|
by Jon Rappoport
October 30,
2018
from
JonRappoport Website
Spanish version
To say that a person should have a right to consider himself
mentally ill and to take a drug is one thing. This is an argument
from the principle of individual freedom.
To say that such a person knows what he is doing by some objective
standard is quite another thing.
Objectively speaking, mental illnesses and disorders do not
exist...
Officially, all mental disorders are said to be chemical
imbalances in the brain. Not just any imbalances, but specific
ones. But, this assertion is unproven. There is no evidence for it.
For example, for any of the 297 so-called mental disorders
listed in the official publication of the American Psychiatric
Association, there are no defining physical tests. No blood
tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no laboratory tests of any
kind.
This is a fact.
Since it is a fact, it is odd that all psychiatrists are
'medical' doctors. What are they doing that is medical?
Well, they are prescribing drugs. Yes. But I could
prescribe drugs if I had a license to do so and a prescription pad.
The profession of psychiatry asserts that these drugs erase or
alleviate "the brain chemical imbalances" that form the basis for
all mental disorders. Yet the brain-imbalance hypothesis is
unproven. It may "make sense" to some people, but that doesn't
constitute evidence.
People, of course, are free to believe the brain-chemical-imbalance
hypothesis is true. Belief doesn't make it true.
People are also free to believe the hypothesis that strange behavior
emanates from the Devil or a Karmic curse.
A person says,
"I was diagnosed with
clinical depression and I took Prozac, and ever since then I've
felt much happier."
Yes. Fine. I have no
interest in challenging that statement.
I merely point out that
there are people who have felt depressed and took a crystal they
claimed was sacred, rubbed it on their heads, and felt better from
then on.
There are people who have joined a church and prayed and felt
better. Why is the Prozac experience more compelling than crystals
or prayer?
I'm not talking about what a person says makes him feel better.
I'm
talking about what psychiatrists claim is science.
And when you scratch the
surface of that, you come up with:
no compelling
evidence...
Yet, in courts and in
doctors' offices and at academic conferences and in the pages of
professional journals and in political gulags, the science of
discrete and separate and definable mental disorders is treated as
settled, confirmed, verified, certain.
That is a bald-faced
lie...
All 297 official mental disorders, listed in the (DSM) publication
of the American Psychiatric Association, are defined and approved by
committees of psychiatrists. Whether it is schizophrenia or autism
or ADHD or clinical depression or bipolar disease, the definitions
consist wholly of described behaviors. That's all...
Psychiatrists will tell you these symptomatic behaviors are signs of
underlying chemical imbalances or genetic aberrations, but again,
they have no tests to back up this assertion.
Therefore, all they left
with are the behaviors and their own menu-like collections of those
behaviors.
Yes, people suffer in life, and they experience confusion and doubt.
They have problems. They have trouble with relationships. They feel
sad. They feel all sorts of things. They feel pain. They don't know
how to move ahead with plans. They sometimes feel their lives are at
an impasse. Yes...
This is far different from claiming they have a specific and
detectable chemical imbalance which can be tested for.
"Well," many
psychiatrists say, "the hypothesis of chemical balance is
confirmed if the drugs work, because the drugs are, in fact,
based on the idea that chemical imbalances underlie mental
disorders."
Let's examine that
approach. Take, for example,
Ritalin.
The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American
Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard):
"Stimulants [such as
Ritalin] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity,
conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job
functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment."
Not a ringing
endorsement.
How about, say, the antidepressants prescribed to children?
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."
Here is a link to the
official psychiatric definition of
autism 'disorder.'
It's worth reading:
Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autism Spectrum
Disorder.
Notice that all the criteria for a diagnosis are behavioral.
There is no mention of laboratory tests or test results. There is no
definitive mention of chemical imbalance or genetic factors.
Despite public-relations statements issued by doctors and
researchers, they have no laboratory findings to establish or
confirm a diagnosis.
But, people say, this makes no sense, because children do, in fact,
withdraw from the world, stop speaking, throw sudden tantrums.
Common sense seems to dictate that these behaviors stem from serious
neurological problems.
Let's briefly examine that.
What could cause the
behaviors listed in the official definition of autism disorder:
-
a
vaccine
injury
-
a head injury in
an accident
-
an ingestion of a
neurological poison
-
an environmental
chemical
-
a severe
nutritional deficit
-
perhaps the
emotional devastation accompanying the death of a parent…
However, in that case,
why bother to call it "autism?" Why not just say vaccine injury or
head injury?
The answer should be
clear:
By establishing a
label like autism, medical drugs can be sold. Studies can be
funded. An industry can be created...
In fact, when it comes to
the US government's vaccine injury compensation program for parents
whose children have suffered vaccine injury, the government can
engage in a con game.
The government can say,
"In order to
establish a cause for autism, we must find a single underlying
factor that applies to all cases of autism.
Since we know that
some children who are diagnosed with autism have not received
vaccines, or have not received vaccines containing a
neurological poison (mercury), we do not compensate parents
whose children are vaccine-injured on the basis that they have
autism."
But, of course, what is
called autism (merely a label) is not one condition caused by
one factor. It is a loose collection of behaviors that are
caused by various traumas.
The official mental disorder called autism disorder does not
exist.
People find such statements very unsettling.
They argue,
"My child's life was
stolen away from him. He must have autism."
This proves that a label
provides some measure of relief for the parents.
It doesn't prove that the
label actually means something. In fact, the label can be a
diversion from knowledge that would actually help the child.
Suppose, for example, that after receiving the
DPT vaccine, the
child went into a screaming fit and then withdrew from the world.
Calling that autism tends
to put the parents and the child in the medical system, where there
is no effective treatment. Outside that system, there might be some
hope with vaccine detox or, say, hyperbaric oxygen treatments.
What is stated here about autism applies to all 297 official mental
disorders. They are labels.
There is no reason to
suppose that, for each label, there is a single cause. There is no
reason to suppose that the labels name actual conditions. Research
that attempts to find a single cause for a label stands no better
chance of succeeding than research designed to prove a man on the
moon is selling land leases to citizens of Fiji.
Again, people have every right to believe they have been helped by a
psychiatric diagnosis and a prescribed drug. But they also have the
right to reject that paradigm and seek knowledge and help elsewhere.
The whole thrust of
official psychiatry and its allies is to monopolize their
self-appointed territory and use all necessary means to eliminate
the competition. This approach has nothing to do with science.
It has everything to do
with profit and fascist
control...
"But my cousin was
depressed. He took Zoloft and felt much better."
Read this article again.
It neither denigrates your cousin nor makes your cousin's experience
the basis of actual far-reaching science.
This article is about
science...
| 