Thursday, March 26, 2009

Anti Psychotics Harm Children

Just maybe Biederman and all those Harvard MD know it all’s should read the data and studies before they decide to aggressively treat children with anti-psychotics as one of Biederman student’s, and Harvard trained Dr. Jennifer Bremer wrote about her training from Biederman:


“The residents learned from his unrelentingly strong opinions. Dr. Biederman would scold us if we were not aggressive in our treatment of children. He would question our hesitance. Dr Biederman would ask why we would want to wait until the child grew sicker before treating him adequately? Why not treat now?”

” if we talked about the patient's psychotherapy for a diagnosis where there was not data -- he would refer to the therapy as "tushy massage." --.

Unfortunately these key opinion leaders and so called doctors will not listen to reason; due to the god complex indoctrination of those like MGH’s and Harvard’s Biederman pushing for the aggressive treatment/destruction of children for many generations to come in the name of his reputation, self proclaimed God like professor status, research, and science.

Now I know what the true axis of evil really means; and it’s right in our backyard local doctor’s office. Yes, that is what the Biederman’s of this world do; they are the industry spokespersons, Key opinion leaders in child Psychiatry, and have influenced medicine all the way into the family doctors office and beyond.

Whatever happened to first do no harm?

I encourage everyone to read to this eye opening article at -

Antipsychotics Harm Children - European College of Neuropsychopharmacology

This is beyond disturbing when you look at the side effect profile for children that have been given anti-psychotic drugs.

Seeing as there is undoubtedly questionable diagnostic criteria in even plopping a mental health label on an innocent developing child; are these risks “listed below” worth taking as a society, and are these risks we are willing to tolerate from the professional medical community and completely inept FDA.

I say we are doing the most valuable resource we have in this world "OUR CHILDREN", a grave injustice with questionable science and medicine.


"Adding fuel to the combustible pyre of evidence against use of neuroleptics and antipsychotics for children is a recent risk/benefit analysis by the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Antipsychotics--> Metabolic- Hormonal Abnormalities:

"there is increasing concern about second-generation antipsychotics having metabolic side effects such as weight gain, hyperglycaemia, and dyslipidemia in the pediatric population (Correll, 2008). In the first study directly comparing weight gain and other metabolic and hormonal risk factors after treatment with 3 different new-generation antipsychotics in children and adolescents (mean age 15.2 years), it was shown that, after 6 months, body mass index scores and total cholesterol levels increased significantly, with 33 patients (50.0%) with no previous antipsychotic exposure showing significant weight gain (Fraguas et al., in press). The number of patients at risk for adverse health outcomes increased from 11 (16.7%) to 25 (37.9%).""A further concern with antipsychotic treatment in pediatric populations is the hyperprolactinemia caused by many of these antipsychotics and its long-term consequences (osteoporosis, infertility). In our cross-sectional study with 66 children, hyperprolactinemia was present in 78.6% and 48.5% in the short-term and longer-term treatment groups, respectively."

Antipsychotics --> Abnormal Involuntary Movements:

After 1 month of exposure to a second generation antipsychotic, 22% of children exhibited abnormal involuntary movements. After 1 year of exposure 38% of children suffered from abnormal involuntary movements.

Antipsychotics -->Cardiovascular harm:

Antipsychotic medications are among the most relevant identified risk factors associated with significant prolongation of the QTC interval (prolongation of the interval, as determined by electrocardiograms, can cause arrhythmias)The European College of Neuropsychopharmacology--in sharp contrast to its American counterpart (the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, ACNP)--recognizes the physician's responsibility toward the patient--which requires weighing the magnitude of adverse effects of these drugs and their impact on the overall well-being of the patient."* we need controlled studies that not only assess efficacy, but also take into account the impact of the disease and that of the medications prescribed for the disease, on individual well-being, social, educational and/or vocational functioning, and disease burden in order to make reasonable risk/benefit ratios."

This is a far cry from industry-influenced US prescribing guidelines followed by American psychiatry: TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) CMAP (Children's Medication Algorithm Project) TRAYY (Treatment Recommendations for the use of Antipsychotics for Aggressive Youth)"

My personal comment on this article:

OK, I have a little problem here with increased controlled studies of these drugs in children. We have already shown that there is significant risk to a child’s health when given these powerful anti-psychotic medications.

I would say why in the heck anyone would want to risk a child's health and mind, as in using them as Ginny pigs or Lab rats; when we already know there is major health risk not worth the benefit in this treatment modality.

Call me crazy here, but this just does not make practical or logical sense.

I don't have to test a loaded gun placed to the side of your head, to figure out that the results might be a tad bit undesirable when I pull the trigger.

As always, your comments are welcome

Wednesday, March 25, 2009


Picture of Dr. Biederman
Dr. Carlat an Apologist for Biederman

I write this Post as a critic of modern Psychiatry.

Sometimes you need to know who is really on your side, who is the enemy, and who is not. As it’s been said; there will be many false Prophets that will sound really authentic on the surface; but when you look a little deeper the truth shall been known and set you free.

So this post in outing Dr. Carlat as being part of the problem and not the solution.

The Carlat Psychiatry Blog

I encourage you to go read his blog, this article, the comment section, and then go over to Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer and read his fine blog and the comment section there. I will let you judge on your own who is on your side in psychiatry today!

As I've written on this blog before, Dr. Joseph Biederman is an outstanding scientist but is also the prototypical MGH/Harvard narcissist. I speak from experience, having attended the MGH psychiatry residency from 1992-1995. We all joked about our arrogance and hubris and narcissism. It was almost a badge of honor. When you are at the top-ranked psychiatry department in the nation (as MGH has been every single year from 1995 to 2008, according to U.S. News and World Report) you are entitled to an extra heaping of, umm, positive self-regard, shall we say.

Call him the King of Cringe. Disagree with his opinions about the prevalence of pediatric bipolar disorder. Call him greedy, even. But scientifically, I continue to respect him and I believe that he ultimately has the best interests of his patients at heart.”

My comments there:

Dear Daniel Carlat, M.D.:
Shall we derive from your opinion on Biederman's research and studies; you personally believe in the Child Bipolar Paradigm and the use of anti psychotics in children as young as pre-school age?
You say that you believe his science is sound; wouldn't it be juxtaposition to then say his results are incorrect?

Thank you,

My second comment:

Joseph Biederman deposition.
Q. And do you agree that you are one of the most forceful advocates of the aggressive treatment of preschoolers?
A.(Biederman)It is her statement about me.
Q.I didn't ask you if it was her statement about you.I'm asking you if you agree that you are one of the most forceful advocates of the aggressive treatment of preschoolers.
A.(Biederman) I am.
You can read on where he admits there are no long term studies on Risperdal in children or adults; but that doesn't matter! Biederman says even without the science he will continue to prescribe this drug in his practice to preschoolers. How about the six breaches of protocol in his study that were never reported?
I guess that is called sound science in psychiatry today?
I just love when those of us out in the real world beyond those holier than thou walls at Harvard question the ethics and science behind those like Biederman.
We are called and labeled the anti-psychiatry crowd or even placed in Scientology's slot.
Yeah, you call those people outrageous!
Yet, so many of those mighty Dr.'s are circling the wagons in defence of the indefensible.
Who's got the real problem here?
Doctors as supposed reasonable professionals would call this a change for the good and making progress?
This is the status as normal in medicine as it stands today; when the doctor is wrong, don't ever blame the doctor; instead blame the patient and critics.
By not answering some pretty simple questions here Dr Carlat; you have in view of many answered them quite clearly by not taking a stand.
I believe this kind of narcissism has got the anti-psychiatry grass roots patient movement in full swing and making great strides toward marginalizing and debunking the very profession and industry many here so ardently defend even in the worst examples of conduct as in the your renowned Biederman.
Maybe you have forgotten that real people just as valued as your selves and family members are harmed by this kind of reckless medicine every day; many times beyond repair by the likes of this greed mongering and self appointed god complex in absolute thinking behaviour.
You just keep on making light of the egregious acts of these industry opinion leaders and institutions.
To those non-club members at Harvard and the medical inside crowd: it appears that we have a profession here that is playing apologist, by their own rules, and doesn't see the train coming speeding down the tracks; headed right at your coveted profession.
I'm thankful that Senator Grassley doesn't read this situation like so many on the inside of the bubble do!

Comment from Stephany said...
Read Biederman's deposition in pfd format at Ed Silverman's IN VIVO blog.
It's all there for reading and the proper context within the questioning of Biederman.

Second comment from Stephany said...

Disclaimer: I am not a Scientologist, and feel an argument dismissing people with questions regarding ethics and integrity of science, and outcome for drug approval a result--- makes a person appear arrogant and not willing to change or see things except from own perspective, why not be open-minded and keep the conversation flowing for all parties to gain from?)
I would offer this discussion these questions:
1) Why did Harvard/MGH not inform the NIH about Dr. Biederman’s collaboration with J&J when it applied for the NIH bipolar disorder grant?
2) Several documents that Dr. Biederman supplied to the court make note of a “JB rent fund.” What is the “JB rent fund” and to whom did the money go?
3) Why did MGH not inform OHRP about the IRB protocol violations in Dr. Biederman’s study?
4) For that particular study, please explain each IRB protocol violation and how those violations were resolved.
5) Did representatives of MGH discuss collaborating on the Center with marketing people from J&J, as Attachment H states?
6) Were the slides detailed in the attachments to this letter created by Dr. Biederman? If not, who created them?
7) Please explain if these slides were ever presented to an audience. If so, who saw these presentations?
The questions are from Senator Grassley, re: the breach of Protocol in Joseph Biederman's trial of anti psychotics on preschool age children. Asking this from an interested stance here, as a mother of a child harmed by psych meds. I didn't choose to want to think about the questions I ask. I question a lot now, as a result of my daughter being disabled from the drugs. Most regular readers of this blog know her story, so I don't need to say any more. Has anyone else read the deposition from Feb 27, 2009 that I left the link for above?

Then finally the comment I left on Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look in comment section in regards to TF’s comment about psychiatry, and Dr. Carlat’s apologist stand toward Biederman.

My Comment:

Stan said...

TF wrote:
"Psychiatrists are lame until proven otherwise, and I can say that as I am one, but I hope not lame."
Though I can understand on some level the frustration and emotion involved in the scope of TF's views. I also must admit I am pleasantly surprised/impressed with the way TF has changed in his opinions and outlook as far as psychiatry goes.
TF you are on the inside looking out. I believe a little less bravado and just a little bit more staying on message will get you a lot more ears listening and agreeing with you from the professional end anywise.
You are in a good position to be a voice of professional reasoning and change. I would only ask you walk a little softer, as well as carrying that big stick with some prudence.
I sure wish you would have been this candid and honest with your awakening when you were at FS posting.
I entered Carlat’s comment section after reading his apologetic stance on Biederman to find out if he was really for substantial change in psychiatry or just walking the fence in the usual patronizing fashion psychiatry tends to do.
His answers and avoidance of them was quite alarming; since without coming out openly and bluntly saying he is agreeing with Biederman's use of preschool age children and the use of dangerous anti-psychotics in that population.
He ardently agrees with Biederman's methods and science as being sound in spite of the fact that Biederman had protocol lapses that were not reported six times in his renowned preschool age study; as well as stating what the results would be before even doing the study surely at J&J’s beckoning.
That leaves open a whole lot of wiggle room and openings for the old Harvard hanky panky and big unreported bucks in his pocket game. I don’t believe children are games or lab rats to be tempered with for greed or status at any level; but especially in what is supposed to be a respected and ethical medical profession.
Carlat also implies he is bought into the Child Bipolar paradigm with the assumed use of anti-psychotics in preschool age children.
That pretty much sealed the deal as far as knowing what side of the fence he is really walking on. I guess once your an indoctrinated MGH Harvard Doctor; your always part of the clan/family so to speak.
Personally, I would more often than not stay away from Nazi death camp doctor references in general in relating to the current events in Pharma and Psychiatry. Carlat has brought this one up himself, and left the door wide open for rebuke.
Quoting Carlat from the comment section of his Blog:
"Hi fans and ex-fans,The point of the post was to say that there are some things Biederman is guilty of, and some things he isn't. Narcissism, egotism, greed? Yep.
Fraud, perpetrator of evil, creator of pediatric bipolar disorder, impetus for all psychiatrists who have ever prescribed too many antipsychotics? Of course not.
This is not Dr. Mengele. And anyone who wants to go to pubmed and read his clinical trials will actually find that they are, for the most part very well done and written up fairly without exaggerating positive findings or downplaying side effects.
Bipolar disorder does, in fact, occur in children, whether you call in bipolar or conduct disorder or juvenile delinquency. And it is clear that antipsychotics moderate the behavior, though at the cost of significant side effects.
Welcome to medicine, a world where there are no perfect solutions to many challenging problems.
It's time to stop blaming Biederman for all of psychiatry's failings and for all of the evils of the pharmaceutical industry. Let's put our energies into something more productive--like coming up with solutions for how to appropriately work with industry without doing their marketing for them."
Dr. Carlat is right! This is not Dr. Mengele since he is dead, a remembered dark chapter in history, and long past thankfully.
Biederman is in fact very much alive, still practicing medicine, collecting a fat pay check, still feeling like he's on top of the world and second in line to God almighty.Biederman has set a professional standard in the industry, is the dark voice of child psychiatry, its most adamant spokesperson, and is still personally feeding preschool age kids powerful anti-psychotic drugs to this day. Not just for child bipolar mind you: but also for ADHD and other behavioral disorders. A whopping 4000% increase over the past decade in children including preschool age.The difference is quite clear; we stopped the Nazi's and declared we would never let atrocities like that happen again. Yet today we are allowing the same type of crimes to happen for greed and omnipotent professor status. Only this time around in the name of science and medicine; yet the vastness of the victimization has not changed really all that much if you see and imagine the decades of damage to come.I have been reading this site, am impressed with the quality of content, and integrity of information posted here.I am sad to say there seems to be no end to this corruption and madness anytime soon.
Thank You,

As always your comments are welcome

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Ray Sandford - Forced ECT

This video speaks for it self

When will the madness of psychiatry STOP?
Addendum: Mental health blogs that are hosting the Ray Sandford video: join us! and be a voice for Ray Sandford.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Will The Real Wayne Macfadden Please Stand Up

This is just like "Truth or Consequences" I will put up some choices and you tell me who the real Wayne Macfadden is?

1. Leader MacFadden

2. Preacher Macfadden

3. Bond MacFadden

4&5. Dr. Evil MacFadden or Mini Dr. Evil Macfadden

6. Cartoon Bond Macfadden

I know there are many out there looking for a picture of Wayne and his Love Monkey's!

So maybe they will find the answer here?

Please make your best guess and comment!

SEX, Drugs, Pharmaceutical Corporate Espionage – but let’s not forget where you find the prior – there is always politics just a putrid sniff away

SEX, Drugs, Pharmaceutical Corporate Espionage – but let’s not forget where you find the prior – there is always politics just a putrid sniff away

This information barely touches the surface of how much influence Pharmaceutical Lobbyist and like interest have in our democratic process.

You always have to wonder who congress is really looking out for. Is it the people they represent as a governmental body, or is it the corporations that fund their election and reelection campaigns?
Examples and articles:

"AstraZeneca spent just under $2.4 million in lobbying expenses over the 12-month period ending July 1 on issues including the reverse payment bill."

"With Democrats in charge of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, this really ought to be a no-brainer: Should GlaxoSmithKline put a Democrat or a Republican in charge of its Washington lobbying shop? But, as obvious as the answer may be, the drug maker is wrestling with the choice — and it sheds light on what seems to be an industry-wide partisan disconnect. The in-house lobbying shops of at least eight of the nation’s largest drug companies are still run by Republicans, even as the industry’s major trade association, PhRMA, is desperately trying to cozy up to Democrats who now control both the Congress and the White House. It’s a point that has not been lost on Democrats on Capitol Hill. “They’re dealing with us the same way they dealt with us when we were in the minority, and we’re not,” said a Democratic House health staffer. “We literally don’t know where all the different companies stand on anything, so we just don’t care.” Beyond Glaxo, health policy insiders cite as another example of the industry’s blind spot Abbott Laboratories’ decision to hire a Republican to help lead the lobbying shop instead of promoting a well-respected Democrat. An Abbott spokeswoman declined comment. Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Genzyme and AstraZeneca also have Republicans heading their Washington lobbying shops, according to industry insiders.
See also Second stimulus? Never heard of it! Obama tiptoes into battle on earmarks Some women wanted more from W.H.
“It doesn’t make any sense,” a Democratic Senate health care aide said. “At the end of the day it hurts them, not us.” "

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Year: 2008
Lobbyists working for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals:

Lobbying Firm Hired
Subsidiary (Lobbied For)
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Bloomquist, Christine
Buckley, Richard E
Draine, Michael
Izquierdo, Andres
Levinson, Kenneth I
Mott, Amanda Grashof
Olson, Richard Wayne
Palmer, Wayne
Rossin, Bradley Allen
Bryan Cave Strategies
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Stewart, Jennifer
Capitol Counsel
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Finley, Shannon
Franko, Sara
Gould, James C
Henry, Denise M
Hoak, Mike
Jones, David
Raffaelli, John D
Sullan, Richard
Foley Hoag LLP
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Childress, Kelly
Kim, Paul
Littlefield, Nick
Mohler, David
Thornhill, Barrett
Guida Consulting Services
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Guida, Alfonso V Jr
Johnson, Madigan et al
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Jones, Jonathon
Murphy, Sheila J
Peck, Jeffrey J
Richardson, Sean J
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Bingel, Kelly
Brown, Jamie E
Castagnetti, David
Desmarais, Colette
Finley Pickering, Elise
Hoganson, Jonathan
Hudson, Karin
Mehlman, Bruce P
Rampy, Stacey
Rosen, Dean
Thomas, David R
Thompson, Allen
Vogel, Alex
Stuntz, Davis & Staffier
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Davis, Randall E
Tarplin, Downs & Young
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Downs, Raissa H
Easton, Michelle P
Fordjour, Isaac A
Tarplin, Linda E
Young, Jennfier B
Williams & Jensen
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
DiJames, Jenny
Hart, Jack Steven
Hatcher, Christopher
Lynch, Karina
Olsen, George G
Oswald, Joel

"The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation received $285,000 from Coca-Cola, $270,000 from the drug manufacturer AstraZeneca and $155,122 from Anheuser-Busch. In total, the
Congressional Black Caucus and affiliated organizations got more than $1.5 million from companies.
, which makes drugs like
Crestor for high cholesterol and Nexium for heartburn, was also a top contributor to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, with a gift of $115,000.
Tony Jewell, a spokesman for AstraZeneca, said the contributions were a way of “building relationships and supporting worthwhile causes,” including efforts to improve the health of minorities and increase their participation in clinical trials."
"AstraZeneca fit that description, federal prosecutors say.
From 1993 to 1996, the London pharmaceutical company sent thousands of free samples of the prostate cancer drug Zolodex to doctors, knowing they would then fraudulently bill Medicare, Medicaid and other federally funded health care programs.

The company provided doctors free trips, educational grants and business assistance, according to the Justice Department, all to entice them to sell AstraZeneca's drugs, not their competitors'.

The company pleaded guilty in 2003 to a felony charge of health care fraud and agreed to pay $355 million in criminal and civil penalties.
That year, McCollum was hired by AstraZeneca as a Washington lobbyist.
Campbell making issue of situation
McCollum arranged a meeting between AstraZeneca and U.S. Rep. Mike Bilirakis, R-Tarpon Springs, related to legislation affecting an oral cancer drug AstraZeneca was hoping to sell, McCollum said Thursday.
That was the extent of the relationship, said McCollum. He lobbied for the company for less than a year, according to required federal filings, and his firm, Baker & Hostetler, was paid $60,000 for the work."

Sex, Drugs and Pharmaceutical Corporate Espionage

CAPTION - " OH Wayne! That's a nice ass! I have a nice ass too! Michelle is so sorry she was Bad, and said Abilify is better than Seroquel. Please forgive me, hand me some more Vicodon, and spank my hairy ass harder"

Sex, Drugs, and Pharmaceutical Corporate Espionage - FDA approves Abilify for Children, Seroquel and Seroquel XR seeking approval from FDA for Depression, Anxiety, and who knows what else? Maybe bed wetting next?


Read the real torrid story and more @soulful sepulcher & SEROXAT SUFFERERS - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

Thank you Steph and Fid

Saturday, March 14, 2009

To The Psychiatric Industry

To everyone of you out there supporting or profiting off Psychiatry and those drug pimps in the Pharmaceutical Industry!

Psychiatry's and Pharma's theme song, creed, and motto:

{GoFuckYourselves}whoops, they are already doing themselves and everyone else in fact
I guess this ''comment'' is way too short and much to angry for public consumption
A Revolution Is Coming

Friday, March 13, 2009

Should Government Be Forcing Psychiatry

Should Government Be Forcing Psychiatry

This is just a small sample of how your government can slice away your freedom and choice without you even having a say! This again is old footage; Yet since this time a host of states have gone into the Psychiatry Business with examples from Texas - TMAP, California - CMAP and this list of States just goes on and on.

Maybe you have not realized that with a simple standardized test which takes five minutes or less to complete, the government and courts could force you to medicate your child's mind! If you don't believe me; then maybe it's time you did your homework.

The huge lobby in Washington D.C. by the Pharmaceutical and Health Care industries want you! They want your mind, they want your money, and they want your child.

So this is what they mean by "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND"

If you think President Bush 2 was Bad, Watch what President Obama is doing and tell me if it's going to get better or worse?

Psychiatry Goes Thud

This is pretty old footage; and yet what has happened since this experiment is more than mind boggling and twisted. Since the introduction of countless mind bending drugs by the Grand Pimp's at Big Pharmaceutical; Psychiatry and the medical community as a whole have just continued the horrible deception and out right lies to the tune of untold innocent lives completely ruined, and trillions of dollars in the bank based on what science? There is none really! Just lots of propaganda and a vulnerable population to abuse for the sake of pure evil intent, social status, unbridled abusive power used against humanity itself, and the worst kind of greed possible.


FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

Terms and conditions on the use of the contents of the “Is Something Not Quite Right with Stan - A Mental Health Blog” site are for informational and entertainment purposes only. Stan does not represent or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or reliability of the information or content (collectively, the "Materials") contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from this website.

Stan encourages you to make your own health care and legal decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care and/ or legal professional. The information posted here should not be considered medical advice and is not intended to replace consultation with a qualified medical professional if they exist. I do not answer specific medical questions.

Third party information is gathered from sources that Stan believes to be reliable. However, in no event shall Stan, or any third parties mentioned on this site be liable for any damages resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the content whether or not Stan is advised of the possibility of such damages.

Stan reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without any obligation, to make improvements to, or correct any error or omissions in any portion of the displayed materials.

You hereby acknowledge that any reliance upon any Materials shall be at your sole risk.

Disclaimer of Liability

The user assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of this web site and the Internet generally. Under no circumstances, including negligence, shall anyone involved in creating or maintaining this web site, or shall the website writer or any commenter’s be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, or lost profits that result from the use or inability to use the web site and/or any other web sites which are linked to this site.

Nor shall they be liable for any such damages including, but not limited to, reliance by a visitor on any information obtained via the web site; or that result from mistakes, omissions, interruptions, deletion of files, viruses, errors, defects, or any failure of performance, communications failure, theft, destruction or unauthorized access.


In states which do not allow some or all of the above limitations of liability, liability shall be limited to the greatest extent allowed by law.

Disclaimer of Endorsement - Reference to any products, services, hypertext link to the third parties or other information by trade name, trademark, supplier or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation by me. Nor is an endorsement by me is implied by such links. They are for convenience only, as an index in a public library.

Information Subject to Change - Any information on this web site may be removed without notice. Information may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Furthermore, the information may change from time to time without any notice.

GENERAL INFORMATION - The information contained in this online site is presented and intended to provide a broad understanding and knowledge critical to psychiatric practices and humorous social interaction. The information should not be considered complete and should not be used in place of communication and consultation.


This site is not a monologue of truth. It is a catalyst for public debate about medical conduct and for entertainment purposes. The reader is urged to confront officials to clarify issues mentioned herein. This site is designed strictly to provide information for critical, literary, academic, entertainment, and public usage. A qualified and trustworthy medical professional must be consulted regarding medical issues, treatments, diagnoses, etc.; if they exist in all actuality or truth.