Full circle ADHD treatment

[Firestarter]

I haven´t provided information on effective treatment for mental health problems in this thread yet.
I know of only one treatment that is effective to prevent and treat mental health problems - sports. My short summary of the beneficial effects of sports are: it´s an outlet for frustration and gives confidence (it’s also good for you physical health by the way).

The greatest beneficial effects of sports are achieved when doing it with others. Group contacts in themselves can prevent mental disease (unless of course you’re a Targeted Individual that gets harassed by undercover cops).
There is only one problem: it only works when you enjoy doing it, because doing something that you despise is stressful in itself.
I found 3 scientific looking reports that conclude that physical exercise is effective in the treatment of depression (that’s the nr. 1 mental health problem).


L.L. Craft et al – The Effect of Exercise on Clinical Depression and Depression Resulting from Mental Illness: A Meta-Analysis (1998): http://sadrunner-website-downloads.s3.a ... ession.pdf
This is a meta-analysis of 30 studies.
Since at least 1905 the effect of exercise in the treatment of depression has been studied.
Table 2 shows that a significant Effect Size (ES) is achieved by exercise treatment (negative means less depressed): -0.53 averagely.


Table 4 shows that the effects depend on the duration, intensity and frequency of the exercise, the most effective exercise is: of an average duration of less than 20 minutes; 3 times a week; for a period of more than 8 weeks; in a “lab” setting.


D. A Lawlor et al - The effectiveness of exercise as an intervention in the management of depression: systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomised controlled trials (2001): http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7289/763.short
This is a meta-analysis of 14 studies.
Exercise significantly reduced symptoms of depression. The effect size becomes less with the passing of time after the exercise period has stopped. The effect of exercise was similar to cognitive therapy.
The following figure shows that in 9 out of 10 studies exercise had beneficial effects.



J.A. Blumenthal et al - Exercise and Pharmacotherapy in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (2007): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702700/
This is a real study.
A previous study by this group demonstrated that exercise was effective in reducing depressive symptoms in 156 older patients with Major Depression Disorder (MDD).
In this study they tried to include a placebo control group, but (for obvious reasons) couldn´t make a placebo exercise group.
They studied the effects in adults older than 40 years, diagnosed with MDD for 16 weeks of: supervised group exercise (51 people); home-based exercise (53 people); and an antidepressant medication (sertraline, 49 people) or placebo (49 people) without exercise. The patients weren´t undergoing psychiatric treatment before the study started.
31% patients on sertraline suffered from diarrhoea and loose stools compared with 21% in home-based exercise, 10% in supervised exercise, and 12% in the placebo group.
The study showed that supervised exercising has a greater effect than home exercise, maybe because the supervised group exercised with more intensity (achieving a higher targeted heart rate range).
All the groups noticed positive effects, in remission after 16 weeks were: 45% of MDD patients supervised exercise (Sup.), 40% of home-based exercise (Home), 47% on medication (Med.), and 31% receiving placebo (Plac.) - see figure 3.

[Firestarter]

I’ve found a real book on the internet by one of the most respected psychiatrists in the anti-psychiatry movement. Peter Breggin – Electroshock it’s brain-disabling effects (1979) - 16.5 MB, 215 pages: http://www.ectresources.org/ECTscience/ ... __Etc_.pdf
This book is mostly about electroshock treatment (Electro Convulsive Therapy - ECT).

THE RESULTS
In his book Breggin debunks the so-called “scientific evidence” that electroshocks have beneficial effects and its adverse effects are only temporary (these are myths). In reality electroshocks have only adverse effects on the physical and mental state of the victim.
The most frequent disabilities caused by ECT are memory loss (retrograde amnesia) and inability to learn (anterograde mental dysfunction). There is evidence of structural damage in the cortex of the left frontal lobe caused by electroshocks.

The short-term effects are even more drastic.
On awakening, the victim suffers from an acute brain syndrome: a severe headache, nausea, and physical exhaustion.
Typically the victim feels "out of touch" with reality and helpless and frightened. Victims suffer from extreme confusion, bewilderment, emotional labiality, and hallucinations (delirium).
If ECT is given intensively, neurologic collapse occurs. Some victims cannot take care of their daily needs anymore, have to be spoon fed for days, and become incontinent.

The experiments on lab animals confirm the destructive effects of electroshocks.
Animals showed vessel wall changes, gliosis, and irreversible damage to nerve cells. They showed signs of dead and dying cells throughout the brain.
Virtually all brain biochemistry is disrupted by ECT.
Some human victims became brain death from electroshocks, autopsies showed that the brain damage in these humans was comparable to the effects in lab animals.


TORTURING VICTIMS INTO SUBMISSION
For me the most interesting topic in this book is the explanation that ECT is used to torture victims of psychiatry into a nice and docile state.
Psychiatry has a history of terror and intimidation to make the victims easier to handle. Before the 1930s the victims were whipped, strapped into spinning chairs, dunked into cold water, poisoned with toxic agents, bled, confined in straitjackets, or kept in solitary confinement.

In the 1930s cleaner approaches were sought that wouldn’t be so evidently damaging.
In the 1930s, psychiatrists experimented with insulin coma and concluded that the brain-damage made the victims “better” patients. In this period surgical destruction of the highest centres of the brain became popular (lobotomy). Also in the 1930s convulsive therapies were developed.
In the 1950s, major tranquilizers were developed with even “better” results.
Another technique tried by the “humanitarian” psychiatrists was refrigerating the lower body temperatures with 10 to 20 degrees, producing deep coma. One victim died, but the therapy was highly recommended: they became pacified and calm.

Electroshock torture was recommended for patients who "cannot be controlled by such means as restraint and sedation”. After being tortured with ECT they became "better": more cooperative and manageable on the ward.
When the victim looses the ability to take care of their daily needs, he asks for help (and becomes more accessible).


TIEN - REPROGRAMMING
Peter Breggin specifically describes the torture by Michigan psychiatrist H.C. Tien that used electroshock in the late 1970’s and early 80’s to give women a new personality in what he called “family counselling”.
ECT to erase memory and personality, thereby eradicating the woman’s identity; in order to reprogram it according to a “blueprint” worked out with the interested parties prior to the electroshock torture.


TARGET GROUP FOR ECT
Breggin estimates that in 1977, 32,000 patients per year were tortured with ECT in the USA alone. In 1972, ECT was at its peak popularity, around double of 1977.
While originally electroshocks were used to torture patients of schizophrenia; from the end of the 1970s it’s officially only used for severe psychotic depressions.
Strangely ECT is mostly used on women (more than twice the percentage of men). Maybe this is because men like their women nice and docile and in help of need.
In 2017, the practise of ECT is steadily rising.


MALFUNCTIONING ECT MACHINE
In 1974, an incident was described where a new ECT-machine had been used for 2 years before they discovered that it was non-functional. The medical personnel didn’t notice anything unusual.
These patients were the lucky ones.

[Firestarter]

In this post I will look at psychiatry from a legal perspective...

GOTTSTEIN – CATCH-22
Gottstein is connected to Psychrights.org, where I found interesting “scientific” papers on the damage of psychiatric drugs.
His article addresses the force of law (court orders) to compel people to submit to psychiatric treatments they do not want. Legal force is used to lock patients into psychiatric hospitals and force brain damaging drugs and Electroshock upon them.

The legal system is a Catch-22 for the patients where only the "professional" opinion of the psychiatrists is needed to take away the constitutional rights of psychiatric victims.
This disregard of “the law” is done in the name of "we know what is right for the person".

A psychiatric victim can only be forced to psychiatric “treatment” (or torture) if according to a court of law the person is both: 1) Mentally ill and 2) Dangerous.
In a court of law, the psychiatrist is an “independent” expert witness who makes a professional judgment. If the psychiatrist decides that the person is mentally ill, this is a fact.
If the person disagrees on having a mental illness, according to the psychiatrist, that just shows the person lacks "insight" and is in itself proof of the mental illness – Catch-22.
As for the criterion “dangerousness”, a psychiatrist isn’t qualified to determine this, especially not if the victim in question has not done anything “dangerous”. But according to the courts, psychiatrists have the (psychic?) ability to predict that because of the mental disorder the “patient” is dangerous, and present the refusal for voluntary treatment as evidence…

Psychiatrists, with the permission of the trial judges, regularly lie in court to obtain involuntary commitment and forced medication orders…
According to E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., an important proponent of forced psychiatric treatment:

It would probably be difficult to find any American Psychiatrist working with the mentally ill who has not, at a minimum, exaggerated the dangerousness of a mentally ill person's behavior to obtain a judicial order for commitment.

According to Dr. Torrey, lying to the courts (perjury) is a good thing...

Dr. Torrey also quotes psychiatrist Paul Appelbaum:

confronted with psychotic persons who might well benefit from treatment, and who would certainly suffer without it, mental health professionals and judges alike were reluctant to comply with the law (…) 'the dominance of the commonsense model,' the laws are sometimes simply disregarded.

Professor Michael L. Perlin has described that the legal protections for people diagnosed as mentally ill are illusory and the court proceedings are a sham:

Its toxin infects all participants in the judicial system, breeds cynicism and disrespect for the law, demeans participants, and reinforces shoddy lawyering, blasé judging, and, at times, perjurious and/or corrupt testifying.

Because psychiatrists are experts, and giving psychiatric victims psychiatric drugs is "accepted practice", from a legal point of view it is irrelevant that they do more harm than good – Catch-22: http://psychrights.org/force_of_law.htm


O’CONNOR V. DONALDSON
The O’Connor - Donaldson case in front of the US Supreme Court is named as important jurisprudence. It shows that in psychiatric trial the rule “guilty until proven innocent” applies.
Kenneth Donaldson was first institutionalised in 1943, at age 34. He was hospitalised and received “treatment”, before resuming life with his family.
In 1956, Donaldson travelled to Florida to visit his elderly parents. Donaldson told his father that one of his neighbours in Philadelphia might be poisoning his food. In a nice Orwellian twist, his father petitioned the court for a sanity hearing.

Donaldson was evaluated, sentenced to “paranoid schizophrenia” and locked up in the Florida State mental health system (Florida State Hospital and Chattahoochee) for 15 years, for "care, maintenance, and treatment".
Donaldson refused the “treatment”.
The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion of February 1971, that O’Connor had violated Donaldson’s “right to liberty”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

The Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual, who is capable of surviving in freedom by themselves or with the help of family or friends:

a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.

At the trial, O'Connor stated that Donaldson would have been unable to make a "successful adjustment outside the institution", but could not recall the basis for that conclusion.
After Donaldson “escaped” after being locked up for 15 years, he didn’t experience major problems...
Donaldson, was awarded damages of $38,500, including $10,000 in punitive damages, for being illegally locked up for 15 years.
That’s $2567 per year, $7 per day, or $0.29 per hour of being locked up...

Here’s the full text of the Supreme Court ruling: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

Here’s the related story (by the daughter) of the legal counsel for Kenneth Donaldson, Dr. Morton Birnbaum: http://jaapl.org/content/38/1/115


BEAT THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME
The first thing to realise is that there has never been any wonder treatment to solve mental problems. There isn’t anybody that’s always happy and confident, (nearly) everybody has some troubles.
Using (too much) drugs or alcohol is not good for your mental health. When you’re an addict, this will probably cause mental health problems. Unfortunately there is also no wonder treatment to solve a serious addiction...

There are a couple of things you can do, to minimise your chances of becoming the victim of psychiatry.
In psychiatric trials the rule “anything you say, can and will be used against you” applies, so better watch what you say.
Maybe even more important (than what you say) is how you look. Try to look as good and dress as “normal” as you can. Do not go to a meeting with a health care worker stoned or drunk.
When psychiatric health “care” workers insist on making a house visit: clean your house first.

Do not explicitly refuse psychiatric treatment (or this “will be used against you”). There isn’t any treatment that works, so demand that the psychiatrist explains the reasons for the proposed treatment...
Ask critical questions to the psychiatrist (you can even prepare questions before an appointment).
Take a piece of paper and pen to take notes – you probably get a somewhat paranoid reaction - What are you doing?!? - of the psychiatrist when you do...

If you handle psychiatrists in this way, you can beat them at their own game.
If you learn to speak to a psychiatrist with confidence, while the psychiatrist is insecure, they can’t play you around so easily. In this way you can hopefully even improve your communication skills, which will benefit you in your life...

[Firestarter]

I’ve found an interesting literature review by a professor and 3 students on 70 “placebo-controlled” trials of antidepressants with 18,526 patients. They tried to determine the quantity of suicidal, homicidal and akhatisia effects.
Gøtzsche et al - “Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports” (2016): http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i65
(archived here: http://archive.is/QveS4)

They got sort of caught up in a web of manipulated (pseudo)science, and the evidence on manipulation of these “scientific” trials is arguably more interesting than the result that “in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled”.

Anybody that knows how the pharmaceutical industry works and its control over the “scientific” trials can’t be surprised that a pre-trial was done to carefully select the psychiatric victims that could be expected to improve on the drugs, but worsen on placebo. Some people probably won’t believe how easy it is to manipulate “scientific” studies...

Step 1 - ask a random group of depressed psychiatric victims to participate in a “scientific” trial.
Step 2 – stop giving them psychiatric drugs (in an unreported pre-trial).
Step 3 – exclude the psychiatric victims from the study that improve without drugs.
That is what they did in 86% of the “scientific” trials...:

Sixty trials (86%) had a placebo lead-in period (4 to 14 days, median 7 days) and all of them excluded from randomisation those who improved while receiving placebo, as judged by their Hamilton scores or similar. Rarely was there any information about the numbers excluded.

See the following excerpts that shows that deaths and suicide attempts in the group on drugs, were simply mislabelled:

Four deaths were misreported by the company, in all cases favouring the active drug.
One death in a participant receiving paroxetine (trial 31) was called a post-study event, taking place 21 days after the patient had admitted to taking the last dose, but this was on day 63 out of the 84 days of randomised treatment. Moreover, the patient had detectable paroxetine in the blood at the time of death.

A patient receiving venlafaxine (trial 69) attempted suicide by strangulation without forewarning and died five days later in hospital. Although the suicide attempt occurred on day 21 out of the 56 days of randomised treatment, the death was called a post-study event as it occurred in hospital and treatment had been discontinued because of the suicide attempt.

Conversely, a patient receiving placebo (trial 62) died on day 404, 26 days after the randomised phase ended, but the death was not listed as a post-study event as the patient had allegedly taken treatment until the previous day.
Finally, a death in a participant receiving venlafaxine (trial 70) that occurred three months after treatment was only noted in the patient narratives and nowhere else in the clinical study report.
(…)
Of the remaining 62 suicide attempts (in 59 patients), 40 occurred in 39 patients receiving the study drug, 20 in 18 patients receiving placebo, and two in two patients receiving imipramine. Four of these events were only listed in the individual patient listings and three others only noted in adverse events tables (no further information was available as there was no narrative).

Twenty seven events were coded as emotional lability or worsening depression, although in patient narratives or individual patient listings they were clearly suicide attempts. Conversely, several cases of suicidal ideation were called suicide attempts in the adverse events tables.
One suicide attempt (intentional overdose with paracetamol (acetaminophen)) in a patient receiving fluoxetine was described as “elevated liver enzymes” in the adverse events tables, in contrast with the narrative (see supplementary data C).

Children suffered more from adverse effects from the drugs than adults:

Aggressive behaviour occurred more often in the drug group compared with placebo group (odds ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 2.95). The odds ratio for adults was 1.09 (0.55 to 2.14) and for children and adolescents was 2.79 (1.62 to 4.81, figure 4⇓).
(…)

Fig 4 Aggressive behaviour in patients receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) compared with placebo
(…)
We found that the risk of aggressive behaviour was doubled with use of antidepressants (all ages), which was a statistically significant result, but when we restricted our analysis to adults, there was no such effect. However, we did find a doubling of risk for children and adolescents, which is consistent with the increased incidence in hostility noted by the MHRA.16 We found that akathisia was much under-reported.

Akathisia occurred more often in participants receiving drugs than receiving placebo, both in children and adolescents and in adults, but the difference was not significant (all ages, odds ratio 2.04, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 4.48).
We also found similar results in a systematic review of trials in healthy adult volunteers that included data from 10 published trials and two unpublished trials (clinical study reports obtained from EMA). Compared with placebo (n=226), antidepressants (n=318) were associated with an increased rate of activation or other precursor events for aggression and suicidality (odds ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 3.12).37
(…)

Fig 5 Akathisia in participants receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) compared with placebo

Earlier in this thread I wrote:

Here´s some scientific looking evidence to proof that psychiatric drugs cause violence. The following report shows that from 484 evaluable drugs, 31 cause violence, these 31 drugs accounted for 1527 out of 1937 cases of violence (79%): Varenicline (place 1), Fluoxetine (Prozac, place 2), Paroxetine (3), Amphetamines, Mefloquine, Atomoxetine, Triazolam, Fluvoxamine, Venlafaxine, Desvenlafaxine, Montelukast, Sertraline, Zolpidem, Escitalopram, Sodium oxybate, Citalopram, Aripiprazole, Oxycodone, Bupropion, Ziprasidone, Methylphenidate (Ritalin), Mirtazapine, Gabapentin, Levetiracetam, Diazepam, Alprazolam, Duloxetine, Clonazepam, Interferon alfa, Risperidone (Risperdal), Quetiapine (place 31).
See Moore et al, Prescription Drugs Associated with Reports of Violence Towards Others (2010): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0015337

[Firestarter]

Today, I can present the future of mind control, which is even better (or worse if you believe in human rights) than even Aldous Huxley and George Orwell ever imagined.

In science fiction, the pinnacle of human evolution is a brain that connects directly to a computer.
The US Department of Defense has started the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to explore the possibilities of brain implants for psychiatric warfare purposes.
In short these implants both monitor brain signals and electrocute the brain.

To make objections disappear over the operation in which holes are drilled in the skull, they have developed a method to insert the implant via a blood vessel in the neck, and then guide it to the appropriate location in the brain. This feat has already been done in sheep, human test subjects are expected to become the victim of these kinds of experiments very soon.
Research has also begun by laying electronics on top of the brain to record information on brain activity and electroshocks in one handy appliance. If they are able to make this gadget work from a distance there is really no limit for its use in population control.

It is expected that DARPA will first experiment on soldiers that have some problems with their conscience over participating in mass murder (labelled Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). By torturing them much worse than their conscience ever could, it’s expected that their moral objections against genocide will disappear.

The most advanced program is the Systems-Based Neurotechnology for Emerging Therapies (SUBNETS).
Phil Kennedy explained that in the future we’re all going to "extract our brains and connect them to small computers that will do everything for us”: https://splinternews.com/darpa-found-an ... 1793854599
(http://web.archive.org/web/201708271041 ... 1793854599)


The following X-ray shows 2 electrodes implanted on each side of the victim’s brain.


Because some people have negative associations with the word “electroshocks” they invented the new name “Deep Brain Stimulation” (DBS), which sounds... stimulating.
Since the late 1990s, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved DBS to torture patients with Parkinson’s disease. Today, there are more than 100,000 Parkinson’s patients with chips in their brain to give them “stimulating” electroshocks.
Parkinson’s is the most common use of DBS. In an experiment on 29 Parkinson’s patients, 20% reported having an altered body image due to the brain implant, feeling “like a machine”.

In 2009, the FDA approved experiments with brain implants on severe obsessive-compulsive disorder victims.

In the 1970s, Yale University neuroscientist Jose Delgado implanted radio-equipped electrodes in cats, monkeys, bulls and humans. His experiments demonstrated that electrically stimulating the brain can “stimulate” movement and certain emotions.
Delgado found that “stimulating” the part of the brain called septum can invoke euphoria. Delgado agitated the temporal lobe of a young epileptic woman, prompting “Julia” to smash her guitar against the wall in rage.
Delgado, who is Spanish, left the US shortly after he was accused in Congressional hearings of developing “totalitarian” mind-control devices (isn’t that THE objective of psychiatry?).

In 1987, when French neurosurgeon Alim Louis Benabid was preparing to remove a piece of the thalamus in a patient who suffered from severe tremors, by accident he “discovered” that electricity can also stop the tremors.

The adverse effects of DBS are understandably very similar to ECT, and include decline in word fluency and verbal memory, depression, suicidal tendencies, anxiety and mania.
Long-term, irreversible effects include permanent damage to brain tissue. That’s not even counting the adverse effects of the operation and implant in the brain.

A 43-year-old man suffering from debilitating Tourette ’s syndrome, a year after the brain implant, began to dissociate from his previous self.
Doctors simply increased the electroshocks, which resulted in him “anxiously crouching in a corner, covering his face with his hands” and speaking “with a childish high-pitched voice”

For years, Liss Murphy had been severely poisoned, tortured with Effexor, Risperdal, Klonopin, Lithium, Cymbalta, Abilify, and electroshock therapy. Then doctors offered her the new, hip option - DBS.
On 6 June 2006 (6/6/’06), doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital drilled 2 holes in Murphy’s skull and implanted two 42-centimeter-long electrodes into the white matter of her brain.
Because they stopped the (other) torturing techniques, Murphy improved. Electroshock “stimulation” was wrongly credited for this improvement.

Neurosurgeon Sergio Canavero has argued that criminals and drug addicts should be tortured with DBS, reasoning that “psychopathic behavior is a purely biological epiphenomenon and can be induced”.
Alik Widge, the engineering lead for the DBS project, explained:

What’s turning out to be most important for us is timing. If you hit the right region at just the right moment you can nudge a decision. It’s all about knowing when the brain is the right state.

https://gizmodo.com/darpa-s-brain-chips ... 1791549701
(http://archive.is/20gZd)


See the X-ray of a test subject with brain implants.


In 1955, the Army supported research at Tulane University in which mental victims had electrodes implanted in their brains to measure drugs.
In other experiments, test subjects were kept in sensory-deprivation chambers for as long as 131 hours and bombarded with white noise and taped messages until they began hallucinating. The goal: to see if they could be “converted” to new beliefs.

Edwin Land of the Polaroid Corporation founded the Scientific Engineering Institute (SEI) for the CIA.
At South Vietnam’s Bien Hoa Hospital, an SEI team implanted electrodes in the skulls of Vietcong POWs and tried to “stimulate” behaviour by electroshocks.
Upon completion of the experiments, the POWs were killed and cremated by the Green Berets.

Director of Neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi, O. J. Andy , published reports on psychosurgery on children, aged 5 to 12, who were diagnosed as aggressive and hyperactive. Of his 30-40 patients, most were black children housed in a segregated institutions for the developmentally disabled.
In 1966, Andy described J. M., age nine, who was “hyperactive, aggressive, combative, explosive, destructive, sadistic” (maybe he could have become a successful psychiatrist…).
In 3 years time, Andy performed 4 separate mutilating operations, including implanting at least 6 electrodes. In a subsequent 1970 article, Andy wrote that the “experiments” had been a success as J. M. is no longer so combative and negative, but “Intellectually, however, the patient is deteriorating”. Is that mission accomplished?
In 1973, a committee of Andy’s peers at the university declared his research “experimental”. Andy was prohibited from performing operations. In 1980, Andy himself declared that he had been forced to stop due to “sociological pressures”.

Around 1970, a talented electronics engineer named Leonard Kille (holder of several patents) got electrodes implanted into his brain by CIA psychiatrists Vernon Mark of Boston City Hospital and Frank Ervin of the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA).
In 1971, Kille was observed with a wastebasket over his head to “stop the microwaves”. The VA doctors didn’t know that Kille had electrodes implanted in his brain and wrote him off as a delusional paranoiac. When the electrodes burned lesions into his amygdale, it left him permanently paralysed from the waist down.
Kille has been labelled as evidence of the beneficial effects of DBS.

On 19 June 1974, LEAA administrator Donald E. Santarelli, declared that future grant applications for psychosurgery would be denied.
It forbids states to use LEAA grants to do psychosurgery or medical experimentation.

Psychiatrist Louis Jolyon “Jolly” West, head of the psychiatry department at UCLA, proposed using schools in Chicano and African American neighbourhoods to screen for possible genetic defects. He also proposed using psychosurgery: https://sites.google.com/site/mcrais/implants
(http://archive.is/3DkdU)


In the following video, psychiatrist Peter Breggin tells about his objections against electronic chips implanted in the brain with Alex Jones.
Video made "private": https://youtu.be/qP5RwYQadzw

[Firestarter]

In 2015, the USA’s largest psychiatric hospital chain, Universal Health Services (UHS), tortured nearly 450,000 victims, in its more than 200 psychiatric facilities across the country. In 2015, UHS had almost $7.5 billion in revenues and profit margins of around 30%. More than a third of the company’s overall revenue — from both medical hospitals and psychiatric facilities — comes from taxpayers through Medicare and Medicaid.
Interviews with 175 current and former UHS staff and more than 120 interviews with patients, government investigators, and other experts; shows the true nature of psychiatric “treatment”.
Current and former employees said they were under pressure to fill beds by almost any method — for example by exaggerating people’s symptoms or twisting their words to make them seem suicidal — and hold them until their insurance coverage ran out.


Locking people up
UHS is under federal investigation into whether the company committed Medicare fraud. More than 1 in 10 UHS psychiatric hospitals are being investigated criminally — including one that it is accused of locking patients/victims up who didn’t need hospitalisation.

According to the law, psychiatric “patients” cannot legally be held against their will unless they pose a threat, but in practice psychiatric hospitals have almost unlimited powers to lock patients up against their will.
In the first full year after UHS bought about 100 hospitals from Psychiatric Solutions Inc. (PSI), their use of “suicidal ideation” as code in Medicare had a more than six fold increase.
By 2013, the code for “suicidal ideation” appeared in more than half of all Medicare claims by UHS hospitals. This is 4 ½ times the rate for non-UHS psychiatric hospitals.

At some UHS hospitals, people came in because they saw advertisements for “free mental health assessments“. Most victims who came in didn’t need treatment, but staff was trained to admit anyone who had insurance.
A former clinician said: “Your job is to get patients. And you get them however you get them”.

According to a former admissions employee, when people call, they try to get them into the facility within 24 hours: “And the reason for getting them into the facility is that once they stepped foot in, they are behind locked doors”.
Receptionist Lauren Singer explained that she controlled the lock to the front door with a button behind her desk and: “If someone came in voluntarily, I wasn’t allowed to let them out of the door”.
A former intake worker said: “They think we’re going to diagnose them for anxiety or depression. Our goal is to admit them to the hospital”.

A former admissions counsellor at Millwood said she was told to “play up the criteria” to get insurance to approve hospitalisation - exaggerate the “troubling” behaviour.
One former manager at Salt Lake Behavioral explained: “Whatever manipulative strategies we could use, we were encouraged to”. If the patient was a mother, employees might threaten to call child protective services and have her children removed from her care.


Allison
Allison called Centennial Peaks Hospital in June 2016, to inquire about outpatient treatment options. One day on her way home from work, she drove to the hospital and sat down with a counsellor, who recommended a five-week intensive outpatient program.
When Allison didn’t want to go voluntarily she was held “against her will”, because she had “suicidal ideation within the last 72 hours”.
When she was discharged, the doctor wrote: “During the initial two days of hospitalization it was clear that she had no intent or plan of wanting to harm herself”.


Samantha Trimble
In 2012, Samantha Trimble walked into Millwood, in Arlington, Texas, for a “free mental health assessment”. She worried for her job and thought this could “help” her.
Trimble was asked if she had suicidal thoughts. She replied with a joke: “Well, who hasn’t had suicidal thoughts?
It’s Texas, it isn’t that hard to get a gun”.
It was nearly 11 PM when Trimble was walked down the hallway. Only when a technician searched through her purse for sharp objects and a nurse told her to strip down to her underwear, Trimble realised she was locked up.

The nurse handed her some pills, and soon she was asleep.
When Trimble had woken up at 6:05 AM the following morning, she told a nurse: "I would like to go home".
The nurse said she couldn't leave without a doctor's permission as she had unknowingly signed a document the previous night giving her consent to be hospitalised.
At 4:30 PM that day, the doctor denied her request to go home: "You've been converted to an involuntary commitment".

Trimble called her mother, Carolyn Velchoff, who drove to the facility, but staff refused to release Trimble. Velchoff called the FBI: “My daughter has been kidnapped”.
On the afternoon of her third day, Trimble called the local police. An officer came to investigate, who didn’t believe she was any danger and the hospital was violating Trimble’s rights.
Trimble saw the doctor again the next day. The doctor observed that Trimble was “writing down each and every word and asking about her rights, very paranoid, so she was discharged almost immediately.


Michael Pruitt
When Michael Pruitt was feeling hopeless in March 2014, he called for help. Police brought him to River Point under the Baker Act, a Florida state law that allows authorities to lock innocent people up to a maximum of 72 hours for “psychiatric examination”.
When those 72 hours were up, he wanted to go home. But the hospital filed a petition that gave the hospital the legal right to detain Pruitt until he had a court hearing.
According to 3 former therapists, at River Point, filing them became standard practice: “The rule of thumb is: If you came in under a Baker Act, we’re going to file a petition, and then we figure out what the days situation is”.
In 2009, the year before UHS bought the hospital, it filed 238 petitions for involuntary commitment. Four years later, that number had grown to 1,362 (a more than 470% increase).


Insurance fraud
Three former heads of UHS hospitals said their divisional vice president, Sharon Worsham, repeated a mantra: “Don’t leave days on the table”.
Rick Buckelew, who ran Austin Lakes Hospital in Texas until 2014, explained: “If an insurance company gave you so many days, you were expected to keep the patient there that many days”.

The counsellor Ellis, who worked in the admissions department at Salt Lake Behavioral Health, said: “On the one hand, you have insured people who didn’t always need treatment getting admitted. But the flipside is that you have uninsured people not being hospitalized when they should be”.
What sort of treatment is this “Ellis” talking about? Poisoning innocent people with psychiatric drugs that cause harm...

According to 3 former employees, at Suncoast, the admissions decisions were simple. If the person has insurance, they must be admitted and if they don’t have insurance, they should be released.
Another former executive, who ran a UHS hospital for 5 years explained: “You were told to do things to eliminate uncompensated care, all the way down to basically lying and saying that you didn’t have a bed”.


Kevin Burns
In September 2015, Kevin Burns felt the urge to hurt himself, just 2 days after he had been released from a UHS psychiatric hospital, Suncoast Behavioral Health in Florida. The hospital refused to let him in for an evaluation.
Burns walked to a nearby Wal-Mart, where he bought a package of razors, and quickly cut his wrist.
Off course locking innocent people up against their will, is supported by our legal system, but Florida’s health care agency fined the hospital $1000 for refusing to “treat” Burns.


Denials by UHS
UHS denied all wrongdoing and that they don’t “use threats of any kind” to try and “force patients to stay against their will”.
UHS says: “Every patient care decision is made with the goal of furthering the best interests of our patients”.
About 20 employees (out of 175) said UHS operates ethically and provides high-quality care.
Carly Moore Sfregola, a spokesperson for the American Hospital Association, wrote, "They get to leave at any time of their own free will unless someone gets a court order to involuntarily commit the patient".

UHS didn’t know that Buzzfeed had gotten hold of a 2014 “strategic plan”, in which Paul Sexton described extending patient stays as a means to meet financial goals. Sexton proposed to “develop and implement a plan to increase average length of stay”.
Other executives confirmed this was a strategy to meet their budgets.



Firing staff that might help the victims
One doctor said the culture of the hospital and the heavy patient loads were “eating my soul” and: “That was the worst clinical experience that I had — and I worked at a prison at one point”.
Nancy Smith decided to retire, because of the “focus on minimal, minimal staffing, at the same time that they kept talking quality, just seemed so hypocritical. I just couldn’t endorse what they were doing, it was an ethical dilemma for me to keep on”.

One executive refused “to fire a bunch of nurses”, because “It would have compromised the quality of care”.
What “care” is this psychopath talking about?!?

In 2014, Federal inspectors noted that River Point hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, had more patients than beds.
Hudson, the senior vice president, defended this with, when there are “limited beds in the entire community” UHS’s “responsibility is to be responsive to the needs of the patients. We’re not abandoning the patient, we’re taking care of the patient”.

Among the clinical staff, mental health “technicians” had the least training but frequently spent the most time with patients, said former clinical director Smith. More than a dozen techs said they sometimes felt unsafe with the high numbers of patients. One compared it to a “war zone”.
A mental health technician said: ”I’ve never been trained to run a group, so those poor ladies leave my groups more confused than when they come in”.
Former tech Kevin Ball said he led group sessions, but: “My degree was in parks and recreation”, so “I was just as clueless as the kids”.


Carson Mangines – died at 22
The 22-year-old Carson Mangines was looking for help when he walked into Highlands Behavioral. He had been cutting himself and was addicted to opiates.
After Mangines’ second fentanyl dose in 2 days, a social worker wrote that he was “overmedicated” and was “almost falling out of his chair”. Other staff noted that he was falling asleep, was slurring his words and that he vomited up his medication.
After Mangines stabbed himself with a broken pencil in his thigh, he was put in solitary confinement that evening.
At 9:15 AM the next morning, his body was in rigor mortis; he had been dead for hours. He died of “acute fentanyl” poisoning.
UHS denied that they overdosed Mangines with fentanyl.


In April 2014, the government suspended Medicare payments to River Point.
The state of Florida followed with a suspension of Medicaid payments.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosalindadams/ ... vbkjAMnOm4
(archived here: http://archive.is/r6msf)

[Firestarter]

I once started my investigation of psychiatry with the “clickable” Robert Whitaker. I left the forum Madinamerica.com after my posts were repeatedly deleted without any reason (or explanation)…

This month Whitaker put an interesting story on the internet on rising suicide rates. In this thread is already information on Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), which are used to poison depressed people, causing amongst others depression, aggression and suicide.
My only problem with Whitaker’s piece it’s too long...

In June of this year, the Center for Disease Control warned about the increase in suicide rate in the US with 30% from 1999 to 2016 (to an all-time high).
This happened during a time when an ever greater number of people are getting tortured under the guise of “mental health treatment”.
The age-adjusted suicide rate from 1950 to 1985 was relatively constant. In 1950, it was 13.2 per 100,000 population, and over the next 35 years, the rate mostly ranged from 12 to 13 per 100,000, with the lowest of 11.4 in 1957 to a high of 13.7 per 100,000 in 1977. In 1987, Prozac was approved by the FDA, the suicide rate was 12.8 per 100,000. The rate dropped to 10.4 per 100,000 in 2000. Psychiatrists praised Prozac and the other SSRIs as the reason.

However, since 2000, the suicide rate has risen steadily to 13.5 per 100,000 in 2016, when antidepressant use and mental health “care” continued to rise - antidepressant usage in the population aged 12 and over increased from 7.7% in 1999-2003 to 12.7% in the 2011-2014 period.
The suicide rate in the US has risen steadily since the creation of a national strategy to “prevent” it.
Higher unemployment and household gun ownership rate are associated with higher suicide rates. This could explain the changes in suicide rate from 1950 to 1999, but NOT the rise in the 21th century.

In 1987, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention was formed that has been promoting SSRIs ever since.
Not coincidentally it was heavily funded by big pharma. At the foundation’s 1999 gala, the corporate sponsors included Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Solvay, Abbott Laboratories, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, SmithKline Beecham, and Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories.

In 1998, Gregory Simon et al reported on suicides in Washington of people who had been treated for depression, and found that the risk of suicide was 43 per 100,000 person years for those poisoned with an antidepressant in primary care, compared to 0 per 100,000 person years for those treated without antidepressants.

In 2004, Philip Burgess et al compared suicide rates in countries pre- and post-implementation of a mental health legislation policy according to the WHO’s recommendations.
Introduction of mental health legislation (including forced psychiatric treatment) was associated with a 10.6% increase in suicides;
a national mental health policy was associated with an 8.3% increase;
adoption of a therapeutic drugs policy designed to improve access to psychiatric medications was associated with a 7% increase;
a national mental health program was associated with a 4.9% increase in suicides.

Ajit Shah et al studied elderly suicide rates in multiple countries, and found higher rates of suicide in countries with more mental health services, like psychiatric beds, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, and the availability of training mental health (programs) for primary care professionals.
In 2010, Shah and et al reported on people of all ages in 76 countries and concluded that suicide rates were higher in countries with mental health legislation.

In 2013, A.P. Rajkumar et al assessed the level of psychiatric services in 191 countries. This comprehensive global study, once again, showed that in countries with “better” psychiatric services suicide rates are higher.

In 2014, Carsten Hjorthoj et al found that the risk of suicide increases dramatically with each increase in “level of treatment” in Denmark.
The risk of suicide was:
5.8 times higher for people on psychiatric medication (but no other care);
8.2 times higher for people having outpatient contact with a mental health professional;
27.9 times higher for people having been in a psychiatric emergency room;
44.3 times higher for people locked up in a psychiatric hospital.
Two Australian experts in suicide, referring to this study, wrote “that psychiatric care might, at least in part, cause suicide”. Even psychiatric inpatients at a “low risk” of suicide had a suicide rate 67 times higher than the national suicide rate in Denmark.

In 2016, the US Department of Veterans reported that suicide rates for veterans from 2001 to 2014 that received mental health treatment with a drug abuse problem were at least 50% more likely to die by suicide than those with the same diagnosis but without treatment.

https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/08/su ... of-prozac/


Most suicide victims have been earlier sentenced to a psychiatric disorder: more than 90% of suicide victims. If psychiatric treatment works, it should reduce the number of suicides. Higher psychiatrist-per-population ratio increases the opportunity for contact between the victims and psychiatrist.
Not very surprisingly higher psychiatrist density (PD) is associated with higher suicide rates, because people living in countries with more psychiatrists have a higher risk of being tortured. The difference is greater for women than for men.

As a higher gross national income (GNI) is associated with lower suicide rates, the suicide rates were corrected.
Fig. 2 - Correlation between the PD and female suicide rates (FSR).


In the European Union the Kingdoms of the Netherlands and neighbouring Belgium have most psychiatrists.
Higher suicide rates are associated with higher rates of psychiatrists. This observation is consistent with previous reports.

Leo Sher – Are Suicide Rates Related to the Psychiatrist Density? A Cross-National Study (2016): https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00280/full
(archived here: http://archive.is/CmAQC)

[Firestarter]

In 2008, it was reported that of the 74 FDA-registered studies for 12 antidepressant drugs approved by the FDA between 1987 and 2004: 31% were not published. Whether and how the studies were published depended on the results of the study.
Of the 38 studies that had positive results, according to the FDA – 37 were published (97%).
Of the 36 studies that had negative (24) or questionable (12) results, according to the FDA – only 15 were published (42%).


Of the 15 studies that were published with negative or questionable (no clear result) results, according to the FDA – 11 were manipulated to present a positive outcome (73%).
As a result of simply not publishing negative outcomes or presenting the results in a too positive light, it looked like 94% of the trials conducted were positive. The FDA analysis showed that only 51% were positive.

The positive effects were also often reported as greater than according to the FDA reviews. For each of the 12 drugs, the effect size derived from the “scientific” reports exceeded the effect size concluded by the FDA.

Erick H. Turner et al. – Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy (2008): https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779


This year, a group led by psychiatrist Goldacre also reported that medical trials often violate EU legal requirements for reporting within a year after completion. In the US and the EU, certain categories of trials have to be reported within 1 year of completion by law.

Of 7274 trials where results were due, only 49.5% reported results in time. While only 68% of company-sponsored trials reporting their results, universities reported only 11%.

Of the 31,818 trials investigated, the study excluded 20,287 and 3392 trials because their status was never reported as completed. It is likely that many of these trials with “missing dates” (inconsistent data) also failed to report results within time.

Ben Goldacre et al. – Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource (2018): https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3218

The following site managed by Goldacre gives more details on which companies and universities don’t report in time. Note the huge amount of universities that never report in time (0%).
Also note the huge amount of studies with inconsistent data: http://eu.trialstracker.net/

[Firestarter]

As psychiatric drugs have no positive effects at all, the adverse effects aren’t “side” effects; these are THE effects...
One of the adverse affects of psychiatric drugs, appears to be cancer.
Overall, 30 of the 42 drugs examined (71.4%) showed evidence of carcinogenicity in 38 out of 88 “scientific” studies.

New generation (atypical) antipsychotics (9 out of 10) showed the highest evidence of carcinogenicity (cancer causing) among psychiatric drugs in this study;
Second anticonvulsants (6 out of 7);
Third benzodiazepines/sedative-hypnotics (7 out of 10);
Fourth antidepressants (7 out of 11);
Fifth and last were stimulants (1 out of 4).

Among antipsychotics haloperidol (haldol), aripiprazole, asenapine, iloperideone, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone (risperdal) and ziprasidone all cause cancer.
Of antipsychotics only clozapine isn’t associated with carcinogenicity.

Of anticonvulsants, valproate, carbamazepine, gabapentin, pregabalin, oxcarbazepine and topiramate cause cancer.
Of the examined drugs only lamotrigine doesn’t cause cancer.

Among benzodiazepines and sedative-hypnotics the following drugs cause cancer: clonazepam, zolpidem, zaleplon, diazepam, eszopiclone, oxazepam and midazolam.
Older drugs that weren’t seen to cause cancer: lorazepam, alprazolam and triazolam.

Among antidepressants the following drugs can cause cancer: mirtazapine, sertraline, paroxetine, citalopram and escitalopram, duloxetine and bupropion.
Drugs not associated with carcinogenicity are fluoxetine (Prozac), venlafaxine, trazodone and imipramine.
There was no data available on the carcinogenicity of lithium.

Of the stimulants, amphetamines only Ritalin (methylphenidate), that’s used to drug children senseless, causes cancer.
Amphetamine salts, modafinil and atomoxetine weren’t associated with carcinogenicity.

Andrea Amerio et al. – Carcinogenicity of psychotropic drugs: A systematic review of US Food and Drug Administration–required preclinical in vivo studies (2015): http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 7415582231

[Firestarter]

I already knew that most (if not all) psychiatric drugs have withdrawal effects. Ironically these withdrawal effects are than used to show how beneficial the psychiatric drugs are.
Doctors are intentionally being misled so that they don’t report withdrawal effects. Many doctors misdiagnose withdrawal as relapse, and then say: look what happens without the drugs!

In the UK poisoning with antidepressants has risen by 170% since 2000, with over 7 million adults (16% of the adult population) being prescribed an antidepressants in England last year (2016–17).
In the US, almost 8% of the population aged over 12 used antidepressants from 1999 to 2002, rising to almost 13% (37 million) by 2011–2014.
A large percentage of the victims use antidepressants for years.

The following literature review of 14 studies shows that 27% to 86%, averagely 56%, of the psychiatric victims that stopped taking antidepressants suffered from withdrawal effects.
The largest 3 of these studies were online surveys. This makes the conclusions less reliable, as this could have overrepresented “dissatisfied” victims.

Also 10 studies on the severity of the withdrawal effects were reviewed.
Almost half of the psychiatric victims rated their withdrawal effects as severe (the most serious severity rating).
Many of the victims noted that the withdrawal effects lasted for months (or even years).

Typical antidepressant withdrawal reactions include:
Anxiety, agitation, irritability;
Flu-like symptoms;
Insomnia;
Nausea;

Imbalance, dizziness;
Sensory disturbances;
Hyperarousal;
Electric shock-like sensations, brain zaps;

Diarrhoea;
Headaches;
Muscle spasms, tremors;
Hallucinations, confusion;
Malaise;

Sweating;
Mania, hypomania;
Emotional blunting, inability to cry;
Long-term or even permanent impotence.

James Davies et al. – A systematic review into the incidence, severity and duration of
antidepressant withdrawal effects: Are guidelines evidence-based? (2018): http://web.archive.org/web/201810041054 ... s-Read.pdf