Results 1 to 21 of 21
Psychiatry's sick compulsion: turning weaknesses i
  1. #1
    bn7
    bn7 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    84

    Default Psychiatry's sick compulsion: turning weaknesses i

    January 1, 2006
    latimes.com

    HOW WE LIVE
    Psychiatry's sick compulsion: turning weaknesses into diseases
    By Irwin Savodnik, Irwin Savodnik is a psychiatrist and philosopher who teaches at UCLA.

    IT'S JAN. 1. Past time to get your inoculation against seasonal affective disorder, or SAD — at least according to the American Psychiatric Assn. As Americans rush to return Christmas junk, bumping into each other in Macy's and Best Buy, the psychiatric association ponders its latest iteration of feeling bad for the holidays. And what is the association selling? Mental illness. With its panoply of major depression, dysthymic disorder, bipolar disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, the association is waving its Calvinist flag to remind everyone that amid all the celebration, all the festivities, all the exuberance, many people will "come down with" or "contract" or "develop" some variation of depressive illness.

    The association specializes in turning ordinary human frailty into disease. In the last year, ads have been appearing in psychiatric journals about possible treatments for shyness, a "syndrome" not yet officially recognized as a disease. You can bet it will be in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-IV, published by the association. As it turns out, the association has been inventing mental illnesses for the last 50 years or so. The original diagnostic manual appeared in 1952 and contained 107 diagnoses and 132 pages, by my count. The second edition burst forth in 1968 with 180 diagnoses and 119 pages. In 1980, the association produced a 494-page tome with 226 conditions. Then, in 1994, the manual exploded to 886 pages and 365 conditions, representing a 340% increase in the number of diseases over 42 years.

    Nowhere in the rest of medicine has such a proliferation of categories occurred. The reason for this difference between psychiatry and other medical specialties has more to do with ideology than with science. A brief peek at both areas makes this point clear. All medicine rests on the premise that disease is a manifestation of diseased tissue. Hepatitis comes down to an inflamed liver, while lung tissue infiltrated with pneumococcus causes pneumonia. Every medical student learns this principle. Where, though, is the diseased tissue in psychopathological conditions?

    Unlike the rest of medicine, psychiatry diagnoses behavior that society doesn't like. Yesterday it was homosexuality. Tomorrow it will be homophobia. Someone who declares himself the messiah, who insists that fluorescent lights talk to him or declares that she's the Virgin Mary, is an example of such behavior. Such people are deemed — labeled, really — sick by psychiatrists, and often they are taken off to hospitals against their will. The "diagnosis" of such "pathological behavior" is based on social, political or aesthetic values.

    This is confusing. Behavior cannot be pathological (or healthy, for that matter). It can simply comport with, or not comport with, our nonmedical expectations of how people should behave. Analogously, brains that produce weird or obnoxious behaviors are not diseased. They are brains that produce atypical behaviors (which could include such eccentricities as dyed hair or multiple piercings or tattoos that nobody in their right mind could find attractive).

    Lest one think that such a view is the rant of a Scientologist, it is no such thing. Scientology offers polemic to lull the faithful into belief. Doctors and philosophers offer argument to provoke debate.

    It's a natural step from using social and political standards to create a psychiatric diagnosis to using them to influence public policy. Historically, that influence has appeared most dramatically in the insanity defense. Remember Dan White, the man who murdered San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978? Or John Hinckley, who shot President Reagan in 1981? Or Mark David Chapman, who killed John Lennon? White, whose psychiatrist came up with the "Twinkie defense" — the high sugar content of White's favorite junk food may have fueled his murderous impulses — was convicted and paroled after serving five years, only to commit suicide a year later.

    The erosion of personal responsibility is, arguably, the most pernicious effect of the expansive role psychiatry has come to play in American life. It has successfully replaced huge chunks of individual accountability with diagnoses, clinical histories and what turn out to be pseudoscientific explanations for deviant behavior.

    Pathology has replaced morality. Treatment has supplanted punishment. Imprisonment is now hospitalization. From the moral self-castigation we find in the writings of John Adams, we have been drawn to Woody Allen-style neuroses. Were the psychiatric association to scrutinize itself more deeply and reconsider its expansionist diagnostic programs, it would, hopefully, make a positive contribution to our culture by not turning the good and bad into the healthy and the sick.

    The last thing the United States needs is more self-indulgent, pseudo-insightful, overly self-conscious babble about people who can't help themselves. Better, as Voltaire would put it, to cultivate our gardens and be accountable for who and what we are.

  2. #2
    zippysgoddess is offline Platinum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    2,476

    Default

    Well they you go again, you're going to get everyone riled and mad. As for me, I am just going to sit back and watch the fun!

    Hugs bn!



    My information is not guaranteed correct. I do not get them right all the time, but I do enjoy the hunt~

  3. #3
    polaire is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canada.
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Get used to it.

    http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_2.html

    Free will is going away. Time to redesign society to take that into account.

    CLAY SHIRKY
    Social & Technology Network Topology Researcher; Adjunct Professor, NYU Graduate School of Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP)

    In 2002, a group of teenagers sued McDonald's for making them fat, charging, among other things, that McDonald's used promotional techniques to get them to eat more than they should. The suit was roundly condemned as an the erosion of the sense of free will and personal responsibility in our society. Less widely remarked upon was that the teenagers were offering an accurate account of human behavior.

    Consider the phenomenon of 'super-sizing', where a restaurant patron is offered the chance to increase the portion size of their meal for some small amount of money. This presents a curious problem for the concept of free will — the patron has already made a calculation about the amount of money they are willing to pay in return for a particular amount of food. However, when the question is re-asked, — not "Would you pay $5.79 for this total amount of food?" but "Would you pay an additional 30 cents for more french fries?" — patrons often say yes, despite having answered "No" moments before to an economically identical question.

    Super-sizing is expressly designed to subvert conscious judgment, and it works. By re-framing the question, fast food companies have found ways to take advantages of weaknesses in our analytical apparatus, weaknesses that are being documented daily in behavioral economics and evolutionary psychology.

    This matters for more than just fat teenagers. Our legal, political, and economic systems, the mechanisms that run modern society, all assume that people are uniformly capable of consciously modulating their behaviors. As a result, we regard decisions they make as being valid, as with elections, and hold them responsible for actions they take, as in contract law or criminal trials. Then, in order to get around the fact that some people obviously aren't capable of consciously modulating their behavior, we carve out ad hoc exemptions. In U.S. criminal law, a 15 year old who commits a crime is treated differently than a 16 year old. A crime committed in the heat of the moment is treated specially. Some actions are not crimes because their perpetrator is judged mentally incapable, whether through developmental disabilities or other forms of legally defined insanity.

    This theoretical divide, between the mass of people with a uniform amount of free will and a small set of exceptional individuals, has been broadly stable for centuries, in part because it was based on ignorance. As long as we were unable to locate any biological source of free will, treating the mass of people as if each of them had the same degree of control over their lives made perfect sense; no more refined judgments were possible. However, that binary notion of free will is being eroded as our understanding of the biological antecedents of behavior improves.

    Consider laws concerning convicted pedophiles. Concern about their recidivism rate has led to the enactment of laws that restrict their freedom based on things they might do in the future, even though this expressly subverts the notion of free will in the judicial system. The formula here — heinousness of crime x likelihood of repeat offense — creates a new, non-insane class of criminals whose penalty is indexed to a perceived lack of control over themselves.

    But pedophilia is not unique in it's measurably high recidivism rate. All rapists have higher than average recidivism rates. Thieves of all varieties are likelier to become repeat offenders if they have short time horizons or poor impulse control. Will we keep more kinds of criminals constrained after their formal sentence is served, as we become better able to measure the likely degree of control they have over their own future actions? How can we, if we are to preserve the idea of personal responsibility? How can we not, once we are able to quantify the risk?

    Criminal law is just one area where our concept of free will is eroding. We know that men make more aggressive decisions after they have been shown pictures of attractive female faces. We know women are more likely to commit infidelity on days they are fertile. We know that patients committing involuntary physical actions routinely (and incorrectly) report that they decided to undertake those actions, in order to preserve their sense that they are in control. We know that people will drive across town to save $10 on a $50 appliance, but not on a $25,000 car. We know that the design of the ballot affects a voter's choices. And we are still in the early days of even understanding these effects, much less designing everything from sales strategies to drug compounds to target them.

    Conscious self-modulation of behavior is a spectrum. We have treated it as a single property — you are either capable of free will, or you fall into an exceptional category — because we could not identify, measure, or manipulate the various components that go into such self-modulation. Those days are now ending, and everyone from advertisers to political consultants increasingly understands, in voluminous biological detail, how to manipulate consciousness in ways that weaken our notion of free will.

    In the coming decades, our concept of free will, based as it is on ignorance of its actual mechanisms, will be destroyed by what we learn about the actual workings of the brain. We can wait for that collision, and decide what to do then, or we can begin thinking through what sort of legal, political, and economic systems we need in a world where our old conception of free will is rendered inoperable.

  4. #4
    bn7
    bn7 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    84

    Default

    zippysgoddess,

    I'm disappointed that you consider my posts are merely designed to provoke and rile people up. That is not even close to my intention. The myth that thoughts, feelings and behavior have a medical cause has a disaterous effect on innocent people that are forcefully drugged against their will. Coercive psychiatry is a violation of human rights yet it occurs on a daily basis. The rationale behing coercive psychiatry is behavior deemed socially undesriable has a medical cause. This is an unproven theory. In the name of my 14 friends that suicided whilst on forced treatment orders (psychiatric medication) I intend to challenge any advocate of biopsychiatry.

    I wish to stop the suffering of the victims of biopsychiatry and not just rile people up.

  5. #5
    bn7
    bn7 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    84

    Default

    "Free will is going away". LOL

    Get a life.


  6. #6
    zippysgoddess is offline Platinum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    2,476

    Default

    Sorry bn, that is not what I intended my post to infer at all. I just meant that I know that is what is going to happen, because there are people on here who refuse to look at the other side of the issue. (Didn't one person already show up here to prove that?)

    I know full well what your intent is with your posts, you wish to educate and inform, and I am very sorry that you misunderstood me. Note that I didn't say that is what you wanted to or were trying to do, only that it would happen.

    Dang it, you like to believe the worst of me whenever you get the chance!

    Anyway, did you hear or perhaps read, the news reports, they made quite a big deal of it here in the states, that all this ado about Seratonin, and its effects on mental health, causing depression and such, has never been proven?

    Doesn't that just floor you? So many docs, patients, and drug companies, swear by this information, and then you find out, it was only a theory?



    My information is not guaranteed correct. I do not get them right all the time, but I do enjoy the hunt~

  7. #7
    Miles is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Hello bn7 and zippysgoddess:

    Glad to be among the two of you today. Let's continue our assault on biopsychiatry, biological reductionism, the insanity defense, and the erosion of personal responsibility. The dialog is indeed stimulating!

    I am currently involved in a case where a politically powerful 50-year old male defendant, arraigned on two felony charges of sexual battery and one of penetration with an inanimate object on a female minor, is already rounding up his political cronies and psychiatrists. Guess what defense he plans to use? I am confident we can convict and send him away to be among men who will thoroughly revel in his company.

    My best to you champions in 2006!

    Regards,
    Miles

  8. #8
    polaire is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canada.
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Free will is exercised unconsciously, without awareness

    ERIC R. KANDEL
    Biochemist and University Professor, Columbia University; Recipient, The Nobel Prize, 2000; Author, Cellular Basis of Behavior

    It is clear that consciousness is central to understanding human mental processes, and therefore is the holy grail of modern neuroscience. What is less clear is that much of our mental processes are unconscious and that these unconscious processes are as important as conscious mental processes for understanding the mind. Indeed most cognitive processes never reach consciousness.

    As Sigmund Freud emphasized at the beginning of the 20th century most of our perceptual and cognitive processes are unconscious, except those that are in the immediate focus of our attention. Based on these insights Freud emphasized that unconscious mental processes guide much of human behavior.

    Freud's idea was a natural extension of the notion of unconscious inference proposed in the 1860s by Hermann Helmholtz, the German physicist turned neural scientist. Helmholtz was the first to measure the conduction of electrical signals in nerves. He had expected it to be as the speed of light, fast as the conduction of electricity in copper cables, and found to his surprise that it was much slower, only about 90m sec. He then examined the reaction time, the time it takes a subject to respond to a consciously a perceived stimulus, and found that it was much, much slower than even the combined conduction times required for sensory and motor activities.

    This caused Helmholz to argue that a great deal of brain processing occurred unconsciously prior to conscious perception of an object. Helmholtz went on to argue that much of what goes on in the brain is not represented in consciousness and that the perception of objects depends upon "unconscious inferences" made by the brain, based on thinking and reasoning without awareness. This view was not accepted by many brain scientists who believed that consciousness is necessary for making inferences. However, in the 1970s a number of experiments began to accumulate in favor of the idea that most cognitive processes that occur in the brain never enter consciousness.

    Perhaps the most influential of these experiments were those carried out by Benjamin Libet in 1986. Libet used as his starting point a discovery made by the German neurologist Hans Kornhuber. Kornhuber asked volunteers to move their right index finger. He then measured this voluntary movement with a strain gauge while at the same time recording the electrical activity of the brain by means of an electrode on the skull. After hundreds of trials, Kornhuber found that, invariably, each movement was preceded by a little blip in the electrical record from the brain, a spark of free will! He called this potential in the brain the "readiness potential" and found that it occurred one second before the voluntary movement.

    Libet followed up on Kornhuber's finding with an experiment in which he asked volunteers to lift a finger whenever they felt the urge to do so. He placed an electrode on a volunteer's skull and confirmed a readiness potential about one second before the person lifted his or her finger. He then compared the time it took for the person to will the movement with the time of the readiness potential.

    Amazingly, Libet found that the readiness potential appeared not after, but 200 milliseconds before a person felt the urge to move his or her finger! Thus by merely observing the electrical activity of the brain, Libet could predict what a person would do before the person was actually aware of having decided to do it.

    These experiments led to the radical insight that by observing another person's brain activity, one can predict what someone is going to do before he is aware that he has made the decision to do it. This finding has caused philosophers of mind to ask: If the choice is determined in the brain unconsciously before we decide to act, where is free will?

    Are these choices predetermined? Is our experience of freely willing our actions only an illusion, a rationalization after the fact for what has happened? Freud, Helmholtz and Libet would disagree and argue that the choice is freely made but that it happens without our awareness. According to their view, the unconscious inference of Helmholtz also applies to decision-making.

    They would argue that the choice is made freely, but not consciously. Libet for example proposes that the process of initiating a voluntary action occurs in an unconscious part of the brain, but that just before the action is initiated, consciousness is recruited to approve or veto the action. In the 200 milliseconds before a finger is lifted, consciousness determines whether it moves or not.

    Whatever the reasons for the delay between decision and awareness, Libet's findings now raise the moral question: Is one to be held responsible for decisions that are made without conscious awareness?

  9. #9
    polaire is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canada.
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Instead of spamming you with more information you'll disregard, I'll explain why I'm doing it. I respect your right to do with your body as you choose, and you don't want to take drugs, I have no problem with that. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, either. My concern is with casual readers in the forum who will mistake well-written opinions for fact, and take in statistics that have been distorted to suit your purpose with no other information to balance it and as a consequence will "convert" and throw out their pills. This is dangerous. Lives are at stake.

    You asked me to provide scientific evidence in response to some questions you thought I couldn't answer because the APA didn't three years ago. Most of the research I linked to is recent, in such fields as fMRI imaging genetics which even in its infancy is turning up dozens of haplotypes, genetic markers that are a basis for human behaviours and disorders - which is exactly what your martyr hunger strikers focussed on, in the account you provided. Then you dismiss it all? You're blinding yourself to evidence on the basis it doesn't fit your construct.

    That's what you're accusing me of, stubbornly sticking to what I believe. Except, I'm not so inflexible as that. I read the information you provided, and considered it according to scientific standards, then contrasted that with other research. Yours didn't stand up. And that's what I want readers to know, to be informed by a Nobel Prize winner instead of a student of social work.

    Network TV? Yeah, that's never been wrong.

    As for the serotonin theory, neuroscience is operating on a hypothesis because it can't take brain samples from humans. But it's measuring neurotransmitters reliably with neuroimaging, which is often - but not always - confirming neuroanatomy, refining it. Do SSRIs affect serotonin levels? They do in rats, and in human imaging we see they affect areas of the brain with concentrations of serotonin transporters. Other drugs also act on the 5-HT receptors. And correspondingly, millions of people have had depression alleviated, which also supports the theory.

    I'm one of those people, and I've met many more. There are quite a few in this forum as well. Why should those people endanger themselves by ceasing a medication that works for them?

    I don't want to minimize bn's tragic experiences with psychiatry, and I fully believe there are serious flaws in the health care delivery system. People should be aware of that, and psychiatrists should adapt. (Huge strides have been made in patients rights in the past two decades; it is an ongoing process and your voices are important.)

    But to throw out the entire profession? Not when it's helping so many people.

    You're throwing around a lot of propaganda and I believe readers should have the democratic experience of comparing it to other evidence. See you around!

  10. #10
    polaire is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canada.
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Just in time - a response to the very article you posted in the beginning of this thread, from Psych Central:

    http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...-their-stigma/

    by John Grohol
    January 4, 2006

    Irwin Savodnik is a psychiatrist and philosopher who has an apparent gripe against the medical establishment (“Psychiatry’s sick compulsion: turning weaknesses into diseases,” January 1, 2006).

    Unfortunately, his argument seems predicated on his understanding of science from a purely medical perspective. But science isn’t limited to the world of medicine, genetics or biology. Psychologists and other social scientists have a long, rich history of empirical research that support mental disorder diagnoses. Railing against psychiatric diagnoses because they don’t parallel medical diagnostic procedures is a little like railing against cognitive-behavioral psychotherapists for not spending enough time analyzing a patient’s dreams. It’s comparing apples to oranges.

    Medical tests are for medical conditions. Mental health diagnoses, on the other hand, are thought to be largely caused by a complex combination of biological, psychological and social factors that come together to create a testable, reliable symptom cluster. How do I know this? Because social scientists, such as psychologists, have amassed over four decades worth of research validating those symptom clusters.

    One of Savodnik’s points to support his argument is to say, “Well, look at how large the diagnostic manual has grown in four decades.” He states there is no comparison to the explosion of diagnostic categories in medicine, politely ignoring earlier medicine at the turn of the century. In medicine, they have a similar book of diagnoses called the ICD. The ICD-10, the current version of this book, has some 12,420 diagnostic codes and 8,000 categories. Compare this with the previous version which had only 6,969 diagnostic codes and 4,000 categories. The original ICD-1, released in 1900, had less than 200 such categories. As you can see, the multiplication of diagnoses is not limited to mental disorders.

    Scientists are taught to ask questions and not assume they know the sometimes not-so-obvious answers. This is called “hypothesis testing.” An alternative hypothesis to Savodnik’s arguments on diagnostic quantity is simple – in the past four decades, neuroscientists and behavioral researchers have learned a lot more about how brains and human behavior actually works. Much as the science of medicine exploded in the early 20th century, the science of human behavior is now experiencing a similar knowledge explosion.

    So while it may be fun to turn to statistics to support an argument, it isn’t scientific or helpful for individuals who, rather than being “self-indulgent,” are diligently working to try and understand and help themselves via established, empirical treatments such as psychotherapy and psychiatric medications. Savodnik believe it’s simply a matter of “personal responsibility” for people with serious mental disorders such as schizophrenia or depression. This sounds an awful lot like the argument that one should just be able to “pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps” and carry on no matter what adversity one faces.

    I naively thought we had left such stigmatizing views behind in the 1990’s. The new year sadly illustrates how such stigma is still alive and thriving, even amongst fellow professionals.

  11. #11
    bn7
    bn7 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    84

    Default

    zippysgoddess,

    "Dang it, you like to believe the worst of me whenever you get the chance!"

    Ouch!

    I've taken your point on board. I was out of line.

    I gotta get a report finished today so we get funding next year. I just wanted to quickly say something.

    Back soon.

  12. #12
    zippysgoddess is offline Platinum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    2,476

    Default

    bn, my apologies for being so harsh, but you did draw assumptions there, and I would think by now you would know better about me.

    Miles, that is just disgusting. I hope he does get put away, forever!!

    polaire, I do not discount the whole field of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs, they do have their uses and purposes in my opinion. However, I also believe that way to many people are using them to claim they are victims (as evidenced by Miles post) and try not to face up to their own actions. Many more people are relying on drugs to avoid facing their real problems, and real life. Not to mention all the other problems and issues that are mentioned by both bn and Miles in their various posts.

    If I had let others have their way, my son would have been diagnosed ADHD and on drugs when he was only 5 years old, I refused! I was not starting drugs, and all the problems they can cause both mentally and physically at that young of an age, and you know what, he will be 11 this month, and is a perfectly normal little boy!!



    My information is not guaranteed correct. I do not get them right all the time, but I do enjoy the hunt~

  13. #13
    Miles is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Polaire:

    "Psychologists and other social scientists have a long, rich history of empirical research that support mental disorder diagnoses." I must have missed this in my training. I laughed aloud at the inanity of such a statement. I challenge Mr. Grohol to be specific.

    "Railing against psychiatric diagnoses because they don’t parallel medical diagnostic procedures is a little like railing against cognitive-behavioral psychotherapists for not spending enough time analyzing a patient’s dreams. It’s comparing apples to oranges." If psychiatry cannot follow the diagnostic procedures of non-psychiatric medicine, I ask why is it a "medical profession?" What other branch of medicine would dare make such a assertion of incompetence?

    "Medical tests are for medical conditions. Mental health diagnoses, on the other hand, are thought to be largely caused by a complex combination of biological, psychological and social factors that come together to create a testable, reliable symptom cluster." Re-read that first sentence at least ten times aloud... slowly. So, may one infer when discussing so-called mental health issues and "treatment" by mental health professionals (including psychiatrists) that we are indeed not discussing medical conditions or, worse yet, the practice of medicine? Sounds like that is what Mr. Grohol would have us believe. You shot yourself in the foot Mr. Grohol!

    Psych Central's website is loaded with nothing more than propaganda, pseudoscience, and just plain false information. Consider the following from its website: "This medicine (Effexor) inhibits the return of two chemicals (serotonin and norephinephrine) back into nerve cells. This helps to restore balance of these chemicals which in turn helps to improve mood and relieve depression." "Balance?" Pure blather!

    Miles

  14. #14
    zippysgoddess is offline Platinum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    2,476

    Default

    Great points Miles.

    As to the brain chemicals, claiming to restore a balance, or even claiming that we are certain that they cause mental problems is pure rot! We don't even know for sure how thy act on the brain or what the proper balance is, so how can they try and pursue this propaganda with such certainty?



    My information is not guaranteed correct. I do not get them right all the time, but I do enjoy the hunt~

  15. #15
    Miles is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Hello Zippysgodess:

    Thanks! I know you, bn7 and I are resisting this sort of profit-driven, self-serving, reductionist, socialist, Nazi-like propaganda. Keep up the fight!

    Regards,
    Miles

  16. #16
    bn7
    bn7 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Hi Miles and Zippysgoddess,

    It looks like the industry doesn't like those suicide warning labels as it's effecting their profits.

    http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/04/news...sants/?cnn=yes

    Looks like they've paid for new load of research in an attempt to get these warning labels removed.

    http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7001738740

    I wonder how much pressure is being applied by the Bush family (Eli Lilly) to the FDA behind the scenes. George Dubya must be under considerable pressure to get these warning labels removed before his screening of every American for mental illness can move ahead in view to getting an increase in Eli Lilly (Bush family) profits.


  17. #17
    zippysgoddess is offline Platinum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    2,476

    Default

    You know bn, I completely forgot about that. That is such a rude, and intrusive thing to even think about forcing all Americans to undergo. Geez.



    My information is not guaranteed correct. I do not get them right all the time, but I do enjoy the hunt~

  18. #18
    bn7
    bn7 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    84

    Default

    zippysgoddess,

    If you've forgotten that then you may not have read this series of articles published by the British Medical Journal blasting the Bush Administration for corruption and collusion with the psychiatric drug industry. This series exposes Bush Administration deadly plans, cooked up by the psychiatric drug industry, to screen the whole population of the USA.

    British Medical Journal - 15 May 2004 "Whistleblower removed from job for talking to the press" Jeanne Lenzer

    http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...;328/7449/1153

    British Medical Journal - 19 June 2004 "Bush plans to screen whole US population for mental illness " by Jeanne Lenzer.

    http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../328/7454/1458

    British Medical Journal - 10 July 2004 "Whistleblower charges medical oversight bureau with corruption" by Jeanne Lenzer. An article about Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, a psychiatrist who spoke out about deaths of children related to TMAP

    http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7457/69

    British Medical Journal - 24 July 2004 "FDA's counsel accused of being too close to drug industry" by Jeanne Lenzer

    http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/329/7459/189

    British Medical Journal - 31 July 2004"Scandals have eroded US public's confidence in drug industry" Jeanne Lenzer

    http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/329/7460/247

    British Medical Journal - 14 August 2004 Bush launches controversial mental health plan by Jeanne Lenzer

    http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...329/7462/367-a

    BTW I did a search and the research in that article in my last post (this one) http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7001738740
    on "antidepressants do not increase the risk of suicide" was conducted
    by the University of Texas. Which is the Medical Research organisation Bush has in his pocket.

    For example: http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/03new...acy030117.html

    LOL

  19. #19
    zippysgoddess is offline Platinum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    2,476

    Default

    No, I have not read them, but I will now. Thanks for posting the links.



    My information is not guaranteed correct. I do not get them right all the time, but I do enjoy the hunt~

  20. #20
    bn7
    bn7 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    84

    Default

    zippysgoddess,

    That series of articles won awards at Project Censored.

    Project Censored is considered the "alternative Pulitzer Prize" by some
    journalists. Project Censored awards the Top stories of important news that mainstream media covers up.

    I've also read they are the most downloaded articles in the history of online BMJ.

    Patch Adams has put his hand up to screen Bush.

  21. #21
    zippysgoddess is offline Platinum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    2,476

    Default

    I read them all yesterday. Very informative, and very important, more people should read them, they would be amazed at what they would learn.

    Of course since my DH is majoring in a Political Science category, it does not surprise me when I hear of the things our government is up to.



    My information is not guaranteed correct. I do not get them right all the time, but I do enjoy the hunt~

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22