THE WAY TO SELL DRUGS IS TO SELL PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS.– Carl Elliot, bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, 2002

Key Reading:

A Dose of Sanity, by Sydney Walker III, M.D.

(Takes us inside the big business of contemporary psychiatry and reveals how, by sacrificing sound medical principals in favor of labeling-by-convenience and brain-damaging quick-fixes like prozac, paxil, zoloft, luvox, effexor, serzone, anafranil, fenfluramine, fen-phen, redux, and ritalin, psychiatrists cause untold suffering and destroy the physical and mental health of millions of people.

Reading like a detective novel, A Dose of Sanity, tells the story of dozens of men and women, many of whom suffered needlessly for years, simply for lack of a sound medical diagnosis. You’ll meet the concert musician whose lifelong bouts with “psychosis” were actually due to undiagnosed typhus; the widow who was treated for “panic attacks” that turned out to be a thyroid dysfunction; the “hyperactive” boy whose symptoms were caused by exposure to carbon monoxide; and many others saved by the intervention of Dr. Walker and like-minded colleagues.)

And They Call It Help, By Louise Armstong

(Investigative journey into a multibillion-dollar industry that imprisons America’s children-for profit. Here and now, every year, thousands of kids are transported to a locked world where strange rules prevail and language is without meaning. Those in authority are empowered to administer brain-damaging drugs to children, forcibly restrain them, and lock them in isolation. Yet it is the children who are told over and over that they are the weird ones, the psychiatrically incorrect.)

Drug companies are the most profitable industry.

The drug companies claim that they need large earnings – $125,835,595,000 in 1999 (last year, Prozac earned $2 billion for Eli Lilly) – to conduct their research and development…this justification loses credibility when:

1. Just 1 out of every 5 dollars the drug industry collects goes to drug research.

2. Some drug companies spend almost twice as much money for advertising and marketing as they spend for research.

3. Drug industry profits are so large they outstrip every other industry’s profits by far.

Drug companies are the most profitable industry. In 2001, a year which saw a drop in employment rates, a plunge in the stock market and symbols of America’s economy literally come crashing down, the drug companies continued their reign as the most profitable industry in the annual Fortune 500 list.

While the overall profits of Fortune 500 companies declined by 53%, which was the 2nd biggest dive in profits the Fortune 500 has taken in its 47 years, the top 10 U.S. drug companies increased their profits by 33%.

Collectively, the 10 drug companies in the Fortune 500 topped all 3 of the Fortune magazine’s measures of company profitability for 2001, according to the magazine’s annual analysis of America’s most important companies.

These drug companies had the greatest return on revenues, reporting a profit of 18.5 cents for every $1 of sales, which was 8 times higher than the median for all Fortune 500 industries, easily surpassing the next most profitable industry, which was commercial banking with a 13.5% return on revenue)(3).

The system is badly broken and in need of a change. We cannot spend over one trillion dollars for health care just to improve profits for drug companies. We have the capital to more than adequately treat nearly all people. What we need to do is shift our perspectives and priorities.

This emphasis on drugs is one of the main reasons why spending for prescription drugs is the fastest-growing category of health care expenditures.

It is also one of the major factors contributing to the fact that doctors are a major leading cause of death in the United States, due to the fact that they have an over reliance on using drugs as ‘patch-up’ solutions, rather than seeking the cause of the problem.– John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of the Center for Media and Democracy

One reason why brand-name drugs cost more is that pharmaceutical companies spend more than twice as much on marketing and advertising for them than on research and development. The annual advertising budget for the arthritis drug Vioxx is more than the annual advertising budget for Budweiser, Pepsi or Nike. In 2000, drug companies spent $2.5 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising, an increase of 14 percent from 1999. This has dramatically increased consumer demand for new, expensive name-brand drugs.– Kristine Nishimura, R.Ph., Clinical Pharmacist, HMSA

In 1991, the Federal Education Department said schools could get hundreds of dollars in special education grant money each year for every child diagnosed with ADHD. Since then ADHD diagnosis shot up an average of 21% a year. Ritalin production has increased 700% since 1990. These data suggest a link between money and Ritalin use. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the U.S. buys and uses 90% of the world’s supply of Ritalin. Approximately 4 million U.S. children are on Ritalin. 10 to 12% of U.S. boys are being treated with Ritalin. No other nation is following our example. In fact, Sweden banned methylphenidate (Ritalin) in 1968 after reports of widespread abuse.”– Patti Johnson, Colorado State Board of Education, 2nd Congressional District Broomfield, Colorado 80020, October 1999

Did you know that experts with drug company affiliations fill many important advisory positions at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? An investigation by ‘USA Today’ found that more than half of the experts on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committees have financial relationships with the drug companies which will be either hurt or helped by their decisions“. – Cauchon, D. FDA Advisors Tied to Industry: Approval Process Riddled with Conflicts of Interest. USA TODAY, Sept. 25, 2000.

Thirty-two scientists recently sent letters to scientific journals, urging editors to require authors to disclose financial ties to products or companies that could benefit from the articles they write. The NY Times reported that Charles Nemeroff MD, PhD, head of the department of psychiatry and behavioral science at Emory University’s School of Medicine had failed to disclose three significant conflicts of interest involving products he mentioned favorably in an article in Nature Neuroscience. The Sacramento Bee reports that Dr Nemeroff cited “impressive studies” to back mifepristone, also known as RU-486, the morning-after pill that may help some types of depression. According to the Bee: “The company behind mifepristone, it turns out, had offered Nemeroff 72,000 shares in the company’s stock for the grand total of $25, stock that could be worth $1 million if the company begins public trading of its shares. Nemeroff said he owns 60,000 of the shares and would have revealed this if the editor had asked.“” – John McManamy

The pharmaceutical industry profits handsomely from price gouging. For decades, brand name prescription drug makers have consistently been among the most profitable industries in America. In 1999, the drug industry ranked first among all industries in rates of return on equity, assets, and revenues. Despite these high profits, the prescription drug industry pays 40% less in federal taxes than other major industries. Moreover, CEOs of the top twelve pharmaceutical companies last year averaged $18 million in annual compensation, including stock options, and now hold more than $840 million in unexercised stock options. – Public Citizen’s Congress Watch & New Jersey Public Interest Research Group

Labeling is the new game, the new psychiatry, the new bait and switch. Labeling is what psychiatrists now offer in place of diagnosis. Take a moment to understand the difference. When a patient with a mental disorder presents to a doctor for the first time, there are literally dozens of possible physical, organic disease processes which could be the cause. If the doctor misses the underlying disease, because it is subclinical (only beginning) or because standard physical examination is glossed over in favor of the 15-minute DSM cookbook approach, it is doubtful whether another doctor will take the trouble to look for another cause. Why bother? DSM diagnostic labels, like “depression” or “delusional dominating personality disorder” remain on a patient’s chart for life. These labels are too frequently the end of the line, as far as trying to diagnose the cause of the mental problem. Most doctors will hesitate to challenge the diagnosis of a colleague, especially if it requires a lot of new work. The result is that a patient may be labeled “depressed” but in actuality be depressed because of one of the following:

rickettsial infection
brain tumor
brain infection
toxic poisoning
vitamin deficiency

to name just a few. Once labeled, powerful psychoactive drugs are prescribed, which cover up the depression. Meanwhile the underlying disease may progress unchecked, often to the point where years of illness will result. Rare? Think again. Standard physical exams are not routinely done by today’s psychiatrists. A comprehensive study in the American Review of Medicine by Dr. Erwin Koranyi estimates misdiagnosis of easily detectable physical illness and labeling them as mental illness occurs half the time! Koryani’s study of 2090 psychiatric patients showed that 43% of them had an undiagnosed underlying major illness. Dr. Koryani explains that once a patient is labeled a psychiatric case, physical complaints are assumed to be “psychosomatic” and are routinely ignored.

Neurologist Sir Francis Walshe describes mental hospitals as “living museums of undiscovered bodily disease . . . undiagnosed.”

For a person who has ever been diagnosed as depressed or having ADD, health insurance may be denied for life. If the person is ever injured, and litigation becomes necessary to document the injury, these labels are powerful tools that are often used against the person’s case, to undermine credibility and the reality of the injury.

It gets worse. The reader again is directed to further explore the tip of this iceberg. The bottom line is that labeling doesn’t cure anything. Misdiagnosis and cookbook labeling commonly delay appropriate treatment for hundreds of thousands of patients. Labeling is not treatment.– Dr. Timothy O’Shea

Think you know for sure that the drug you are taking is absolutely safe? Think again. Many drugs spend years on the market before being taken off the market because of dangerous side-effects which surface. Aggressive marketing, slanting research, unethical publishing of results, influencing physicians, intimidating researchers, pressuring medical centers, manipulating the FDA, limiting information, marketing drugs with inaccurate safety information – all of these have created an environment in which drug development has become a race for the bottom line. Knowing how the drug companies operate, it is no surprise when new dangers are revealed with drugs we’ve been using for decades and drugs are subsequently taken off the market.– Marc Leduc

Los Angeles Times reporter, David Willman, who twice won the Pulitzer Prize (1994, 2001) has once again demonstrated what fine investigative journalism is about. His investigative series in 2000 put the spotlight on conflicts of interest at the FDA, and the agency’s approval of 12 lethal drugs that had to be recalled.

This time his focus is on financial conflicts of interest that have corrupted the integrity of clinical research at the National Institutes of Health. Willman documents how top NIH officials have violated the “honor system” by secret consultancy fees and corporate stock options.

Willman writes: “Increasingly, outside payments to NIH scientists are being hidden from public view. Relying in part on a 1998 legal opinion, NIH officials now allow more than 94% of the agency’s top-paid employees to keep their consulting income confidential. As a result, the NIH is one of the most secretive agencies in the federal government when it comes to financial disclosures.”

“The trend toward secrecy among NIH scientists goes beyond their failure to report outside income. Many of them also routinely sign confidentiality agreements with their corporate employers, putting their outside work under tight wraps.” As the opening of this investigative report demonstrates, those hidden contracts undermine the safety of patients enrolled as human subjects.

The covert, cult-like greed of NIH scientists and the betrayal of public trust is astounding—inasmuch as the public has showered the NIH with billions of dollars. Since 1990, the annual budget has nearly quadrupled, to $27.9 billion this fiscal year, and senior NIH scientists are among the highest-paid employees in the federal government.

Yet, as this documented report demonstrates, NIH scientists claim an entitlement to secret corporate contracts and immunity from government regulations about double dipping. The institutes comprising NIH have been essentially corrupted. NIH no longer serves as a model “island of objective and pristine research.”

The disingenuous responses of officials such as Dr. Ruth Kirschstein, deputy director, who has been second in command since 1993, but claims surprise by the LA Times findings, underscores institutional contempt for requirements of public accountability.

As I have noted in another notorious research case involving conflicts of interest, “a rotting fish begins to smell from the head down….”

In science and medicine conflicts of interest follow the pattern of infectious diseases. The malaise is spread across medicine from the top institutional leadership. See: http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/03/08/03.html

To hold scientists accountable, a law and independent enforcement mechanisms are essential.– ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION

Most teachers are hardworking, dedicated professionals. They have a basic desire to help children learn. And despite some propaganda to the contrary, children will learn and do learn when taught with sound, proven, traditional teaching principles.

So what is the problem?

Student literacy and intelligence (as measured by the Scholastic Aptitude Test [SAT] scores) were an ongoing source of improvement and pride through the first five decades of this century. These scores suddenly reversed themselves in the 1960s and started a steep decline from which they have yet to recover…

Today, 13 percent of American 17-year-olds are functionally illiterate, i.e. cannot read above the fourth grade level. And the figure may run as high as 40 percent among minority youth.(source: Samuel L. Blumenfeld, “Who Killed Excellence?”, Imprimis, vol. 14, no. 9, September 1985, Hillsdale, Michigan, p. 3)

Between 25 and 44 million American adults cannot read the poison warnings on a can of pesticide, a letter from a child’s teacher, or the front page of the daily newspaper.(sources: Jonathan Kozol, Illiterate America (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/Doubleday, July 1985), p. 4 and Ralph Frammolino, “U.S. Adults Lagging in Literacy, Study Finds,” Los Angeles Times, 9 September 1993)

The erosion of America’s educational performance was noted in a 1976 Los Angeles Times article:

After edging upward for apparently more than a century, the reading, writing, and mathematical skills of American students from elementary school through college are now in a prolonged and broad scale decline unequaled in history. The downward spiral, which affects many other subject areas as well, began abruptly in the mid-1960s and shows no signs of bottoming out.”… (source: Jack McCurdy and Don Speich, “Student Skills Decline Unequalled in History,” Los Angeles Times, 15 August 1976)

Excerpted from article by Bruce Wiseman, Educator and Commissioner with Citizens Commission on Human Rights International

According to US Today, the quality of education that American children are getting is appalling. Ranked amongst the top 17 industrial nations, the US is dead last in graduation rates and is also in the bottom 10% in Science and Math. The problem is so staggering that it has been the top priority of the last 5 presidents yet it just keeps getting worse. – ABC News November 2003

The report, “Action for Mental Health,” finally came out in 1961, proposing that the school curriculum “… be designed to bend the student to the realities of society, especially by way of vocational education… the curriculum should be designed to promote mental health as an instrument for social progress and a means of altering culture….”(emphasis added)(Source: Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health, Action for Mental Health (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1961), p. 125)

Remember too, that following these mental health and education reports, teachers were to shed their trademark role and become psychiatric agents. In the above report it also said that should parents resist their child and the whole family being referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist “to undergo diagnosis or treatment,” the teacher and school authorities should apply all reasonable pressures to parents until they stop resisting. The teacher should still continue to report to them on the child’s behavior at school. “Sometimes it may take months or even years for parents to overcome their fears of seeking psychiatric help,” the report said.(Source:Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health, The Role of Schools in Mental Health (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1962), p. 138)

By reporting alarming statistics of “mental illness” within society—and providing no proof for these—psychiatrists also convinced governors attending a governors’ conference in 1962 to pass resolutions calling on all states to fund these new psychiatric programs.

Yet by far the most important victory for psychiatry and psychology came in 1965 with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This essentially put psychiatry and psychology in the driver’s seat of society and firmly established the policies that would harm our children’s minds for the next 30 years.

Psychologist Dr. William Coulson, Director of the Research Council of Ethnopsychology, once a supporter and now a staunch opponent of psychiatry’s and psychology’s influence in the schools, summarized the era: “In the 1960s there came a drive by psychiatry to turn schools into mental health clinics. At that time they led teachers to believe that the time for teaching had passed and the time for facilitating [mental health] had come.(Source: Greg Williams, “Why Are America’s Morals Declining?”, The Oregon Observer, June 1995)

The ESEA allocated massive federal funds and opened the school doors to a flood of psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric social workers, and psychiatric programs and psychological testing that continues to this day. The number of educational psychologists in the U.S. increased from 455 in 1969 to 16,146 in 1992. (Source: T.K. Fagan, (1993), NASP as a force for improving school psychology: What have been its accomplishments? Annual convention, National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, D.C.)

As of 1994, child psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors and special educators in and around the U.S. public schools nearly outnumbered teachers.

A 1991 study clearly links illiteracy to delinquency. Entitled, “Program of Research on the Causes of Delinquency; Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse,” the study found that “Low reading levels tend to predict the likelihood of the onset of serious delinquency…poor reading achievement and delinquency appear to mutually influence each other. Prior reading level predicted later subsequent delinquency… [moreover] poor reading achievement increased the chances of serious delinquency persisting over time.”

Such was the means by which these “experts” were unleashed upon our children. They were there, they said, to help. But who were they? And how qualified were they? Undeniably, parents were not told that psychiatrists had the highest suicide rate among medical practitioners—three times higher than the general population — and were, according to one report, incompetent medical students.” (Source: Lawrence S. Kubie, “The Modern Massacre of the Innocents,” The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, vol. 135, July 1962, pp. 1-4)

These are the individuals with not only the highest suicide rate among medical practitioners (i) but also the highest incidence of drug abuse. (ii) Add to the equation the facts that 10 percent of all psychiatrists (and psychologists and psychotherapists) openly admit to the commission of sexual abuse of patients (iii); that according to one study, two-thirds of all psychiatrists are “seriously mentally ill” (v); and that an American Psychiatric Association task force found psychiatrists more likely to be atheists (iv); and you could be forgiven for any hesitation you might feel about blindly entrusting your children to the care and welfare of these people.

(Sources: (i) Council on Scientific Affairs, “Results and Implications of the AMA-APA Physician Mortality Project,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 257, no. 21, 5 June 1987, pp. 2949-53 (ii) Brian B. Doyle, M.D., “The Impaired Psychiatrist,” Psychiatric Annals, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 760-63 (iii) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, “Sexual Misconduct in the Practice of Medicine,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 266, no. 19, pp. 2741-45 (iv) 34. David B. Larson, M.D., et al., “Systematic Analysis of Research on Religious Variables in Four Major Psychiatric Journals, 1978-1982,” American Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 143, no. 3, March 1986, pp. 329-34 (v) Lawrence S. Kubie, “The Modern Massacre of the Innocents,” The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, vol. 135, July 1962, pp. 1-4)

Here is a quote from one:

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well—by creating the,nternational child of the future.” – Psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce, Address to the 1973 Childhood International Education Seminar (source: Ruth Love, “Drawing Line on Freedom-Abuse,” Lebanon News, April 1985)

Excerpted from CCHR Publication: Psychiatry, Education’s Ruin – Destroying Lives

Who Benefits From ADD?Simple answer: almost everyone involved.

First the psychiatrists. To really understand the role of psychiatry in the modern world, one must come to terms with the information contained in works such as Psychiatry: The Ultimate Betrayal. Wiseman thoroughly documents the contributions of psychiatrists to the world over the past 150 years:

Extermination of 375,000 mental patients in Germany, prior to the Holocaust
Providing Hitler with the rationale and method for the Holocaust itself
Over 100,000 lobotomies between 1936 and 1970
Millions of worthless and unnecessary electroshock treatments of the brain
Replacing the idea that the citizen is personally responsible for his actions with the notion that other factors are always to blame
Addicting large segments of the population to dangerous drugs like Ritalin, Elavil, Valium, and Prozac
Infecting the courtrooms of the nation with absurdities like “recovered memory,” “irresistible impulse,” “urban stress syndrome,” and “temporary insanity”
As cited above, in 1980 the APA was at low ebb. The rest of the medical profession no longer respected psychiatrists because by allowing their direction to be determined by non-medical personnel, the failures of psychotherapy were pre-eminent. Today after 18 years of aggressive public relations ramjetting ADD into the public consciousness, psychiatrists find themselves back in the driver’s seat. Each of the 5 million ADD children requires some $1200 in diagnostics, although not all of them receive it. Perhaps only 1 million are being treated at this time. So that’s only about $12 billion, although with a potential of $60 billion. And that’s not even including medications. So the immediate financial future of cookbook-toting psychiatrists looks fairly bright. The majority of them will be riding ADD into the millennial sunset, accounting for 99% of the current “informative” websites on the topic.

Not all doctors are that impressed by the scientific validity of the psychiatric profession when it comes to the ethics of their intent toward children. Thomas Szasz, MD, in his bookCruel Compassion, tells us:

“This elementary fact makes the child psychiatrist one of the most dangerous enemies not only of children, but also of adults who care for the two precious and valuable things in life children and liberty. Child psychology and child psychiatry cannot be reformed. They must be abolished.”

Bruce Wiseman, author of Psychiatry: the Ultimate Betrayal, concurs:

“All vestiges of psychiatry and psychology should be removed from our schools. Schools are for learning. They are not for psychiatric experiments on young minds.” p385

Definitely a 21st-century opinion.

Second, the pharmaceutical industry. Ciba-Geigy, the producer of Ritalin has found itself at the center of a boom market. In 1974, a prescription for 100 Ritalin tablets was $12. Today it’s $150. For this one drug alone, 6 million prescriptions are written annually at a cost of about $150 each. That’s $900 million annually today, and that’s only the domestic market. There are also several other drugs for ADD, bringing in other millions, including Cylert, Dexedrine, Disipramine. Some estimates by “studies” funded by Ciba-Geigy and backed by the APA are now saying that as much as 30% of the child population may be in “need” of drug treatment for this new disease which has just been miraculously discovered. The current 1 million kids on Ritalin that’s only the beginning!

To keep the ball rolling, Ciba donates millions of dollars every year to a “community” organization known as CHADD: Children and Adults with ADD. CHADD now has over 35,000 members in 600 chapters nationwide. It has become the de facto PR branch of Ciba for disseminating promotional information about Ritalin, describing it as “safe and effective” for treatment of ADD.

Third, teachers. It doesn’t take much study to discover the deplorable condition of today’s American education system, especially grade schools and high schools. Most studies assessing overall literacy at the 12th grade level across the nation come in at about 50%. (Wiseman) In 1900, illiteracy was about 1.9%!

Here’s a graph of SAT scores from 1955-1994:

* * *510 * * 500 * * * 490 * * * 480 * * * * 470 * *math

* * *460 * * * 450 * * 440 * * * 430 * * * 420 * *…….verbal skills


Source: US Dept of Education Digest of Education Statistics 1997 p 133

Very difficult to find this chart. Kids are doing so badly, the whole SAT system has now been “re-centered” and re-named “SAT-9” in order to disguise the actual low performance of today’s students when compared with the recent past. What they did was this: educators arbitrarily raised the whole scale at least 20 points, all at once, so that it didn’t look as though kids were really getting dumber year by year, which they certainly are. Need proof? Hand a high school junior a page from Charles Dickens or Jane Austen and ask him to read it aloud.

In a nation where half of high school graduates cannot competently read or write, consider what a blessing ADD has been to beleaguered school teachers. We’re off the hook! It’s not our fault! These kids are disordered there’s something wrong with them. Blame the victims. Besides removing blame, an overstressed teacher may now get to remove the student as well: a diagnosis of ADD frequently gets a disorderly student out of the class and into a special Learning Disabilities class. (This is another gigantic contrived social invention, along with dyslexia, but it is beyond the scope of this chapter.) At the very least, the child will be prescribed Ritalin and will now be manageable. The best news for teachers is that they don’t even have to wait for a psychiatrist to pronounce a kid ADD. In our modern Orwellian setting, the teachers can do it! All they have to do is check off six of the nine DSM “symptoms” and the student may be out of there.

“The vast majority of teachers have become true believers. Between 88 and 96 per cent of teachers believe they can diagnose a hyperactive child. And three-fourths feel that they have an obligation to recommend that a doctor be informed ” The Myth of the Hyperactive Child p 8 “Teachers who no longer know how to teach claim the children are defective.” – Psychiatry: The Ultimate Betrayal p283

Other teachers benefiting from the new epidemic are the “ADD” teachers. Any doubts about Orwell’s accuracy about the future will soon be erased if one takes the time to research the bizarre and experimental “teaching methods” which have had to be invented so quickly to handle the new “epidemic.”

Larry Brown, MD is not letting anyone off the hook. He describes the widespread use of Ritalin as a “low point in professional ethics.”

“Where drugs are used as a cheap alternative to reform of the schools, then the practice of drugging children must be seen as a political act.” ” drugging children…represents an ominous step along the Orwellian continuum of social control through psychotechnology.” – Toxic Psychiatry pp. 313, 293.

Orwell and Huxley, over and over are cited by doctors who criticize the new psychiatry.

Fourth, the school counselors, some of whom may only have undergrad degrees in social work or psychology, but none of whom has medical credentials. For them ADD may be a dream come true. School psychologists have suddenly been raised to the level of a psychiatrist. Everyone can diagnose!

In 1950, there were only about 1000 psychologists in American schools. When ADD was invented in 1980, there were about 10,000. By 1990 there were over 22,000 psychologists in American schools! (Thomas Fagan, PhD Memphis State University)

Fifth, the schools. A school evaluation to determine eligibility for Special Ed costs $1270. If an estimated 5 million cases are supposedly out there, that’s $6 billion for the schools. Hundreds of “learning programs,” tests, and materials have been designed for ADD. It is a growth industry. It must be real! Special Education programs ballooned from $1 billion in 1977 to $30 billion in 1994! (U.S. News and World Report, 13 Dec 93) Ever wonder where all these “handicapped kids appeared from, suddenly in the 80s?

Sixth, the parents. Parents benefit in several ways from the creation of ADD. The underlying causes of unruly children today are not difficult to discover. By the time he is in the 8th grade, the average kid has seen some 8,000 murders on TV. Children’s diets are extremely sensitizing and allergenic, with the emphasis on sugar and dairy. Single parents, absent parents, drugged parents abound in our society. Too often no one’s driving the bus at home. Unrestricted TV intake is not a substitute for raising a child. For all these reasons, unruly, disturbed kids are a natural consequence. Ultimately the responsibility lies with parents, and they are failing. Sure they have excuses; parents have problems of their own. So here comes this brand new “disease” which will again take the blame off the parents, because “my child has a disorder.”

for the parents, the payoff comes in the alleviation of guilt ” – The Myth of the Hyperactive Child p65

And the best news is, he can be drugged into submission! Next problem. But the difficulty wasn’t really resolved; it was just shelved, put on hold, incubated. Know what they say about payback.

Finally, the “patient.” Once a child has been diagnosed ADD, the pressure’s off. He’s told he has a disability, and is put into a category of students who are no longer expected to perform. Adapting to expectation, he slacks off, having found the excuse he needed to glide along without working to his capacity. He makes his contribution to the above chart on SAT performance. Many children have calmed down with just the label ADD. And a sugar pill they thought was Ritalin. Academic standards are lowered; glib and trendy pop psychology excuses are made. At the snap of the fingers suddenly everythings all set. Few things are as permanent as a temporary solution.

Other benefits for the ADD child are more time allotted to take SATs, as well as entry tests for med school and law school. Eligibility for many state and federal disability programs is on the rise. For an already confused adolescent, ADD certainly has its compensations.– Dr. Timothy O’Shea

BETHESDA, Md. — “Subject No. 4” died at 1:44 a.m. on June 14, 1999, in the immense federal research clinic of the National Institutes of Health.

The cause of death was clear: a complication from an experimental treatment for kidney inflammation using a drug made by Schering AG.

Among the first to be notified was Dr. Stephen I. Katz, the senior NIH official whose institute conducted the study.

Unknown to the participants, Katz also was a paid consultant to Schering AG, a German company.

Katz and his institute staff could have responded to the death by stopping the study immediately. They also could have moved swiftly to warn doctors outside the NIH who were prescribing the drug for similar disorders. Either step might have threatened the market potential for Schering AG’s drug. They did neither.

Questioned later, Katz said that his consulting arrangement with Schering AG did not influence his institute’s decisions. His work with the company was approved by NIH leaders.

Such dual roles ˜ federal research leader and drug company consultant ˜ are increasingly common at the NIH, an agency once known for independent scientific inquiry on behalf of a single client: the public.

Two decades ago, the NIH was so distinct from industry that Margaret Heckler, secretary of Health and Human Services in the Reagan administration, could describe it as “an island of objective and pristine research, untainted by the influences of commercialization.”

Today, with its senior scientists collecting paychecks and stock options from biomedical companies, the NIH is no longer an island.

Interviews and corporate and federal records obtained by the Los Angeles Times document hundreds of consulting payments to ranking NIH officials, including:

Katz, director of the NIH’s National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, who collected between $476,369 and $616,365 in company fees in the last decade, according to his yearly income-disclosure reports. Some of his fees were reported in ranges without citing exact figures. Schering AG paid Katz at least $170,000. Another company paid him more than $140,000 in consulting fees. It won $1.7 million in grants from his institute before going bankrupt last year.

Dr. John I. Gallin, director of the NIH’s Clinical Center, the nation’s largest site of medical experiments on humans, who has received between $145,000 and $322,000 in fees and stock proceeds for his consulting from 1997 through last year. In one case, Gallin co-wrote an article highlighting a company’s gene-transfer technology, while hiring on as a consultant to a subsidiary of that company.

Dr. Richard C. Eastman, the NIH’s top diabetes researcher in 1997, who wrote to the Food and Drug Administration that year defending a product without disclosing in his letter that he was a paid consultant to the manufacturer. Eastman’s letter said the risk of liver failure from the drug was “very minimal.” Six months later, a patient, Audrey LaRue Jones, who was taking the drug in an NIH study that Eastman oversaw, suffered sudden liver failure and died. An autopsy, along with liver experts, found that the drug had caused the liver failure.

Dr. Ronald N. Germain, deputy director of a major laboratory at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has amassed more than $1.4 million in company consulting fees in the last decade, plus stock options. One of the companies collaborated with his laboratory on research. The founder of another of the companies worked with Germain on a separate NIH-sponsored project.

Jeffrey Schlom, director of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Biology, who has taken $331,500 in company fees over 10 years. Schlom helped lead NIH-funded studies exploring wider use for a cancer drug ˜ at the same time that his highest-paying client was seeking to make the drug through genetic engineering.

Jeffrey M. Trent, who became scientific director of the National Human Genome Research Institute in 1993 and, over the next three years, reported between $50,608 and $163,000 in industry consulting fees. Trent, who accepted nearly half of that income from a company active in genetic research, was not required to file public financial-disclosure statements as of 1997. He left the government last year.

Hidden From View

Increasingly, outside payments to NIH scientists are being hidden from public view. Relying in part on a 1998 legal opinion, NIH officials now allow more than 94% of the agency’s top-paid employees to keep their consulting income confidential.

As a result, the NIH is one of the most secretive agencies in the federal government when it comes to financial disclosures. A survey by The Times of 34 other federal agencies found that all had higher percentages of eligible employees filing reports on outside income. In several agencies, every top-paid official submitted public reports.

The trend toward secrecy among NIH scientists goes beyond their failure to report outside income. Many of them also routinely sign confidentiality agreements with their corporate employers, putting their outside work under tight wraps.

Gallin, Germain, Katz, Schlom and Trent each said that their consulting deals were authorized beforehand by NIH officials and had no adverse effect on their government work. Eastman declined to comment for this article.

Dr. Arnold S. Relman, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said that private consulting by government scientists posed “legitimate cause for concern.”

“If I am a scientist working in an NIH lab and I get a lot of money in consulting fees, then I’m going to want to make sure that the company does very well,” Relman said.

Relman and others in the field of medical ethics said company payments raised important questions about public health decisions made throughout the NIH:

Will judgment calls on the safety of individual patients be affected by commercial interests?

Can study participants trust that experimental treatments are chosen on merit and not because of officials’ personal financial interests?

Will scientists shade their interpretations of study results to favor their clients?

Will officials favor their clients over other companies that seek NIH grants or collaborations?

Conflict-of-interest questions also arise in the potentially lucrative awarding of patents.

Thomas J. Kindt, the director of in-house research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, accepted $63,000 in consulting fees from a New York biotechnology company, Innovir Laboratories, and wound up an inventor on one of its patents.

Asked why the government received no consideration, Kindt said that he had contributed to the “basic idea” while using vacation time.

“No work was done on it as a government employee,” said Kindt, whose annual salary at the NIH is $191,200.

Others say the private arrangements undermine the public interest.

“The fact that paid consulting is happening I find very disturbing,” said Dr. Curt D. Furberg, former head of clinical trials at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. “It should not be done.”

Private consulting fees tempt government scientists to pursue less-deserving research and to “put a spin on their interpretation” of study results, he said.

“Science should be for the sake of gaining knowledge and looking for the truth,” Furberg said. “There should be no other factors involved that can introduce bias on decision-making.”

Dr. Ruth L. Kirschstein, who as the deputy director or the acting director of the NIH since 1993 has approved many of the top officials’ consulting arrangements, said she did not believe they had compromised the public interest. “I think NIH scientists, NIH directors and all the staff are highly ethical people with enormous integrity,” she said. “And I think we do our business in the most remarkable way.”

In response to The Times’ findings, Kirschstein said, she would “think about” whether administrators should learn more about a company’s ties to the NIH before approving the consulting arrangements.

“Systems can always be tightened up,” Kirschstein said on Oct. 29. “And perhaps, based on this, we will do so.”

On Nov. 20, NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni told agency leaders that he would form a committee to help “determine the appropriateness” of employees’ consulting and other outside arrangements.

“I believe we can improve our performance by subjecting ethics deliberations to a more transparent process,” Zerhouni said in a memo.

In a brief telephone interview last week, Zerhouni said he wanted the NIH “to manage not just the reality, but the perception of conflict of interest.”

“If there is something that could be viewed as improper, I think we need to be able to advise our scientists not to get into these relationships,” he said. “My sense is our scientists are people of good will.– Los Angeles Times 2003

At a time when it appeared that brain science would rapidly begin to unlock some of those secrets, psychiatry got bold and became co-opted by a drug industry that behaved as though some of the mysteries had actually been solved. And that co-optation is at the heart of psychiatry’s grand collapse. It opted for filthy bucks and lies, and the inevitable explosion of drug prescriptions, rather than slow and careful progress.

Is it any surprise that the “profession” has gone full-tilt at children? The vast overprescription of Ritalin and other mind drugs to kids, even babies, is an obvious indication of just how far the corruption has festered in psychiatry. Children with problems that often may be related to bad home environments and rotten teaching are now being criminally abused with Ritalin. Given half a chance, modern psychiatry will have 50 per cent or more of school kids on attention deficit disorder-type drugs before long. In one recent report from the National Institute of Environmental Health Resources, as merely one example, “more than 15 per cent of boys in grades one through five had been diagnosed with ADHD and about 10 per cent (or two-thirds of those diagnosed) were taking medication.

The American Psychiatric Association, a whorish group with huge ties to industry, has been claiming that three to four percent of those kids were diagnosed as ADHD.

In fact, bring on a War Crimes Tribunal, first for the abusive prescription of Ritalin and then let’s work our way through the abusive prescription of antidepressants.INSANE PSYCHIATRY, A Profession Run Amok By Nicholas Regush

Lawsuits filed in Texas, California and New Jersey claim that the booming success of Ritalin is the result of a conspiracy in which the American Psychiatric Association, Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp. and national parents’ group Children and Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) colluded to create the diagnoses of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Following the acceptance of ADD/ADHD as medical diagnoses, sales of Ritalin and similar stimulants have skyrocketed, with more than 6 million such prescriptions being written in 1995, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.– http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/ritalin.htm

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn MD –No one has ever been able to demonstrate that drugs such as Cylert and Ritalin improve the academic performance of the children who take them…. The pupil is drugged to make life easier for his teacher, not to make it better and more productive for the child.

Brain Damage: Psychiatry’s Legacy

The brain-disabling principle applies to all of the most potent psychiatric interventions – neuroleptics, antidepressants, lithium, electroshock, and psychosurgery. . . the major psychiatric treatments exert their primary or intended effect by disabling normal brain function. Neuroleptic lobotomy, for example, is not a side effect, but the sought-after clinical effect. Conversely, none of the major psychiatric interventions correct or improve existing brain dysfunction, such as any presumed biochemical imbalance. If the patient happens to suffer from brain dysfunction, then the psychiatric drug, electroshock, or psychosurgery will worsen or compound it.– Peter Breggin, M.D., psychiatrist

All ECT [electric shock] does is produce brain damage. …If you want brain damage, it’s your prerogative… there’s no more effective way than ECT. It’s more effective than a car wreck, or getting hit with a blunt instrument.– Dr. John Friedberg, Neurologist

Through psychosurgery an area essential to the human being – his personality – is forever destroyed.– Sheldon Selesnick, Psychiatrist

A typical patient of Deep Sleep therapy – “his remarks are entirely uninfluenced by previous recollections – nor are they governed in any way by his forward anticipation… There is complete amnesia for all events in his life.” – Ewen Cameron, past President of the APA (American Psychiatric Association) & WPA (World Psychiatric Association)

Well, what is the sense of ruining my head and erasing my memory, which is my capital, and putting me out of business? It was a brilliant cure but we lost the patient.– Ernest Hemingway, Nobel Prize-winning author who killed himself after complaining that psychiatric electric shocks had ruined his career by destroying his memory.

Frequent Effects: sedation, drowsiness, lethargy, difficult thinking, poor concentration, nightmares, emotional dullness, depression, despair . . .– Dr. Calagari’s Psychiatric Drugs (1987)

The above quotes are a very small sampling of professional and objective statements about the true effects of psychiatry’s methods. Psychiatry’s history is rooted in barbaric methods and opinionated theories parading as fact and “science”. Years of promotion by the psychiatric field have created the illusion that the subject is a valid science based upon modern technology and advances in the understanding of the human mind and condition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Psychiatry is a modern day religion in the sense that it involves a detailed nomenclature, intricate belief system, authority figures and has infiltrated every aspect of modern society. Just as the entire “religion” of medieval Christianity, within the framework of the Spanish Inquisition, was a false belief system mutually endorsed and accepted by the authorities and public, so now is modern day psychiatry.

ECT (electric shock treatment), brain surgery (lobotomy) and psychiatric drugs all produce brain dysfunction and/or damage, and without the brain dysfunction there would be no effects at all.

The psychiatric orthodoxy maintains that its methods “cure” or “handle” “chemical imbalances” in the brain or other existing brain abnormalities. There is no test anywhere within the field for a “chemical imbalance” or brain abnormality (other than existing actual damage – usually caused BY psychiatric treatments) and the idea is simply a pet theory of psychiatrists. This elusive “imbalance” has never been observed or detected despite millions of dollars in research. It is “believed” and promoted widely despite the fact that it as much a figment of the psychiatrist’s imagination as demons were to medieval priests. It is part of the modern nomenclature and belief system that the public has bought into following years of dissemination by the psychiatric field and drug companies.

The psychiatric industry justifies their methods because they claim the existence of hundreds of “mental diseases” and “mental disorders”. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) is psychiatry’s “bible”. It lists numerous “mental illnesses” with complex diagnostic methods. This list of “illnesses” is voted on each year by members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). “Illnesses” come and go depending on society’s mood about the subject. For instance, “homosexuality” was once named as a “mental disorder” until it became too unpopular to do so. PMS has been in and out of the book depending on similar public sentiment. Currently, “caffeine withdrawal”, “caffeine-related disorders”, “age-related cognitive decline”, “academic skills disorder”, and “disorder of written expression” are all listed as “mental illnesses” in the book. This is plainly absurd.

Caffeine is a drug and has addictive effects. Calling it a “mental disorder” is ludicrous. People get senile when they get old. Their body and mind deteriorates. Giving this a fancy name (age-related cognitive disorder) and calling it a “mental illness” is equally ludicrous. Most students have poor academic skills because modern psychological theories (behavioral psychology, educational psychology) have failed completely to develop simple and workable study techniques. Calling poor academic skills a “disorder” is just nutty. Terming a difficulty with writing clearly a “disorder” falls into the same category of absurdity. Yet they have done this and the entire public has fallen for it. And what is their only solution? Drugs, drugs, and more drugs, or ECT and brain surgery!

What they have done is detailed numerous conditions, which people do experience, and labeled them all “illnesses”. The intricate detailing of conditions gives the illusion of understanding, but this is completely false. They observe numerous people who are “tired, unable to move, sad, lethargic and apathetic” and call this “depression”. Simply, that’s what the word means. But, they pretend (or assume) that this naming process somehow bestows understanding about the underlying true causes and solutions to the problems they catalogue. For more on this see the article entitled Observing a Problem and Fixing It Are Two Different Things.

The joke of it all is that the solution to EVERY condition they enumerate is either drugs, electric shock or brain surgery, all damaging techniques to a human body and mind. There is no actual understanding of causes anywhere in the field other than theories, wishful thinking and guessing. They also admit (from time to time) that they have no understanding of how drugs, ECT or brain surgery produce their effects. They simply don’t know. It’s more guessing, wishful thinking and theorizing. The use of these methods is STILL 100% experimental! The public are the unknowing guinea pigs. They promote these things as true, but any serious investigator will discover the entire subject to be a sham. Most people find this hard to believe at first, because they have simply taken it for granted that the psychiatric field, with hundreds of colleges and universities, “professional” societies, and extensive visibility in many areas of society, is legitimate. But it’s not.

It’s a shock of some magnitude when one gets that first glimpse of seeing through the charade. The entire subject is built upon false premises (beliefs, assumptions). It wouldn’t matter if this were some New Age idea or philosophy, but its methods directly harm human beings and society. Additionally, the impact of psychiatry is expanding into all areas of society – government, legal, criminal justice system, education, and social work. With all the funding of major drug companies and other large financial interests behind the field, simply, nothing could stop their expansion. Psychiatry, as a subject, is NOT the result of Man’s natural evolution of knowledge and discovery. It’s the result of huge financial interests actively funding and supporting the field for the last 100 years. The motive has been profits, and not “truth”.

They energetically add to the list of disorders each year, thereby justifying more application of their destructive methods. The application of their methods harms brains, body functioning and minds.

The most obvious failure of psychiatry is the fact that the subject completely ignores the “mind” in all its approaches to addressing the hundreds of conditions it enumerates. If a person is sad more than their life situations indicate they should be, this is an obvious problem with their “mind”. To some degree, emotions and thoughts are out of their personal control, and the person often feels unable to do anything about what is happening to them. It’s not that the situation doesn’t exist, it does, but the approach of psychiatry is to explain it as a “physiological” problem. Psychiatry has reduced every problem a human being can have to a “biochemical” explanation. Obviously, with this (false) understanding the only solutions ever offered are physiological in nature – drugs, shock or brain surgery.

Things such as anxiety, depression, or sadness are more often than not mental and emotional reactions to life situations. They are common human responses to life. In some cases people experience these when life situations don’t seem to warrant them. Nonetheless, these are problems with a person’s “mind”, with that invisible world we each sense a few inches behind our forehead. The current subject of psychiatry (and modern psychology) has forsaken the human “mind”. It has given up completely on ever understanding what a mind is, what its functions are, how to help one and how to improve one. It is a completely missing aspect of the supposed “science” of the mind and Man known as psychiatry. Sadly, psychiatric methods actually harm all functions of any mind, such as attention, will, concentration, reasoning, imagination and personal responsibility. This aspect of the inherent psychiatric harm upon the mind makes it that much harder at a future time to legitimately attempt to correct any problems with “people-oriented” therapies, which then try to address the “mind” directly. Following harmful and disabling psychiatric treatments this often becomes impossible.

Additionally, psychiatry has labeled every type of drug addiction, withdrawal, or negative effect as a “mental disorder”. Various drugs are addictive. Various drugs cause hallucinations, euphoria, or mania. Various drugs cause withdrawal symptoms when the taking of them ceases. To call all these things “mental disorders” is insane. The psychiatric profession labeled PMS a “mental disorder”. It’s a common body and emotional reaction to certain hormonal changes the female body undergoes once a month. Labeling PMS a “mental disease” serves one purpose alone – to give the psychiatrists and drug companies another illness to sell drugs as the solution for. See this for what it is – they have redinfed, by playing with words and meanings, common and routine physical and mental phenomena into “mental disorders”. If you have a difficult time agreeing with this, take the time to obtain a copy of the DSM-IV published by the American Psychiatric Association and read some parts of it. It is ludicrous how they catalogue and adjudicate “mental illness”. See for yourself.

If the psychiatric field continues unabated, there will come a time when the list of “illnesses” is thousands of items long, and it will most likely include “unusual happiness”, “unjustified enthusiasm”, “tiredness” and “prolonged TV watching”. They will continue to do what they do right now – categorize normal human reactions and conditions labeling them “mental illnesses” and “disorders”.

But regardless of the validity of their categorizing or labeling, ALL psychiatric methods:

1) fail to address any actual cause of any mental or biophysiological problem,
2) cause minor to severe brain dysfunctions (which CAUSE the apparent “cure”), and
3) cause minor to severe brain damage in over 50% of patients undergoing prolonged use of psychiatric methods.

(Incorrectly) believing many human “mental” and emotional problems to be “biochemical” in nature has opened the door to these insane psychiatric solutions. Billions of dollars have been spent by the psychiatric field and drug companies to “educate” the “professionals” and the public into their nomenclature and orthodoxy. It IS a modern day “religion” based on little fact. It is believed and discussed passionately by “professionals” and lay people alike. But so was medieval Christianity, and look at the results of the Spanish Inquisition – torture, pain, suffering, and death. Psychiatry is no different. It causes the same things, but modern PR techniques and miseducation have created an illusion of something else entirely. People have accepted them as authorities, but that is the furthest thing from the truth. We all experience what we accept to be true. Too many of us have accepted the theories of psychiatry, unknowingly and without careful analysis or judgement, and have permitted them to assume a position of “authority” in our lives and society.

Instead of priests we have psychiatrists. Instead of heretics we have depressives, manics, ADHDs and suicidals. Instead of demons and Satan we have “chemical imbalances” and lists of “mental disorders”. Just as the priest labeled the heretic and ordered correction with torture or death, so the psychiatrist labels the “ill” and orders brain surgery, ECT or drugs. If you don’t see the legitimacy of the analogy, you simply have been too thoroughly miseducated and are a modern day “true believer”. Just as the people of medieval Europe were almost wholly incapable of seeing past the absurd assumptions they held about life and reality, so most people today are incapable of seeing past the absurdity of the psychiatric belief system. And make no mistake about it, psychiatry is solely and completely ONLY a belief system with its own nomenclature, theories and assumptions. These are largely arbitrary, false and quite imaginary to a capable unbiased observer. But, with honest investigation, looking at the FACTS, and not listening to psychiatric PR, one can arrive at the truth and see past the charade.

Brain damage and dysfunction are not nice things. Learn the truth and when you do . . .– by Gene Zimmer

Why is America suddenly experiencing an explosion of new mental diseases and disorders never heard of thirty years ago? Why are children seemingly out of control, refusing to listen to parents and teachers, even driven to violence? Here are two possible reasons to consider. First, it is apparent the psychology industry isn’t opposed to simply making up diseases and disorders if there is money to be made. Second, some research is suggesting that many of the growing diseases and disorders could actually be side effects of the drugs psychologists are pouring into children to “cure” their made-up diseases.– “RITALIN IS POISON” by Tom DeWeese, publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center

See also “How drug firms ‘hoodwink’ medical journals” –http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/12/10/7671896 andhttp://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/4thQtr_2003/record0003.html
and http://www.healingdaily.com/beliefs.htmHow industry manipulates public opinion – why you believe what you believe
See also http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/pharmaceutical-companies.htm for how this specifically relates to the drug companies.
Also about conflict of interest, see Alliance for Human Research Protection and the “You Are Being Lied To” section at drugwar.com http://www.drugwar.com/pYABLTexcerpts.shtm has more information on media distortion.