I definitely agree that prescription drugs are prescribed too often. It's especially problematic in the past few years, with the recent HMO push to treat everything with a 15 minute consult and a prescription, rather than clinical therapy (with or without a prescription). But medication does play a very important role in treating many mental illnesses, and scapegoating "psychiatry" helps no one.

The available medications are constantly improving. 40 years ago, people with schizophrenia had no effective treatment, so many were locked up in asylum. Today, thanks to large advances in antipsychotic meds, many people who otherwise would suffer from severe hallucinations can lead productive lives. The same is also true for people with bipolar disorder, major depression, and many other psychological problems. Medication isn't appropriate for everyone, and they're too often used when it's not appropriate, but that's a problem with education and the current HMO system, not with the very existence of psychotropic medicines.

The pharmaceutical industry is clearly in need of ethics reforms about some of the ways they do business and promote their products to the public, however, it is hard to dispute the fact that medications developed particularly in the past 40 years have helped literally millions of people lead better, more healthful, happy and productive lives.

Scientologists are against psychopharmacological medications, in part, because they are a mind control cult that preys on people who are mentally unstable.

For more info about this insidious organization, its real beliefs and practices, check out:

http://www.xenu.com/

__________________
Peace,

John

My eBay World

My Librarything

MySpace

. . . .

Hi,

Sorry about the lecture, this has been my "topic area" in recent years. The scales fell off my eyes. It's obvious to those who already know (earth=round) but difficult to convey - until the other person gets it.

Adj.1.neurotropic - (of a virus, toxin, or chemical) tending to attack or affect the nervous system preferentially

These drugs are not improving continually. As psychophamacology leader Donald Klein, MD wrote in his book Mind, Mood and Medicine 1980 the many drugs that were the children of Thorazine (clorpromazine) were termed within the profession as, quote, "me toos."

This was news to me. I was recently looking over some of the last 6 decades of psychophamacology related books at the University of Oregon. They had Reserpine in the 40's. This Snake Root extract apparently released, and heavily depleted, a range of neurotransmitters. This put the kybosh on the patient big time.

Then in '52 Thorazine came into use. It made the patient more vegitative.
The dopamine blockade meant that initiative motivation (brain reward system) were blocked.

Additionally Thorazine blocks Histamine: serious researches ones not absorbed into the Big Pharma system know that "Brain Allergies" (Philpott, MD), high copper/high histamine, and hitadelia are issues. Histamine is stimulatory in the brain.

Furthermore Major Tranquilizers all have an Antioxidant as well as a Pro-oxidant profile. Real researchers (not part of the FDA/Academia/Big Pharma/A.P.A. system) stess the oxidative component of many diseases and the need for a cocktail of anti-oxidants. (It is uinforgivable that Alzheimer's patients aren't given such for instance.) "Bipolar" and "schizophrenia" have oxidant components and it must be an effort for acedemia to ignor this and the need to add a range of food-extract antioxidants to treatment protocols.

Minor Tranquillizers ( diazepam (Valium®,) chlordiazepoxide (Librium®) and so on, that stimulate GABA receptors (which are inhibitory) are "Minor" because they relax the mind and muscles, and only somewhat sedate. So they are different from Depressants, as well as different from the Major Tranquillizers class of brain drugging agents (Thorazine, Risperdal) which block dopamine 2 (willpower, zest, interest, fine moter movement, motivation, caring, immune system, growth hormone.)

The Major Tranquillizors are also refered to as Neuroleptics (meaning nervous-system or brain seizing.) (i.e., Chemical strait-jacket).

Clorpromazine was a breakthrough and valuable. The "me toos" the spin-off drugs (with their New Patents) were more of the same. Options, but all of the same type, dopamine-blockers, neuroleptics, no real steps forward in terms of any new novel mode of action, actually, for 5 decades... except in profit. All were merely spin offs -- including Risperidone and Olanzapine.

The test for new candidate drugs during the first decades was to have a rat in a cage with a rope. The rat was not unconscious as in Depressant drugs. When electric shocks were given to its feet, if it failed to climb the rope then the chemical agent was a new candidate substance for study. This rope test came from behavioral studies by psychopharmacologists of rats and humans given reserpine and clorpromazine. They screened for more-of-the-same and thus missed any oportunity to find a novel mode of action agent (one perhaps more deserving the term antipsychotic, as distinquished from neuroleptic or major tranquillizor.)

Fish oil contains DHA and EPA. The cell membranes are made with DHA, and EPA regulates inflammation -- EPA it is very important there as well.

The real "atypical antipsychotic" breakthrough was EPA/DHA fish oil combined with vitamin C and E. Despite the fact that the Harvard researcher Andrew L. Stoll, M.D. made a contribution to this work still even this has not been incorporated into the treatment protocols of psychiatry which still consist, exclusively, of these these three modalities of treatment: neurotrophic drugging agents, psychosurgery, and putting 130 volts across the temples -- no B-12, no vitamin C, no CoQ10 -- no chemicals standardly used by the body at all; no chemical are employed except for Patent Chemicals unlike anything the body ever normally uses.

For instance SSRI's - these are abnormal chemicals that hinder a normal process. They can be valuable. One thing A.P.A. psychiatry ignors, as if invisible, is the idea of providing precursor chemicals -- so the brain can easily make more of the transmitter. WHY if a doctor thought that a abnormal chemical that hinders re-uptake of a transmitter is A-O-Kay... would the same doctor, never, ever, think of trying Tryptophan as a precursor aminoacid for Seritonin or trying Tyrosine, a precursor for norepinephrine? Let the brain make more and then decide when and how to use it -- instead of throwing a monkey wrench in the reuptake system so that a haze builds up. S.S.R.I.s are standard practice, but then purified chemical precursors pills are verboten.

Drugging is the only answer. Listen to The Doctor Authority: We are hypnotized by a hundred and ten years of hype.

S. Mahadik on Antioxidants and Omega-3 fats for "schizophrenia"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

D. Horrobin, M.D. on the same topic
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...full/160/1/188

Regards,
Dan Burdick


How Many of Your Patient's are Cured Doctor?
http://www.merrily.com/well.htm

DHEA augmentation for "schizophrenia" "negative symptoms"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

I appreciate the lecture. It's good to have conversations with informed people.

Yes and no. It is indeed true that most new drugs are "me too" drugs, existing drugs whose formulae have been altered slightly (or mirror-imaged) in order to extend the patent and make more profits for the pharmaceutical companies. See The Truth About the Drug Companies for a good recent overview of the problems with the pharmaceutical industry. (And this problem isn't restricted to psychotropic drugs, but everything. Look at the huge glut of "new" antihypertensive meds that work just as well as older ones available as inexpensive generics).

But again, we're dealing with a "most", not an "all." There have been incremental improvements in many classes of drugs, improving their efficacy and/or reducing the side effects. Even many of the "me too" drugs have different properties, giving practitioners a broad variety to choose from for individuals. SSRIs are a good example of this. Each have different qualities and side effects, and what works best for one person may not work best for another.

Interesting stuff. Clinical psychology and the interaction between mental health and the law is more my field than psychopharmacology, but it's useful to know. The one about using DHEA to treat the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, as they're very difficult to treat clinically.

You may find it interesting to look at the recent research on psychologists with prescription priviledges in Nevada and Louisiana. They aren't trained in the 'medical model,' but a more broadly based 'bio-psycho-social' model of practice. The research has shown that they are slower to prescribe drugs, much more likely to look at lifestyle and psychological aspects of mental illness , use a broader variety of approaches in their interventions, and more closely monitor drug effects and fine-tune prescriptions.

Psychiatrists don't ignore that, but they do underuse it. Precursor chemicals are far from a wonder cure though. On their own they have only a relatively weak effect. They're very useful for minor problems, and as a supplement for major problems when combined with therapy and/or an SSRI.

This problem largely stems from the narrow way many doctors were trained, and many medical schools are now taking a much more holistic approach. Recent medical education incorporates more training in nutritional supplements and lifestyle changes, as well as much more training in "bedside manner." The quote in peacemover's sig is a great analogy: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", but more recent med school graduates are given more of a toolbox.

Another component with the problem is, again, the way HMOs and other insurance reimbursers are set up. Many hospitals and most private plans don't pay for nutritional supplements, and they really should.

Only thing worse than mind control via pharmaceuticals is mind control via cults like Scientology.

iello,

Originally Posted by innovafire
1. Psychiatry doesn't UNDERSTAND mental illness, they LABEL it.


This goes to its Fraud nature. Investors in the drug Thorazine made 8 times their investment back as profit. Thorazine (1952 replaces Resepine)

(and its 55 years of lame children upto and including the fake-innovations of the fake-novel atypicals) (since they were not breakthroughs, were not atypical in action they added ATYPICAL as an additional name for the things! LIe LOUD.)

its fairly appropriate to say thorazine
and the miriad of other toxic Dopamine 2 receptors blockers which block dopamine (brain reward pathways, interest, motivation, initaitive) and through internal feedback increase the release and production (turnover) of dopamine
it is fairly appropriate to say that these do not
desearve the term antipsychotic and should be called brain-seizing (neuroleptic) or major tranquillizor drugs. Thus researving the term antipsychotic for something that more honestly addresses a true pathology; that is antipsychotic rather than a chemical straitjacket that makes the patient listless, indifferent, unable to function as a person whose brain has been drugged by a drug that blocks the afferent brain reward (reinforcement) fibers that reach up from the midbrain to energize functional activity in the higher cognitive and emotional areas of the brain.

This is often overstated -- in that with acute psychosis these neurotoxic brain drugging compounds are often more effective as antipsychotics than this argument suggests of their being non-specific functionality blocking agents which take away psychic motive energy.

First just that could be helpful: Block the reinforcement, make the patient more vegitable like for a short while.

Then their is the issue of sleep. In Orthomolecular Psychiatry editied by Linus Pauling and Hawkins they speak of the 1950's common knowledge in the profession that many "schizophrenics" were unusually difficult to sedate with barbiturates compared to healthy people. They also were not sleeping and just that can cause psychosis.

They used an electroencephalograph and saw a waveform that was too high in amplitude and not variable enough. A jittery flat line in the pic. I myself termed it "pegged." They had seen the same reading in high dose amphetamine and full dose LSD injestion.

The Clorpromazine was able to bring that brainwave into normal varience and amplitude. The patient became more "normal" and was able to sleep reletively "normally," - better than a person drugged with barbiturates would.

So they saw Thorazine as a supported short term initial intervention.

______________________________

Furthermore these neurotoxic dopamine blockers have more effects than that. Importantly they are powerful antioxidants as well as pro-oxidants. Their are different types of oxidation. Oxyradical, lipid peroxidation, hydroxyls (???). Now these zenotropic nerotropic neurotoxic heptotoxic drugging agents may be powerful antioxidants in the brain BUT THERE ARE LEGITAMATE antixoidants -- supplements -- idebenone, coQ10, vitamine C and E, lipoic acid, turmeric extract, ginkgo biloba 24% pharmaceutical grade extract, n-acetyl cysteine that ought to be used by sane and educated doctors instead of, or in additional to these toxins.

Why use Thorazine or one of its profitable desendants for its salubrious in-brain powerful antioxidant qualities (a result of an action of a part of a miriad of toxic metabolites) when one has a list of Western chemical laboritories produced chemical antioxidants that act in the brain and which are not utterly foriegn?

_________________________

Another actoin of these drugs is often to be antihistamine in the brain. Histamine being a stimulatory. Also it is present in allergic reaction.

_________________________

Psychiatry puts people into the DSM classifications that have nothing to do with finding the underlying causes of high histamine or whatnot. These are observation and word-test based classifications of people. Thgese are then portrayed as life long medical conditions calling for brain-drugging and approx. nothing else. Fraud.
__________________________

Psychiatry was going down hill as people thought they were expensive and dubious. THe APA fully joined the already existing conspiracy to keep selling drugs and more drugs if it hadn't already at the end of the 1960s and beginnig of the 1970's.

Asylum medicine for all.

Completely soldout and merged with pharma the Fraud of the DSM was perfected with the 4th edition. Involving grand scall unified lying, nearly all categories in the DSM classification sceme were portrayed and presented as somehow medical, (and not psychoanalytical anymore) definatly insurance billable, and treatable by drugs.

Prescribing drugs for diseases or disorder (an intentional conceptual mixture and degradation of meaning and cognitive functioning) meant that the psychiatrists could be taken seriously again by the masses and themselves as real doctors prescribing drugs! Psychiatry was saved from its shaky footing. Thousands were maimed and killed by their ministrations.
The biggest money making fraud in human history.

In 1973 faced by their own best people treatening their multidecade trillion dollar plans for psychopharmacologys acendance the APA produced a one time bogus document declaring as officially true that all the work done by their own
best people
(Carl Pfeiffer,Ph.D, M.D. Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D et al)
was a mistake, all wrong, even their earely papers published in the journals before they stopped being published. The 54 page document is the Task Force #7 Report to the A.P.A. on Orthomolecular and Megavitamine Therapy in Psychiatry.

History of the Fraud of Biopsychiatry:
http://www.adhdfraud.org/history_of_...psychiatry.htm

Linus Pauling Reply to Task Force #7 Report:
http://www.orthomed.org/pauling2.html


Hoffer and Osmond Reply to Task Force #7 Report:
http://www.iahf.com/orthomolecular/index.html

These were both ignored - they didn't want a Scientific Dialoge, they wanted to fob together a bogus something and refer to it for the next 50 years saying that the orthomolecular psychioatrists were wacky egomaniac sailmen off on a primarily incorrect tangent. And Billions and Billions of dollars continued to flow to off shore pockets, and some bones to the APAs acolytes.

DAN

The causes of many forms of mental illness are well understood, and there is lots of continuing research. Some illnesses have very well understood effects, but the causes are still a mystery, like Schizophrenia. Some mental illness aren't very well understood yet, but that's because the brain is enormously complicated, and much more research needs to be done.

Not by "standand" psychiatry (drug, shock,cut).

One of the reasons why behavioral health suffers from over-prescription-itis is for some of the very under informed reasons stated in a few posts here. Specifically, instead of banking on tons of research which suggests the clinical efficacy of behavioral health treatment modalities (which may or may not include medication as an adjunctive TX), behavioral health strives to stay on par with so-called "medicine," i.e., if I can give it a name and a pill, it's real science and it's by default more efficacious, by mirroring medicine's treatment philosophy and treatment behavior. Behavioral health is it's own kind of epistemology and science.

Folks who talk about behavioral health as if it were a Ouija board type process don't truly understand what it is. It's a very thorough process by which behavioral health professionals take pain staking care to provide the most appropriate types of treatment to individuals suffering from emotional/behavioral disorders. The focus is on treating a person's discomfort and intra psychic distress; the focus is not on a diagnosis. The diagnosis is simply a guide, i.e., it's the map, not the territory. Good behavioral health professionals are good at what they do and the bad ones, well, you get the point.

Every day millions of people, from around the world, who suffer from mental illness are successfully treated and live functioning and productive lives because of it. This is proof positive that treatment can and does work. Often, this can happen without medication, so I do agree with many who feel that we over medicate; this is specifically the case in western societies. I personally feel that this is very true when it comes to the treatment of childhood onset emotional/behavioral disorders, e.g., ADHD or Conduct Disorder. An aside: Parents/care givers are often too much in a hurry to prove and enjoy the spoils of material success rather than concern themselves with providing the appropriate levels of guidance, support, nurturance and adult (informed) supervision for a child (ren).

By the way, one person mentioned a "normal" but hyper child being foolishly labeled as having ADHD (ADD), what the person failed to mention is that we can show differences in brain patterns and neurochemical behavior in children/adults who have been rightly diagnosed with that disorder. I hope that this kind of evidence suggests that there is a "science" behind the processes which fuel behavioral health as a profession. Moreover, I know of folks who are psychotic and who used to suffer from visual/auditory hallucinations and who have been prescribed the right medication (s), and, now they now teach at universities, practice medicine, law and are generally healthy and better able to function.

If that's not proof enough for you, then I will tell you the story of the millions of people who suffer from headaches, migraines, and PMS who are successfully treated by "real" health professionals every year; they also lead very healthy and productive lives.

Bottom line is that behavioral health has to stop trying to prove that it's a science and focus on alleviating human suffering -- that is it's sacred charge and purpose.
Let the legislators argue over what to call it, and the lawyers over the bill ;-)

__________________
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud

Indeed there are many people who as nulander said are helped tremndously by medications that have helped them to live productive lives. They have gotten the correct diagnosis, and somewhere down the line someone took the time to "LISTEN" to them, and pour over old records etc. Often though these very same people sometimes either are not capable of taking the medication themselves or choose to stop it when they feel better or it's adverse effects hamper their ability to feel, create, and as they sometimes say "just hold them down". There are many facilities that do good follow up care, and liver function tests, and have social workers, and Doctors that are part of a team that help them.

Then we have what I like to call the "kickback meds". I know it is not always the case, and actually few and far between, but there are Doctors out there who take the samples from the beautiful, and handsome pharmaceutical reps, and receive in return tickets for ball games, and concets, and even lavish banquets set out on Friday's for entire staffs that work for the Doctor who suddenly changes a medication on a person who was just fine on the old tride and true they'd taken for the last ten years. Not always one that is for better mental health but blood pressure, insulin, and on, and on.

It is beyond me how not only are children in America being drugged but our elderly as well. Yes, elderly people may get depressed. You're getting old.
For heavens sake it happens. I am now in the process of helping a man who is 82 years old. World War II Vet, and as many of his generation took nothing more than asprin. His Doctor who spends ten minutes tops with him asked a few questions of him, and promptly wrote a script for ........well I probably can't say it here. The plant in Mexico which was making it was shut down not long ago. It was one of the class of drugs that I swear at least fifteen people I know are on.

How can it be that a person needs help to stop smoking the Doctor writes for one of these drugs which I was given after a horrific car accident because I had panic attacks each time I was getting in a car. The same one given to this elderly gentleman because his Doctor felt he was depressed, and another person I know was given it because as she is going through meopuase this would help her. These are drugs that drastically change brain chemistry. In my opinion the cure is worse than the disease.

When the plant got shut down suddenly there were people left without this pill that the commercial made look so desirable when the little blue ball blob thing that was featured in the commercial went from sad ball to a bouncy, and very happy blue blob? I have heard kids say when that commercial was on "That's what I NEED". Why because you had a bad day at school?

I do have a friend who had social phobias, and was missing out alot in life. Weddings, silent auctions, art openings. She'd literally take to her bed if she got an invitation to a party. Luckily she worked with children and was superb with kids, and had no anxiety about her job. She finally got on that very same little blue pill, and did wonderful. It worked for her. Suddenly, she could go to a concert. So in those cases it's great except when they discontinued it, and found the plant was not making each pill the same. Right away they put her on one of the new replacements. She's still doing well.

BUT BUT now they are finding out if these are given to teenagers they are far more likely to commit suicide while taking them. I could not quote figures on it, but I know we all read about the boy from University Of Pennsylvania who was a star football player, and a perfect student and had some anxiety over school. Who wouldn't? That boy commited suicide. No indication was given to his very tight knit family he was in that state of mind.

Actually, my daughter had a sore throat not too long ago, and as her Doctor who we adore wrote a script out and I said "You're not writing for one of those SSRI's are you?" He knows me for years now, and said "I don't dispense them, and if I feel a little child or teen needs help in dealing with what is considered "normal" behavior by the last generation or so I send them to a very good Doctor and keep abreast of what is going on".

It seems anymore if a prescription is written for me for panic attacks, and Joe Schmo who is upset about a divorce coming up, and a guy who is quitting the smoking habit, and a college student worried about his grades, and a woman going through the change of life well why not give it to me for a broken hand? We were told these drugs were not addictive or habit forming, and I guess people just took for granted they were not. Anyone who has taken that original little blue pill that begins with a P and was on it for a year suddenly there's a reason you'd want to get off it that tells me someone somewhere didn't do their homework, and as a responsible person who reads labels for ingredients etc. all that paperwork that came with it gave no indication just what could happen once you discontinued it even if you followed the weaning rule that now is without a doubt necessary. I mean this stuff is a bad kick.

So, when a man in his 80's goes back to his physician with complaints he just gets changed to a different med that is in the same exact call as the last.
Teens who almost all go through some tough times with all on their plate now have to kick a drug that can be dangerous if not weaned in the right way.

A very dear friend of mine had panic attacks since we were kids. It's now that she's almost 50, and through therapy knows why. Within a years time she was put on seroquel, respiridol (sp) and a host of those SSRI's. She wound up in Einstein after a suicide attempt two days after a new Doctor put her on Lamacital. She asked me to come over and read the insert with her.
Together we just looked shocked when we got to the part about it is given for seizures, but if you have never had a seizure this could prompt one. Her son accompanied her back this Doctor and in the waiting room began to talk to the woman next to him. She was there to talk about the Lamacital she was given. Then a man overheard it, and said "That's what I am on, and I was told I am Bi-Polar. That my diagnosis". Of course the other two people waiting joined in, and my girlfriend said it was like a AA meeting only for this drug. Granted it has helped people with epilepsy, and they feel wonderful on it. So thank goodness for them they got the right medication.

An awful thing just happened to a friend of mine who had a child on Ritalin for fifteen years. ADD being her diagnosis. In the last two months the girl made three suicide attempts and it was a miracle each time someone found her not too long after those attempts, and she was furious. She wanted to die, and she needed her Ritalin back. Plain and simple. Meanwhile they gave her a medication, and she seemed much better. Functioning, and getting to work each day, and helping around the house. This little girl jumped from a four story building, and as I write this is in a coma. Definately a bad brain injury, and many broken bones and lacerations. We're all praying for her. The extent of the injuries left the surgeons to have to tell my friend and her husband at best if she makes it she may be brain dead.

All of the sudden my mom, and Gram's views may not be all that wrong. They believe the old ways are better, and can't understand why these Doctors are just handing out all these medicines to young kids. My mom's elderly gentleman friend who is in extremely great shape physically, and had always been a kind, compassionate, and caring man with a huge dash of optimism has been reduced to a shell of his former self. He won't go to his activities any longer. He won't go to his exercise class. PLUS, we all know how tough it is to get ahold of a Doctor. Not to mention our elderly have a hard time talking to a machine which has you dialing this and that, and push this number for this etc. without any human being beeing on the other end of the phone as it is. You can leave a message and are lucky if four days later they even call you back.

Again, as I stated earlier this is not EVERY Doctor of course not. It is not every pharmacist that doesn't take the time to educate these elderly folk. Meanwhile I am trying to help him by making phone calls, and am going back down to Cape May just so he has someone who understands, and explain to him this has happened to many people. Our current elderly are from a time when no matter what they took a Doctors word. They don't ask questions.
They automatically believe it as Gospel that the Doc knows his stuff.

I am sorry for this long post, but that infuriates me how the elderly are treated. This man was sharp as a tac. He was active, and sociable. Took yoga to help calm his mind, and even tried accupuncture. He now is like a zombie and has no interest in anything including his beloved game of golf.

It makes me wonder. It also angered me that this Doctor takes ten minutes and supposedly doesn't answer question for this man, and his assisted living gang who also go to this pysician get the same treatment, and the same exact medication. I know Doctors are extremely busy, and have to rush from patient to patient, but I feel so bad little children and older people are being drugged, and there's not too much I personally can do about it, but I can at least tell them they are not alone.

PS DMAE and the biochemic treatment approach:
http://drdavidross.com/modules.php?o...rticle&sid=128

http://www.naturaldatabase.com/(S(ss...-26&cec=1&pm=5

A fair percentage of those critical to mainstream psychiatry don't come from a perspective of superior knowledge of biochemical science. The famous Dr. Breggin devotes a few scant pages to ideas of biochemical troubles involved in "diagnosed" so-called "ADD" and "ADHD" in his recent Talking Back to Ritalin. I consider his comments to be execrable and a bald betrayal. Darkly amusing are his words,(approx.): Many people have contacted me, expecting me to support them in their views...

Breggin barely allows that sugar or yellow die could be problems. For him, the success, such as it may be, from providing an adult organized and overseen program of nutrition should be seen as it truely is - psychosocially: the adults are providing some form of stucture for the child (though it is based on these bogus nutritional ideas...) and demonstrating an interest in the childs activity, and a caring about the childs wellbeing. So that explains it -- according to Dr. B. -- Structure and Caring: Psychosocial. How much better, (as straitforwardly implied by his book), if the parents didn't bother with such ideas and simply focused on the underlying important aspects: Love, attention, supervision and structure.

Breggin led the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology: one won't find any historical reference to the suppression of the orthomolecular vanquard of Psychiary, let alone their personal perspectives and important works. Less mention of orthomolecular from The ICSPP than is found in "mainstream" psychiatry's jaundiced literature.

In a typical piece of "educational" propaganda from APA connected personel one may well find a reference to Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D and how the work in the 1960s and 70s wasn't reproduced nor published in peer reviewed literature* - and after an inital hopefulness basically didn't pan out - although it may actually be valuable in some small sub-populations

*Once their Universities and the Journals would no longer publish their work (after it became increasing well established and successful thus an increasing threat) they formed their own journel. Abram Hoffer, M.D. comentes that having himself as editor ensured the publication of his submissions.
August 2003, Scientific Panel Clashes With the American Psychiatric Association http://www.icspp.org/index.php?optio...d=54&Itemid=69

National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy
Analysis of the Scientific Grounds for Forced Treatment
Michael McCubbin, Ph.D. and David Cohen, Ph.D. http://www.narpa.org/cal_ioc.htm
ADHD and ADD. The Hyperactive Child
Dr Lendon H. Smith M.D.
http://phosadd.com/support%20evidence/lsmith.htm
Not only did the orthomolecular researchers have the other chemicals to use (vitamins, hormones, minerals, aminoacids), and the integrity to use actual biological tests and thinking (rather than having to hue to the DSM labeling artifice) they were also inclined to utilize the full range of drug options in their arsenal using intelligence (rather than having to listen, for instance, to the "on high" dictates of such as Dr. Donald Klein speaking as the pedant authority specifing which drugs to use... They, after all, were also the doctor-authorities themselves.) The great Carl C. Pfeiffer, M.D. Ph.D used Deaner for Attention deficit and hyperactivity (see his book Mental and Elemental Nutrients in which he speaks decades ago of the tragedy of the rising epidemic of Ritalin prescription.)

Deaner is water soluable choline able to pass the brain blood barrier. A plenty-powerful enough concept for giving to children. Compare that to giving them amphetamines. There isn't such a paradox to "stimulants" causing better focus in children. When the brain performs one task or another there is a characteristic pattern: in both increased energy use & decreased energy use across the brain.

Amphetamines produce stronger contrast in such usage patterns and a stronger tendency to persist in a particular mode. That is amphetamine cause getter focus. No paradox.

Besides informed treatment, based on actual biological testing, as one would get from the likes of a Dr. Lendon Smith or Dr. Carl Pfeiffer a modern version of a "stimulant drug" pill that their type might prescibe is PS and DMAE (non-prescription water soluable choline).

I was having trouble remembering DMAE and happened into this article from Timmy Leary's friend. It compares the affect of nutriceuticals on norepinephrine function to that of drugs like cocaine, ritalin, adderal and other amphetamines.

May You Never Sleep by R.U. Sirius
http://www.matarese.com/matarese-fil...987/index.html

Commentary on Nutritional Treatment by W. Walsh
http://www.alternativementalhealth.c...es/walshMP.htm

Twenty-Nine Medical Causes of “Schizophrenia”
http://psychrights.org/Articles/29medicalcausesofsz.htm


I feel that those that criticize psychiatry can't hope to truely get their messages across as long as they persist in basically helping in the suppresion of responsible intelligent current medical treatment.

Dan Burdick, member of the C/S/X civil rights movement

With the neuroleptics (dopamine 2 receptor blockering drugs) the "me toos" refered to didn't extend the patent. I figure that is a minor logic error in your writing. It extended their having patents on something. Perhaps you are right, extending Patents is another option. With Prozac they did a tap dance at one point calling it a New Drug, with a New Name, and a New Disease treated (premenstrual disorder) while admittedly having the same chemical compound in the New Drug. Whatever it takes.

The issue, that I see, is the creation of new patents for new drugs. These new antipsychotics all have the same modality of action and general efficacy. (According to Klein and Malcolm Peet, M.D. and others) They differed by modest changes of previous drugs, or differed by being a new type of molecule. As I was saying the trouble lay in their testing for new candidate drugs by looking for the same behavioral effects in rat and human subjects as were analyzed and described by psychopharmacology researchers in the late 40's and early 50's. Since the were looking for non-sedating taming drugs that would produce a vegitative state of indifference the candidate compounds screened for all had such qualities and in later years all turned out to block dopamine 2 - and to increase dopamine turnover after a couple weeks of treatment (through a feedback mechanism which tried to adjust the brain to this blockage.)
By screening for more of the same what they got was more of the same.
What you are saying about possibly useful differences between these options is not contradictory to what I had written, it wasn't my emphasis and I may not have been explicit.
The important part about these "mee toos" is how the Big Pharma companies and the APA were set on the status quo. They wanted DRUGGING in ascendency as the school of 'psychological therapy' that won. They wanted new drugs with new patents. They didn't want improved care, or appropriate modern treatments. They wanted drugs to be the only game in town, and for profits to increase decade after decade sans interference that wasn't controlled or planned as a pretence (NAMI a grassroots that just happens to agree with them; E. Fuller Torry their gadfly who happens to support involuntary drugging while mumbling something about cat viruses that has no effect on actual practice for decade after decade, patient rights activism and movement toward patient participation that has no effect on bussiness and gives a sence of opposition and openness and dialog -- which has no actual impact on the Plan.)


Your statement here seems fairly promoting of the status quo. The practitioners-authority fiqures have a fine selection of options to choose from of reasonable, useful and acceptable pills. In your portrail here the professionals are well informed and responsible. The drugs are good and effective. Standard indoctinational words are reflected: "what works best for one person may not be best for another," Just have to try to find the drugs that are best for you! Have to have your drugs adjusted.

The different qualities of the SSRIs may make Paxil better for panic disorder, and Prozac better for former drug addicts.
People are different and the drugs are diff. so: trying different ones may come up with the one best for you.

BUT then again these Brain-Drugging-Agents are a half-baked, crazy idea in the first place! We are talking about the school of psychological therapy that asserts that since the putative "psyche" is a material part of the physical brain that it is scientific that material physical intervention (thus bio-psychiatry) on the corpus of the patient is evidently the way to address the issue, and further that since drugging agents affect the brain and thus thought and behavior it is perfectly reasonable that continued ongoing drugging of the patient should be employed as treatment. As long as they stay drugged their behavior & thoughts will stay different. If it is advantageous, as tested for by the elite Ivy Leauge males, then it is scientifically proven to be a valuable therapeutic intervention.
(Stark raving mad.)

The "bio" there: Drugs as much as actual Biochemistry, confusing these different ideas. "Bio" should refer to using actual blood tests and so on and using actual biochemical treatments (not xenobiotic toxic chemicals.)
Psychiatrists may not ignor it but their profession and their official treatment protocols have ignored "vitamins as treatment" for decades. Ignored isn't the term it was swept under the rug by industry counterintelligence.

The precursor idea there is only the tip of the iceburg. (DHEA, SAMe, Histadelia - high copper depression) Here your responce did have a feel of running-interference, counter control. I don't know how to take it. You are speaking with the authority voice a fair amount. Here you are suggesting drugs, drugs and therapy, or perhaps aminoacids and therapy. So that is all very status quo, right? Then you say that the problem lies with the narrow education -- and how Now that is improving. This sort of ignors what I am talking about. The problem is the narrow focus: Leading reseachers were yelling things along those lines in the 50's sixties seventies eighties... The problem isn't that doctors were narrowly educated or that the HMOs are set up in that way. The problem is that Conscious Planning Individuals made the forgoing SO and kept it that way intentionally decade after decade. Including now. If things are "getting better now" as it were, that is like 4 decades LATE. Thus it is to be assumed that things, Really speaking, aren't getting better now. The stuff the doctors hadn't incorporated was Common Knowledge to the educated in the 1970's. What was less known was how scrupulously this common knowledge was not incorporated into medical practice. On purpose.


Carl Pfeiffer,MD broke the schizohrenias into 5 main biological subtypes which had different treatment protocols. "Schizophrenia" became nothing in itself - it was a syndrome - a collection of symptoms given a label as with "Pneumonia." With the syndrome of pneumonia some immediate general treament may exist but actually what is needed is to find what the actual disease involved is: whether one kind of microbial infection or another or asbestos inhalation or what have you. Then that is treated the actual problem. Schizophrenia is not an actual anything. Nor is bipolar. They are syndromes.

They should because Complementary medicine should have as its premiere component the simultaneous use of nutrients and nutriceuticals with the drug medicines. Cancer treatment or Alzheimer's treatment without having antioxidants interwoven into the books on treatment protocols is evidently indefencible.

The way it works in our propaganda dysinformation world is that the CAM initiative has been heavily betrayed by the pretending that "vitamins as simultaneous important treatment" is not what should immediately come to mind, that acupuncture and music therapy are probably what Complementary medicine refers to. Pauling and Hoffer gave terminal cancer patients 10 grams of vitamin C. They lived longer. Not used.

Making psychologists have drug priviledges may cause some people to have the good fortune of having someone like Dudly Moore in Lovesick treat them. Someone more like what an uninformed person might expect to find when they ask for help. But millions of people have sought help only to find the American Gulag, to be put through the mill. For these victims we need psychologists that stand up to the truth about the situation and don't try to offer merely a less irresponsible and deadly version of the same thing. Thanks for the reply. D


What Do Psychiatric Drugs Do? David H. Jacobs, Ph.D.
http://www.cihs.edu/whatsnew/book_ami.asp