Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Our Government Censored Robert Whitaker author of " Anatomy of an Epidemic" after all. BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT AT WORK


Our Government Censored Robert Whitaker author of " Anatomy of an Epidemic" after all. BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT AT WORK

Robert Whitaker Author of "Mad in America", Anatomy of an Epidemic" and award winning journalist was actually censored by our government @ the Alternatives Conference 2010 in California.

So why is our government so afraid of other sharing the truth, documented science, or alternative opinions? We know now without a single doubt that those who are the harshest critics happened to be from or tied too the very same organizations that take the majority of their funding from who else but BIG PHARMA. (no conflict of interest there right?)

NAMI, DBSA, CABF, TAC and those like front advocacy groups and their carefully selected spokespersons are in all reality just a lame one trick pony that see all emotional turmoil and alterations in our human constitution/condition as a biological disease/defect that can only be treated with powerful psychotropic drugs and the loss of self direction, choice, rights, and freedoms for life.

It's a one way street with no stop lights with this crowd. The Big Pharma Funded Crowd have a mission and huge stake in creating a subhuman population that must submit to their every whim ( check into modern history books while drawing you own correlations). Yet when held to the very basic standards of science and medicine they can not produce any proof of this supposed chemical imbalance, faulty gene or genes, and the coined disease actually existing.

Very few would deny there are those with some deep emotional problems which manifest them selves with breaks from our societies deemed normal or accepted behaviors/functioning. Yet this ingrained & corrupted tunnel vision that has gained power in the name of bad medicine, junk science, and the never ending lust for profits has not shown us the results that would diminish us looking with great earnest for other alternatives that show greater potential for humane treatment, better results, and real fruitful recovery.

Of course our elected officials are greasing their coffers from this same one trick pony also. Just look into where your elected representives get their money to run 100 million dollar election campaigns, then please ask yourself who spends the most to have their voices heard over yours in our Government. We all should ask who is really dictating legislation and influencing our justice system with their specially selected cronies with a conflicted one sided agenda that does not serve well the people of America.

These ongoing action by SAMHSA a tax payer funded entity with it's deep political ties to corruption is written plainly enough by now for all to see. Of course these continued actions and censorship by our government come as no surprise to anyone that really wanted to look at the truth and start weighing the evidence.

We have all seen how corrupted and inept the FDA/DOJ functions while allowing Corporations to dictate policy, approval, enforcement, and safety standards in regards to drugs and devices approved for use and being heavily marketed fraudulently to the citizens of this country. The continued actions of our leaders and these corrupted tax funded institutions is nothing short of high treason being sanctioned and supported by our elected leaders against the People of America who they are sworn to serve.

This again shows us all where are Government really stands (both in the Democrat and Republican Party's) when it's come to your health, safety, freedoms, and best interest. They stand behind the Huge Multinational Corporations with their very deep pockets and endless influence. Our Government has become one of elitist self service and greed.

They have cast our nation and it's people to the hungry wolves of endless greed, and upon demons with an unquenchable lust for power. We no longer live in graces of our treasured constitutional democracy with those time honored principles of individual freedom and choice. We have blindly crossed over to being indentured servants surviving on the mere scraps of which those selected few with power wish to provide us. We are in mounting reality being lead around collared with the ever tightening leash of deceit and propaganda.

Our once proud, honored, and much envied Constitutional Republic has turned into just another Corporate State of Tyranny not unlike the many that have risen and fallen before it; where only the very few and deemed privileged receive their own special form justice, a real voice, and protected rights.

This recent censoring is just a very small grain of sand example compared to what is happening behind closed doors in our Capitals and Corporate board rooms throughout the world everyday.

You will think as they tell you to think, act as they deem you are allowed to act, and believe what they tell you to believe, or they will make sure you are labeled mentally deficient, made out as a criminal, or even labeled a terrorist to be silenced by ridicule, chemical restraints, locked internment or any means they select.

OK, I'll step off my soap box for now, and let you read how the our BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT Censors go about their kill the messenger dirty work jobs.



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

SAMHSA, the Alternatives Conference, and the Story of an Opportunity Lost


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mad-in-america/201010/samhsa-the-alternatives-conference-and-the-story-opportunity-lost
live link -http://tinyurl.com/2bj4gwt

The Medication Taboo in the Land of Free Speech

In the last chapter of my book Anatomy of an Epidemic, I noted that if our society is going to stem the epidemic of disabling mental illness that has erupted during the past twenty years, then it needs to have an honest discussion about what is truly known about the biological causes of psychiatric disorders, and an honest discussion about how the medications affect the long-term course of those disorders. The illuminating powers of science could work their usual magic. But that is a discussion that many in our society don't want to have, and my recent experience at the Alternatives conference in Anaheim illustrates that point, and reveals too why this is such a loss.

The Background to the "Controversy"

In Anatomy of an Epidemic, I basically followed a tried-and-true journalistic path. I followed the evidence. I looked at how the chemical imbalance theory of mental disorders arose, how it was investigated, and how it never panned out. As Kenneth Kendler, coeditor in chief of Psychological Medicine wrote in 2005, "We have hunted for big simple neurochemical explanations for psychiatric disorders and have not found them." Then I investigated how psychiatric medications affect the long-term course of four major mental disorders (schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, and bipolar illness), and that involves doing an exhaustive survey of studies conducted (or funded) by the National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organization, and foreign governments for the past 50 years.



In July, the National Empowerment Center, which is a peer-run advocacy organization, invited me to be a keynote speaker at the Alternatives Conference. The National Empowerment Center is funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and SAMHSA, I was told, had signed off on having me speak. However, once the National Empowerment Center announced that I would be speaking at the conference, SAMHSA quickly rescinded the invitation. In response, MindFreedom, which is an activist group, organized a protest via the Internet, asking people to contact both SAMSHA and the White House, and within 36 hours, I had been publicly re-invited to speak.

What people following this "controversy" didn't know was that my re-invitation came with considerable strings attached. I had originally been scheduled to give a workshop in addition to a keynote, but the workshop was still cancelled. (I had planned to speak about a Finnish program for treating psychotic patients that was producing excellent results, and the prescribing of exercise as a treatment for depression, which is now being done in Britain.) The other condition was this: The National Empowerment Center was required to recruit a psychiatrist, from a list of names provided by SAMHSA, to "rebut" my keynote. And I would not be given an opportunity to respond to that rebuttal.

Now, if SAMSHA had wanted to organize a debate following my talk, that would have been terrific. But this was a setup that SAMHSA seemed to have torn from the pages of a 25-year old Soviet Union handbook: invite dissident speaker and then denounce him! Normally, I wouldn't have accepted such an arrangement, but I had been quite moved and humbled by the protest that had led to my "reinvitation," and so I figured, what the heck. It wasn't every day that you got to sit in a ballroom with more than 1,000 people and hear your work denounced.

As the conference approached, a new controversy reared its head. Will Hall, who many years ago was given a diagnosis of "schizoaffective disorder/schizophrenia," and who today works as a therapist (having been off psychiatric medications for 17 years), had planned to give a workshop that included discussing a "harm-reduction" approach to withdrawing from psychiatric medications. Several years ago, Hall had written a book on the subject, which had been published by two advocacy groups, The Freedom Center and the Icarus Project, and given that there are few books written by professionals on the circuit, his had proven to be quite popular. But a few days before the conference began, Hall was told that the printed description of his workshop in the conference brochure had been changed to remove any mention about "coming off drugs." Hall announced that he couldn't accept such censorship, a new protest erupted, and then he was told that the offending words could in fact be mentioned in an updated description that would be added to the conference brochure.

And all this occurred before an alternatives conference.

Friday, October 1

On Friday morning, I was given about 45 minutes to speak, and after I gave a brief overview of Anatomy of an Epidemic, I spoke at greater length about this question: Is it true that people diagnosed with schizophrenia (or other psychotic disorders) need to be on antipsychotic medication all their lives? There is a fairly long line of studies dating back to the 1960s that bear on this question, and the conclusion to be drawn is this: If psychiatry wants to maximize long-term outcomes, it needs to use antipsychotic medications in a selective, limited manner. Time and time again, the studies showed that there is a large subgroup of patients that would fare better if they were never put on the drugs in the first place, or if they were maintained on the drugs for only a short while.

The beauty of this particular story of science is that it concludes with a description of how western Lapland, in northern Finland, started using antipsychotic medications in this manner in 1992, and today their psychotic patients enjoy the best long-term outcomes in the western world. Five years after a first psychotic episode, eighty percent of their patients are either back in school or working. About one-third of the patients have been exposed to antipsychotics during this period, and about twenty percent end up taking the medication regularly. And what I like most about this success story is that it cannot be viewed, in any way, as an "anti-medication" story. It's a "best-practices" story.

Most of the audience understood this to be a "good news" tale, with science telling us of a therapeutic path that led to high recovery rates. And imagine if the program, at this national conference, had been structured to have psychiatrists (or other providers) discuss the talk I had just given. We could have spoken about whether a similar therapeutic approach could ever be tried here, and with representatives from SAMHSA there, perhaps this possibility could even have leapt onto a national agenda. This could have been a moment for transformative change in the treatment of first-episode psychosis in this country, a change designed to put young people back onto a path of real recovery, rather than down a path that led all too often to chronicity and disability. But unfortunately, in that Hyatt Regency ballroom, a much different process was underway. Several SAMHSA officials were nervously huddled with the psychiatrist, Mark Ragins, who had been selected to rebut my talk, apparently with a sense of urgency that he effectively counter what I had said. No good news allowed!

When Dr. Ragins took the stage at lunchtime, he was remarkably candid. He was here because SAMHSA wouldn't let me speak unless a psychiatrist had a chance to rebut what I had said. This, of course, was startling news to most in the audience, as few had ever been to a conference where a second keynote speaker was brought in to discredit the first.

There was, however, no real discussion by Dr. Ragins of the talk I had given, or the issues brought up in Anatomy of an Epidemic. Instead, Dr. Ragins used this metaphor to criticize Anatomy: In the book, he said, I had provided readers with a "compelling picture" of a "close-up of a car accident," but "we have to widen our view to decide if freeways should be torn down." Dr. Ragins then discussed other factors besides medication that might be causing the astonishing rise in the number of disabled mentally ill in our society, such as the fact that once people are on SSI or SSDI, there is a financial disincentive to return to work (which I agree is a factor.) Finally, in apparent reference to the many studies I cited in the book that had found that medicated patients have worse long-term outcomes than the off-medication group, he said:


"Medical interventions are always correlated with worse (long-term) problems . . . It is likely that all interventions ‘done to' someone to give them help or take care of them will have short-term benefits that wane over time and may well become long-term negatives."


I still am not quite sure how that was supposed to be a "rebuttal" to Anatomy of an Epidemic. But that is how it was being pitched, and then when Dr. Ragins detailed some of his thoughts on what promoted long-term recovery -- "Love other people, family, partners, kids" was one of the things he advised -- I could only think: Am I supposed to be against this? Indeed, I had the feeling that if Dr. Ragins and I had been on a panel together, we would have found much common ground, and that he might have thought that there was considerable merit to the Western Lapland approach. But the chance to have that productive discussion had been lost.


A Postscript

During the conference, D. J. Jaffe, who has close ties to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, having served on its national board of directors, wrote a blog about the conference for The Huffington Post, describing it as a waste of taxpayer money. My presence there, he argued, was evidence of why this was so. The keynote speaker, Jaffe said, had written that "antipsychotic drugs do not fix any known brain abnormality nor do they put brain chemistry back into balance," and readers were left to understand that, given that everybody knew that mental disorders were caused by chemical imbalances, I was a bit of a loony-tune.


So what was the real purpose of this blog? NAMI is a powerful political group, heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies, and in my opinion, Jaffe was delivering a warning. He was telling the National Empowerment Center and other consumer groups that they risked losing their funding if they did not, in the future, march in lockstep with psychiatry's official story, which is that mental disorders are known brain illnesses, and that the drugs are like "insulin for diabetes." No more invitation by the National Empowerment Center to speakers who would say otherwise.

At such moments, I have to confess that I begin to lose all hope. It seems quite impossible that our society will ever be able to have a thoughtful, honest discussion about what is truly known about mental disorders, and about the merits of psychiatric medications. The forces lined up against such a discussion are simply too great.

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

A side note on the Doctor chosen to rebut Robert Whitaker's key note address:

Dr Mark Ragins-the SAMHSA psychiatrist

Eli Lilly, maker of Zyprexa (antipsychotic)

http://www.village-isa.org/Outcomes/outcome_studies.htm

FUNDED the Village data of quality of life outcome

"The Village Integrated Service Agency has pioneered the use of quality of life outcome data for people with severe and persistent mental illness in Los Angeles county. In 1995, MHALA, through a grant jointly funded by the Robert Ellis Simon Foundation and the Eli Lilly Corporation, implemented the MHALA Outcome System for measuring the quality of life of all the consumers in the Partners programs. Data collection began on August 1, 1996 and we now have more than 3 years of data on the 1600 + consumers of the Partners programs. MHALA continues to coordinate the monthly aggregation of data across the programs and to produce the county’s monthly report card."

Wherever you look, pharma $$$ is connected with mental health in America and our Government.

Related Links:

Robert Whitaker:the speech that had strings attached by the government: Alternatives Mental Health Conference 2010: psychiatrist to rebut

Bruce Levine confronts bigotry @ Huffington Post.. http://tinyurl.com/25gkdl4

Pete Earley pushes ignorance, stigma, & intolerance message on blog - read comment section
http://tinyurl.com/28r6mrl


By DJ Jaffe: " is US Gov't is teaching seriously mentally ill individuals how to go off meds. WTF?! http://huff.to/csl4rD"

DJ Jaffe is the TheRealMrMe on Twitter

Now Jaffe is trying to muddy the watering of his own documented bigotry by trying to imply mindfreedom the patient advocacy and psychiatric survivor group is affiliated with "Scientology" (quite laughable and a tired old finger pointing trick that holds little credence any longer).

DJ Jaffe ( with Fuller Torrey) is co-founder of the fear and hate mongering organization TAC, with an expressed mission to paint those labeled mentally ill as inherently dangerous who must be force medicated with powerful drugs for their own good. They relentlessly push for more intrusive forced treatment legislation across America.

Mr Jaffe has shown once again he'll go to any lengths with his messages of hate and intolerance. It appears this time he's being called out & confronted directly by a broad coalition of true advocates/community/journalist leaders which will continue to further marginalize Jaffe, his message, and those of groups he has worked for in leadership positions like NAMI, & TAC.


DJ Jaffe: "Consumer tries 2 bully other consumer into withdrawing post on alleged MindFreedom Scientology conection? Wat Do U thnk http://bit.ly/aOfkia"

Jaffe is using the PR equivalent of a personal smear campaign in a futile losing effort to salvage his fast shrinking standing and voice in the public sector.




No comments:

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.