Psychiatric Drugs Pose Danger to Youth

Psychiatrists claim that people who experience certain feelings or behaviors are sick, that they are "mentally ill" with bio-chemical imbalances of the brain. These feelings and behaviors are organized into lists, and their symptoms are promoted as "disorders" in order to align with a medical model of disease. A person has only to have more than half of the "symptoms" on a particular list to get a permanent diagnosis of "disease."

Being "diagnosed", another medical term co-opted by psychiatry, with one of these "mental illnesses" is reported to carry a sort of stigma. No one wants to be told that he or she is abnormal, that he or she will always be so, and that he or she should become a life-long mental "patient" to treat their "illness".

The Oxford Concise Dictionary defines the word "stigma" as "a mark or sign of disgrace or discredit." Contained within the confines of this definition is the PR wherewithal for the long term several pronged assault of psychiatry, calculated to forward their ever-advancing thrust of destructive ideas into our daily lives.

According to the National Institute of Mental Illness' website, "An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older ? suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year ? this figure translates to 57.7 million people." And we know that currently in this country there are over 8 million children on prescription psychiatric medications and the psychiatric community is working hard to convince us that many more are in need of their services, even babies.

Is there any wonder that psychiatry's rallying cry is, we must remove the stigma from mental illness, when with these numbers it could be your neighbor, your co-worker or you who is mentally ill. No, psychiatry runs the campaign, "We must remove the stigma from mental illness," in order to find more who will accept the label and accept the profitable "treatment."

As early as 1977 psychiatric influences working in the government to increase the patient ranks of psychiatry, through President Carter's Mental Health Commission, urged Americans to bring their mental and emotional problems "out of the closet" and end the "stigma." Moving forward, to an article in July of 2003 in the Seattle Times, "Stigma" surrounding mental illness was sighted as the major barrier to treatment.

Taken at face value this would certainly seem like a reasonable appeal. What sane, caring individual could possibly want to compound the burdens of the "mentally ill" by stigmatizing them? My guess is very few. But is de-stigmatizing mental illness for humanitarian reasons really psychiatry's intent? Or is it something much more sinister and self-serving?

Public Relations is a very powerful and persuasive tool. It can be used for good or bad purposes. The strength of PR relies in large part on some part of its message being true. But one can also position lies and half-truths with truth and they will be true in the eyes of the public, by association. "Mental illness should be de-stigmatized" is a truth. "People should be able to get help for their difficulties and have workable solutions available to them," is a truth. "Psychiatry with its drugs offers workable solutions for the mentally ill masses," is a lie. It is a lie positioned with truth and it therefore seems, in the eyes of many, to be true.

Perhaps there should be no stigma connected to mental illness. There should however, be stigma connected to the solutions that psychiatry proffers in the name of help which are destructive of individuals and society: mind-altering drugs, stigmatizing labels, shock treatment and abuse of human rights for profit.

(Some 200 legal actions have been filed against Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturers of Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, respectively, to recover for suicides or homicides ? some completed, some only attempted?by patients in the first few days or weeks after they were prescribed one of these drugs.) ? ClassActionAmerican.com

Why is it that one never hears from a psychiatrist about such workable solutions as nutrition, tutoring, legitimate medical examinations, and change of environment? Why do nearly all of their solutions come in a bottle with an FDA black box warning label that even they admit to not understanding why these drugs work?

("Ritalin and amphetamine have almost identical adverse effects on the brain, mind and behavior, including the production of drug-induced behavioral disorders, psychosis, mania, drug abuse, and addiction,") Billy J. Sahley, PhD, author of Is Ritalin Necessary?

Could it be that labeling an individual with a "disorder" from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the only way that psychiatrists can make a living? The belief of the existence of these "disorders" is their sole basis for receiving money from insurance companies, research grants, charitable foundations, etc.

If a psychiatrist sends a child who is acting up in school to see a nutritionist or for tutoring, how would he make any money? If he labels that same child with "ADHD", he is creating a patient for life.

Backing up this viewpoint are recent articles in USA Today, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post and countless other major newspapers which revealed the hidden financial connection between big Pharmaceutical Companies and the authors of the Diagnostic and Statistical manual. This manual, the self-proclaimed bible of psychiatry and sole wellspring of all of the more than 370 mental "disorders" used to label normal people and absolve those who should not be absolved, is the very foundation of psychiatry's most precious tenets. Not only were the majority of psychiatric panel members that created the DSM receiving funding from drug companies in one way or another, but their entire panel of "experts" had direct connections to pharmaceutical monies.

("ADHD is a controversial diagnosis with little or no scientific or medical basis. A parent, teacher, or doctor can feel in good company when utterly dismissing the diagnosis and refusing to apply it to children")? Bill J. Sahley, PhD author of "Is Ritalin Necessary?"

Why are there so many people labeled mentally ill?

The more you look the more obvious it should become that no amount of political correctness or de-stigmatizing of mental illness will make wrong solutions right!
Fictitious labels and murderous drugging for profit are not humanitarian activities no matter how you look at it.

In an interview with Jay Baadsgaard, Washington State Director of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness, he related to me how his teenage son Corey had walked into his high school English class with a rifle. He was found afterward to be in diminished capacity due to an abrupt discontinuation of Paxil and a significant dose of Effexor. He had no memory of what had transpired. Fortunately, he did not hurt anyone.

(Ten families from across the United States have joined forces to bring wrongful death and personal injury suits against the drug giant Wyeth alleging that their respective family members committed impulsive acts of violence - mostly suicides-or attempted them-shortly after taking Wyeth's best-selling drug, Effexor.) - Justice Seekers.com

When I asked Mr. Baadsgaard how this was originally presented to him he said that it was presented it to him as a "normal biological thing."

Yes. Let's de-stigmatize "mental illness" and make sure everyone knows that mental illness is a normal thing, that way we can all receive psychiatric "help."

And no one would like to "help" your children more than Teenscreen. Now cropping up in schools across the nation, Teenscreen, the psychiatric/ pharmaceutical marketing contrivance, carefully packaged as an innocent and well-meaning way to "save" our hapless children from suicide, is busy trying to garner new patients out of our schools with the rallying cry of remove the "stigma" and save your children.

But what solutions do they offer? After your child is "screened" and evaluated and most likely found to be possessed of one or more "mental illnesses" out of the DSM what then? "Treatment" is just a prescription away and your child could be headed down the path of other children like Kip Kinkle, Chris Pittman, Sam Manzie, Patrick Purdy and countless others who have taken their own lives or the lives of others while on psychiatric medication purported to ?help" them.

It's not hard to understand why the pharmaceutical companies have pumped so much money into "Teenscreen" and another suicide screening program called "Signs of Suicide."

("Antidepressants increased the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in short-term studies in children and adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of Effexor XR or any other antidepressant in a child or adolescent must balance this risk...") - Wyeth Laboratories Website - warning

De-stigmatize mental illness? Perhaps; but not so that Psychiatry can commit its nefarious acts of "caring" on our children or our society at large!

("Ritalin and other brain stimulants create severe biochemical imbalances. Stimulants do not normalize the brain; they render it abnormal. Stimulants produce pathological malfunctions in the child's brain.") - Dr. Peter Breggin Author of Talking back to Ritalin.

Flanking the efforts of Teenscreen is the PR assault from the psychiatric/pharmaceutical front group, NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Purportedly an independent organization of brain injury and mental illness advocates, they are working hard to convince us that unless we subscribe to their views and their solutions to "mental illness we are all just insensitive and callous individuals bent on marginalizing the mentally ill. This is the red herring that sunk the tuna boat!

In its "Stigma Buster" electronic newsletter alerts, NAMI urges its members to "Contact sponsors personally. Explain the meaning of stigma and the fact that the U.S. Surgeon General and President Bush have made its elimination a public health priority. (December 2004 alert) ??contact local newspaper editors and television news directors. Educate them about stigma and your concerns. ?.work to recruit them into sponsors of NAMIWalks or other events?.." PR, PR, PR.

If we trace the line from NAMI to Teenscreen we will see that NAMIs former Executive Director, Laurie Flynn is now the Executive director of Teen Screen and pharmaceutical money has followed her to her new job.

(According to internal documents obtained by Mother Jones, 18 drug firms gave NAMI a total of $11.72 million between 1996 and mid-1999. These include Janssen ($2.08 million), Novartis ($1.87 million), Pfizer ($1.3 million), Abbott Laboratories ($1.24 million), Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals ($658,000), and Bristol-Myers Squibb ($613,505).

("In 1999 alone, Lilly will have delivered $1.1 million in quarterly installments, with the lion's share going to help fund NAMI's "Campaign to End Discrimination" against the mentally ill.") ? Mother Jones Magazine

("NAMI's Flynn says her group is "not a captive of any outside industry." But she acknowledges there is "at times" [sic] a "synergy" in goals between NAMI and the drug companies") ? Mother Jones Magazine ? November/December 1999

There is a line here that has been blurred. It has been a deliberate and calculated blurring and its authors have taken no quarter. What the psychiatric/pharmaceutical PR machine says and what it does are diametrically opposed. Have compassion, de-stigmatize mental illness, help your fellow man, are not the same as "psychiatric drugs are the answer to human suffering" though that is what they would have you believe.

Compassion is not simpering tolerance of destructive solutions, so as not to offend, nor is it condemnation of the whole human race to satisfy the authoritative proclamations of psychiatry or the twisted agendas of big Pharma.

("There are no tests available for assessing the chemical status of a living person's brain." No "biochemical, anatomical, or functional signs have been found that reliably distinguish the brains of mental patients. The theories are held on to not only because there is nothing else to take their place, but also because they are useful in promoting drug treatment.") -- Elliot Valenstein, Ph.D., author of Blaming the Brain

By pushing their ceaseless PR line, psychiatry stigmatizes mankind himself, with abuse degradation and death. And in arrogant assignment of all of mans frailties and idiosyncrasies to the category of "disorders," psychiatry impugns his character and his resolve and takes from him his God- given right to meet life's challenges on his own terms.

("The time when psychiatrists considered that they could cure the mentally ill is gone. In the future the mentally ill will have to learn to live with their illness/") ? Dr. Norman Sartorius, former president of the World Psychiatric Association, 1994

Despite what they would have you believe, Man is not the sum of all his difficulties or his sorrows. Hi triumphs and trials are not the result of so many chemical reactions in his brain and he should not be viewed as, nor held sway by the lowest common denominators of his humanity ? his own self-doubts, and demons.

Yes, men and women, and even children, do sometimes need help. Certainly there are enough people who suffer from unwanted feelings and behaviors, whatever the cause, to prove this point. But the answers lie elsewhere than in the pages of the DSM or the bottles of anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and stimulants now touted as the "cure" for being human.

-###-

Monday May 22, 2006 Jeanyne Wanner is a freelance writer and activist living in Florida jeanynewanner@netscape.net