Thank you, Jade B, for asking. Here is some information I hope you may find helpful. It's primarily written for folks who are already on prescribed medications:
Depending upon how long you've been on psychiatric medications I suggest you slowly reduce your intake over a length of weeks or months so as to avoid causing your metabolism from going to shock because it's possible to end up with Tardive Dyskinesia Syndrome (TDS), a central nervous system disorder that's only caused by using pharmaceutical psychiatric drugs but can occur upon sudden dis-use of psychiatric medications if stopped abruptly all at once. Considering your question is under the category of Mental Health I'm inclined to presume you have been psychiatrically labeled. You may or may not perhaps find solace in investigating any of the following socio-psychological advocacy websites in lieu of the side-effects to our pharmaceutical psychiatric medications.
NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH CONSUMERS SELF-HELP CLEARINGHOUSE
http://www.mhselfhelp.org
ANTIPSYCHIATRY.ORG
http://www.antipsychiatry.org
STOPSHRINKS.ORG
http://www.stopshrinks.org
PSYCHIATRIC SURVIVOR ACTION ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
http://www.icomm.ca/psaao
MAD PRIDE IN UK
http://www.ctono.freeserve.co.uk
THE SOCIETY OF LAINGIAN STUDIES
http://laingsociety.org
And F.Y.I., here are some quotes from professional socio-psychological advocates which you may or may not find useful to your own casefile. Some people may pay heed to these expert advocates while most may find them outright disturbing and too repulsive to accept because it goes against the grain of our general given propaganda, as the best kept secrets are those that most people reject as true.
The power of suggestion is a powerful thing. And when told enough times that a person has a mental illness the person can start believing it even though the person doesn't really have a mental illness but rather the person has a natural reaction to stress but that doesn't necessarily mean the person has a so-called mental illness. There's always an on-going debate whether or not Attention Deficit Disorder is actually a mental illness or just a natural and normal reaction to stress because it's diagnosis is solely an opinion based on observation, or in other words, there's no etiology involved, no germ to point to, to say this is the cause of the so-called disorder. To some observers they'll say something is wrong with the person and should be placed on meds whereas to other observers the person is simply behaving normally in response to undue stress. I'm sorry I can't readily remember the name of the therapist but there is one therapist who proved beyond all doubt that ADD does not exist and that it's just a matter of the students being bored and uninterested in the way schooling lessons were presented to them. The therapist took a bunch of students who were all diagnosed with ADD and took them off meds, then created a school curriculum that the students found interested and appealing, and lo and behold all the students behaved like regular good students with no signs of so-called ADD whatsoever.
The following list of quotes are from prominent therapists who knows that our prescribe medications can do more harm in the short and/or the long run when it comes to treating so-called mental illness. The toxic side effects of meds may physically slow you down but the belief of it doing you mentally good is largely the placebo effect.
Although the following list of quotes often speak of schizophenia there's also mention of Attention Deficit Disorder. For all practical intent and purposes both terms can be interchangeable here because both are based on the opinions who's diagnoses is extracted from observation only. It's the equivalent debate on whether or not obesity is a so-called mental disease or not. Some observers will insist it's not a mental disorder but a bad habit of over-eating whereas other observers want to insist the obese person is mentally ill and suffering a mental disease and therefore should be placed on prescribed medications. Same thing with ADD as with many of so-called mental illnesses.
--- QUOTES --- [My Note: Quotes pertaining to attention deficit disorder or schizophrenia can be equally applied to all the functional psychoses.]
BRUCE LEVINE, psychologist and author:
"NO BIOCHEMICAL, NEUROLOGICAL, OR GENETIC MARKERS HAVE BEEN FOUND FOR ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER, OPPOSITIONAL DEFIANT DISORDER, DEPRESSION, SCHIZOPHRENIA, ANXIETY, COMPULSIVE ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE, OVEREATING, GAMBLING, OR ANY OTHER SO-CALLED MENTAL ILLNESS, DISEASE, OR DISORDER."
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, 1998:
"WE DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT, VALID TEST FOR ADHD [Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder], AND THERE IS NO DATA TO INDICATE THAT ADHD IS DUE TO A BRAIN MALFUNCTION."
FRED BAUGHMAN, M.D. and author:
"WHETHER OR NOT ADHD, OR ANYTHING ELSE, IS A DISEASE CAN BE ANSWERED WITH A SIMPLE 'YES' OR 'NO'. NO KNOWN PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER IS A BONA FIDE DISEASE HAVING A PROVED, DEMONSTRATED PHYSICAL ABNORMALITY, NOT EVEN A 'CHEMICAL IMBALANCE.' . . . A YOUNG FATHER ASKED HIS SON’S PSYCHIATRIST WHY RITALIN WAS NECESSARY. THE PSYCHIATRIST RESPONDED: “IT’S FOR HIS ‘CHEMICAL IMBALANCE.’" THE FATHER ASKED: “SHOW ME THE LAB WORK SHOWING THE ABNORMALITY". THE PSYCHIATRIST HESITATED, KNOWING THERE WAS NO LAB WORK, THERE WAS NO ‘CHEMICAL IMBALANCE', THERE NEVER IS, THEN SAID: “YOU’LL HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT". THE FATHER, NOT SATISFIED, SAID, “I WANT THE RESULTS, NOW". THE PSYCHIATRIST, FLUSTERED, RESPONDED, “TAKE YOUR BOY AND GET OUT OF MY OFFICE"."
RONALD DAVID LAING, psychiatrist, author of Sanity, Madness, and the Family:
"SANITY OR PSYCHOSIS IS TESTED BY THE DEGREE OF CONJUNCTION OR DISJUNCTION BETWEEN TWO PERSONS WHERE THE ONE IS SANE BY COMMON CONSENT."
ALLEN J. FRANCES, psychiatrist, former chairperson of Duke University Medical Center and a contributing editor of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV):
"PSYCHIATRY’S CLAIM THAT MENTAL ILLNESSES ARE BRAIN DISEASES... IS NOT TRUE. THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE DIAGNOSTIC TESTS TO CONFIRM OR DISCONFIRM THE DIAGNOSIS OF DEPRESSION... THERE IS NO BLOOD OR OTHER BIOLOGICAL TEST TO ASCERTAIN THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF A MENTAL ILLNESS, AS THERE IS FOR MOST BODILY DISEASES. IF SUCH A TEST WERE DEVELOPED... THEN THE CONDITION WOULD CEASE TO BE A MENTAL ILLNESS AND WOULD BE CLASSIFIED, INSTEAD, AS A SYMPTOM OF A BODILY DISEASE." [My Note: Our psychiatrists' “bible” is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) but the functional psychoses are based solely on symptoms and moot or ambiguous invented labels which can periodically change at any time. Our DSM book is not hard science but a book of invented opinions which primarily functions for psychiatric iatrogenocide and therefore whatever is considered in our current DSM book as a functional psychosis today might not necessarily be regarded as an illness at all in our next edition, for example, debates continue on whether alcoholism and/or obesity should be classified as mental illnesses or not?]
NATHANIEL BRANDEN, psychologist and author:
"THERE IS NO GENERAL AGREEMENT AMONG PSYCHOLOGISTS AND PSYCHIATRISTS ABOUT THE NATURE OF MENTAL HEALTH OR MENTAL ILLNESS - NO GENERALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS, NO BASIC STANDARD BY WHICH TO GAUGE ONE PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE OR OTHER. MANY WRITERS DECLARE THAT NO OBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS CAN BE ESTABLISHED - THAT A BASIC UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE CONCEPT OF MENTAL HEALTH IS IMPOSSIBLE."
U.S. CONGRESS OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY:
"RESEARCH HAS YET TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC BIOLOGICAL CAUSES FOR ANY MENTAL DISORDER."
EDWARD DRUMMOND, M.D., Associate Medical Dir., Seacoast Mental Health Center, Portsmouth, NH and author:
"NO BIOLOGICAL ETIOLOGY HAS BEEN PROVEN FOR ANY PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER IN SPITE OF DECADES OF RESEARCH. . . . DON'T ACCEPT THE MYTH THAT WE CAN MAKE AN 'ACCURATE DIAGNOSIS.'
. . . NEITHER SHOULD YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR PROBLEMS ARE DUE SOLELY TO A 'CHEMICAL IMBALANCE.'"
ANDREW C. SMITH, psychiatrist and author:
"THERE IS EXCELLENT RESEARCH AND WELL FOUNDED KNOWLEDGE ON FAMILIAL AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON THE COURSE OF SCHIZOPHRENIA, and on causes of relapse, if not yet on the original vulnerability and onset of disturbance." [My Note: Our “socio-psychological model” has been continuously observed, perceived, noted and charted as an established model by psychoanalysts since the early 1800's but greatly overlooked because of the necessity of our prevailing iatrogenic “medical model”.]
RONALD DAVID LAING, psychiatrist, author of Sanity, Madness, and the Family:
"Specifically, no attempt is made to present a comprehensive theory of schizophrenia. No attempt is made to explore constitutional and organic aspects but this is clearly because the theory is one of interpersonal and familial processes, as well as wider issues of the sanity, or alienation, of society at large. THE EXPERIENCE AND BEHAVIOR THAT GETS LABELLED SCHIZOPHRENIA, IS WITHOUT EXCEPTION, A SPECIAL STRATEGY THAT A PERSON INVENTS IN ORDER TO LIVE IN AN UNLIVABLE SITUATION. He/she cannot make a move, or make no move, without being beset by contradictory and paradoxical pressures and demands, pushes and pulls, both internally from him/herself and externally from those around him/her." [My Note: There's a website in Dr. Ronald David Laing's honor called the Unofficial R.D. Laing Website, now in the care of The Society of Laingian Studies. In the 1960's Dr. Ronald David Laing was responsible for having done a 5-year experimental program which proved a 100% success rate for curing the condition known as schizophrenia by providing a mentally healthy and nurturing living environment. After the 5-year-test period the funding approval to the continuance of the test project had to be denied and the project was terminated permanently due to his 100% success rate. The main criterion for entering Dr. Laing's experimental program was that every patient had to agree they would NOT use any type of pharmaceutical drugs whatsoever whether it be any psychiatric drugs or any other pharmaceutical medications, hence, in conjunction with a stress-free living environment then a 100% success rate for curing functional psychoses is, of course, to be expected. A similar study with similar results was done by beloved Dr. Loren Mosher in 1971 through 1983 called Soteria Project.]
E. FULLER TORREY, psychiatrist and author of Surviving Schizophrenia:
"THE PERSON WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA IS NOT REALLY SICK, BUT MERELY ACTING IN A CRAZY WAY TO ENSURE HIS/HER SURVIVAL BECAUSE OF THE PRESSURES OF THE FAMILY AND/OR SOCIETY. SCHIZOPHRENIA IS NOT REALLY A DISEASE, RATHER IS IT JUST AN IDIOSYNCRATIC WAY OF THINKING AND BEHAVING. SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A REASONABLE REACTION TO AN UNREASONABLE SOCIETY AND AS A LABEL FOR SCAPEGOATING THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE DIFFERENT. SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A MYTH, A SANE RESPONSE TO AN INSANE WORLD, EVEN A GROWTH EXPERIENCE. THE MOST WIDESPREAD POPULAR THEORY ABOUT THE CAUSE OF SCHIZOPHRENIA IS THAT IT'S CAUSED BY STRESS. THIS HAS BEEN TRUE SINCE THE EARLY YEARS OF THE LAST [19TH] CENTURY AND CONTINUES TO BE TRUE."
JOSEPH BERKE, psychiatrist and author:
"LONG BEFORE I EVER HEARD OF MARY BARNES, I HAD BEGUN TO REALIZE THAT WHAT IS COMMONLY CALLED 'MENTAL ILLNESS' IS NOT AN 'ILLNESS', OR 'SICKNESS' (ACCORDING TO THE PREVAILING MEDICAL-PSYCHIATRIC USE OF THE TERM), BUT AN EXAMPLE OF EMOTIONAL SUFFERING BROUGHT ABOUT BY A DISTURBANCE IN A WHOLE FIELD OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE FAMILY. IN OTHER WORDS, MENTAL ILLNESS REFLECTS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN A DISTURBED AND DISTURBING GROUP OF PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN INTERNALIZED IN AND BY A SINGLE PERSON. MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, A PERSON DIAGNOSED AS MENTALLY ILL IS THE EMOTIONAL SCAPEGOAT FOR THE TURMOIL IN HIS/HER FAMILY OR ASSOCIATES, AND MAY, IN FACT, BE SANEST MEMBER OF THIS GROUP."
[My Note: Mary Barnes was a patient of Dr. Laing's and later became famous described as 'an ambassador for Laing' and co-authored a book with Joseph Berke who was the resident psychiatrist. She also became a respected artist painting evocative works based on her experiences and died in 2001.]
S.R. HIRSCH and J.P. LEFF, psychiatrists and authors:
"THE PARENTS OF THE SCHIZOPHRENICS ARE MORE OFTEN PSYCHIATRICALLY DISTURBED THAN THE PARENTS OF OTHER CHILDREN, thinking allusively, and living in very unhappy marriages; and THE MOTHERS ARE MORE OFTEN OF SCHIZOID PERSONALITY THEMSELVES."
ALFRED M. FREEDMAN and HAROLD I. KAPLAN, authors of Textbook of Psychiatry:
"OTHERS HAVE DESCRIBED THE MOTHER OF THE POTENTIAL SCHIZOPHRENIC AS AGGRESSIVE, REJECTING, DOMINEERING, AND INSECURE, AND THE FATHER AS INADEQUATE, PASSIVE, AND INDIFFERENT. Elsewhere in the literature these fathers have been depicted as directly threatening, assaultive, or brutal or as overwhelming the child. IN CONTRAST TO THOSE MOTHERS WHO ARE DESCRIBED AS EITHER SUBTLY OR OVERTLY REJECTING, OTHERS ARE SAID TO BE FUSSY AND OVERPROTECTIVE, PERPETUATING THE SYMBIOTIC UNION."
THEODORE LIDZ, psychoanalyst and author:
"NONE OF THE MARRIAGES SEEMED NORMAL OR HEALTHY AND ALL WERE MARKED BY A SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF MARITAL SCHISM (OPEN FIGHTING) OR MARITAL SKEW (COVERT FIGHTING). The parents' marriages are skewed by the domination of the mother, whose often highly unusual and odd way of communicating becomes accepted in the family, covering underlying conflict; or schismatic, with more obvious conflict between emotionally separate parents, and complex involvement of the child in the conflict. The involvement of the children is thought to be stressful and mystifying for them; boundaries between people, between sex roles and between generations are more blurred than in most families; and the children who become schizophrenic patients fall into distorted perception, thinking and behavior in response, albeit inappropriate response, to an alarmingly disturbed family situation... . . . SCHIZOPHRENIC REACTIONS ARE A TYPE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM SOCIAL INTERACTION, AND THE THOUGHT DISORDER IS A SPECIFICALLY SCHIZOPHRENIC MEANS OF WITHDRAWAL. THE SCHIZOPHRENIC PATIENT ESCAPES FROM IRRECONCILABLE DILEMMAS AND UNBEARABLE HOPELESSNESS BY BREAKING THROUGH THESE CONFINES, I.E. THE MEANINGS AND LOGIC OF HIS/HER CULTURE, TO FIND SOME LIVING SPACE BY USING HIS/ HER OWN IDIOSYNCRATIC MEANINGS AND REASONING."
LYMAN WYNNE, psychoanalyst and author:
"PSEUDOMUTUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN FAMILIES OF SCHIZOPHRENICS IN WHICH THERE IS AN OUTWARD APPEARANCE OF GENUINENESS BUT MUCH COVERT ANIMOSITY BENEATH THE SURFACE. UNUSUAL AMOUNT OF FRAGMENTED THINKING IN COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN THESE FAMILIES. WHILE APPEARING HARMONIOUS TO THOSE OUTSIDE THE FAMILY, IN FACT HARBORS DEEP GULFS BETWEEN MEMBERS, AND IRRATIONAL DISTORTED MODES OF COMMUNICATION THAT FRAGMENT THE THINKING OF THAT MEMBER OF THE FAMILY WHO BECOMES SCHIZOPHRENIC."
THOMAS SZASZ, psychoanalyst and author:
"SCHIZOPHRENIA IS MERELY A RATIONAL RESPONSE TO AN IRRATIONAL FAMILY. SCHIZOPHRENIA IS NOT A DISEASE AT ALL BUT MERELY AN ADAPTATION. Not all psychiatrists are out to drug, rehabilitate, and to mold us into being conformists to this insane society. Psychoanalytic and family interaction theories of schizophrenia have been very important in the United States since the turn of this [20th] century, but in recent years, they have gradually lost adherents because of the lack of any supporting data. THE ONE THING ON WHICH VIRTUALLY ALL PSYCHOANALYSTS COULD AGREE WAS THAT THE SOURCE OF PSYCHIC TRAUMA THEORETICALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA WAS THE INTERACTIONS OF THE CHILD AND THE PARENTS."
HARRY STACK SULLIVAN, psychoanalyst and author:
"Schizophrenia is caused by parental rejection."
GREGORY BATESON, psychoanalyst and author:
"PSYCHOANALYTIC AND FAMILY INTERACTION THEORIES ATTRIBUTE THE CAUSE OF SCHIZOPHRENIA TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THE MOTHER AND FATHER. AS SUCH THEY GENERATE GUILT AND BLAME WITHIN THE FAMILIES. THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS GUILT AND BLAME IS ENORMOUS AND HAS LED TO DEPRESSION, DIVORCE, AND EVEN SUICIDE. IT HAS BEEN IATROGENIC ANGUISH (PHYSICIAN-CAUSED), WHOLLY GENERATED BY THE PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSION. . . .SCHIZOPHRENIA RESULTS WHEN CHILDREN ARE PUT INTO IMPOSSIBLE HEADS-I-WIN-TAILS-YOU-LOSE SITUATIONS BY THEIR PARENTS. The double-bind. The parents is said to issue ambiguous instructions repeatedly, but they cannot be obeyed because at the same time they are contradicted by other instructions, in a different mode of communication, such as body language. THE CATEGORY 'PSYCHOSIS' HAS NO UNIFORM FOUNDATION AS IN SOMATIC PATHOLOGY NOR ANY MORE OBJECTIVE ASPECT OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY TO MARK ITS DISTINCTION FROM OTHER COLLECTIONS OF PSYCHIATRIC SYMPTOMS. IT IS THUS A TERM DIFFICULT TO USE WITH PRECISION. THE FUNCTIONAL PSYCHOSES, SCHIZOPHRENIA AND MANIC-DEPRESSIVE [BI-POLAR] DISORDER, LACK A RECOGNIZABLE NEUROPATHOLOGY. FOR THE ORGANIC PSYCHOSES THE CENTRAL PROBLEM IS THE CAUSE OF THE PATHOLOGIC CHANGES. BUT FOR THE FUNCTIONAL PSYCHOSES THE CENTRAL PROBLEM IS CONSISTENT DIAGNOSIS. THE CRITERIA FOR THEIR DIAGNOSIS ARE THEIR SYMPTOMS ALONE. THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE TESTS VERIFYING A DIAGNOSIS. . . . . . SINCE THEY LACK A RECOGNIZED NEUROPATHOLOGY AND ARE BY DEFINITION INEXPLICABLE AS RESPONSES TO EXPERIENCE, THERE ARE NO COMPREHENSIVE ETIOLOGIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THESE DISORDERS. THERE IS NO NEUROPATHOLOGY OR CONSISTENT PATHOPHYSIOLOGY THAT CAN BE OBSERVED TO DEVELOP WITH THE PROGRESSION OF THE DISORDER THAT MIGHT GIVE SOME HINT OF CAUSATION. AN APPROACH TO A CONSIDERATION OF ETIOLOGY HAS TO BE MORE CIRCUITOUS AND THE OPINIONS DERIVED HELD WITH SOMEWHAT LESS ASSURANCE THAN IS TRUE OF OTHER CLINICAL ENTITIES. The genetic constitution has been decisively demonstrated to be one of the causes of schizophrenia. The risk of schizophrenia increases with the closeness of genetic relationship to a schizophrenic patient. A genetic vulnerability for schizophrenia is necessary, but not sufficient. It must be combined with certain life experiences that need not be common for genetically identical individuals. The experiences of being raised by a cold and distant mother, or of receiving insistent, simultaneous but incompatible directions from the parents, or of simply LIVING IN A DISHARMONIOUS FAMILY INCAPABLE OF PROVIDING A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR PSYCHOLOGIC GROWTH HAVE ALL BEEN CONSIDERED CAUSES OF SCHIZOPHRENIA. A crisis of identity as been proposed by exponents of existential psychiatry. THERE IS NO COMMON PATHOLOGIC FEATURE OF BRAIN DISORDERS THAT COULD BY IMPLICATION BE THE FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA."
PSYCHIATRY TODAY (2001) Magazine:
"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT UNHAPPINESS OR STRANGE BEHAVIOR (E.G. "SCHIZOPHRENIA") IS CAUSED BY BRAIN DISORDERS."
PETER BREGGIN, psychiatrist and author:
"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER IS CAUSED BY A BIOCHEMICAL IMBALANCE."
ANTONUCCIO et al., Psychiatric Times Magazine, 12:8 Aug 2000:
"ALTHOUGH A PHYSICIAN MAY TELL A PATIENT THAT A CHEMICAL IMBALANCE CAUSES THEIR DEPRESSION, THE PHYSICIAN WOULD BE HARD-PRESSED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM. THERE IS NO TEST AVAILABLE THAT WOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY PATIENT HAS A BIOLOGICAL DEPRESSION, AS OPPOSED TO ANY OTHER TYPE, OR EVEN THAT SUCH BIOLOGICAL DEPRESSIONS EXIST."
DAVID KAISER, M.D., Northwestern University Hosp, Chicago, IL; author of Psychiatric Medications as Symptoms:
"PATIENTS HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH CHEMICAL IMBALANCES DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO TEST EXISTS TO SUPPORT SUCH A CLAIM, AND THAT THERE IS NO REAL CONCEPTION OF WHAT A CORRECT CHEMICAL BALANCE WOULD LOOK LIKE. . . .Today’s patients, discontented, unhappy, fragmented and confused by an increasingly frantic, alienating and violent society, come to psychiatrists for help, only to have their illusions shored up by an increased dose of a technologic fix. They are told they have illnesses that are biologic and can be fixed, instead of being allowed to speak about their unhappiness, to speak about how difficult it is to be a human being, to speak about their suffering, because human beings have always suffered and always will. To believe that we can conquer depression, despair, anxiety with modern technology is the height of hubris and bad faith, a mere childish fantasy, unworthy of any thoughtful person who has their eyes open to human history and modern culture. . . .MODERN PSYCHIATRY HAS YET TO PROVE THE GENETIC/BIOLOGIC CAUSE OF ANY MENTAL ILLNESS. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT STOP PSYCHIATRY FROM MAKING ESSENTIALLY UNPROVEN CLAIMS THAT DEPRESSION, BIPOLAR ILLNESS, ANXIETY DISORDERS, ALCOHOLISM, AND A HOST OF OTHER DISORDERS ARE IN FACT PRIMARILY BIOLOGIC AND PROBABLY GENETIC IN ORIGIN, AND THAT IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL ALL THIS PROVEN. THIS KIND OF FAITH IN SCIENCE AND PROGRESS IS STAGGERING, NOT TO MENTION NAIVE AND PERHAPS DELUSIONAL."
ELLIOT VALERSTEIN, PH.D. and author:
"CONTRARY TO WHAT IS OFTEN CLAIMED, NO BIOCHEMICAL, ANATOMICAL OR FUNCTIONAL SIGNS HAVE BEEN FOUND THAT RELIABLY DISTINGUISH THE BRAINS OF MENTAL PATIENTS."
LOREN MOSHER, M.D., former Chief, National Institutes of Health Center for the Study of Schizophrenia and author:
"THERE ARE NO EXTERNAL VALIDATING CRITERIA FOR PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSES. THERE IS NEITHER BLOOD TEST NOR SPECIFIC ANATOMIC LESIONS FOR ANY MAJOR PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER. IS PSYCHIATRY A HOAX AS PRACTICED TODAY? UNFORTUNATELY THE ANSWER IS MOSTLY YES."
ROBERT S. MENDELSOHN, M.D., a former chairperson of Illinois Medical Licensure Committee, former associate professor at University of Illinois Medical School, former director of Chicago's Michael Reese Hospital, former national medical director of Project Head Start, formerly the author of a nationally syndicated column as "The People's Doctor," and author of CONFESSIONS OF A MEDICAL HERETIC: "MODERN MEDICINE'S TREATMENTS FOR DISEASE ARE SELDOM EFFECTIVE, AND THEY'RE OFTEN MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE DISEASE THEY'RE DESIGNED TO TREAT. THE DANGERS ARE COMPOUNDED BY THE WIDESPREAD USE OF DANGEROUS PROCEDURES FOR NON-DISEASES. . . . Clinic's accomplishments last year [1978]: 2,980 OPEN-HEART OPERATIONS, 1.3 MILLION LABORATORY TESTS, 73,320 ELECTROCARDIOGRAMS, 7,770 FULL-BODY X-RAY SCANS, 210,378 OTHER RADIOLOGIC STUDIES, 24,368 SURGICAL PROCEDURES. NOT ONE OF THESE PROCEDURES HAS BEEN PROVED TO HAVE THE LEAST LITTLE BIT TO DO WITH MAINTAINING OR RESTORING HEALTH. . . .YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF ALL THE DRUGS FOR WHICH THE SIDE-EFFECTS ARE THE SAME AS THE [USAGE] INDICATIONS. THIS ISN'T AS RARE AS YOU MIGHT THINK. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU READ THE LIST OF INDICATIONS FOR VALIUM, AND THEN READ THE LIST OF SIDE-EFFECTS, YOU'LL FIND THAT THE LISTS ARE MORE OR LESS INTERCHANGEABLE. UNDER THE INDICATIONS YOU'LL FIND [IT'S TO TREAT FOR]: ANXIETY; FATIGUE; DEPRESSION; ACUTE AGITATION; TREMORS; HALLUCINOSIS; SKELETAL MUSCLE SPASMS. AND UNDER THE [TOXIC] SIDE-EFFECTS [YOU'LL FIND VALIUM CAN CAUSE]: ANXIETY; FATIGUE; DEPRESSION; ACUTE HYPEREXCITED STATES; TREMORS; HALLUCINATIONS; INCREASED MUSCLE SPASTICITY. . . . ONCE YOU'VE EXPOSED YOURSELF TO ALL THIS INFORMATION, YOU HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO TAKE THE DRUG. Again, don't trust your doctor's decision. Even if you can get him to admit to the side-effects, he'll most likely discount them by saying they occur only in a small percentage of cases. You also might get that impression from the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR) or any other book you consult. Like a game of Russian Roulette, for the person who gets the loaded chamber, the risk is 100%. But unlike the game, for the person taking a drug, no chamber is entirely empty. EVERY DRUG STRESSES AND HURTS YOUR BODY IN SOME WAY. . . . MOST OF ALL, YOU SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU CAN REFUSE TO TAKE THE DRUG. IT'S YOUR HEALTH THAT'S AT STAKE. If you read things that make you not want to take the drug, first of all confront the doctor with the information. Through cajolery, badgering, or some process of persuasion, you should convince the doctor that you really want to avoid the drug. As in all confrontations with doctors, his reaction may tell you more than you bargained for. You may once and for all recognize that his opinion is no more valid than yours. . . . IF ON THE BASIS OF YOUR COMPLAINTS OF SIDE-EFFECTS, OR BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO TAKE A CERTAIN DRUG AT ALL, YOUR DOCTOR PRESCRIBES ANOTHER DRUG, MAKE SURE IT'S NOT THE SAME SUBSTANCE WITH A DIFFERENT BRAND NAME. THE DOCTOR MAY HIMSELF BE IGNORANT, OR HE MAY BE TRYING TO PUT ONE OVER ON YOU."
DSN-IV (DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF N-O-R-M-A-L DISORDERS):
"Psychiatry is a very dangerous disorder, and often resistant to reason. Further, the prognosis is quite poor, with the disorder usually lasting for decades, and recovery very rarely complete - often, the best recovery that can be hoped for is a remission into the retired state. Thus, in many cases, the best thing to do with psychiatrists is to simply avoid them."
--- UNQUOTES ---
MY COMMENTS:
I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR ANYONE TO TAKE ANY VIOLENT ACTIONS TOWARDS OUR MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT EVEN IF YOU'VE BEEN PHYSICALLY INJURED BY OUR MEDICAL PROFESSION OR IF SOMEONE DEAR TO YOU HAVE BEEN A VICTIM OF OUR IATROGENOCIDE. IF YOU'VE BEEN HURT IN ANY WAY FROM MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND YOU FEEL YOU MUST AT LEAST DO SOMETHING TO RETALIATE IN SOME FORM, THEN I PROPOSE YOU TAKE YOUR CHANCES THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM EVEN THOUGH YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING A COURT CASE WOULD BE SLIM, BUT ONCE IN A GREAT WHILE SOME PEOPLE DO WIN.
When Dr. Mendelsohn wrote in his prelude to Chapter 1, "MODERN MEDICINE'S TREATMENTS FOR DISEASE ARE SELDOM EFFECTIVE, AND THEY'RE OFTEN MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE DISEASE THEY'RE DESIGNED TO TREAT", and when he wrote in Chapter 2, "“YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF ALL THE DRUGS FOR WHICH THE SIDE-EFFECTS ARE THE SAME AS THE INDICATIONS [USAGE]", it was his polite way of saying that during the past several hundred years we modern humans have already well charted all the real diseases on earth there is for us to know about although most of us will refuse to believe this, and furthermore Dr. Mendelsohn is saying it's the toxic side-effects in our pharmaceutical medications that functions highly for iatrogenocide but of course it's a natural tendency for most of us to reject what he warns us about because we tend to assume that we know more about the medical profession than he did. In truth, during the past several hundred years our family species have pretty much identified the etiology of every real ailment to exist as well as its real causes when there is no etiology. In other words, anyone who is willing to take the serious time to do a thorough research will always inevitably without fail will find that practically all of our pharmaceutical medications share the same identical toxic side-effects as the symptoms of the so-called diseases of which they are used to treat when it comes to treating so-called diseases of which is it commonly "believed" to have no known etiology or causative germ, "believed" to have no known causes and "believed" to have no known cures for. For example, the toxic side-effects of medications used to treat Parkinson's happens to be parkinsonism and this holds true whether it be of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, breast and prostrate and lung cancers, leukemias, functional psychoses, and the list goes on and on which explains how come there is not a single death certificate in the history of Hawaii which lists the cause of death as due to cancer, nor to diabetes, nor Alzheimer's, nor AIDS, etcetera, but rather most often the cause of death is listed as due to “Secondary Infection” after a prolonged weakened immune system that was over-taxed by our pharmaceutical medications. For example, a syndrome by strict definition is merely a set of symptoms which mimics a disease in the absence of any disease, however, one of the toxic side-effects of most of our pharmaceutical medications includes the possibility of coming down with the ailment known as akathisia which is motor restlessness characterized by muscular quivering plus the inability to sit still and anxiety at the thought of sitting down, and one of the first signs at the beginning of acquiring akathisia could very easily be what's now been recently labeled as Restless Leg Syndrome of which of course is generally "believed" to have no known etiology or causative germ, "believed" to have no known causes and "believed" to have no known cures for, because a syndrome is only a set of symptoms in the absence of any disease in the first place but there's a mighty big difference between "believing" something in contrast to "knowing" something. In situations where a person is not previously on medications but may have the psychosomatic inclination to think that they may have Restless Leg Syndrome and in turn seeks medical help may stand the chance of getting diagnosed and treated for Restless Leg Syndrome but will unwittingly fail to realize that our pharmaceutical medications given to them for the treatment of a syndrome in the absence of any disease, will have the potential of producing akathisia as a potential side-effect and it will no longer be a psychosomatic situation for them afterall. And if the person willingly continues to adopt a long term usage of our pharmaceutical medications then it's only a matter of time until it can and will over-tax their immune system particularly when they might happen to switch to a more potent medication or perhaps ingest "cocktails" of combined medications which in-turn only strengthens the likelihood of ending up with any number of toxic side-effects, however, they'll more than likely "disbelieve" it's another toxic side-effect in favor of "believing" that they caught a whole 'nother disease of which is it also "believed" to have no known etiology or causative germ. Whether it be in terms of months, or years, or decades, sooner or later they're all good candidates for being another one of our iatrogenic statistics as long as they "believe" it's good for them to continue eating the toxins which produces toxic side-effects, hence, iatrogenocide is not only a necessity but is one of our most well best kept secrets ever invented by us humans because most of us tend to reject the plain truth and sometimes outright angrily so, but then to each their own because we each have the right to "believe" whatever we want to "believe-in" even if and when it can kill us. Ironically, even though most anti-psychiatry advocates are fully aware that our psychiatric pharmaceutical medications are designed to do more bodily damage rather than cure, we still have the gut tendency to reject the same notion holds equally true within the rest of our medical specialties as well, go figure? Under any other natural normal circumstances whenever someone eats something in nature to end up suffering the ill toxic effects of diarrhea, and/or blurred vision, and/or lost of taste, and/or upset stomach, and/or headaches, and/or loss of motor control, and/or bone pain, and/or hallucinations, etcetera, the person usually without fail will have the natural given common sense to stop eating the darn poisons, however, when it comes to our prevailing necessary medical propaganda, many will prefer to “believe” in our medical established propaganda even when it's obviously killing them, as many would rather die having blind faith than living a life “knowing” a harsh truth which happens to hold no room for blind faith, hence, the best kept secrets are those that most people have the tendency to automatically reject as true, just as it was designed to be out of harsh necessity.
However, I can agree with the short-term use of certain pharmaceutical medications wherever it just might happen to be applicable particularly for short term usage since all substances can have some degree of its therapeutic value, but too much of anything is not good as moderation is the key. Aside from that and in regards to Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn's statement that, "Every drug stresses and hurts your body in some way", he, of course, was referring to pharmaceutical drugs, however, I can think of at least three different natural drugs that are considered to have no toxic side-effects when they are said to be smoked or chewed in therapeutic dosages, but when ingested, natural opium is known to have some degree of unpleasant non-fatal gastric side-effects, and also has withdrawal side-effects after habitual use. If we don't count addiction or death-by-overdose as a toxic side-effect, then we're talking about natural opium and not pharmaceutical forms of opium that is considered non-fatal and to have no toxic side-effects. Opium addicts in otherwise good physical and mental health whose drug needs are met are thought to experience no debilitating physiological effects from their addiction in contrast to our synthesized (i.e., human-made) pharmaceutical medications ...but speaking of addictive drugs...
DEATHS ATTRIBUTED TO ADDICTIVE DRUGS IN UNITED KINGDOM 1990 to 1995:
1,810 deaths -- BENZODIAZEPINES (Valium, Xanax, Halcion, Ativan, etcetera.)
676 deaths -- METHADONE (Methadone is a synthesized [i.e.,human-made] prescription heroin-substitute.)
291 deaths -- HEROIN (Heroin is synthesized from morphine which is the principal alkaloid derivative of opium.)
It's my guess all three figures are likely underestimated. AND THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY that heroin is safer than methadone, or that methadone is safer than benzodiazepines. What these figures do suggest is that a lot more people are using benzodiazepines than methadone or heroin even though all three of these human-made drugs are associated with toxic side-effects including “death“ which is viewed, considered, and held within our pharmaceutical perspective as nothing more than a potential “side-effect”. Likewise, it's of no coincidence that acetaminophen which currently happens be our most popular of our non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and found in over 200 over-the-counter products is considered to be our most common fatal cause of drug-induced liver failure but if & when a different NSAID medication becomes more popular in treatment for mild pain and inflammation then we can expect it to becoming the newest most common cause of drug-induced liver failure instead of acetaminophen. In regards of how to safely get off benzodiazepine psychiatric medication addiction such as Valium and Xanax so as to avoid the neuro-motor disorder of TARDIVE DYSKINESIA SYNDROME, or perhaps to avoid the possibility of eventual kidney or liver failure leading to “death” as a side-effect, a website Benzo.org.uk offers further suggestions on discontinuation therapy of benzodiazepines which is to reduce intake a little at a time in order to avoid crippling withdrawal reactions.
Another drug usage considered to have no toxic side-effects when smoked in therapeutic dosages is cannabis, that's marijuana. But as with anything else, too much of anything is not good and an overdose of cannabis is known to cause temporary mild cases of dizziness, vertigo, and even nausea and/or vomiting, and sometimes potentially inhaling improperly can cause a sudden drop in blood pressure commonly referred to as having a euphoric 'rush' which may or may not lead to temporary loss of consciousness, and furthermore, overdosage may also slow down reaction times, therefore, as with alcohol, smoking cannabis while driving a vehicle may not be the safest thing to do. Depression after chronic usage of cannabis or even serious depression may or may not result as a withdrawal symptom following discontinuation, however, chronic abuse can weaken the immune system just like how chronic abuse of any other potent substance taxes the immune system over time, but otherwise no deaths that I know of has yet to be attributed to cannabis usage, nor to cannabis abusage, nor to cannabis overdosage, but I do suspect some fatal car crashes were likely the result of cannabis over-intoxication. Most cannabis users agree that moderate usage can work well at alleviating symptoms of depression without toxic side-effects very much unlike our pharmaceutical anti-depressants. I further believe chewing unprocessed coca leaves directly off the cocaine plant is also said to have no toxic side-effects either. Interesting to note nature makes it so simple for us to germinate seeds in the ground to grow three kinds of different medicinal herbs which have no toxic side-effects and yet all 3 naturally occurring plants are considered illegal in most but not all places around the world, but it does make a lot of sense in iatrogenic terms. Having said that, in all practicality most of our pharmaceutical medications tend to share the same possibility of afflicting over 170 different toxic side-effects although in most of our medical literature a person is not likely to presented with all 170+ different potential side-effects.
And lastly, I have to partially disagree with Dr. Gregory Bateson on his statement where he writes: “The genetic constitution has been decisively demonstrated to be one of the causes of schizophrenia. The risk of schizophrenia increases with the closeness of genetic relationship to a schizophrenic patient.“ Although I agree humans come from humans, I conclude genetics have nothing else to do with the adaptation-reaction condition labeled as schizophrenia. I think he mistakenly linked genetics with the condition only because the risk of the condition may have appeared to him to increased with the closeness of genetic relationship to a schizophrenic patient. I concur his error had do with the fact that most people get raised by their genetic parents, but otherwise the condition referred to as schizophrenia has nothing to do with the genetic constitution itself which is how come he was so quick to slightly cover himself by also adding, "...a genetic vulnerability for schizophrenia is necessary but not sufficient and must be combined with certain life experiences that need not be common for genetically identical individuals." His statement erroneously implies that the adaptation reaction-condition called schizophrenia supposedly cannot occur if the child happens to be adopted and if not genetically related which I think is absurd, hence, the notion of genetics being linked to so-called mental illness was illogical back then, is still irrational today, and will continue to always be equally far-fetched as space alien abductions, ghosts, gods, goblins, or any other forms of illogical superstition which many of us readily buy into. I'm not sure if Bateson himself actually believed what he wrote regarding the genetic constitution because I wonder if maybe he only wrote it just to appease mainstream, or in other words most of his quotes substantiates our “socio-psychological model” except for that fraction where he's promoting our prevailing “medical model” with that genetic nonsense? That is, I keep wondering if maybe the reason Bateson tried to bring up the absurd notion of genetics was if maybe he wanted to try and alleviate some of the stress he might've been receiving from mainstream for having promoted our “socio-psychological model” over our mainstream “medical [iatrogenic] model” and so maybe he caved-in a little otherwise it seems to me it's way out of his character for him to have played the genetic card?
Again, Jade B, thank you for asking. Tsark out.