The majority of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals “go along to get along” and maintain a status quo that includes drug company corruption, pseudoscientific research and a “standard of care” that is routinely damaging and occasionally kills young children.

If that sounds hyperbolic, then you probably have not heard of Rebecca Riley, and how the highest levels of psychiatry described her treatment as “appropriate and within responsible professional standards.”

When Rebecca Riley was 28 months old, based primarily on the complaints of her mother that she was “hyper” and had difficulty sleeping, psychiatrist Kayoko Kifuji, at the Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts, diagnosed Rebecca with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Kifuji prescribed clonidine, a hypertensive drug with significant sedating properties, a drug Kifuji also prescribed to Rebecca’s older sister and brother. The goal of the Riley parents—obvious to many in their community and later to juries—was to attain psychiatric diagnoses for their children that would qualify them for disability payments and to sedate their children making them easy to manage.

By the time Rebecca was three years old, again based mainly on parental complaints, Kifuji had given Rebecca an additional diagnosis of bipolar disorder and prescribed two additional heavily sedating drugs, the antipsychotic Seroquel and the anticonvulsant Depakote.

At the age of four, Rebecca was dead.

At the time of her death, Rebecca had a life-threatening amount of clonidine—enough to kill her—in her body, according to the former director of the Massachusetts toxicology lab and the medical director of a regional poison control center. The medical examiner who performed the autopsy concluded that Rebecca died from intoxication of clonidine, Depakote and two over-the-counter cold and cough medicines that led to heart failure, lungs filled with bloody fluid, coma, and then death. Rebecca’s abusive parents went to prison for the over-drugging that led to their daughter’s death.

Kifuji’s fate? The psychiatric establishment rallied around Kifuji, enabling her to return to Tufts Medical Center practicing child psychiatry without any restrictions, penalties or supervision. After Rebecca’s death, Tufts-New England Medical Center defended Kifuji. A Tufts spokesperson told “60 Minutes” in 2009, “The care we provided was appropriate and within responsible professional standards.”

Apparently, psychiatric care that is considered appropriate and within responsible professional standards includes diagnoses of ADHD for a two-year-old and bipolar disorder for a three-year-old when the symptoms of those disorders are normal behaviors for those ages; prescribing three heavily sedating drugs that have not been approved by the FDA for child psychiatric treatment; ignoring the warnings from a school nurse about over-dosages for Rebecca; and making diagnoses based almost entirely on the reports of Rebecca’s mother, who herself was diagnosed with mental illness and heavily medicated to the point of falling asleep in Kifuji’s office.

Long before the Rebecca Riley tragedy hit the headlines, I was embarrassed by the mental health profession for seven major reasons:

1. Corruption by Big Pharma

How did it become within responsible professional standards for a two-year-old to get an ADHD diagnosis, for a three-year-old to get a bipolar diagnosis, and for toddlers to be prescribed multiple heavily sedating drugs? The short answer is drug company corruption of the mental health profession.

Congressional hearings in 2008 revealed that psychiatry’s “thought leaders” and major institutions are on the take from drug companies.

On June 8, 2008, the New York Times reported about psychiatrist Joseph Biederman: “A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007.”

Due in large part to Biederman’s influence, the number of American children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder increased 40-fold from 1994 to 2003. Pediatrician and author Lawrence Diller notes about Biederman, “He single-handedly put pediatric bipolar disorder on the map.” In addition to his popularization of bipolar disorder for children, Biederman is one of the most significant forces behind the expanding numbers diagnosed with ADHD; and congressional investigators also discovered that Biederman conducted studies of Eli Lilly’s ADHD drug Strattera that were funded by National Institute of Health at the same time he was receiving money from Lilly.

Not only does the drug industry have influential psychiatrists such as Biederman in their pocket, virtually every major mental health institution is financially interconnected with Big Pharma. Congressional hearings also exposed the American Psychiatric Association psychiatry’s premier professional organization, as being on the take from drug companies. In 2006, the drug industry accounted for about 30 percent of the APA’s $62.5 million in financing. Most relevant here, the APA is the publisher of the psychiatric diagnostic bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and thus the APA is the institution responsible for creating mental illnesses and disorders.

2. Invalid Illnesses and Disorders

Psychiatry’s first DSM (1952) and its DSM-II (1968) listed homosexuality as a mental illness. Only because of a fierce political fight waged in the 1970s by gay activists did the APA abolish homosexuality as an illness and eliminate it from its DSM-III (1980). Gay activists’ fight was not only a victory for themselves but a service for everyone else, as it made public the important scientific problem of psychiatric disorder invalidity. Specifically, are psychiatric disorders scientifically valid illnesses, or are they simply behaviors that create discomfort for some authorities at a given moment in time?

While psychiatry lost homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1980 DSM-III, the APA found other groups it could pathologize, groups that could not mobilize and resist, most notably children, who are now routinely given psychiatric diagnoses for behaviors that many of us view as normal for their ages.

Psychiatry sees it as within responsible professional standards to diagnose three-year-olds such as Rebecca Riley with bipolar disorder. The symptoms of bipolar disorder include irritable and rapidly changing moods, severe temper tantrums, defiance of authority, agitation and distractibility, sleeping too little or too much, poor judgment, impulsivity and grandiose beliefs.

Psychiatry also sees it as within responsible professional standards for Rebecca Riley to have been diagnosed at 28 months old with ADHD. The symptoms of ADHD are inattention (easily distracted and bored, difficulty organizing and completing tasks, losing things, not seeming to listen, not following instructions); hyperactivity (fidgeting, talking nonstop, having trouble sitting still, difficulty with quiet tasks), and impulsivity (impatience, blurting out inappropriate comments, interrupting conversations).

Today, children and teens are also diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), the symptoms of which include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules,” and “often argues with adults.”

The standard for a medical disorder should not be whether or not an individual causes friction.

3. Scientifically Unreliable Diagnoses

Even if you believe that bipolar disorder for three-year-olds, ADHD for two-year-olds, ODD for teenagers, and all the other DSM diagnoses are valid disorders, there is still the scientific issue of diagnostic unreliability—the lack of diagnostic agreement among professionals examining the same person.

A generation ago, psychiatrists admitted that their diagnoses were unreliable and agreed that this was a major scientific problem. So in 1980, in an attempt to eliminate this embarrassment, they created the DSM-III with concrete behavioral checklists and formal decision-making rules, but they failed to correct the problem. Psychiatric diagnoses remain unreliable, but now psychiatry no longer talks about the unreliability problem.

If a measurement is a reliable one, then clinicians trained with it should be in high agreement on the diagnosis. A major 1992 study, conducted at six sites with 600 prospective patients, was done to examine the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses. Experienced mental health professionals were given extensive training in how to make accurate DSM diagnoses. Because of the extensive training, one would expect that diagnostic agreement would be much higher than in typical clinical settings. Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk summarize the study in Making Us Crazy (1997):

What this study demonstrated was that even when experienced clinicians with special training and supervision are asked to use DSM and make a diagnosis, they frequently disagree, even though the standards for defining agreement are very generous. . . . [For example,] if one of the two therapists made a diagnosis of Schizoid Personality Disorder and the other therapist selected Avoidant Personality Disorder, the therapists were judged to be in complete agreement of the diagnosis because they both found a personality disorder—even though they disagreed completely on which one! So even with this liberal definition of agreement, reliability using DSM is not very good.
Kutchins and Kirk conclude: “Mental health clinicians independently interviewing the same person in the community are as likely to agree as disagree that the person has a mental disorder and are as likely to agree as disagree on which of the over 300 DSM disorders is present.”

4. Biochemical Imbalance Mumbo Jumbo

Just as nothing was more important in selling the Iraq war in 2003 than the Bush administration’s certainty that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, nothing has been more important in selling psychiatric drugs than psychiatry’s certainty of biochemical brain imbalances as the cause for mental illnesses.

Prior to psychiatry’s proclamation that depression was caused by too little of the neurotransmitter serotonin, few Americans were taking antidepressants. But by declaring that depression was caused by a serotonin imbalance analogous to diabetes and an insulin imbalance, depressed Americans became far more receptive to serotonin-enhancing drugs such as the “selective-serotonin-reuptake inhibitors” (SSRIs) Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft.

SSRIs can make some depressed people feel better; however, alcohol makes some shy people less shy, but that’s not enough evidence to say that shyness is caused by an alcohol imbalance. The truth is—and scientists have known this for quite some time—that serotonin levels are not associated with depression.

Researchers have used a variety of methods to test the serotonin imbalance theory of depression, including comparing serotonin metabolites in depressed and nondepressed people, and depleting serotonin levels through a variety of means and then observing whether this resulted in depression. Elliot Valenstein, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Michigan, reviewed the research in his book Blaming the Brain (1998) and reported that it is just as likely for people with normal serotonin levels to feel depressed as it is for people with abnormal serotonin levels, and that it is just as likely for people with abnormally high serotonin levels to feel depressed as it is for people with abnormally low serotonin levels. Valenstein concluded, “Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence that depressed people have a serotonin or norepinephrine deficiency.”

In 2002, the New York Times reported: “Researchers knew that antidepressants seemed to raise the brain’s levels of messenger chemicals called neurotransmitters, so they theorized that depression must result from a deficiency of these chemicals. Yet a multitude of studies failed to prove this precept.”

Yet even now, many psychiatrists and other mental health professionals continue to promulgate the serotonin imbalance theory of depression, and polls show that the majority of Americans continue to believe it.

5. Pseudoscientific Drug Effectiveness Research

There are multiple tricks that psychiatric drug manufacturers and their researcher psychiatrists and psychologists use to make their drugs look more effective than they really are. One of the most common depression measurements used by researchers paid by drug companies is the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. In the HRSD, researchers rate subjects, and the higher the point total, the more one is deemed to be suffering from depression. On the HRSD, there are three separate items about insomnia (early, middle and late) and one can receive up to six points for difficulty either falling or remaining asleep; however, there is only one suicide item, in which one is awarded only two points for wishing to be dead. The HRSD is heavily loaded with items that are most affected by drugs, and it is therefore especially damning for antidepressants that even with such measurement dice-loading, these drugs routinely fail to outperform placebos—even dice-loaded placebos.

Proper drug research requires that neither subject nor experimenter knows who is getting the drug and who is getting the placebo (a true double-blind control). Drug company antidepressant researchers use inactive placebos such as sugar pills (which don’t create side effects). Independent research on inactive placebos show that many subjects in antidepressant and other studies can guess if they are getting the actual drug or not, which changes their expectations and subverts the double-blind control. In order to make it more difficult to guess correctly, an active placebo (which creates side effects) should be used. In 2000, a Psychiatric Times article concluded: “In fact, when antidepressants are compared with active placebos, there appear to be no differences in clinical effectiveness.”

Dice-loading depression measurements and placebos are just two of many techniques drug company researchers use to make antidepressants look more effective than they really are. But even with such dice-loading, antidepressants have not fared well, at least when one examines all the studies.

Drug companies try to ensure that those studies showing antidepressants to be no more effective than placebos are not published; however, all studies must be submitted to the FDA. So independent researcher Irving Kirsch and his research team at the University of Connecticut used the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to all data, and analyzed 47 studies that had been sponsored by drug companies on Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Celexa, and Serzone. Kirsch discovered that in the majority of the trials, the antidepressant failed to outperform a sugar pill placebo (and in the trials where the antidepressant did outperform the placebo, the advantage was slight).

6. Psychotropic Drug Hypocrisy

Chemists consider psychiatric prescription drugs and illegal mood-altering drugs all to be psychotropic or psychoactive drugs. Cocaine and ADHD drugs such as Adderall and other amphetamines affect the neurotransmitters dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine; and antidepressants used in combination also affect the same neurotransmitters. Not only are prescription psychotropics and illegal psychotropics chemically similar, they are used by people for similar reasons, including taking the edge off their discomfort so they can function. The hypocrisy surrounding illegal and prescription psychotropic drugs is harmful to society in at least two ways.

At one level, because people are being misinformed about the realities of prescription psychotropic drugs, they are more likely to gulp them down and to give them to their children. This has helped create a tragic phenomenon detailed by investigative reporter Robert Whitaker in his book Anatomy of an Epidemic (2010). Psychiatric drug use turning mild and episodic conditions into severe and chronic ones has helped create a huge increase of Americans with severe mental illness, especially among children.

At a second level, this psychiatric-illegal psychotropic drug hypocrisy allows for unfair criminalizing and incarceration of people using illegal psychotropics.

7. Diversion from Societal, Cultural and Political Sources of Misery

When we hear the words disorder, disease or illness, we think of an individual in need of treatment, not of a troubled society in need of transformation. Mental illness expansionism diverts us from examining a dehumanizing society.

In addition to pathologizing normal behavior, the mental health profession also diverts us from examining a society that creates the ingredients—helplessness, hopelessness, passivity, boredom, fear, and isolation—that cause emotional difficulties. We are diverted from the reality that many emotional problems are natural human reactions to loss in our society of autonomy and community. Thus, the mental health profession not only has financial value for drug companies but it has political value for those at the top of societal hierarchies who want to retain the status quo.

Today, a handful of dissident mental health professionals do challenge and resist their profession’s dehumanizing standard practicies. I know several of these dissidents, and they are the only psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health professionals that I have any respect for.

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / Truthout)

Bookmark to:

When it comes to the subject of depression and herbs it seems to always start and end with St. Johns Wort.  Don’t get me wrong here, St. John’s Wort is an excellent herb for treating depression.  In fact, there are at least 20 clinical trials that support the effectiveness of St. John’s Wort for the treatment of depression.  But what you may not know is that there are many other herbs and vitamins that also work very well for depression.

Let’s look at a few:

The Vitamin B family:  Studies show that most people who experience depression are deficient in B vitamins.  B vitamins can help lift mild depression by helping your brain to produce the neurotransmitters that regulate mood.  Especially the B-vitamin Folic Acid.  Folic Acid is also known as Folate and is found in many leafy green vegetables, beans, fruits, and grains.  Folic Acid and the entire B vitamin family are easily found in over-the-counter B-complex vitamin formulas.

Kava:  Kava is excellent for both anxiety and depression.  Especially depression caused by anxiety.  It does come with a significant warning however.  It can be hard on the liver.  If you’ve had Hepatitis or other liver problems in the past its probably best to choose another depression herb.

Sam-e:  pronounced “sammy”, which is short for S-Adenosyl-L-Methionine, is an over-the-counter natural supplement for depression.  Sam-e is a synthetic form of a chemical that’s found naturally found in the human body.  It is believed the chemical boosts levels of the neurotransmitters Serotonin and Dopamine.

Rosemary:  This one surprised me since I love it in food.  It has been shown to treat mild depression symptoms and can improve your sense of well being.

5-HTP:  which is an abbreviation for 5-Hydroxytryptophan.  5-HTP is similar to Sam-e in that it is also naturally produced by the human body to boost Serotonin levels.  It’s easy to find in the vitamin section of your grocery store.

Omega 3 Fatty Acids:  Primarily found in fish oils, these fatty acids have many benefits to our body including alleviating depression and lifting our mood.

St. John’s Wort is still considered the best natural depression herb but in many cases you’ll get even better results by combining it with one or more of these other excellent depression herbs.  Experiment with different combinations to find out what works best for you.

photo by:  izik

licensed under: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

Bookmark to:

THE LINDEN METHOD REVIEWED by J.J.Brennan:

“In August 2008, I visited The Linden Center and interviewed staff and the man himself, Charles Linden to discover the truth behind the claims. This is the resultant review of my findings.

What is The Linden Method?
The Linden Method is a drug free, simple and permanent program of recovery developed by Charles Linden, a leading anxiety expert, broadcaster and author. The Linden Method has been used by in excess of 100,000 clients around the world. The Linden Method UK receives referrals from psychologists, psychiatrists and doctors from around the world.

Who developed The Linden Method?
Charles Linden suffered with anxiety disorders throughout childhood and into early adulthood which developed into full blown panic disorder with agoraphobia and OCD in early adulthood. Charles developed The Linden Method over a decade ago to overcome his own disorder. Charles Linden has his own TV series, a number of DVD titles on general release and has a best selling book ‘Stress Free in 30 Days’. Charles is widely regarded as an international anxiety expert and is a contributor to TV, Radio, newspapers and magazines, in some of which he has his own column.
What conditions can be treated using The Linden Method?
Any anxiety conditions can be treated using The Linden Method including generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social phobia, agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and post traumatic stress disorder. Clients also report improvements and recovery from stress and depression related conditions.

How does The Linden Method work?
The Linden Method was discovered by Linden as the result of months of tireless research with ex anxiety sufferers. Linden plotted their stories and then drew conclusions from the similarities. Then, these techniques were developed into a program of recovery. After, testing, adjusting and re-testing, Linden devised and structured the Linden Method program. The Linden Method program works on the principal that anxiety disorders can be eliminated by being reprogrammed very simply using the techniques developed by Charles Linden; these principals form the core of The Linden Method and have a strong scientific basis. The Linden Method is a structured program of recovery which works by addressing the root cause of anxiety in the area of the brain responsible for the anxiety response. Trials have concluded that The Linden Method has a 96% success rate amongst complying clients.

How long does it take for The Linden Method to work?
Reports of immediate anxiety relief are plentiful. On investigation I was given access to many hundreds of testimonials from clients who experienced anxiety elimination in a few days to a few weeks and many who had experienced total recovery.

Conclusions
Having seen first hand, the testimonials from many thousands of clients and having spoken to the Linden support staff in their offices; having spoken to over 30 ex clients and listened to a number of support calls whilst in the center, I can only conclude that The Linden Method, The Linden Center, The Linden Method specialists and the business and service they offer are 100% above board, trustworthy and effective. The Linden center are now working closely with the NHS on pilot schemes and have recently completed trials with NHS clients – something which I have never come across before within the National Health Service.

I talked to Charles Linden at length about The Linden Method and believe this man to be honest and passionate about his work. I also spoke to Beth Linden and met their children. Charles Linden does not have letters after his name but his knowledge is quite awe inspiring and inspirational, many mental healthcare professionals could learn a lot from him.

My belief is that the claims made about The Linden Method on their website are true and having observed work at the center, the money back guarantee is watertight. The business is sound, has been running for over a decade and the staff are all employed.

Lifewise Publishing is an LLC and all Linden Method support staff are police checked, psychologist or counselling qualified and nice folks!

I believe The Linden Method and Linden Centers to be very professional and honest about their services and achievements.”

5 Star Rating
Simplicity 5 Stars
Content 5 Stars
Support 5 Stars
Value for money 5 Stars

The Linden Method Review by J.J Brennan. Npadnews.com. September 2008

Bookmark to:

 Anxiety Attacks In Children:  Inherited?

Bookmark to:

Anybody who’s experienced an anxiety attack before knows just how terrifying they can be. People who suffer from an anxiety disorder, who have frequent anxiety and panic attacks, also understand how debilitating they can become. Panic and severe anxiety can result in a disruption of daily life that can lead to a downward spiral of isolation and depression.

Modern medicine has created several drugs to control anxiety disorders. These drugs fall into several categories including MAOI’s (Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors) and SSRI’s (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors). SSRI’s such as Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox, and Celexa are the most commonly prescribed. 

While effective in most patients, antidepressant treatments usually come with a cost. Antidepressants are powerful prescription drugs that have negative side effects to many people that take them. Common side effects of SSRI’s include nausea, headaches, diarrhea, weight gain, sedation, and sexual side effects. Antidepressants have even been linked to suicide in young patients. 

Prolonged usage of antidepressants frequently result in a higher drug tolerance in patients leading to increased dosages to receive the same desired effect. Further, there is a risk of addiction to these antidepressants.

Fortunately, there are now many natural anxiety treatments that mirror the positive treatment effects of antidepressants. They fall into two categories – cognitive behavioral therapy and natural (or herbal) dietary supplements.

Cognitive therapy involves the participation of a psychotherapist or psychiatrist who have one on one sessions with the patient. This approach focuses on changing the patient’s thinking patterns and developing coping mechanisms such as slow breathing techniques. Patients learn how to detect faulty fight-or-flight response mechanisms within the body that are triggered during panic attacks. 

The second category of anxiety treatments are dietary supplements. Natural dietary supplements offer effective treatment for anxiety and panic attacks with far less risk of adverse side effects or possible addiction often caused by antidepressant drugs. 

Herbal remedies have been used for centuries around the globe in many cultures to treat anxiety symptoms. There is now a growing trend towards more natural alternatives to powerful antidepressants. Natural herbs and vitamins can boost one’s overall immune and nervous system creating more resistance to stress. Further, select supplements found in nature can be very effective to treat anxiety and panic attack symptoms.

A new website offers help with selecting the right natural antidepressant and anti anxiety treatment that may help you.    

Bookmark to:

But now, a recently conducted study is shedding some light on the ability of cigarette
smoke to act like an antidepressant in brain stem cells.

Research has discovered that chemicals inhaled in cigarette smoke may have a similar effect
on the brain as antidepressant drugs do.  This may help to explain why smoking is
more prevalent in persons with major depression than in the general population.  And it
might also explain why people who have recovered from depression and then stop smoking
have a greater likelihood of having their depressive symptoms return.  This in turn causes
many recovering smokers to strike up the habit again.

Some of the studies findings:

• Adults with depression were more likely to smoke than those without depression.
• The percentage of adults who were smokers increased as the severity of depression increased
• More than one in four adult smokers with depression smoked more than a pack a day
• Adults with depression were less likely to quit smoking than those without depression.

If you need help quitting smoking click here

Bookmark to: