LACCC presents: Innovations in Recovery Conference, Monday, June 23rd, 8am – 4pm

The LOS ANGELES COUNTY CLIENT COALITION is putting on the 3rd Annual Innovations in Recovery Conference. The conference will ill take place on Monday, June 23, 2014 at the California Endowment Center (Directions & Innovations Conf 2014.flyer)  located at 1000 N. Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90012, from 8:00am to 4:00 pm. 

Please join us!!! The Wildflowers’ Movement will be exhibiting and presenting SHINE ON YOU CRAZY DIAMOND, an innovative workshop with music, singing and art! Our group is about giving & receiving mindful support while practicing self-awareness, cultivating radical wellness, and celebrating diversity. We meet every 1st and 3rd Sunday at SHARE! in Culver City and out at various events, and in nature, our natural habitat.

 

 

Why French Kids Don’t Have ‘ADHD’: The Cultural Differences of Child Rearing

It’s quite encouraging to realize that in other countries the DSM is not taken seriously. In fact, it’s not used at all. For example, the focus in France is on addressing the underlying psychosocial causes of symptoms, not on finding the best pharmacological bandaids with which to mask symptoms. It is a totally different perspective from the American tendency to attribute all symptoms to a biological dysfunction such as a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Unfortunately, in the United States, the strict focus on pharmaceutical treatment, encourages clinicians to ignore the influence of dietary factors on our behavior. This and comparing other cultural child rearing differences can help us save our children

published by Marilyn Wedge, Ph.D. in Psychology Today

Why French Kids Don’t Have ‘ADHD’

In the United States, at least 9% of school-aged children have been diagnosed with ADHD, and are taking pharmaceutical medications. In France, the percentage of kids diagnosed and medicated for ADHD is less than .5%. How come the epidemic of ADHD—which has become firmly established in the United States—has almost completely passed over children in France?

Is ADHD a biological-neurological disorder? Surprisingly, the answer to this question depends on whether you live in France or in the United States. In the United States, child psychiatrists consider ADHD to be a biological disorder with biological causes. The preferred treatment is also biological–psycho stimulant medications such as Ritalin and Adderall.

French child psychiatrists, on the other hand, view ADHD as a medical condition that has psycho-social and situational causes. Instead of treating children’s focusing and behavioral problems with drugs, French doctors prefer to look for the underlying issue that is causing the child distress—not in the child’s brain but in the child’s social context. They then choose to treat the underlying social context problem with psychotherapy or family counseling. This is a very different way of seeing things from the American tendency to attribute all symptoms to a biological dysfunction such as a chemical imbalance in the child’s brain.

French child psychiatrists don’t use the same system of classification of childhood motional problems as American psychiatrists. They do not use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM. According to Sociologist Manuel Vallee, the French Federation of Psychiatry developed an alternative classification system as a resistance to the influence of the DSM-3. This alternative was the CFTMEA (Classification Française des Troubles Mentaux de L’Enfant et de L’Adolescent), first released in 1983, and updated in 1988 and 2000. The focus of CFTMEA is on identifying and addressing the underlying psychosocial causes of children’s symptoms, not on finding the best pharmacological bandaids with which to mask symptoms.

To the extent that French clinicians are successful at finding and repairing what has gone awry in the child’s social context, fewer children qualify for the ADHD diagnosis. Moreover, the definition of ADHD is not as broad as in the American system, which, in my view, tends to “pathologize” much of what is normal childhood behavior. The DSM specifically does not consider underlying causes. It thus leads clinicians to give the ADHD diagnosis to a much larger number of symptomatic children, while also encouraging them to treat those children with pharmaceuticals.

The French holistic, psychosocial approach also allows for considering nutritional causes for ADHD-type symptoms—specifically the fact that the behavior of some children is worsened after eating foods with artificial colors, certain preservatives, and/or allergens. Clinicians who work with troubled children in this country—not to mention parents of many ADHD kids—are well aware that dietary interventions can sometimes help a child’s problem. In the United States, the strict focus on pharmaceutical treatment of ADHD, however, encourages clinicians to ignore the influence of dietary factors on children’s behavior.

And then, of course, there are the vastly different philosophies of child-rearing in the United States and France. These divergent philosophies could account for why French children are generally better-behaved than their American counterparts. Pamela Druckerman highlights the divergent parenting styles in her recent book, Bringing up Bébé. I believe her insights are relevant to a discussion of why French children are not diagnosed with ADHD in anything like the numbers we are seeing in the United States.

From the time their children are born, French parents provide them with a firm cadre—the word means “frame” or “structure.” Children are not allowed, for example, to snack whenever they want. Mealtimes are at four specific times of the day. French children learn to wait patiently for meals, rather than eating snack foods whenever they feel like it. French babies, too, are expected to conform to limits set by parents and not by their crying selves. French parents let their babies “cry it out” if they are not sleeping through the night at the age of four months.

French parents, Druckerman observes, love their children just as much as American parents. They give them piano lessons, take them to sports practice, and encourage them to make the most of their talents. But French parents have a different philosophy or discipline. Consistently enforced limits, in the French view, make children feel safe and secure. Clear limits, they believe, actually make a child feel happier and safer—something that is congruent with my own experience as both a therapist and a parent. Finally, French parents believe that hearing the word “no” rescues children from the “tyranny of their own desires.” And spanking, when used judiciously, is not considered child abuse in France.

As a therapist who works with children, it makes perfect sense to me that French children don’t need medications to control their behavior because they learn self-control early in their lives. The children grow up in families in which the rules are well-understood, and a clear family hierarchy is firmly in place. In French families, as Druckerman describes them, parents are firmly in charge of their kids—instead of the American family style, in which the situation is all too often vice versa.

Copyright © Marilyn Wedge, Ph.D.

Marilyn Wedge is the author of Pills Are Not for Preschoolers: A Drug-Free Approach for Troubled Kids

The Illegality of Forced Drugging and Electroshock

 

POSTED ON MAD IN AMERICA, on MARCH 21, 2012

BY JIM GOTTSTEIN 

Court ordered psychiatric drugging and electroshock is illegal when measured against the constitutional requirements for forcing someone to ingest drugs, or be subjected to electroshock, against their will.

Under the United States Constitution, if a right is considered “fundamental,” in order to infringe on that right, the government is (a) required to have a compelling interest (reason),  (b) the method chosen to further that interest must be reasonably assured to achieve its objective, and (c) the method must be narrowly tailored, meaning there cannot be a less restrictive or intrusive means of achieving the objective.  This was most recently articulated in 2003 by the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, as follows:

Our opinions applying the doctrine known as “substantive due process” hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing fundamental liberty interests, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

Let’s apply these principles to forced drugging and electroshock.  In 2003 the United States Supreme Court  also decided Sell v. United States, in which the government wanted to force Dr. Sell, a dentist, to take neuroleptics, to ”restore” him to competence so he could stand trial for health care fraud.  The U.S. Supreme Court held such forced drugging permissible under the constitution only when the following conditions are met:

1. The court must find that important governmental interests are at stake.
2. The court must conclude that involuntary medication will significantly further those concomitant state interests.
3. The court must conclude that involuntary medication is necessary to further those interests. The court must find that any alternative, less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results.
4. The court must conclude that administration of the drugs is medically appropriate, i.e., in the patient’s best medical interest in light of his medical condition.  (emphasis in original).

This is classic analysis of a fundamental right under the due process clause.  I will address each of these requirements in turn.

Governmental Interests

What is the government’s important interest in forcing someone to be psychiatrically drugged or electroshocked against their will?   It depends.  (The answer to all legal questions)   More specifically, there are various situations in which the issue comes up and the government’s interests are different in each one.

Standing Trial On Criminal Charges

In Sell, the government’s interest was to restore Dr. Sell to competency so that he could be put on trial for healthcare fraud.   To be competent to stand trial for a crime, a defendant must be able to understand the nature of the charges and be able to assist his or her lawyer.   Clearly, being able to put someone on trial for murder is an important enough governmental interest.   However, is putting someone on trial for “illegal use of telephone,” such as calling 911repeatedly, an important enough interest to force someone to take psychotropic drugs against their will?   I don’t think so.

 Civil Commitment

Most of the time we think of forced psychiatric drugging and electroshock in the context of civil commitment.   In this setting, there are two justifications (governmental interests).  The first is known as Parens Patriae, which is Latin for ”parent of the nation,” and means the government is stepping in to act as a parent for someone who cannot take care of him or herself.  In other words, “We are from the government and are here to help you.”    In order for the government to be able to assert this right, it has to prove the person is incompetent to decide for him or herself.  These determinations, in themselves, are illegitimate and could be the subject of an entire article, in itself.  However, I will limit this to a couple of comments.

First, one can look at the transcript of Faith Myers’ testimony (pp 0123-0148)) to decide for oneself whether she was incompetent to decline the medication and then look at the judge’s decision (pp  12-14).  To me, the judge’s decision that Faith was incompetent to decline the medication was a travesty.

Second, I will note that the reasoning to find someone incompetent to decline the medication or electroshock, is often circular in that when a person says they don’t want the psych drug(s) or electroshock because it doesn’t work and/or is harmful, that is cited as proof the person is delusional and incompetent.  In the Myers case, the psychiatrist testified in a deposition (pp 39 – 43) that if someone agrees to to take the medication, he decides the person is competent and if not, the person is incompetent.

In fact circular reasoning is enshrined in Alaska Statutes 47.30.837(d)(1)(B), where it provides, “denial of a significantly disabling disorder or impairment, when faced with substantial evidence of its existence, constitutes evidence that the patient lacks the capability to make mental health treatment decisions.”

The second justification for forced drugging and electroshock in the civil commitment context is safety, i.e., that the person must be drugged for their own safety or those of others.  This is known as the “Police Power” justification.  Forced drugging under this justification also tends to be an illegitimate process.  First, the safety risk must be extreme.  For example, under Alaska Statutes 47.30.838 (a)(1), emergency forced drugging is only allowed if, “there is a crisis situation, or an impending crisis situation, that requires immediate use of the medication to preserve the life of, or prevent significant physical harm, to the patient or another person.”

In one of the Bill Bigley cases, I took the deposition (PDf pages 34-37) of the hospital psychiatrist about her use of “emergency” medication, which makes clear that (a) she didn’t know what the legal requirements were and (b) Mr. Bigley was being drugged for non-existent emergencies.

Whether the government has a sufficiently important interest in most civil commitment cases is certainly subject to challenge in many cases.

Prison

Another common setting for forced psychiatric drugging is people convicted of crimes and in prison.  Being convicted of a crime and in prison as opposed to being charged with a crime and in jail is a huge difference, legally.  People in prison have the least legal protection.  Thus, with respect to forced psychiatric drugging in prison, the United States Supreme Court held in Washington v. Harper  that the government doesn’t have to show an important or compelling interest, just that it is ”reasonably related to legitimate penological interests,” holding :

[G]iven the requirements of the prison environment, the Due Process Clause permits the State to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will, if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmate’s medical interest.

Note, that even here, in order to be constitutional the court ordered drugging must be in the person’s medical interest.

OUTPATIENT COMMITMENT

Outpatient Commitment, where people are court ordered to take psychiatric drugs in the community has taken what I consider a bizarre turn.  In 2004, the high court of New York held in the K.L. case that a finding of incompetence was not required, nor was the fundamental right to be free of forced psychiatric drugging involved, because the outpatient commitment statute did not authorize forced drugging, saying “it  simply triggers heightened scrutiny on the part of the physician, who must then determine whether the patient may be in need of involuntary hospitalization.”  In other words, the New York high court held that an [outpatient commitment] order mandating a person take psychiatric drugs does not really compel the person to take psychiatric drugs.  This is a classic example of a court decision being divorced from reality.

There is, however, a 2008 New Mexico case, Protection and Advocacy System v. City of Albuquerque, that recognizes the delusional (my word) nature of the New York high court’s holding that New York’s outpatient commitment law does not involve court ordered medication:

‘R]egardless of whether there are sanctions in the Ordinance for failure to comply with court-ordered treatment, the coercive nature of a court order requiring treatment would clearly allow an act contrary to the statute’s mandate that an individual’s consent be obtained as long as the individual has capacity.”

However, since the City of Albuquerque  case involved whether the city’s ordinance conflicted with state statute and was therefore invalid, the issue was not front and center.

In any event, with respect to the governmental interests involved, in K.L. the New York high court held the police power justification applied as follows:

Inasmuch as an [outpatient commitment] order requires a specific finding by clear and convincing evidence that the patient is in need of assisted outpatient treatment in order to prevent a relapse or deterioration which would be likely to result in serious harm to self or others, the state’s police power justifies the minimal restriction on the right to refuse treatment inherent in an order that the patient comply as directed.

The court also held the parens patriae justification applied as follows:

[T]he state’s parens patriae interest in providing care to its citizens who are unable to care for themselves because of mental illness is properly invoked since an AOT order requires findings that the patient is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision;  the patient has a history of lack of compliance with treatment that has either necessitated hospitalization or resulted in acts of serious violent behavior or threats of, or attempts at, serious physical harm;  the patient is unlikely to voluntarily participate in the recommended treatment  plan;  the patient is in need of assisted outpatient treatment in order to prevent a relapse or deterioration which would be likely to result in serious harm to the patient or others;  and it is likely that the patient will benefit from [outpatient commitment].

There are many aspects of this that could be discussed at length, but I will just make two short comments.  The first is that the court held the patient must benefit from the drugging, which is highly dubious, at best.   The second, more over-arching, is that many of the requirements for obtaining an outpatient commitment order in New York cannot, in fact, be properly proven in most cases, such as the person is unlikely to survive without the forced drugging.  Again, that so many of these orders get issued demonstrates where I think the legal system vis-à-vis involuntary commitment and forced drugging is most broken, which is the lawyers assigned to represent people don’t do their job.

Forced Drugging Furthering Governmental Interest

The second Sell requirement is that the involuntary medication will significantly further the state interests justifying the forced drugging.  In other words, the forced drugging must accomplish the goal that justifies it.   So, again, the setting matters because that determines what is the state interest(s).   In the restore-a-criminal-defendant-to-competency situation so the state can put the person on trial, the forced drugging must therefore have a good likelihood of making someone competent to stand trial.   However, while in some cases drugs do knock down psychosis, most of the time they merely sedate the person so they are not bothersome.   This was classically stated in the recent reporting in connection with forced drugging of Jared Loughner:

He was removed from a May 25 court hearing when he lowered his head to within inches of the courtroom table, then lifted his head and began a loud and angry rant. But his psychologist has said that since Loughner has been forcibly medicated, his condition has improved. He sat still and expressionless for seven hours at a hearing in September.

Query:  Is sitting still and expressionless for seven hours an indication someone understands the charges against him and can assist his lawyer?   Of course not, it merely shows that the drugs prevent him from being disruptive.  In other words, the assertion that the drugs cause someone to become competent to stand trial can be challenged.  As an aside, I am not in favor of people using mental illness as a way to avoid criminal responsibility for their actions.

In the civil commitment and outpatient commitment contexts, it is also very dubious that the forced drugging will actually achieve the stated goals.   First, we know from Anatomy of an Epidemic and other sources that psychiatric drugs (a) increase rather than decrease violence, (b) dramatically shorten lives, (c) dramatically increase disability; and (d) dramatically decrease recovery.  Thus, it is quite questionable in many cases whether especially the parens patriae justification, in fact, exists.   However, even though psychiatric drugs, especially the antidepressants and neuroleptics, increase violence, the neuroleptics can also render people incapable of causing much trouble.  Thus, neuroleptics very well may further the governmental police power interest in that.

However, it is most often not true that the drugs accomplish the asserted justification for the forced drugging.  Again, the reason why so many forced drugging orders are issued is because the lawyers assigned to represent people, don’t do so.

Less Intrusive Alternatives

The third Sell requirement is the court must conclude that involuntary medication is necessary to further those interests; that there are no less intrusive alternatives.  The Alaska Supreme Court, in the Bigley case, addressed what the requirement means under the Alaska Constitution,

Although the state cannot intrude on a fundamental right where there is a less intrusive alternative, the alternative must actually be available, meaning that it is feasible and would actually satisfy the compelling state interests that justify the proposed state action.

(p. 31)

As Anatomy of an Epidemic, and many studies and other sources demonstrate, as a factual matter, this is rarely the case, especially if the government has to prove there are no less intrusive alternatives by clear and convincing evidence.

Here too, the lawyers appointed to represent people facing forced drugging rarely fulfill their obligation to assert the right to a less intrusive alternative.  However, proving there is a less intrusive alternative can be difficult even if the attorney tries because the hospital has an automatic “expert,” the testifying psychiatrist, while the defendant often does not have the resources to employ an expert or otherwise prepare a case.

In Bigley,  starting at page 30, the Alaska Supreme Court’s discussion of this issue can give one an idea of the way a court looks at it and the difficulties in prevailing.   In addition to the lawyers assigned to represent people not doing their job properly, one of the biggest obstacles is appellate judges, just like trial court judges, believe the common wisdom that the drugs are helpful and nothing else works.  As I wrote in A Three Pronged Approach to Mental Health System Change, this is one of the reasons why educating the public about the truth is so important.

 Best Interests

The final Sell requirement and the one that ultimately leads me inexorably to the conclusion that forced drugging  and electroshock cannot be properly ordered, is the “court must conclude that administration of the drugs is medically appropriate, i.e., in the patient’s best medical interest in light of his medical condition.”  The truth is that while a small percentage of people might rationally decide to take neuroleptics with full knowledge of their lack of effectiveness for most and harm to all, it is not possible for a court to legitimately find by clear and convincing evidence that forcing someone to take them is in their best interest.   Frankly, I don’t think it is possible under the preponderance of evidence standard.

Space doesn’t allow me go through the evidence on this, but Anatomy of an Epidemic  does.   Much of the evidence has also been compiled as part of PsychRights’ and MindFreedom’s Forced Drugging Defense Package.  It includes an affidavit from Robert Whitaker, the“clickable”  verson of which has hyperlinks to the cited studies.   Also, my 2008, law review article, Involuntary Commitment and Forced Psychiatric Drugging in the Trial Courts: Rights Violations as a Matter of Course has much of the same material woven with the legal standards and the perspective of people faced with such court proceedings.  The bottom line is the evidence does not support forcing someone to take psychiatric drugs against their will is in their best interests.

The same is true of electroshock in light of the harm and lack of benefit from electroshock.  In contrast to the neuroleptics, however, I think electroshock should be abolished altogether in light of its complete lack of benefit and extreme harm.

 Conclusion

Under the United States Constitution, as well as state constitutions, the government is not allowed to force someone to take psychiatric drugs or be electroshocked against their will unless it can prove such drugging or electroshocking is (1) necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest, (2) the least intrusive alternative, and (3) in the person’s best interest.   In most cases, neither the 1st or 2nd requirement is met because  (1) the drugging or electroshock does not accomplish the government interest asserted, and (2) there are less intrusive alternatives.   The last element, that the forced drugging or electroshock is in the person’s best interest, however, cannot be legitimately proven, which is why I conclude forced drugging and electroshock in the United States is illegal.

The question that jumps out from these circumstances is why people’s rights are being so pervasively violated?  The short answer, as I indicated in A Three Pronged Approach to Mental Health System Change, is the lawyers and judges believe the conventional wisdom that if the defendant wasn’t crazy she would know it is good for her so we won’t let her pesky constitutional rights get in the way.  This is why educating the public is so important.

In addition to this, however,  a big reason why people’s rights are being violated as a matter of course is the lawyers appointed to represent people faced with forced drugging and electroshock proceedings are not fulfilling their professional obligations when they go along with this.  But that is the subject of a future blog.

 

Electroshock Therapy: Is Oprah Right? Electric Shock Mental Health Treatment, Breeding Psychetruth

Medical Beauty Center, March 21, 2012

Friend us: http://www.Facebook.com Electroshock Therapy Is Oprah Right? Electric Shock Mental Health Treatment, Breeding Psychetruth Related Videos by Dr. Breeding: The Truth about Mental Health Disorders – Psychology http://www.youtube.com ECT, Electroshock, Electroconvulsive Therapy, Psychiatry http://www.youtube.com Dr. John Breeding, Ph.D. Psychologist testifies before the Austin City Council about Electroshock Therapy http://www.youtube.com ECT, Electroshock Therapy & The FDA Part 1, Psychology John Breeding http://www.youtube.com ECT, Electroshock Therapy & The FDA Part 2, Psychology John Breeding http://www.youtube.com Recovery from Mental Health Drugs & How to Find Help, Psychiatric Survivor Psychetruth http://www.youtube.com Dealing With Stigma & Isolation, Mental Illness Labels, Psychiatric Survivors, Psychetruth http://www.youtube.co

 

 

Alternatives to Bio Psychiatry Conference – L.A. Oct. 28-29

October 28-29, 2011 in Los Angeles, CA @ Double Tree by Hilton
13+ CEUs available for psychologists, MFTs, counselors, social workers & nurses!

Topics Include:

• Safe, humane, life-enhancing methods of treating adults, children, families and couples in psychological distress without reliance on psychotropic drugs.
• Consumer-centered interventions that help people move towards full recovery.
• Restoring psychotherapy as a first-line intervention in behavioral health.
• What parents and families can do to help children without reliance on psychotropic drugs.
• Withdrawing from psychotropic drugs: Clinical indications, safety and supervision concerns.
• The impact of the pharmaceutical industry on evidence-based clinical mental health practice.
• Treating children and adults with integrative care.

Panel Presentations, Roundtable Discussions, Meet the Authors & More!

• Psychotherapist Panel: Experts Discuss How They Work, Followed By Breakout Sessions on Each Clinical Approach!

• Early Psychosis Intervention Panel: How Can We Best Help Those in Crisis?

• Psychiatric Survivors Panel: Consumers Relay Their Experiences in the Mental Health System. Panel members include Nancy Rubenstein Del Giudice.

• Evidence-Based Literature Panel: What Clinicians Should Know About the Scientific Literature.

• The Bipolar Child Panel: Analyzing an Epidemic.

Confirmed Speakers 

• Paula J. Caplan, Ph.D.
  “When Johnny and Jane Came Marching Home: How All of Us Can Help Veterans”

• Nicholas Cummings, Ph.D
  “Restoring Psychotherapy as a First-Line Intervention”

• Thomas Szasz, M.D.
  “Varieties of Psychiatric Criticism”

• Robert Whitaker
  “Psychiatry’s Response to Anatomy of an Epidemic: What the Emperor Says When He Has No Clothes”

• David Antonuccio, Ph.D.
  “It May Be Time To Stop Calling Them ‘Antidepressants: Skills, Not Pills, for Depression'”

• Scott Shannon, M.D.
  “The Ecology of the Child: A New View of Pediatric Mental Health”

• David Stein, Ph.D.
  “A Unified Model for Matching Therapy with Etiology: Better Therapy Is the Most Effective Weapon Against Reliance on Drugs!

• Jacqueline Sparks, Ph.D.
  “Listening to Clients, Not Disorders: A Revolution in Therapeutic Services”

• David Oaks
  “Where’s Your Canoe? Uniting the Many Islands in Our Movement for Deep Change in Mental Health”

• David Cohen, Ph.D., LCSW
  “The Ethics and Politics of ‘Neuroenhancement'”

• Thomas Scheff, Ph.D.
  “A General Theory of ‘Mental Illness'”

• Joanne Cacciatore, Ph.D.
  “The Zen of Death: A Mindfullness-based Traumatic Bereavement Intervention”

• Howard Glasser
  “Transforming the Difficult Child”

• Ann Rider, MSW
  “Narrative Therapy in Peer Support: An Alternative Approach”

• Bose Ravenel, M.D.
  “Treating Behavioral Problems Without Drugs: An Integrative Approach to ADD, ODD, and Childhood Bipolar Disorder”

• Ron Unger, LCSW
  “Learning to Not Be “Psychotic”: Cognitive Therapy for Psychosis”

• Mark Foster, D.O.
  “Ghosts in the Machine: Lessons from the Front Lines of a Mental Health Revolution”

• Claudia M. Gold, M.D.
  “Over-reliance on Psychiatric Medications for Children: A Pediatrician’s View”

• Willa J. Casstevens, Ph.D. (w/ J. Coker and T. Sanders)
  “Exploring Voices in A Mentored Self-Help Approach to Voice Hearing”

• Brian Kean, Ph.D.
  “Psychotropic Medication in the Classroom: How Should Teachers and Education Students be Informed About This Complex Dilemma?”

• Virgil Stucker, MBA
  “Restoring Mental Health Through Relationship-Centered Care and Philanthropic Action”

• Jill Littrell, Ph.D.
  “Immune System Contribution to Major Depression and What to Do About It”

• Jeanne Stolzer, Ph.D.
  “Alternatives to ADHD Medications: A Bioevolutionary Perspective”

• Jacob Z. Hess, Ph.D.
  “‘If McDonald’s is the only place in town, we all eat Big Macs’: The case for diversifying community mental health education in the U.S.”

• Brad Hagen, Ph.D.
  “The Greater of Two Evils? How People with Transformative Psychotic Experiences View Psychotropic Medications.

• Dathan A. Paterno, Psy.D.
  “Desperately Seeking Parents: How to Reclaim Your Family”

• Phil Sinaikin, M.D.
  “Psychiatryland: Marketing and Manipulation Tactics of the Biopsychiatry – Psychopharmacology Industry”

• Jennifer Spaulding-Givens, Ph.D.
  “Florida Self-Directed Care: An Exploratory Study of Participants’ Characteristics, Goals, Service Utilization, and Outcomes”

• Fred Baughman, M.D.
  “An Epidemic of Sudden Cardiac Deaths in the Military Related to Psychotropic Drug Cocktails for PTSD”

• Jay Joseph, Psy.D.
  “The “Missing Heritability” of Psychiatric Disorders:  Elusive Genes or Non-Existent Genes?”

• Noelene Weatherby-Fell, Ph.D.
  “A Non-Medical Intervention for Supporting the Mental Health of Teachers and Students”

• Robert Grome, Ph.D.
  “The Differential School-Clinic: A Topological Approach To The Cure-Symptom”

continued here –

http://psychintegrity.org/2011-conf-los-angeles/

Define ‘Better’

Psycho/pharma spends billions of dollars a year marketing mental ‘disorders’ & drugs for kids — yet these drugs are documented by international drug regulatory agencies to cause mania, psychosis, hallucinations, suicide, violence, homicidal ideation, heart attack, stroke and death. What’s more, they are being prescribed for psychiatric disorders that are simply a checklist of behaviors.

Featuring Chill EB –

Let Them Choose Their Own Labels

20 Million Kids & Adolescents are labeled with “mental disorders” that are based solely on a checklist of behaviors. There are no brain scans, x-rays, genetic or blood tests that can prove they are “mentally ill”, yet these children are stigmatized for life with psychiatric disorders, and prescribed dangerous, life-threatening psychiatric drugs. Child drugging is a $4.8 billion-a-year industry. Get the facts about this multi-billion dollar industry that is labeling and drugging kids for profit.

One such ‘disorder’ is “Oppositional defiant disorder”… It is described as-  “This disorder is more common in boys than in girls. Some studies have shown that it affects 20% of school-age children. However, most experts believe this figure is high due to changing definitions of normal childhood behavior, and possible racial, cultural, and gender biases. This behavior typically starts by age 8, but it may start as early as the preschool years. This disorder is thought to be caused by a combination of biological, psychological, and social factors.”

It is now confirmed by USWGO News that the DSM-IV-TR Manual labels free thinkers, non conformers, civil disobedient advocates, those that question authority, and people considered hostile toward the government (aka Oath keepers and local militias) as mentally ill with the illness titled “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD.

It was reported on October 8 2010 from OffTheGrid News that anybody who is disobedient, defiant,  a free thinker, or even considered hostile toward authority was to be labeled by psychiatrists as ‘Mentally Ill’.

Now I have got my hands on a ebook version of the year 2000 version of the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental  Disorders DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition (Text Revision) By the American Psychiatric Association version DSM-TV-TR (The non TR Version was said to be older and so I got the newer one which had the information that Off The Grid News warned about).

Now as I search up the keywords “oppositional defiant disorder” on adobe reader I found exactly what Off The Grid News was talking about. So it is now Confirmed basically that anyone who disobeys authority or even questions authority is now considered mentally ill and can be thrown in a prison-like mental institution under tax payers dollars.

I’d like to ask… what is the definition of ‘normal’ in your mind? Is there a universal definition? I don’t think so! When will they STOP putting people, especially kids, into boxes?!!

Nation of Pill Poppers, 19 Dangerous Drugs Pushed by Big Pharma

from AlterNet, December 5, 2010 , by Martha Rosenberg

Here are some of the dicey drugs many Americans are hooked on, thanks to greedy pharmaceutical companies.

Since direct-to-consumer drug advertising was legalized 13 years ago, Americans have become a nation of pill poppers — choosing the type of drug they desire like a new toothpaste, sometimes whether or not they need it.

But if patients want the drugs, doctors and pharma executives want them to have the drugs and media gets full page ads and huge TV flights (when many advertisers have dried up), is the national pillathon really a problem?

Yes, when you consider the cost of private and government insurance and the health of patients who take potentially dangerous drugs like these.

Seroquel, Zyprexa, Geodon, atypical antipsychotics

Even though the antipsychotic Seroquel surpasses 71 drugs on the FDA’s January quarterly report with 1766 adverse events, even though it’s linked to eight corruption scandals, even though military parents blame Seroquel for unexplained troop deaths, it is the fifth biggest-selling drug in the world and netted AstraZeneca almost $5 billion last year.

Atypicals were originally promoted to replace side-effect prone drugs like Thorazine but soon became pharmaceutical Swiss Army Knives for depression, anxiety, insomnia, bipolar and conduct disorders and other off label uses — and betrayed the same side effects as older antipsychotics. (Especially tardive dyskinesia-linked Abilify.)

Foisted disproportionately on the young, poor and disadvantaged, atypicals cause such weight gain and metabolic derangement — 16 percent of Zyprexa patients gain 66 pounds and some gain over 100 — manufacturer Lilly Eli Lilly agreed to pay the state of Alaska $15 million in 2008 for the Medicaid costs of Zyprexa patients who developed diabetes.

Atypicals carry warnings of death in demented patients but are widely used in nursing homes. And even though Risperdal maker Johnson & Johnson, Geodon maker Pfizer, Abilify maker Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly and AstraZeneca have all entered into government settlements that acknowledge fraudulent or wrongful atypical marketing, FDA rewarded atypical makers by approving Zyprexa and Seroquel for children last year. And approved a new atypical antipsychotic, Latuda, in October. Maybe the FDA is bipolar.

Ritalin, Concerta, Strattera, Adderall and ADHD drugs

When it comes to the epidemic of 5.3 million US children between 3 and 17 diagnosed with ADHD, suspicions of pharma pushing the disorder are exceeded only by pharma’s admissions thereof.

During an August conference call with financial analysts, Shire specialty pharmaceuticals president Mike Cola credited the “very dynamic ADHD market” to Shire’s globalization efforts and “investments we have made in new uses for our existing products.”

Those uses, a.k.a. diagnoses, for Shire products like stimulants Adderall, Vyvanse and Intuniv include adult ADHD, cognitive impairment, depression and excessive daytime sleepiness.

Still, Cola says despite the 10 percent ADHD “new starts” that are helping Shire “grow the market,” and the “co-administration market” of add-on prescription drug$, the ADHD franchise suffers from patients who drop out when they quit seeing their pediatrician. “We don’t see those patients show up again until their mid-to-late 20s,” laments Cola.

ADHD drugs, in addition to “robbing kids of their right to be kids, their right to grow, their right to experience their full range of emotions, and their right to experience the world in its full hue of colors,” as Anatomy of an Epidemic author Robert Whitaker puts it, can also be deadly.

A 2009 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry called Sudden Death and Use of Stimulant Medications in Youths found 1.8 percent of youthful stimulant users died sudden deaths from cardiac dysrhythmia or unexplained causes versus 0.4 percent who were not on stimulants. Though it helped fund the study, the FDA said the results proved no “real risk” and kids should keep taking their meds.

Meanwhile, says Robert Whitaker, kids on ADHD meds “are told they are going to be on these drugs for life. And next thing they know, they’re on two or three or four drugs,” a phenomenon also known as the co-administration market.

Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, SSRIs

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft and Lexapro probably did more to inflate pharma profits in the last decade than direct-to-consumer advertising and Viagra put together, no pun intended: over 60 million prescriptions were filled in the US in 2007 with many patients reporting their depression lifted.

But some critics say for mild depression, SSRIs don’t work at all and are no better than placebo.

And others say they can add aggression, bizarre behavior, self-harm and suicidal thoughts to depression. In fact, there are 4,200 published reports of SSRI-related violence, aggression, bizarre behavior, self-harm and suicide since the drugs were introduced in 1988 including the well known gun massacres at Columbine (1999), Red Lake (2005), NIU and likely, Virginia Tech (2007).

SSRIs have non-behavioral perks both sides agree on: life-threatening serotonin syndrome when taken with migraine drugs, gastrointestinal bleeding when taken with aspirin, Aleve or Advil and the bone condition, osteoporosis.

Paxil can reduce or abolish the effect of tamoxifen in breast cancer patients and increase deaths says British Medical Journal. It’s linked to a two-fold increased risk of cardiac birth defects in infants according to its own manufacturer, GSK.

And sex? SSRIs are so linked to dysfunction even the pharma-identified web site WebMD admits many will experience impotence, delayed ejaculation or no orgasm. But there is a solution (besides going off SSRIs) says WebMD: Add another antidepressant that’s not an SSRI, like Wellbutrin!

Effexor, Cymbalta, Pristiq, SNRIs

Selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are like their SSRIs chemical cousins except their norepinephrine effects can modulate pain, which has ushered in your-depression-is-really-pain, your-pain-is-really-depression and other crossover marketing. But the problem with giving a psychoactive drug for pain is that you’re giving a psychoactive drug for pain. “After three months of taking Savella [another SNRI], I started self-destructing and cutting myself,” writes a 40 year old woman on askapatient.com. “I don’t know why or anything, but it does similar to Prozac where it makes you think and do weird things.”

And Cymbalta, approved this fall for chronic back pain and osteoarthritis?

Cymbalta was the drug healthy 19-year-old volunteer Traci Johnson was testing when she hung herself in an Eli Lilly dorm in 2005. It was the drug Carol Anne Gotbaum killed herself on at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport in 2007.

SNRI’s are also harder to quit than SSRIs, especially Effexor. 25-year-old Chicagoan David F. told AlterNet he stood at the top of an 8-story parking lot contemplating jumping every day for weeks after quitting. It’s also the drug Andrea Yates was on when she drowned her five children in 2001.

But not all SNRI side effects are behavioral. The FDA would not approve Pristiq, a newer version of Effexor, when Wyeth/Pfizer tried to market it for vasomotor symptoms, because it caused heart attacks, coronary artery obstruction and hypertension in clinical trials. That’s similar to another SNRI, the diet pill Meridia, which was just withdrawn from the market for causing heart problems. Pristiq is still available.

Foradil Aerolizer, Serevent Diskus, Advair and Symbicort

How could asthma drugs that increase the chance of dying of asthma become pharma’s top sellers? The same way antidepressants that cause depression and antifracture drugs that cause fractures become top sellers: good consumer marketing.

Still, unlike drugs that look safe in trials and develop safety signals postmarketing, the long-acting beta agonists (LABA), salmeterol and formoterol, found in many asthma products, never looked safe. In fact it was their links to deaths and adverse events that led to studies in the 1990s and 2000s which showed more deaths and adverse events: LABAS increase death in users, say the studies, especiallyAfrican-Americans and children.

Original safety trials were also marred with major fraud.

Pharma doctors, when reviewing the study results at FDA hearings in 2005 and 2008, blamed LABA deaths on patients’ underlying disease and non-compliance and dismissed hospitalization as a side effect less serious than death. They danced around FDA testimony, including from Dr David Graham of Vioxx fame, that there is no scientific evidence that the inhaled corticosteriods found in Advair and Symbicort make the products safer and that LABA’s modest clinical benefit does not justify their 28-fold increase in mortality risks. (5,000 deaths in ten years estimated Graham.)

While many regard LABAs as a medical mishap, marketing for “step up” asthma treatment is no misttake. Though inhaled corticosteriods are still considered the best asthma treatment, millions have been convinced they need two drugs to control their asthma and that the combination is keeping them out of hospitals. Except when it isn’t.

Singulair and Accolate, leukotriene receptor antagonists

How did Merck convince Americans to use an allergy drug that works no better than over-the-counter antihistamines but costs eight times as much?

A drug in which “asthma control deteriorates when switched from low dose inhaled corticosteriods” according to original FDA reviewers in 1998 — but was approved anyway?

How did Merck convince pediatricians and mothers to give kids such a drug on a daily basis for seasonal allergies, runny noses and minor wheezing? Even though FDA reviewers cautioned that adult trials “may not be predictive of the response” in children in the New England Journal of Medicine? And infant monkeys given Singulair had to be euthanized because “infants may be more sensitive” FDA reviewers wrote?

Last month, the saga of Singulair mismarketing story continued when Fox TV reported that Merck’s top selling allergy drug is suspected of producing aggression, hostility, irritability, anxiety, hallucinations and night-terrors in kids, symptoms that are being diagnosed as ADHD.

And that Singulair is being huckstered to parents by the trusted educational service Scholastic, Inc. and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Eight-nine parents on the drug site askapatient.com report hyperactivity, tantrums, depression, crying, school trouble, facial tics and strange eye movements after their children, some as young as one, were put on Singulair. Similar reports appear on medications.com and parentsforsafety.org. Most symptoms subside when Singulair is stopped.

“Do NOT recommend this drug to other parents,” writes one mother. “4 year olds that suddenly talk about killing themselves are influenced by a DRUG!!

“THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES FOR APPROVING THIS!!!!” writes another mother, though the shame may well not stop there.