Monday, February 06, 2006

The Real Axis of Evil

Government, Big Pharma and Psychiatry

Why does psychiatry exist? What is its function? Who are the mentally ill whom psychiatrists are supposed to cure? With the ever-expanding reach of psychiatry into all aspects of society these are valid questions that deserve answers.

The term ‘mental illness’ implies a pathological condition, some sort of organic origins. The implication is completely wrong and has no foundation in any fact(1). The term ‘mental illness’ is a subterfuge, at best a misnomer. The very acceptance of the term gives de facto recognition to attempts to medically address the situation. The reality is that the term is used to express a disapproval of someone’s mental state; a disapproval of the way they are.

The question ‘who is mentally ill’ really poses the question what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, what is correct conduct and what is incorrect conduct. At its core it is a simple matter of society's perceptions of right and wrong. Psychiatry is not really concerned with so-called illnesses of the mind; it is concerned with morality. There is no such thing as the ‘mentally ill’(2). Those so classified are not ill. What they are is different. Psychiatry basically defines mental health in terms of behaviours and thoughts that conform to cultural norms. (This of course begs the question of what happens when the cultural norms are insane such as in the Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Hitler’s Germany?)

Why and which people are placed into the category of “mentally ill” varies from age to age, from culture to culture and even from psychiatrist to psychiatrist. Until 1973 homosexuality was officially classified by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental illness and was subject to electroshock and/or lobotomy.

Homosexuals were not all suddenly cured of their mental illness in 1973. What happened was that their different behaviour was no longer disapproved of by sufficient numbers of people to qualify it as a mental illness. A change in society’s mores led to a greater acceptance of homosexual behaviour, and it was simply crossed off the list of mental illnesses. In some cultures though homosexuality is still widely disapproved of and thus is still considered a ‘mental illness’.

Benjamin Rush (1746-1813), known as the Father of American Psychiatry, believed that an over-enthusiastic passion for freedom held by some of the settlers of America was a mental illness... in other words he disapproved of it. He labelled this behaviour ‘Anarchia’(3). Mind you, he also believed that being a Negro - having a black skin - was a hereditary disease (honestly... I’m not making it up).

In the last few decades the term ‘mental illness’ has been expanded beyond the point of that which is not acceptable by the majority to include that which is deemed less than optimum. Thus we have new entries into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-the official psychiatric reference book) such as ‘Mathematics Disorder’ and ‘Male Orgasmic Disorder’(4).

We have reached the stage now where even the adverse medical reactions to the prescribed toxic, psychiatric drugs are called mental illnesses. Psychiatrists prescribe cocaine category stimulants (to young children as well as adults) for made up mental illnesses, and then announce a whole new category of ‘mental illnesses’ to describe the subsequent addiction; namely, ‘Substance-Induced Mood Disorder’, ‘Substance-Induced Sleep Disorder’, ‘Substance-Induced Anxiety Disorder’, ‘Substance-Induced Sexual Dysfunction etc.

Two of the dozens of harmful, physiological effects of antipsychotic drugs are Tardive Dyskinesia - which produces involuntary movements of the tongue, lips, face, trunk and extremities; and Tardive Dystonia which produces sustained muscle contractions resulting in twisting and repetitive movements or abnormal postures. Both are now pronounced as mental illnesses under the heading of ‘Medically-Induced Movement Disorder’. First psychiatrists medically treat a made up mental illness, then they pronounce the horrible physiological side effects of their treatment as another ‘mental illness’. It really does raise the question as to who it is that is really mad here?

The list of offences grows ever larger. In 1952 the first edition of the DSM listed 112 mental disorders. By 1980 that number had doubled to 224. By 1994 the number had increased again to 374 mental disorders.

Are these new ‘mental illnesses’ scientifically based on any standard medical procedure or test? Not at all, in a ‘Ripley’s Believe it or Not’ scenario, they are brought into being by a show of hands at a Mad Hatter’s Tea Party of psychiatrists. No blood test, no scan, no aetiology, no science of any sort whatsoever. Just opinions.

Many people accept without question that the ‘mentally ill’ are predisposed toward violence. It is probably the primary reason that the public tolerates the psychiatric powers of arbitrary and enforced detention and treatment. But is it true?

Not according to studies which continue to show that people labelled ‘mentally ill’ are no more violent than the general population. It is also evident that those violent acts that are committed are likely to be highly publicised by the media. Such violence tends to be sensationalised to the point where the fact that it is but an insignificant amount of the overall violence in our society is overlooked(5).

The injustice created by this media stigmatisation is further compounded by the criminal justice system. More and more the defence of those who commit criminal acts of violence relies on the testimony of a psychiatrist who solemnly pronounces that the perpetrator of the crime is suffering from a mental illness that caused the action.

This process, which is wide open to abuse, swells the ranks of the ‘mentally ill’ with criminals who are predisposed toward violence. The result is that those whose only crime is behaviour that is seen to be at odds with that which society views as normal become swept up in the same perceptions that categorise the violent criminal.

Not many governments could admit to arbitrarily locking up someone simply for being different. There has to be a justification for the total abrogation of all Human Rights for these people. That justification is treatment... the pretence that these people, whose only crime is being different, or judged less than optimum, are being treated for an illness, mental illness. It is both a mockery of real illness and a mockery of real treatment... and also of course a mockery of human rights.

Psychiatry has readily admitted that they have no cure for mental illness(6). How can they cure something that doesn’t exist? They are also well aware that their treatments are damaging. In the years prior to 1973 not one single homosexual psychiatrist turned themselves in for an ECT or lobotomy cure.

What psychiatry is able to do very effectively is modify the victims. If neurotoxic, psychotropic drugs don’t do the job then they can always use electroshock. Either one or the other of these ‘treatments’, or both in combination, is almost certain to inflict enough neurological damage to subdue the victim.

The ideal situation for psychiatry and governments is that the patient becomes ‘normal’... or to put it more truthfully, ceases to bother ‘normal’ people (7). Psychiatrists are the tools used in the attempt to achieve the unobtainable and undesirable goal of conformity.

Psychiatry is a social institution tasked by governments with the removal and warehousing of those who frighten or cause unease to society at large. They are removed as an expression of society’s disapproval... so that they will not cause the majority to feel uncomfortable. A psychiatrist is no more related to medicine or healing than was a camp guard at Auschwitz.

Psychiatrists are an independent branch of the State police. Their task, for which they are equipped with extra judicial powers, is to implement and enforce moral cleansings. Their current weapons of choice are psychotropic drugs and electroshock machines.

As stated by the Foucalt Tribunal: “Functioning as an arm of the state and with state powers, psychiatry has created a category of subhuman from whom every protection and right is withdrawn.”(8)

Which brings us to the final member of the Axis of Evil... Big Pharma. ‘Follow the money’ is the mantra of the age, and it does not let us down here. Who stands to profit from all this? The rise in the number of the ‘mentally ill’ parallels the rise in profits of the pharmaceutical companies. The manufacturers of the neurotoxic drugs that are used to chemically shackle the ‘mentally ill’ make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in profit out of their vile trade.

1955 was the start of the era of psychiatric, mind-altering drugs. Prior to that date the number of people classified as ‘mentally ill’ was one in 300. By 1987, after 32 years of psychiatric drugging, the number had reached one in every 75 people. In 1987 the 2nd generation of psychotropic drugs such as Prozac went into circulation. The result? By 1994, after only seven further years, the number of ‘mentally ill’ had risen to one in 50. And now, without so much as a blush, psychiatry informs us that 20% to 25% of the population will become ‘mentally ill’... one in four or five people.

Is this appalling deterioration in the mental health figures due to the psychotropic drug regime of 20th century psychiatry not only demonstrably failing to cure those they have branded as ‘mentally ill’, but also apparently seriously exacerbating the situation? Or is it simply a result of the re-branding of criminality, and human foibles and emotions and unusual behaviour into mythical mental diseases? It would appear to be a macabre combination of both.

To quote the bioethicist Carl Elliot: "The way to sell drugs is to sell psychiatric illness.".

For governments it has all got badly out of control. At first they only wanted to get rid of troublesome people who disturbed their perceptions of good order (government control). To achieve that they sanctioned and financed a system that has caused an epidemic of psychotropic drug use leading to our streets being full of some very troubled people. Mentally ill they are not, but brain damaged they are. Governments of the world in collusion with Big Pharma and psychiatrists have turned a minor problem of some troublesome nonconformists into a pandemic drug problem with its accompaniment of brain damage, violence and criminality. Their attempts at social engineering have brought disaster, and worse for them; the problem has finally become so obvious as to cause the public and media to start scrutinising their actions.

Thus have our governments unwittingly allowed society to be brought almost to its knees. They set out to achieve their ideal society of mindless robots, but what governments try to engineer is rarely what is achieved. What they wanted was bad enough, what they have achieved is a catastrophe. Those with hidden agendas have used them.

The goal of governments is a subdued and docile population led by wise and benevolent masters (themselves). The goal of Big Pharma is unlimited profits from a world on drugs. What the goal of psychiatry is God only knows.

© Philip Barton 30/12/05 All rights reserved

1 In 1992 a panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment concluded: "Many questions remain about the biology of mental disorders. In fact, research has yet to identify specific biological causes for any of these disorders. ... Mental disorders are classified on the basis of symptoms because there are as yet no biological markers or laboratory tests for them" (The Biology of Mental Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1992, pp. 13-14, 46-47).

2 ‘The Myth of Mental Illness’ Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry Thomas S. Szasz (1960) First published in American Psychologist, 15, 113-118.
(There are many other books covering the same topic.)

“When we don't understand the real reasons (for different behaviour), we create myths to provide an explanation. In prior centuries people used myths of evil spirit or demon possession to explain unacceptable thinking or behavior. Today most of us instead believe in the myth of mental illness. Believing in mythological entities such as evil spirits or mental illnesses gives an illusion of understanding, and believing a myth is more comfortable than acknowledging ignorance. Lawrence Stevens J.D.

3 "The excess of the passion for liberty, inflamed by the successful issue of the war [of independence], produced, in many people, opinions and conduct, which could not be removed by reason nor restrained by government... The extensive influence which these opinions had upon the understandings, passions, and morals of many of the citizens of the United States, constituted a form of insanity, which I shall take the liberty of distinguishing by the name of anarchia." -- Benjamin Rush (1746-1813), Father of American Psychiatry.

4 See the full list at:
http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_misc/complete_tables.htm#)

5 R Gelles, "Violence in the Family: A Review of the Research", Family Violence, Second Edition, Sage, 1987.
Henry J. Steadman, Edward P. Mulvey, et.al, "Violence by People Discharged From Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Facilities and by Others in the Same Neighborhoods", Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 55: 393- 401, 1998.

6 “The time when psychiatrists considered that they could cure the mentally ill is gone. In the future the mentally ill have to learn to live with their illness.” A 1994 quote by Psychiatrist Norman Sartorius, President of the World Psychiatric Association (1996-1999)

"It is generally unrecognized that psychiatrists are the only medical specialists who treat disorders that, by definition, have no definitively known causes or cures.” from ‘The New Psychiatry’ by Professor of psychiatry Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., Columbia University.

7 “Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability. So they do stop disliked behavior and may mentally disable a person enough he can no longer feel angry or unhappy or "depressed". But calling this a "cure" is absurd. Extrapolating from this that the drug must have cured an underlying biological abnormality that was causing the disliked emotions or behavior is equally absurd.” Lawrence Stevens J.D.

8 “Foucalt Tribunal Indicts Psychiatry” (http://www.oikos.org/ectcomments2.htm):

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home