Friday, July 30, 2010

Robert Whitaker's book "anatomy of an epidemic" receives glowing review in Tucson Green Times

Robert Whitaker's book "anatomy of an epidemic" receives glowing review in Tucson Green Times

Book Review: Mental Health & Drugs – July 2010

Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America

By Robert Whitaker

Hardcover: 416 pages

Publisher: Crown

Review by Mary Ackerley, MD, MDH

Tucson Green Times – July 2010

Robert Whitaker’s brilliant book Anatomy of an Epidemic asks a simple question: Why, if psychiatric drug treatments are so efficacious, has the number of people on disability for mental illness more than tripled in the last 25 years?

Most doctors and researchers answered this question by stating that the numbers have increased simply because we are diagnosing more people with mental illness. In response to this stereotyped dismissal of his data, Whitaker began to do more research on the efficacy of known psychiatric treatments. And then, while poring through the psychiatric scientific literature on treatment effectiveness for the last 50 years, he found an even darker question beginning to emerge. “Is it possible that psychiatric drugs are actually making people much worse?”

Could it be that – far from “fixing broken brains” – the drugs being offered actually are worsening, and even causing, the very illnesses they claim to heal?

The year 1987 can be considered ground zero for the new era of psychopharmacology. Prozac had just been introduced and was being widely advertised to the psychiatric profession, as well as to the general public, as a new and safer antidepressant.

As a young psychiatric resident, I was proudly confident that the treatment of psychiatric illness was being revolutionized and that we could all look forward to a world where severe depression, anxiety and mania no longer crippled and ruined human lives. Wrong.

It should be apparent to many that, despite the incredible profiteering of the pharmaceutical industry off of psychiatric illness, that depression and anxiety are still rampant in this country. At the start of the psychopharmacological “revolution” when it became popular to blame all illness on “imbalanced brain chemistry” the percentage of bipolar patients who could return to work was 85 percent. Today it is less than 30 percent.

Certainly the introduction of the SSRI’s (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) revolutionized the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry. In 1987 about half a billion dollars were spent on psychiatric medications. By 2010 the figure is closer to $40 billion!

Actually, in children the disability figures are far more frightening. In 1987 there were less than 20,000 severely mentally disabled children. Today there are almost 600,000. That is a 30-fold increase. Part of that is due to the diagnosis of autism, while more is due to the even newer diagnosis of bipolar disorder in children, which has increased 40-fold in the last 10 years!

Most frightening are the numbers of children under the age of six receiving SSRI, which have tripled over the last 10 years to more than 65,000. Under six? How can this possibly be? Were psychiatrists 20 years ago oblivious to the plight of these severely disabled children? I can assure you, from my experience that is not true.

Rather, it seems that drug companies have discovered another very profitable market in young children and are busy pushing their drugs, in particular the atypical antipsychotics, onto children with the newly diagnosed pediatric bipolar disorder. How can anyone possibly predict the long-term impact of a major tranquilizer, used to subdue agitated and psychotic adults, on a five-year-old brain? Those studies have not been done.

From these sobering statistics, the author then goes on to answer the following questions about long-term results with psychiatric medicines:

  • Does antidepressant usage make it more likely that you will become disabled?
  • Are bipolar patients better off than they were 40 years ago?
  • When the National Institute of Health studied the long-term outcome of children treated for ADHD did they find that stimulants provided any benefit?
  • And, most startlingly of all to anyone who has been indoctrinated in the current medical thinking that psychiatric patients are always better off on medications, he asks an unthinkable question – are recovery rates for schizophrenics better with or without medication?

In addition, Whitaker chronicles the stories of many of the people who have been diagnosed for depression and bipolar disorder and treated with many different types of psychiatric medication. In fact, in some parts of the book where he examines scientific evidence it may seem a bit heavy, he more than makes up for it by interweaving the stories of many psychiatric patients whom he has personally interviewed.

In one of the most interesting parts of the book for me, it seems that if you are schizophrenic and living in India or Nigeria, your chances of a good outcome are far higher than if you live in the U.S. where everyone is medicated. The fact seems astonishing, and the World Health Organization repeated the study, but found the same thing: Living in an undeveloped country where meds are scarce, but patients are cared for by the community, assures a much better prognosis for schizophrenia.

However, Whitaker also quotes several studies done in the U.S. from the late 70s that showed similar results: Young adults suffering a first episode of schizophrenia who were not medicated showed significantly better outcomes in terms of subsequent relapse. Later in the book he details the current treatment of schizophrenia in an experimental clinic where drugs are rarely prescribed. Again, the findings are similar – patients there have much better long term outcomes than other schizophrenics who are routinely medicated.

I admit to having been somewhat naïve as a young doctor. I thought the fact that drug companies paid psychiatric professors to do their research was not a big deal. Again, wrong!

The last chapters of Anatomy of an Epidemic tallies up the enormous profits the drug companies and certain psychiatrists have made off the reinvention of psychiatry as biological psychopharmacology. He details how the growth of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual from DSM 2 to DSM 4 has fueled the growth of diagnosing more and more Americans as having a psychiatric illness which requires pharmacological treatment, and suggests this was a necessary preparation for “building the market” for the drug company’s wares.

Now, most scientists would absolutely bristle at the suggestion that their passion to finally make psychiatry a real science was actually a ploy to help the drug companies remarkably expand their profits. Yet there is no doubt the expansion of the definitions of psychiatric illness, which now has one in every eight Americans taking a psychotropic medication, has been exceedingly profitable.

Drug company sales of psychotropic medication went from about half a billion in 1987 to more than $40 billion in 2008. Atypical antipsychotics, once reserved for the most severely ill patients, are now the top revenue producer for drug companies, helped by the psychiatric professions’ willingness to prescribe these meds even to two-year-olds. Dr. Joseph Biederman, the psychiatrist most associated with leading the way to using antipsychotics for children by popularizing pediatric bipolar illness, personally received $1.6 million from 2000 to 2007, as well as procuring another $2 million for a pediatric pathology department at Massachusetts General Hospital. He is a designated KOL by the drug companies, which means a Key Opinion Leader. That means what he writes and says is usually followed by other psychiatrists.

In a recent deposition, he was asked his rank at Harvard Medical School. “Full professor,” he replied. “What’s above that?” asked the attorney. “God,” replied Dr. Biederman. Truly that is a response worthy of a KOL.

This is not the book of a disgruntled patient who is angry at the system. It is the carefully researched and documented expose of a multi-billion dollar industry that affects the lives of at least a quarter of the population. It is also an engrossing read, and an accurate depiction of the lives of people who are afflicted with these illnesses. I would recommend it to anyone who has ever used, or had a family member use, psychiatric services or been given psychiatric medication.

Author: Mary Ackerley MD, MDH, is a classically trained psychiatrist and homeopathic physician in private practice in Tucson.

Being mad is one thing, going mad quite another - added prospective on the DSM-V

I happen to run across this interesting article from across the pond which paints a different prospective on the heated DSM-V debate. So I thought I would share it here in the spirit of balance and good old American apple pie fairness. I may not necessarily agree in totality with everything written in the article. Yet, there are some good points made well worth consideration and recognition. The comment section at the web site link below also has some lively and interesting discussion.


Being mad is one thing, going mad quite another

@ The Guardian

Many are worried that the latest edition of the psychiatrist's 'bible' labels everyone as ill – but this has an upside

Each edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has a massive impact on psychiatric practice and medical education around the world. The book lists mental disorders and explains how to diagnose them. Seen as a gold standard, it dictates diagnostic practice in mainstream medicine.

Every media mention of DSM calls it the "bible" of mental health, and, like the latter, it generates passionate controversy. Proposals for the next edition, due in 2013, have sparked international protest, as DSM-5 looks as if it will lower the threshold of what counts as mental disorder. Critics have argued that new categories like "psychosis risk syndrome", "temper dysregulation disorder", and "binge eating" threaten to pathologise the human condition, turning clinically insignificant behavior into illness.

People with no signs of distress may be encouraged or coerced to have therapy or take medication, with diagnoses such as "psychosis risk syndrome" being made even if a psychosis has not appeared. With the ramification of diagnoses, stigmatization and discrimination would snowball. After DSM-5, no one will be normal again.

These critiques are both enlightening and obfuscating. The new DSM follows the logic of its predecessors: disorder is defined in terms of behavior, so that visible aspects of our lives are used to define clinical categories. If you're nervous and shy, rather than seeing this as the symptom of an underlying clinical category to be discovered, it becomes a clinical category in itself: social phobia.

Gone is the idea of complex psychical causality or even of an interior life. For DSM, only two kinds of causes exist: biological and stress-related. The new diagnoses are made on surface symptoms that can be swiftly classified rather than invisible structures that can only be diagnosed after considerable time. As one American psychiatrist put it, using the ever-expanding diagnostic system of DSM was like trying to carve the Thanksgiving turkey according to its feathers rather than its bone structure.

This expansion cannot be denied. The first edition of DSM in 1952 was a mere 129 pages, with a few basic diagnostic categories. By the 1980s it had grown to over 900 pages, and the 180 categories of mental disorder present in 1984 would more than double over the next decade. What could explain this exponential increase in the number of mental disorders we supposedly suffer from?

DSM followed a market-led vision of the psyche in which symptoms were isolated entities that could be locally targeted. A symptom was not seen as a general problem in a person's existence which, if unraveled, might lead to the unraveling of the self, but as a local disturbance that could be managed and put right. It reflected not only today's atomization of the self but also the belief that we can change parts of ourselves without affecting other parts.

Changes in drug legislation also played a part. Each new product had to define its active ingredients, the outcomes sought and the delivery period for attaining them. This meant a new kind of surface precision. Drugs would have to prove through expensive trials that they were more effective than placebo and did better than other drugs. It was the drug industry that created the new diagnostic categories. With each new category came a new medication.

Exacerbating this problem is the fact that in many parts of the US, a clinician will only receive reimbursement if they make a prescription, which means making a diagnosis. Like drugs themselves, clinical categories become objects in the marketplace, wielding economic power. The result is that the patient's underlying problems may well be neglected in favor of surface diagnoses that are both unscientific and misleading.

Curiously, the uproar over the DSM-5 proposals does bring a key clinical issue into focus. Critics complain that no one will be normal, as the threshold for disorder will be so low. But shouldn't this make us question the usefulness of talk of normality or, indeed, of "mental health"? Have these terms ever really helped anyone, beyond reinforcing the prejudices of "us" and "them"?

It is true that many people diagnosed with a so-called "mental illness" find the label helpful, allowing them to see their difficulties on a par with a physical illness, to be recognized and treated. But who are the "normal" people we would set them up against? Clinically, normality and psychosis are often the same thing. Someone may complain that everything is the neighbor's fault, not theirs, or that a plot has been hatched against them. Old psychiatry recognized this innocence of some psychotic subjects. Clinicians also know that it is in the most serious cases that a childhood is described as happy or uneventful.

Realizing that no one is healthy and normal does not have to mean pathologising or medicating them. On the contrary, it can introduce a more humane approach to so-called "mental illness". Even Eugen Bleuler, who popularized the term "schizophrenia", argued that the most common form of this condition was latent. Once we accept that we can have disorders that don't activate – or to put it another way, that there is a difference between being mad and going mad – we might study what allows one person to function and another not to.

This is what old psychiatry once explored with detail and passion: the lifestyle choices, activities, roles or other solutions that people found to avoid breakdown. Studying these restitution mechanisms can help us to work with those who have not been so fortunate, and who find their lives shattered by the outbreak of psychosis.

The imperative to make people normal – rather than recognize the fault lines in all of us and strive to make them more bearable – is a constant pressure for a mental health force already overburdened by a focus on categorization rather than on humane interactions and the uniqueness of an individual's story. Multiplying labels will not reduce the distress of those suffering most in our society: it can only serve to mask the lack in what we provide.


Never a dull moment in AstraZeneca's Seroquel World - Report of 4000 lawsuits settled in principle

Never a dull moment in AstraZeneca's Seroquel World - Report of 4000 lawsuits settled in principle

Of course using principle and AstraZeneca in the same sentence is pretty much a juxtaposition; but it will be interesting to see how this plays out on the media theater stage. My guess is that this news is paramount to them signing another worthless CIA ( corporate integrity agreement ), and then going back to the dirty business of pharmaceutical cartel profiteering as usual.

From soulful sepulcher Via pharmagossip

AstraZeneca Settles Nearly 4000 Seroquel injury claims, Terms confidential

HAT TIP and direct copy/ paste from PHARMAGOSSIP: Friday, July 30, 2010 AstraZeneca Settles Nearly 4,000 Seroquel Injury Claims; Terms Confidential

LONDON - (Mealey's) AstraZeneca PLC said July 29 that it has agreed in principle to settle with nearly 4,000 Seroquel product liability plaintiffs.

The company said settlement terms are confidential.
In notes to its second-quarter financial report, AstraZeneca said that as of July 27, mediation ordered by Judge Anne C. Conway in the Seroquel multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida "has resulted in agreements in principle on monetary terms, subject to various subsequent conditions, approvals and agreement on non-monetary terms, with the attorneys representing nearly 4,000 claimants."

"The specific terms of those conditional agreements in principle are by agreement, and at the request of the mediator, confidential at this time but would not be material in the context of the Company's quarterly results," AstraZeneca said.

As of June 29, AstraZeneca said it was defending against 10,363 served or answered Seroquel lawsuits in the United States involving 22,412 plaintiff groups. It said about 72 percent of the cases are in state courts, primarily Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Alabama.

The remaining 28 percent are in the MDL court.
As of July 8, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reported that there were 6,217 active MDL cases, down from a high of 8,187. Claims of about 1,000 plaintiffs are consolidated in one federal court in California, AstraZeneca said.

In addition, AstraZeneca said it is aware of about 176 additional cases representing about 3,661 plaintiffs that have been filed but not yet served. It said some of the cases involve other drug manufacturers, such as Eli Lilly and Co., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. and/or Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Speak and Be Drugged - Selling Depression to Sell Drugs - Edelman PR, DBSA, AstraZeneca

Speak and Be Drugged - Selling Depression to Sell Drugs - Edelman PR, DBSA, AstraZeneca

SPEAK AND BE HEARD - Sounds a lot like "Monkey See, Monkey Do"


"Share Your Experience.Your Voice. Your Success"-give rights to your story to AstraZeneca & DBSA for DTC, sales "education"

AstraZeneca Sponsors DBSA contest for bipolar and depression:

To submit your entry online, please visit

So AstraZeneca teams up with DBSA using the New York firm Edelman PR to run a freak show contest?

Now what 5 billion dollar a year drug does AstraZeneca make that they are pushing for "Depression" with a patent running out in 2012?

They do have that powerful tranquilizer, turned anti-psychotic, turned anti-depressant, turned popular street drugs named SEROQUEL???

Maybe I can search out some contest worthy submissions using the "Urban Dictionary" as a resource.

Urban Dictionary: seroquel

Now, how about using some of these comments as submissions. You know with a little optical illusion and distorted images these could be groundbreaking advertising:

"This pill is most certainly not the shit. I don't know how this drug has such a modern image when it's complete shit. The side effects I can't really comment on, except for one: sedation. If your doctor put you on this he seriously wants you to stfu. This drug makes people so tired it's insanity. 100mg of this and you'll drift off for hours. It might help if you can't sleep but be aware it's addicting. They don't put this on the label, but I'm 100% certain the body becomes dependant on it for sleep. If you can't get it, then you'll lie awake in a manic state all night. The best way to deal with this, is to take some antihistamine sleeping pills, and very slowly try to take yourself off them. I'm sure the drug company is aware how dependant people get and is making alot of money of people who got suckered and now take it just to sleep. It probably causes weightgain to, and there's some evidence it can cause cataracts. If you hear the drug name seroquel, realize that it's a drug which even in small doses will cause people to become snowed. If there's any youths out there who have parents making them take these mickey mouse drugs, then trust me on one thing; deal with your objection to your forced treatment now instead of when you're on your own. There is nothing modern about this drug, it's used to shut people up. This drug is so potent I'm sure it could be used to make people pass out. If I could go back to when I was taking this drug, I would have gave a dose to my dad and watched him pass the fuck out. The reality is, that no one will believe you about the sedation unless they experience it. They had me driving on this shit and I was fucked up. Oh and there's nothing enjoyable about being this tired, it's not relaxing!! Please don't vote about this definition until you've taken at least 150mg of this drug or else you're probably still believing the marketing lies. The youth was being questioning of authority's so the school decided he should be shut the fuck up; they gave him seroquels." --------------------------
"A common anti-psychotic. One of the many “keep you quiet” drugs frequently prescribed to both the mentally ill and patients who are in drug and alcohol treatment facilities (rehab).

From the website: “Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are two different mental disorders that affect millions of people in the United States. Seroquel
is a psychotropic medication shown to be effective in the treatment of many symptoms of schizophrenia, as well as in the treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar I disorder.”
“Rocco used to be really hyper and twitchy, but now that the Doc’s got him on Seroquel, he’s real mellow and much more fun to hang with.”


"This drug contains DIBENZOA,IPYRENE] which causes cancer in adition to diabetes and obesity. This drug is another example of psychiatric genocide.

Some people got an apology and a country out of the holocaust while others got zyprexa and seroquel."


"This drug will be responsible for numerous deaths as it is based on the petrochemical compound dibenzo pyrene which is extremely hazardous and carcenogenic. What was Astra Zeneca thinking? Their psychopathic scientists and business executives decided on exterminating people for a buck."


'seroquil is a drug thats suppose to help people not here voices but many thugs gangsters and prisioners use this medicine as a street drug like extascy etc.'


'a damn good pill to get in trade when a neighbor owes you, say 10 dollars.'


'lang name for the anti-psychotic drug Quetiapine. Valued by inmates of American prisons. Up to 25% of inmates may be prescribed it.

Shit man I'll fuckin kill those muthafuckers for talking about me behind my back... Hey dude, you need sum suzy-qs"


Poem: "Thaz SuzyQ I dig U bitch, crush it, snort it, got me to the place I'm distorted, 70lbs of zombie added to my rep, smoking some hemp, sleepy zom, it'z the bomb. SeroQ keepin my mind narrow. Aint no rhyme, doing crime, a dime at a time, I'm stylin SQ fine."


Little doubt in the right PR firm trusting hands, those above submissions would get those money mongering creative account juices flowing into marketing blissful profiteering heaven.

Yes, this whole contest thing almost has me sold? Maybe I'll run my own contest here on this blog soon. Since now contest don't involve things like pesky prizes, other expensive stuff, and I can use the submissions anyway I want, which could not only be fun, but quite entertaining in humorous demonstrative sort of way.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010


Drug Rep: "hey Doc, that's a nice skeleton, what would you like with your coffee? Cream, Sugar, or Me?


From Jim Edwards @ bnet-pharma

Sex and Starbucks: Odd Incentives in Glaxo's New Bonus Plan for Sales Reps

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) may have shot itself in the foot with its new bonus structure for pharmaceutical sales reps. Instead of rewarding its sales staff based on the number of prescriptions doctors write, reps will now be compensated based on “customer feedback” from doctors and other touchy-feely, non-quantitative variables.

The Starbucks (SBUX) angle came up immediately on CafePharma, the online gossip site where drug sales reps go to whine anonymously about their employers. Doctors like Starbucks, it seems, and getting the order right is a good way to get your foot in the door. Two different reps noted:

So if you like some crappy Starbucks drink and I bring it to you every week and never say anything product related, vs. a different rep who has actual clinical conversations with you but doesn’t bring you your favorite mocha frappachino every week- the one having actual details should get penalized?

If all the companies go to this, the reps with the biggest spending accounts win. Say NO to our demands that you bring Starbucks in the morning (our standing order that Starbucks keeps under the register since we use it so much!) then we give you a crap rating.

it’s not just Starbucks orders. Whether it’s true or not, drug sales reps believe that plenty of their colleagues sleep with the doctors they call on. One CafePharma denizen noted that linking compensation to positive feedback from doctors creates an incentive for reps to get extra friendly with their physicians.

My coworker one territory over is sleeping with TWO of her docs. Flirts with dozens more. If you ask a dr which rep makes them feel all “happy”- of course she’ll win it hands down.

Need a little Starbucks or a good nights sleep?

This is just another example about your health being pimped out (literally) to best drug whore around.

Which again leads us down the path to the pharmaceutical gold mine with the new DSM-V labeling everyone un-normal.

Will this take us to the eventual proclamation that conscious SEX being considered a verified psychiatric mood disorder? Heck, they would never consider such an insane and unthinkable action! Well unless there was huge money to be made?

Can you envision/imagine the day when you'll be able to pop a brand new drug with the active ingredients of Viagra, Seroquel, Lunesta, and Fucitall medications before slipping off into the new blissful and unencumbered sleep sex mode.

Talk about a marketing bonanza of profiteering unimaginable proportions. No More headache excuses for you "Ms. Hoyt-tee-toy-tee" or "Mr. I'm to tired". In Fact if it was bad, unsatisfying, or just plain rotten. You'll only have yourself to blame in the future (and the mood disorder disease of

Sure hope I haven't given those Big Pharma folks any new ideas here?

The girl of your dreams?



I want to highlight one of the many great voices out there in the blog world banging the drum of truth each and every day for you.

Most of readers here know SEROXAT SUFFERERS - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED who has been a peoples champion and relentless giant slayer while standing up to pharmaceutical monster GSK and others. This is a blog well worth a daily peek (pop ups aside).

I will end this post with a great video I have borrowed off of Fid's blog (I'm sure he won't mind)

Listen to the words carefully, and enjoy

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

DSM-V - Psychiatry's wet dream, pharmaceutical industry's Gold Mine - everyone gets a mental health diagnosis

DSM-V - Psychiatry's Wet Dream, Pharmaceutical Industry's Gold Mine - everyone gets a mental health diagnosis

I have written about the coming DSM-V before here on this blog. So this is just a little update on how Big Pharma, and Psychiatry will not be hindered by mounting negative scientific evidence, criminal probes, tarnished representations, questioning professionals, and a little obstacle called the truth. This is their livelihood and pseudo religion pot of never ending gold were talking about here.

Not that there isn't enough mind poison on the market already, those patents are going to expire in the not so distant future. So Big Pharma and Psychiatry are preparing for the 2013 DSM-V unveiling when they expect an explosion of new patrons for their profitable drug cartel business. That is why there are over 300 new psychiatric drugs (not that the new drugs will be really much different than there old drugs) already in the pipe line for your consumption.

PharmaTimes | Industry News | World News | PhRMA firms’ “record 313 mental illness drugs now in R&D”


From (Reuters) - An updated edition of a mental health bible for doctors may include diagnoses for "disorders" such as toddler tantrums and binge eating, experts say, and could mean that soon no-one will be classed as normal.

LONDON | Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:23pm EDT

Mental health experts ask: Will anyone be normal?

Leading mental health experts gave a briefing on Tuesday to warn that a new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is being revised now for publication in 2013, could devalue the seriousness of mental illness and label almost everyone as having some kind of disorder.

Citing examples of new additions like "mild anxiety depression," "psychosis risk syndrome," and "temper dysregulation disorder," they said many people previously seen as perfectly healthy could in future be told they are ill.

"It's leaking into normality. It is shrinking the pool of what is normal to a puddle," said Til Wykes of the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London.

The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and contains descriptions, symptoms, and other criteria for diagnosing mental disorders. It is seen as the global diagnostic bible for the field of mental health medicine.

The criteria are designed to provide clear definitions for professionals who treat patients with mental disorders, and for researchers and pharmaceutical drug companies seeking to develop new ways of treating them.

Wykes and colleagues Felicity Callard, also of Kings' Institute of Psychiatry, and Nick Craddock of Cardiff University's department of psychological medicine and neurology, said many in the psychiatric community are worried that the further the guidelines are expanded, the more likely it will become that nobody will be classed as normal any more.

"Technically, with the classification of so many new disorders, we will all have disorders," they said in a joint statement. "This may lead to the belief that many more of us 'need' drugs to treat our 'conditions' -- (and) many of these drugs will have unpleasant or dangerous side effects."

The scientists said "psychosis risk syndrome" diagnosis was particularly worrying, since it could falsely label young people who may only have a small risk of developing an illness.

"It's a bit like telling 10 people with a common cold that they are "at risk for pneumonia syndrome" when only one is likely to get the disorder," Wykes told the briefing.

The American Psychiatric Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The scientists gave examples from the previous revision to the DSM, which was called DSM 4 and included broader diagnoses and categories for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism and childhood bipolar disorders.

This, they said, had "contributed to three false epidemics" of these conditions, particularly in the United States.

"During the last decade, how many doctors were harangued by worried parents into giving drugs like Ritalin to children who didn't really need it?," their statement asked.

Millions of people across the world, many of them children, take ADHD drugs including Novartis' Ritalin, which is known generically as methylphenidate, and similar drugs such as Shire Plc's Adderall and Vyvanse. In the United States alone, sales of these drugs was about $4.8 billion in 2008.

Wykes and Callard published a comment in The Journal of Mental Health expressing their concern about the upcoming DSM revision and highlighting another 10 or more papers in the same journal from other scientists who were also worried. DSM 5 is due to be published in May 2013.


So you might think there would be a few Doctor's in the APA and American Academic Psychiatry that would be standing up screaming bloody murder over this coming revelation and tide of disease mongering headed straight for us like a run away freight train. but instead it appears they're spending most of their time defending their good old boys/girls mentality, stroking their peers egos when they step halfheartedly speaking out of both sides of their mouth, and continue to sit back collecting the spoils from their self ordained thrones.

Some good examples of this "we know better attitude" behavior can be seen over at

Beforeyoutakethatpill - American Shrinkery Update: Dan Carlat MD in ‘Unhinged: The Trouble with Psychiatry’

Here Doug Bremner plays tit for tat with so called professional accolade favors when writing about Dr. Danial Carlat's new book.

Carlat has a long history of playing both sides of the fence so to speak. He still pushes those psych pills like their nutritious mind candy, has played apologist for the likes of Harvard's J. Biederman of "we need to drug those kids with powerful anti-psychotic drugs early and often" fame. In fact Carlat has even promoted making anti-depressant drugs non-prescription and openly sold over the counter at your local five and dime. That just begins to touch the tip of the ice berg so to speak.

Does this sound like someone taking on the problems and corruption permeating psychiatry to you. But then again Dr. Bremner earnestly defended Emory's notorious C. Nemeroff of corruption fame back when that scandalous debacle was first receiving headlines.

Just read the comment section in the following link as evidence

This appears to be the standard professional insider club behavior were getting from those "supposed critics" of dirty psychiatry and big pharma. It's always first circle the wagons around their colleagues, and then you maybe get a little halfhearted double speak that never amounts to a hill of beans, except when they are out promoting their latest book for profit endeavor.

Just remember folks these doctor elites live in million dollar glass houses with god like university tenure. They have not a clue what it's like to function in the real world beyond their professionally decorated academic and shrink offices. They sometimes talk the talk, but don't have a frigging clue about the walk part.

So when the new DSM-V hits the wall in 2013; just remember these same Dr. Benedict Arnold types will still be writing scripts, collecting huge paychecks, and profiteering off of the new and expanded everyone is mentally ill manual.

We as a public can not rely upon the deeply conflicted doctors and profiteers for change. The only way we as a public can stop this madness, is to stop it our selves in any and every means possible.

more reading concerning this topic:

Dr.Daniel Carlat: Unhinged is right! "Mentally ill people need prescriptions, can't due to Psychiatrist shortage"--Dr.Carlat

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Do psychotropic drugs help prevent suicides? - It appears not

Do psychotropic drugs help prevent suicides? - It appears not

Report from Alliance for Human Research Protection

Swedish Suicide Data 2007: Majority Treated With Psych Drugs

The majority of persons who committed suicide in Sweden in 2007 had received extensive treatment with psychiatric drugs within a year of committing suicide.

An independent report by Janne Larsson, analyzes the 2007 suicide data documented by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) and from the regional departments of the National Board of Forensic Medicine. The data, not readily available to the public, was obtained under Freedom of Information requests.

In 2007, there were 1,126 definite suicides in Sweden (325 women and 801 men).
Autopsy reports were made for 1,109 of the suicides--which is 98%.

The majority of persons who committed suicide in Sweden in 2007 had received extensive treatment with psychiatric drugs within a year of committing suicide.

None of these suicide cases were reported to the registry for adverse drug events

The report has three main parts:

• It gives unique data about all suicides committed in 2007 and the psychiatric drugs that the persons received within a year of the suicide.

• It compares these data with autopsy reports about psychiatric drugs found in the blood (of 98%) of all the persons who committed suicide in 2007.

• For persons who received healthcare service and committed suicide in 2007--a subgroup of 393 persons (a third of all suicides)-- the report provides extensive information about the psychiatric drug treatment provided to them during the last year of their lives.


I urge to stop over at AHRP site to read the rest of this article.

This news should come as a huge warning salvo to our mental health system in America, It also should remind us all that using pharmacological means as a front line approach for suicide prevention very well may be a completely futile effort, and also could be actually causing many more problems/tragic outcomes than it helps.

Of course this will not make the huge pharmaceutical corporations or those drug pimping front advocacy groups for Big Pharma very happy. But then they are experts and very well versed in burying the truth from the public with massive and expensive media misinformation campaigns.

psychiatric drug magic bullets not only appear to not stop/prevent suicides, they actually may be a large negative determining factor in actual outcome

Friday, July 23, 2010

AstraZeneca and DBSA have teamed up for a slick and dangerous drug promotion campaign freak show coming to a city and town near you


and DBSA have teamed up for a slick and dangerous drug promotion campaign freak show coming to a city and town near you - They wouldn't be pimping Seroquel - The tranquilizer, turned anti-psychotic, turned anti-depressant, would they?

All you have to do is verify your label, and the pills your on, and you can qualify for their contest and be paraded around like a dressed up monkey at a freak show. Maybe this campaign should be called "speak up and be drugged with Seroquel". Sure it not as catchy, but a lot more truthful. So how much money is DBSA receiving from AstraZeneca and the drug industry per year? I believe Senator Grassley has been asking that question for sometime now? We do Know NAMI, another like Pharma funded drug pimp organization receives 80% or more of their income directly from Big Pharma. How are government and the IRS have not canceled their non-profit status when they both are nothing much more than just a marketing tool and slave to the pharmaceutical industry is beyond all rational. I do know they pimp their mental illness mythological beliefs like it were a religion, but come on now.

So let's go through some of the hog wash they publish on their web sites and I will comment in purple at appropriate places.

The following text is from the main "speak and be heard" site, and direct links provided on that site to other DBSA sites

link: Speak and Be Heard - Living With Depression

About SPEAK and Be Heard… Living With Depression and bipolar don't forget.

The SPEAK and Be Heard … Living With Depression campaign, made possible by AstraZeneca in partnership with the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA)



Any US Citizen between the ages of 19-64 who has been professionally diagnosed with bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder (often referred to simply as depression), is currently under professional medical care and medical treatment, and has successfully managed the depressive symptoms for at least six months is invited to submit a success story–in the form of a written essay, song, artwork, poem, or video—for the SPEAK and Be Heard … Living With Depression campaign. In other words you have to document your label and show you are a pill popping show dog that is willing to be paraded around on a public stage as their "drugs are great" freak show.


Submissions will be accepted in five forms: essay, song, art, poetry, and video. Submissions must not include any mention of specific treatments or brand names of medications, DBSA and AstraZeneca want to make sure they are the only names the public see at their lovely and well orchestrated freak show. or full names of medical professionals, patients, caregivers, family members, or other individuals. Any entries that include this information will be disqualified. Additionally, for people with bipolar disorder, entries should not include descriptions of manic episodes Because this is all about the Seroquel the anti-psychotic being marketed for depression promotion tour or they will be disqualified as well. Please note that, while full names will not be disclosed, individuals may be identifiable from the medical and personal information contained in the entry. As set out more fully in the authorization form (hardcopy and electronic), participants will need to obtain the consent of any other person who could be so identified, as, for example, when they are included in a video clip or artwork. Yes, they want your private medical records just incomplete enough to generalize for selling their drug to enter a contest. Does this strike you as a little unethical and over reaching? When it comes to selling drugs, we have learned nothing is over reaching, like ghost written studies, hiding adverse side effects, and paying doctors to pimp your drug for off label uses in small children and the elderly. In Fact anything is pretty much fair game in the pharmaceutical industry when huge profits are to be had.

Yes, this is the disclaimer at the bottom of the entry page
*Submissions will not be returned. Per the authorization form (electric and hardcopy), you give DBSA and AstraZeneca permission to use, reproduce, and disclose your submission in the United States, in any media, including radio, television, print publications, and the Internet (including DBSA and AstraZeneca web properties) for purposes of educating people on bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder through educational, promotional, and commercial programs that are related to the SPEAK and Be Heard … Living with Depression program.

From one of the many drug promotion DBSA pdf's:

Mood disorders are physical illnesses that affect the
brain. Their exact cause isn’t known, but it is known that an imbalance in brain chemicals plays a role In fact there is no specific scientific evidence that can even confirm exactly what the brain chemical imbalance is. They have lots of guesses, hypothesis, theories, and nothing much else. but there is no test, no measurement, no gene, no nothing. In fact when you ingest one of these drugs you are actually causing a chemical imbalance and taking your brain chemistry away from its natural state of balance. This whole sham is built on a for profit Guinea Pig principle that will continue to throw drugs at you, and then more drugs, and different combination of drugs when they don't even know actually how they work or how they will effect each individual. That in essence is having doctor play Russian roulette with your mind and body. Sound like a risk worth taking?

These illnesses also have a genetic component That is called a lie, meaning they
can run in families and cannot run in families what ever happens to fit into their marketing scheme at the time. It's like saying some people drive red cars, some others drive blue cars, and some don't have a car.

They’re not your fault, and they’re nothing to be ashamed of. Having a mood disorder
doesn’t mean you can’t lead a normal life. Yet, with your flashy medical label and drugs the likelihood of you having a quality, healthy, and productive life will decrease dramatically. Who cares, drugs make DBSA and AstraZeneca lots and lots of money off your continued suffering.

Think of your mood disorder the same way you think of illnesses such as asthma or diabetes. Now that is the old carnival slight of hand trick, using pathological disease as a smoke screen for something they have no idea of what the origin, cause, or how to really treat with any effectiveness.
We can measure blood sugar, but we can't measure brain chemicals! We can measure lung capacity, but we can't measure neropathways. No one would ever ask someone else to “think positive” in response to the low blood sugar of diabetes or breathing trouble of asthma, and no one would think twice about getting the necessary treatment for these illnesses. This is how they run their dog and pony show, misinformation, while trying to mask/mix myth in with medicine.

What if my medication doesn’t work?

It doesn't work because it's a crap shoot with you using dangerous mind altering chemical that are proven no better than a sugar pill in the vast majority of cases, while have incredibly dangerous risk and side effects associated with their use. When you start combining these drugs together and add anti-pychotic drugs into the mix. It's not just dangerous, it can and does cause a much shortened life span, and serious debilitating consequences including death.

No two people will respond the same way to the same medication. Another example of them not knowing how the drug actually works. Sometimes you and your doctor will need
to try several different medications or a combination of medications in order to provide the improvement you need. Finding the right treatment plan can take time.

Don’t lose hope! It might also take some time for you to adjust to your medication. Most medications take two to six weeks before a person feels their full effect. So, while it may be
difficult, it’s important to be patient and wait for a medication to take effect. Why? Fight through those side effects like suicidal idealization caused by the drugs? Many of the medications that affect the brain may also affect other systems of the body and
cause side effects such as dry mouth, constipation, sleepiness, blurred vision, weight gain, weight loss, dizziness or sexual dysfunction, diabetes, tachycardia ,Tardive dyskinesia , depression, psychosis, suicidal thoughts/actions, and even death just to name a few they happened to leave out in their brochure. Some side effects go away
within days or weeks, while others can be long-term. While others can last forever!
Don’t be discouraged by side effects; there are ways to reduce or eliminate them Like adding more drugs on top of more drugs, and then adding more powerful drugs on top of those drugs, or like adding gasoline to a fire. Changing the time you take your medication can help with sleepiness or sleeplessness, and taking it with food can help with nausea.

Sometimes another medication can be prescribed to
block an unwanted side effect, or your dosage can be
adjusted to reduce the side effect. Other times, your
medication can be changed.

Tell your doctor about any side effects you’re having.
The decision to change or add medication must be
made by you and your doctor together. Never stop taking
your medication or change your dosage without
first talking to your doctor.

This is a stellar example of why these campaigns are misleading, dangerous, unethical, and morally reprehensible.

I know you must be excited and chomping at the bit to get your freak show submission ready, so I will just end with a little wake up call. I hope the second place/prize freaks at the very least receive a dozen yummy Psycho Donuts - HOME to enjoy.

Let your elected representatives and neighbors know how you feel about these kinds of blatant disease mongering cons, and be part of stopping this pharmaceutical corporate assault on the health of are nation.

NAMI, DBSA, CABF, TAC and all organizations like them must be held publicly accountable for their abhorrent actions, and then be discarded like an unusable relic to their rightful place in the dark annals of our nations history.

For more information and further reading refer to the comment section below, or follow these links to the
soulful sepulcher Blog

Journalist Bob Whitaker is "Re-Confirmed" as Keynote for Alternatives 2010 - Government and SAMHSA reacts to public outrage

Journalist Bob Whitaker is "Re-Confirmed" as Keynote for Alternatives 2010 - Government and SAMHSA reacts to public outrage
The conference will be held Oct 2010 in Anaheim Ca. - sometimes with a little targeted harassment, demeaning correspondence, and public pressure applied, the people's voice is actually heard - This isn't walking on Water, but when you can get a government agency to do anything pointing in a positive direction, it's damned close to a miracle.


Message from mindfreedom

MindFreedom International VICTORY - 23 July 2010
Unite to Win Human Rights in Mental Health - please forward
[to get off this public news list see bottom]

UPDATE - 23 July 2010


Journalist Bob Whitaker is "Re-Confirmed" as Keynote for Alternatives

Whitaker is Critic of Psychiatric Drug Company Claims in His Book,
"Anatomy of an Epidemic"

Thank You MFI News Readers! MFI Alert 48-hours Ago Called "Effective"

by David W. Oaks, Director, MindFreedom International

What a difference two days and a MindFreedom International alert can

What a difference a MOVEMENT can make!

While there's no guarantee public attention helped, there has been a
sudden change today:

This morning, author Robert B. Whitaker has been "re-confirmed" as
keynote speaker at the annual federally-funded Alternatives 2010,
which has brought together hundreds of mental health consumers and
psychiatric survivors for 25 years. His new "Anatomy of an Epidemic"
has significant criticisms of claims by the psychiatric pharmaceutical

Bob told MindFreedom, "It does go to the sense that this is a consumer/
survivor conference. They can set the agenda. That's the way it should
be, in terms of self-empowerment. They should choose who they want to
hear from. It's a nice step forward."

Congratulations everyone -- especially those who do good work in the
"system-funded" world and have the courage to invite a critic of the
dominant paradigm. We know your job is tough, and we appreciate your

At the same time, this is a great teaching moment in the importance of
supporting and remembering the independent psychiatric survivor
activist movement, including MindFreedom International.

Below this brief timeline of recent events is how YOU can thank the
Obama administration, and encourage more support for deep change in
mental health care.


** June 2010: Robert Whitaker is confirmed as keynote speaker of
Alternatives 2010.

** 15 July: His confirmation is withdrawn by organizers, citing
concerns by high-level federal officials. Bob was told he was not
going to keynote.

** 21 July: MindFreedom issued a public alert, "What About Bob?"
copied BELOW. Many of you quickly responded by contacting President
Obama and SAMHSA (I'll post some on the MFI blog). A SAMHSA phone
operator could guess the topic before a caller even said it!

** 23 July: Today, Whitaker is re-confirmed as keynoter of
Alternatives 2010. An anonymous source said the MindFreedom alert was




Too often, activists are seen as complainers. Here's a chance to give

Please use the White House web form here to send THANKS, and
encouragement for more:

SAMPLE MESSAGE -- please limit yours to 2,500 characters. Your own
words are best:

THANK YOU President Obama for your administration support today for
the self-determination of mental health consumers/psychiatric
survivors to choose journalist Bob Whitaker, author of Anatomy of an
Epidemic, to keynote Alternatives 2010, which is an important annual
conference funded by SAMHSA. Now it's time to do even more. We
encourage you and your staff to support the availability of more non-
drug, effective, empowering choices in mental health care.

If possible, please copy your thank you message by e-mail to SAMHSA
director Pam Hyde at, and to MFI for public
use at


Many blogs, Facebook pages, e-mail lists, etc. are talking about the
MFI alert from two days ago. Please spread this good news.


You can order Whitaker's book "Anatomy of an Epidemic" at discount
from MindFreedom's MAD MARKET, and benefit MFI's human rights work:

MindFreedom will also have an exhibit booth at Alternatives 2010 with
Bob's book, see you there!

Thursday, July 22, 2010

AstraZeneca begins to settle Seroquel Lawsuits- Does this smell like bullshit to you?

AstraZeneca begins to settle Seroquel Lawsuits- Does this smell like bullshit to you?

I found this appropriate YouTube video that I would like to dedicate to AstraZeneca

To read more on this breaking news and some thoughtful analysis, I will just leave some links to related articles:

@ soulful sepulcher

$I'll give you $10,000 if you agree to have a life long drug-induced illness and shorter life span: AstraZeneca to settle 200 Seroquel lawsuits


If spokesman Tony Jewell wants to make a statement about "participating in good faith", then he should join the ranks of James Wetta, the ex-pharma rep who blew the whistle on AstraZeneca to the tune of a $520million dollar fine from the DOJ (Department of Justice)last Spring, and AstraZeneca signed a CIA(Corporate Integrity Act).

If $10,000 is compensation that appears to be reasonable in this settlement, then the Judge has lost all perspective.

A lifetime illness due to taking a drug, permanent disability and a life span cut short. The internal documents show the drug maker knew this could happen and the FDA STILL allows Seroquel to be on the market--now boasted as an antidepressant and off-label use of Seroquel for insomnia is quite common.

What is a life worth? well, I can safely say that $10,000 does not cover a couple of months of loss of work wages from being out sick while trialing a diabetes medication and diet routine, and suffering permanent loss of job as a result and loss of insurance to cover diabetes care as a result.

I bet Tony Jewell, the spokesperson for AstraZeneca spends $10,000 a month on expenses defending the company, but then this is all my opinion, so the lawyers reading this blog as well as the internal spy network hired by AstraZeneca, V-Fluence who has me in a "Google reader", can take my words and shove them where....Florida's sun don't shine.

Where's Wayne MacFadden? Remember him?

@ Pharmalot

AstraZeneca Starts To Settle Seroquel Lawsuits

Another day, another large settlement. Rather than ring up tabs for expensive lawyers and confront the possibility of bad publicity indefinitely, drugmakers are choosing to settle gobs of product-liability lawsuits with big settlements. Such moves, of course, appease anxious investors and allow senior execs to focus on the important stuff, such as their compensation packages developing new meds.

VIA Bloomberg:

"AstraZeneca Plc agreed to pay $2 million to settle more than 200 cases over its antipsychotic drug Seroquel in the first resolution of lawsuits alleging the medicine causes diabetes, people familiar with the accords said.

The settlement, which provides an average payout of more than $10,000 per case, came as the result of a U.S. court-ordered mediation involving 26,000 cases filed against London-based AstraZeneca over Seroquel, the people said."


"“AstraZeneca continues to participate in good faith in the court-ordered mediation process,” Tony Jewell, a company spokesman, said in an interview. “The mediator has asked the parties to maintain the confidentiality of those discussions. AstraZeneca will honor the mediator’s request."


This post has been used at who is a proponent of seroquel use no matter the emotional or physical consequences - So let's see what he's willing to risk to be so called "Happy" in a drug induced stupor.

Does she look happy to you?

Seroquel user example, does she appear happy to you?

I guess Happiness is subjective term after all

Big Pharma Caught with hand in the cookie jar bribing foreign country's in pay to play sham.

Big Pharma Caught with hand in the cookie jar bribing foreign country's in pay to play sham.

Via bnet-pharma & reporter Jim Edwards:

The Price of Admission: 10 Medical Companies Suspected of Paying Bribes in Foreign Countries

AstraZeneca (AZN), Baxter International (BAX), Eli Lilly (LLY) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY) are suspected of paying bribes to do business in foreign countries, suggesting that kickbacks are standard operating procedure for big pharmaceutical companies.

At least 10 companies are under investigation by the SEC or the Department of Justice for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.


@ Main

Exclusive: FCPA Pharma Probe Spans 3 Continents

By Christopher M. Matthews, Joe Palazzolo and Aruna Viswanatha | July 19, 2010 6:03 pm

A U.S. probe of pharmaceutical companies suspected of foreign bribery is targeting operations in at least eight countries sprawled across three continents, according to several people with knowledge of the investigation.

In late April, the U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission each sent letters to four major pharmaceutical companies: AstraZeneca PLC; Baxter International Inc.; Eli Lilly & Co.; and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

The letters, which were described to Main Justice, said the agencies were focusing on the companies’ business in several countries, which varied by firm but included Brazil, China, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

The names of the target countries and all but one of the companies have not been previously reported. At least two companies, and possibly more countries, could not be identified.

Spokespersons for Baxter, Eli Lilly, and Bristol-Myers did not respond to requests for comment. Tony Jewell, an AstraZeneca spokesman, said in a statement that the company is cooperating with the agencies but declined to comment further.

The letters are the first indication of the global sweep of the probe and the department’s willingness to engage the upper crust of the pharmaceutical industry using the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes it illegal to pay foreign officials to obtain or keep business. The companies implicated in the investigation are all Fortune 500 companies and considered titans in the pharmaceutical world.

The Justice Department letter stated that the agency had information pointing to violations of the FCPA, while the SEC’s letter said investigators were still trying to determine whether the companies had broken the law. The difference suggests the department has information that it may not be able to share with the SEC, such as grand jury material.

To a large extent, health care in the countries of interest is state-run, and the Justice Department counts employees in such systems as foreign officials under the FCPA. Moreover, doctors’ salaries are typically lower in national programs, creating more demand for sweeteners and kickbacks.

“When you have millions and billions [of dollars in play], someone is getting some kickbacks somewhere. It’s low-hanging fruit, and that’s all there is to it,” said a defense lawyer who is representing one of the companies.

Several of the companies have revealed ongoing FCPA probes in SEC filings, but the disclosures are vague about the nature of the allegations. A recent client advisory by Arnold & Porter LLP said the Justice Department was investigating whether drug companies conducting foreign clinical trials are paying off third-party investigators to finesse research data.

Laura Sweeney, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, and SEC spokesman John Heine both declined to comment.


Don't worry to much folks and pharma fans, I'm pretty sure the DOJ isn't all that serious about pressing any criminal changes after all. These corporate Bohemian Goliath's will probably just sign another CIA (corporate integrity agreement) that they have no intention of adhering too , pay the government a fist full of cash, and then go about doing their dirty business as usual.

I believe that how this dirty game is played, but maybe you should ask the spin devil himself,and contact Tony "The AZ man" Jewell on Twitter - - for verification?

Now I have to start wondering who's behind about all those spam emails I receive "saying no prescription needed, order your Seroquel online now..............."

Blog Archive

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.