Skip to main content

Tag: Mental Illness

DNC Convention Protestors. “Joyful Warriors” or Crazed Mental Patients?

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Articles.

August 20, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democrat nominee for President, has recently begun to refer to the Democrat ticket as “joyful warriors.” The phrase coined from remarks made by her running mate Tim Walz praising Harris during a rally saying, “thank you for bringing back the joy.” This is an interesting phrase to represent the Democrat ticket when one considers that study after study has determined that liberals enjoy poorer mental health than conservatives.

According to a study reported in the Columbia Magazine, “American adults who identify as politically liberal have long reported lower levels of happiness and psychological well-being.” And a group of Columbia epidemiologists found evidence that “the same pattern holds for American teenagers…while the rates of depression have been rising among students of all political persuasions and demographics, they have been increasing most sharply among progressive students…”

The authors speculated that the reason for the increased mental health issues could be “left-leaning teens may have been affected by Donald Trump’s election as president, the US Supreme Court’s subsequent lurch to the right, rising socioeconomic inequality, and worsening political polarization.”

Continue reading

psychiatric drugs

Warning: Psychiatry Can Be Hazardous to Your Mental Health

Written by AbleChild on . Posted in Essential Books.

This book, written by psychiatrist Dr. William Glasser, exposes the field of psychopharmacology, and how it is replacing the role that psychotherapy used to play. The book explains how, while psychiatric drugs can be helpful in the short-term, they can have detrimental long-term effects and often only mask a problem that can be fixed through therapeutic means.

Dr. Glasser touches upon Choice Theory in the book, which he developed himself. The basic gist of the theory is that we all have choices to make, and understanding these choices is what liberates us from the grips of unhappiness. Most mental illnesses, according to Dr. Glasser, are an expression of one’s own unhappiness. While choosing to lift oneself out of unhappiness is a difficult thing to do, long-term psychiatric drugs such as Ritalin, Zoloft and Prosac often are not the answer, and in many cases can make things worse.

Below are a few more concepts that Warning: Psychiatry Can Be Hazardous to Your Mental Health touches upon:

  • Lack of mental health can lead to physical symptoms as well that will resolve themselves upon healing of one’s mental health.
  • It’s our desire to control others that leads to unhappiness, and once we learn to let go of this need for control, mental health improves.
  • Often, psychiatrists cannot tell the difference between a transformational breakthrough (which is a temporary dramatic experience that one needs to go through for a positive outcome) and an emotional breakdown. Because of this, many patients end up on psychiatric medications they don’t need.

One of the main solutions for improved mental health without psychotropic drugs that Dr. Glasser advocates for in the book is group therapy and connection with others. But the book goes much further than just recommending counseling. Since the majority of people with symptoms can’t afford or wont accept counseling, the book teaches how you can, by yourself or with your family’s help, improve your own mental health at no cost and at no risk to yourself.

About the Author

Willam Glasser, M.D., is a world-renowned psychiatrist who is president of the William Glassner Institute in Los Angeles, which he founded in 1967. He graduated from Case Western Reserve University with his M.D. in 1953 and became board certified in 1961. Dr. Glasser worked as a private practice psychiatrist from 1956 to 1986. He has written quite a few other books, which include Choice Theory, Reality Therapy, The Quality School, and Getting Together and Staying Together.

Reviews

Publisher’s Weekly:

“Swimming against what he sees as the tide of prescriptions written for antidepressants such as Paxil, Zoloft and Prozac, psychiatrist Glasser (Choice Theory) argues that these drugs can do more harm than good. He asserts that there has been some scientifically sound psychiatric research that suggests the drugs can damage mental health and even the brain itself. Through selective case studies and extrapolation of evidence, the author urges readers to think twice before accepting “brain drugs”; he states that the effectiveness of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors has been exaggerated by the drug companies. To his credit, Glasser does offer several practical alternatives for patients. But he seems to cherish his outsider status and questions the way psychiatry is practiced today. Group therapy transcripts and case studies constitute the bulk of his case, and chapters like ‘Luck, Intimacy, and Our Quality World’ and ‘We Have Learned to Destroy Our Own Happiness’ are designed to help the reader understand symptoms. Some of the anecdotes are compelling, and individuals seeking alternatives to drug treatments may benefit.” Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

 

DSM IV

They Say You’re Crazy: How the World’s Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who’s Normal

Written by AbleChild on . Posted in Essential Books.

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) IV is the official diagnostic “bible” used by the American Psychiatric Association and mental health professionals.  But so much of the general population doesn’t know how these “illnesses” are determined, since they are not the same as medical diagnoses, which can be determined with the clear-cut scientific method.  That is where psychologist and author Paula J. Caplan comes in with her book, They Say You’re Crazy: How the World’s Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who’s Normal.  Caplan is a former consultant to the DSM, and has served as an adviser to various related APA committees.

In total, there are 400 mental illness labels listed in the DSM IV.  This includes everything from “self-defeating personality disorder” to “nicotine dependence” to “premenstrual dysphoric disorder”.  “Homosexuality” was once listed in an earlier publication of the DSM as a mental illness, but not in the current DSM IV. This should be a cause for widespread concern, because since when can a disease stop being a disease?

Caplan gives an eye-opening look into the lack of scientific methods and evidence, bias and close-mindedness that was involved in the process of developing the DSM IV handbook.  She questions whether the creators of the book have the authority to determine what is “normal” and “not normal.”  She cuts through the mental health industry jargon to expose to the everyday laymen the danger of these official labels that are being put on people and dramatically impacting the course of their lives.  She also points out how the book is very thorough in listing symptoms of these illnesses, but not treatments or solutions.

About the Author

Paula J. Caplan is a clinical and research psychologist, as well as an award-winning nonfiction author, playwright, actor, activist, advocate and director.  She grew up in Springfield, Missouri, and then went on to graduate from the Radcliffe College of Harvard University.  Following that, she attended Duke University, where she received her M.A. and Ph.D. in psychology.

Caplan is currently an Associate at the Dubois Research Institute of the Hutchins Center at Harvard University, where she works on their Voices of Diversity Project.  She is also a past fellow at the Women and Public Policy Program of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.  She is a former Full Professor of Applied Psychology and Head of the Centre for Women’s Studies in Education at the Ontario Institute for studies in Education.  She was also a former Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, and former Lecturer in Women’s Studies at the University of Toronto.

Caplan has published a total of twelve books so far, which include Lifting a Ton of Feathers: A Woman’s Guide to Surviving in the Academic World, Bias in Psychiatric Diagnosis, Don’t Blame Mother: Mending the Mother-Daughter Relationship, and her most recent publication, Johnny and Jane Come Marching Home: How All of Us Can Help Veterans.

Reviews

Psychotherapist Bryan Knight, from Ezinearticles.com:

“Read Dr. Caplan’s book and weep for the thousands of people (mostly women, of course) whose lives have been damaged by being labelled with the stigma of a mental illness, when in reality their only problem was that, like [like psychiatrist and author] Dr. Siebert, they dared to be different.  Or human.”

Ablechild

True Nature and Great Misunderstandings (On How We Care for our Children According to Our Understanding)

Written by AbleChild on . Posted in Essential Books.

In this groundbreaking work from 2002, author John Breeding gives extra attention to the view, or understanding, from which we are viewing our children.  For example, if we think they are rowdy and violent, then we will have an understanding that we have to tame them.  Or if we don’t recognize their unlimited capacity for curiosity and intelligence, we will see them as uncooperative and misbehaving and feel the need to punish or reward them accordingly.  In this book, Breeding gently shines the light on the misunderstanding we have that our children’s wonderful gifts are in fact biologically-based problems labeled as “mental illness,” then the turnout is a society with millions of children on dangerous and unnecessary psychotropic drugs.

But instead of leading us to extreme shock and anger, Breeding does an excellent job of allowing us to properly absorb the information, clearly see the correct perspective and take the necessary actions to correct these misunderstandings.  Breeding explains in detail how we can stop suppressing our children’s gifts and passions and instead nurture their emotional and intellectual growth and development.  He eases fears many parents have about certain behaviors they may have been conditioned to see as signs of “mental illness.”  True Nature and Great Misunderstandings is not only an excellent book that will help parents care for their children, it can also help parents and other adults heal from their own childhood hurts.

About the Author

John Breeding, Ph.D., is a psychologist with over 25 years of experience who counsels adults children and families out of his private practice in Austin, Texas, and also around the world.  He is the director of the non-profit organization Wildest Colts Resources, which focuses on helping adults working with young people having a hard time to offer non-drug treatment alternatives.  He is also the director of Texans for Safe Education, a citizens group dedicated to fighting the growing role of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs in schools today.

Dr. Breeding is also experienced in other aspects of psychiatric oppression, including electroshock and psychiatric drugging of elders in nursing homes.  He received his doctorate from the University of Texas.  He has published several other books: Eyes Wide Open: Parenting and Life Mainfestos for the 21st Century, The Wildest Colts Make the Best Horses, and Necessity of Madness and Unproductivity: Psychiatric Oppression or Human Transformation.

Reviews

Psychologist/teacher Roger Mitchell, Ph.D.:

“Somehow, someway, John Breeding has found a way to measure his steps, his dreams, his pain, and his passion-to transform them into a dynamic interplay with the times and the American culture in a way that is thought provoking and heart rendering. I am always inspired when I read his ‘marking of the twain,’ sounding the depth of our American way of life.”

Author Jan Hunt (The Natural Child: Parenting from the Heart):

“In his strong voice, John Breeding makes it clear that our children deserve to be accepted and valued for their unique and wonderful qualities, not evaluated, pigeon-holed, labeled, or drugged. It is my hope that this refreshing, thought-provoking, and very important book will be read and taken to heart by all those fortunate enough to have children, work with children, or advocate on their behalf.”

Mental Health First Aid, A $20 Million Price Tag for Compassion

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Lawmaking.

What are the odds Gary Scheppke, a member of the Marin County Board of Mental Health, would happen to be on the Golden Gate Bridge with his newly obtained “mental health first aid” certificate in hand to stop a person from jumping? According to the San Jose Mercury News the odds were pretty good, as explained in its article: A surge in federal funding for Mental Health First Aid could make it as popular as CPR.

Getting beyond the bizarre bridge encounter and Scheppke’s relationship with the Marin County Board of Mental Health, let’s take a look at the comparison the article draws to CPR and Mental Health First Aid and then the $20 million federally funded “certificate.”

According to the Mayo Clinic, “Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a lifesaving technique useful in many emergencies, including heart attack or near drowning, in which someone’s breathing or heartbeat has stopped. The American Heart Association recommends that everyone — untrained bystanders and medical personnel alike — begin CPR with chest compressions.”

The Mayo Staff continues, “It’s far better to do something than to do nothing at all if you’re fearful that your knowledge or abilities aren’t 100 percent complete. Remember, the difference between your doing something and doing nothing could be someone’s life.”

The Mental Health First Aid eight-hour course reportedly provides skills to individuals on how to identify symptoms of mental illness, such as depression and how and when to intervene. According to Discovery’s executive director, Kathy Chierton, the course provides interactive and role-playing exercises that help participants empathize with people with mental disorders, “Often, says Chierton, “it can take a decade from when the first symptoms of mental illness show up to when people receive treatment, so early intervention is crucial.”

Let’s remember, though, that there is no objective test for diagnosing any alleged mental disorder – no X-ray, blood work, CAT scan. The diagnosis is completely subjective, based on a set of criteria voted into existence by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). According to the former head of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Thomas Insel, the problem with diagnosing mental illness, “it lacks validity.”

Despite the fact that psychiatric diagnosing is based in neither science or medicine, millions of dollars continue to funnel into mental health services, which largely consists of prescribing dangerous mind-altering drugs – often causing the very behaviors they allegedly “treat.”

For example, the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in which a mentally disturbed young man, Adam Lanza, killed 20 children and six adults was the rallying cry for President Obama to sign an executive order providing $20 million in federal funds for the Mental Health First Aid program.

However, according to the Connecticut state police investigation and the Connecticut Child Advocate’s “story” on Adam Lanza, from a very young age, Lanza received the best mental health money could buy. In fact according to the Hartford Courant report, the psychiatry department at Danbury Hospital performed mental health screening on Lanza and released him, concluding he was not a harm to himself or others. This is a clear indication that mental health screenings (diagnosing) are completely unreliable and, as NIMH Insel said, “lacks validity.”

It isn’t very often that someone can say they talked a person out of jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge but, according to San Jose Mercury News, Gary Scheppke, now that he has received the mental health first aid certificate, can identify mental illness when he sees it and act accordingly? Wow, that’s some miraculous training. Or, is it really just a case of one human being showing compassion to another. This compassion, though, comes with a $20 million price tag.

Teachers Trained to Promote Mental Illness?

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking, Sandy Hook.

The July 24th article in the Connecticut Mirror, by Arielle Levin Becker, titled Moms of children with mental illness share their pain, tell their stories, push for change, while anecdotal, the article provides little in the way of bolstering the cry for increased spending on mental health services. It does, however, provide three sentences that are at the heart of the mental health debate.

Becker writes “But they also note that there are differences between mental illness and physical conditions.” “There is no x-ray or blood test for most mental illnesses… there is subjectivity in the treatment of mental illness…”

First, it’s important to be clear: there is no x-ray, blood test, urine test, MRI or CAT scan that can detect any abnormality in the brain that is any alleged psychiatric disorder. It is not a case of “most mental illnesses,” there are, in fact, no objective tests to detect any alleged mental illness.

Even Keith Stover, an apparent lobbyist for the Connecticut Association of Health Plans, and was interviewed for the article, is confused about psychiatric diagnosing. According to Stover, “there’s rarely a clear diagnostic test that leads to an exact treatment protocol.”

There’s nothing “rarely” about it. Other than a doctor’s opinion of one’s behavior there are no diagnostic tests that lead to either an exact diagnosis or an exact treatment protocol. Psychiatric diagnosing is completely subjective and the pharmaceutical companies have no idea how the drugs work in the brain to treat any alleged psychiatric disorder.

The fact that insurance companies are required to cover treatment for psychiatric disorders is interesting in, and of, itself. Imagine for a moment that a doctor files a claim on behalf of a patient for heart surgery but provides absolutely no objective tests that an abnormality actually exists. The first question from the insurer would be “where’s the tests to show this procedure is necessary?”

And, adding insult to injury, given that there is no scientific or medical proof that any abnormality in the brain exists for any alleged mental illness, there continues to be an onslaught of demands for increased mental health screening, earlier and younger.

Along with the demands for increased screening comes even greater demands to an already over burdened educational system with training teachers and other school personnel on mental illness and the “stigma” associated with it. Ablechild believes that children should be sent to school to be educated not medicated.

More than that, though, what exactly will these educators, who are not doctors, be taught about mental illness? Will educators be provided with accurate information about the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing, which actually leads to the stigmatization when the child is labeled with an alleged mental disorder? Is this “training” intended only to promote the “treatment” of mental illness? More importantly, will educators be taught to identify adverse drug reactions and how to report these drug reactions to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by using the MEDWATCH adverse drug reporting system? And, who bares the cost of all of this mental health educating? The taxpayers?

Since the tragic incident at Sandy Hook, the state has poured millions of dollars into increased mental health services and, sadly, none of that legislation was based on any investigative information that the shooter, Adam Lanza, lacked mental health services.

In fact, based on the information that was made publicly available, Lanza was the poster child of mental health services and, perhaps, it is the services he received that may have contributed to his actions. Lawmakers, though, did not even consider this option.

Ablechild believes that a much greater review of the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing needs to be done before more taxpayer funds are allocated for increased mental health services. Because the question that one cannot help ask is if the mental health “treatment” being prescribed to Connecticut’s youth is working, why isn’t anyone getting better?

 

 

Poster boy, Tj – 8 year old, used in op-ed to sell more mental illness in CT

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

More mental illness screening, more mental illness care, more mental illness services, more mental illness diagnosing, and more mental illness treatment.  This is what the op-ed of May 26th titled:  Review of Children’s mental healthcare is vital, demands, yet nowhere in the piece does the writer discuss the psychiatric drug “therapy” utilized in mental health’s “treatment” regimen for T.J., the subject of the piece.

Reportedly eight year-old T.J. was diagnosed with the alleged brain abnormality, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD, because he had problems focusing in school and was hyperactive.  T.J. received mental health services in another state.  At what age did T.J. first receive these “services?”  The writer does not say.

What exactly were those “services?”  Was T.J. “treated” with Ritalin or Adderall? Both highly addictive drugs and, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA  nearly identical to cocaine. Or, perhaps, T.J. had been prescribed the “non-stimulant” drug Strattera, a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor, SSRI.

SSRI’s are the most commonly prescribed form of antidepressant, yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, for the “treatment” of the alleged ADHD.  Ironically, it also is the FDA who plastered “Black Box” warnings – the agency’s most serious warning – on these drugs because they may cause abnormal thoughts and suicidal behavior in children.

Remember it is the National Institute of Mental Health, NIMH, that openly admits scientists have no idea what causes the alleged ADHD.  And the pharmaceutical companies openly admit on the product packaging that they don’t know how the drugs work in the brain to “treat” the alleged ADHD.  Frankly this drug “treatment” is one big guessing game, and the kids, at extremely young ages, are being used as guinea pigs.

This is the problem with crying for more mental illness services. There is no science to support even one psychiatric diagnosis. There is no known objective, confirmable abnormality that is a psychiatric diagnosis.  It is completely subjective.  The American Psychiatric Association, APA, merely has gathered lists of behaviors and randomly decided they equate to some mental illness that needs to be “treated.”

Columbine, Aurora. Co., and Sandy Hook, to name a few, all were the result of young men with long histories of mental health “treatment.” Now in the wake of yet another mass murder in Santa Barbara, where the shooter openly discusses his years-long psychiatric “treatment,” it seems incredible that the state of Connecticut is rushing to implement increased mental illness services when, in fact, lawmakers should be investigating the very dangerous psychiatric drugs used as “treatments.” To paraphrase the lyrics of Pink Floyd’s The Wall, “hey, psychiatrists, leave them kids alone!”

At the end of the day, PA-13-178  which the op-ed writer “endorses,” is based on the recommendations made by mental health vendors who clearly have a horse in the race. Lawmakers should acknowledge the obvious conflict of interest and mandate that these vendors will not benefit from their increased mental illness services recommendations.

If these mental illness vendor “stops” are not put in place, where will the power to label the state’s children as “abnormal,” and drug them into submission, end?

 

Adam Lanza’s Psychiatrist’s Ethics Violations Raise Questions About the Legislature’s Controversial Mental Health Increases

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking, Sandy Hook.

One has to wonder.  If the State legislature had been aware of the details of the investigation into Adam Lanza’s psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Fox, prior to passing sweeping, costly mental health legislation, PA 13-3, would the vote have gone the same direction?

Let’s consider for a moment the facts of Dr. Fox’s surrender of his license to practice medicine in not only Connecticut but, also, New York.  Ablechild recently requested and received the publicly available investigative file on the circumstances surrounding Adam Lanza’s psychiatrist’s fall from psychiatric grace and, perhaps, his decision to flee the country.

The State Department of Public Health received a complaint about Dr. Fox from Yale New Haven Hospital in March of 2012.  A female patient of Dr. Fox had reported detailed information about a “consensual” sexual relationship with Dr. Fox and, by April of 2012, the State Department of Public Health had begun its investigation.

The investigative documents are, in a word, sickening.  The 59-year old Fox had engaged in a sexual relationship with a 19-year old patient he supposedly was “treating” for mental illness.  Dr. Fox had become the patient’s counselor while employed at Western Connecticut State University Counseling Center and when fired from the University for “ethics” violations, continued to “treat” the patient at his Brookfield office.

In substantiating the sexual relationship, the patient provided detailed documentation, including an inordinate number of written references by Dr. Fox about his private parts, and information about other female patients that reportedly had sexual relationships with the psychiatrist – one threatening to bring a malpractice suit against him.  Given the psychiatrist’s apparent proclivity for being sexually active with his female patients, one can only surmise he may qualify as a serial sexual predator.

More importantly, during Dr. Fox’s “treatment” of this 19-year old patient, he not only was prescribing numerous – “three or four” – psychiatric mind-altering drugs, but also was providing the patient with free drug samples (page 69 of report).  According to the patient’s mother, “she was turning into a zombie.”

Dr. Fox billed the mother’s insurance for the patient’s drug “treatment,” but when the psychiatrist and the patient “became friends” Fox no longer billed for “counseling services.”(page 68 of report)

The “consensual sexual relationship” between a 59-year old doctor and 19-year old patient lasted about two years, with the good doctor ending with a note saying “please don’t contact me.”  Absolutely pathetic!

But why is this investigation of Dr. Fox important and what does it have to do with Adam Lanza and the State’s rush to institute increased mental health services?

First, this investigation raises red flags about the public’s right to know when doctors/psychiatrists are fired for “ethics” violations from a State University, tasked with providing mental health services for teenagers.  Furthermore, was Western Connecticut State University aware of Dr. Fox’s sexual relationships with students at the university and, if so, did the university file a report with the Department of Public Health or any state oversight agency?

Additionally, on December 17, 2012 (three days after the Sandy Hook incident) police conducted a telephone interview with Dr. Fox, who is living in New Zealand, inquiring about his “treatment ” of Adam Lanza and the whereabouts of the doctor’s mental health records.  (Investigation document 00260339 -Book 7)

Dr. Fox, advised police that he “vaguely recalls treating Adam Lanza.”  Dr. Fox further advised that the only records he had in New Zealand were billing records and explained that “all of his medical records pertaining to clients he treated in the United States are currently in storage in the United States.”

Twenty-four hours later, Dr. Fox, contacted police, explaining “any medical records pertaining to Adam Lanza have been destroyed since it has been over five years since he last treated him (per state statute he is allowed to destroy any files over 5 years old).”  Dr. Fox further explained that “Adam was about 15 years of age when he last saw him.”

If Dr. Fox last saw Adam Lanza in 2007, his medical record retention, according to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Medical Records 19a-14-42, “unless specified otherwise herein, all parts of a medical record shall be retained for a period of seven (7) years from the last date of treatment, or, upon the death of the patient, for three (3) years.”

Dr. Fox, upon surrendering his license, agreed to adhere to the regulations regarding medical records. So, if the doctor last saw Adam Lanza in 2007, he destroyed Lanza’s mental health records two years too early.

More than that, is it not odd that Dr. Fox would initially tell police that his medical records were in storage in the U.S., then twenty-four hours later revise his statement, declaring them destroyed?  Of course, Dr. Fox’s billing records would yield a great deal of information, especially about the drugs prescribed to Lanza, but apparently the police did not follow that lead. Why?

There’s little doubt that Dr. Fox is material to the Sandy Hook investigation. Fox is reported to have been Adam Lanza’s “primary psychiatrist” and, therefore, key to understanding not only Lanza’s mental status but also his drug history. (Investigation document 00085896-Book 8 email to Dr. Fox from Nancy Lanza)

Because the State Police Report provides no mental health information about Lanza since his “treatment” by Dr. Fox in 2007, due to his obvious questionable ethical behavior, is it possible Dr. continued to treat Lanza?  Dr. Fox could answer this question by making public the billing records.  The State Police, however, did not request the records.

The larger picture, though, is the State’s rush to implement increased mental health services (Public Act 13-3) when not only was there no investigative information to support the increase, but the psychiatrist “treating” Lanza had lost his license due to ethical violations and fled the country.

If the State legislature had known about Dr. Fox’s egregious ethical violations, his obvious violation of state medical record retention regulations and his excessive prescribing of psychiatric drugs, would the vote have gone the same way?

This, of course, is the problem with political crisis management. The State legislature acted without the necessary information to make informed decisions. Given the above information, most would logically conclude that rather than implementing costly increased mental health services, what actually was needed was a top-down review of the kind of mental health services being provided.