by Jon Rappoport
February 29, 2016
psychiatry creates a gateway
defining many separate states
that don't exist at all.
They're cheap myths, fairy
January 26, 2016:
"Primary care doctors should screen
all adults for depression, an expert panel recommended Tuesday."
Let's screen everybody
to find out if they have mental
Let's diagnose as many people
with mental disorders
and give them toxic drugs.
Wherever you see organized psychiatry operating, you see it trying
to expand its domain and its dominance. The Hippocratic Oath to do
no harm? Are you kidding?
The first question to ask is:
do these mental disorders have any
scientific basis? There are now roughly 300 of them. They multiply
like fruit flies.
An open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for
the past ten years.
THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED "MENTAL
And along with that:
ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE
CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a
committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.
Their findings are published in
periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM),
printed by the American Psychiatric Association.
For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this
hazy crazy process of "research."
pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture
highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these
"disorders," are leading the charge to invent more and more
mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more
In a PBS Frontline episode,
Does ADHD Exist?,
Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and
neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center,
unintentionally spelled out the fraud.
PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER:
Skeptics say that there's no
biological marker - that it [ADHD] is the one condition out
there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what
That's tremendously naïve, and it
shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the
mental health professions. A disorder doesn't have to have a
blood test to be valid.
If that were the case, all mental
disorders would be invalid… There is no lab test for any mental
disorder right now in our science. That doesn't make them
Oh, indeed, that does make them
Utterly and completely. All 297 mental
disorders. They're all hoaxes. Because there are no defining
tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.
You can sway and tap dance and bloviate all you like and you won't
escape the noose around your neck. We are looking at a science that
isn't a science. That's called fraud. Rank fraud.
There's more. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars,
who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public.
He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years,
almost no one noticed.
His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting
statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: "Inside
the Battle to Define Mental Illness." (Dec.27, 2010).
Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It
never became a scandal.
Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to
write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible,
the DSM-IV. This tome defines and
labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV
eventually listed 297 of them.
In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, "Scientist At
Work," Daniel Goleman called Frances,
"Perhaps the most powerful
psychiatrist in America at the moment…"
If you're sculpting the
entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues,
for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the
drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you're right up there
in the pantheon.
Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to
Wired's Greenberg and said the following:
"There is no definition of a mental
disorder. It's bullshit. I mean, you just can't define it."
That's on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at
the burned rubble on the ground, remarking,
"Well, I knew there would be a
After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances
remarked to Greenberg,
"These concepts [of distinct mental
disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with
bright lines at the borders."
Frances might have been obliquely
referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged
earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE
diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly
powerful and toxic compounds.
If this is medical science, a duck is a rocket ship.
To repeat, Dr. Frances' work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic
drugs to be prescribed, because the definitions of Bipolar and ADHD
were expanded to include more people.
Adverse effects of
Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis)
acute, life-threatening, and
even fatal liver toxicity
life-threatening inflammation of
Adverse effects of
Lithium (also given
for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:
Adverse effects of
Risperdal (given for
"Bipolar" and "irritability stemming from autism") include:
serious impairment of
restless muscles in neck or
face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage)
Dr. Frances self-admitted label-juggling
act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening
the door for greater and greater use of Ritalin (and other similar
compounds) as the treatment of choice.
So… what about
In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a
most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called
"An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)"
[v.21(7), pp. 837-841].
Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and
cited published journal articles which reported each of these
For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim)
Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the
Hypomanic and manic symptoms,
Activation of psychotic symptoms
Can surpass LSD in producing
Effects pathological thought
Since Ritalin is considered an
amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
High-abuse potential DEA
Schedule II Drug
Decreased REM sleep
When used with antidepressants
one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension,
seizures and hypothermia
Brain damage may be seen with
In the US alone, there are at least
300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been
prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka "major
Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug
given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major
tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St.
Martin's Press, 1991)
This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.
Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV
anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering
on it week after week? They are in harness.
Thank you, Dr. Frances...
Let's take a little trip back in time and review how one psychiatric
Prozac, escaped a bitter fate, by hook and by crook. It's an
Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a while.
Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off.
But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus' Wall Street Journal
article on the drug carried the headline, "Murder Trials Introduce
"A spate of murder trials in which
defendants claim they became violent when they took the
antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug's
maker, Eli Lilly and Co."
Also on February 7, 1991, the New York
Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, "Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to
Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?"
In his landmark book,
Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that
the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991),
"put together a group of individuals
who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after
taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response
confirmed the problem."
A shocking review-study published in
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2),
written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called
"Antidepressants for Children," concludes:
"Despite unanimous literature of
double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more
effective than placebos in treating depression in children and
adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use."
An instructive article, "Protecting
Prozac," by Michael Grinfeld, in the December 1998 California
Lawyer, opens several doors.
Grinfeld notes that,
"in the past year nearly a dozen
cases involving Prozac have disappeared from the court record."
He was talking about law suits against
Eli Lilly, and he was saying that those cases had
apparently been settled, without trial, in such a quiet and final
way, with such strict confidentiality, that it is almost as if they
Grinfeld details a set of maneuvers involving attorney Paul Smith,
who in the early 1990s became the lead plaintiffs' counsel in the
Fentress lawsuit against Eli Lilly.
The plaintiffs made the accusation that Prozac had induced a man to
This was the first action involving Prozac to reach a
trial and jury, so it would establish a major precedent for a large
number of other pending suits against the manufacturer.
On September 14, 1989, Joseph
Wesbecker, a former employee of Standard Gravure, in Louisville,
Kentucky, walked into the workplace, with an AK-47 and a SIG
Sauer pistol, killed eight people, wounded 12 others, and
Family members of the victims
subsequently sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, on the grounds
that Wesbecker had been pushed over the edge into violence by
After what many people thought was a
very weak attack on Lilly by plaintiffs' lawyer Smith, the jury
came back in five hours with an easy verdict favoring Lilly and
"Lilly's defense attorneys predicted
the verdict would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac
But that wasn't the end of the Fentress
"Rumors began to circulate that [the
plaintiffs' attorney] Smith had made several [prior] oral
agreements with Lilly concerning the evidence that would be
presented [in Fentress], the structure of a post-verdict
settlement, and the potential resolution of Smith's other
In other words, the rumors declared:
This plaintiff's lawyer, Smith, made
a deal with Lilly to present a weak attack, to omit evidence
damaging to Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly innocent
of all charges. In return, the case would be settled secretly,
with Lilly paying out big monies to Smith's client.
In this way, Lilly would avoid the
exposure of a public settlement, and through the innocent
verdict, would discourage other potential plaintiffs from suing
it over Prozac.
The rumors congealed.
The judge in the Fentress case, John
Potter, asked lawyers on both sides if,
"money had changed hands."
He wanted to know if the fix was in.
lawyers said no money had been paid,
"without acknowledging that an
agreement was in place."
Judge Potter didn't stop there.
In April 1995, Grinfeld notes,
"In court papers, Potter wrote that
he was surprised that the plaintiffs' attorneys [Smith] hadn't
introduced evidence that Lilly had been charged criminally for
failing to report deaths from another of its drugs to the Food
and Drug Administration.
Smith had fought hard [during the
Fentress trial] to convince Potter to admit that evidence, and
then unaccountably withheld it."
In Judge Potter's motion, he alleged
"Lilly [in the Fentress case] sought
to buy not just the verdict, but the court's judgment as well."
In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court
issued an opinion:
"…there was a serious lack of candor
with the trial court [during Fentress] and there may have been
deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or
perhaps even fraud."
After the Supreme Court remanded the
Fentress case back to the state attorney general's office, the whole
matter dribbled away, and then resurfaced in a different form, in
At the time of the California Lawyer
article, a new action against Smith was unresolved. Eventually, Eli
Lilly escaped punishment.
Based on the rigged Fentress case, Eli Lilly silenced many lawsuits
based on Prozac inducing murder and suicide.
Quite a story...
And it all really starts with the institution of psychiatry
inventing a whole branch of science that doesn't exist,
thereby defining 300 mental disorders that don't exist.
Here's a coda...
This one is big.
The so-called "chemical-imbalance theory" of mental illness is dead.
Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric
Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the
Times with this staggering admission:
"In truth, the 'chemical imbalance'
notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory
seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."
However… urban legend? No.
For decades the whole basis of
psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has
"we're correcting a chemical
imbalance in the brain."
The problem was, researchers had never
established a normal baseline for chemical balance.
So they were shooting in the dark.
Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something
when they didn't.
In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to cover his
colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:
"In the past 30 years, I don't
believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained
psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical
imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it… the
'chemical imbalance' image has been vigorously promoted by some
pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our
First of all, many psychiatrists have
explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there
to correct a chemical imbalance.
And second, if all well-trained
psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance
theory is a fraud…
…then why on earth have they been
prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…
…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they
correct a chemical imbalance?
Here's what's happening.
The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the
handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They're taking
heavy flack on many fronts.
The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining
physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All
diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human
behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them
induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain
Psychiatry is a pseudo-pseudo science.
So the shrinks have to move into another model, another con, another
fraud. And they're looking for one.
For example, genes plus "psycho-social factors,"...
a mish-mash of more
"New breakthrough research on the
functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great
Professional gibberish. It's all
gibberish, all the way down.
Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale. So even though
the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will
continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.
Big Pharma isn't going to back off.
Trillions of dollars are at stake.
And in the wake of Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Naval Yard, and
other mass shootings, the hype is expanding:
"we must have new community
mental-health centers all over America."
More fake diagnosis of mental disorders,
more devastating drugs. You want to fight for a right?
Fight for the
right to refuse medication... Fight for the right of every parent to
refuse medication for his/her child.