The following screenshot from Google search sums up rather well the state of psychiatry today. The second and third ‘hit’ explain the first…
And another screenshot from that unique news service The Onion…
A well-written piece to do with the previous post, but from a different angle.
“We felt that bad prescribing decisions were being made on the basis of the way in which the study was reported,” said Professor Jon Jureidini, who led the international team of researchers from Adelaide University’s Critical and Ethical Mental Health Research Group.
“The study claimed to show that paroxetine, an anti-depressant, was effective and safe for young people and in fact, it’s the opposite.”
The team have established that the drug carried twice the level of severe adverse effects across the board, and four times the number of psychiatric adverse events.
“Eleven patients experienced suicidal behaviour or self-harm out of less than 100 in the paroxetine group compared to just one in the placebo group,”
A study at Oxford University by Professor Senna Fazel showed that there is a clear link between antidepressants and violence.
Fazel’s advice (he’s a psychiatrist) was to keep taking them anyway.
By Jon Rapponport
Even by the loopy standards of bio-psychiatry, this defies any sort of logic – never mind morality. It is psychiatry at its most deranged.
by Jon Rappoport
August 17, 2015
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
“There are cultural myths that are easy to overturn. People see through them quickly. But the prevailing core myths are tougher. Much tougher. Most people resist even discussing them. In the old days, the Church tortured and burned people who discussed them. Now, it’s social ostracism. Now, in some cases, it’s the State kidnapping children to send a message.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Since none of the 300 official mental disorders has any defining physical test for diagnosis, there is no proof they exist. Period.
You could interview thousands of people who say they feel depressed, and you would find significant differences. The more you listened to their stories, the more you would be convinced of the differences.
You would be splitting apart the central idea of “depression” and realizing it has no common center.
This is hard for many people to believe. That’s how brainwashed they are.
There are no common universal states of consciousness. It’s all unique, from person to person.
Just as there is no single enlightened state of consciousness which is the same for everyone, there are no “mental disorder” states that are the same for everyone.
Keep in mind that a dominant myth is supposed to be powerful. It’s supposed to suck in the majority of the population. It’s supposed to be convincing. It’s supposed to be “intuitive.” “Mental disorders” are that kind of myth. It appeals to people. They like it. They salute it. They fall for it.
A dominant myth is supposed to be inclusive, in the sense that people feel lost without it. They can’t attribute all sorts of human activity to anything else but the myth. They can’t see their way past it. They feel stymied without it.
Ever since Pavlov and Freud, the idea of “disordered mental states” has been expanding. It’s reached, in psychiatry, codification. That’s where it really takes on power. Pseudoscientific gobbledygook. 300 mental disorders. And an army of medical specialists ready to diagnose and drug them.
It’s pin the tail on the donkey, but the public doesn’t know that.
For decades, psychiatrists have been claiming that mental disorders are, at the root, chemical imbalances in the brain.
Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid that theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times — in Psychiatry’s New Brain-Mind and the Legend of the “Chemical Imbalance” (behind pay wall) — with this staggering admission:
“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”
Researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.
In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to cover for his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:
“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”
Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.
And second, if well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…
…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…
…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct an imbalance?
No matter which way you look at it, the concept of distinct mental disorders is fatally flawed.
But the myth survives. It lives on.
Earth culture wants it and needs it. Earth culture is all about constructing a deep core of victimhood that reaches down into every individual and defines and limits him, in the same way that Original Sin and attendant Guilt imposes limits on a so-called spiritual level.
These myths obscure truly dynamic and creative consciousness, which shapes and invents reality.
The pseudoscience of psychiatry is, on the whole, an attempt to block knowledge of the power of individual creative-force.
The mindless acceptance of psychiatry as a branch of medicine gives it the imprimatur of authority.
Myths impose standards of behavior and thought. Then they confirm their validity by observing that people (when imposed upon and coerced) do, in fact, behave and think in accordance with the myth. It’s a closed loop.
If leaders proposed, recommended, and demanded that people see with only one eye, the leaders would eventually go on to observe that people do, in fact, use only one eye.
Obviously, those who insisted on looking at the world with two eyes would be called heretics, or mentally ill. They would be called fantasists who believed in the existence of “another eye.”
And because conformity is the basis for sustaining all myths, sooner or later the population (most of it) would agree that a second eye was impossible.
In exactly the same way, the idea of consciousness which is intensely creative is viewed as a false fantasy.
You can rearrange deck chairs for as long as you want to, but until and unless individual creative consciousness is restored, there will always be a huge, stark, missing gap in any effort to establish social progress.
Yesterday’s victims will be tomorrow’s leaders, and then the roles will reverse again, and so on and so forth. But the cure will never be found.
One myth after another will substitute for the cure.
Taking the long, long, long view, psychiatry is merely a blip on the screen of history—a moment of insanity which attempted to prolong its existence by establishing a monopoly on what constituted sanity and insanity.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
A new study revealed that research studies for new antidepressant medications do not evaluate the effectiveness of the drugs on the general population.
Mark Zimmerman, M.D., a clinical researcher at Rhode Island Hospital, and his team analyzed the criteria used in antidepressant efficacy studies (AETs) and learned that the inclusion/exclusion criteria for AETs have narrowed so much over the past five years that most patients are excluded.
In other words, the results of the trials may not be applicable to most of us.
Dr. Zimmerman explained why the research was needed:
The inclusion/exclusion criteria for AETs have narrowed over the past five years, thereby suggesting that AETs may be even less generalizable than they were previously.
More than a decade ago, our clinical research group raised concerns about the generalizability of AETs and suggested that the majority of patients seen in routine clinical practice would not qualify for an AET.
These results were replicated multiple times. We therefore wondered if drug companies changed how they recruited patients into studies. In fact, they have, but in an unexpected way. The more recent AETs are even less generalizable than the prior studies, which themselves excluded most depressed patients from drug company-sponsored treatment studies.
Dr. Zimmerman examined 170 placebo-controlled studies published during the past 20 years, 56 of which were published during the past five years. The more recent studies were significantly more likely to:
In a public release, Dr. Zimmerman elaborated on the findings:
For severely ill patients, such as those who express suicidal thoughts, it makes ethical sense to exclude them from a study where they may receive placebos.
However, excluding patients with co-morbid psychiatric disorders has become more frequent, and patients with any comorbid Axis I disorder are twice as likely to be excluded in recent studies.
This is important because the majority of depressed patients have another psychiatric diagnosis. The exclusion of depressed patients who score too low on rating scales is the most concerning.
This would exclude approximately half of the patients seen in clinical practice. In addition, studies have shown that antidepressants do not work as well for less severely depressed patients.
Thus, drug companies seem to be stacking the deck to demonstrate that their products work, even though they might work only for a narrow segment of depressed patients.