Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 30th, 2013 #1
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Pseudo-Science: Psychiatry / Mental Disorders
Old January 30th, 2013 #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424

Unfalsifiability in psychiatry and licit drugging of white children

Huxley’s prediction

According to Jeffrey Meyers’ biography of George Orwell, right after Nineteen Eighty-Four was published, Aldous Huxley wrote to Orwell telling that he did not believe that hard totalitarianism would be the chosen way of the future. Instead of a boot stomping on a human face forever, a soft totalitarian system could be devised. “Within the next generation I believe that the world’s leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons.”

The grim fact is that, gradually, what Huxley called narco-hypnosis (licit drugging) is becoming a reality throughout the West.

In today’s world, one of the ways to sell drugs of social control is to sell the idea of psychiatric illness, like labeling infants and children with non-existent disorders/diseases. The history of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), simply a list of behaviors of normal children —e.g. impulsivity, inattention, careless mistakes, etc.— illustrates social trends that strongly remind us of soma, the fictional drug in Huxley’s Brave New World.

Old February 7th, 2013 #3
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Doug Casey on Medications and Massacres

Doug Casey Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator

L: Doug, we've been hearing a lot about this image of the president shooting a shotgun circulating on the Internet. In the wake of the Connecticut massacre and multiple other shootings that have occupied the headlines of late, it's quite striking. There have been so many murders involving guns in the news lately, it's starting to look like a bloody wave of copycat activity. Or maybe, as the Greater Depression deepens, more and more people are just going to go nuts, making this a taste of things to come… What do you think?

Doug: Either of those things could be true. Both may well be; but the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about is that so many of these murderers – the vast majority, actually – turn out to be under some form of psychiatric care and on meds. What's really needed is a deep and thorough review of psychological and psychiatric practices in the US, with strict examination of the correlation between various medications and subsequent violent behavior.

Popular drugs like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Ritalin, and literally hundreds of others have very serious side effects. Shrinks are in the custom of prescribing them as an answer to the moral problems that everyone has to confront. These drugs don't resolve moral dilemmas; they disguise them and confuse the issue. I find it interesting that random mass murders were never an issue up until the last 20 years or so – roughly coincidental with a substantial portion of the US population, especially kids, being put on meds for all kinds of imaginary psychological disorders... things that used to be considered just part of life. I suggest readers look into the views of Peter Breggin, M.D., an old friend of mine who's done an immense amount of work in the area for years.

L: We need more laws regulating shrinks, not guns?

Doug: I'm not in favor of laws regulating either, but yes, people are confusing the means of violence with the cause of violence. We need to have an honest and unbiased look at what makes people turn murderous. If we don't, the massacres will continue, just using different weapons.

L: I agree, of course. Gun-Free Zones are really Vulnerable Victim Zones. But it's very hard to even discuss this issue with people rationally these days. Pro-gun people don't need convincing, and anti-gun people are beyond convincing. In the wake of so many little children being shot, just making the attempt makes it seem like I should be sporting horns and carrying a pitchfork – a deadly assault pitchfork, of course.

Doug: Yes, public discourse on the topic has become quite degraded and irrational; it no longer seems possible to have a polite and rational discussion about why these things happen. Now it's nothing more than an argument about how drastic various types of gun controls and other people controls should be. It's another sign of the unraveling social fabric of the United State that was once America. I was reading something Michael Moore said – I hate to quote Moore, because absolutely everything he says on every subject except one is dead wrong –

L: Wait – stop the presses! Doug Casey agrees with Michael Moore on something?

Doug: I don't want to be against anything just because Moore is for it. Words speak for themselves; to discredit them because you don't like the speaker is a variation of the classic ad hominem fallacy. I happen to agree with his anti-foreign-war stance; he could be channeling me on that subject, from what I've read. But that's the only thing I agree with him about, as far as I know.

If I cared what the public thought, I wouldn't even mention that, however, since the public seems to react robotically when you push certain hot buttons. One guy accused me of being a raving socialist because I mentioned that I agreed with the sentiment of the title of the book All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten – after saying I hadn't read the book, just liked its title. He illogically jumped several conclusions, upon hearing the mention of a book he didn't think he liked, but probably never read. Randites do that when they hear the philosopher Kant mentioned. It's odd how reactive people are. The public doesn't reason; it emotes and reacts. It makes me quite sympathetic to Cornelius Vanderbilt when he said "The public be damned." That's certainly true when it comes to gun control.

At any rate, in an article he wrote called Celebrating the Prince of Peace in the Land of Guns, Moore dismisses the entire case for guns as being: "… because too many white people are afraid of black people. Period." In this article he asserts that people – white people – want to have guns because they are racists.

L: The mind boggles. How could anyone say such a thing with a straight face? Black people own guns. I've seen stats that show more gun ownership among white people in the US, but a lot of black people own them, and that's after many decades of Jim Crow laws and other discrimination discouraged, or prohibited, them from owning guns. It's easier to keep folks down if they can't defend themselves.

Doug: It's an incredibly stupid statement – and completely wrong. He's a knave as well as a fool. Guns have been called "the great equalizer" precisely because they give the little guy, the weak guy, the poor guy, the means to resist crime and oppression by those who happen to be stronger or more trained in the art of war.

It's disgusting how the argument is now just about ridiculous details, like how many rounds a magazine can hold. The argument should be about principle: either a man has a right to defend himself or he doesn't. Historically, only slaves are denied weapons.

L: Only a gun can give a 100-pound female the ability to stop a 200-pound male attacker.

Doug: Exactly. So predictably, the Obama administration's move to limit gun ownership is not just the wrong thing to do, but the opposite of the right thing. Blaming the tool instead of looking into the causes of violence only ensures more violence.

L: And disarming the people only ensures more tyranny.

Doug: Well, it sure makes the tyrant's job easier. Stalin, Hitler, Mao – they all pushed for what people call gun-control legislation today. It was a prelude to gun confiscation, and we all know where that led. It will happen here too – not that I expect armed resistance from US citizens should a genuine tyranny arise. To start with, probably only 15% of the households in the country even own a gun – at least beyond a .22, a shotgun, or a little pocket pistol. Gun owners are a tiny minority. And they're very law abiding, so they'll do as they're told. No way is someone going to defend his right to self-defense when a SWAT team has his family in its crosshairs.

A good part of the problem is that Americans seem to think the right to be armed depends on the Second Amendment. It doesn't. Laws and constitutions are changed and/or disregarded all the time. The right to be armed is part of being a free human being. People who want others to defend them are worms. Unfortunately that includes about 98% of the people on this sorry planet.

But it's worse than that. Boobus americanus thinks the police and the army both can and will protect him. They can't and won't. It's critical to remember that military and paramilitary organizations are loyal first to their comrades and then to their employers. You are really just an afterthought. And worse yet, most of these guys have an extra Y chromosome. They're basically the last ones I want to see with guns – much less a legal monopoly on them.

But back to the photo of Obama firing the shotgun; it looks completely staged and phony to me. I think it'll backfire on him.

L: You think that was PR? Why would he bother? His constituency doesn't want to see him with guns, and his opposition will never vote for him, no matter what he says or does. What good could it possibly do him?

Doug: It's pure politics, like that famously idiotic picture of Michael Dukakis in a tank. He's trying to position himself as being reasonable; guns are okay for sporting purposes like shooting clay pigeons, but tighter controls are necessary to keep them out of the hands of criminals and lunatics. But look at the photo – his stance is all wrong. The gun is too high on his shoulder, and he's leaning back. He looks like he's never touched a gun in his life, let alone fired one with hefty recoil. It's a completely ridiculous and insincere PR stunt.

L: Let's hope the photo will come back to haunt him.

Doug: [Chuckles] Indeed. On a related note, the news just came out of this record-holding sniper Chris Kyle being shot to death in Texas. He was apparently killed by a friend of his who is a Marine suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. If that's true, it's almost certain that the killer was on some kind of psychiatric drug.

L: The point about psychiatric treatment that you started with.

Doug: Yes. But to be honest, I have to say that I don't have a lot of sympathy for Kyle. His record reportedly documents about 160 official kills, but I've heard he claims the number was really around 250.

L: "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror…"

Doug: Kill hundreds, while wearing a uniform, and you're a hero. Yes. It's beyond belief to think that every single one of those people he killed was an enemy soldier – let alone always his intended target and with no collateral deaths. How can you even tell who someone is when his face is obscured by a turban – especially at such distances as a world-class sniper shoots?

L: If he's wearing a headscarf, he must be bad?

Doug: Evidently, to some. The guy was clearly an obedient, programmed, and thoughtless servant of the state, trained to kill on command. He liked to say he was "defending his country," but that is shamefully disingenuous. It's a lie, actually. In fact, he was killing people in their own country, people who were trying to defeat alien invaders and their collaborators. I'm sorry his kids won't have their father around, but the world is probably better off without him.

L: Do you think this whole gun thing is coming to a head?

D: It's interesting how recent events have galvanized the pro-gun movement, even though it's quite small. It's not like it was when I was a kid, and everybody had a gun or at least wanted one. Nobody thought anything about using guns. Now they're on everyone's minds. The Second Amendment seems to be the last shred of the Constitution that serious people are actually willing to fight for – even though the rest of the Constitution is a dead letter. People have given up their right to due process, to refuse search and seizure, to trial by a jury of their peers – even free speech is only allowed in so-called free-speech zones if a powerful enough politician is in town.

L: Ah, you heard about the Utah Sheriffs' Association's refusal to comply with unconstitutional gun laws? Seems to me that the Second Amendment being the last bastion of freedom is no accident; it is, by its nature, the one right you can't trample on without meeting armed resistance.

Doug: Well, they say the Second Amendment is the one needed to defend the rest. But the rest are all gone now, so maybe it doesn't matter. It's both ironic and perverse. How can you defend America if it no longer exists? But there seem to be a few million people who say they are willing to fight this one and are equipped to do so. But if serious laws are passed, local sheriffs will roll over like tired old dogs, and the state will crush anyone who resists like a bug. Everyone is being preprogrammed to believe there are home-grown terrorists everywhere – "see something, say something." The outcome is preordained to be ugly.

The smartest thing someone can do is bury a few favorites and a whole bunch of ammo someplace where it can't be found. You don't want to be defenseless if things degenerate to the world of The Road Warrior. That's like a 50-to-1 longshot, but being caught unprepared would be very bad. Almost anything, both good and bad, is possible in today's world.

L: Hm. It's easy to talk tough about prying guns from cold, dead fingers, but how many people would actually man the barricades?

Doug: Almost zero. The average US tax slave is too well fed, to content with what's on reality TV. They are unfree but don't even know it. Pretty much like the cattle on my ranch. Les Misérables they are not.

L: Not yet, anyway.

Doug: Yes. It's coming. But I'll go ahead and go on record saying that the proper amount of gun control laws is zero.

L: Proper gun control is being able to hit your intended target.

Doug: For sure. That's why automatic weapons aren't good for much other than suppressive fire in a military operation or providing unrealistic action in movies. Yet 99% of Americans think they should be illegal, which has essentially been the case since 1934. They'll cave in on everything else like they did then. Like people all over the world have done. I think absolutely everything should be legal. If you treat people like irresponsible children, that's the way they'll tend to act. They get the idea of "safety first," not freedom, and that the authorities should protect them, ingrained in their psyches from very early on.

L: Well, as you said at the start, none of this actually contradicts the two possibilities I started with. I'm sure you're right that there's a problem with the way psychological problems are treated, especially the medicalization of counterproductive thought patterns. But that doesn't mean the instant infamy of recent mass murderers hasn't propelled people on the edge to engage in copycat grabs at fame, even if it's negative fame. And the deeper we get into the Greater Depression, the more desperate acts I suspect we'll see.

Doug: Right; all the more reason to take steps to defend yourself – starting with removing yourself from harm's way.

L: As Mr. Miagi said, "Best way block punch, Daniel-San, is no be there."

Doug: Exactly. For me, that means spending most of my time in rural Argentina, where the weather is nice, you can ride your horse 100 miles in any direction, and the wine is fantastic. In fact, we're having a big party in about a month, so I invite everyone reading this to come and see for themselves what I'm building in Cafayate. But different strokes for different folks. No one needs to do what I'm doing, but they definitely need to something to spread their political risk beyond a single jurisdiction, if they have not yet done so. It's the single most important thing I can recommend today.

L: Very well then. Words to the wise.

Doug: Let's just hope people listen and decide to stop thinking like medieval serfs.

L: Indeed. On that note, I understand the book version of our past conversations published by Laissez Faire Books is selling well.

Doug: Yes, I'm very pleased with the book and look forward to the next volume, which will be more financially oriented. By the way, I think that publishing Socratic dialogues, especially unblinking and uncensored ones like ours, is very important. The world of ideas has become stale and in desperate need for innovation, even upheaval. That's why I'm excited about the Laissez Faire Club. It is infusing a great body of radical ideas with the energy of a commercial service. The model is new, creative, and astonishingly productive. I'm a member of the Club, and I encourage our readers to join as well. It's the place to find the future of serious ideas in the grand liberal/libertarian tradition. Everyone should join it – now, before they forget.

L: Noted. Okay, thanks for another interesting conversation.

Doug: My pleasure, as always.

February 7, 2013

Doug Casey (send him mail) is a best-selling author and chairman of Casey Research, LLC., publishers of Casey’s International Speculator.
Old May 29th, 2014 #4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424
Default Thomas Szasz on Psychiatry and Religion

Thomas Szasz is a psychiatrist and author well known for his criticism of the modern psychiatry movement. He has consistently sought to apply classical liberal principles (such as bodily and mental self ownership) to social science and also explored the consequences of mandatory institutionalization of persons the state deemed to be insane. In his book, The Myth of Mental Illness (1960), Szasz claims that psychiatry ultimately robs people of the responsibility of being moral agents by obscuring the difference between socially unacceptable behavior and disease.

In this lecture, given at the National Libertarian Party's Nominating Convention in 1983, Szasz compares the influence of psychiatry on the public with the influence of religion on the public (usually with the backing of the respective king or government body) during the Middle Ages. Szasz points out that the state's tendency to use science as a justification for trampling the rights of individuals today is much like the state's tendency to use religious justifications to trample the rights of individuals in days past. Szasz once wrote in 1974:

"Since theocracy is the rule of God or its priests, and democracy the rule of the people or of the majority, pharmacracy is therefore the rule of medicine or of doctors."

Download the .mp3 version of this lecture here:
Old May 29th, 2014 #5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424

The health care debate is fundamentally broken, argues the great psychiatry skeptic Thomas Szasz, because it assumes a flawed premise. Namely, that "diseases require treatment, so the thing to do is to avoid diseases so you don't need treatment."

Szasz ties this to the problem of socialism in health care. Because of the way we think about disease, we have a health care system that removes control from individuals and gives it to state-enabled doctors and insurance companies. In psychology, for example, "diseases are no longer defined by pathologists but are defined essentially by a political process."

This has lead to, among other things, more expensive health care. Szasz offers seven reasons why, many having to do with the way we think about disease, how it should be treated, and the relationship between citizens and medicine.

Download an .mp3 version of this lecture here:
Old May 29th, 2014 #6
Holocaust Minimalism
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 149

The DSM is one Hell of a racketeering manual.
Old November 25th, 2014 #7
Robbie Key
Senior Member
Robbie Key's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,915
Robbie Key

Are All Psychiatric Drugs Too Unsafe to Take?

By Dr. Peter R. Breggin
Global Research, November 25, 2014

Psychiatric drugs are more dangerous than you have ever imagined. If you haven’t been prescribed one yet, you are among the lucky few. If you or a loved one are taking psychiatric drugs, there is hope; but you need to understand the dangers and how to minimize the risk.

The following overview focuses on longer-term psychiatric drug hazards, although most of them can begin to develop within weeks. They are scientifically documented in my recent book Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal and my medical text Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, Second Edition.

Newer or atypical antipsychotic drugs: Risperdal, Invega, Zyprexa, Abilify, Geodon, Seroquel, Latuda, Fanapt and Saphris

Antipsychotic drugs, including both older and newer ones, cause shrinkage (atrophy) of the brain in many human brain scan studies and in animal autopsy studies. The newer atypicals especially cause a well-documented metabolic syndrome including elevated blood sugar, diabetes, increased cholesterol, obesity and hypertension. They also produce dangerous cardiac arrhythmias and unexplained sudden death, and they significantly reduce longevity. In addition, they cause all the problems of the older drugs, such as Thorazine and Haldol, including tardive dyskinesia, a largely permanent and sometimes disabling and painful movement disorder caused by brain damage and biochemical disruptions.

Risperdal in particular but others as well cause potentially permanent breast enlargement in young boys and girls. The overall risk of harmful long-term effects from antipsychotic drugs exceeds the capacity of this review. Withdrawal from antipsychotic drugs can cause overwhelming emotional and neurological suffering, as well as psychosis in both children and adults, making complete cessation at times very difficult or impossible.

Despite their enormous risks, the newer antipsychotic drugs are now frequently used off-label to treat anything from anxiety and depression to insomnia and behavior problems in children. Two older antipsychotic drugs, Reglan and Compazine, are used for gastrointestinal problems, and despite small or short-term dosing, they too can cause problems, including tardive dyskinesia.

Antipsychotic drugs masquerading as sleep aids: Seroquel, Abilify, Zyprexa and others

Nowadays, many patients are given medications for insomnia without being told that they are in fact receiving very dangerous antipsychotic drugs. This can happen with any antipsychotic but most frequently occurs with Seroquel, Abilify and Zyprexa. The patient is unwittingly exposed to all the hazards of antipsychotic drugs.

Antipsychotic drugs masquerading as antidepressant and bipolar drugs: Seroquel, Abilify, Zyprexa and others

The FDA has approved some antipsychotic drugs as augmentation for treating depression along with antidepressants. As a result, patients are often misinformed that they are getting an “antidepressant” when they are in fact getting one of the newer antipsychotic drugs, with all of their potentially disastrous adverse effects. Patients are similarly misled by being told that they are getting a “bipolar” drug when it is an antipsychotic drug.

Antidepressants: SSRIs such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro and Viibyrd, as well as Effexor, Pristiq, Wellbutrin, Cymbalta and Vivalan

The SSRIs are probably the most fully studied antidepressants, but the following observations apply to most or all antidepressants. These drugs produce long-term apathy and loss of quality of life. Many studies of SSRIs show severe brain abnormalities, such as shrinkage (atrophy) with brain cell death in humans and the growth of new abnormal brain cells in animal and laboratory studies. They frequently produce an apathy syndrome — a generalized loss of motivation or interest in many or all aspects of life. The SSRIs frequently cause irreversible dysfunction and loss of interest in sexuality, relationship and love. Withdrawal from all antidepressants can cause a wide variety of distressing and dangerous emotional reactions from depression to mania and from suicide to violence. After withdrawal from antidepressants, individuals often experience persistent and distressing mental and neurological impairments. Some people find antidepressant withdrawal to be so distressing that they cannot fully stop taking the drugs.

Benzodiazepine (benzos) anti-anxiety drugs and sleep aids: Xanax, Klonopin, Ativan, Valium, Librium, Tranxene and Serax; Dalmane, Doral, Halcion, ProSom and Restoril used as sleep aids

Benzos deteriorate memory and other mental capacities. Human studies demonstrate that they frequently lead to atrophy and dementia after longer-term exposure. After withdrawal, individuals exposed to these drugs also experience multiple persisting problems including memory and cognitive dysfunction, emotional instability, anxiety, insomnia, and muscular and neurological discomforts. Mostly because of severely worsened anxiety and insomnia, many cannot stop taking them and become permanently dependent. This frequently happens after only six weeks of exposure. Any benzo can be prescribed as a sleep aid, but Dalmane, Doral, Halcion, ProSom and Restoril are marketed for that purpose.

Non-benzo sleep aids: Ambien, Intermezzo, Lunesta and Sonata

These drugs pose similar problems to the benzos, including memory and other mental problems, dependence and painful withdrawal. They can cause many abnormal mental states and behaviors, including dangerous sleepwalking. Insufficient data is available concerning brain shrinkage and dementia, but these are likely outcomes considering their similarity to benzos. Recent studies show that these drugs increase death rate, taking away years of life, even when used intermittently for sleep.

Stimulants for ADHD: Adderall, Dexedrine and Vyvanse are amphetamines, and Ritalin, Focalin, and Concerta are methylphenidate

All of these drugs pose similar if not identical long-term dangers to children and adults. In humans, many brain scan studies show that they cause brain tissue shrinkage (atrophy). Animal studies show persisting biochemical changes in the brain. These drugs can lead directly to addiction or increase the risk of abusing cocaine and other stimulants later on in adulthood. They disrupt growth hormone cycles and can cause permanent loss of height in children. Recent studies confirm that children who take these drugs often become lifelong users of multiple psychiatric drugs, resulting in shortened lifespan, increased psychiatric hospitalization and criminal incarceration, increased drug addiction, increased suicide and a general decline in quality of life. Withdrawal from stimulants can cause “crashing” with worsened behavior, depression and suicide. Strattera is a newer drug used to treat ADHD. Unlike the other stimulants, it is not an addictive amphetamine, but it too can be dangerously overstimulating. Strattera is more similar to antidepressants in its longer-term risks.

Mood stabilizers: Lithium, Lamictal, Equetro and Depakote

Lithium is the oldest and hence most thoroughly studied. It causes permanent memory and mental dysfunction, including depression, and an overall decline in neurological function and quality of life. It can result in severe neurological dilapidation with dementia, a disastrous adverse drug effect called “syndrome of irreversible lithium-effectuated neurotoxicity” or SILENT. Long-term lithium exposure also causes severe skin disorders, kidney failure and hypothyroidism. Withdrawal from lithium can cause manic-like episodes and psychosis. There is evidence that Depakote can cause abnormal cell growth in the brain. Lamictal has many hazards including life-threatening diseases involving the skin and other organs. Equetro cases life-threatening skin disorders and suppresses white cell production with the risk of death from infections. Withdrawal from Depakote, Lamictal and Equetro can cause seizures and emotional distress.

Summarizing the tragic truth

It is time to face the enormous tragedy of exposing children and adults to any psychiatric drug for months and years. My new video introduces and highlights these risks and my book Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal describes them in detail and documents them with scientific research.

All classes of psychiatric drugs can cause brain damage and lasting mental dysfunction when used for months or years. Although research data is lacking for a few individual drugs in each class, until proven otherwise it is prudent and safest to assume that the risks of brain damage and permanent mental dysfunction apply to every single psychiatric drug. Furthermore, all classes of psychiatric drugs cause serious and dangerous withdrawal reactions, and again it is prudent and safest to assume that any psychiatric drug can cause withdrawal problems.

Widespread misinformation

Difficulty in stopping psychiatric drugs can lead misinformed or unscrupulous health professionals to tell patients that they need to take their drugs for the rest of their lives when they really need to taper and withdraw from them in a careful manner. As described in Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal, tapering outside of a hospital often requires psychological and social help, including therapy and emotional support and monitoring by friends or family.

Meanwhile, there is no substantial or convincing evidence that any psychiatric drug is useful longer-term. Psychiatric drug treatment for months or years lacks scientific basis. Therefore, the risk-benefit ratio is enormously lopsided toward the risk.

Science-based conclusions

Whenever possible, psychiatric drugs should be tapered and withdrawn either as an inpatient or as an outpatient with careful clinical supervision and a support network as described in Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal. Keep in mind that it is not only dangerous to take psychiatric drugs — it can be dangerous to withdraw from them. The safest solution is to avoid starting psychiatric drugs! It is time for a return to psychological, social and educational approaches to emotional suffering and impairment.
Old June 27th, 2015 #8
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 5,616
Thumbs down electric 'snake oil'

Return of Electro-Cures Exposes Psychiatry's Weakness

By John Horgan

Delving into the history of treatments for mental illness can be depressing. Rather than developing ever-more-potent therapies, psychiatrists and others in the mental-health industry seem merely to recycle old ones. Consider, for example, therapies that stimulate the brain with electricity. In 1901, H. Lewis Jones, a physician, stated in the Journal of Mental Science:

"The employment of electricity in medicine has passed through many vicissitudes, being at one time recognized and employed at the hospitals, and again being neglected, and left for the most part in the hands of ignorant persons, who continue to perpetrate the grossest impositions in the name of electricity. As each fresh important discovery in electric science has been reached, men’s minds have been turned anew to the subject, and interest in its therapeutic properties has been stimulated. Then after extravagant hopes and promises of cure, there have followed failures, which have thrown the employment of this agent into disrepute, to be again after time revived and brought into popular favor."

Jones’s concerns could apply to our era, when electro-cures for mental illness have once again been "brought into popular favor." Below I briefly review the evidence—or lack thereof--for five electrotherapies: transcranial magnetic stimulation, cranial electrotherapy stimulation, vagus-nerve stimulation, deep-brain stimulation and electroconvulsive therapy.
The rest here:

Giving 'em the jolt, the juice (psychopharmacology) or the jive (psychotherapy) doesn't "cure" 'em ...but it sure does fill the pockets of some members of the 'medical community'


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 PM.
Page generated in 0.13869 seconds.