 'speed,' 'ice'). The entire country, including all 5-7 million with the ADHD diagnosis today, have been deceived and victimized; deprived of their informed consent rights and drugged--for profit! It must be stopped. Now! Fred Baughman's video page reads: What is ADD / ADHD, Is it a disease? Or a Fraud?, And what is the cause of the recent increase of senseless violence in our schools? Who benefits from labeling kids with ADD? (Let's "follow the money"...) We'd like you to watch a video by Dr. Fred Baughman. He will give you some very controversial information in this video. Watch Video Here: What is ADD / ADHD ? Thank you to Fred and his family I give Peter R. Breggin, M.D. and his wife Ginger all the credit for teaching me about the dangers of giving psychotropic drugs to children. Their website can be found at: www.breggin.com Confirming the Hazards of Stimulant Drug Treatment By Peter R. Breggin, M.D. Until recently, no studies have systematically examined the rate of psychotic symptoms caused by routine treatment with stimulant drugs such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamine (Dexedrine, Adderall). Doctors who prescribe stimulant drugs often seem oblivious to the fact that they can cause psychoses, including manic-like and schizophrenic-like disorders. Without providing a scientific basis, the literature often cites rates of 1% or less for stimulant-induced psychoses (reviewed in Breggin, 1998, 1999). Recently on television I debated a well-known expert in child psychiatry who took the position that prescribed stimulants "never" cause psychoses in children. The rate of psychotic symptoms that first appear during stimulant treatment has recently been investigated in a 5-year retrospectives study of children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Cherland and Fitzpatrick,1999). Among 192 children diagnosed with ADHD at the Canadian clinic, 98 had been placed on stimulant drugs, mostly methylphenidate. Psychotic symptoms developed in more than 9% of the children treated with methylphenidate. According to Cherland and Fitzpatrick, "The symptoms ceased as soon as the medication was removed" (p. 812). No psychotic symptoms were reported among the children with ADHD who did not receive stimulants. The psychotic symptoms caused by methylphenidate included hallucinations and paranoia. The authors conclude that, due to poor reporting, the rate of stimulant-induced psychosis and psychotic symptoms was probably much higher. In my practice of psychiatry, I am frequently consulted about children who are taking three, four, and sometimes five psychiatric drugs, including medications that are FDA-approved only for the treatment of psychotic adults. The drug treatment typically began when the children developed conflicts with adults at home or at school. In retrospect, the conflicts could easily have been resolved by interventions such as family counseling or individualized educational approaches. Usually under pressure from a school, the parents instead acquiesced to put their child on stimulants prescribed by psychiatrists, family physicians, or pediatricians. When these children developed depression, delusions, hallucinations, paranoid fears and other drug-induced reactions while taking stimulants, their physicians mistakenly concluded that the children suffered from "clinical depression," "schizophrenia" or "bipolar disorder" that has been "unmasked" by the medications. Instead of removing the child from the stimulants, these doctors mistakenly prescribed additional drugs, such as antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and neuroleptics. Children who were put on stimulants for "inattention" or "hyperactivity" ended up taking multiple adult psychiatric drugs that caused severe adverse effects, including psychoses and tardive dyskinesia. It is time to recognize that the supposedly increasing rates of "schizophrenia," "depression," and "bipolar disorder" in children in North America are often the direct result of treatment with psychiatric drugs. They should be classified as adverse drug reactions, not as primary psychiatric disorders. Doctors need to become more expert at identifying these adverse drug reactions in children and more aware of how and why to taper children from psychiatric medications (Breggin and Cohen, 1999). When parents are willing to take a fresh approach to disciplining and caring for their children, or when the children's school situation can be improved, it is usually possible to taper them off of all psychiatric medications. The parents are then relieved and gratified to see their children increasingly improve with the removal of each drug. What's the answer to this widespread, unwarranted use of medication in the treatment of children? As long as we respond to the signals of conflict and distress in our children by subduing them with drugs, we will not address their genuine needs. As parents, teachers, therapists, and physicians we need to retake responsibility for our children (Breggin, 2000). We must reclaim them from the drug companies and their advocates in the medical profession. At the same time, we must address the needs of our children on an individual and societal level. On the individual level, children need more of our time and energy. Nothing can replace the personal relationships that children have with us as their parents, teachers, counselors, or doctors. On a societal level, our children need improved family life, better schools, and more caring communities. Bibliography Breggin, P. (199<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . Talking Back to Ritalin. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press. Breggin, P. (1999). Psychostimulants in the treatment of children diagnosed with ADHD: Risks and mechanism of action. International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, 12, 3-35 Breggin, P. (2000). Reclaiming Our Children. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books. Breggin, P. and Cohen, D. (1999). Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Medications. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books. Cherland, E. and Fitzpatrick, R. (1999, October). Psychotic side effects of Psychostimulants: A 5-year review. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 811-813. Thank you Peter & Ginger In closing we would like to say, We hope this website has enlightened you. Sincerely, Lawrence & Kelly Smith<hr></blockquote>

by **ZeroHaven** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:01 am

Kid takes drug(s). Kid starts behaving very strangely. Doctor says drugs "unmasked" condition?! How gullible do you have to be to forget the term "drug complication" or "side-effect"? wow. When I went to school ADHD was still called BOREDOM.. They sent the bored kids to some (really cool!) extra classes of their choosing. The kids fell behind on regular work one day, and catching up eliminated the "condition" fairly well! Amazing that when enough Ritalin kids grew up the same condition was labelled for adults. <a href="http://www.jibjab.com/167.html" target="top">Progenitorivox</a> lives on. <img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ZeroHaven/tinhat.gif"/>

by **AnnaLivia** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:53 pm

quote the article: "Tragically--the "epidemic" having grown from 500 thousand in 1985 to between 5 and 7 million today--this remains the state of the 'science' of ADHD." adults seem to have developed a mighty queer ability to NOT see huge and obvious red flags...even where our precious children are concerned. this statistic ALONE speaks volumes. and people can't imagine why i say obedience is the biggest sin. at conference time, my son's fifth-grade teacher once "flirted with" or "floated" the idea that he might be "slightly" ADD (as they called it then), and might benefit from ritalin. i seriously think the look i shot her...stared at her, really...burned INTO her, really...told her this was NOT going to fly with his parents. it was a ridiculous assertion, plain and simple. my child was learning and thriving, was sociable and responsible, and was never a disruptive element in the classroom. honestly, it felt like this woman was "fishing" for bright students to medicate. on the way home, i mused aloud to their Dad that i wondered if her husband worked for big pharma, or was a psychiatrist or something. i can tell you that had the school pushed the (non-) issue, i would now be posting all about the war i fought with them to the bitter end. i was running on mother's instinct at the time. now i have those websites to furnish to others. thanks, sokolova. i can hear Frank Zappa saying "If our kids knew what we are really doing to them, they'd rise up and murder us in our sleep." (not an exact quote, maybe, but close.) i really do see the quickest, easiest way to end this madness as being to stop inviting the most unscrupulous amongst us to reap unlimited profit off their dirty doings. if vast fortunes were no longer allowed to be made, it would remove the motivation to pervert science and medicine like this. the suffering caused would end, if no one was getting rich off it. can anything else end it if we continue to invite every fraudster to garner unlimited wealth by every trick in the book??

by **Peachtree Pam** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:37 pm

This is one psychiatrist's confession: INTERVIEW WITH A PSYCHIATRIST MAY 23, 2005. For the past year, I've been receiving communications from a practicing American psychiatrist, who has an office in the southeastern US. He sees patients privately and also works at a large hospital. Increasingly, this man has been expressing doubts about the drugs he has been prescribing. Now, he has blown the lid off his own profession, and it appears he is ready to switch careers or become an alternative practitioner. Here is an excerpt from our recent conversation: Q: Why do you doubt the drugs? A: They're toxic and injurious. Q: Which ones? A: All of them. Q: And in particular? A: The antidepressants. Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, and so on. They are not showing, on balance, good results, and patients have been experiencing adverse effects. Q: Such as? A: Sleeplessness, nightmares, erratic behavior, highs and lows, crashes, attempts to commit suicide, exacerbated depression, violence, dramatic personality changes. Q: Why do you think this is happening? A: To be honest, I don't know. But my sense is, in general, that the drugs interfere in unpredictable ways with various neurotransmitter systems. I also believe they can work extreme changes in blood sugar levels and electrolyte levels. You know, it's not hard to create these effects with chemicals. The body is not able to integrate them in its normal functioning. I would compare it to suddenly setting up all sorts of roadblocks and detours and forced lane changes on a busy highway. You will get big trouble. Q: Have you tried to communicate your concerns to colleagues and medical groups? A: For a short time, I did. But I was given the cold shoulder. I got the distinct feeling I was being treated like some wayward child who had his facts all wrong. Q: Who do you blame for this drugging catastrophe? A: At the moment, everybody. The doctors, the drug companies, the FDA, the psychiatric teaching institutions, even the press. And at some point, patients are going to have to take responsibility and not follow the orders of their doctors. Q: Do you believe that doctors should cut back and give the drugs to some people and not others? A: That sounds good, but there is no way to know what effects the drugs will cause in any given individual, especially as time passes. Even in the short term, I have seen some frightening things. Q: Do you believe the profession of psychiatry has made some kind of overarching deal with the drug companies? A: Yes. The drug companies are everywhere. They stick their noses into everyone's business. Q: What lies about the drugs have you had to purge from your own mind? A: The main one is that they're some kind of miracle breakthrough. Another one is that I can rely on the judgments and certifications of the FDA. We're playing Russian Roulette out here. It's a very dangerous situation. Q: Do you believe that some of the school shootings have resulted from children being on the antidepressants? A: I didn't, until one day a sixteen-year-old patient of mine showed up for his appointment with a 9mm hand gun. Then I began to comb back through reports on a bunch of those shootings. I can tell you, it focuses the mind to see a young patient sitting across from you---you've put him on an antidepressant and now he's talking about "a new day" and he takes the gun out of his pocket and lays it on a table next to him by the Kleenex. You think to yourself, "I may have created a killer and his first victim could be me." People want to outlaw all guns. I'd start with the drugs. Q: How about the diagnosis of depression itself? A: I've come to realize that you can't do an interview with a patient and then come out with a shorthand assessment. It's wrong. It reduces all sorts of problems down to a label, and then you have your official gateway into the drugs. Q: Your colleagues think you're over-reacting? A: I think I'm under-reacting. I think we have an epidemic on our hands, but it has nothing to do with mental disorders. It has to do with the chemicals we're facilitating. Q: This boy with the gun---were you able to talk him down? A: I spent two hours with him that day. I told him he was having a reaction to the drug. At first, it made no sense to him. He was on a manic sort of ride. That really scared me---that I couldn't make him see what was happening to him. He was in the middle of an episode and he couldn't stand outside it. Finally, he eased up a little. He began to weep in my office. It wasn't really crying. Tears just ran down his cheeks while he was talking. He didn't seem to notice them. He had almost stopped being human. He was a...creature. He was on a mission of some kind. His view of the world had totally changed. In his mind set, destruction was the only course of action. Q: And then? A: He calmed down a little. I was afraid to ask him for the gun. He just picked it up and put it back in his pocket. After he left, I called his mother. She went home from her job and met him. I had asked her to call the police but she wouldn't. Later, she told me she sat and talked with him for a long time and then he handed over the gun. It was a very tense situation. I had her remove the bottle of pills from her medicine cabinet. Then I had to follow up. I weaned him slowly from the drug. It took two months. He finally sort of returned to being the person he was. Even then I wasn't sure he'd be okay. He was definitely addicted to the drug. Luckily, I didn't cut him off suddenly. He might have killed people during the withdrawal cycle. Q: Did you continue to see this boy as a patient? A: I did a nutritional assessment with the help of a doctor who is very good with that. We found the boy was having strange reactions to certain soft drinks that have speed-type boosters in them. We gradually weaned him off them. Then we discovered he was reacting to dyes and other chemicals in junk food. So we had to change his diet. That wasn't easy. Q: He was addicted in several ways to chemicals. A: That's right. There was peer pressure for him to keep eating junk. All his friends did. They called him weird for going off the food they were eating every day. Finally, I discovered that, five years before I saw him, he'd been on Ritalin for a year. You know, for ADHD. He'd been driven into depression by that. He basically felt, at eleven, that his life was over. All paths and interests were closed to him. Q: How is he now? A: Much better. But he's not all the way back. Q: Do you think there is permanent brain damage? A: I don't know. He's now living outside the US with his father. I get reports once in awhile. Q: How does he feel about his own experience? A: He wants it to be an example to other families. Q: You didn't go into medicine to deal with this. A: No. In school, my ideals were high. But I allowed myself to be led down the garden path. I fell for the sales pitch. I'm telling you, this is not a good situation. We are a society on the brink. Something has to be done. Q: How do you feel about Bush's mental health screening program for all children? A: All in all, it may turn out to be the worst thing he's done as president. It's just a tip of his hat to his pharmaceutical supporters. But the consequences---if this plan gets rolling---will be devastating. Q: Is there some underlying principle at work here? Some paradigm that everyone is accepting that is putting us into a bad situation? A: You know the answer to that. It's the combination of easy diagnosis plus the drug fix. The pill craze for everything. Take a drug and everything will work out. I see it as the classic street-drug promotion. Feel good. Take this drug and you'll feel different and better. Combine that with the basic immaturity of most people and you have the interlock. Why work out your problems and strive to have the life you want when you can arrive at the best destination with a pill? I'd take this a step further. If you stacked up all the tranquilizers and antidepressants, for adults, next to, say, marijuana, as a way of dealing with stress, I'd say that a very modest amount of a mild marijuana would be more successful than all those other drugs at the levels they're normally prescribed. If I were forced to recommend one or the other, I'd go with the marijuana. And I'd say the drug companies know this. Which is one reason why, in the US, the enforcement on marijuana has been stepping up. But again, you're always dealing with an individual. Each person is different. I've seen people who react very badly to pot. It affects them like a psychedelic. Q: You're saying the science behind the antidepressants is false. A: Absolutely. Judging by the effects of the drugs, it has to be. It may sound good and proper. All the right words are used. But I don't care about that anymore. I go by results. My eyes have been opened. Q: Then why are the drug companies pushing these drugs? A: I'm not an expert to speak to about that. Certainly there is the profit motive. But I think there is also the myth of progress. Q: What do you mean? A: That myth states that technology must keep making advances. It's the legend of forward motion. If technology is to be seen as good, it has to keep turning out better advances---otherwise something is wrong. And there can't be anything wrong. Q: It's like a hectic race. A: Yes. If you stop, you might fall down. Secrets might be exposed. Shortcomings might show up. So you have to keep pushing. You have to keep saying you're doing better and better. I'm sure you can see where this gets you. You make new mistakes to cover up old mistakes. You become careless. You lie. You hire promotion people to tout your work. You keep the whole thing rolling forward, no matter what. That's where we are. Q: And you were carried on that wave. A: For many years. But now I've stopped. Q: Is it uncomfortable? A: Not so much anymore. But at first I was very upset and angry. I was blaming everyone but myself. I felt like I was in chains, that my whole education and career were at stake. And I was my career. What else did I have? Getting off the boat was quite difficult. I had every advantage this society has to offer. I was--- Q: The expert. A: Yes. That's a powerful feeling. People come to you with questions and you have the answers. If you don't, then you're thrown down in the pit with everyone else. Part of being a doctor is being above the pit, out of the problem. You're the solution. You don't want to fall. And the only thing that keeps you from falling is what you've learned. Your knowledge. When you see that that's based on lies, you don't know what to do. It's like being a priest and realizing that everyone gets to the far shore by his own means. You don't want to let go of the doctrine that put you on the pulpit. Q: So what would a new paradigm look like? A: For mental health? We have to get rid of all the old classsifications and disorders. We have to let all that sink into oblivion. That was wrong. That was largely fantasy. Q: It was a story. A: We told it, and now we have to stop telling it. Because we've ended up intervening in people's lives in a very pernicious way. Q: Part of the story necessitated that kind of intervention. A: Yes. And, not to take myself off the hook, but people want that kind of story, as you say. They want that "expert story." They want someone else to come in and tell them what to do and what to think and what drug to take. Q: Why do you think that is? A: Because people have taken the easy path. They have opted for what I would call a flat version of reality. If they started adding dimensions on their own--- Q: They would be forced to tell their own story. A: In the terms you're using, yes. That's what would happen. Q: And how would society look then? A: Much different. Much more risky, perhaps, but much more alive. Psychology and psychiatry don't allow for that kind of outcome. All mental disorders are constructs. They're named by committees, as I'm sure you know. They're a form of centralized pattern. In this context, the word "shrink" is very appropriate. That's what we've been doing. Shrinking down the perception of what reality and the mind are all about. Q: Can you imagine what would happen if the lid were taken off? A: I work with that idea every day now. Q: And how does it look? A: More and more appealing. JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

Modern Medicine; what is it all about?

Modern Medicine; what is it all about?

Re: Unmasked symptoms?

will pass it on

Perhaps relevant

Who is online