A ChemtrailsGeelong.com Article
Psychiatry: Science or Fraud?
The professor's trick that exposed the ongoing Psychiatry racket......
It's 1972. Four mental health professionals, a psychology graduate, a pediatrician, a painter, a housewife and a psychology professor walk off the street into various psychiatric hospitals in the US pretending to be hearing voices. Immediately institutionalized by all the hospitals bar none they then return to their normal behaviour. Will any of the psychiatrists on the hospital staff spot the deception? What happens next will shatter any illusions you may have about psychiatry forever.........
In 1972 the following remarkable and famous experiment was conducted on the psychiatric institution without its foreknowledge:
Dr. Rosenhan, a professor of psychology (pictured above left), and eight perfectly healthy volunteer associates (of which four were mental health professionals and one a graduate student of psychology), presented themselves at mental institutions claiming to hear 'voices'. No other symptoms were stated. Twelve different institutions of varying sizes and types were targeted across the United States, some, according to Rosenhan, of 'excellent' standing. As a result, all of the 'pseudopatients' were, on each occasion, immediately admitted to the institution they presented themselves to, including Rosenhan himself. Says Dr. Rosenhan:
"The moment we were admitted to the hospital we abandoned our symptom and we behave the way we usually behave. The question was, would anyone detect that we were sane? The answer was 'No'. No-one ever did."
The psuedopatients were incarcerated against their will receiving 'treatment' for from 7 to 52 days with an average of 19 days, and being administered nearly 2100 (highly lucrative and toxic) pills.
The moment we were admitted to the hospital we abandoned our symptom and we behave the way we usually behave. The question was, would anyone detect that we were sane? The answer was 'No'. No-one ever did.
On the wide variety of different medications administered to the pseudopatients Rosenhan comments:
“That such a variety of medications should have been administered to patients presenting identical symptoms is itself worthy of note.”
In all but one of the twelve cases the pseudopatient was diagnosed as schizophrenic and only discharged after 'admitting' he/she was mentally ill and in 'remission'. (The twelfth, with the identical symptomatology, was given a completely different diagnosis - manic-depressive psychosis.) Note that the 'remission' label is significant. It means that in the psychiatrist's opinion not only were all the psuedopatients insane, they had never been sane.
In an interview for the BBC Rosenhan described his own experience:
"I told friends, I told my family, "I can get out when I can get out. That's all. I'll be there for a couple of days and I'll get out." Nobody knew I'd be there for two months … The only way out was to point out that they're [the psychiatrists] correct. They had said I was insane, "I am insane; but I am getting better". That was an affirmation of their view of me. "
Interestingly, a significant number of the pseudopatients' fellow patients showed themselves more capable of spotting the deception than any of the psychiatrists in any of the twelve hospitals to which the pseudopatients were admitted. Rosenhan reported that 35 of a total of 118 patients on the admissions ward voiced their suspicions, some vigorously, accusing the pseudopatients routinely in terms such as: “You’re not crazy. You’re a journalist, or a professor. You’re checking up on the hospital.” Despite this, none of the hospital staff - psychiatrists, nurses, attendants or anyone else - ever showed a level of common sense discernment equal to that of even their patients! As Rosenhan somewhat understatedly noted at the time:
“The fact that the patients often recognized normality when staff did not raises important questions.”
To put it mildly.......
Actually the hospital staff's observations were crippled by the distorting lens of the psychiatrist's preconceived diagnosis and their own psychological need to comply with that. This need is characteristic of those in inferior positions of hierarchal chains of command, such as is invariably the case in remunerative employment. (More on this below.)
While incarcerated in the hospital the pseudopatients were required to take psychotropic medication for their 'illness' and only escaped the subsequent toxicity by not swallowing. (It is significant that such a ruse would be impossible in today's mental hospitals where the taking of 'medicines' by patients is carefully monitored and anyone suspected of not swallowing is threatened with forced intravenous delivery.)
Any diagnostic process that lends itself too readily to massive errors of this sort cannot be a very reliable one.
After learning of the experiment the psychiatric institution as a whole was reportedly furious, and one prominent teaching and research hospital went as far as challenging Dr. Rosenhan to test their own staff in a similar way. The following scheme was devised: the staff were informed that at some time during the following three months, an undisclosed number of pseudopatients would attempt to be admitted into the psychiatric hospital. In the ensuing period 193 patients were scrutinised by the hospital for possible fakery of which 41 were deemed to be, with high confidence, pseudopatients by at least one member of the staff, 23 by at least one psychiatrist, and 19 by at least one psychiatrist and one other staff member. Actually, Dr. Rosenhan had not sent even one volunteer pseudopatient to that hospital in the entire three month period.
Concludes Dr. Rosenhan: "Any diagnostic process that lends itself too readily to massive errors of this sort cannot be a very reliable one."
To download the full report "On Being Sane in Insane Places" - D .L. Rosenhan 1973 (pdf) click here.
(Note: I'm going to assume the reader is neither so naive nor stupid to accept the usual first line of defence, i.e. escape route, of psychiatrists when confronted with common sense and logic, namely, "don't worry about it, leave it to us, we're the experts...")
"The complicated jargon of psychiatrists, like that of the legal profession, and even moreso that of politicians and medical doctors in general, serves the purpose of making it not easy to enter into their world, while it is by now widely understood that a large part of the substance of power consists in access to jargon and its meaning."
Giorgio Antonucci, Italian medical doctor and psycho-analyst
First and foremost the medical doctor cannot in normal circumstances force a patient to receive any treatment he/she prescribes - an important difference.
Secondly, while it is possible that the average GP could be fooled enough initially, by a convincing actor, to prescribe some preliminary treatment, even drugs or a short hospital stay, all of this would be pending (assuming the doctor/specialist is somewhat competent and honest), further objective tests to confirm or rule out any hypothesis that would require more serious/invasive treatment down the line. At which point of course the fake patient's actual position could be discovered. At the very least truly objective tests provide the possibility of ruling out any false hypothesis arising from the initial (deliberately) misguided diagnosis. There is some safety net mechanism there.
"There is no blood or other biological test to ascertain the presence or absence of a mental illness, as there is for most bodily diseases. If such a test were developed … then the condition would cease to be a mental illness and would be classified, instead, as a symptom of a bodily disease."
Thomas Szasz, professor emeritus of psychiatry, New York University medical school
And in the second stage of the experiment when the hospital was actually forewarned of possible fake patients, it is hard to believe that the medical institution, with its reputation similarly at stake, would allow itself to be found guilty of the gross errors of the psychiatric institution, for purely physical ailments. But if it were found to be similarly guilty, then the medical institution is as flawed as the psychiatric institution, which is no defence at all.
Another argument often used by psychiatry to defend itself is what might be termed the 'all-inclusive' defence. Essentially it argues that, since no diagnosis can ever be proved right (due to the subjective nature of psychiatric diagnosis), it follows that no diagnosis can ever be proved wrong either, but only at worst, contradictory to yet another psychiatric diagnosis.
Actually the nature of the Rosenhan experiment largely precluded the use of this defence by the psychiatric institution, since Rosenhan, wisely, went as far as including mental health professionals among his volunteers. That made things, shall we say, a tad awkward. Nevertheless the defence finds other applications.
So how were psychiatrists going to salvage any remnant of credibility from that fiasco?
In any case, the subjective nature of psychiatric diagnosis almost always gives psychiatrists an apparent loophole in which to escape complete embarrassment and ridicule, at least as far as the largely gullible greater public goes. In fact there is very little one can say to the all-inclusive argument since, by its very nature, it precludes any kind of objective response. Except perhaps to point out that a similar argument might be used by soothsayers, horoscopists, necromancers, and any of an array of charlatans, con artists, tricksters and quacks to similar effect. But that doesn't mean we are going to give them power to incarcerate us against our will and subject us to what amounts to pharmaceutical, psychological and physical torture on the basis of their "diagnoses", does it?
I mean, that truly would be insane.
In fact there is very little one can say to the 'all-inclusive' argument since, by its very nature, it precludes any kind of objective response. Except perhaps to point out that a similar argument might be used by soothsayers, horoscopists, necromancers, and any of an array of charlatans, con artists, tricksters and quacks to similar effect. But that doesn't mean we are going to give them power to incarcerate us against our will and subject us to what amounts to pharmaceutical, psychological and physical torture on the basis of their 'diagnoses', does it?
The professionals speak....
“When psychiatrists label a child or [adult], they’re labeling people because of symptoms. They do not have any pathological diagnosis; they do not have any laboratory diagnosis; they cannot show any differentiation that would back up the diagnosis of these psychiatric ‘diseases.’ Whereas if you have a heart attack, you can find the lesion; if you have diabetes, your blood sugar is very high; if you have arthritis
it will show on the X-ray. In psychiatry, it’s just crystal-balling, fortune-telling; it’s totally unscientific.”
The fact is, while medicine can lay some claim to scientific objectivity at least some of the time, psychiatry can make no such claim any of the time. There are no objective tests for any psychiatric diagnosis. (Please understand this.) It is simply the opinion or statement of a person with a government licence to present him/herself as a "psychiatrist". (The possession of said licence is subject to mandatory participation in an intensive course of indoctrination, called a 'degree', by a government licenced institution called a 'university'.) It is entirely subjective, even down to the voting in of "disorders" for the psychiatric diagnostic manual by members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA); an organization dominated by atheistic and/or anti-christian Jews, or their lackeys. We need to remove the blinkers that blind us to the obvious fact that there is a common ideology here defining psychiatric, and with it social policy, and that we have permitted ourselves to be made subject to spiritually foreign notions of 'political correctness', whether we are consciously aware of it or not.
Don't believe that the Jewish tradition is essentially anti-Christ? Educate yourself - click here for a start. (Scroll down to the section 'The Teaching of the Talmud concerning Christians'. Note: the 'Antiphone' is the opposing statement which is presented at the beginning of the linked work and is disproved therein.)
The rise of the Antichrist
About 30 percent of psychiatrists in America are Jewish, while Jews make up only about 2 percent of the total American population. The percentage of Jews in leadership positions of the psychiatric institutional hierarchy is of course much higher. The current president of the American Psychiatric Association, Renee Binder, is an atheistic Jew. The current CEO of same organization, Saul Levin, is a homosexualist Jew. And the list of past presidents of the APA reveals that the patent race bias of the association has long been more the rule than the exception. Such are the people currently defining 'normal' and 'healthy' for the minds of men, women and children in the western world. These people, whether you are aware of it or not, are currently 'educating' our children.
And when one considers also the complete dominance of the American and British mass media and Hollywood by Jewry(3) and Jewish policy (not to speak of their influence in academia and publishing), the disturbingly disproportionate amount of power wielded by that spiritually bankrupt minority race over our minds in recent times becomes even more apparent. The inevitable result of the continual onslaught on our minds of content at best mundane, at worst perverse and almost always manipulative, is mental disorder and spiritual death, as slowly but surely, over the decades, we have traded the spiritual soundness and fortitude of our Christian forefathers and the Word of God for the spiritual emptiness and destitution of our anti-christian manipulators and a continual stream of professionally delivered lies, propaganda and depravity - especially in the English speaking world. And then, as is always the pattern with evil oppression, the same kind of people responsible for the problem present themselves to the gullible and the desperate as the solution, this time in a different guise. Enter psychiatry, particularly the relatively recently-adopted and spurious 'medical' or 'biologic' model.
The subjective nature of psychiatry means it is entirely open to gross abuses of power - whether due to the lack of any real basis to psychiatry as a genuine remedy to human mental problems, or worse still, to the absence of any real ethics or scruples of the practitioner. This latter being an inevitable occurrence when there is so much money to be made, or influence to be garnered, from simply doling out drugs and inventing disorders, and nothing at all to be gained in fact, in terms of helping people, by the practice of psychiatry.
The current president of the American Psychiatric Association, Renee Binder is an atheistic jew. The current CEO of same organization, Saul Levin, is a homosexualist jew. And the list of past presidents of the APA reveals that the patent race bias of the association has long been more the rule than the exception. Such are the people currently defining 'normal' and 'healthy' for the minds of men, women and children in the western world.
In 1998 Loren Mosher, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, and Chief of the Center for Studies of Schizophrenia in the American National Institute of Mental Health (1968–1980), resigned in disgust from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) due largely to what he perceived as the takeover of the psychiatric institution by the pharmaceutical business (more on this below). In case you are wondering, the APA in America is the blueprint for similar organizations around the world including Australia. In his letter of resignation he said the following about Psychiatry and its 'bible' – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)(4):
|Dr. Loren Mosher|
"At this point in history, in my view, psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies.”
“[The DSM] is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document. To its credit it says so, although its brief apologia is rarely noted......some take it seriously, others more realistically. It is the way to get paid........ The issue is what do the categories tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with a problem? They don't, and can't, because there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder. So, where are we? [The American Psychiatric Association] as an organization has implicitly (sometimes explicitly as well) bought into a theoretical hoax. Is psychiatry a hoax—as practised today? Unfortunately, the answer is mostly yes.”
[The American Psychiatric Association] as an organization has implicitly (sometimes explicitly as well) bought into a theoretical hoax.
Mosher's statements about the DSM are echoed by Thomas Insel, the director of the US National Institute of Mental Health no less (Insel stepped down in 2015):
“While DSM has been described as a ‘Bible’ for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary…. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever.”
The whole of Professor Mosher's short and very public letter of resignation is a must-read. Click here.
For two excellent documentaries on the takeover of the psychiatric institution by the pharmaceutical business click here.*
*Note: while chemtrailsgeelong.com is not affiliated or connected in any way with the makers of these documentaries, we can vouch for the information contained therein as both reliable and verifiable for serious researchers.
The professionals speak....
“Modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness...Patients [have] been diagnosed with ‘chemical imbalances’ despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and...there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like.”
“There is a great deal of scientific evidence that stimulants cause brain damage with long-term use, yet there is no evidence that these mental illnesses....exist."
"While there has been “no shortage of alleged biochemical explanations for psychiatric conditions…not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later proven false ... No claim for a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation.”
"Within a few months of starting psychiatry I was realizing there was something seriously wrong with it. It was immediately obvious to me that the psychiatrists were making claims....which simply were not justified in biology. But if you stand up and say that: 'what you are doing ladies and gentleman is not science, it's pseudoscience', then you are challenging what's holding the whole profession together.......I think secretly [psychiatrists] know, deep inside, that if anybody criticizes this or examines this too closely it might fall apart. This is all held up, the sky hook that holds this palaver, this whole mess of jargon in place is the single injunction 'mental disorder is brain disorder', that is the single intellectual hook that holds this edifice in the air, that stops it all collapsing in a heap. They just make this claim: 'mental disease is brain disease', but that, as I've said is an ideological claim. People are being told: 'you have a chemical imbalance of the brain, which is genetically determined, and you've got it for life, and there's nothing you can do about it, and you will forever be limited and restricted and you must take these tablets, which will dampen your creativity, your sensitivity, your awareness, they will damage your sexuality, you've gotta do this because you're 'sick', and we can see it, but you can't. Now that to me is the catastrophe that has to be exposed."*
*Niall McLaren is an eminent Australian psychiatrist. To watch the full interview from which the above quote is an excerpt click here.
"It has occurred to me with forcible irony that psychiatry has quite literally lost its mind, and along with it the minds of the patients they are presumably supposed to care for."
David Kaiser, US psychiatrist
"All psychiatrists have in common that when they are caught on camera or on microphone, they cower and admit that there are no such things as chemical imbalances/diseases, or examinations or tests for them. What they do in practice, lying in every instance, abrogating the informed consent right of every patient and poisoning them in the name of ‘treatment’ is nothing short of criminal."
Fred Baughman Jr., pediatric neurologist (US)
"At this point in history, in my view, psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies."
Again, such idiotic interpretations of patient activity as those above, always with reference to some predefined idea, always assuming that the problem has its causation in the patient alone and not in any external causative factors or stimuli, effectively reduce him from the status of a person to that of an “illness”, making any kind of authentic, and thus truly healing or edifying relationship (either way) impossible. This fundamental psychiatric approach to mental problems is thus, along with the highly lucrative, unprincipled, indiscriminate, unscientific and unrestrained prescription of toxic psychotropic drugs, part of psychiatry's essentially iatrogenic and criminal nature.
A marriage made in hell........
Case study: The Johnson and Johnson Risperdal atrocities
Note: though we will discuss below specifically the atrocities of Johnson and Johnson, in collaboration with the psychiatry fraud, it is important to realize that they are by no means the only ones. In 2012 global health care giant GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of mostly psychiatric drugs. In the same year another Big Pharma giant, Abbot Laboratories, had to fork out $1.5 billion, including 700 million in criminal fines and forfeitures, again for the unapproved promotion of psychiatric 'medication'. In all cases the common linking factor is the psychiatric drug trade. We will touch upon some of the underlying reasons for this below.
For the US Department of Justice announcement regarding GlaxoSmithKline and Abbot Laboratories click here and here respectively.
Alex Gorsky: lollipops, ice-cream parties and brain damage
|Alex Gorsky:corporate ape|
Corporate criminal and Johnson&Johnson CEO, Alex Gorsky, knows a good money-spinner when he sees it. And the fraudulent psychiatric enterprise is certainly that, if nothing else. With the help of the self-aggrandising aspirations of mercenary and ambitious psychiatrists like Joseph Biederman (see below), Gorsky has brought corporate ammorality to a whole new level – his targets: small children and the elderly. Trained by the US military, he exhibits all the results-at-any-cost mentality one would expect from such alumni (i.e. that of a depraved war criminal), while juggling just that right balance of self deception, hypocrisy and one-track-minded stupidity to keep him going. He is well supported in this latter endeavour by organizations like Rabbi Arthur Schneier's Appeal of Conscience Foundation(5) that recently awarded him as a “man of integrity” and “corporate leader with a sense of social responsibility.” No, this is not some kind of bad joke.
In 2013 the US Justice Department ordered the company of this “corporate leader with a sense of social responsibility” to pay $482 million in criminal fines and forfeitures as well as $1.72 billion in civil settlements to federal and state governments. Allegations revolved around activities presided over by Gorsky while responsible for sales and marketing of the psychiatric poison, 'Risperdal', during the highly lucrative period prior to the expiry of its patent. Gorsky was then working for a subsiduary of Johnson and Johnson called 'Janssen Pharmaceutica'. In 2012 Johnson and Johnson rewarded Gorsky for his outstanding record of disgraceful and repulsive corporate inhumanity by promoting him to CEO.
Whistleblowers(6) have since revealed some of the novel strategies employed by Gorsky and Janssen, including downplaying Risperdal's side-effects to authorities and physicians, encouraging 'off-label' use (i.e. use in unapproved populations like children and the elderly), paying kickbacks to a giant nursery homes pharmacy management company called Omnicare(7), and effectively bribing elected and appointed state officials to create guidelines for physicians favouring the prescription of Risperdal for patients covered by state funded Medicaid insurance(8). These latter patients included captive populations like those in state-run mental hospitals.
Omnicare doctors were encouraged to use Risperdal, a powerful psychotropic poison, for what amounted to behaviour management of nursery home residents deemed to be 'difficult'. Physicians were assured of the excellent 'safety to effectiveness profile' of the drug and encouraged to use it, for example, to 'calm restless patients', or as a way of saving night-shift staffing costs at nursing homes. This continued despite the fact that Janssen was specifically cautioned by the FDA that marketing Risperdal as safe and effective for the elderly would be “misleading” and that “behavioral disturbances in elderly dementia patients were not necessarily manifestations of psychotic disorders" and might even be “appropriate responses to the deplorable conditions under which some demented patients are housed, thus raising an ethical question regarding the use of an antipsychotic medication for inappropriate behavioral control.”
Children were likewise targeted. A version of Risperdal that could easily dissolve in a child's mouth was touted by Risperdal sales reps as the solution to behavioural problems in classrooms. Pediatricians were given sample bags containing Risperdal lollipops, Lego pieces and pop-corn. Promotional ice cream parties were proposed (I kid you not - see pg. 24 of the whistleblowers' civil complaint). In addition to this, Gorsky and other J&J subsiduary executives authorised a total of two million dollars for the purpose of a research centre headed by psychiatrist Joseph Biederman whose chief goal was to get a one-size-fits-all psychiatric diagnosis known as 'conduct disorder' (it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic) 'reconceptualised' so as to make treating it with drugs like Risperdal acceptable as 'healthcare'. Not surprisingly the FDA expressed concern that Risperdal was being used for what amounted to a "chemical strait-jacket", questioning the validity of the 'conduct disorder' symptomatology as simply a list of "aggressive behaviours that annoy others"
And all this for a drug that, at that time, was approved by the FDA only for the most serious so-called 'psychiatric disorders' and strictly only for non-geriatric adults(9)(God help them too!).
What spooked the J&J defence team?
In January 2012 Johnson and Johnson was brought to trial on charges that it had defrauded Medicaid in the state of Texas and elsewhere in the US by effectively bribing officials and misrepresenting its drug, Risperdal, to state decision makers. Observers of the trial were surprised at the Big Pharma giant's early exit from the fight immediately following the testimony of Harvard medical school psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen. Glenmullen was scheduled to continue his testimony the following day when he received news that evening that the J&J defence team had agreed to pay $158 million to make the whole thing go away. So what spooked the J&J defence team? Consider the following quotations from Dr. Glenmullen:
The professionals speak....
“In short, the whole business of creating psychiatric categories of ‘disease,’ formalizing them with consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them, which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public trough.”
So there's a lot of holistic approaches to physical health, mental health, spirtitual health, everything. And drugs just alter the brain. They never cure anything. And then they make you permanent patients, which is great for business, and bad for patients. Completed suicide is just one of the thousands of adverse effects that the industry refuses to acknowledge.
Biederman's cash-cow: poisoning the brains of young children.
Gorsky's partner-in-crime in the Risperdal atrocities was Jewish psychiatrist Joseph Biederman. Biederman's driving ambition, apart from making money, was to make a name for himself by finding a real biologic cause (or at least a marker) for an ill-conceived psychiatric disorder known as 'pediatric bipolar'. (The equally ill-conceived 'attention deficit hyperactivity disorder' or 'ADHD' was the subject of similar aspirations.) To this end he solicited and received lavish funding from Johnson&Johnson to establish a research centre replete with state of the art brain-imaging and genetic research facilities. The centre's annual report for its first year (2002) sought to address serious doubts raised by some clinicians as to whether in fact mental disorder is a brain malfunction at all. These doubts, which were based after all on the complete lack of evidence to the contrary, were confidently dismissed as simply 'myths' that the research centre would dispel once and for all using its newly acquired and expensive equipment. Elsewhere it brazenly and explicitly declared as an essential feature of the centre its ability to conduct research that 'will move forward the commercial goals of Johnson&Johnson' - certainly not the most scientific of criteria ever devised for a research centre. In fact, regarding this latter goal the centre was an astonishing and unequivocal success. Unfortunately however for the centre's scientific credibility, it completely failed to find any biological markers or causes for any psychiatric disorders. In fact, the only myth Biederman managed to dispel (at least for those observers with their eyes and ears open) was that of his own authority – in 2005 the centre was not re-funded and quietly closed. It didn't matter. The damage was done.
Some of these include sleep problems, drooling, ticks, excessive weight gain and the development of large pendulous breasts in boys (a condition particularly associated with Risperdal known as 'gynecomastia'). But it is worse than that. In 2004 a toddler, Rebecca Riley, made headlines in the US when she died of an overdose of anti-psychotics administered by her parents and prescribed by her doctor. Unfortunately she is only one of many children to die as a direct result of so-called 'anti-psychotic' medication, even when prescription doses were properly adhered to. According to the New York Times from 1993 through the early months of 2008, 1,207 children who were given Risperdal suffered serious problems, including 31 who died. Among the deaths was a nine-year-old who suffered a fatal stroke 12 days after starting 'therapy' with Risperdal.
And according to data from the Therapeutic Goods Administration the situation could be even worse here in Australia. (Click here.)
Of course the drug companies that funded Biederman's vile 'research' and promotional activity, including tests on small children, made billions of dollars before an investigation by the office of US Senator Charles Grassley revealed that Biederman had lied about the amount of money he received from drug companies (at least $1.6 million) on mandatory conflict of interest forms. He was also found to have made assurances to Johnson&Johnson that the "safety and effectiveness" of its antipsychotic drug, Risperdal, for children would be "supported" by a proposed study even before any trials had been conducted. But then who needs real results anyway for a totally fictional 'disease'?
Not nearly painful enough apparently. Today, children continue to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder and poisoned with highly lucrative drugs such as Risperdal. And what did Biederman receive as punishment for his well paid crimes against humanity? For his transgressions against conflict of interest regulations he received a one year ban from engaging in "industry sponsored activities" and some other minor and temporary restrictions on his criminally stupid contributions to pseudo-science, imposed by the same Massachusetts General Hospital in which his spurious junk-research had taken place. But as far as any other culpability goes he is, it would seem, beyond the reach of the law. Nonetheless methinks that Dr. Biederman and his drug company backers will face a fairer and much more severe Judge than the clowns at MassGen before too long.....
Psychiatry in the Hot Seat
When Biederman and Gorsky were ordered by US courts to give sworn evidence regarding their role in the Risperdal atrocities, the psychiatric enterprise itself entered the witness box with them. For highlights of the Biederman deposition click here. For highlights of the Gorsky deposition click here.
The professionals speak....
"The fact of the matter is that there is no such disease (objective abnormality = disease) as ADHD. It is a contrived, faux disease - an illusion. This being the case, children said to have it are normal/disease-free and giving them ADHD drugs, or any psychiatric drugs, is not treatment, but poisoning. Once Ritalin or any psychiatric drug courses through their body, they are, for the first time, physically, neurologically, biologically, abnormal."
"Saying any psychiatric diagnosis '...is a brain-based problem and that the medications are normalizing function', is an anti-scientific, pro-drug, lie - one that reflects FDA and government policy generally."
"There is nothing more despicable than a physician who knowingly tells normal patients that they are 'sick', 'ill', or 'diseased', for profit. Yet this has become standard practice throughout medicine...."
"You - at the FDA mandate the medical treatment of ADHD. Where is the proof that ADHD is a disease? Give us that reference, that citation. Right now please. Give us the reference-citation to the examination or test that demonstrates an objective abnormality child-by-child. The members of the panel provided me with no such references/citations either at the time of my request or at any time before, during, or after the day-long conference."
Fred Baughman, pediatric neurologist, testimony at the [FDA] meeting of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 2006
Click here for the testimony in full (one page).
All psychiatric drug testing is fraudulent
You see, all psychiatric drug testing is flawed and fraudulent, not just Joseph Biederman's, because it seeks to represent what is purely an ideological assessment as a scientific one. Please just try to understand this. It is really very simple. Consider, if you will, a test for the efficacy of an imaginary drug for the healing of bone fractures. A doctor gathers a sample of patients with broken bones and administers his test drug to them. How does he know they have broken bones? Simple. He has examined all of them, including X-rays. Another similar (control) group is given a placebo (sugar pill) to see if there is a significant difference in the results from the two groups. Such is, more or or less, the standard scientific method for testing a drug. The key question is, how does the doctor check the effect of the drug/placebo on the broken bones? Again simple. He takes an X-ray and analyses it.
Now consider instead the psychiatric travesty of this procedure. The psychiatrist too gathers his two groups of patients. But who has decided they are 'patients' in the first place? He has. He has made no objective physical test, like an X-ray for example. Simply he has followed some guidelines put together by himself and/or his peers to determine who is a patient and who isn't, based, presumably, at least in part on patients' subjective reporting of symptomatology. This decision is entirely an ideological one, not a scientific one. Obviously. Now he tests his drug on the 'patients'. Is the drug 'effective' or not? Who decides? Again the psychiatrist himself and/or his peers, not based on any objective physical test, but again simply on the subjective reporting of the patient and, more importantly, the psychiatrists' interpretation of it according to the prevailing ideological fashion of the day which they themselves are instrumental in determining and which is changing all the time according to the dictates of the incumbent powers-that-be. (These days such ideological mode du jour is often called 'political correctness'.) They decide what 'effective' means, do you see? Do please see this. They decide if the after state in a before and after drug scenario is actually 'better' or 'worse' based on their preconceived notions of what a desirable outcome is. So for instance if they are seeking a good automaton type person who will fit in nicely with the status quo no matter how corrupt that status quo may be, then for them that is a 'better' after state than the before state. A person capable of thinking for themselves in a critical and possibly troublesome way might on the other hand be considered to be in an undesirable state. It is entirely ideological, based upon their value system, and the value system of those who are paying them or giving them investiture. It is, in fact, very much like the determination of a religious or political minister, with the difference that the ideology and values of a true Christian minister at least, are not dictated by the highest bidder or the greatest bully, but by the Word of God. In any case, the psychiatric method is certainly not science, and there are some critical questions we ought to be asking ourselves about it.
For instance, are we aware, in any significant numbers, that the role of determining what is 'right' about the way we think, feel and behave in our society has been quietly usurped by these quacks called psychiatrists and their financial backers? Are we aware of the enormous power we have handed over to both them, and the big money and power entities that motivate them, in the process? And do you see now why Biederman felt so confident in assuring Johnson&Johnson that the 'safety and effectiveness' of their drug would be supported by his study? He was simply cutting to the chase, so to speak. He knew that the decision would more or less entirely be his, based upon his ideological interpretation of the test results, and the influence he brought to bear upon his peers with his ideological rhetoric. The drug companies knew this also. That is why they were prepared to pay Biederman so much money to secure his, shall we say, 'ideological co-operation'. Actually to expect drug companies to behave in any other way given the improper investiture that elevates mercenary psychiatrists to the level of holy priests (and is inherent in the fraud that mental disorder is brain disease), is like expecting a hungry dog not to eat a steak dangled from a string in front of its face, with other hungry dogs not far away. The steak must be removed. A dog is after all, only a dog. On the other hand, the honest doctor testing for the efficacy of his bone healing drug would, naturally, be offered much less by the drug companies for his research efforts, since they would not have the same guarantee of return on investment - it would be dependent on pesky objective reality, not mere opinion and peer consensus.
To expect drug companies to behave in any other way given the improper investiture that elevates mercenary psychiatrists to the level of holy priests (and is inherent in the fraud that mental disorder is brain disease), is like expecting a hungry dog not to eat a steak dangled from a string in front of its face, with other hungry dogs not far away.
Meanwhile the most pressing question beyond all the entirely materialistic considerations of the psychiatrists and drug company executives, financial, legal and political, or even physical, is whether anyone spared a thought for the children that would be, and continue to be, sacrificed on the altar of an ideological fraud; or worse still, the unfounded theories of idiots. Apparently not. And let's be clear about this. It's not just our children, it's our grandfathers, fathers, brothers and sons; our grandmothers, mothers, sisters and daughters; and our husbands and wives. It's us.
The professionals speak....
“More and more problems have been redefined as ‘disorders’ or ‘illnesses,’ supposedly caused by genetic predispositions and biochemical imbalances. Life events are relegated to mere triggers of an underlying biological time-bomb. Feeling very sad has become ‘depressive disorder.’ Worrying too much is ‘anxiety disorder.’ Excessive gambling, drinking, drug use or eating are also illnesses. So are eating, sleeping, or having sex too little. Being painfully shy has become ‘avoidant personality disorder.’ Beating people up is ‘intermittent explosive disorder.’ Our Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has 886 pages of such illnesses. … Making lists of behaviors, applying medical-sounding labels to people who engage in them, then using the presence of those behaviors to prove they have the illness in question is scientifically
meaningless. It tells us nothing about causes or solutions. It does, however, create the reassuring feeling that something medical is going on.”
Like most things rotten, Psychiatry has got worse, not better, since 1972
The fact is that the Rosenhan experiment of 1972, or variations thereof, could be repeated today with exactly the same results, time and time again, in any hospital or clinic one cared to test, anywhere in the world one cared to do it. If the psychiatric institution wishes to challenge that then let it be tested again. And again and again. Personally, I could conceive of many little tests for the self important creeps (currently poisoning the brains of some of the very best of our men, women and children all over the world) which would show them up for the unprincipled charlatans and criminals that they are.
But unfortunately, far from dying the death the utterly contemptible psychiatric enterprise should have by all rights died after the findings of Rosenhan were published in the early 1970s, the psychiatric diagnostic manual has only got larger and more widely encompassing since then. So how is it that despite findings like those of the Rosenhan experiment the psychiatric institution continues to be taken seriously at all? To understand the reason for this, we need to understand the true purpose of Psychiatry in society, beyond it's pseudo-scientific disguise.
"I believe, until the public and psychiatry itself see that DSM labels are not only useless as medical ‘diagnoses’ but also have the potential to do great harm—particularly when they are used as means to deny individual freedoms, or as weapons by psychiatrists acting as hired guns for the legal system."
Dr. Sydney Walker III, neuropsychiatrist (US), 'The Sherlock Holmes of Neurology'
At best, psychiatry is a non-remedial and destructive method of incarceration and coercive control (using devices psychological, physical and chemical) for people who, though not exactly criminal, are so disordered mentally and spiritually as to be an unreasonable nuisance to others. At worst, and much more commonly than many realize, it is an atrocious method of incarceration, coercive control and deactivation of political dissidents and especially, God's people, by Big Brother State on behalf of the established (dis)order.
The professionals speak....
Manipulative psychiatry - coercive control posing as benevolent science
People are largely unaware of the true nature of the atrocity that currently passes itself off as "psychiatry" here in Australia and elsewhere around the world - this calls for careful investigation and consideration, to which end this web page might serve as an introduction. Perhaps the most insidious and sinister part of it is the use of psychiatry by ruthless elements of the state and other totalitarian/criminal groups, to shut down political dissidents or voices of conscience opposed to their unscrupulous and underhanded designs. Psychiatry is particularly amenable to such exploitation because of its unscientific, subjective, and thus conveniently malleable methodology. This disgraceful exploitation of the public's naivety and gullibility, has in fact been going on in this country, the US, the UK, Europe and elsewhere for some time, and contrary to what many have been led to believe, is not limited to notorious past regimes like Soviet Russia or present day China, about which, particularly in the former case, such atrocities have been well documented in the West, with customary hypocrisy and thoroughness.
"I think the use of psychiatric treatment, so-called treatment, as a political weapon is very effective in controlling the masses........If we were to have a mandatory 'mental health screening' as they like to call it, not only of all young people in school but all adults and everybody, it would become a terribly effective tool in the hands of totalitarians because surely you could find something in everybody's questionnaire if they answer questions honestly: "Have you ever had feelings of anxiety?", you know, "Are you ever unhappy with what the government does?"........ When you look at the area of psychiatry it becomes particularly worrisome because many people are not sensitised to the political implications of using that field......If we're not willing to challenge and if we're already afraid that somebody's going to put this label around us, then we've already lost, there's no turning it around...... the time has come for us to stand on our conviction, to know what is right, to take the risks and stand for freedom." (Watch the full interview here. For Freedom Force International click here.)
Just consider the following facts:
1) only psychiatry can legally incarcerate a person against his will without any real due process of law and simply at the behest of one official, where no crime has been committed.
2) only psychiatry can force a person against his will to take drugs or receive other forms of invasive and unproven so-called “treatment”, with the use or threat of violence, and without any more authority than the say so of psychiatrists.
Even if we can imagine certain extreme circumstances in which the involuntary incarceration, at least temporarily, (or even an emergency, non-psychotropic sedation) of a person afflicted by an acute mental or spiritual disturbance may be unavoidable, obviously the use of so-called psychiatric "treatments" that have no scientific validity whatsoever, for people who have not expressly consented to them or who have expressly refused them, can never be justified in any circumstances. In short, it should never be open to a psychiatrist, or anybody else for that matter, to effectively reduce a person to the status of a mere object or animal by simply ruling that his lack of consent to, or express refusal of treatment is irrelevant or inconsequential due to his mental "condition", as is the present deplorable and appalling state of affairs.
Think of the implications of the above, if you will. Can you think of any other professional with that kind of power, and the opportunity to abuse it? And do you really think that that kind of power has ever not been abused? Actually, it exists for that purpose and nought else, truth be told; that is, to enable the use of psychiatry for manipulative and punitive purposes.
"The practical power of the word of a psychiatrist is comparable only to that of a judge. Superior even, I would say, because the judge is in a way only one of several others who have a say in the outcome of a trial. On the other hand the judgement of a psychiatrist can condemn a man summarily to segregation without the need of a trial. "
Giorgio Antonucci, Italian medical doctor and psychoanalyst
"I want no part of a psychiatry of oppression and social control...The fact that there is no evidence confirming the brain disease attribution is, at this point, irrelevant. What we are dealing with here is fashion, politics and money."
Of course, even punitive psychiatry is not presented as such to the victim, but rather (like manipulative psychiatry) as some kind of benevolent treatment - its true nature being carefully hidden not just from many of those who are working in the psychiatric domain and are thus witnesses to the atrocity, but even, in many cases from some of the perpetrators themselves who merely follow protocol or procedure and/or have mastered the art of just the right amount of self deception to get along with. Some are just mindless idiots who have never even thought to question the propriety of psychiatry as a tool for coercive control - they see it merely as an extension/continuation of the paternalistic relationship between parent and child, with the State now taking the former role and the adult remaining in a permanent condition of infantilism. The general atmosphere of institutional psuedo-efficiency coupled with the cold pseudo-warmth of clinical professionalism that inevitably pervades places of psychiatric practice has an almost uncanny negating effect on people's ability to perceive the obviously degrading and dehumanising nature of such a stance. Then, of course, many techniques of coercive control are so subtle as to be beyond the scope of perception of the average institutional lackey.
Just consider the following facts: only psychiatry can legally incarcerate a person against their will without any real due process of law and simply at the behest of one official, where no crime has been committed. And only psychiatry can force a person against their will to take drugs or receive other forms of invasive and unproven so-called “treatment”, with the use or threat of violence, and without any more authority than the say so of psychiatrists. Think of the implications of that, if you will. Can you think of any other professional with that kind of power? And the opportunity to abuse it? And do you really think that kind of power has ever not been abused? Actually, it exists for that purpose and nought else, truth be told.
On the other hand, undoubtedly, some psychiatric workers know full well what they are doing and what they are actually a part of and their position is quite indefensible. They are criminals, guilty of the most repulsive atrocities, and must be dealt with as such if we as a society are to ensure our own soundness and integrity.
It is important to understand that this kind of control technique is not in any way new - if we can accept and understand that "science" as an abstract idea, not as an objective method, is the false religion of the modern day, then we can find many parallels in history for the use of purely subjective ideologies and dogma as the basis for punitive and coercive forms of mind control of the masses in the name of something at least ostensibly benevolent. In our day it is called "mental health" though, as in the past, it is a term which only serves to hide an agenda which is a complete denial of anything it may meaningfully signify.
Among the high priests of the false religion of our day, that masquerades as a part of science, are the psychiatrists.
Among the high priests of the false religion of our day, that masquerades as a part of science, are the psychiatrists. They form part of a group that includes many so-called scientists and members of the academic world, whose fields of so-called knowledge have that lack of true (mathematical) objectivity that leaves the way wide open for the descent from fact to theory to wild fantasy even, whilst retaining the former description - or at least the aura of it. Many can be the incentives for such a dishonest diversion from the principles of real science, but it is difficult to imagine any of them being noble ones. At best those that take such a path are simply ignorant and not altogether very bright at all. Yet their titles, certificates, ceremonial garb and rituals, and standing in society are as impressive today - and dangerous - to the simple minded masses as they have always been, no matter how the particular form and guise may change.
It is truly sad that many people working in the broader psychiatric field may genuinely feel that they are doing something worthwhile. But of course that is precisely the problem - what they feel is purely subjective and has no basis in objective fact, and depends rather on them remaining oblivious to the facts in order to maintain the way they feel. It is of course remarkable the extent to which self deception may be practised when there is a large investment of identity in believing something patently untrue. But none of that has anything to do with science.
Therefore it is important that those who find themselves working in some capacity in the broad field that is psychiatry and psychology make a clear distinction between what they do truly as servants of psychiatry or psychology and what they do simply as human beings interacting simply with other human beings, without the psychologically crippling complications of preconceived ideas about how they ought to be relating (which is always the hallmark of any kind of professional relationship), where consciously or no, one is always seeking to justify the unjustifiable - that is, the expectation of remuneration for what, if it is truly of a healing/edifying nature, cannot by that very nature possibly expect it.
Sadder still, it is not only psychiatric practitioners and staff people that subjectively assign merit to psychiatric practice where in fact there is none. Psychiatric patients themselves often espouse the alleged virtues of psychiatric treatment, including drug treatment, and many even believe it. To understand this phenomenon it may be helpful to review some of the chief and fundamental differences between objective and subjective modes of perception.
An objective fact is a part or element of the nature of reality that can be verified objectively, that is, by using logic and empirical methods. It is therefore exactly transferable to others, which is its chief scientific value. In scientific terms it is said that the results of an experiment to test the validity of an hypothesis can be "replicated".
Subjective belief, on the other hand, is by definition, that which we believe without any recourse to objective verification or "validation". Opinion has no scientific value per se. Even if a method of objective validation of hypothesis exists, it remains only an hypothesis or belief in the mind of a subject until the method of validation has been applied or at least understood by same subject; at which point, and only then, does the confirmed hypothesis become meaningfully and exactly transferable to others by that subject. That, essentially, is science.
With that in mind consider now that all psychiatric dogma has not only never been objectively verified, but there exists no method of ever doing so, since all judgments about the "efficacy" of any kind of psychiatric treatment (pharmaceutical or other), be it by the psychiatrists, the drug companies or even the patients themselves, are, in the absence of any bio-markers for any so-called "psychiatric disorder", necessarily subjective and ideological in nature. This is important to understand.
What this means, for instance, is that a person who is gullible/temporarily insane/misinformed enough to voluntarily take any kind of psychiatric poison has no way of proving that an effect he ascribes to the drug is a truly objective (and thus significantly transferable) result of taking it, and not simply some kind of psychologically/physiologically rooted response specific to himself. Furthermore any judgments about the value of an effect ascribed to a psychiatric drug, as well as any judgments about the acceptability, or lack thereof, of the so-called "side-effects" of a drug, are also completely subjective, and thus may be based on a value system or ideology that is fundamentally unsound, even if it has the support of the general consensus. We have already noted above that this applies not only to the judgments of patients, but also to the dubious judgments of psychiatrists who 'test' and prescribe the drugs, and of course the even more dubious judgments of those who give the psychiatrists investiture, that is, those who financially and politically support the psychiatric enterprise.
The ideological and subjective nature of the testing of the "efficacy" of psychiatric drugs is especially alarming when we consider the fact that many people are forced to ingest these poisons involuntarily - and this in countries that seriously consider themselves to be "free" and "democratic". (What an infernal joke!)
Finally we should perhaps also note that in addition to the above mentioned variabilities, subjective reporting has always inherent in it the possibility of deceit and misdirection. For example (as alluded to above) if a person has invested a large part of his life and identity, and perhaps also his means, believing in a certain paradigm, it may be difficult to admit to himself and others later that he has been wrong, or perhaps harder still, duped. Keep in mind that self deceit is not entirely conscious. Alternatively there may be some perceived advantage to be gained by the subjective reporter, or perhaps the group he represents, by deliberately deceiving others.
In short, objective reality is the only place where you and I truly meet. Subjective perception on the other hand is isolating by its very nature. The chief difference between a person who has seen through the psychiatry racket and one who has not is that the former has recourse to objectively verified conclusions to support his view, and the latter does not.
And that dear people, is all the difference in the world.
Objective reality is the only place where you and I truly meet. Subjective perception on the other hand is isolating by its very nature.
So, where does all this leave us?
Is the essentially manipulative and deeply flawed psychiatric model of mental problems the only one we have? Of course not! Only would-be zombies and charlatans need subscribe to that nonsense. Others may prefer to consider the following:
"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."
- Aldous Huxley, 1961
We have been convinced for no good reasons that our mental problems are mental illnesses, and that we cannot therefore deal with them or solve them as much as manage them. But this utterly destructive approach ignores completely the real significance of the mental pain, discomfiture or aberration in the first place, except superficially in so far as it impacts on one's role in society or some predefined role. Yet what if conformity to that society or that predefined role is the very root of the problem? Then if one is to continue functioning as before the best that can be hoped for is some kind of dehumanising, chemical management of the symptoms, which is what psychiatrists all too often prescribe, and which more or less degrades a human being to the level of a machine; a cog in the wheel. That is the psychiatrist's chief function in our society - to expedite our conformity to the established order or status quo regardless of our actual needs as an integral human being. This is because he simply fails to perceive the existence of the latter at all. It is beyond the realm of his experience. One cannot perceive in others what one fails to perceive in oneself.
If I place my feet on some hot coals there is immediately pain and discomfiture telling me to remove my feet. This serves both to end the immediate pain and minimise the pain that afterwards remains, but even more importantly it serves to cut off the source of the pain at the root and ensure that the damage is minimised and can begin to heal. If I leave it too long the damage may be irreversible or crippling. That is the danger of mere management of symptoms. I may take a drug to kill, sublimate or substitute the pain, all so as to avoid having to lift my feet, but that chemically assisted avoidance is going to cost me dearly.
The same applies to mental pain. The solution may not be so simple because it is psychological and more subtle than the physical, but the same principle applies. We need to work it out; get to the root of it and deal with it intelligently. And we need to do this essentially ourselves - others may provide support, but ultimately we are responsible for the health of our own minds and our own souls, not somebody else or some chemical. How absurd! This is simply yet another way we have devised to avoid the real work of growing up, and of facing up to the actual reality of our existence (which is relationship) beyond our carefully crafted illusions. The psychiatrist offers us our bubbles intact, but continuity without growth is only the semblance of life, not the real thing. A medicated zombie is a poor excuse for a human being. And chemical management of the mental problems of life only increases the likelihood of truly irreversible damage down the line.
Real mental order implies freedom from subjectively preconceived parameters of thought. Which does not mean simply adopting any kind of thought, but rather giving ourselves the psychological space to go where the facts lead us, wherever that may be. Clearly then, the subjectively preconceived notions or systems of politically acceptable thought found in psychiatry and elsewhere are inconsistent with mental order. This is important to understand. It is also important to be aware of the effect of other influential sources of subjective ideology on the collective mind. No man truly serious about the restoration of mental order in himself and/or others (and in that order, obviously) can ignore the role that the mainstream media and the so-called educational institutions play, or have played, in giving us what to think. Neither can he ignore the role that psychiatry plays in enforcing it.
The all-important quest for mental order isn't a game, or some kind of meaningless mutual affirmation session. Nor is it a mere commodity one can get in the marketplace. It is not a question of belief or mere guess-work. It is rather a question of intelligent (sensible) experimentation and finding out, which is life itself. That means disconnecting from the perception management machine (which is mis-management) and learning to think for oneself again. If you have not already done so, try turning off the TV and giving up the cinema and the mainstream press for a full year (including the internet outlets) and reporting back (to yourself) on how you feel at the end of it. And if you have trouble with withdrawal ask yourself if you can really afford to go through your whole life not knowing what it feels like to have a mind uncluttered by all that. Keep in mind that it was only a blink of an eye ago in our common history when that condition was the rule and not the exception, and from time immemorial. Clearly mental disorder is not progress.
Ideology does not come from nowhere. It has a definite source and it carries with it the values of those who give it investiture. It also carries with it their mental disorder. Therefore there are some important questions we need to be asking ourselves about the context in which we imbibe and impart ideology. For example, does what I do for money place parameters around my thought and expression which are unreasonable, arbitrary and ideological in nature? Is my "education" really about learning or is it rather about seeking affirmation from others? Is my so-called "learning" merely a means to an end other than its real inherent value? Is my mind cluttered by idols (that is, by notions of what I think I ought to be or ought not to be, or how I appear to others, or how I appear to myself) so that I am unable to perceive things in a simple, uncomplicated way and move thus beyond mere posturing and speculation to effective decision-making? Can my mind ever really be free of such idols, when money invariably carries with it the (albeit often tacit) set of values of those who issue, control and demand compliance to it? Have I become a mere set of responses to expectations which I have never even bothered to seriously question or understand? Am I at least aware of the bargains I make psychologically? Or is it more or less unconscious? Or am I conscious of only the more tangible and superficial conditions and not the psychological ones? It takes extraordinary self awareness to answer these questions honestly. Therefore, turning away from the mainstream media may not be in itself sufficient for a return to mental order, but it is at least a significant beginning.
The all-important quest for mental order isn't a game, or some kind of meaningless mutual affirmation session. Nor is it a mere commodity one can get in the marketplace. It is not a question of belief or mere guess-work. It is rather a question of intelligent experimentation and finding out, which is life itself. That means disconnecting from the perception management machine (which is mis-management) and learning to think for oneself again.
We understand well enough not to eat bad things if we would keep our bodies in order, why is it we do not do the same for our minds? Clearly the latter is far more important since our physical experience is always overcome by our psychological one. I am not talking about physical food. Information is the food of the mind; a well-fed mind soon heals. Please understand, it is not a question of belief, it is a question of try and see. Actually our minds are so starved for real nourishment, for the plain speaking truth beyond rhetoric, sophistry and make-believe, we need only make room for it by cutting out the endless stream of junk. Guard against any self-deceptive notions of moderation and selectivity in this regard - there can be no such compromise with that which is rotten to the core, and light will not share a space with darkness. We are the stewards of our own minds. Who will we blame then if the thieves get in?
I may be able to maintain a due sense of proportion about what is physically possible and impossible when I watch the TV or the cinema screen, but what about the psychologically possible and impossible? That may not be so clear. Am I aware of the extent to which I am traumatised, brutalised, desensitised or dehumanised by what I see and hear? Am I aware of the extent to which I am being complicated by it? Or confounded and frightened by it. Or hyper-sexualised and consumerised by it. Am I aware of its effect on my ability to keep my desires from overwhelming or undermining me? Am I relating to reality or to a graven image? And do I take that idol with me psychologically wherever I go? Is the idol a politically correct one?
Objective fact, gentlemen, is not politically correct. It has nothing to do with subjectively preconceived parameters of thought.
It is what it is.
There is nothing new about any of this. A simple change in semantics demonstrates this easily. The cause of all psychological disorder is sin; our own sin as well as the sin of others. (There is also demonic influence but this cannot cause disorder of the mind unless it leads to or originates from sin.) Man has struggled with his sinful nature and the resultant disorder of his mind since time immemorial. And man has always sought ways to have the sin and not the disorder, but he has always failed in this essentially childish endeavour and always will. Psychiatry is simply among the latest of these exercises in destructive futility. By convincing men that mental disorder is nothing more than a physical dysfunction of the brain, the psychiatric enterprise, and particularly the medical, biologic model, aims to remove all the spiritual and moral implications of our mental condition, especially those that have to do with our relationship with the Eternal Creator, and which give Life its depth of meaning beyond vulgar materialism. The only true and final remedy for psychological disorder, both in individuals and collectively (and it is rampant in both at the moment) is what it has always been: to repent and refrain from sin. The fact that the truth does not please us or conform to our particular ideological mode du jour does not change the fact that it is true, and never will. Sin is simply that behaviour which is not in the long run and in the bigger picture conducive to our highest welfare as individuals, communities and nations. Those that seek to cling to sin at the cost of their highest welfare have simply no idea what their highest welfare is. If they really knew Him they would cherish Him more than anything in the world. Unfortunately, through sin, they have come under the power of the enemy, who has deceived them with false promises and illusions. For more information please read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Click on the note number to return to its position in the article.)
(1)  At a conference a few years ago, another eminent psychiatrist, Dr. David Shaffer, cited a study by a colleague on how long it took psychiatrists to make up their mind about a diagnosis after a patient entered the consulting room. According to Shaffer it generally took about "a couple of minutes"
(2) Actually the Horizon program had simply exhibited publicly a statistical fact about psychiatry well known to many in the so-called 'social sciences'. Dr. Margaret Hagen, professor of psychology at Boston University and author of the book about the pernicious use of psychiatry in US law courts, “Whores of the Court: The Rape of American Justice” has famously said the following about psychiatric diagnostic reliability:
“Why not just flip pennies or draw cards? Why not put on a blindfold and choose without being able to identify the patients? It could hardly hurt [a diagnostic] accuracy rate that hovers at less than one out of three times correct.”
Note that when Hagen says 'correct' she means consistent with yet another psychiatric diagnosis. There is no absolute 'correct' in the objective sense in psychiatry. Absolutes and objectivity are the domains of real science.
(3) Get the simple facts of the matter. Actually media executives need not be Jewish in order to espouse anti-Christian policies, they need only be inwardly guided by the same enemy of Christ, however below are links to pages that list specifically Jews in policy-defining management positions in the UK and US mass media (including Hollywood) in recent times. The sheer scope of the race bias may shock you:
Jewish control of UK media: Click here and here. (Note: Alan Yentob, Creative Director of the BBC, and Jewish, stepped down in December 2015 amidst accusations of financial mismanagement of the failed charity company he chaired, and improper influence of BBC reporting regarding it. He had been in higher management positions at the BBC since 1987. Funny enough, another Jew, Danny Cohen, the BBC's director of television no less, resigned only a couple of months earlier. What do they say about a sinking ship?)
Jewish control of US media: click here.
Malcolm Fraser, Bob Carr and Kevin Rudd comment on the 'unhealthy' and disproportionate influence of Jewry on Australian politics: click here.
(4)  the DSM is used by psychiatrists internationally, including in Australia.
(5) In the same year as the Gorsky award, Rabbi Schneier was awarded a rare papal knighthood in yet another craven act of obsequious homage to Jewry paid by the Vatican. No doubt the Jewish media will continue to lend their support to the moral coward currently posing as the Vicar of Christ. He has his reward.......
(6) You can read the civil complaint against Johnson and Johnson by chief whistleblower Vicki Starr, here.
(7)  On the 3rd November 2009 the US Department of Justice announced that “the nation’s largest nursing home pharmacy, Omnicare Inc. of Covington, Kentucky, will pay $98 million [to settle charges that it] solicited and received kickbacks from a pharmaceutical manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), in exchange for agreeing to recommend that physicians prescribe Risperdal, a J&J antipsychotic drug, to nursing home patients.”
"These defendants broke the law to take advantage of our nation’s most vulnerable citizens – the elderly and the poor," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. For the full US DoJ document click here.
(8) On January 18, 2012, Johnson and Johnson paid the state of Texas $158 million to settle charges related to the Medicaid scam (known as T-Map). Whistleblower Allen Jones received millions.
(9)  In 2006, after being worn down by a continual barrage of applications and court actions by drug companies with practically unlimited budgets for the purpose, the FDA finally caved in and permitted a pediatric indication for Risperdal for 'irritability associated with autistic disorder'. It was later revealed in sworn evidence that the FDA had based their decision on a submission by Janssen in which they had fraudulently and illegally omitted table data from an important study showing a clear correlation between elevated levels of the hormone prolactin in boys taking Risperdal, and alarmingly high incidences of a condition known as gynecomastia - the growing of large, unsightly woman-like breasts. (Risperidone, the active constituent of Risperdal, was known to cause raised levels of prolactin.) Janssen had falsely assured the FDA that no evidence for a prolactingynecomastia causal link had been found. It was also revealed that in determining how many boys developed gynecomastia when taking Risperdal the Janssen statisticians had significantly watered down the true figure by pooling together data from 18 studies, most of which were not sufficiently long term enough to be truly relevant - gynecomastia was known to develop most often only in longer term trials. Despite this, the FDA's approval of Risperdal for pediatric use stands to this day. (For more on this, including sources, click here and scroll down to the sub-section titled: 'Wow!'. For the J&J letter giving the false assurance to the FDA click here. The relevant passage in on page 6.)
(10)  A study known as RS-INT-41 showed as far back as 2000 that there was a statistically significant relationship between riperidone-induced hyperprolactinemia in boys and gynecomastia. It also showed the incidences of gynecomastia in boys taking the drug to be alarmingly high. But rather than doing their best to make these findings known to the medical community Janssen paid thousands of dollars to have an article published in medical journals that fraudulently manipulated and misrepresented the data. The final draft of the now infamous article (published in 2003) listed child psychiatrist, 'Robert L. Findling' as its lead author, and claimed to be a scientific analysis of the RS-INT-41 data. In sworn evidence given in December 2012, pediatric endocrinologist, Denis Daneman, a key co-author of the paper admitted that its conclusion about the critical prolactingynecomastia relationship had been 'incorrect' and 'inaccurate'. In a recent article by Steven Brill for the Huffington Post (see Chapter 12), Daneman went even further saying he “felt used and abused by the entire process.”
“I can’t defend Johnson & Johnson,” he added. “There can be no debate about what they did. They crossed the line. What they did in withholding data was unconscionable.” And in a reference to the compromising of the medical literature that has ensued, he added further that it pained him to think that the article had been cited 121 times in other medical journals.
Risperdal-Gynecomastia litigation continues to this day with literally thousands of cases still currently in the works. One of those cases recently resulted in Johnson and Johnson being ordered to pay $2.5 million to gynecomastia victim, Austin Pledger in the US. Former FDA administrator, David A. Kessler MD, was a critical witness for the Plaintiff. Click here for his comprehensive report with references to the Johnson&Johnson's cover-up of the RS-INT-41 gynecomastia findings on pages 63-67 and 74-76.
(11) While there may be genetic factors that determine physical propensity, response or tolerance to alcohol ingestion, this does not account for any psychological or spiritual factors that underlie it, though it may determine the choice of substance that is abused as a result of those factors.
*Recommended Further Reading*
1. The Greatest Swindle of All Time.
In war, truth is the first casualty.......
Consider the following quotations from Professor Norman Finkelstein, well-known Jewish-American political scientist and author of “The Holocaust Industry”. Keep in mind that Professor Finkelstein's parents were prisoners at Auschwitz and Majdanek and both survived the war:
"The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the greatest robbery in the history of mankind."
"Much of the literature on Hitler's Final Solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense if not sheer fraud."
"Given the nonsense that is turned out daily by the Holocaust industry, the wonder is that there are so few skeptics."
For the facts gentlemen, not the Hollywood production click here.
"None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes."
2. Are we the unwitting slaves of a hidden hand?
Click here for the article 'Do I Need to be a Slave to Money? (Applying the Scientific Method to the question of Liberty.)'
3. Are your desires being used to control and enslave you?
Click here for the article 'The Sex Deception (A Young Man's Guide.)'