articles

 

Britney Drugged?Happy already?Scientific insights from England - 3 CEOs who Became Violent, ManicMore Recent ArticlesSearch ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION

Britney Drugged?

While celebrity watch is not our beat, a report by MTV warrants further investigation. MTV reports that the parents of Britney Spears have filed a petition to the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that her manager was drugging the singer to control her with drugs prescribed by a psychiatrist. According to her mother's petition, she discovered that her daughter was taking the antipsychotic medications Risperdal and Seroquel--which were prescribed by a psychiatrist whom Britney did not like. According to her mother, she later learned that Britney was taking the stimulant Adderall when she was checked into UCLA Medical Center. If she did indeed ingest this cocktail of neurotoxic drugs, her erratic, self-destructive behavior may be explained by damaging effects these drugs have on brain function----especially in combination. Both antipsychotics and stimulants are known to trigger mania and psychosis. Antipsychotics diminish cognitive function--including the ability to make rational judgments and control impulsive behavior. How many victims will fall prey to the irresponsible prescribing of these dangerous drugs? Read on Earlier|Later|Main Page

Email to a friendArticle SearchRelated

Happy already?

An insightful article by Sharon Begley in Newsweek suggest that a backlash is underway against "happiness rat race" which helped catapult antidepressants for non-pathological uses. Begley cites several new books and scientific research that puncture the "happiness" climate fostered by psychiatry which led to the pharmaceutical gravy train. She notes that in 1999, Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman" was revived on Broadway 50 years after its premiere. A reporter asked two psychiatrists to read the script. Their diagnosis: Willy Loman was suffering from clinical depression, a pathological condition that could and should be treated with drugs. Miller was appalled. "Loman is not a depressive," he told The New York Times. "He is weighed down by life. There are social reasons for why he is where he is." What society once viewed as an appropriate reaction to failed hopes and dashed dreams, it now regards as a psychiatric illness.... "The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow Into Depressive Disorder" (2007) by Jerome Wakefield, professor at New York University, and Alan Horowitz, Professor at Rutgers University; "Against Happiness," by Eric Wilson, professor of English at Wake Forest University, is now reaching stores; "Rethinking Happiness," by Ed Diener, a psychologist at the University of Illinois, and his son, Robert Biswas-Diener, due for publication later this year. Wakefield and Horowitz argue that feeling down after your heart is broken-even so down that you meet the criteria for clinical depression- is normal and even salutary. Wilson argues that Americans' fixation on happiness fosters "a craven disregard for the value of sadness" and "its integral place in the great rhythm of the cosmos." He argues that only by experiencing sadness can we experience the fullness of the human condition. He praises melancholia for generating "a turbulence of heart that results in an active questioning of the status quo, a perpetual longing to create new ways of being and seeing." Diener notes that studies show that when you are in a negative mood "you become more analytical, more critical and more innovative. You need negative emotions, including sadness, to direct your thinking." Abraham Lincoln was not hobbled by his dark moods bordering on depression, and Beethoven composed his later works in a melancholic funk. Vincent van Gogh, Emily Dickinson and other artistic geniuses saw the world through a glass darkly. The creator of "Peanuts," Charles M. Schulz, was known for his gloom, while Woody Allen plumbs existential melancholia for his films.. Here comes the surprise: even Robert Spitzer (the New York State Psychiatric Institute) the psychiatrist most responsible for psychiatry's diagnostic "Bible" the DSM which lent legitimacy to the medicalization of sadness--and its treatment with antidepressants--expresses doubts about the medicalizing of sadness. In a foreword to "The Loss of Sadness" he wrote: "To be human means to naturally react with feelings of sadness to negative events in one's life." Perhaps--this may be wishful thinking--the chemically enhanced "happiness" stage may be reaching an end of life point.

[Link]NEWSWEEK Happiness: Enough Already The push for ever-greater well-being is facing a backlash, fueled by research on the value of sadness. By Sharon Begley Feb 2, 2008 The plural of anecdote is not data, as scientists will tell you, but consider these snapshots of the emerging happiness debate anyway: Lately, Jerome Wakefield's students have been coming up to him after they break up with a boyfriend or girlfriend, and not because they want him to recommend a therapist. Wakefield, a professor at New York University, coauthored the 2007 book "The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow Into Depressive Disorder," which argues that feeling down after your heart is broken-even so down that you meet the criteria for clinical depression-is normal and even salutary. But students tell him that their parents are pressuring them to seek counseling and other medical intervention-"some Zoloft, dear?"-for their sadness, and the kids want no part of it. "Can you talk to them for me?" they ask Wakefield. Rather than "listening to Prozac," they want to listen to their hearts, not have them chemically silenced. University of Illinois psychologist Ed Diener, who has studied happiness for a quarter century, was in Scotland recently, explaining to members of Parliament and business leaders the value of augmenting traditional measures of a country's wealth with a national index of happiness. Such an index would measure policies known to increase people's sense of well-being, such as democratic freedoms, access to health care and the rule of law. The Scots were all in favor of such things, but not because they make people happier. "They said too much happiness might not be such a good thing," says Diener. "They like being dour, and didn't appreciate being told they should be happier." Eric Wilson tried to get with the program. Urged on by friends, he bought books on how to become happier. He made every effort to smooth out his habitual scowl and wear a sunny smile, since a happy expression can lead to genuinely happy feelings. Wilson, a professor of English at Wake Forest University, took up jogging, reputed to boost the brain's supply of joyful neurochemicals, watched uplifting Frank Capra and Doris Day flicks and began sprinkling his conversations with "great!" and "wonderful!", the better to exercise his capacity for enthusiasm. When none of these made him happy, Wilson not only jumped off the happiness bandwagon-he also embraced his melancholy side and decided to blast a happiness movement that "leads to half-lives, to bland existences," as he argues in "Against Happiness," a book now reaching stores. Americans' fixation on happiness, he writes, fosters "a craven disregard for the value of sadness" and "its integral place in the great rhythm of the cosmos." It's always tricky to identify a turning point, at least in real time. Only in retrospect can you accurately pinpoint when a financial market peaked or hit bottom, for instance, or the moment when the craze for pricey coffee drinks crested. But look carefully, and what you are seeing now may be the end of the drive for ever-greater heights of happiness. Fed by hundreds of self-help books, including the current "The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want," magazine articles and an industry of life coaches and motivational speakers, the happiness movement took off in the 1990s with two legitimate developments: discoveries about the brain activity underlying well-being, and the emergence of "positive psychology," whose proponents urged fellow researchers to study happiness as seriously as they did pathological states such as depression. But when the science of happiness collided with pop culture and the marketplace, it morphed into something even its creators hardly recognized. There emerged "a crowd of people out there who want you to be happier," write Ed Diener and his son, Robert Biswas-Diener, in their book, "Rethinking Happiness," due for publication later this year. Somewhere out there a pharmaceutical company "is working on a new drug to make you happier," they warn. "There are even people who would like to give you special ozone enemas to make you happier." Although some 85 percent of Americans say they're pretty happy, the happiness industry sends the insistent message that moderate levels of well-being aren't enough: not only can we all be happier, but we practically have a duty to be so. What was once considered normal sadness is something to be smothered, even shunned. The backlash against the happiness rat race comes just when scientists are releasing the most-extensive-ever study comparing moderate and extreme levels of happiness, and finding that being happier is not always better. In surveys of 118,519 people from 96 countries, scientists examined how various levels of subjective well-being matched up with income, education, political participation, volunteer activities and close relationships. They also analyzed how different levels of happiness, as reported by college students, correlated with various outcomes. Even allowing for imprecision in people's self-reported sense of well-being, the results were unambiguous. The highest levels of happiness go along with the most stable, longest and most contented relationships. That is, even a little discontent with your partner can nudge you to look around for someone better, until you are at best a serial monogamist and at worst never in a loving, stable relationship. "But if you have positive illusions about your partner, which goes along with the highest levels of happiness, you're more likely to commit to an intimate relationship," says Diener. In contrast, "once a moderate level of happiness is achieved, further increases can sometimes be detrimental" to income, career success, education and political participation, Diener and colleagues write in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 10 is extremely happy, 8s were more successful than 9s and 10s, getting more education and earning more. That probably reflects the fact that people who are somewhat discontent, but not so depressed as to be paralyzed, are more motivated to improve both their own lot (thus driving themselves to acquire more education and seek ever-more-challenging jobs) and the lot of their community (causing them to participate more in civic and political life). In contrast, people at the top of the jolliness charts feel no such urgency. "If you're totally satisfied with your life and with how things are going in the world," says Diener, "you don't feel very motivated to work for change. Be wary when people tell you you should be happier." The drawbacks of constant, extreme happiness should not be surprising, since negative emotions evolved for a reason. Fear tips us off to the presence of danger, for instance. Sadness, too, seems to be part of our biological inheritance: apes, dogs and elephants all display something that looks like sadness, perhaps because it signals to others a need for help. One hint that too much euphoria can be detrimental comes from studies finding that among people with late-stage illnesses, those with the greatest sense of well-being were more likely to die in any given period of time than the mildly content were. Being "up" all the time can cause you to play down very real threats. Eric Wilson needs no convincing that sadness has a purpose. In his "Against Happiness," he trots out criticisms of the mindless pursuit of contentment that philosophers and artists have raised throughout history-including that, as Flaubert said, to be chronically happy one must also be stupid. Less snarkily, Wilson argues that only by experiencing sadness can we experience the fullness of the human condition. While careful not to extol depression-which is marked not only by chronic sadness but also by apathy, lethargy and an increased risk of suicide-he praises melancholia for generating "a turbulence of heart that results in an active questioning of the status quo, a perpetual longing to create new ways of being and seeing." This is not romantic claptrap. Studies show that when you are in a negative mood, says Diener, "you become more analytical, more critical and more innovative. You need negative emotions, including sadness, to direct your thinking." Abraham Lincoln was not hobbled by his dark moods bordering on depression, and Beethoven composed his later works in a melancholic funk. Vincent van Gogh, Emily Dickinson and other artistic geniuses saw the world through a glass darkly. The creator of "Peanuts," Charles M. Schulz, was known for his gloom, while Woody Allen plumbs existential melancholia for his films, and Patti Smith and Fiona Apple do so for their music. Wilson, who asserts that "the happy man is a hollow man," is hardly the first scholar to see melancholia as muse. A classical Greek text, possibly written by Aristotle, asks, "Why is it that all those who have become eminent in philosophy or politics or poetry or the arts are clearly melancholic?" Wilson's answer is that "the blues can be a catalyst for a special kind of genius, a genius for exploring dark boundaries between opposites." The ever-restless, the chronically discontent, are dissatisfied with the status quo, be it in art or literature or politics. For all their familiarity, these arguments are nevertheless being crushed by the happiness movement. Last August, the novelist Mary Gordon lamented to The New York Times that "among writers . what is absolutely not allowable is sadness. People will do anything rather than to acknowledge that they are sad." And in a MY TURN column in NEWSWEEK last May, Jess Decourcy Hinds, an English teacher, recounted how, after her father died, friends pressed her to distract herself from her profound sadness and sense of loss. "Why don't people accept that after a parent's death, there will be years of grief?" she wrote. "Everyone wants mourners to 'snap out of it' because observing another's anguish isn't easy." It's hard to say exactly when ordinary Americans, no less than psychiatrists, began insisting that sadness is pathological. But by the end of the millennium that attitude was well entrenched. In 1999, Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman" was revived on Broadway 50 years after its premiere. A reporter asked two psychiatrists to read the script. Their diagnosis: Willy Loman was suffering from clinical depression, a pathological condition that could and should be treated with drugs. Miller was appalled. "Loman is not a depressive," he told The New York Times. "He is weighed down by life. There are social reasons for why he is where he is." What society once viewed as an appropriate reaction to failed hopes and dashed dreams, it now regards as a psychiatric illness. That may be the most damaging legacy of the happiness industry: the message that all sadness is a disease. As NYU's Wakefield and Allan Horwitz of Rutgers University point out in "The Loss of Sadness," this message has its roots in the bible of mental illness, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Its definition of a "major depressive episode" is remarkably broad. You must experience five not-uncommon symptoms, such as insomnia, difficulty concentrating and feeling sad or empty, for two weeks; the symptoms must cause distress or impairment, and they cannot be due to the death of a loved one. Anyone meeting these criteria is supposed to be treated. Yet by these criteria, any number of reactions to devastating events qualify as pathological. Such as? For three weeks a woman feels sad and empty, unable to generate any interest in her job or usual activities, after her lover of five years breaks off their relationship; she has little appetite, lies awake at night and cannot concentrate during the day. Or a man's only daughter is suffering from a potentially fatal blood disorder; for weeks he is consumed by despair, cannot sleep or concentrate, feels tired and uninterested in his usual activities. Horwitz and Wakefield do not contend that the spurned lover or the tormented father should be left to suffer. Both deserve, and would likely benefit from, empathic counseling. But their symptoms "are neither abnormal nor inappropriate in light of their" situations, the authors write. The DSM definition of depression "mistakenly encompasses some normal emotional reactions," due to its failure to take into account the context or trigger for sadness. That has consequences. When someone is appropriately sad, friends and colleagues offer support and sympathy. But by labeling appropriate sadness pathological, "we have attached a stigma to being sad," says Wakefield, "with the result that depression tends to elicit hostility and rejection" with an undercurrent of " 'Get over it; take a pill.' The normal range of human emotion is not being tolerated." And insisting that sadness requires treatment may interfere with the natural healing process. "We don't know how drugs react with normal sadness and its functions, such as reconstituting your life out of the pain," says Wakefield. Even the psychiatrist who oversaw the current DSM expresses doubts about the medicalizing of sadness. "To be human means to naturally react with feelings of sadness to negative events in one's life," writes Robert Spitzer of the New York State Psychiatric Institute in a foreword to "The Loss of Sadness." That would be unremarkable if it didn't run completely counter to the message of the happiness brigades. It would be foolish to underestimate the power and tenacity of the happiness cheerleaders. But maybe, just maybe, the single-minded pursuit of happiness as an end in itself, rather than as a consequence of a meaningful life, has finally run its course. Earlier|Later|Main PageEmail to a friendArticle SearchRelated

Scientific insights from England - 3 CEOs who Became Violent, Manic

A British psychiatrist, Dr Thomas Stuttaford adds fuel, but little scientific evidence, to the antidepressant debate. He bemoans the loose misdiagnosing of "depression" but asserts that endogenous depression is due to a "biochemical abnormality" which can be "corrected by pills" when no such abnormality has been documented:" It was and still is a joy to treat this large and important group of patients. Once they have been persuaded that they are suffering from a biochemical abnormality of their central nervous system that can be corrected by pills there is a good chance that their personality will be restored to normal, or near normal, within a few weeks. Treatment with antidepressants, usually the SSRIs may have to be continued for many months or longer." He also declares, as if it were supported by evidence, that depression mostly affects the upper classes: "The obsessionally hard working, striving type A personality or the aesthetic genius are rather more likely to suffer than the straightforward uncomplicated farmer or soldier." But the eye popping observations come at the end: "Disaster can follow [misprescribing SSRI]. A bipolar depressed patient may be precipitated into mania. He or she can become violent, suicidal or homicidal." "As well as the major disasters there are relatively minor ones too. One king of industry given an antidepressant to help him to stop smoking developed acute mania and beat up his second-in-command. The chairman of another company who never saw a doctor but had bipolar moods became so unreliable that another director had to be delegated to follow him around to countermand his more lunatic schemes. A third was sacked before he had been referred to the firm's doctor but when he was seen the true diagnosis was mania rather than alcoholism ." He seems to be blind to the fact that the drugs induce psychiatric symptoms rather than "reveal psychiatric symptoms that have previously been concealed." What evidence--rather than speculations--can psychiatrists show to prove that there were any concealed psychiatric symptoms?

[Link] Depression: your questions answered Dr Thomas Stuttaford To say that a person's troubles are the result of depression doesn't tell the whole story. The term is used too often and as a diagnosis without any qualification it is to all intents and purposes useless. ... Are there any serious consequences of SSRI antidepressant treatment? All potent drugs have important side-effects. The chief danger of SSRIs, which in general are very safe, is that they are given to the wrong patient. The disasters recorded are not so much disasters from the side-effects of the pill swallowed but a sequel of a sloppy diagnosis when the true nature of the depression affecting the patient hasn't been analysed. One of the most potentially dangerous mistakes is to confuse what used to be known as endogenous depression with the depressed phase of a patient who is manic depressive (now known as bipolar). Ordinary antidepressants, when used alone to treat a depressed patient who is bipolar, may precipitate violence, aggression, suicide or wildly inappropriate behaviour. ..... Disaster can follow. A bipolar depressed patient may be precipitated into mania. He or she can become violent, suicidal or homicidal. These patients must have their psychotic symptoms alleviated as well as their depressed state lifted. Whatever other drugs are prescribed they will need mood stabilisers or atypical anti-psychotics. ... As well as the major disasters there are relatively minor ones too. One king of industry given an antidepressant to help him to stop smoking developed acute mania and beat up his second-in-command. The chairman of another company who never saw a doctor but had bipolar moods became so unreliable that another director had to be delegated to follow him around to countermand his more lunatic schemes. A third was sacked before he had been referred to the firm's doctor but when he was seen the true diagnosis was mania rather than alcoholism . Obsessive stress reveals psychiatric symptoms that have previously been concealed. read on........ :) [Link] Earlier|Later|Main PageEmail to a friendArticle SearchRelated

More Recent Articles

Medicaid: "Pharmacy Claims Do Not Require a Diagnosis"When Drug Trials Go Wrong - No Recourse for Mrs DavenportECT - "Penicillin of Psychiatry" - Review of Shorter and HealyInformed consent for ECT - Testimony of Professor Peter SterlingLilly - Settlement Talks With U.S - But what about the death toll? Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION" or change subscription settings Unsubscribe from all current and future newsletters powered by FeedBlitz  

Eli Lilly Lawyer Accidentally Leaks Settlement Talks on Zyprexa

What's in a Name? Alex Berenson / Bradford Berenson? New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, it turns out, scored a heck of a Page One scoop last week when he revealed that Eli Lilly was engaged in secret settlement talks looking to reach a settlement with federal prosecutors over the company's alleged criminal and civil marketing violations involving its antipsychotic drug Zyprexa. A staggering settlement figure of $1 billion or more was mentioned. [Link] It turns out that a secret memo from a lawyer at Pepper Hamilton (one of Lilly's outside law firms) meant for a co-counsel, named Bradford Berenson, at Sidley Ausin ( another law firm hired by Lilly) landed in the in-box of Times reporter, Alex Berenson. As Ed Silverman of Phamalot notes (below), "it's great luck for Berenson -the reporter, that is - because he got a scoop (which amounts to a poke in the eye for Lilly, since he's the same reporter who was leaked sealed court documents last year and called 'reprehensible' by a federal judge)." In Dec. 2006, Alex Berenson brought to public light the content of Lilly's court sealed Zyprexa documents that had been leaked by Dr. David Egelman, an expert retained by Pepper Hamilton. [Link] First to report the $1 Billion Mailstrom was Portfolio (below) "When the New York Times broke the story last week that Eli Lilly & Co. was in confidential settlement talks with the government, angry calls flew behind the scenes as the drug giant's executives accused federal officials of leaking the information. With the negotiations over alleged marketing improprieties reaching a mind-boggling sum of $1 billion, Eli Lilly had every reason to want to keep the talks under wraps. It was paying the two fancy law firms a small fortune to negotiate deftly and quietly." Sadly, no confidential emails with further scoops were received in error.... but then who knows what tomorrow brings...

From Pharmalot [Link] Lawyer Accidentally Leaks Settlement Talks February 5th, 2008 By Ed Silverman Talk about comical. The news last week that the drugmaker is negotiating with federal and state prosecutors over improper marketing of Zyprexa was the result of an accident, according to Portfolio [Link] But it was a big accident. Read on...... [Link] Lilly's $1 Billion E-Mailstrom by Katherine Eban Feb 5 2008 A secret memo meant for a colleague lands in a Times reporter's in-box. When the New York Times broke the story last week that Eli Lilly & Co. was in confidential settlement talks with the government, angry calls flew behind the scenes as the drug giant's executives accused federal officials of leaking the information. As the company's lawyers began turning over rocks closer to home, however, they discovered what could be called A Nightmare on Email Street, a pharmaceutical consultant told Portfolio.com. One of its outside lawyers at Philadelphia-based Pepper Hamilton had mistakenly emailed confidential information on the talks to Times reporter Alex Berenson instead of Bradford Berenson, her co-counsel at Sidley Austin. With the negotiations over alleged marketing improprieties reaching a mind-boggling sum of $1 billion, Eli Lilly had every reason to want to keep the talks under wraps. It was paying the two fancy law firms a small fortune to negotiate deftly and quietly. If and when it did settle the allegations that it had improperly marketed its most profitable drug, Zyprexa, for schizophrenia, it would certainly want to announce the news on terms carefully negotiated with the government. "We usually try to brace for that [kind of] story," a Lilly staffer said. So when the Times' Berenson began calling around for comment, and seemed to possess remarkably detailed inside information about the negotiations, Lilly executives were certain the source of the leak was the government. As it turned out, one of Eli Lilly's lawyers at Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia wanted to email Sidley Austin's Berenson, about the negotiations. But apparently, the name that popped up from her email correspondents was the wrong Berenson. Alex Berenson logged on to find an internal "very comprehensive document" about the negotiations, the consultant said, and on January 30, Berenson's article, "Lilly in Settlement Talks With U.S." appeared on the Times' website. A similar article followed the next day on the front page of the New York Times. Those who knew the real story must have had a chuckle-or shed some tears-over Lilly's statement to the Times that it had "no intention of sharing those discussions [with the government] with the news media and it would be speculative and irresponsible for anyone to do so." When reached for comment, Alex Berenson told Portfolio.com, "I can't say anything. I just can't." A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Philadelphia, which is spearheading the Zyprexa investigation, declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for Eli Lilly. However, the Lilly spokeswoman called back to add that the drugmaker would continue to retain Pepper Hamilton. Phone calls to Sidley Austin and Pepper Hamilton were not returned. And sadly, no confidential emails with further scoops were received in error. Earlier|Later|Main PageEmail to a friendArticle SearchRelated

Dear Editor, Ali Bracken's article (Sunday Tribune, 3 Feb) on the Irish mental health system was interesting but left a lot to be desired because it didn't look at the root of the problem. Even if additional millions of euros were spent the basic human rights abuses would not disappear. Psychiatry has no scientific basis at all. The Psychiatric Association's Manual of Diagnostic and Statistics even admit their deliberate ignorance: That it  is not looking into the etiology i.e. the causes of mental illness. That means psychiatry ignores all research into the effects of mineral and vitamin deficiencies, the effects of neurotoxins in food (e.g aspartame), in water (fluoride, lead, arsenic and traces of uranium - all in the fluoridation mixture put into the public water supply) and environmental poisons,  farming chemicals and  mercury in dental fillings and vaccines (thimerosal) on the central nervous system  and on the human mind. For more than 150 years the mercury has been used in dentistry, the "silver" fillings contain 50% mercury and studies (e.g by  Echeverria 1998 et al Haley et al 2005, ) show that in a high number of mental patients mercury plays a role in the onset of depression, aggression but because psychiatry ignores this research they help to cover up for dentists and pediatricians who should be tried. But psychiatry punishes the victims by administering even more poisons. Many of hose who enter the system will become disabled for life, suffering severe side effects of drugs that don't heal. Does Minster Mary Harney really care for the health of the nation? People on the medical card are still forced to accept mercury amalgam tooth filling, otherwise they have to pay the costs for the dental treatment themselves. Norway has just banned dental amalgam. Has the HSE a real interest in national health or are they on too cozy terms with the medical establishment and pharmaceutical corporations? The  HSE spends a lot of money on expensive antipsychotic drugs like Zyprexa, that show hardly more effect than placebos, but have side effects like chronic inflammation of the pancreas, diabetes and obesity.  A recent statistic showed that for patients on the medical card Zyprexa was the third most prescribed drug; for those who paid from their own purse it was on place 71. Why is the most proven and well researched natural anti-depressant S t John's wort a prescription drug only in Ireland. but freely available in other European countries? Fluoride is known to cause an under functioning ot the thyroid, often the cause of depression. As psychiatrists ignore this very frequent cause, patients are prescribed anti-depressants (e.g. SSRI like Prozac) that can make them suicidal. Iodine tablets or even see weeds may have prevented the hypothyroidism and depression in the first place. Prozac is a fluoride compound. A human being is entitled to be treated with dignity but psychiatrists clearly deny their patients this right because their whole system of pseudoscience can only function with suppression and coercion. Scientists need a heart and a conscience.  Psychiatry is the epitome of con science. The Citizen's Commission on Human Rights will bring their exhibition " Psychiatry - an Industry of Death" to Cork later this year and every citizen with a conscience and a heart should become aware ot the systematic human rights abuses in mental health, help victims to speak out and start looking for real alternatives. Sincerely yours, Dorothee Krien 9 Mathew Place Ballintemple Co.Cork

MORE ABOUT GADERUMMET.     Please SIGN the PETITION.  YOU can make a DIFFERENCE.     SIGN-------      Christian name--Surname---Country---email address.             A Mental Health Alternative for Youth in Denmark May Be Shut Down: Save Gaderummet!

by David W. Oaks — last modified 2008-02-12 16:35

Gaderummet is an innovative psychosocial alternative for young homeless people in Copenhagen, Denmark that may be replaced by a more traditional mental health service. Here's an easy e-mail action you can take to help show there is international support.

Youth participants in front of Gaderummet with a banner that reads, "Right to Self-Determination and the Open Door!"

 

Politicians May Force Closure of "Gaderummet" in Denmark

"Gaderummet" (translation: a space in the street) is a community in Copenhagen, Denmark, providing psychosocial help for young homeless people with problems who have chosen to do without the "help" of the system.

The award-winning facility had been funded by the government, but the funding was withdrawn in May 2007 because the management of "Gaderummet" didn't want to "conform to the mental health system."

Since May 2007, the staff and users of "Gaderummet" have been struggling to keep the facility running in spite of the lack of money.

Politicians are now threatening their lease.

It appears that the government is willing to establish another facility for the young people, on condition that it allows a larger role for mainstream mental health services.

Marian B. Goldstein, a member of MindFreedom International in Denmark, said, "The young people at Gaderummet are absolutely capable of making their own decisions. Just like anyone else, they have a right to determine on their own which kind of life, including what kind of help they want. Closing Gaderummet will leave them without any democratic choice. It will expose an additional number of young people to a life on the street, to drug-abuse and criminality."

Marian said that Gaderummet is one of the last remaining sanctuaries where young people can get non-medical support.

Help these young people stop the closure of their last refuge!

Easy Action You Can Take by E-Mail to Keep the Door Open!

Show there is international attention!

You can e-mail or write your protest to the mayor of the social area in Copenhagen, Mikkel Warming, who is directly responsible in this case.

E-mail Mayor Mikkel Warming:

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sample message -- though your own words are best:

Dear Mayor Mikkel Warming:

The young people at "Gaderummet" are able to make their own choices, just like anyone else. They have a right to self-determination and empowerment. Please do not shut down "Gaderummet." Please support alternatives to the conventional mental health system that affirm the human rights of clients!

Sincerely,

Your name, address & contact info

Please let others know about this situation.

Additional actions:

1. Please copy your message and/or e-mail your support for Gaderummet to activist Marian B. Goldstein, MindFreedom member in Denmark, at:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

2. E-mail a message of support for Gaderummet to the Social Department:

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

3. You may also write to the Minister for Social Affairs, Karen Jespersen:

 

VelfærdsministerietAtt. Karen JespersenHolmens Kanal 221060 København KDenmark

Gaderummet has put a petition on the web:http://www.bevargaderummet.underskrifter.dk/index.phpI've posted a translation on my blog:http://diffthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/gaderummet-petition.html Join, Renew, Donate to MindFreedom International. Mad Market Books & Gear

We are MFI

Tom Wittick Thomas E. Wittick is an MFI member who named one of the first psychiatric rights movement activist groups in this era in the USA. Tom chose the name "Insane Liberation Front" for the influential group that began in Portland, Oregon, USA in 1970, and he organized along side the infamous Howie T. Harp. Tom is shown here at the MindFreedom Action Space inside the Alternatives 2006 Conference in Portland, Oregon.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaderummet" (a space in the street) is a community at Copenhagen, providing psychosocial help for young homeless people with existential problems who don't want the "help" of the system. The award-winning facility had been funded by the government, but the funding was withdrawn in May 2007 because the management of "Gaderummet" didn't want to "conform to the mental health system". Since May 2007 the staff and the users of "Gaderummet" have been struggling to keep the facility running in spite of a fundamental lack of money. The day before yesterday they succeeded only just to scrape up 25.000 Dkr to pay the electricity bill, that became due the same day. The government considers now to summons "Gaderummet" in order to give notice to the lease, and by this means to get rid of "Gaderummet".In a TV-news item on Thursday it is stated, that the government is willing to give the young people another place to be, instead of "Gaderummet". A place where, among other things, mental health staff has easy access, since, as a Danish politician is quoted, "some of the young people at 'Gaderummet' need medical treatment", which is exactly what many users of "Gaderummet" chose to do without, since they didn't experience psych drugs as helpful to them. Don't the politicians think, that those who WANT medical treatment will seek it themselves?? Personally, I know several young people who bought into the neurotransmitter-hoax, and, with pleasure, leave it to psychiatry to destroy their brains and lives. But sure, we need to get them ALL! EVERYone needs to toe the line! (Hey there, you missed ME! :) )This is the Danish version of democracy. It can't tolerate ANYONE living a self-determined life, making their own choices, choosing to do without the system's dogmas and indoctrination. It can't tolerate people who think themselves, independently. Designer society's version of "democracy". Emotional and intellectual engineering. Brave New World or Big Brother???This is the Danish version of democracy. Forcing people with existential problems to have them "solved" (if only the mental ILLNESS system was able to solve anything!) the only way accepted by the AUTHORITIES: the psychiatric way, using mind-altering drugs (in a psychiatric setting called "medicine", otherwise called "street drugs", note the hypocrisy!).Obviously the Danish version of democracy doesn't rest before we all have been turned into "lonely robots".Support "Gaderummet": Arbejdernes Landsbank reg.5361,account no.0415718, or: Danske Bank reg.0274, account no.0766399.

Posted by Marian at 17:10

Labels: alternatives, control, emotional engineering, Gaderummet, politics

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Links

Freedom CenterMindFreedomMindFreedom IrelandINTARMary BarnesArbours Crisis CentreAn Inconvenient TruthAHRPDrug AwarenessInspirations and Creative ThoughtsEmotional IntelligenceBruce E. Levine's blogPsychiatric Drug Withdrawal And Recovery - A JourneyStories We Live ByENUSPDemocracy Now!Someone Beside YouLaing SocietyLoren Mosher/SoteriaPsych RightsAlaska Mental Health Consumer NetThe Wildest Colts Make the Best HorsesGreenspiration!Stichting MindrightsSpiritual RecoveryThomas SzaszZiekPeter Lehmann PublishingAntipsychiatrieverlagThe Guelph MirrorQuantum SpiritsNuts R UsMuzzles OffBeyond The Psychiatric BoxFurious SeasonsRecovery from "schizophrenia" and other "psychotic disorders"ICSPPPsychiatric Drug FactsPsych Facts, Fiction and FolleyPsych Survivor 02The Coalition for the Abolition of Electroshock in TexasThe Wittenberg Center to End ElectroshockAwakenInTheDreamThe Icarus ProjectPsychetruthBonkers InstituteSuccessful SchizophreniaJohn M. FriedbergCoalition Against Psychiatric AssaultAdbustersInfoshopNews TargetBrave New World Revisited

Blog Archive

2008 (4) February (4) Democracy - DanishInformation about "mental illness""Monika and Filur"...A note from my ongoing PG-trip 2007 (18) December (13) Criticism Anxiety, part IIWords, just a short intermezzoOh, and...Some thoughts about hypocrisyWords, Part IIDenmark beats the US!Them - and usBut this is antediluvian!Some paranoid campaigning against avaricious campa...Paranoid campaigning?On the winding up of the specifically human"Mental illness" - a mythHere they go again, the colonized! November (5) The Salvation SyndromeA call for Big Pharma's - and psychiatry's - atten...Out of the frying pan into the fire - or: Out of o...Words, Part I25 GOOD REASONS WHY PSYCHIATRY MUST BE ABOLISHED

About Me

Marian B. Goldstein View my complete profile I am a creatively maladjusted human being who has experienced some extreme states of mind - also termed "psychosis". I've been as lucky as to get the chance to go through these states of mind without the interference of psychiatry. Instead I've had brilliant guidance during my search for myself. I am a member of MindFreedom International, a "long-distance-fan" of Freedom Center and I try to do some activism in Denmark. For a living I work with horses.