Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Non-advocates BPkids, NAMI, and a like Perpetrating the Lie and Myth

Creating a license to kill - Psychiatry - Big Pharma - Key Opinion Leaders - Dubious Supposed Advocate groups

For a long time Psychiatry and other drug pushers masking themselves as Advocates have been pushing the "Myth" that Mental Health disorders are Genetic and biochemical { The chemical imbalance theory}; without the science to back up those claims.

Now we are learning as you can read in this article by the "New York Times"; that their claims are quite dubious and hold little weight in fact. Why might you ask does this finding merit importance?

Because the Pharmaceutical drugging model and psychiatry are built upon this very foundation. Without the chemical imbalance and genetics theories to base their drugging modality upon; they in all intent and purpose drugging a huge population with ZERO evidence they are treating anything but behavior and a reaction to life events.

This is quite significant since drugging feelings and behavior is paramount to imprisonment by chemical means without treating any actual disease in all reality.

So once the theory is debunked, so is the treatment modality and false science.

This should come as a huge blow and wake up call to those drug them or they will die folks at NAMI, like organizations as in, and our FDA. But in all reality they will continue to propagate the lies and misinformation campaigns because their livelihoods and existence as influential bodies lay in the balance if "Truth" is thrust into the light of day for all to see.

Below I have posted the "New York Times" article, as well as the Lie and Myth one of these non-advocate group BPkids attempt to push on parents and children through their misinformation campaigns that are largely funded by Huge Pharmaceutical Corporations that are out to make MONEY, and are not looking out for you or your Child's Health interest.

This is a small representation of how the cycle usually plays out: This is ment as a brought outline that cannot even attempt to go into all the detail involved in creating a truth from pure myth.
So I can only try to give an outline in how this happens. There is much more that is involved, but can be overwhelming to internalize/understand completely when presented without all the supporting data and evidence along with it.

I will yield to better and more expertize individuals to do that for you, and hope you will personally delve into the subject matter on your own to draw your individual conclusions.

1. The Pharmaceutical industry funds psychiatry and organization to develop "NEW PSYCHIATRIC DISEASES" {like child bipolar}.

2. Then to give it validity they start a marketing campaign in which by developing industry sponsored support groups turn theory into practice.

3. Big Pharma and psychiatry have "Key Opinion Leaders" {paid for and sponsored by the drug industry} sign off on research papers and theoretical works of conjecture under the osmosis of science.

4. They even run very limited and short duration clinical trails with the whole intent of validating not only a "NEW CREATED DISEASE"; but also the sponsoring drug itself as a viable treatment.

5. They draw the up the criteria to meet their means, take and Cherry pick the data, hide adverse results, have ghost writers validate the results in factious papers dumped into medical journals for the general medical community to except and buy as scientific proof.

6. Then they start marketing the NEW CREATED DISEASE to Doctor's with off label Recommendation of Treatments.

7.The drug companies in turn fund more Ghost written papers and skewed studies {signed off on by Doctor's they have paid huge consulting fees too} to validate this new made up disease, and also the drug they have chosen to market for this made up NEW DISEASE.

8. Now it's time for those direct to doctor marketing schemes, fancy seminars, pay offs, exotic convention excursions, and all those well paid drug reps to go to town in every doctors office and medical community their can find.

9. Soon they have the circle almost completed and all the dots connected. One of the Last steps is to take all this Skewed data and the made up disease before the FDA for certified Drug approval.

10. This is intern is made much easier since they have everyone including those on the FDA approval committees on their payroll and in their pocket. As soon as the FDA has rubber stamped their drug, they have also rubber stamped and validated the NEW MADE UP DISEASE.

11. The last step comes in direct to consumer advertising and marketing. Once this is in full throttle both the drug and the Disease are etched in stone.

12. This is when the money train starts flowing with billions upon billions in profits. This has nothing to do with treating anything that is truly real. But since the Rubber Stamp has run its course; the LIE and MYTH has now been made real in the eyes of the society and medicine.

Everyone is making huge dollars along every step in the process, and the only ones that really pay the Price are all those labeled with a NEW MADE UP DISEASE and have their lives destroyed by incredibly powerful poisons.

This is why I say over and over again that Psychiatry, these non-advocate groups, the Key Opinion leaders that spew poison behind their names, and the Money and profit hungry Drug Industry; have no conscience, or show any inkling of moral, ethical, and social responsibility.

They in all truth have created a legal license to kill and injury hundreds of thousands with absolutely no consequences attached to those actions by the people, government, or courts.


Reported by the New York Times:

Report on Gene for Depression Is Now Faulted

Published: June 16, 2009

One of the most celebrated findings in modern psychiatry — that a single gene helps determine one’s risk of depression in response to a divorce, a lost job or another serious reversal — has not held up to scientific scrutiny, researchers reported Tuesday.
The original finding, published in 2003, created a sensation among scientists and the public because it offered the first specific, plausible explanation of why some people bounce back after a stressful life event while others plunge into lasting despair.
The new report, by several of the most prominent researchers in the field, does not imply that interactions between genes and life experience are trivial; they are almost certainly fundamental, experts agree.
But it does suggest that nailing down those factors in a precise way is far more difficult than scientists believed even a few years ago, and that the original finding could have been due to chance. The new report is likely to inflame a debate over the direction of the field itself, which has found that the genetics of illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder remain elusive.
“This gene/life experience paradigm has been very influential in psychiatry, both in the studies people have done and the way data has been interpreted,” said Dr. Kenneth S. Kendler, a professor of psychiatry and human genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University, “and I think this paper really takes the wind out of its sails.”
Others said the new analysis was unjustifiably dismissive. “What is needed is not less research into gene-environment interaction,” Avshalom Caspi, a neuroscientist at Duke University and lead author of the original paper, wrote in an e-mail message, “but more research of better quality.”
The original study was so compelling because it explained how nature and nurture could collude to produce a complex mood problem. It followed 847 people from birth to age 26 and found that those most likely to sink into depression after a stressful event — job loss, sexual abuse, bankruptcy — had a particular variant of a gene involved in the regulation of serotonin, a brain messenger that affects mood. Those in the study with another variant of the gene were significantly more resilient.
“I think what happened is that people who’d been working in this field for so long were desperate to have any solid finding,” Kathleen R. Merikangas, chief of the genetic epidemiology research branch of the National Institute of Mental Health and senior author of the new analysis, said in a phone interview. “It was exciting, and some people thought it was the finding in psychiatry, a major advance.”
The excitement spread quickly. Newspapers and magazines reported the finding. Columnists, commentators and op-ed writers emphasized its importance. The study provided some despairing patients with comfort, and an excuse — “Well, it is in my genes.” It reassured some doctors that they were medicating an organic disorder, and stirred interest in genetic testing for depression risk.
Since then, researchers have tried to replicate the gene finding in more than a dozen studies. Some found similar results; others did not. In the new study, being published Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, Neil Risch of the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Merikangas led a coalition of researchers who identified 14 studies that gathered the same kinds of data as the original study. The authors reanalyzed the data and found “no evidence of an association between the serotonin gene and the risk of depression,” no matter what people’s life experience was, Dr. Merikangas said.
By contrast, she said, a major stressful event, like divorce, in itself raised the risk of depression by 40 percent.
The authors conclude that the widespread acceptance of the original findings was premature, writing that “it is critical that health practitioners and scientists in other disciplines recognize the importance of replication of such findings before they can serve as valid indicators of disease risk” or otherwise change practice.
Dr. Caspi and other psychiatric researchers said it would be equally premature to abandon research into gene-environment interaction, when brain imaging and other kinds of evidence have linked the serotonin gene to stress sensitivity.
“This is an excellent review paper, no one is questioning that,” said Myrna Weissman, a professor of epidemiology and psychiatry at Columbia. “But it ignored extensive evidence from humans and animals linking excessive sensitivity to stress” to the serotonin gene.
Dr. Merikangas said she and her co-authors deliberately confined themselves to studies that could be directly compared to the original. “We were looking for replication,” she said.

Perpetrating the Lie and Myth

From the "Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation" Web Site.


Bipolar disorder is a complex genetic illness. The illness is highly inheritable. Researchers have uncovered a handful of genes that may elevate the risk of bipolar disorder and are searching for dozens more genes that may be involved. The following statistics support the search for the genetic origins of bipolar disorder:

* For the general population, a conservative estimate of an individual's risk of having Bipolar I disorder is 1% to 3%. Disorders in the bipolar spectrum are thought to affect at least 4% to 6 % of the general population.
* When one parent has bipolar disorder, the risk that his or her child will have bipolar disorder is 15% to 30%.
* When both parents have bipolar disorder, the risk increases to 50% to 75%.
* If a sibling (including a fraternal twin) has bipolar disorder, the child's risk is 15% to 25%.
* The risk in identical twins is approximately 85%.8

The family trees of many children who develop pediatric bipolar disorder include individuals who suffered from substance abuse or mood disorders (perhaps undiagnosed) or both. Because previous generations were less likely to diagnose bipolar disorder, affected family members may have been written off as “crazy Auntie” or simply as prone to troubling behaviors, such as alcoholism, frequent periods of unemployment, dysfunctional personal relationships, bankruptcies, or incarceration. Interestingly, the family tree might also have many members who are highly-accomplished, creative, charismatic and extremely successful in business, politics, and the arts.


Just, as juvenile diabetes is generally a more severe disorder than adult-onset diabetes, pediatric bipolar disorder appears to be more perilous than adult-onset bipolar disorder. The rationale for early intervention is compelling.

Common outcomes of pediatric bipolar disorder are school refusal, suspension, and dropping-out; impulsive acts of aggression; self-injury; substance abuse; and suicide attempts and completions. Teens with symptoms of untreated bipolar disorder are arrested and incarcerated. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teens. Children as young as six have attempted to hang, shoot, stab or overdose themselves. Suicide Prevention Tips.

The longest study on pediatric bipolar disorder is ongoing under the direction of Barbara Geller, M.D., a child psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. In the mid-1990s, Dr. Geller began observing 93 children whose average age was 10.8 years. All of the children had mania (Bipolar I) which had begun to onset at an average age of 6.8 years. Assessing the children after four years, Geller and colleagues found that children with mania were sicker than adults, less likely than adults to recover, and relapsed sooner than adults with mania.4 Differences in symptom severity and frequency of cycling between manic and depressive episodes have presented questions as to whether bipolar disorder in youth is the same illness as in adults. A study published in 2006 by Dr. Geller and colleagues showed that early-onset Bipolar I disorder does appear to be the same illness as adult-onset Bipolar I disorder.5

Another study of three major subtypes of bipolar disorder that affect children and adolescents is ongoing under the direction of David Axelson, M.D., a child psychiatrist at Western Psychiatric Institutes and Clinics in Pittsburgh. A report on the 263 children and adolescents, ages 7-17 years, confirmed that bipolar disorder affects children and adolescents more severely than adults.6 “Study participants had comparatively longer symptomatic stages and more frequent cycling (changing from one mood to another) or mixed episodes. Children and adolescents also converted from a less severe form of bipolar disorder to a more severe form at a much higher rate than seen in adults.”

Note: child bipolar is not in the DSM, is hotly debated/contested even among the psychiatric community, is not recognized by the rest of the civilized world, or is there any real criteria for this myth.

So they ran studies on something that has no criteria other than what they made up { see how this myth making process works}. Now they have got dangerous and deadly drugs approved for a myth??? If it smells like poop, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be psychiatry feeding us some more quackery!

How about those Genes? How about that chemical imbalance? How about some proof and real science? show us all the pathology please?


Stephany said...

From the "Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation" Web Site.


Bipolar disorder is a complex genetic illness.

what a bunch of crock! they promote drugging kids based on that?

they should be sued for making that statement! it writes as truth!

Anonymous said...

Peace be with you Stan

I really enjoy reading your blog. However my eyes ain't what they used to be, and neither is your font. I don't know how it works for you, but a larger font size would tickle the shit out of me.

Keep up the good work; you rock.

love eternal

Stan said...

Dear Tad:

I re-sized the font and hope its easier to read now. Thanks for stopping by, and keep up the good fight.

Yours Truly,

Mark p.s./Mark p.s.2 said...

A good description of the money machine.
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is Mad.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
[In regione caecorum rex est luscus.]
Desiderius Erasmus, Adagia (III, IV, 96)
Dutch author, philosopher, & scholar (1466 - 1536)

Stephany said...

Is the font like those big print happy birthday you old fart cards?

Stan said...

Dear Stephany:

I have increased the font size to the outer limits of general readership satisfaction; though in considering your advanced age and level of decay.

If I increase the size any further {as in three mega large font letters per page}, you may choose instead to take some Braille classes instead of reading this humble blog. LMAO

Your concerned blog owner,

Stephany said...

Who you callin' decayed? LOL

Yeah well you can go to places you already are! hahahahaha

I thought this is the outer limits

doo doo doo doo

Anonymous said...

Good post, Stan. Too bad that within the last 48 hours, the pharma companies have banded together with O-Why-The-Hell-Do-You-Need-A-Doctor-Since-I-Have-Arrived-To-Save-You-Bama.

Kudos to you for posting about the false info that the pharma companies put forth about kids and drugs.

Plus, it gives me girly goose-bumps to think that my BFFWOB is so educated and intelligent. "smooching sounds"

Stephany said...

i'm thrilled i don't have to beat it to the front of the line to purchase the last pair of white gloves at walmart, hell that billie jean cuts in front of me every time.

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.