The Mental Health trick to Confiscate your Guns

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 21, 2013

No doubt that only a mentally ill person could carry out a savage attack like the ones perpetrated in Newtown, Aurora and Oregon. The question is how does a person become mentally ill enough to kill. There is no doubt that prescription drugs are the main triggers of side effects which make people act violently to a point where they seek to murder children, men and women.

But the relation between pharmaceutical products and violent outbursts have found little place in the main stream media. How could it? Pharmaceutical corporations contribute millions of dollars a year to news networks and broadcast television. Rightfully blaming pharmaceuticals for many examples of violent behavior would be equivalent to killing the golden goose.

What it is becoming more common in the media is the idea that anyone who experiences anger or frustration could be mentally ill and since that is a sign of a potential threat to society, because of the recent examples where angry men shot innocent people, everyone needs to be examined for mental health as a preventive measure.

The problem is that most of the diagnoses issued by psychologists and psychiatrists are based on a set of very abstract and ambiguous terms — not science — contained in the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of psychiatry; generally known as the DSM-IV.

The ambiguity of DSM-IV allows for all kinds of mental problems to be found on anyone who allegedly suffers from depression, anger, ADD, ADHD and a whole list of fabricated mental illnesses. People who question authority, for example, are diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. The symptoms are: often losing temper, often arguing with adults, often deliberately annoys people, often experiences anger and resentment and so on.

Depression, another common disease diagnosed using guidelines from the DMS-IV, is supposedly diagnosed on anyone who experiences fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day, diminished ability to think or concentrate, indecisiveness, insomnia and so on. These and other supposed symptoms of depression — according to APA’s standards enable so-called mental health professionals to diagnose and medicate anyone who experiences them. It doesn’t matter how irrelevant a person’s feelings are with respect to violence, psychologists and psychiatrists are authorized to prescribe pharmaceutical products to “cure” people.

Recently, the media and government officials — without conducting any kind of medical assessment — have labeled anyone who thinks freely, question authority, opposes government programs or has specific political beliefs such as Libertarianism as mentally ill.

The enablers of these lie seek to magically diagnose the population as incapable of properly conducting their lives and also unable to speak, think or act freely. The unsuspecting victims of this hoax are swindled into taking large amounts of pharmaceutical products, which in time make them so sick to the point of wanting to use violence against relatives, friends and almost anyone else.

Are you too sick to own a gun?

As part of the circus put together by the pharmaceutical industrial complex to justify their sales of millions of dollars in chemicals, the main stream media is now campaigning heavily to brainwash people into believing that their mental health needs to be tested and that they will need the medications prescribed by their shrink.

The most recent example I read is an article by Mathew DeLuca, from NBC news titled: “Anger, violent thoughts: Are you too sick to own a gun?” Mr. DeLuca presents the traditional model of diagnosing for mental illness as an effective way to avoid gun violence while trying to push for the U.S. government’s agenda that people may just be too sick to own a gun.

“Several polls conducted since the shooting in Newtown, Conn., have found widespread support for new legislation that would restrict the possession of firearms by the mentally ill, as well as for increased government spending on mental health,” reminds us DeLuca.

Indeed, under Obamacare and the newly proposed gun legislation, doctors will work as snitches for the government and they will be charged with “diagnosing” and reporting any suspicious signs of potential violence. Doctors were compelled by Obama to ask whether patients own firearms, which they will also include in their mental assessment report.

Currently, the United States bars the sale or transfer of firearms to a person who is thought — no real medical examination required — to have been “adjudicated as a mental defective.” According to DeLuca’s article, at least 44 states currently have their own laws regulating possession of firearm by mentally ill individuals. That program has not prevented the occurrence of violent act, DeLuca reports, because states do not report their mental health data to the federal government. Under the new Executive Orders signed by Obama, states will be required to report all cases of mental illness to the federal government. That information will be then fed to a database which will allow the government to deny people their Second Amendment.

New York’s recently expanded gun law demands that mental health professionals report anyone considered “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others”. Note the lack of scientific basis. “Those officials would be authorized to report that person to law enforcement, which could seize the person’s firearms.”

According to new legislation, mental health practitioners who do not report their patients run the risk of being labeled as criminals. “Now if you’re mistaken, you’re wrong about this, and you don’t report it, you could face criminal sanctions. I’m not taking any chances at that point,” said Steven Dubovsky, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Buffalo. But he then emphasized “That could encourage therapists to over-report.”

None of Obama’s Executive Orders tackle two of the most important problems about mental health. First, the criteria to decide whether a person is mentally ill is bogus, as confessed by mental health practitioners themselves. Second, pharmaceutical products are the triggers of all kinds of violent acts, but their influence in gun violence won’t be studied under the proposals issued by the White House.

No real change will be achieved unless governments recognize that chemicals in prescription drugs are the real cause of mental illness and that to end violence as a whole, it is necessary to cut the gas that fuels the fire. Then it is necessary to use real science in the diagnosis of mental problems, as supposed to concepts that have no scientific value whatsoever.

The Second Amendment or any other constitutional right is that much closer to being taken away when government gives itself the prerogative to ‘diagnose’ who is unfit to exercise those rights.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Mental Illness is ‘impossible to define’

Failure to disclose business relationships, badly performed tests and invented illness carried psychiatry to the edge of the cliff.

By Gary Greenberg
Wired.com

Every so often Al Frances says something that seems to surprise even him. Just now, for instance, in the predawn darkness of his comfortable, rambling home in Carmel, California, he has broken off his exercise routine to declare that “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.” Then an odd, reflective look crosses his face, as if he’s taking in the strangeness of this scene: Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV), the guy who wrote the book on mental illness, confessing that “these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.” For the first time in two days, the conversation comes to an awkward halt.

Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

 

But he recovers quickly, and back in the living room he finishes explaining why he came out of a seemingly contented retirement to launch a bitter and protracted battle with the people, some of them friends, who are creating the next edition of the DSM. And to criticize them not just once, and not in professional mumbo jumbo that would keep the fight inside the professional family, but repeatedly and in plain English, in newspapers and magazines and blogs. And to accuse his colleagues not just of bad science but of bad faith, hubris, and blindness, of making diseases out of everyday suffering and, as a result, padding the bottom lines of drug companies. These aren’t new accusations to level at psychiatry, but Frances used to be their target, not their source. He’s hurling grenades into the bunker where he spent his entire career.

As a practicing psychotherapist myself, I can attest that this is a startling turn. But when Frances tries to explain it, he resists the kinds of reasons that mental health professionals usually give each other, the ones about character traits or personality quirks formed in childhood. He says he doesn’t want to give ammunition to his enemies, who have already shown their willingness to “shoot the messenger.” It’s not an unfounded concern. In its first official response to Frances, the APA diagnosed him with “pride of authorship” and pointed out that his royalty payments would end once the new edition was published—a fact that “should be considered when evaluating his critique and its timing.”

Frances, who claims he doesn’t care about the royalties (which amount, he says, to just 10 grand a year), also claims not to mind if the APA cites his faults. He just wishes they’d go after the right ones—the serious errors in the DSM-IV. “We made mistakes that had terrible consequences,” he says. Diagnoses of autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and bipolar disorder skyrocketed, and Frances thinks his manual inadvertently facilitated these epidemics—and, in the bargain, fostered an increasing tendency to chalk up life’s difficulties to mental illness and then treat them with psychiatric drugs.

The insurgency against the DSM-5 (the APA has decided to shed the Roman numerals) has now spread far beyond just Allen Frances. Psychiatrists at the top of their specialties, clinicians at prominent hospitals, and even some contributors to the new edition have expressed deep reservations about it. Dissidents complain that the revision process is in disarray and that the preliminary results, made public for the first time in February 2010, are filled with potential clinical and public relations nightmares. Although most of the dissenters are squeamish about making their concerns public—especially because of a surprisingly restrictive nondisclosure agreement that all insiders were required to sign—they are becoming increasingly restive, and some are beginning to agree with Frances that public pressure may be the only way to derail a train that he fears will “take psychiatry off a cliff.”

At stake in the fight between Frances and the APA is more than professional turf, more than careers and reputations, more than the $6.5 million in sales that the DSM averages each year. The book is the basis of psychiatrists’ authority to pronounce upon our mental health, to command health care dollars from insurance companies for treatment and from government agencies for research. It is as important to psychiatrists as the Constitution is to the US government or the Bible is to Christians. Outside the profession, too, the DSM rules, serving as the authoritative text for psychologists, social workers, and other mental health workers; it is invoked by lawyers in arguing over the culpability of criminal defendants and by parents seeking school services for their children.

If, as Frances warns, the new volume is an “absolute disaster,” it could cause a seismic shift in the way mental health care is practiced in this country. It could cause the APA to lose its franchise on our psychic suffering, the naming rights to our pain.

Read Full Article