THE HEAVY BURDEN OF THE SHRINKS' GUILT
by Justice Lover

It seems that the big boat of psychiatry is sinking, and the rats are looking for ways to abandon ship with minimal trouble to themselves. How else can you interpret the article below written by top shrinks and published by a reputable professional magazine ?

However, how can you exonerate shrinks from all the crimes of psychiatry ? Who is responsible for psychiatric coercion ? The shrinks, of course, and they alone ! And who is responsible for the introduction and wide spread use of ECT (electric shocks) ? The shrinks, of course, and they alone ! And who is responsible for the introduction and use of lobotomy ? The shrinks, of course, and they alone ! And who is responsible for stigmatising people as "mentally ill", when such "illness" is merely the figment of the shrinks' imagination !

Sure big pharma is guilty too, but only fools would have believed the industry's lies about "medications" for the "mentally ill" when everybody knew that the pharmaceutical industry is after making colossal profits, and such profits alone !

Here is the article :

http://www.wddty.com/03363800369837226214/antipsychotics-doctors-conned-by-drug-industry.html

Antipsychotics: Doctors 'conned' by drug industry

Doctors and psychiatrists have been conned by the drug industry to prescribe new, or second-generation, antipsychotics for problems such as schizophrenia, two leading specialists have claimed.

The new generation of drugs, known as atypicals, were heralded as safer and more effective than the earlier antipsychotics, and for the past 20 years doctors have been ‘beguiled’ into thinking they were superior.

The claims come from Peter Tyrer and Tim Kendall from Imperial College London as a commentary on a new study that assessed the effectiveness of nine second-generation antipsychotics against earlier, typical antipsychotic drugs.

The study, conducted by Munich University, found that the second-generation drugs were not even a new class of drug at all, but were a hotchpotch made up from ingredients used in the earlier drugs. They certainly weren’t more effective or safer.

In their commentary, Tyrer and Kendall say: “The spurious invention of the atypicals can now be regarded as invention only, cleverly manipulated by the drug industry for marketing purposes and only now being exposed.”

(Source: Lancet, 2009; 373: 4-5; 31-41).

FURTHER COMMENTS ON PSYCHIATRY BY DR. FRED BAUGHMAN, MD, NEUROLOGIST
by Justice Lover

Based on science and on his medical knowledge as well as on his experience, Dr. Fred Baughman, the renowned American neurologist, reiterates in the following letter to me, his strong criticism of psychiatry and of its practitioners. With unscientific, unethical methods ,and contrary to their duties of care as medical doctors, the practitioners of psychiatry continue to operate with the full support of the state apparatus to the detriment of humanity.

For how much longer will this world scandal continue ?

Here is Dr. Baughman's letter :

"From: fredbaughmanmd@cox.net
To: benjaminmerhav@hotmail.com
CC: alumni@med.nyu.edu; die-bpe@gmx.de; mbpfeiff@poughkeepsiejournal.com; j.moncrieff@ucl.ac.uk; dbaughman@vzw.blackberry.net

Subject: Re: DR. FRED BAUGHMAN, MD, NEUROLOGIST, COMMENTS ON THE NYT ARTICLE BELOW
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:07:38 -0800

Thanks Ben (Benjamin Merhav).

A few related files are appended. Two things need understanding:

(1) It is not just Biederman or Nemeroff--all of academic psychiatry--every last medical school department of psychiatry--is owned and operated by Big Pharma for Big Pharma. The pressure has come from without (most of all from Senator Chuck Grassley) not from within their medical schools to oust and change the behavior of these leaders/exemplars of psychiatry. Will they be ousted? Is it really an ouster? Will their behavior be changed. They just grow more egregious.

(2) Though they have "MD" after their names and wear white coats as they sweep in to see their always-to-be-labeled-and-drugged patients, they are no longer patient advocates--an essential, inherent property of everyone wishing to call themselves "physician." While they represent themselves to be physicians, healers, patient advocates, they know they are not, and that what they do, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, is a duplicitous, heinous, betrayal in which they are paid to say and do what they must to sell as many drugs as possible regardless of the toxicity and lethality of the drugs or physical-medical normalcy of their "patients"--always commencing by pronouncing the "patient" a "patient" having a "disorder," "disease," "sickness," "syndrome," "genotype," "phenotype"--it matters not, so long as the patient takes their label(s), keeps it, and never stops taking the always escalating number of drugs prescribed for the ever-escalating number of diagnoses with which they are branded.

That this criminal, anti-scientific, anti-Hippocratic enterprise is provided, abode, aid, comfort and the least aura of science and healing by the rest of medical academia is yet another crime--one heaped upon that which psychiatry perpetrates. There is no ethical, moral, scientific, or healing justification for the continued existence of psychiatry as it exists today. They are entirely criminal. This point must be driven home to every government agent and agency, Congress and the White House most of all, who not only support them in what they do but pronounce that scientifically they are on a par with all else in medicine and should be granted full economic parity further dooming hope for an effective, affordable, health care system for all in the US.

With that (sorry!)--Happy New Year."

Fred B (Fred Baughman, MD, author The ADHD Fraud--How Psychiatry Make "Patients" of Normal Children www.Trafford.com)
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05mon1.html
Letters to the editor: letters@nytimes.com

New York Times
Editorial: No Mugs, but What About Those Fees?
January 4, 2009

New pharmaceutical industry guidelines should stop most drug companies from distributing a wide range of trinkets and office supplies designed to keep their brand names before doctors as a subliminal inducement to prescribe high-priced drugs.

The new code, which kicked in on New Year’s Day, bars the free distribution of everything from pens to coffee mugs and staplers by some 40 drug companies that have agreed to the restrictions. That may seem like small potatoes, but in the aggregate the promotional products probably cost about $1 billion a year, as Natasha Singer reported in The Times.
The updated rules are the industry’s latest attempt to restore public confidence that doctors are prescribing medicines in the patient’s interest. The code still has too many loopholes.

Although it prohibits company sales representatives from providing restaurant meals to health care professionals, it allows the sales teams to continue providing modest meals in professional offices while pitching their products. It allows companies to continue paying for so-called continuing medical education for physicians while correctly leaving the selection of content, speakers and study materials to conference organizers. There appear to be no loopholes in bans against providing free tickets to the theater, sporting events or resort junkets.

None of the steps yet contemplated by industry or professional groups would completely sever the medical profession and many individual doctors from their far more disturbing financial ties to the drug industry.

Over the years, prominent physicians have received hefty fees for conducting research, consulting or giving “educational” speeches touting the virtues of drugs to their colleagues. The new industry code would limit consultants’ fees to “fair market value,” but critics believe that still leaves far too much room to pay individual doctors handsomely.

Two investigations now under way at prominent universities show how much more needs to be done to aerate undisclosed conflicts of interest.

A prominent psychiatrist at Emory University is accused of taking large payments from a drug maker — and misleading his university about the amounts — while heading a government study of the company’s antidepressant drugs. Three psychiatrists at Harvard whose work fueled an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic drugs to treat children are accused of failing to report large payments from the drug makers, most of which they had not disclosed to their institutions.

Congress needs to pass legislation that would force all drug and medical-device companies to report a wide range of payments to doctors through a national registry so that all conflicts are known. This is a reform that the industry itself now seems willing to accept. Better yet, the medical profession needs to wean itself almost entirely from its pervasive dependence on industry money.

Link to editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05mon1.html