Author Archive

Psychiatry: erase the unique individual

Psychiatry: erase the unique individual

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.


exit from the matrix


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.

Jon Rappoport

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.

Antidepressant Drug Research Has a Problem, Study Says

From: http://www.anxiety-and-depression-solutions.com/antidepressant-drug-research-has-a-problem-study-says-2188

pills medication antidepressants

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:

  1. exclude patients with co-morbid Axis I disorders and personality disorders;
  2. exclude patients because the episode duration was too long or too short;
  3. exclude patients who met diagnostic criteria for major depression but did not score high enough on a rating scale.

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.

Chattanooga Gunman Yet Another Mass Shooter on Antidepressants: Are You Even Surprised?

Lifted from: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/chattanooga-gunman-yet-another-mass-shooter-on-antidepressants-are-you-even-surprised_072015

medication

By now most people know the basic facts, at least what are called “facts” as reported by the mainstream media regarding the Tennessee mass shooting.

According to reports, last Thursday twenty-four-year-old Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire at a Chattanooga army recruiting center, injuring a police officer. Then he opened fire at a navy recruiting center about five miles away, killing four servicemen and wounding another three, one of whom later passed away. All told, five people lost their lives before the Abdulazeez was shot and killed by police.

By now, it shouldn’t surprise anyone much that the media is reporting Abdulazeez was depressed and taking medications for it, medications which he frequently started and stopped.

Antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), come with FDA-mandated black box warnings on the labels to inform users, “about increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24 during initial treatment.”

According to the FDA:

“Pooled analyses of short-term placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant drugs (SSRIs and others) showed that these drugs increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults (ages 18-24) with major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders.”

Not that ages are an exact predictor here, but Abdulazeez was 24.

A black box warning is the most serious one the FDA can place on a prescription medication bar none. What they don’t tell you is that these drugs don’t just cause suicidal feelings, but homicidal ones as well.

Now consider America takes more psychotropic medications like antidepressants than any other country on the planet by far. More than 30 million Americans are on these medications right now. It’s an astonishing situation if you really think about it.

Even people who aren’t purposefully taking antidepressants may be “taking” them.

In the last decade, the Associated Press conducted a five-month investigation and found the drinking water of at least 46 million Americans in 24 major metropolitan areas was indeed tainted with pharmaceuticals. Wastewater treatment does not remove these drugs, and people are drinking them, cooking with them, and bathing in them. The report advises, “The federal government does not regulate prescription drugs in the water.” So just consider how many pharmaceuticals people who knowingly take prescription medications and swallow them down with regular city tap water are actually ingesting in this country.

Worse, however, is the known fact that nearly every highly publicized mass shooting in recent American history involves a shooter on (or very recently going off) one or more of these medications at the time of the shooting. In fact, nearly every mass shooting in the last two decades involves psychiatric medications. Prior to the late 1980s when Prozac first came on the market, mass shootings were not anywhere near as common as they are today.

The Washington Post just reported, “Abdulazeez had been in and out of treatment for his depression and frequently stopped taking his medication, despite his parents’ pleas for him to continue, said a person close to the family.”

Frequently started and stopped taking medicines with FDA black box warnings that disrupt levels of chemicals in the brain to cause suicidal (and obviously homicidal) thoughts?

Considering the history of American mass shooters in recent years, that would do it.

In fact, any time a mass shooting hits the news these days, the first thing people ask isn’t why he or she did it but whether or not the killer was on antidepressant medications.

Psychiatry Through the Lens of Institutional Corruption

From the Blog ‘Mad in America’ by Robert Whitaker comes this truly exceptional piece on the corruption of psychiatry.  I strongly recommend reading this…

http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/05/psychiatry-through-the-lens-of-institutional-corruption/

 

Germanwings – Media Cover Up

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/germanwings-plane-crash-major-media-cover-up/

A good article, but I’m not convinced that Mr Rappoport’s slightly cynical conclusion that nothing will come of it is justified here.

The airlines will be all over this internally because Germanwings is going to get sued big time by relatives of the victims.  They let a pilot on psych drugs known to cause suicides pilot a passenger plane – that’s a case closed before it has even begun.  Germanwings will be sued sufficient to put them out of business, if the terrible publicity hasn’t already achieved that.

All other airlines are already going through their personnel records to weed out similarly drug affected pilots.  That is an educated guess – nothing that I have a source for.

The mass removal, followed by the triggering of ‘unfair dismissal’ legislation is going to prod the media into action, whether they like it or not.

Could they credibly defend allowing pilots on psych drugs which warn of the potential for suicide on the label to work as pilots?

No way Jose.

Germanwings – More Info on Anti-Depressant Usage Emerging

All of a sudden, after all these years, the matter is finally in the spotlight where it should have been 50 years ago.  I shudder at the potential consequences of the following.

As reported in the The Guardian (screenshot) on Sunday, 29th March 2015…

Screen Shot 2015-03-29 at 14.34.17

Germanwings Anti-Depressant Tragedy

With regard to the last posting a few days ago, I just came across this (screenshot) in the online Daily Mail Sunday dated 29th March 2015.  It is not hard to spot the smoking gun of anti-depressant usage…

Screen Shot 2015-03-29 at 12.51.46

Surely the loss of 150 lives will begin the process of banning the users of these psychosis inducing drugs from being in charge of any vehicle, let alone a commercial airliner flying unsuspecting passengers.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers