Sunday, May 10, 2009

Taking advantage of vulnerable victims of psychiatry : Sociological and Psychological Impact of charity donations


Taking advantage of vulnerable victims of psychiatry : Sociological and Psychological Impact of charity donations or private causes

----There are many good people and charities out there in this world doing great work saving, touching, and improving lives for countless millions. But where there is good causes and works; there are also those that will use these very same causes to pray on the uninformed, innocent, naive, unquestioning, and good intended people for profit, greed, or like crimes of victimization.

Just maybe before you give, you should stop, think, and ask some questions!

1. What are the main reasons people give to charity?

2. What are the sociological reasons?

3. What are the psychological reasons?

4. How does the manipulation factor intersect with desire to conform?

5. How does trust play a role in charitable donation?

6. How does the current psychiatric paradigm create victims?

7. How does the current psychiatric paradigm inbreed victimization?


Organizations that may prey on vulnerable victims of psychiatry by asking for funding

I'm not going to judge any of these following organizations or causes that I have made a very short and limited list of below; but you may want to use some of these examples as a jumping off point in your own research. We all more than likely have heard of a scam or two related to these following causes. Its your money, your emotional investment; then don't you wish to be well informed and give wisely?

EXAMPLES:

Scientology

New Age Healing

NAMI

Hurricane Katrina relief fund

911 disaster relief fund

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- some independent, personal, sound advice, and questions to ask--

How does one protect self from becoming a victim?

what questions do you ask about the charity/cause before giving: a common sense approach to protecting your self from fraud/victimization.

1. Where does the money go?


2. Is there a trust bank account set up for the funds?


3. Who is the money really helping {ask for detailed specifics and how much administrative cost are involved}?


4. Is there a contact information to verify need?


5. What if the fundraiser goal is not met or need no longer exist; will money be returned?

6. Is this money tax deductible, non-profit, and what is the fundraiser's tax ID number?

7. Is there full disclosure and independent monitoring of funds?

8. Is there reason for concern or questions about the ethical nature of this person, cause, or organization?

9. Does the cause/charity change/vary focus in mid-stream or do inquirers invoke a hostile response? (this could be a RED FLAG)

If in doubt or you have not received adequate information; you may wish to keep your money, contact local authorities, or law enforcement!

--------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum April 17,2009 - MindHacks web site just posted a great article on this topic -

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/05/the_psychology_of_be.html

----------------------------------------------

I have listed links below that would give you loads of information if anyone is interested in this topic, or suspects they are or have been the victim of a charity, scam, con, cult, crime, or cause.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJB-45S933K-C&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fe53e35a7714939dc62feeeb839d740d

Relations between Values, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions: The Moderating Role of Attitude Function

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119524010/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Applying Social Psychology to Induce Charitable Donations


--------
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119922486/abstract

Mimicry and Pro social Behavior
-------

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=60C5AC2B70E4B979B1B4C18DA762CEB4?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=856044

The Marketing of Altruistic Causes: Understanding Why People Help
--------

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a901882754~db=all

Ostracism increases social susceptibility
--------

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=info:k4N_IAblqLcJ:scholar.google.com/&output=viewport&pg=1
-------
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a783718183~db=all
The Effect of a Favor on Public and Private Compliance: How Internalized is the Norm of Reciprocity?
---

http://www.down-syndrome.org/reports/22/

http://www.jstor.org/pss/30000773

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112636568/abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5W-4V87DJB-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b1a68eed74920c0dc73ca0b8893108b2

---
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5W-4V87DJB-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b1a68eed74920c0dc73ca0b8893108b2

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/903937/peter_popoff_the_televangelist_fraud.html?cat=49

http://www.lavasoft.com/company/newsletter/2008/07_31/article6.html

Friday, May 8, 2009

FDA fast tracks poison once again


FDA FAST TRACKS POISON ONCE AGAIN

Reported by Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/07/fda-vanda-trials-business-health-care-antipsychotics.html



Is The FDA Easing Up?

by Matthew Herper,

How one company turned a rejection into a thumbs up, and what it could mean for the drug industry as a whole.

After the Food and Drug Administration told Vanda Pharmaceuticals that the company's schizophrenia drug was "not approvable" last July, Wall Street marked the tiny biotech for dead.

The FDA asked for a new clinical trial; Vanda insisted it could change the agency's mind with its existing data. Its shares sank from $4 to 45 cents. A hedge fund, Tang Capital Partners, started a proxy fight to try and get Vanda to liquidate and distribute the proceeds to shareholders.


Then Wednesday night, the FDA announced it was approving the drug, Fanapt, based on data from 3,000 patients. Vanda shares exploded 700% to $8. That's the kind of jackpot that could start getting investors interested in gambling on tiny biotechs again.

But the Vanda story may signal something far more important for investors than just a reminder that biotech stocks can pop: an easier FDA. Both Wyeth ( WYE - news - people ), which is being bought by Pfizer ( PFE - news - people ), and Schering-Plough ( SGP - news - people ), which is being bought by Merck ( MRK - news - people ), were rebuffed last year by the FDA after submitting data for schizophrenia drugs.

Together with the July rejection of Fanapt, it seemed the FDA was setting a higher bar for new antipsychotics, demanding they must not only beat placebo results but also be at least as effective as existing drugs like Seroquel, from AstraZeneca ( AZN - news - people ), and Zyprexa, from Eli Lilly ( LLY - news - people ).

"The inference was that the FDA may be changing its policy and requiring superiority or distinctiveness for new drugs coming to a market that is already crowded," says Jeffrey Lieberman, chairman of psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center. But the Fanapt approval "would suggest the agency is still doing business as usual."

Lieberman says he is "amazed" the FDA approved the drug. He says the approval is "probably a testament to persistence" on Vanda's part. "There's no harm in having it," he says. "It gives clinicians another option to choose from, but it doesn't really add anything in terms of any substantial advance in efficacy or safety."

Lieberman was the primary investigator for a government-funded clinical trial that showed there was little difference in how long patients stuck with the new class of antipsychotics, like Zyprexa and Risperdal, vs. the older, cheaper variety, such as Haldol. That study, called CATIE, led to soul searching by psychiatrists over how big the advantages of the new drugs were. These antipsychotics are now the best-selling drugs in the U.S., according to IMS Health ( RX - news - people ), a consulting firm.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So much for that new and improved FDA Obama promised in his "CHANGE" message.

The bought and paid for FDA is now even more corrupt and controlled by Big Pharma and the medical industry than ever before in our history. Before you take that next PILL, you better STOP and wonder what it really is in truth and how much harm it really does; because you can be damned sure our government or its representative the FDA will not be looking out for your interest or health. "Money speaks and the rest weep" is the new FDA motto and creed.

How about this for a scary "brave new world" scenario and thought; If the government can get the general population to buy into taking poisons on a grand scale; we can now save the over burdened social security system due to so few people living long enough to ever collect its benefits.

Jeez, how much blind faith people must have in a puppet government ran by greedy special mega international corporate interest? I guess the next step is having the UN save us all from ourselves; since we all know how above board and uncorrupted they are?


Thursday, May 7, 2009

Grassley, Sticking Around at Finance, Talks Health With Obama

Grassley, Sticking Around at Finance, Talks Health With Obama

The Wall Street Journal Blog Reports - http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/05/06/grassley-sticking-around-at-finance-talks-health-with-obama/


GrassleySo it turns out Chuck Grassley is sticking around as the ranking republican on the Senate Finance Committee, one of the centers of power in the health reform debate.

We were reminded of these facts by the news that Grassley and Max Baucus, who chairs the committee, had lunch at the White House today with Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They spent most of the meal talking about health reform, the Des Moines Register reports.

We reported the buzz last week that Grassley might give up his spot as the top Republican on the Finance Committee and become the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee (a job that opened up when Arlen Specter switched parties). The prospect apparently had some pharma lobbyists pretty excited, given Grassley’s scrutiny of the industry.

But it didn’t work out that way. Instead, Jeff Sessions will be the ranking Republican at Judiciary through the end of next year. Grassley will take over the job after that, the Associated Press said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally some good news for mental health consumers and everyday citizens of America. Senator Grassley has been a one men wrecking crew working to bring to light corruption, greed, and criminal activities by Big Pharma, Psychiatry, Academia, and the whole corrupt American Medical System.

Thank you Senator Grassley, and keep up the great work you do on behalf of the American People.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

In Senate Probe, NAMI Admits To Over Half Its Budget Being Pharma Dollars



NAMI - Dressed up all pretty and nice; while following their chosen Shepard Big Pharma all the way to the bank.

In Senate Probe, NAMI Admits To Over Half Its Budget Being Pharma Dollars!


From MindFreedom:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/psych-drug-corp/nami

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

US Senate Probe Discovers:

Most NAMI Money is From Psychiatric Drug Industry

by MindFreedom News

NAMI has admitted to a US Senate probe that a majority of their funds
over the last five years, 56 percent on average, have been from drug
corporations. NAMI has agreed with the probe to immediately begin
quarterly postings to their web site with a list of drug company
donations and amounts.

MindFreedom obtained a letter sent last week by NAMI executive
director Michael J. Fitzpatrick to "NAMI Leaders and Members." The
letter is a response to the probe of NAMI by US Senator Charles
Grassley (R-IA) initiated on 6 April 2009.

In the 28 April letter, copied below, Mr. Fitzpatrick wrote, "As
reported to Senator Grassley, pharmaceutical companies contributed an
average of 56% of national NAMI's budget annually for the period 2005
- 2009."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment:


Yes, this should come as no surprise to anyone that has been watching NAMI and their drug pimping ways. They are, and always will be just a cheap front for Big Pharma. NAMI is just another bad link, in a long chain of endless problems that have lead to what amounts to nothing more than a complete lie and fraud perpetrated by Psychiatry, Big Pharma, and like minded others upon our society and lives. They have only one goal as their predecessors did with psychiatry in the Early 1900's, to control and abuse those with altered constitutions for profit and power.

This is just a modern spin on the same old
Eugenics practices and beliefs psychiatry and the medical profession has used before to abuse, torture, and destroy those they see as LESS THAN! If you don't get it by now; go read about the history of Psychiatry in America for your self.

Because American Psychiatry gave Germany and the NAZI's the model and tools they used to kill millions in internment and concentration camps during and leading up to World War 2.
Read about how the Rockefeller's, Kellogg's, All the IVY League University's, and other elites financed and backed the whole Eugenics movement in America, and supported its rise in Germany after World War 1. They haven't changed that much really! Just today they have found a new way to package an old product to make a lot more money poisoning and abusing those they see as the afflicted and less than.

Friday, May 1, 2009

Grassley may leave Finance committee - High Fives at the FDA and among Big Pharma Crooks?


Grassley may leave Finance committee - High Fives at the FDA and among Big Pharma Sleaze?


One of the few voices of sanity and the people's faithful watch dog in the senate and government; Senator Grassley may leave his position on the Finance committee to move over to the Judiciary Committee.

To give Senator Grassley some due credit here; he has always made it clear of his wishes to some day be ranking republican member of the Judiciary Committee which has the responsibility to vent nominated supreme court and federal judge appointments.

The sad irony of this particular situation is that Senator Grassley has a whole bunch of business to finish up on the finance committee related to investigations of Big Pharma, Psychiatry, the FDA, NAMI, and universities in the form of research grants and Big Pharma's over influence, manipulation of data and information, pay offs for profit, and straight out fraud surrounding the whole mental health industry.

This is power politics and brokering at the highest levels of our government. I can only hope Senator Grassley stays put until all the dirty laundry is properly aired, investigations are completed, and these greedy crocks that have and still are to this day, damaging our children and disabled.

These criminals must be removed from practice, and go to jail for this to be settled and put to rest.
The crocks at Big Pharma, the FDA, NAMI, Psychiatry, and University's are jumping up and down today with relief and great joy!

But don't let that breath of relief out quite yet criminal greed mongering folks!

I can't help but believe Senator Grassley will leave the finance committee without all these stones being unearthed for what they really are! His integrity and leadership is needed now more than ever, the people need him now more than ever as their voice of ethics, responsibility, and reason; and I personally pray Senator Grassley is reading this, and is aware of how important his work has been to the millions upon millions of citizens he has truly and faithfully represented on these pending and vitally important issues.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/04/30/a-break-for-pharma-grassley-may-leave-finance-panel/

By Alicia Mundy

A Break for Pharma? Grassley May Leave Finance Panel?

Grassley In what may be the biggest break that the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry have gotten in years, GOP Sen. Charles Grassley is apparently on the verge of stepping out of his leading role on the Senate Finance Committee to take the top Republican spot on the Judiciary Committee.

The potential sea change has had industry lobbyists buzzing today. One who represents a big drug company that has been under fire from Grassley said his client had called his home to ask about “the good news” around 6 a.m.

A former FDA official also said that some current FDA leaders who have been dragged before the Senate to explain various crises at the agency in recent years were exchanging high-fives — seriously, he said — at FDA headquarters in White Oak, Md.

The ranking Republican slot on Judiciary opened up when Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania changed parties this week. Grassley of Iowa already sits on Judiciary and has wanted to move up, but had planned to stay put on the Finance Committee the next 18 months because of the important role the committee will play in overhauling health care. The Finance Committee oversees Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention tax issues that affect hospitals, drug makers and insurance companies.

Because of that portfolio, Grassley has been able to become the oversight czar on FDA and the drug industry, a job few in Congress had an appetite for except Democratic Reps. John Dingell and Bart Stupak, both of Michigan. Since early 2004, Grassley has kicked the FDA hard on its handling of safety issues on everything from SSRI antidepressants to the painkiller Vioxx to medical devices to blockbuster drugs made by Glaxo, the antidepressant Paxil and the diabetes medicine Avandia.

Most importantly, Grassley has almost single-handedly changed the relationship between the drug industry and university researchers and their institutions. In less than two years, his committee’s push to reveal industry ties with medical stars — Joseph Biederman of Harvard and Charles Nemeroff of Emory are prime examples — has provoked major upheavals in university policies limiting the amount of outside money their researchers can take directly from drug makers, and restricting roles with company speakers bureaus and as consultants. Universities dread getting calls from Grassley’s staff about money trails involving researchers, a medical expert at one very large southern university said.

Grassley would like to be able to hold off the Judiciary change, according to The Hill newspaper, but his fate is in the hands of other Republicans, who might make him choose now.

One drug lobbyist who called to ask about Grassley leaving Finance, whispered, “Is it TRUE?”

Update: An FDA spokesman said he had found no evidence of any reaction on the part of ageny staffers to stories about Grassley’s pending move. “We have and will continue to have the highest regard for Sen. Grassley,” said George Strait of the FDA Office of Public Affairs.

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.

ALL CONTENT ON THIS WEB SITE IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN "AS IS," "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. Stan MAKES NO WARRANTY AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, CURRENCY, OR RELIABILITY OF ANY CONTENT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS WEB SITE.

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.

NO WARRANTIES “Is Something Not Quite Right With Stan - A Mental Health Blog” MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES THAT USE OF THE WEB SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT ANY CONTENT YOU MAY OBTAIN FROM THE WEB SITE IS FREE OF VIRUSES.

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.