Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD
November 9, 2009
(911 words)

Author The ADHD Fraud—How Psychiatry Makes ‘Patients” of Normal Children. www.Trafford.com <http://www.Trafford.com>

Saturday evening, November 7, 2009, Don Lemon of CNN had a psychiatrist on, a Dr. Dale Archer, speaking of the Ft. Hood massacre.  Dr. Archer spoke of post traumatic stress disorder—PTSD, and specifically suggested that it was a chemical imbalance of the brain, which means, a chemical abnormality of the brain–a disease.  Googling Dr. Archer’s web site, I learned that he is a ‘board-certified Psychiatrist and Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association…’ that “He specializes in chemical imbalances of the brain, personal responsibility and relationships…’ and finally, that  “He also is the Corporate Medical Director for the Behavioral Health Group which owns and operates 20 substance abuse treatment centers around the country.”
‘Chemical imbalance’ is the ‘big lie’ that psychiatry uses as its every ‘diagnosis’ and excuse/reason/indication to give drugs—‘chemical balancers.’  To be sure they do just that, often prescribing 5, 15 or 20 drugs at a time.  Google the tragic stories of soldiers Chad Oligschlaeger and Robert Nichols, and that of Derek Johnson, 22, Andrew White, 23, Eric Layne, 29, and Nicholas Endicott, all of Charleston, WV, diagnosed “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” (PTSD), and ‘treated’ with the Paxil, Klonopin, and Seroquel, all dying in their sleep more likely from their ‘treatment’ than from any ‘chemical imbalance’/’disease’ (Julie Robinson, Charleston Gazette, May 24, 2008).



And these are not exceptions.  Military psychiatry and psychiatry everywhere, prescribes drugs with no actual physical abnormality/disorder/disease to make normal and usually to the exclusion or prescribed and un-prescribed human, humane, common sense psychological healing such as that which surely comes of love, things spiritual, and or the human touch.  But how can such things work when the ‘disease’ model is forced down their throats, loved ones are barred, and it is insisted nothing else will do.  What’s more everything they say and do, be it to a veteran, a citizen, a struggling pregnant mother or a school child, is to drive home the ‘disease’ lie, portraying it to be as severe and grim as possible so as to leave not doubt of the necessity of drugs–only drugs.   PTSD, like depression, like anxiety, like desperation is no doubt a grim and terrible combination of feelings in normal, adaptable, human beings who have experienced grim, horrible things.  But are these exposures as horrible and insurmountable as psychiatry insists.  There were a far greater number of psychological survivors of the Holocaust than psychiatry cares to admit, none of them getting or needing the always-pharmacological solutions of psychiatry-gone-pharmacologic; of psychiatry gone Big Pharma, of psychiatry gone big money.

Fred Baughman, MD

I have reprinted a letter from Basil Miller to the Irish Times below.

Read this and then read the prior blog which I put up ten minutes ago.

Notice the common thread?

The giant pharmaceutical companies lurk at the centre of a world wide web of deception and corruption.

Not only so called mental health advocacy groups, but ‘respected’ psychiatrists are pocketing money for acting as fronts for Big Pharma.

From: The Wellbeing Foundation <wellbeing@wellbeingfoundation.com>

Date: 23 October 2009 14:15:56 GMT+01:00

To: lettersed@irish-times.ie

Subject: Antidepressants and homicide

Madam, — Like Dr Orla O’Donovan (Letters, 22 Oct: Antidepressants and homicide) I am astonished by the intervention of the eight professors of psychiatry in respect of the Clancy/Creane tragedy. What astonishes me is their degree of wilful ignorance of the side effects of the drugs they espouse, prescribe and, presumably, enjoin their students to prescribe.

As Dr O’Donovan indicated, the scientific literature is replete with studies establishing a clear link between the use of SSRI antidepressants and similar drugs and self-harm, suicidality, aggression, hostility, mania and other induced behaviour; the word ‘hostility’ being used in this context to embrace all kinds of violent thoughts and actions, including the terminal hostility of homicide.

Dr O’Donovan cited the study by Professor David Healy et al, which is important in the present instance because it starts from a conservative position and carefully explores the medico-legal problems arising from the use of these drugs. If I may quote the summary in its entirety:

Recent regulatory warnings about adverse behavioural effects of [SSRI] antidepressants in susceptible individuals have raised the profile of these issues with clinicians, patients, and the public. We review available clinical trial data on paroxetine and sertraline and pharmacovigilance studies of paroxetine and fluoxetine, and outline a series of medico-legal cases involving antidepressants and violence.

Both clinical trial and pharmacovigilance data point to possible links between these drugs and violent behaviours. The legal cases outlined returned a variety of verdicts that may in part have stemmed from different judicial processes. Many jurisdictions appear not to have considered the possibility that a prescription drug may induce violence.

The association of antidepressant treatment with aggression and violence reported here calls for more clinical trial and epidemiological data to be made available and for good clinical descriptions of the adverse outcomes of treatment. Legal systems are likely to continue to be faced with cases of violence associated with the use of psychotropic drugs, and it may fall to the courts to demand access to currently unavailable data. The problem is international and calls for an international response.

I am astonished that all eight professors of psychiatry whose letter you published on Monday 19 October publicly profess ignorance of this important area of study in their field. These eight people have enormous authority; they are responsible for the training and education, and ultimately the graduation, of thousands of psychiatrists into our health services, not to mention the psychiatric component of GP training. Yet they deny that their drugs of choice for both their medical specialism and for GPs in treating depression can impel violent and aggressive behaviours.

There are many, many more peer-reviewed studies showing clear and irrefutable links between this generation of antidepressants and violent ideation and behaviour, too many to list here. Is it not only astonishing, but also potentially dangerous, for the leading lights of psychiatric education in this country to be unaware of this literature, or to dismiss it out of hand as they appear to do?

Perhaps they are taking the word ‘cause’, which they used in their letter, in the same sense as the tobacco industry used it for several generations to deny that smoking and cancer were linked, and to avoid the serious questions about risk and benefit which hang over the equally aggressively marketed SSRIs and SNRIs.

Let us have no chilling of the essential public debate on the role of these drugs in the case of Sebastian Creane and Shane Clancy — if there is any such chilling or stifling of debate, the sure result will be to leave the door open to another such tragedy. — Yours, etc,

BASIL MILLER

The Wellbeing Foundation

2 Eden Park

Glasthule

Co Dublin

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), a supposed advocacy group, turns out to have been in the pocket to Big Pharma to the tune of millions over the years.

It seems like all the corruption across the spectrum is coming into view at the same time in America.

____________

Drug Makers Are Advocacy Group’s Biggest Donors

By GARDINER HARRIS

Published: October 21, 2009

WASHINGTON — A majority of the donations made to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, one of the nation’s most influential disease advocacy groups, have come from drug makers in recent years, according to Congressional investigators.

The alliance, known as NAMI, has long been criticized for coordinating some of its lobbying efforts with drug makers and for pushing legislation that also benefits industry.

Last spring, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent letters to the alliance and about a dozen other influential disease and patient advocacy organizations asking about their ties to drug and device makers. The request was part of his investigation into the drug industry’s influence on the practice of medicine.

The mental health alliance, which is hugely influential in many state capitols, has refused for years to disclose specifics of its fund-raising, saying the details were private.

But according to investigators in Mr. Grassley’s office and documents obtained by The New York Times, drug makers from 2006 to 2008 contributed nearly $23 million to the alliance, about three-quarters of its donations.

Even the group’s executive director, Michael Fitzpatrick, said in an interview that the drug companies’ donations were excessive and that things would change.

“For at least the years of ’07, ’08 and ’09, the percentage of money from pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be,” Mr. Fitzpatrick said.

He promised that the industry’s share of the organization’s fund-raising would drop “significantly” next year.

“I understand that NAMI gets painted as being in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, and somehow that all we care about is pharmaceuticals,” Mr. Fitzpatrick said. “It’s simply not true.”

Mr. Fitzpatrick said Mr. Grassley’s scrutiny, which he described as understandable given the attention paid to potential conflicts of interest in medicine, had led his organization to begin posting on its Web site the names of companies that donate $5,000 or more. And he predicted that other patient and disease advocacy groups would be prodded by Mr. Grassley’s investigation to do the same.

“Everyone I talk to wants to have more balanced fund-raising,” Mr. Fitzpatrick said.

In a statement, Mr. Grassley praised the alliance for its disclosures. “It’d be good for the system for other patient groups to do what NAMI has done,” he said.

Mr. Grassley’s scrutiny has been unnerving for patient and disease advocacy groups, which are often filled with sincere people who are either afflicted with serious illnesses themselves or have family members who have been affected. Many join the groups in the hope of making sense of their misfortune by helping to find a cure or raising awareness of a disease’s risks and frequency.

Drug makers are natural allies in these pursuits since cures may come out of corporate laboratories and the industry’s money can help finance public service campaigns and fund-raising dinners. But industry critics have long derided some patient organizations as little more than front groups devoted to lobbying on issues that affect industry profits, and few have come under more scrutiny for industry ties than the mental health alliance.

For years, the alliance has fought states’ legislative efforts to limit doctors’ freedom to prescribe drugs, no matter how expensive, to treat mental illness in patients who rely on government health care programs like Medicaid. Some of these medicines routinely top the list of the most expensive drugs that states buy for their poorest patients.

Mr. Fitzpatrick defended these lobbying efforts, saying they were just one of many the organization routinely undertook.

The close ties between the alliance and drug makers were on stark display last week, when the organization held its annual gala at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on Constitution Avenue in Washington. Tickets were $300 each. Before a dinner of roasted red bell pepper soup, beef tenderloin and tilapia, Dr. Stephen H. Feinstein, president of the alliance’s board, thanked Bristol-Myers Squibb, the pharmaceutical company.

“For the past five years, Bristol-Myers has sponsored this dinner at the highest level,” Dr. Feinstein said.

He then introduced Dr. Fred Grossman, chief of neuroscience research at Bristol-Myers, who told the audience that “now, more than ever, our enduring relationship with NAMI must remain strong.”

Documents obtained by The New York Times show that drug makers have over the years given the mental health alliance — along with millions of dollars in donations — direct advice about how to advocate forcefully for issues that affect industry profits. The documents show, for example, that the alliance’s leaders, including Mr. Fitzpatrick, met with AstraZeneca sales executives on Dec. 16, 2003.

Slides from a presentation delivered by the salesmen show that the company urged the alliance to resist state efforts to limit access to mental health drugs.

“Solutions: Play Hard Ball,” one slide was titled. “Hold policy makers accountable for their decisions in media and in election,” it continued.

The alliance’s own slides concluded by saying, “We appreciate AstraZeneca’s strong support of NAMI.”

Mr. Fitzpatrick said that the alliance frequently had such meetings and that the organization would fight for better access to mental health drugs “even if we had no relationship with pharmaceutical companies.”

Tony Jewell, an AstraZeneca spokesman, said that the company was “committed to improving health through partnerships with nonprofit organizations” and that “includes striving to ensure people can access our medicines through formularies managed by state Medicaid agencies.”

http://wellbeingfoundation.com

Dr. Michael Corry is a psychiatrist who practices in Ireland.  Unlike many other psychiatrists he refuses to play the ‘mental illness’ game.  What is the mental illness game?  It is the situation whereby the Pharma/Psych alliance gets their hands on someone who is upset, distressed or in some way not coping with something in their life.  They then put them on to antidepressants.  When they succumb to the psychotropic ‘medicine’ and start to act strangely (or worse) they are pronounced ‘mentally ill’.

Then the expensive and destructive ‘treatments’ really start.  It leads to a very profitable and successful career, as long as one is not bothered by such niceties as ethics, or the concept of doing the right and decent thing.  You certainly wouldn’t want to have read the Hippocratic Oath.

Dr. Corry is a lovely bloke.  I met him a few years ago in Ireland and we had a beer together.  He was appalled at the shallow and self serving behaviour of his profession.  He was determined to have no part in the drugging for profit business and to genuinely care for those people who came to him for help.

Dr. Corry has also spent a considerable amount of time and effort fighting other psychiatric horrors such as the frying of human brains via ECT… ElectroShock Torture Therapy.

This has understandably not endeared him to his colleagues.  It is much easier to do what is wrong if everyone else is doing it also.  The first person to stand up and say “this is wrong and I will not participate” will be shot down quick smart.

Thus it is with Dr. Corry.

I have just received the following from Ireland and I urge you to read it and spread the word.  You may submit objections via the address at the bottom.

There is a need for good people to stand up here.

The Wellbeing Foundation

NEWSLETTER

15 October 2009

Human sustainability: the key to emotional health

Professor of Psychiatry charges Dr Michael Corry at Medical Council

A senior psychiatrist, Professor Timothy Dinan of University College, Cork, has laid a complaint against Dr Michael Corry at the Medical Council. The complaint concerns Michael Corry’s statements about the role of SSRI antidepressants in the murder/suicide of Sebastian Creane and Shane Clancy.

Dinan, who is an enthusiastic advocate of SSRIs and SNRIs and has declared his close relations with several drug companies, accuses Dr Corry of “”statements regarding the pharmacology of antidepressants” and of making “statements regarding a diagnosis without ever seeing the patient”.

Dinan has joined in a previous attempt to chill discussion of the effects of antidepressants. Signing himself as Timothy Dinan, MD, PhD, FRCPsych, FRCPI, Professor of Psychiatry, University College Cork, the academic was one of six professors of psychiatry who penned a letter published in the Irish Times on 16 November 2006 demanding the resignation of the then Minister for Mental Health, Tim O’Malley, for two reasons.

One, O’Malley had dared to suggest that many everyday difficulties of life were being mis-labeled as ‘clinical depression’. Secondly, he had dared to suggest, with good reason, that the alleged benefits of medications used to treat mental illness cannot be proven scientifically in the way that other medications can. Both suggestions are cardinal sins for those who rule the world of psychiatry, and whose word is law among the students they teach.

WE MUST DEFEND MICHAEL CORRY’S RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT!

To defend Dr Michael Corry we need other health professionals to stand by him.

We appeal to doctors and nurses, especially psychiatric nurses, together with psychotherapists and counsellors, who are concerned at this attack on the right of medical professionals to oppose the monopoly of bio-psychiatry and are willing to stand up and be counted.

Please contact Dr Corry’s defence team: email wellbeing[at]wellbeingfoundation.com

(use the @ symbol instead of [at] )

The most chilling part of Professor Timothy Dinan’s complaint is that Corry made “statements regarding the pharmacology of antidepressants”.

If such a complaint is upheld as valid, neither Dr Corry nor any other doctor registered with the Medical Council will ever again be able to ‘make a statement’ on the action of a drug such as Seroxat or Lexapro — or, by extension, of any drug.

Are you willing to allow this to happen?

Send objections to Professor Timothy Dinan’s complaint to:

Mr John Sidebotham

Professional Standards Department Medical Council

Lynn House

Portobello Court

Lower Rathmines Road Dublin 6

Fax: 01 4983103

Email: complaints@mcirl.ie

Visit the Wellbeing Foundation website

For news, views, resources and lots of interesting articles on depression, panic & anxiety, the campaign against electro-shock ‘therapy’, and much more.

PsychRights <http://apps.facebook.com/causes/243637?m=87cec8ff>
The FDA Wants to Declare Electroshock Machines Safe Without a Safety Investigation. TELL THEM NO!

The Food and Drug Administration is in charge of regulating medical devices just as it does drugs, including the machines used to give Electroshock. But it’s not doing its job. It has allowed these machines to be used on millions of patients over the past generation without requiring any evidence whatsoever that shock treatment is safe or effective! This is so even though shock machines are Class III—high risk—devices, which by law are supposed to be investigated by clinical trials as thoroughly as new drugs and devices just coming onto the market. But because of intense lobbying by the American Psychiatric Association—which claims the devices are safe but opposes an investigation—the FDA has disregarded its own law. (For the full story of how shock survivors have fought for a scientific safety investigation of Electroshock for the past 25 years, see Linda Andre’s terrific new book, Doctors of Deception: What They Don’t Want You to Know About Shock Treatment.) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813544416/lawprojectfor-20

In April 2009—20 years after it first ruled the devices high-risk and named brain damage and memory loss as risks of the treatment—the FDA belatedly announced it would call on the manufacturers of the devices to provide evidence of safety and efficacy. The deadline for submissions has passed, but the manufacturers have not conducted any clinical trials, claiming they cannot afford them. They simply point to the opinions of shock doctors (including those who have financial interests in companies making Electroshock machines) as evidence that shock is safe.

The FDA is now supposed to require Electroshock machines to undergo the rigorous PreMarket Approval process (PMA) that is required of new devices, including clinical safety trials. These machines, technically known as “devices,” are referred to as Electro Convulsive Therapy (ECT), but I don’t like to use this euphemistic term for running electricity through people’s brains. The FDA could have called for this investigation any time in the past 30 years but has previously failed to do so. There is great risk the FDA will downclassify it to the low-risk Class II, without scientific evidence of its safety. As a Class II device, Electroshock machines would never have to go through the PMA process. The amount of damage that electroshock has been allowed to inflict is an outrage. We now finally have a chance to at least register our opposition because the FDA has opened up a new docket for public comment on electroshock machines. It is important for as many people as possible to write in with their opposition. Comments will be accepted up through January 2010.

If you have personal knowledge or expertise about Electroshock, writing about that can be good. Or you can pull information from various sources. Linda Andre’s book, Doctors of Deception is a gold mine of information. Leonard Roy Frank issued the Electroshock Quotationary, in June 2006, which is a good source of material, and there is also a brand new web page of historical materials from Leonard athttp://psychiatrized.org/LeonardRoyFrank/FromTheFilesOfLeonardRoyFrank.htm Also, PsychRights has quite a large collection of materials athttp://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/Electroshock/electroshock.htm from which comments can be drawn.

If you are not in a position to write something up, then please send in the below coupon.
————————————————————————-
To: Food and Drug Administration, Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852

Re: Electroconvulsive Therapy Device (882.5940), Docket #FDA-2009-N0392

The undersigned opposes the reclassification of the ECT device to Class II by the FDA in the absence of adequate scientific evidence of its safety, and asks the agency to call for PreMarket Approval Applications for the device.

Name: ___________________________
Address: _________________________
_________________________
Signature: _________________________

View Announcement on Facebook <http://apps.facebook.com/causes/posts/300586?m=87cec8ff> | Leave a Comment <http://apps.facebook.com/causes/posts/300586?m=87cec8ff> | Go to Cause <http://apps.facebook.com/causes/243637?m=87cec8ff> | Invite Friends <http://apps.facebook.com/causes/cause_invitations/new?m=87cec8ff&cause_id=243637>

EXCLUSIVE:

ESTABLISHMENT ‘COLLUDING IN PLIGHT OF SICK MAN BROWN’

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown

* WORSENING OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER

* SEVERE DEPRESSION CONTROLLED BY DANGEROUS DRUGS

* FAILING SIGHT IN ‘GOOD’ EYE

A Political Wing special

“The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a man too ill to be holding the Office.” This was the conclusion last week of a senior civil servant liaising regularly with Gordon Brown. For reasons which will become clear, the person involved will not go public with the evidence for this conclusion. The same applies to a high-ranking Treasury official who told us “In both a physical and mental sense, the Prime Minister is a very sick man, seriously disabled.” Three years ago, an Opposition MP told nby “He is on extremely heavy doses of cutting-edge anti-depressants, but so far they have made little difference”. And during the last fortnight, another high-ranking government source claimed “He is now on pills which restrict the foods he can eat and what he can drink. He is losing the sight of his good eye quite rapidly. It’s a mess, and nobody knows what to do”.

Rumours have circulated about Gordon Brown’s health for a number of years. As long ago as 2004, Simon Heffer wrote in the Spectator that he displayed many signs of Asperger’s syndrome: humourlessness, lack of irony and obsessional behaviour patterns. Nby itself ran a long piece in February 2007, predicting fairly accurately how Brown’s rigid responses to given situations would prove to be inappropriate, and his behaviour in the end dysfunctional. We noted at the time ‘If the Labour Party can organise seventy-three signatories to a document of intent named ‘Anyone but Gordon’, then there must be something about the man which might make him unfit to be Prime Minister’. In fact, we had already been advised by then that the PM had been on large doses of SSRI anti-depressants – the class of drugs derived from Prozac.

The overall story is well known in lobbyist circles. A senior member of this group told us that “Brown is in a very dark place. Sarah [hiswife, Mrs Brown] has begged him on several occasions to seek help, but he resists most offers of advice.” Yet another popular journalist said “I’m afraid all the stories about him throwing things around and screaming at secretaries are entirely true. He behaves impeccably in public and can really turn on the charm when he needs to in private – but inside the bunker he behaves appallingly. He’s also binging on junk food late at night – you can see he’s gaining weight”.

Brown in Afghanistan last week

However, our investigation suggests that there is a more important reason for the PM’s weight gain: he is now on a different class of drugs, for which ballooning weight is one of the least dangerous side-effects.

These drugs are called Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs). Before the arrival of Prozac derivatives, they were the first line of attack when dealing with severely depressed patients. But a senior physician told us last month “A GP would have to be insane to prescribe MAOIs these days – SSRIs are safer, with far fewer side-effects. Apart from anything else, it’s almost impossible to get hold of them”.

This is indeed correct. In 2003, SKB withdrew their MAOI brand-leader Parnate because of the dangers it represented, and also because SSRIs had none of the disadvantages. However, at the time several regional mental health units reported that for some patients, SSRIs were nowhere near as effective.

Thus there is evidence that, having tried and seen no help from the newer generation of drugs, Gordon Brown has now been put onto MAOIs. If this is true, then he is indeed in a desperate state – as we shall explain.

This evidence was handed to us inadvertantly. The senior source referred to at the start of this piece mentioned “the latest nonsense – a huge list of things he can’t eat or drink because of the drugs he’s on…most importantly, cheese and Chianti”. Every doctor in Britain would recognise these contraindications instantly: for they are the two great verbotens for people taking MAOI drugs.

As long ago as 2001, prescribing psychiatrists described MAOIs as ‘the last resort now we have better drugs’. However, for all their downsides (several thousand people around the world have died as a result of ignoring the dietary advice re MAOIs) this older class of drugs has one huge advantage: for severe depression and obsessive compulsive disorder it remains very effective.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is relatively common. Most of us display some obsessive features in everyday life, but under stress a minority of people become borderline or actual OCD in their behaviour, and need medication to control both this and the depression which almost always presents soon afterwards. The most obvious symptom is a compulsive need to carry out functions such as hand-washing or counting almost incessantly. (The Asperger’s syndrome ‘Rain Man’ personality displays these too, but the two conditions are easily separable on other bases. Our view is that Brown has OCD, not Asperger’s syndrome.)

Gordon Brown’s symptoms are obvious when viewed in this light: the constant repetition of phrases, and an almost embarrassing (for his Party) need to spray every Parliamentary answer with statistics. Lifting out of poverty, the Tories are the do-nothing Party, global problems require global solutions – these and myriad others have been repeated over and over ad nauseam. Equally, the six million lifted out of poverty, twelve million helped by mortgage benefits, two million new jobs created: when interrogated, these figures often prove to be illusory, but they – and the constant speech repetition – represent Brown’s unconscious means of controlling the severe anxiety that accompanies depression with OCD.

We have no means (as yet) of proving his use of MAOIs, although the ‘long list of forbidden foods’ is the nearest one will get to a smoking gun – short of a written, signed diagnosis or prescription. We also cannot be certain how long the PM has been taking them, but the remark ‘the latest nonsense’ suggests that this is a relatively recent development. On average, a heavy dose of MAOI therapy would start to display some results within twenty days to six weeks. Gordon Brown has reportedly returned from ‘easily his longest break from Downing Street’ feeling ‘very much refreshed and up for it’. It is more than likely he took the uncharacteristically long break on medical advice. And it will be interesting to note whether his behaviour changes.

One feature unlikely to change is the increasingly obvious difficulty he has finding his way to and from podiums, and lack of peripheral vision. This (according to a senior, medically-trained source) is the result of failing sight in the one eye he has left. We found so many confirmations of this story from so many sources, it seems to us impossible for it to be pure invention. It appears to be universally recognised in the Cabinet and upper echelons of the Civil Service.

So: here we seem to have a man (unless huges cadres of non-colluding senior people are liars) on a rarely used, dangerous drug to control his mental state – and getting close to a stage of serious disablement in relation to his eyesight. As this would clearly make any such person wholly unfit to fulfil the Premiership – especially in the dangerous, broken world we now inhabit – why hasn’t the story broken more widely? Why hasn’t the Opposition leapt on it? In answering this question, we need to delve into the murkier waters of Gordon Brown’s psyche – and the cynical guessing-game that passes for public service in the House of Commons….on all sides.

Brown rules by fear and smear. He always has done, and it is the main thing he is known (and hated) for in the Labour Party. A former Cabinet Minister told nby in early 2008 “Nobody ran against Gordon because nobody could face the slur, innuendo and blackmail that would go with it. When he gets going, Brown and his little coterie of spinners are animals”. Several similar observations appeared in national newspapers during late 2007. There has also remained the rumour that even Blair himself eventually fell foul of this, and left not of his own volition but as a result of threats from the Brown camp. That must remain as conjecture: but given his alleged track record of not entirely legal actions, Blair would have had a lot to be frightened about.

The PM evokes a certain degree of loyalty from close confidantes, but the main reason why no Brown staffer has broken ranks is that this would mean the end of the meal-ticket: either Brown would fall, or he would deny…and bury the whistle-blower. Luncheon Vouchers are also behind the remaining silence in the Parliamentary Party as a whole. Two senior Lobby correspondents have confirmed to us in the last three weeks that “even the most anti-Brown camp think there’s no alternative to Brown”. Nearly all Labour backbenchers now expect a rout, but think that if Brown were ousted they would be wiped out. Comically, the exact opposite view pertains in the Tory Shadow Cabinet, where “they’re so terrified of Labour dumping Brown, they’d do anything to leave him precisely where he is”.

This bears further examination on a number of levels. Three of our sources confirmed the general view that the parlous state of Brown’s health is well-known among Conservative bigwigs. That they collude in an allegedly dangerously ill man remaining in charge of Government (purely to ensure their own victory) is selfish cynicism of the worst kind – and a damning charge to which, if and when the truth of this matter comes to light, they will have no defence. It also reinforces the electorate’s feeling that senior Cameron Tories are woefully lacking in confidence – or convincing alternatives to what the Government is doing.

As to whether Brown is a liability or an asset for voters, the latest poll (30.8.09) in the Guardian showed that Brown’s ratings have actually fallen as ’signs’ of economic green shoots have become apparent. In short, when it comes to the Machiavellian ‘keep him where he is’ strategy, New Labour have called it wrong. As ever, they are probably being too clever for their own good.

Perhaps more disturbing is the passive political bias (and dereliction of Constitutional duty) represented by the obvious collusion in any cover-up about the Prime Minister’s health problems throughout the senior ranks of the Civil Service. One of the main sources of this story told us, “It’s a farce, and utterly disgraceful. There isn’t a mandarin in Whitehall who’s unaware of Brown’s condition – they tittle-tattle the tale wherever they go, dining out on their inside knowledge, and yet won’t lift a finger to bring it to the public’s attention. We are being let down at every turn by the spineless Establishment running this country”.

One can appreciate how a similar situation developed from 1935 onwards in relation to the King’s relationship with Mrs Simpson. But it is hard to understand why the press – especially the right-wing press – haven’t had a harder go at nailing this story in 2009. The tabloids are too busy shouting threats into celeb letter-boxes, and the more liberally inclined papers may well share the New Labour view that loyalty is their duty at this stage of the game; but that seems unlikely – and what of Dacre at The Mail, or the Telegraph, still fresh from its huge success in blowing the lid off the expenses scandal?

The answer usually comes back ‘there’s no physical evidence, and it’s an easy story to deny – to dismiss as just another anti-Brown smear campaign’. But perhaps the clues about MAOI usage by the Prime Minister make it much harder to deny….and much easier to get written confirmation. For if it’s true, Brown’s entourage must be sending out strict dietary requirements ahead of his regularly catered public engagements; one could even monitor what he eats on such occasions.

Not Born Yesterday lacks both the sources and resources to do this job. The sole purpose of this piece is to get matters to a stage where the story is out in the public domain, such that the real people who count in Britain – the voters – can make their own minds up about it. And – who knows? – to create a situation in which the Opposition might at last do its duty, and question the PM’s fitness for office on these well-known (if not as yet well-documented) bases.

©2009 Not Born Yesterday and John Ward.

28,745 petition signatures http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKBY

The Miami Herald
Child-welfare panel: Potent drugs misused on foster kids
Florida’s mental health system for foster kids relies far too often on drugs, with little oversight, according to a draft report on the suicide of 7-year-old Gabriel Myers.
August 13, 2009
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER

Admitting for the first time what critics have claimed for years, state child-welfare authorities say caregivers for children in state custody frequently use powerful mind-altering drugs to manage unruly kids, rather than treat their anger and sadness.

A photo of Gabriel Myers from 2007.
A panel of child-welfare experts, including two top administrators from the state Department of Children & Families, examined the death of a 7-year-old Broward foster child who was on psychotropic medications — without the required consent — when he hanged himself in a Margate home.

The panel’s report, expected to be released publicly later this month, says child welfare authorities too often rely on the potent medications to manage abused and neglected children — but fail to offer psychiatric treatment to help them overcome the trauma they suffered.

“Psychotherapeutic medications are often being used to help parents, teachers and other child workers quiet and manage, rather than treat, children,” the report says. It adds: “We have not clearly articulated the standard of psychiatric care expected for children in state foster care.”

Gabriel Myers hanged himself from a detachable shower hose April 16 at a Broward foster home. He had been in foster care since the previous June, when his mother had been found slumped in her car, surrounded by a stash of narcotics.

After The Miami Herald reported that Gabriel had been given several psychiatric drugs linked by federal regulators to potentially dangerous side effects, including suicide, DCF Secretary George Sheldon appointed a work group to study the care given to the boy, as well as the agency’s overall reliance on mind-altering drugs.

Sheldon said Wednesday that serious questions arose over why so many children in state care are on psychotropic medications — and why so many claim they feel fine once the drugs are discontinued.

“There was a lot of evidence presented to the work group — from kids and from folks in the system — raising a lot of concern over the purpose of these drugs,” Sheldon said.

Sheldon cautioned that the draft of the report is not final and “is subject to a lot of change” after work group members review and tweak it.

An overarching theme of the work group’s discussions, and of the draft report, was the lack of a parent figure — or “champion” — for Gabriel, who the report said had become “overwhelmed” by change and disruption. While the youngster’s life crumbled around him, caseworkers took copious notes and documented each new development.

But the report says, “there was no sense of urgency driving the agencies and individuals responsible for the welfare of Gabriel Myers,” and “no one person stepped forward to act as his parent.”

Though Gabriel was in regular contact with agency-referred therapists and a psychiatrist, the report says, the “intensive therapy” was aimed almost exclusively at preventing the reoccurrence of sexually inappropriate behaviors that may have resulted from his molestation when he was a small child in Ohio.

“Gabriel Myers was not provided specific and upfront therapy to deal with identified trauma, possible post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression,” the report says.

The use of psychiatric drugs among children in state care is widespread.

Records updated by DCF last week show that, among children in state care aged 6-12, more than 22 percent are being given psychiatric drugs.

Almost one-third of the adolescents aged 13 to 17 are on psychiatric drugs, the updated records say.

Among the adolescents, close to four in 10 children in licensed foster care are on such drugs.

The smallest percentage of adolescents taking psychiatric drugs, 12 percent, live with relatives or family friends.

For almost a decade, children’s advocates have maintained that Florida has used potentially dangerous psychiatric drugs as “chemical restraints” on children who endured hellish abuse and neglect — and act out, sometimes violently, as a result.

“It’s heartening that they are admitting what has long been the agency’s dirty little secret,” said Coral Springs attorney and children’s advocate Andrea Moore, who told a DCF Broward administrator in 2001 that doctors were concocting mental health diagnoses for foster kids to justify using unnecessary drugs.

Among the report’s other findings:

Foster children being administered psychiatric drugs with federal “black box” warnings of potentially dangerous side effects are not “adequately monitored” by foster parents, doctors or caseworkers. The children are not well-informed or involved in decisions about their medication.

Caregivers for the state’s foster children are not required to report adverse incidents arising from psychotropic medication.

Psychiatrists and pediatricians “often lack [a] medical history” for the foster children they treat, “yet still prescribe medications.”

Biographical, medical and educational information contained in the Florida Safe Families Network, DCF’s statewide child-welfare database, is “frequently incomplete and inaccurate.”

A “significant” number of dependent children have been given psychiatric drugs without the informed consent of a parent or judge, as state law requires. “Too often, parents and/or the court are unaware of critical issues involving medications, procedures are not followed, and documentation requirements are ignored.”

Mental healthcare for foster children is “fragmented,” poorly funded and often does not include caregivers, who receive little to no training. Disabled children in state care often are excluded from mental healthcare because Medicaid will not pay for therapies specially geared to children with intellectual impairments.

The state has failed to implement recommendations from prior task forces that studied the deaths of foster children or the use of psychiatric drugs. Indeed, DCF has failed to even assign “responsibility” or “accountability” for implementing such reports.

“Let’s just hope they don’t put this on a shelf and ignore it like all the other reports,” Moore said.

For parents and students who need a better understanding of TeenScreen I would recommend the following site.

http://nototeenscreen.blogspot.com/2009/07/shocking-facts.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDgBSSSVtrU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnototeenscreen%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2009%2F07%2Fpoliticians%2Dunder%2Dobama%2Dfighting%2Dto%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded

Leaving no child undrugged…  the goal of psychiatry, Big Pharma and the FDA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Q9A12634U&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnototeenscreen%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2009%2F07%2Fpoliticians%2Dunder%2Dobama%2Dfighting%2Dto%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded