This unidentified press release, likely a product of police PR flacks and a lobbyist for drug corporations announces new rules for taking the freedom of vulnerable persons. (no byline, "Cambridge Police begin new training for mental health responses," May 20, 2014, CAMBRIDGE Chronicle) NAMI promotes a deceptive image as being a civil rights advocate for mental patients. Formed as a parents organization it morphed into a lobbyist funded by drug corporations ($11 million or more each year from drug companies) to promote drug treatment. Here is an example of how thoroughly drug corporate interests control treatment and incarceration of troubled individuals. Notice there is no mention of any disability advocates to protect the rights of vulnerable citizens. None of the many taxpayer funded agencies with well paid attorneys contributed to the creation of this protocol for taking the freedom of citizens. There are no assurances of the Right to Due Process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It is one more example of how unelected corporate lobbyists make policy, and run government agencies, now police agencies too, who can take freedom and life with no accountability. It is one more dangerous step in the elimination of freedom in this country. The Nazi doctors and Stalin's psychiatrists extensively used psychiatry to silence dissent and criticism, and to incarcerate political activists. Due to dumbed down journalists and the general population the image psychiatrists in America have, is that their genes have been cleansed of mendacity, greed and sadism. They show contempt for laws which regulate their behavior, and abuse humans as control freaks with limitless power, while they speak of love for their vulnerable clients. The state legislature writes laws determining when and how police can take the freedom of civilians. This is a dangerous effort in the name of good. It needs scrutiny by disability rights attorneys.
[From article]
Funded through a grant from the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health, police departments in Cambridge and Somerville, working with the National Alliance on Mental Illness, developed the CIT-TTAC regional program to provide 40 hours of CIT training for police officers, while fostering partnerships between law enforcement and community human services providers, to improve law enforcement response to people with mental illness.
[. . .]
"We laud the Department of Mental Health and our partners — the Cambridge and Somerville Police departments — for their leadership and for serving as a model for communities across the commonwealth," said June Binney, director of the NAMI Mass Criminal Justice Program.
http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20140520/NEWS/140529723
Cambridge Police begin new training for mental health responses
Posted May. 20, 2014 @ 12:13 pm
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle
Showing posts with label NAMI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NAMI. Show all posts
April 2, 2014
Enabling Police Abuse of Disabled Persons
[From article]
The problem was that Mr. Boyd, 38, had a history of mental illness, and so was living in a different reality, one in which he was a federal agent and not someone to be bossed around.
“Don’t attempt to give me, the Department of Defense, another directive,” he told the officers. A short while later, the police shot and killed him, saying he had pulled out two knives and threatened their lives.
[. . .]
focused attention on the growing number of people with severe mental disorders who, in the absence of adequate mental health services, are coming in contact with the criminal justice system, sometimes with deadly consequences.
[. . .]
police officers find themselves playing dual roles as law enforcers and psychiatric social workers. County jails and state prisons have become de facto mental institutions;
[. . .]
“I think that this issue hits every city, every part of the country where you have people who are walking on the street who normally would have been under some kind of treatment or institutionalized,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum,
[. . .]
Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, a psychiatrist and the founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit group in Arlington, Va., that promotes access to mental health care,
[. . .]
But officers can sometimes make a crisis worse, either out of fear or in a reflexive effort to control the situation and enforce compliance.
[. . .]
the Treatment Advocacy Center and the National Sheriff’s Association, based on informal studies and accounts, estimated that half the number of people shot and killed by the police have mental health problems.
[. . .]
According to a report by the New Mexico Public Defender Department, which offers free legal services to indigent clients, nearly 75 percent of those shot in 2010 and 2011 suffered from mental illness.
[. . .]
About 6 percent of the population, or one in 17 Americans, suffer from a serious mental illness, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. Studies suggest that the mentally ill are involved in only about 4 percent of violent crimes. But when untreated, severe mental illness is associated with higher rate of violence, researchers have found.
[. . .]
“It’s like if we stopped treating heart disease until people had heart attacks,” said Ronald S. Honberg, director of policy and legal affairs at the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
After many years of institutionalized abuses of disabled persons, The New York Times quotes two persons who are economically embedded in the psychiatric industry and drug corporations. (By FERNANDA SANTOS and ERICA GOODE, "Police Confront Rising Number of Mentally Ill Suspects," New York Times, APRIL 1, 2014) Torrey promotes forced drug treatment and portrays disabled persons as dangerous and violent. NAMI gets $11 million each year from drug companies to promote drug treatment. Neither of these lobbyists speak for the rights of troubled persons who are often described by police as diseases. This article shows that disabled persons are being killed by police without accountability. It indicates that Times' editors ignore abuses of vulnerable persons and treat them as patients and prisoners, a problem for control instead of protecting their rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/us/police-shootings-of-mentally-ill-suspects-are-on-the-upswing.html?hp&_r=1
Police Confront Rising Number of Mentally Ill Suspects
By FERNANDA SANTOS and ERICA GOODE
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/us/police-shootings-of-mentally-ill-suspects-are-on-the-upswing.html?hp&_r=1
Police Confront Rising Number of Mentally Ill Suspects
By FERNANDA SANTOS and ERICA GOODE
APRIL 1, 2014
New York Times
January 24, 2012
Disability Agency Works Against Disabled Persons
The below excerpt is from
"AccessLetter
February — March 2012
E-mail edition
News & Information for the Access-Minded
Cambridge [MA} Commission for Persons with Disabilities":
There are two notices from the National Alliance On Mental Illness, (NAMI). NAMI gets two to three million dollars each year to promote drug treatment to persons accused of mental illness. NAMI does not protect the rights or interests of persons with disabilities. Taxpayer funded agencies like the Cambridge Commission for Persons With Disabilities work for drug companies and their lobbyists to promote the business interests of the companies. Those interests are often in conflict with the rights of persons with disabilities.
This is clear from the description in the notice which is repeated by other organizations (e.g., M-POWER) which work with and for NAMI. The phrase is "The group is free and open to all who self-identify as having a mental illness." The Americans With Disabilites Act, The Rehabilitation Act, state and US laws that protect the rights of persons with disabilities has a directly opposite standard. The standard which creates discrimination based on disability is that the person is perceived as having a disability. It does not matter to the law what the person thinks of himself. What matters is what others think of him or her. The standard promoted by NAMI is the psychiatric standard for treatment. A person cannot be cured of mental illness if he does not recognize that he is mentally ill. It is a religious standard. Psychiatric illnesses can only be seen by psychiatrists.
If the illnesses were real it would not matter what the afflicted person thought. Compare if a person does not recognize that he has a rash. But the rash can be cured regardless.
Here is an example of a taxpayer funded city agency ignoring laws and promoting the standards created by the lobbyist for drug companies. It is one of several current standards among the alleged advocates for the rights of persons with disabilities that prevents them from enjoying their rights. Taxpayer funded agencies work against their interests. Shocking isn't it? Are journalists and elected officials clueless or what?
[From newsletter]
"Mondays
"AccessLetter
February — March 2012
E-mail edition
News & Information for the Access-Minded
Cambridge [MA} Commission for Persons with Disabilities":
There are two notices from the National Alliance On Mental Illness, (NAMI). NAMI gets two to three million dollars each year to promote drug treatment to persons accused of mental illness. NAMI does not protect the rights or interests of persons with disabilities. Taxpayer funded agencies like the Cambridge Commission for Persons With Disabilities work for drug companies and their lobbyists to promote the business interests of the companies. Those interests are often in conflict with the rights of persons with disabilities.
This is clear from the description in the notice which is repeated by other organizations (e.g., M-POWER) which work with and for NAMI. The phrase is "The group is free and open to all who self-identify as having a mental illness." The Americans With Disabilites Act, The Rehabilitation Act, state and US laws that protect the rights of persons with disabilities has a directly opposite standard. The standard which creates discrimination based on disability is that the person is perceived as having a disability. It does not matter to the law what the person thinks of himself. What matters is what others think of him or her. The standard promoted by NAMI is the psychiatric standard for treatment. A person cannot be cured of mental illness if he does not recognize that he is mentally ill. It is a religious standard. Psychiatric illnesses can only be seen by psychiatrists.
If the illnesses were real it would not matter what the afflicted person thought. Compare if a person does not recognize that he has a rash. But the rash can be cured regardless.
Here is an example of a taxpayer funded city agency ignoring laws and promoting the standards created by the lobbyist for drug companies. It is one of several current standards among the alleged advocates for the rights of persons with disabilities that prevents them from enjoying their rights. Taxpayer funded agencies work against their interests. Shocking isn't it? Are journalists and elected officials clueless or what?
[From newsletter]
"Mondays
NAMI Connection – a support group for adults with mental illness sponsored by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, meets every Monday, 1-2:30 p.m. at the Cambridge Somerville Recovery Learning Center, 153 South St, 2nd Floor in Somerville. The group is free and open to all who self-identify as having a mental illness, regardless of diagnosis. For more information, contact Janel Tan at 617-863-5388 or <tanj@vinfen.org>.
NAMI Support Group for Caregivers –Sponsored by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, this is a free support group for family members, friends and other caregivers of persons with mental illness that provides understanding, comfort, hope and help. This group meets on the 1st and 3rd Monday of each month at 7:30pm at the Cambridge Hospital Learning Center A, 3rd Floor, 1493 Cambridge Street. For more information, see <www.namimass.org/programs>, e-mail <helpline@namimass.org>, or call Elizabeth at 781‑646‑0397."
October 27, 2011
Surprise! Liberal Journalists Are Biased. Duh!
David Oaks released an emergency alert (copied below) regarding a (conference dated 2010 and) report posted on the Huffington Post web pages. He asks (in his original alert) "That passes as news coverage?"
My question is, Where have you been for the last generation? Journalists, many of whom are psychiatric patients willingly taking psychiatric drugs, are incapable of skepticism regarding psychiatry. Journalists, lawyers, politicians, courts, judges and caregivers do not question any of the assumptions of a group of people who act as if their genes have been cleansed of mendacity, greed and sadism. Ever wonder how such irrational laws were created by state and US legislative bodies?
One major barrier to skepticism by journalists and public officials about psychiatry is that they believe that NAMI is an advocacy group for the rights of mental patients. They are unaware that NAMI is a front organization for the drug companies, and funded by them to promote, advocate for, more taxpayer funded drug treatment. NAMI says they are concerned about stigma, but only in so far as it inhibits more treatment, and taxpayer funding. The stigma toward those who willingly submit to the psychiatric control freak drug pushers, are omitted from their concern. NAMI ignores state and US laws that prohibit unlawful discrimination. They do not promote employment for persons accused of mental illness. They are solely focused on promoting more drug treatment. Why not educate your members, public officials, journalists and alleged professionals about that fact?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[Notice: links to pages beginning with 3ly, are no good. They lead to a site threely.com.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
~~~~~~~~~~~
My question is, Where have you been for the last generation? Journalists, many of whom are psychiatric patients willingly taking psychiatric drugs, are incapable of skepticism regarding psychiatry. Journalists, lawyers, politicians, courts, judges and caregivers do not question any of the assumptions of a group of people who act as if their genes have been cleansed of mendacity, greed and sadism. Ever wonder how such irrational laws were created by state and US legislative bodies?
One major barrier to skepticism by journalists and public officials about psychiatry is that they believe that NAMI is an advocacy group for the rights of mental patients. They are unaware that NAMI is a front organization for the drug companies, and funded by them to promote, advocate for, more taxpayer funded drug treatment. NAMI says they are concerned about stigma, but only in so far as it inhibits more treatment, and taxpayer funding. The stigma toward those who willingly submit to the psychiatric control freak drug pushers, are omitted from their concern. NAMI ignores state and US laws that prohibit unlawful discrimination. They do not promote employment for persons accused of mental illness. They are solely focused on promoting more drug treatment. Why not educate your members, public officials, journalists and alleged professionals about that fact?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[Notice: links to pages beginning with 3ly, are no good. They lead to a site threely.com.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Below is UPDATED and CORRECTED version of yesterday's alert.
~~~~~~~~~~~
News with photo: http://3.ly/mfijaffe
~~~~~~~~~~~
The Huffington Post Carries Attack on "Alternatives 2010" Mental Health Conference
ACTION: Ask Editors of Huffington Post For Fair Coverage of Mental Health
by David W. Oaks, Director, MindFreedom International
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA: Yesterday, the sound of a rare thunderstorm resounded over the hotel ballroom roof as journalist Robert Whitaker keynoted to the Alternatives 2010 conference, where more than 1,000 mental health consumers and psychiatric survivors have registered.
Whitaker delivered a message worthy of the thunder, based on his book Anatomy of an Epidemic. He provided scientific data that the psychiatric profession has grossly deceived the public for decades about the risks and benefits of psychiatric drugs.
BIAS AT THE HUFFINGTON POST
You'd think a blog like The Huffington Post would be intrigued about how a marginalized population has found its own voice and delivers peer-delivered services.
You won't find such news in The Huffington Post. Instead, as they have many times before, The Huffington Post ran another diatribe by extremist D. J. Jaffe, which you can read here:
In his Huffington Post blog, Jaffe has repeatedly called for making it easier and easier to get court orders to force us to take psychiatric drugs, and he does that again in The Huffington Post "news coverage" of Alternatives 2010. It turns out Jaffe never even made an appearance at the conference that he "covered."
You can try try adding your comment directly to the debate on Jaffe's blog entry by logging in on The Huffington Post at the above link.
However, I have submitted two comments to this Huffington Post in blog in the past two days, and neither one has been approved by their editors so far. You can read my posts, which have apparently been suppressed, on MFI's blog here:
IT'S TIME FOR EVERYONE TO CONTACT THE HUFFINGTON POST EDITORS, DIRECTLY.
Ask a simple, strong, civil question. You can do this action without registering on their web site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
ACTION * ACTION * ACTION
A sample question to ask The Huffington Post -- though your own words are best:
"Dear Huffington Post Editors: You have bloggers covering mental health. But why don't you give prominent coverage to any representative from the mental health consumer and psychiatric survivor movement? Doesn't this constituency deserve a voice? The disability movement has a saying, 'Nothing About Us, Without Us.' If you carry Jaffe's hate speech, then what about the other side of the story?"
Because this Huffington Post contact page has no exact feedback form to Huffington editors, we imagine both the following e-mail addresses could be relevant:
Also, there's a web form there for 'corrections,' and Jaffe has a lot of errors you can mention. It figures, since apparently he did not even attend the event he's 'reporting' on.
Please forward this alert to others who care about media bias in mental health.
August 12, 2011
Journalists Lack Skepticism
Boston Herald publishes a "reported diagnosis" for what reason? To discredit the suspect? Because a housing administrator made the diagnosis? Or did he reveal medical records contrary to state and US law? Congratulations for noting the dangers of psychiatric drugs. Are potential drug company advertisements the reason this is not an issue for journalists to warn the public? Choosing Howard Trachtman to comment on psychiatric abuses is like asking John Edwards to discuss marriage loyalty. NAMI is not a civil rights organization. Each year drug companies give NAMI about $3 million to promote drug treatment.
[From article]
"reportedly has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic,
[. . .]
Moore was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, said Boston Housing Authority administrator William McGonagle. Moore’s attorney yesterday requested a psychiatric evaluation. In court records, Moore said he was on the anti-anxiety drug Klonopin at the time of the shooting. Federal health authorities caution people taking the drug of potential suicidal or aggressive behavior.
[. . .]
Howard Trachtman, director of the Greater Boston affiliate of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said for those with mental illness,"
[See also this biased report on WFXT-TV FOX25 Boston at
http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/08/fox25-wfxt-tv-boston-ma-bias.html
http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0812headlinegoes/
Noise dispute eyed in Brighton murder
By Marie Szaniszlo and John Zaremba
Boston Herald
Friday, August 12, 2011
[From article]
"reportedly has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic,
[. . .]
Moore was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, said Boston Housing Authority administrator William McGonagle. Moore’s attorney yesterday requested a psychiatric evaluation. In court records, Moore said he was on the anti-anxiety drug Klonopin at the time of the shooting. Federal health authorities caution people taking the drug of potential suicidal or aggressive behavior.
[. . .]
Howard Trachtman, director of the Greater Boston affiliate of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said for those with mental illness,"
[See also this biased report on WFXT-TV FOX25 Boston at
http://enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com/2011/08/fox25-wfxt-tv-boston-ma-bias.html
http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0812headlinegoes/
Noise dispute eyed in Brighton murder
By Marie Szaniszlo and John Zaremba
Boston Herald
Friday, August 12, 2011
January 15, 2011
NAMI Propaganda Exploiting Arizona Tragedy
No business interests exploit tragedy as thoroughly and as shamelessly as the psychiatric industry and the drug companies. Quoting NAMI shows how biased this report is. 55 percent of NAMI's budget is from drug companies to promote drug treatment. Mental illnesses are created by consensus not science. Psychiatry defines illness as speech and behavior which psychiatrists do not like or do not understand. Most of the speech and behavior so defined is protected by the US Constitution. In the name of preventing violence psychiatry and this woman obsessed with the brain wants to criminalize if not medicalize legal speech and behavior. Concerned about irrational thought processes? Examine politicians. There's a group that needs supervision. NAMI promotes violating state and US privacy laws in order to reveal medical records to the media. TSA wants citizens to report suspicious packages and behavior. TSA arrested a teacher for having a suspicious bagel and keys in a bag. Reporting non conformist behavior and speech protected by the US Constitution, will lead to even more abuses. Think the film Idiocracy, with NAMI in charge. NAMI and the New York Times promote psychiatry as a way to control non conformists. Psychiatry as reported here demands unchanging conformity, else one is dangerous and needs treatment. Mother dead? Hit by a car? You are mentally ill if you are not as happy as before. This PR flack for NAMI says it is terrifying to deny one is mentally ill. For what real illness do police enforce diagnoses, and force treatment? Even if the professional caring community actually prevented violence they create more than they prevent. The greatest fear of the drug industry and their salesmen psychiatrists is that citizens will learn that dangerous chemicals can cause violence in humans. Expressing their personal opinions in the name of good with support from misguided journalists (many of whom love psychiatric chemicals), they are able to fool citizens. How often do lamestream media outlets quote critics of psychiatry? It is all one-sided reporting. It is not necessary to fool politicians; NAMI only needs to give them campaign contributions to write more laws wasting taxpayer funds for psychiatry and chemicals.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-14/jared-loughners-mental-illness-why-wasnt-he-committed/
Jared Loughner: Why Wasn't He Committed?
by Sharon Begley
Daily Beast
January 14, 2011
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-14/jared-loughners-mental-illness-why-wasnt-he-committed/
Jared Loughner: Why Wasn't He Committed?
by Sharon Begley
Daily Beast
January 14, 2011
November 8, 2009
Stigma is No Barrier to Treatment
After many years of PR flacks promoting the idea of stigma, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) promotes the idea that stigma prevents people from seeking treatment. Contrary to that paradigm are state and US laws (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Rehabilitation Act of 1973), which address discrimination, which denies to persons PERCEIVED as mentally ill (i.e., having a disability) from enjoying the same rights and privileges as "normal" persons. NAMI does not address this perspective at all. They remain focused on promoting drug treatment because they receive major funding from drug corporations. See e.g.,
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/644/36/
NAMI Constituency Revealed
AHRP.com
If a person wants psychiatric treatment there are no barriers other than internal ones. But if a person with a disability wants government services e.g., protection from crime police often deny them basic rights. NAMI ignores those abuses as does this essay.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-08/how-to-help-the-shell-shocked/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL2
How to Help the Shell-Shocked
by Shermakaye Bass
Daily Beast
November 8, 2009
Shermakaye Bass is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. She has written for People, the International Herald Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, National Geographic Traveler, the New York Times, and Texas Highways, among others.
After many years of PR flacks promoting the idea of stigma, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) promotes the idea that stigma prevents people from seeking treatment. Contrary to that paradigm are state and US laws (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Rehabilitation Act of 1973), which address discrimination, which denies to persons PERCEIVED as mentally ill (i.e., having a disability) from enjoying the same rights and privileges as "normal" persons. NAMI does not address this perspective at all. They remain focused on promoting drug treatment because they receive major funding from drug corporations. See e.g.,
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/644/36/
NAMI Constituency Revealed
AHRP.com
If a person wants psychiatric treatment there are no barriers other than internal ones. But if a person with a disability wants government services e.g., protection from crime police often deny them basic rights. NAMI ignores those abuses as does this essay.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-08/how-to-help-the-shell-shocked/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL2
How to Help the Shell-Shocked
by Shermakaye Bass
Daily Beast
November 8, 2009
Shermakaye Bass is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. She has written for People, the International Herald Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, National Geographic Traveler, the New York Times, and Texas Highways, among others.
November 4, 2009
Drug Company Propaganda?
This essay makes no sense even as propaganda for drug companies. Diagnoses and legal prescriptions made by the mother of man convicted of murder of a policeman is based on what expertise? Psychiatry? Law? Drug Treatment? NAMI is not a civil rights organization. Link to US Senate investigation of NAMI a front for drug companies.
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/644/36/
NAMI Constituency Revealed
AHRP.com
Lamenting "laws that allow dangerously sick people to roam the streets" does she support allowing psychiatrists and police taking freedom of persons who say or act in ways that psychiatrists do not like or understand? The woman disrespects the Bill of Rights. Police love that psychiatry lacks due process requirements.
She says he weighed 200 pounds but "His psychosis made him so strong." Huh? She admits that "none [of the prescribed drugs] seemed to work." If psychiatry was science the drugs would cure illnesses. Psychiatry treats symptoms not illnesses which are created by consensus not science.
She objects to "informed consent" for persons accused of mental illness saying "This is absolute insanity, to allow someone who is severely mentally ill to make those kinds of choices.” Here's a problem. "She knew it wasn’t his fault," suggesting it was the fault of an illness. Flip Wilson blamed the devil. What's the difference? Here's another bizarre practice--police enforce psychiatric diagnoses. Why don't they enforce diagnoses of broken legs or rashes? Timmy "came to see [the police] as the symbolic enemy." If a person commits a crime he is liable for the act. If an illness causes crime or violence it is a simple matter to incarcerate all persons accused of mental illnesses which only psychiatrists can see. The FDA warns that psychiatric drugs cause violent thoughts. Psychiatrists admit that stopping taking drugs cause violence. If toxic psychiatric chemicals cause violence if stopped why start? When will journalists scrutinize the violence caused by psychiatry?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-03/how-a-psychiatric-slip-up-killed-a-cop/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL1
How a Psychiatric Slip-Up Killed a Cop
by Mansfield Frazier
Daily Beast
November 3, 2009
This essay makes no sense even as propaganda for drug companies. Diagnoses and legal prescriptions made by the mother of man convicted of murder of a policeman is based on what expertise? Psychiatry? Law? Drug Treatment? NAMI is not a civil rights organization. Link to US Senate investigation of NAMI a front for drug companies.
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/644/36/
NAMI Constituency Revealed
AHRP.com
Lamenting "laws that allow dangerously sick people to roam the streets" does she support allowing psychiatrists and police taking freedom of persons who say or act in ways that psychiatrists do not like or understand? The woman disrespects the Bill of Rights. Police love that psychiatry lacks due process requirements.
She says he weighed 200 pounds but "His psychosis made him so strong." Huh? She admits that "none [of the prescribed drugs] seemed to work." If psychiatry was science the drugs would cure illnesses. Psychiatry treats symptoms not illnesses which are created by consensus not science.
She objects to "informed consent" for persons accused of mental illness saying "This is absolute insanity, to allow someone who is severely mentally ill to make those kinds of choices.” Here's a problem. "She knew it wasn’t his fault," suggesting it was the fault of an illness. Flip Wilson blamed the devil. What's the difference? Here's another bizarre practice--police enforce psychiatric diagnoses. Why don't they enforce diagnoses of broken legs or rashes? Timmy "came to see [the police] as the symbolic enemy." If a person commits a crime he is liable for the act. If an illness causes crime or violence it is a simple matter to incarcerate all persons accused of mental illnesses which only psychiatrists can see. The FDA warns that psychiatric drugs cause violent thoughts. Psychiatrists admit that stopping taking drugs cause violence. If toxic psychiatric chemicals cause violence if stopped why start? When will journalists scrutinize the violence caused by psychiatry?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-03/how-a-psychiatric-slip-up-killed-a-cop/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL1
How a Psychiatric Slip-Up Killed a Cop
by Mansfield Frazier
Daily Beast
November 3, 2009
October 30, 2009
NAMI is Not a Civil Rights Advocate
This article like others from the lazy journalist class cites NAMI as a mental health advocate. The terms are misleading. NAMI advocates for drug treatment not for constitutional rights or for humans. NAMI gets $3 million each year from drug companies to promote drug treatment. US Senator Grassley investigates their abuses.
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/644/36/
NAMI Constituency Revealed
AHRP.com
Saying the museum inhibits persons from seeking treatment shows their focus. If NAMI was truly interested in ending discrimination against persons with disabilities and helping them enjoy their basic constitutional rights, they would lobby against forced treatment which violates the US Constitution. They would object to negative bias among politicians, judges, prosecutors, Police, FBI, human services corporations, and journalists. These people every day refer to persons with disabilities as violent and scare others from allowing them to enjoy their rights.
NAMI encourages this stigma because the victims of the discrimination are forced into the hands of psychiatrists who will prescribe drugs for the drug companies. NAMI focuses on promoting drug treatment and leaves intact government regulations and laws which are egregious abuses of persons with disabilities. NAMI's funding comes from corporations which earn billions pushing toxic chemicals on humans. These drugs are known to cause violent thoughts and acts after starting and stopping taking these chemicals. If the drugs cause violence why start? Promoting dangerous drugs must end. NAMI ignores the constitutional rights of persons with disabilities. They advocate for drug companies not humans.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/clinton_asylum_of_terror_haunt.html
Clinton 'Asylum of Terror' haunted house angers N.J. mental-health advocates
By Veronica Slaght
The Star-Ledger
October 30, 2009, 5:10AM
This article like others from the lazy journalist class cites NAMI as a mental health advocate. The terms are misleading. NAMI advocates for drug treatment not for constitutional rights or for humans. NAMI gets $3 million each year from drug companies to promote drug treatment. US Senator Grassley investigates their abuses.
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/644/36/
NAMI Constituency Revealed
AHRP.com
Saying the museum inhibits persons from seeking treatment shows their focus. If NAMI was truly interested in ending discrimination against persons with disabilities and helping them enjoy their basic constitutional rights, they would lobby against forced treatment which violates the US Constitution. They would object to negative bias among politicians, judges, prosecutors, Police, FBI, human services corporations, and journalists. These people every day refer to persons with disabilities as violent and scare others from allowing them to enjoy their rights.
NAMI encourages this stigma because the victims of the discrimination are forced into the hands of psychiatrists who will prescribe drugs for the drug companies. NAMI focuses on promoting drug treatment and leaves intact government regulations and laws which are egregious abuses of persons with disabilities. NAMI's funding comes from corporations which earn billions pushing toxic chemicals on humans. These drugs are known to cause violent thoughts and acts after starting and stopping taking these chemicals. If the drugs cause violence why start? Promoting dangerous drugs must end. NAMI ignores the constitutional rights of persons with disabilities. They advocate for drug companies not humans.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/clinton_asylum_of_terror_haunt.html
Clinton 'Asylum of Terror' haunted house angers N.J. mental-health advocates
By Veronica Slaght
The Star-Ledger
October 30, 2009, 5:10AM
May 12, 2009
Suicides at Columbia University
Columbia University has a major investment in the psychiatric and drug
industries. NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) a front organization for drug
companies promotes drug treatment. Recently US Sen. Grassley
investigated NAMI finding that NAMI gets 56 percents of its budget
from drug companies. (Link below)
Seldom reported is that drug-company-friendly FDA requires a black box
warning on anti depressants because they may cause suicidal thoughts.
How many deaths resulted from taking psychiatric drugs?
Link here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4V6UEpXf_mY
or
http://tinyurl.com/r2y9qf
Bloomberg News
6 April 2009
Grassley Probes Financing of Advocacy Group for Mental Health
By Nicole Gaouette
http://columbiaspectator.com/2009/05/09/death-catalyzes-campus-mental-health-discussion
or
http://tinyurl.com/p4c6yw
Death catalyzes campus mental health discussion
by Alix Pianin
Columbia Spectator
May 9, 2009 - 10:10pm
Columbia University has a major investment in the psychiatric and drug
industries. NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) a front organization for drug
companies promotes drug treatment. Recently US Sen. Grassley
investigated NAMI finding that NAMI gets 56 percents of its budget
from drug companies. (Link below)
Seldom reported is that drug-company-friendly FDA requires a black box
warning on anti depressants because they may cause suicidal thoughts.
How many deaths resulted from taking psychiatric drugs?
Link here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4V6UEpXf_mY
or
http://tinyurl.com/r2y9qf
Bloomberg News
6 April 2009
Grassley Probes Financing of Advocacy Group for Mental Health
By Nicole Gaouette
http://columbiaspectator.com/2009/05/09/death-catalyzes-campus-mental-health-discussion
or
http://tinyurl.com/p4c6yw
Death catalyzes campus mental health discussion
by Alix Pianin
Columbia Spectator
May 9, 2009 - 10:10pm
May 6, 2009
NAMI and Drug Companies
US Senate Probe Discovers:
Most NAMI Money is From Psychiatric Drug Industry
By MindFreedom News
NAMI has admitted to a US Senate probe that a majority of their funds
over the last five years, 56 percent on average, have been from drug
corporations. NAMI has agreed with the probe to immediately begin
quarterly postings to their web site with a list of drug company
donations and amounts.
MindFreedom obtained a letter sent last week by NAMI executive
director Michael J. Fitzpatrick to "NAMI Leaders and Members." The
letter is a response to the probe of NAMI by US Senator Charles
Grassley (R-IA) initiated on 6 April 2009.
In the 28 April letter, copied below, Mr. Fitzpatrick wrote, "As
reported to Senator Grassley, pharmaceutical companies contributed an
average of 56% of national NAMI's budget annually for the period 2005
- 2009."
Mr. Fitzpatrick passionately defends the drug company donations, but
says NAMI has a strategic plan to lower the percentage.
Commented MindFreedom director, David Oaks, "The NAMI board should
have listened to its own Consumer Council which voted for full
disclosure many years ago, but was ignored."
MindFreedom maintains a count of the number of times the NAMI web site
uses the phrase "biologically based" when referring to mental health
problems. Said Oaks, "There are as many theories about the cause of
extreme mental problems as there are colors in the rainbow.
Unfortunately, NAMI's rainbow is mainly green -- drug company money
green. Now we know why."
MindFreedom is encouraging an international "thank you" from everyone
to Senator Grassley for investigating psychiatric drug money
corruption, click here:
http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm
~ ~ ~
LETTER FROM NAMI EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK:
April 28, 2009
Dear NAMI Leaders and Members,
On April 6, 2009 Senator Charles Grassley asked NAMI national to
provide information about support it receives from pharmaceutical
companies. For the last three years, Senator Grassley has been
interested in various aspects of the pharmaceutical industry and has
made similar requests to other non-profit groups.
NAMI shares Senator Grassley's interest in transparency and has
cooperated fully with this request. Since the request was made, three
basic questions have been posed that are worth sharing and answering.
Does NAMI accept contributions from pharmaceutical companies?
Yes, we do -- and we're delighted to have this critical support for
our many programs and important work all across the country.
NAMI accepts charitable contributions from individuals, foundations
and corporations, including the pharmaceutical industry, for one
purpose -- to improve the lives of people with mental illness and
their families. These relationships are governed by NAMI's Guidelines
for Business Support Relationships, a NAMI policy originally developed
and approved by the Board of Directors in 2004. This policy ensures
that at all times NAMI will maintain an independent position on issues
affecting the welfare of people with mental illness. A copy of this
policy is available online at http://www.nami.org/BusinessGuidelines.
As you know from our strategic plan ( http://www.nami.org/stratplan ),
NAMI's goal is to reduce the percentage of our budget that is
supported by charitable donations from pharmaceutical companies.
While we deeply appreciate the support we have received, we set this
goal because we understand the value of diversifying our funding
sources -- both for fiscal stability and because we want to shed any
lingering, unfair accusations that somehow NAMI has been "bought" -- I
can assure you: nothing could be further from the truth. NAMI's
advocacy voice is loud and clear and uncompromised.
As reported to Senator Grassley, pharmaceutical companies contributed
an average of 56% of national NAMI's budget annually for the period
2005 to 2009. Many of NAMI's signature education programs, including
Family-to-Family, Peer-to-Peer, NAMI Connection, In Our Own Voice and
NAMI Basics have national corporate sponsors.
These programs are the essence of your work in your communities. They
are offered free of charge to thousands of consumers and families who
participate in them each year. Without support of these companies, we
would be hard-pressed to bring you these vital programs. Corporate
grants and charitable contributions also support the NAMI Web site,
Mental Illness Awareness Week, and other public education and advocacy
efforts.
Can we see who is giving NAMI what?
Yes, you can.
NAMI National has long made public lists of major corporate and
foundation donors in our annual reports, which you can view online: http://www.nami.org/governance
. In 2009, we have begun posting on the NAMI Web site on a quarterly
basis all foundation and corporate grants and corporate contributions
over $5,000 received by NAMI national. The first list covers January-
March 2009 and can also be viewed at http://www.nami.org/governance.
Now what?
We continue our incredibly important work together, at the national,
state and local level, on behalf of one of the most vulnerable and
discriminated against populations in our country.
NAMI has long enjoyed a great national reputation. In fact, NAMI is
one of only 248 national non-profit organizations that received the
BBB Wise Giving Alliance Charity Seal this year from the charity
monitoring organization affiliated with the Better Business Bureau.
Perhaps you saw BBB’s ad in USA Today two weeks ago which heralded
the exclusive list. NAMI also received three out of four stars from
Charity Navigator and is its number one rated mental health
organization.
Thank you for the tremendous work you do, day in and day out. If you
have any thoughts or questions, I hope you will be in touch.
Thanks,
Mike
Michael J. Fitzpatrick, MSW
Executive Director
NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness)
2107 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300
Arlington, VA 2201
mfitzpatrick@nami.org
703-516-7977
US Senate Probe Discovers:
Most NAMI Money is From Psychiatric Drug Industry
By MindFreedom News
NAMI has admitted to a US Senate probe that a majority of their funds
over the last five years, 56 percent on average, have been from drug
corporations. NAMI has agreed with the probe to immediately begin
quarterly postings to their web site with a list of drug company
donations and amounts.
MindFreedom obtained a letter sent last week by NAMI executive
director Michael J. Fitzpatrick to "NAMI Leaders and Members." The
letter is a response to the probe of NAMI by US Senator Charles
Grassley (R-IA) initiated on 6 April 2009.
In the 28 April letter, copied below, Mr. Fitzpatrick wrote, "As
reported to Senator Grassley, pharmaceutical companies contributed an
average of 56% of national NAMI's budget annually for the period 2005
- 2009."
Mr. Fitzpatrick passionately defends the drug company donations, but
says NAMI has a strategic plan to lower the percentage.
Commented MindFreedom director, David Oaks, "The NAMI board should
have listened to its own Consumer Council which voted for full
disclosure many years ago, but was ignored."
MindFreedom maintains a count of the number of times the NAMI web site
uses the phrase "biologically based" when referring to mental health
problems. Said Oaks, "There are as many theories about the cause of
extreme mental problems as there are colors in the rainbow.
Unfortunately, NAMI's rainbow is mainly green -- drug company money
green. Now we know why."
MindFreedom is encouraging an international "thank you" from everyone
to Senator Grassley for investigating psychiatric drug money
corruption, click here:
http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm
~ ~ ~
LETTER FROM NAMI EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK:
April 28, 2009
Dear NAMI Leaders and Members,
On April 6, 2009 Senator Charles Grassley asked NAMI national to
provide information about support it receives from pharmaceutical
companies. For the last three years, Senator Grassley has been
interested in various aspects of the pharmaceutical industry and has
made similar requests to other non-profit groups.
NAMI shares Senator Grassley's interest in transparency and has
cooperated fully with this request. Since the request was made, three
basic questions have been posed that are worth sharing and answering.
Does NAMI accept contributions from pharmaceutical companies?
Yes, we do -- and we're delighted to have this critical support for
our many programs and important work all across the country.
NAMI accepts charitable contributions from individuals, foundations
and corporations, including the pharmaceutical industry, for one
purpose -- to improve the lives of people with mental illness and
their families. These relationships are governed by NAMI's Guidelines
for Business Support Relationships, a NAMI policy originally developed
and approved by the Board of Directors in 2004. This policy ensures
that at all times NAMI will maintain an independent position on issues
affecting the welfare of people with mental illness. A copy of this
policy is available online at http://www.nami.org/BusinessGuidelines.
As you know from our strategic plan ( http://www.nami.org/stratplan ),
NAMI's goal is to reduce the percentage of our budget that is
supported by charitable donations from pharmaceutical companies.
While we deeply appreciate the support we have received, we set this
goal because we understand the value of diversifying our funding
sources -- both for fiscal stability and because we want to shed any
lingering, unfair accusations that somehow NAMI has been "bought" -- I
can assure you: nothing could be further from the truth. NAMI's
advocacy voice is loud and clear and uncompromised.
As reported to Senator Grassley, pharmaceutical companies contributed
an average of 56% of national NAMI's budget annually for the period
2005 to 2009. Many of NAMI's signature education programs, including
Family-to-Family, Peer-to-Peer, NAMI Connection, In Our Own Voice and
NAMI Basics have national corporate sponsors.
These programs are the essence of your work in your communities. They
are offered free of charge to thousands of consumers and families who
participate in them each year. Without support of these companies, we
would be hard-pressed to bring you these vital programs. Corporate
grants and charitable contributions also support the NAMI Web site,
Mental Illness Awareness Week, and other public education and advocacy
efforts.
Can we see who is giving NAMI what?
Yes, you can.
NAMI National has long made public lists of major corporate and
foundation donors in our annual reports, which you can view online: http://www.nami.org/governance
. In 2009, we have begun posting on the NAMI Web site on a quarterly
basis all foundation and corporate grants and corporate contributions
over $5,000 received by NAMI national. The first list covers January-
March 2009 and can also be viewed at http://www.nami.org/governance.
Now what?
We continue our incredibly important work together, at the national,
state and local level, on behalf of one of the most vulnerable and
discriminated against populations in our country.
NAMI has long enjoyed a great national reputation. In fact, NAMI is
one of only 248 national non-profit organizations that received the
BBB Wise Giving Alliance Charity Seal this year from the charity
monitoring organization affiliated with the Better Business Bureau.
Perhaps you saw BBB’s ad in USA Today two weeks ago which heralded
the exclusive list. NAMI also received three out of four stars from
Charity Navigator and is its number one rated mental health
organization.
Thank you for the tremendous work you do, day in and day out. If you
have any thoughts or questions, I hope you will be in touch.
Thanks,
Mike
Michael J. Fitzpatrick, MSW
Executive Director
NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness)
2107 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300
Arlington, VA 2201
mfitzpatrick@nami.org
703-516-7977
December 13, 2008
ABC NEWS on Conspiracy
ABC NEWS on Conspiracy
This article by Lauren Cox accepts psychiatry without questions. (LAUREN COX, "What's Behind Internet Conspiracy Empires?" ABC News, Dec. 12, 2008) She is unconcerned that psychiatric illnesses are created by consensus not science.
Cox says "subcultures built on paranoid theories like gang stalkers, points to an understudied corner in psychiatry: Who are the people who believe such theories in the quiet of their homes, and what does such behavior mean for a person teetering on the edge of mental illness?"
What is "the edge of mental illness?" Is it like being "a little bit pregnant?"
Cox says, "Whether or not conspiracy theories harm people who are susceptible to mental illness is a matter of debate among psychiatrists." If a fact is subject to debate is it a scientific fact? If it is "a matter of debate" how can it be used to decide if a person's speech or behavior is mental illness? Can anyone cite a rational standard for who is not "susceptible to mental illness?" Have some persons' (e.g., psychiatrists') genes been cleansed of mental illness?
Cox quotes a high ranking official of the National Alliance of Mental Illness. Is that different from the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill? That organization was founded by parents of persons accused of mental illness. NAMI is used by all forms of their formal name. NAMI gets about $3 million each year from drug companies to promote drug treatment. They do not advocate for the rights of the accused. Many if not most clueless journalists describe NAMI as advocates. But they do not identify that they advocate for more funds for more drug treatment. NAMI's idea of discrimination is denying a person drug treatment. They do not care about being denied police protection from psychiatric criminals and from ordinary criminals. NAMI promotes forced treatment. What other illness uses police to force treatment?
"Most people with major mental illness don't believe in conspiracy theories," said Dr. Ken Duckworth, medical director of the National Alliance of Mental Illness. How does he know that? Has he asked all persons accused of "major" mental illness? Why did Cox report that comment with no evidence?
According to Angus MacDonald, a spokesperson for the mental health charity NARSAD, and an associate professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, most delusions begin with general, unexplained feelings of discontent that are caused by a problem with the brain. It's only when someone tries to search for an explanation for their feelings that a delusion forms.
Do these sentences make any sense? What is the connection between "unexplained feelings of discontent" and "a problem with the brain?" Where is the evidence of any connection? Why is this statement quoted with no evidence? Is this sloppy journalism? Or is it a PR piece masquerading as news?
Does quoting a "spokesman" for a charity make any sense? If the matter has not been studied what value do MacDonald's comments have? Are they any more than personal opinion?
"You're sitting across from your therapist and they say, 'Well why would they do all of this?' And you've got the answers because you've studied online," he said.
Like Donald Rumsfeld, MacDonald asks and conveniently answers his own questions. He omits any other possible answers, such as they are paid to conduct surveillance and harassment. It is a criminal enterprise. Furthermore, do therapists ask rape victims why they were raped? Motive is a matter of fact to be determined in a court not in a therapist's office.
This article shows that psychiatric standards are being used to determine what speech is acceptable or if it should be censored by psychiatry. This is a First Amendment issue. Speech and behavior protected by the US Constitution and by state laws are being prohibited by psychiatrists who do not like or do not understand the speech or the behavior. This is a totalitarian practice that must end. Why do journalists encourage censoring protected speech?
This article marginalizes crime victims saying they are mentally ill. The same people make being mentally ill a matter for unlawful discrimination. What difference does it make if a person is mentally ill? Is that a crime, a contagious illness? Is it ever OK to ignore a person due to alleged mental illness?
That was done to homosexuals, Black Americans, women, rape victims and children. In December 2008 it was reported that the Chinese government is using psychiatry to discredit whistle blowers. Are we expected to believe that Americans do not that?
A rational explanation for stalking, harassment as a criminal conspiracy is these people may be human subjects for involuntary government human experiments. The US Air Force tests high tech directed energy weapons for many years. The US government has a long and despicable history of conducting non-consenting human experiments on civilians.
Michael D'Antonio wrote about radiation experiments over 30 years on developmentally disabled persons at the Fernald School in Massachusetts. ("Atomic Guinea Pigs," New York Times Magazine, August 31, 1997; State Boys Rebellion, Simon and Schuster, 2004) The experiments were conducted from 1944 to 1974. It was not recognized as an abuse by journalists until 2003 after US Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary released documents admitting the government's role working with MIT and Quaker Oats Company.
When students at the Fernald School figured out who was doing what to them, they complained to the Department of Energy. Government employees referred to the victims as "the crazies." How is this different from what this article and the drug company promoters say about the current victims of abuse?
Government psychiatrists and colleagues deny they abuse mental patients using them for experiments. Patients are alleged to have lucid moments when they give informed consent. The rest of the time when they complain about abuse they are ignored as in this article.
--
Roy Bercaw - Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
enoughroom.blogspot.com
enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=6443988&page=1
What's Behind Internet Conspiracy Empires?
As Conspiracy Communities Grow, Mental Health Docs Are Left With Big Questions
By LAUREN COX
ABC News Medical Unit
Dec. 12, 2008
This article by Lauren Cox accepts psychiatry without questions. (LAUREN COX, "What's Behind Internet Conspiracy Empires?" ABC News, Dec. 12, 2008) She is unconcerned that psychiatric illnesses are created by consensus not science.
Cox says "subcultures built on paranoid theories like gang stalkers, points to an understudied corner in psychiatry: Who are the people who believe such theories in the quiet of their homes, and what does such behavior mean for a person teetering on the edge of mental illness?"
What is "the edge of mental illness?" Is it like being "a little bit pregnant?"
Cox says, "Whether or not conspiracy theories harm people who are susceptible to mental illness is a matter of debate among psychiatrists." If a fact is subject to debate is it a scientific fact? If it is "a matter of debate" how can it be used to decide if a person's speech or behavior is mental illness? Can anyone cite a rational standard for who is not "susceptible to mental illness?" Have some persons' (e.g., psychiatrists') genes been cleansed of mental illness?
Cox quotes a high ranking official of the National Alliance of Mental Illness. Is that different from the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill? That organization was founded by parents of persons accused of mental illness. NAMI is used by all forms of their formal name. NAMI gets about $3 million each year from drug companies to promote drug treatment. They do not advocate for the rights of the accused. Many if not most clueless journalists describe NAMI as advocates. But they do not identify that they advocate for more funds for more drug treatment. NAMI's idea of discrimination is denying a person drug treatment. They do not care about being denied police protection from psychiatric criminals and from ordinary criminals. NAMI promotes forced treatment. What other illness uses police to force treatment?
"Most people with major mental illness don't believe in conspiracy theories," said Dr. Ken Duckworth, medical director of the National Alliance of Mental Illness. How does he know that? Has he asked all persons accused of "major" mental illness? Why did Cox report that comment with no evidence?
According to Angus MacDonald, a spokesperson for the mental health charity NARSAD, and an associate professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, most delusions begin with general, unexplained feelings of discontent that are caused by a problem with the brain. It's only when someone tries to search for an explanation for their feelings that a delusion forms.
Do these sentences make any sense? What is the connection between "unexplained feelings of discontent" and "a problem with the brain?" Where is the evidence of any connection? Why is this statement quoted with no evidence? Is this sloppy journalism? Or is it a PR piece masquerading as news?
Does quoting a "spokesman" for a charity make any sense? If the matter has not been studied what value do MacDonald's comments have? Are they any more than personal opinion?
"You're sitting across from your therapist and they say, 'Well why would they do all of this?' And you've got the answers because you've studied online," he said.
Like Donald Rumsfeld, MacDonald asks and conveniently answers his own questions. He omits any other possible answers, such as they are paid to conduct surveillance and harassment. It is a criminal enterprise. Furthermore, do therapists ask rape victims why they were raped? Motive is a matter of fact to be determined in a court not in a therapist's office.
This article shows that psychiatric standards are being used to determine what speech is acceptable or if it should be censored by psychiatry. This is a First Amendment issue. Speech and behavior protected by the US Constitution and by state laws are being prohibited by psychiatrists who do not like or do not understand the speech or the behavior. This is a totalitarian practice that must end. Why do journalists encourage censoring protected speech?
This article marginalizes crime victims saying they are mentally ill. The same people make being mentally ill a matter for unlawful discrimination. What difference does it make if a person is mentally ill? Is that a crime, a contagious illness? Is it ever OK to ignore a person due to alleged mental illness?
That was done to homosexuals, Black Americans, women, rape victims and children. In December 2008 it was reported that the Chinese government is using psychiatry to discredit whistle blowers. Are we expected to believe that Americans do not that?
A rational explanation for stalking, harassment as a criminal conspiracy is these people may be human subjects for involuntary government human experiments. The US Air Force tests high tech directed energy weapons for many years. The US government has a long and despicable history of conducting non-consenting human experiments on civilians.
Michael D'Antonio wrote about radiation experiments over 30 years on developmentally disabled persons at the Fernald School in Massachusetts. ("Atomic Guinea Pigs," New York Times Magazine, August 31, 1997; State Boys Rebellion, Simon and Schuster, 2004) The experiments were conducted from 1944 to 1974. It was not recognized as an abuse by journalists until 2003 after US Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary released documents admitting the government's role working with MIT and Quaker Oats Company.
When students at the Fernald School figured out who was doing what to them, they complained to the Department of Energy. Government employees referred to the victims as "the crazies." How is this different from what this article and the drug company promoters say about the current victims of abuse?
Government psychiatrists and colleagues deny they abuse mental patients using them for experiments. Patients are alleged to have lucid moments when they give informed consent. The rest of the time when they complain about abuse they are ignored as in this article.
--
Roy Bercaw - Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
enoughroom.blogspot.com
enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=6443988&page=1
What's Behind Internet Conspiracy Empires?
As Conspiracy Communities Grow, Mental Health Docs Are Left With Big Questions
By LAUREN COX
ABC News Medical Unit
Dec. 12, 2008
July 25, 2008
Misguided Psychiatry
Saying "the unstated assumption that depression is a serious but
treatable medical condition" is the most telling phrase in the story.
(Adam Reilly, "Head Case," Boston Phoenix, July 25, 2008, Page 14,
News) Depression and all human emotions have become mental illnesses.
The "advocates" quoted are identified as members of NAMI, a front
organization that gets $2-3 million each year from drug companies to
promote (advocate for) treatment. The only reference to rights of
persons with disabilities is the quaint idea (Ahem!) that Marzilli
"deserves some degree of privacy."
There's no statement that Dr. Roy Perlis revealed Marzilli's medical
records (diagnosis). But if he did it was a violation of federal HIPAA
laws.
Skepticism regarding psychiatry is needed. No Boston journalist has
the wisdom or courage to scrutinize psychiatry.
Is mental illness a cause of "socially aberrant behavior?" Why are
persons with a history of mental illness treated differently from
other criminal defendants?
Logic, a method of determining truth, is seldom applied to psychiatry.
Reilly says Wendy Murphy is not a psychiatrist but her words are
logical. Psychiatry is not.
Three groups can answer the question of mental illness as a cause of
crime. (1) The group of people accused of mental illness. (2) The
group with no mental illness label. (3) The group who commit crimes.
The third group is made up of part of both of the other groups. If
mental illness caused crime it would always cause crime. Psychiatry is
arbitrary, not scientific. It is personal opinion masquerading as
science.
Wealthy persons use psychiatry and disability discrimination laws to
mitigate criminal liability.
This article shows the lack of awareness of those laws. The alleged
advocates from NAMI do not cite the ADA or other disability laws,
because they advocate for treatment not for people.
Reilly asks, "How responsible should we hold them for what they say
and do?" Huh? State policy is in M.G.L. Chapter 123, and the way that
police are trained by the MA Criminal Justice Training Council.
Persons accused of mental illness are regarded as dangerous by state
policy in violation of the state and US discrimination laws.
The Cambridge Health Alliance boasts that they deliver mental health
care coordinated with the Cambridge Police. Do they do that to protect
patients from the dangerous doctors? Do they coordinate treatment of
rashes and broken legs with the police too? Ahem!
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/65333-Head-case/
Roy Bercaw - Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Saying "the unstated assumption that depression is a serious but
treatable medical condition" is the most telling phrase in the story.
(Adam Reilly, "Head Case," Boston Phoenix, July 25, 2008, Page 14,
News) Depression and all human emotions have become mental illnesses.
The "advocates" quoted are identified as members of NAMI, a front
organization that gets $2-3 million each year from drug companies to
promote (advocate for) treatment. The only reference to rights of
persons with disabilities is the quaint idea (Ahem!) that Marzilli
"deserves some degree of privacy."
There's no statement that Dr. Roy Perlis revealed Marzilli's medical
records (diagnosis). But if he did it was a violation of federal HIPAA
laws.
Skepticism regarding psychiatry is needed. No Boston journalist has
the wisdom or courage to scrutinize psychiatry.
Is mental illness a cause of "socially aberrant behavior?" Why are
persons with a history of mental illness treated differently from
other criminal defendants?
Logic, a method of determining truth, is seldom applied to psychiatry.
Reilly says Wendy Murphy is not a psychiatrist but her words are
logical. Psychiatry is not.
Three groups can answer the question of mental illness as a cause of
crime. (1) The group of people accused of mental illness. (2) The
group with no mental illness label. (3) The group who commit crimes.
The third group is made up of part of both of the other groups. If
mental illness caused crime it would always cause crime. Psychiatry is
arbitrary, not scientific. It is personal opinion masquerading as
science.
Wealthy persons use psychiatry and disability discrimination laws to
mitigate criminal liability.
This article shows the lack of awareness of those laws. The alleged
advocates from NAMI do not cite the ADA or other disability laws,
because they advocate for treatment not for people.
Reilly asks, "How responsible should we hold them for what they say
and do?" Huh? State policy is in M.G.L. Chapter 123, and the way that
police are trained by the MA Criminal Justice Training Council.
Persons accused of mental illness are regarded as dangerous by state
policy in violation of the state and US discrimination laws.
The Cambridge Health Alliance boasts that they deliver mental health
care coordinated with the Cambridge Police. Do they do that to protect
patients from the dangerous doctors? Do they coordinate treatment of
rashes and broken legs with the police too? Ahem!
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/65333-Head-case/
Roy Bercaw - Editor ENOUGH ROOM
May 10, 2007
Grass Roots
Grass Roots
Tom Davis reports, "Mind Freedom has developed an international
coalition that unites 100 grassroots groups -- as well as thousands of
its members -- who seek to protect the human rights of people diagnosed
with psychiatric disabilities." ("Drug-free treatment promoter," The Record, May 23, 2006)
One problem with some of these groups is that the corporate public relations industry has turned the notion of "grass roots" on its head. Most of the alleged disability rights organizations are fronts for human services corporations. Davis mentions that MindFreedom "clashed" with NAMI, a lobbyist funded by the drug industry.
One concern with the focus of MindFreedom is their effort to protect the "human rights" of persons accused of psychiatric illness. Human rights are rights that we want for humans. Constitutional rights can be enforced in courts. Few advocates for rights of persons accused of psychiatric illness use the state and US laws that prohibit discrimination, e.g., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Police, lawyers, judges and journalists regularly violate rights to privacy and portray persons accused of psychiatric illness as if they are criminals. The public discourse on psychiatry is currently under the control of the drug companies and their well funded lobbyists. The 70-year PR campaign to persuade the public, the legislatures and the media executives that psychiatry is scientific is well established in the minds of the opinion makers.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
The (Bergen, NJ)Record
Drug-free treatment promoter
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
By TOM DAVIS
RECORD COLUMNIST
David Oaks has a simple philosophy about life: If the mind isn't free,
there's no freedom.
Thirty years ago, he was "locked up" five times because of emotional
episodes he had as a Harvard student. He was diagnosed with
schizophrenia.
Each time, he was forcibly drugged. Each time, he was told he'd feel
"better." He says, however, he felt like a prisoner.
"For me, [the drugs were] torture," said Oaks, now [50]. The drugs were
"a wrecking ball to my mind."
[...]
A few years ago, the group held a hunger strike and challenged the
American Psychiatric Association to "prove their claim" that medication
was necessary for managing a chemical imbalance.
In a September 2003 statement released after the protest, the
association expressed dismay that "a small number of individuals and
groups persist in questioning the reality and clinical legitimacy of
disorders that affect the mind, brain and behavior.
"While the membership of the American Psychiatric Association respects
the right of individuals to express their impatience with the pace of
science, we note that the human brain is the most complex and
challenging object of study in the history of human science."
Mind Freedom also has clashed with the National Alliance on Mental
Illness and other organizations for developing "unholy" alliances with
drug companies and accepting money for research.
Tom Davis reports, "Mind Freedom has developed an international
coalition that unites 100 grassroots groups -- as well as thousands of
its members -- who seek to protect the human rights of people diagnosed
with psychiatric disabilities." ("Drug-free treatment promoter," The Record, May 23, 2006)
One problem with some of these groups is that the corporate public relations industry has turned the notion of "grass roots" on its head. Most of the alleged disability rights organizations are fronts for human services corporations. Davis mentions that MindFreedom "clashed" with NAMI, a lobbyist funded by the drug industry.
One concern with the focus of MindFreedom is their effort to protect the "human rights" of persons accused of psychiatric illness. Human rights are rights that we want for humans. Constitutional rights can be enforced in courts. Few advocates for rights of persons accused of psychiatric illness use the state and US laws that prohibit discrimination, e.g., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Police, lawyers, judges and journalists regularly violate rights to privacy and portray persons accused of psychiatric illness as if they are criminals. The public discourse on psychiatry is currently under the control of the drug companies and their well funded lobbyists. The 70-year PR campaign to persuade the public, the legislatures and the media executives that psychiatry is scientific is well established in the minds of the opinion makers.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
The (Bergen, NJ)Record
Drug-free treatment promoter
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
By TOM DAVIS
RECORD COLUMNIST
David Oaks has a simple philosophy about life: If the mind isn't free,
there's no freedom.
Thirty years ago, he was "locked up" five times because of emotional
episodes he had as a Harvard student. He was diagnosed with
schizophrenia.
Each time, he was forcibly drugged. Each time, he was told he'd feel
"better." He says, however, he felt like a prisoner.
"For me, [the drugs were] torture," said Oaks, now [50]. The drugs were
"a wrecking ball to my mind."
[...]
A few years ago, the group held a hunger strike and challenged the
American Psychiatric Association to "prove their claim" that medication
was necessary for managing a chemical imbalance.
In a September 2003 statement released after the protest, the
association expressed dismay that "a small number of individuals and
groups persist in questioning the reality and clinical legitimacy of
disorders that affect the mind, brain and behavior.
"While the membership of the American Psychiatric Association respects
the right of individuals to express their impatience with the pace of
science, we note that the human brain is the most complex and
challenging object of study in the history of human science."
Mind Freedom also has clashed with the National Alliance on Mental
Illness and other organizations for developing "unholy" alliances with
drug companies and accepting money for research.
May 9, 2007
NAMI, Lobbyist for Drug Companies
NAMI, Lobbyist for Drug Companies
The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill promotes drug treatment over the rights of persons accused of psychiatric illness. (Sid Gelb, "Treating mental illness in jail," Letter, Boston Globe, April 18, 2006) For Gelb everyone is a psychiatrist. Thus there is no such thing as psychiatry. For NAMI and the psychiatric industry all unusual behavior and speech though protected by the Constitution is mental illness.
Medicalizing social problems is what the Nazis did in Germany. Psychiatrists try to do the same in this country. NAMI is a lobbyist for the drug companies. Put into context what Geld says makes sense. It is good for business. But from the perspective of individual citizens it is one more attempt to abolish freedom.
Gelb says he fears that Mr. Hall will be back in jail shortly. To what does Gelb attribute his fear? Is this paranoia, or knowledge of the future? Why not consider all of the people with real illness who are denied treatment because of the millions wasted on fake psychiatric illnesses.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Treating mental illness in jail
Letter, Sid Gelb, NAMI
Boston Globe
April 18, 2006
I READ with amazement and dismay the article ''Inmate's destructive behavior raises tough issues for jails" (April 17, City & Region, Page B3).
Here again is evidence for the need for jail diversion programs and programs of assertive community treatment. The fact that Mr. Hall had to sue, arguing that the jail authorities failed to protect him from himself and did not provide him with the medical treatment he needed, speaks volumes to the issue of mentally ill people in prisons in New Hampshire. What does it say about the intelligence of an official who knows that an inmate had a history of self-mutilation and says he did not understand what caused the inmate to hurt himself? It is obvious to me that there is a great need to educate the jail personnel on the nature of mental illness and the causes of self-mutilation.
Mr. Hall was returned to the jail after his surgery, which cost $40,000. He was released from jail when the criminal charges were dropped. I fear Mr. Hall will be back in jail in a relatively short time.
How many more times must Mr. Hall be incarcerated before he is offered treatment as an alternative to incarceration or, if necessary, required to accept treatment? It costs much less to provide the services for a mentally ill person than to incarcerate one repeatedly. More important, it is the humane thing to help the individual recover from this debilitating illness.
SID GELB
Brookline
The writer is public policy chair for the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Massachusetts.
The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill promotes drug treatment over the rights of persons accused of psychiatric illness. (Sid Gelb, "Treating mental illness in jail," Letter, Boston Globe, April 18, 2006) For Gelb everyone is a psychiatrist. Thus there is no such thing as psychiatry. For NAMI and the psychiatric industry all unusual behavior and speech though protected by the Constitution is mental illness.
Medicalizing social problems is what the Nazis did in Germany. Psychiatrists try to do the same in this country. NAMI is a lobbyist for the drug companies. Put into context what Geld says makes sense. It is good for business. But from the perspective of individual citizens it is one more attempt to abolish freedom.
Gelb says he fears that Mr. Hall will be back in jail shortly. To what does Gelb attribute his fear? Is this paranoia, or knowledge of the future? Why not consider all of the people with real illness who are denied treatment because of the millions wasted on fake psychiatric illnesses.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Treating mental illness in jail
Letter, Sid Gelb, NAMI
Boston Globe
April 18, 2006
I READ with amazement and dismay the article ''Inmate's destructive behavior raises tough issues for jails" (April 17, City & Region, Page B3).
Here again is evidence for the need for jail diversion programs and programs of assertive community treatment. The fact that Mr. Hall had to sue, arguing that the jail authorities failed to protect him from himself and did not provide him with the medical treatment he needed, speaks volumes to the issue of mentally ill people in prisons in New Hampshire. What does it say about the intelligence of an official who knows that an inmate had a history of self-mutilation and says he did not understand what caused the inmate to hurt himself? It is obvious to me that there is a great need to educate the jail personnel on the nature of mental illness and the causes of self-mutilation.
Mr. Hall was returned to the jail after his surgery, which cost $40,000. He was released from jail when the criminal charges were dropped. I fear Mr. Hall will be back in jail in a relatively short time.
How many more times must Mr. Hall be incarcerated before he is offered treatment as an alternative to incarceration or, if necessary, required to accept treatment? It costs much less to provide the services for a mentally ill person than to incarcerate one repeatedly. More important, it is the humane thing to help the individual recover from this debilitating illness.
SID GELB
Brookline
The writer is public policy chair for the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Massachusetts.
February 20, 2007
Legislature Enables Psychiatric Abuses, Violence
Legislature Enables Psychiatric Abuses, Violence
NAMI's letter ("Tolman does good job for mentally ill," Letter, Cambridge Chronicle, February 14, 2007) is an example of why I asked twice to speak with the new editor of the Chronicle. It is a recurring problem with new editors. Few journalists are aware of the role of NAMI, and how many serious psychiatric abuses are accepted.
NAMI gets a few million each year from drug companies to promote drug treatment. For evidence of NAMI's drug funding, see here:
www.psychsearch.net/nami_checks.html
and for a story on the funding see here:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/11/nami.html
NAMI says, "The National Alliance on Mental Illness of Massachusetts, [is] a family-based advocacy and support group." That sounds as if they are concerned with protecting patients from abuses. NAMI promotes treatment. They work for the drug companies as a corporate "grass-roots" lobbyist. It is the most successful deception by corporations in the US.
Sen. Tolman gets awards from NAMI because he delivers for their campaign contributions to promote more taxpayer funds for more treatment. We see over and over again and again the results of the over-drugging of young people, most recently at Lincoln-Sudbury High School where a young man on psychiatric drugs killed another student.
Edel Quinn's anger ("Appalled at DSS," Letter, Cambridge Chronicle, February 14, 2007) should be directed at the legislature, which wrote the laws permitting the drug abuses of young people. Clonidine, the drug Riley overdosed on, is a hypertension drug approved for adults, but not for children. Rather than honoring NAMI and Tolman they should be exposed as the cause of much violence in this country.
US journalists and politicians remain ignorant of the clinical studies in England proving that psychiatric drugs cause violence. It is time to expose the abuses of NAMI and the drug companies, and to stop them.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Letter: Tolman does good job for mentally ill
Cambridge Chronicle
Letter
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - Updated: 12:38 PM EST
Boston, Cambridge, Belmont and Watertown should be grateful they have a legislator such as Chairman Steven Tolman, who has taken an active and committed interest in the well-being of those in the commonwealth who suffer from a mental illness. He has filed legislation that will ensure that the restricting of access to effective and/or innovative medications, especially those for acute mental illness, will not occur without public input.
As the Senate assistant vice chairman on Ways and Means, and the past chairman of the Joint Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Chairman Steven Tolman has worked tirelessly on behalf of the mentally ill so that they can receive the proper treatment that they deserve and need.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness of Massachusetts, a family-based advocacy and support group, is proud to support Chairman Tolman’s mission to protect the quality of care provided to those citizens of Massachusetts with mental illnesses.
TOBY FISHER, MBA/MSW
Executive Director NAMI-Mass.
Letter: Appalled at DSS
Cambridge Chronicle
Letter
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - Updated: 12:42 PM EST
I am appalled again to see the mistakes made by DSS in the case of the death of little Rebecca Riley, RIP. The last time I was so appalled was when Haleigh Poutre’s case was shown on television. The then-governor of the state of Massachusetts requested a report on her case to be prepared by an independent panel, but it seems the mistakes made then are being repeated again and again by DSS.
Is there no accountability in this state? How many more children in this state have to suffer at the hands of their parents — the ones who are supposed to be taking care of them? When they fail, then the state must provide a better home for them. We do not want to read about the death of another child. Please, Lord.
EDEL QUINN
Huron Avenue
[Cambridge, MA]
NAMI's letter ("Tolman does good job for mentally ill," Letter, Cambridge Chronicle, February 14, 2007) is an example of why I asked twice to speak with the new editor of the Chronicle. It is a recurring problem with new editors. Few journalists are aware of the role of NAMI, and how many serious psychiatric abuses are accepted.
NAMI gets a few million each year from drug companies to promote drug treatment. For evidence of NAMI's drug funding, see here:
www.psychsearch.net/nami_checks.html
and for a story on the funding see here:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/11/nami.html
NAMI says, "The National Alliance on Mental Illness of Massachusetts, [is] a family-based advocacy and support group." That sounds as if they are concerned with protecting patients from abuses. NAMI promotes treatment. They work for the drug companies as a corporate "grass-roots" lobbyist. It is the most successful deception by corporations in the US.
Sen. Tolman gets awards from NAMI because he delivers for their campaign contributions to promote more taxpayer funds for more treatment. We see over and over again and again the results of the over-drugging of young people, most recently at Lincoln-Sudbury High School where a young man on psychiatric drugs killed another student.
Edel Quinn's anger ("Appalled at DSS," Letter, Cambridge Chronicle, February 14, 2007) should be directed at the legislature, which wrote the laws permitting the drug abuses of young people. Clonidine, the drug Riley overdosed on, is a hypertension drug approved for adults, but not for children. Rather than honoring NAMI and Tolman they should be exposed as the cause of much violence in this country.
US journalists and politicians remain ignorant of the clinical studies in England proving that psychiatric drugs cause violence. It is time to expose the abuses of NAMI and the drug companies, and to stop them.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Letter: Tolman does good job for mentally ill
Cambridge Chronicle
Letter
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - Updated: 12:38 PM EST
Boston, Cambridge, Belmont and Watertown should be grateful they have a legislator such as Chairman Steven Tolman, who has taken an active and committed interest in the well-being of those in the commonwealth who suffer from a mental illness. He has filed legislation that will ensure that the restricting of access to effective and/or innovative medications, especially those for acute mental illness, will not occur without public input.
As the Senate assistant vice chairman on Ways and Means, and the past chairman of the Joint Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Chairman Steven Tolman has worked tirelessly on behalf of the mentally ill so that they can receive the proper treatment that they deserve and need.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness of Massachusetts, a family-based advocacy and support group, is proud to support Chairman Tolman’s mission to protect the quality of care provided to those citizens of Massachusetts with mental illnesses.
TOBY FISHER, MBA/MSW
Executive Director NAMI-Mass.
Letter: Appalled at DSS
Cambridge Chronicle
Letter
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - Updated: 12:42 PM EST
I am appalled again to see the mistakes made by DSS in the case of the death of little Rebecca Riley, RIP. The last time I was so appalled was when Haleigh Poutre’s case was shown on television. The then-governor of the state of Massachusetts requested a report on her case to be prepared by an independent panel, but it seems the mistakes made then are being repeated again and again by DSS.
Is there no accountability in this state? How many more children in this state have to suffer at the hands of their parents — the ones who are supposed to be taking care of them? When they fail, then the state must provide a better home for them. We do not want to read about the death of another child. Please, Lord.
EDEL QUINN
Huron Avenue
[Cambridge, MA]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
