FROM NY TIMES: ANTI-PSYCHOTIC DRUGS OFFER NO BENEFIT IN CURBING AGGRESSION

Drugs Offer No Benefit in Curbing Aggression, Study Finds
By BENEDICT CAREY



The drugs most widely used to manage aggressive outbursts in intellectually disabled people are no more effective than placebos for most patients and may be less so, researchers report.

The finding, being published Friday, sharply challenges standard medical practice in mental health clinics and nursing homes in the United States and around the world.

In recent years, many doctors have begun to use the so-called antipsychotic drugs, which were developed to treat schizophrenia, as all-purpose tranquilizers to settle threatening behavior — in children with attention-deficit problems, college students with depression, older people with Alzheimer’s disease and intellectually handicapped people.

The new study tracked 86 adults with low I.Q.’s in community housing in England, Wales and Australia over more than a month of treatment. It found a 79 percent reduction in aggressive behavior among those taking dummy pills, compared with a reduction of 65 percent or less in those taking antipsychotic drugs.

The researchers focused on two drugs, Risperdal by Janssen, and an older drug, Haldol, but said the findings almost certainly applied to all similar medications. Such drugs account for more than $10 billion in annual sales, and research suggests that at least half of all prescriptions are for unapproved “off label” uses — often to treat aggression or irritation.

The authors said the results were quite likely to intensify calls for a government review of British treatment standards for such patients, and perhaps to prompt more careful study of treatment for aggressive behavior in patients with a wide variety of diagnoses.

Other experts said the findings were also almost certain to inflame a continuing debate over the widening use of antipsychotic drugs. Patient advocates and some psychiatrists say the medications are overused.

Previous studies of the drugs’ effect on aggressive outbursts have been mixed, with some showing little benefit and others a strong calming influence. But the drugs have serious side effects, including rapid weight gain and tremors, and doctors have had little rigorous evidence to guide practice.

“This is a very significant finding by some very prominent psychiatrists” — one that directly challenges the status quo, said Johnny L. Matson, a professor of psychology at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, co-author of an editorial with the study in the journal Lancet.

While it is unclear how much the study by itself will alter prescribing habits, “the message to doctors should be, think twice about prescribing, go with lower doses and monitor side effects very carefully,” Dr. Matson continued, adding:

“Or just don’t do it. We know that behavioral treatments can work very well with many patients.”

Other experts disagreed, saying the new study was not in line with previous research or their own experience. Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, said that Risperdal only promotes approved uses, which in this country include the treatment of irritability associated with autism in children.

In the study, Dr. Peter J. Tyrer, a professor of psychiatry at Imperial College London, led a research team who assigned 86 people from ages 18 to 65 to one of three groups: one that received Risperdal; one that received another antipsychotic, the generic form of Haldol; and one that was given a placebo pill. Caregivers tracked the participants’ behavior. Many people with very low I.Q.’s are quick to anger and lash out at others, bang their heads or fists into the wall in frustration, or singe the air with obscenities when annoyed.

After a month, people in all three groups had settled down, losing their temper less often and causing less damage when they did. Yet unexpectedly, those in the placebo group improved the most, significantly more so than those on medication.

In an interview, Dr. Tyrer said there was no reason to believe that any other antipsychotic drug used for aggression, like Zyprexa from Eli Lilly or Seroquel from AstraZeneca, would be more effective. Being in the study, with all the extra attention it brought, was itself what apparently made the difference, he said.

“These people tend to get so little company normally,” Dr. Tyrer said. “They’re neglected, they tend to be pushed into the background, and this extra attention has a much bigger effect on them that it would on a person of more normal intelligence level.”

The study authors, who included researchers from the University of Wales and the University of Birmingham in Britain and the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, wrote that their results “should not be interpreted as an indication that antipsychotic drugs have no place in the treatment of some aspects of behavior disturbance.”

But the routine prescription of the drugs for aggression, they concluded, “should no longer be regarded as a satisfactory form of care.”

SOCIAL DIVISIONS

Within society today we see 4 social divisions-
the ruling oligarchs- that is the few who maintain power and control over the system of things.
The privileged class.
The oppressed.
and the controlled.
The controlled are those who have accepted handouts from the elites and do not think ciritcally or engage in any active resistance but mrely accept the status quo. The oligarchs and privileged keep the oppressed class in a situation where it is difficult to overcome (for isntance, the privileged have their educations paid for, the oppressed must struggle with lifetime debt to be able to enter college). The oligarchs want to keep everyone in their place. The controlled remain in their place without question. It remains up to the oppressed to unite together and become active in the political process to be able to overcome the current system of things.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT IN REGARDS TO PURE STUPIDITY

I recently received an anonymous comment that stated that persons 'need stimulants' to live a 'normal life'. First- what does this 'normal' possibly mean? To conform means we need a highly addictive narcotic? A few shots of whiskey at the end of the day may make me feel a bit more mellow, do I need this for a 'normal' life? The comment goes on to say that if we do not give stimulants to a person with this 'admitted;y vague disease' (at least they recognize that), that the person will become a future drug addict and all other assorted grim things. Has this person read the recent study from University of Buffalo that shows in the long term NO difference between drugged or non drugged kids other than the fact that the drugged kids had growth suppression and other adverse events or Lambert's study stating that stimulants themselves actually lead to a rise in addictive behavior, not to mention the addictive nature of stimulants in themselves? Then this person continues on that I need to have 'compassion'. This has been the entire theme of my work, to offer a more compassionate mental health system. Lastly, this person suggests that I hang out with unmedicated "ADD' people as if this is some dreadful thing. Well, I do. Everyday. Is there a problem with this? Whose problem is it?

-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
www.DrDanEdmunds.com

A JOURNEY WITH

I had the experience of encountering a young man who had been given the diagnosis of 'schizophrenia'. He had been through years of therapy and had been through multiple psychiatric hospitalizations. Mental health professionals spoke of him only in clinical terms and I found this disturbing. His chart was reams and reams of paper painting the picture of an immensely helpless and hopeless character. The scholl system sought to exile him as well. I tossed aside all the clinical records, they only reported on his behavior, not his experience. It is the experience that is the 'soul' of the person. Psychiatrists never really spoke to the young man, they deffred to his parents, or spoke at him, judging his behavior and assign their labels. I embarked on becoming his therapist and in this did not want to judge his behavior, I wanted to know the person. So our sessions involved a process of my merely listening, of connecting. I did not seek to judge him, label him, or dismiss his experience. I only sought to join him where he was at. He began to relate to me his pain, his feelings of isolation and aloneness. He shared with me about the voices he heard and the beings he saw. I would converse with him about these beings, treating them as real as he was before me. Over time, I saw that these things were fragments of himself, they were dreams he had, hopes he envisioned, people he wanted to meet who never arrived. He had immense fear, and I journeyed with him in understanding the roots of this fear. I stood by him as he sought out new ways of living and coping. I understood the circumstances which led to his 'madness' and set forth some new possibilities, but at his pace, at his comfort level.
He has overcome a lot, and we continue to have periods of conversation though we do not see each other as frequently. We forged a bond as two persons with very different experiences, but each seeking to understand the human condition, each seeking to know about this thing we call life.


-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
www.DrDanEdmunds.com

THE HUMAN CONDITION

When we look at those who are labeled delusional, we must realize and understand that society itself is delusional. The difference is that in one situation the majority has accepted the delusion whereas with the one labeled so, it is the delusion of one.
It is often when one faces the sense of feeling alone or being alone in this world, of seeking to define a sense of self before realizing their existence itself, that angst arises. Mental distress arises from not finding any point or purpose to existence and then feeling that in this, the person stands alone. The person then must seek to define or be defined. Being defined means to be labeled.
What ultimately is the human condition? Has psychiatry and psychology truly answered the questions about it? Has it really offered solutions? People remain troubled and in spite of research and studies and psychiatric inquiry, little has changed, in fact, it has become worse. Because we have not really looked at the human condition, we have not faced the things that would lead persons to a better existence, instead we have developed systems based on self-interest, seeking not to understand the human condition and do something about, but to create a sense of 'groupthink', to solely make persons more amenable to the oppressive environments they encounter. We see it in schools, where children are stifled and drugged if they dare not comply with the demands of a system that has become less and less about learning and more about how to think. We see it in the divisions between class. It is all around us.

-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
International Center for Humane Psychiatry
www.DrDanEdmunds.com

HOW OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM DRIVE OUR CHILDREN 'MAD'

Sitting in a meeting for a child, the first topic of the special education director was 'well, we need to get this child back on medication". After an explanation of the flaws of the MTA study and the recent study of University of Buffalo showing no difference in the long term between drugged kids and those not subjected to drugs as well as growth suppression and adverse events amongst the drugged, this did not sway any opinion. Rather, this person stated he had 'connections' to the psychiatrist and would see to it that this was accomplished. Of course, when the topic of the child's behavior being communication and my awareness of what his current distress is about, this conversation was basically ended. Instead, it became a conversation on how to force the child into compliance to a situation that he finds uncomofrtable and distressing. But in this, the special education director found that if he could shirk repsonsibility and out it upon another to create a behavioral assessment that this would also be positive. Once again, blame the brain, blame the child, but exonerate yourself from examining the situations which have led the child to distress. And if that does not work, warehouse the child somewhere where he will not be a bother to anyone. This is the sad state of affairs under which we operate. As Laing had noted once that children in the UK had a higher chance of entering a mental institution than college and that it could be the way we educate children that is driving them mad.

-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.

10 REASONSTO SAY NO TO PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS

1. Premium Non Notre...or...Do no Harm.

* Drugs create altered states of mind by artificially increasing or decreasing neuro-functioning, and this causes harm to neuroconnections (e.g. downregulation, upregulation, tardive dyskinesia, EPS, Allostatic load, etc…) See reference list.

2. Use least intrusive method possible when treating.

* It is less intrusive to conduct psychotherapy than to administer a psychotropic mood and thought altering drug that always carries negative side effects. Drugs “work” by causing brain pathology and disrupting the normal neurotransmitter functioning and levels. See reference list.

3. Psychotherapy is MORE EFFECITVE than Drugs, especially in the long run.

* Psychotherapy is more effective than medication, especially in the long run, and psychotherapy plus medications show no greater benefit than therapy alone.(There are numerous studies showing this effect, most notably: Effectiveness of Psychotherapy: Michigan State Study. Seligman, M., **Consumer Reports, 1995.)

* Even exercise shows greater benefits for symptom reduction than anti-depressant medications. (Mercola, J., British Journal of Sports Medicine, April 2001: 35: p.114-117.)

* Psychotherapy can work better than drugs even for insomnia. (U.S. News and World Health Report, December 3, 2004. Visit www.behavioralhealth.typepad.com)

* Recovery rates are almost 3 times better in unindustrialized countries than in the U.S., where we use psychotropic drugs to “treat” patients. It is quite simple as to why we suffer more by attempting to suppress our suffering with technology. Freud stated “civilization is the root of our neurosis.”

Harrison, G., Hopper, K., Craig, T., Laska, E., et al. (2001). Recovery from psychotic illness: a 15- and 25- year international follow-up study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 506-17.

Hopper K. & Wanderling J. (2000). Revisiting the developed versus developing country distinction in course and outcome in schizophrenia: results from ISoS, the WHO collaborative follow-up project. International Study of Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 26(4), 835-46.

Hopper, K., Harrison, G., Aleksander, J., & Sartiorius, N. (2004, In Press). Recovery from schizophrenia: An international perspective. Madison, Connecticutt: International Universities Press, Inc.

Indian Journal of Medical Research, August 2004; WHO studies published in 1992 and 1996; US SAMHSA; Washington Post.

Jablensky, A., Sartorius, N., Ernberg, G., Anker, M., Korten, A., Cooper, J. E., Day, R., Bertelsen, A. (1992). Schizophrenia: Manifestations, incidence and course in different cultures, a World Health Organization ten country study. Psychological Medicine Monograph Supplement 20, 1-95.

Leff, J., Sartorius, N., Jablensky, A., Korten, A., & Ernberg, G. (1992). The international pilot study of schizophrenia: five-year follow-up findings. Psychological Medicine, 22, 131-145.

Murphy, H. B. & Raman, A.C. (1971). The chronicity of schizophrenia in indigenous tropical peoples: Results of a 12 year follow-up survey in Mauritius. British Journal of Psychiatry, 118, 489-97.

* Psychological interventions are at least as effective as pharmacological treatments for depression (Antonuccio et al., 1995; DeRubeis et al. 1999.)

* Even for people diagnosed Schizophrenic (no or minimal drug usage references):

Alanen, Y.O.; Ugelstad, E.; Armelius, B.A.; Lehtinen, K.; Rosenbaum, B.; and Sjostrom, R., Eds. (1994) Early treatment for schizophrenic patients: Scandinavian psychotherapeutic approaches. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.

Alanen, Y.O.; Lehtinen, V.; Lehtinen, K.; Aaltonen, J.; and Rakkolainen, V. (2000) The Finnish model for early treatment of schizophrenia and related psychoses. In: Martindale, B., Bateman, A., Crowe, M., and Margison, F., Eds. Psychosis:

Psychological approaches and their effectiveness. London: Gaskell. (The centerpiece of their approach is rapid in-home family and social network intervention to avoid hospitalization and medicalization.) Ciompi, L., Duwalder, H.-P., Maier, C., Aebi, E., Trutsch, K., Kupper, Z., & Rutishauser, C. (1992). The pilot project "Soteria Berne": Clinical experiences and results. British Journal of Psychiatry, 161(suppl. 18), 145-153. (A replication of Mosher and co-workers Soteria Project in California. Similar results-about 2/3rds of newly diagnosed psychotics recovered without neuroleptic drug treatment)

Lehtinen, V. et. al. (2000). Two-Year Follow-up of First Episode Psychosis Treated According to an Integrated Model: Is immediate neuroleptisation always needed? European Psychiatry, 15(5): 312-320. (44% of the randomly assigned subjects received no neuroleptic drug treatment-vs. 6% of the controls- over the two-year period and their outcomes were comparable or better than those treated with drugs.)

Matthews SM, Roper MT, Mosher LR, and Menn AZ. (1979) A non-neuroleptic treatment for schizophrenia: Analysis of the two-year post-discharge risk of relapse. Schiz. Bull. 5: 322-333. (Soteria treated patients-as compared with hospital treated-had a significantly lower rehospitalizaton rate over two years despite few being neuroleptic maintained. First cohort analysis)

Mosher, L.R. & Bola, J.R. (2000) The Soteria Project: Twenty-five Years of Swimming Upriver. Complexity and Change, 9: 68-74. (Soteria patients-43%- who received no neuroleptics over the two year follow-up period did substantially better than those who did. As a group the Soteria treated patients had better outcomes than a control group that received "usual" hospital and drug treatment. The subgroup of "poor prognosis" subjects treated at Soteria had better outcomes than the Soteria group as a whole. First combined cohort analysis)

Mosher LR & Menn A Z (1978) Community residential treatment fornschizophrenia: Two-year follow-up. Hosp Comm Psych 29: 715-723. (Better psychosocialoutcomes for Soteria treated 1st and 2nd episode patients compared with control subject receiving "usual" treatment. First cohort.)

Mosher LR, Vallone R, and Menn AZ .(1995) The treatment of acute psychosis without neuroleptics: Six-week psychopathology outcome data from the Soteria project. Int. J. Soc. Psych. 41: 157-173. (2nd cohort: as was true of the 1st cohort, at six weeks the Soteria group had improved as much without meds as the hospital group-all of whom received neuroleptics.)

Tuori, T. et al (1998) The Finnish National Schizophrenia Project 1981-1987: 10 year evaluate on of its results. Acta. Psychiatrica Scandinavica 97: 10-18. (In the presence of comprehensive "need adapted"psychosocial treatment, drugs are unneccesary for the most part and may, in fact, prevent recovery.)

4. No Evidence for Biological Basis, so Why Use Biological Intervention?

* "There is no definitive lesion, laboratory test, or abnormality in brain tissue that can identify mental illness." in Surgeon General's report on mental health December, 1999.

* “psychiatry is the only medical specialty that…treats disorders without clearly known causes…including disabling diseases such as schizophrenia.” In American Psychiatric Association. (1998). Textbook of Psychopharmacology.Washinton, DC: American Psychiatric Press, AND American Psychiatric Association. (1999). Textbook of psychiatry. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. (Texts used by Psychiatry Students)

*"Brain Disease Hypothesis for Schizophrenia Disconfirmed by All Evidence" by Al Siebert, PhD., Ethical Human Sciences and Services, Vol 1, No. 2 1999

* “there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction...After years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remain largely speculative." Nov. 1998 National Institute Health (NIH) Consensus Conference on ADHD concluded (see quote above).

* Leo, J. & Cohen, D., Broken Brains or Flawed Studies: A Critical Review of Neuroimaging Research, In The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Winter 2003, Volume 24, Number 1, pp 29-56

* Joseph, J. (1998). The equal environment assumption of the classical twin method: A critical analysis. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 19, 325-358.


* Joseph, J. (1999). A critique of the Finnish Adoptive Family Study of Schizophrenia. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 20, 133-154.

5. Psychotropic Drugs Create, not correct, Chemical Imbalances & Disorders.

* Psychotropic drugs create potential permanent Downregulation and Upregulation: increasing the susceptibility to having the very symptoms or problem they are attempting to reduce. Dr. Peter Breggin, MD, Harvard Graduate, Psychiatrist and Researcher, Breggin, P. & D. Cohen. (2000). Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Medication. New York: Perseus Books. Also see Grace Jackson, M.D.(2005) Rethinking Psychiatric Drugs: A guide to Informed Consent.

* Untreated Initial Psychosis: Relation to Cognitive Deficits and Brain Morphology in First-Episode Schizophrenia, by Ho, Alicata, Ward, Moser, O'lLeary, Arndt, and Andreasen, American Journal of Psychiatry 2003; 160:142-148. This studies' "results suggest that large-scale initiatives designed to prevent neural injury through early intervention in the prepsychotic or early psychosis phase may be based on incorrect assumptions that neurotoxicity or cognitive deterioration may be avoided.

6. Many Psychotropic Drugs Increase Risk of Suicide-Aggression.

* Taking almost all of the SSRI antidepressants increase the patient’s risk of having and acting upon suicidal thoughts, agitation and akathisia. Dr. David Healy, MD, medico-legal expert witness/researcher, former Director of North Wales Dept. of Psychological Medicine and Secretary of British Association of Psychopharmacology, author of over 120 peer reviewed articles and 12 books.

7. We Don’t Really Know If The Drugs Are Safe or Risks All Known.

* “Our current drug approval system has demonstrated that we don’t always understand the full magnitude of drug risks prior to approval of products.”

Dr. Steve Galson, director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,reported in the N.Y. Times, Nov. 6, 2004, in FDA’s Drug Safety System Will Get Outside Review.

* Since 1997, almost two dozen prescription drugs have been taken off the market due to serious side effects–some causing numerous deaths. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/)

* Whitaker, R., The case against antipsychotic drugs: a 50-year record of doing more harm than good, Medical Hypotheses, Volume 62, Issue 1 , 2004, Pages 5-13.

8. Drugging your problem is MORE Expensive.

* Psychotherapy is Less Costly Than Drugs, basically because suppressing the problem does not help you work through, solve, HEAL, AND because therapy produces natural brain changes (Antonuccio et al. 1997; Cuijpers, 1997; Smith et al, 1997.) Especially since psychological treatments can be successfully delivered in a group format or even as bibliotherapy with minimal therapist contact.

* Pharmacotherapy alone increases vulnerability to depression relapse (Hollon et al, 1991; Segal et al, 1999) and there is virtually no evidence of antidepressant efficacy in children (Ambrosini et al, 1993; Hazell et al., 1995.)

9. Drugs simply do not work.

* Greenberg et al in 1992 outlined how effects of medication were significantly smaller than normally reported.

* Approximately 75%-90% of sugar pills were EQUALLY EFFECTIVE as SSRI-Antidepressant drugs, and that when the sugar pill-placebo gave a side effect,there was NO CLINICAL DIFFERNCE BETWEEN THE DRUG AND THESUGAR PILL. (J. Moncrieff & I. Kirsch, July 16, 2005, British Medical Journal, doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7509.155 2005;331;155-157 BMJ.

* Kirsch, I,. & J. Thomas, at el, The Emperor's New Drugs: An Analysis of Antidepressant Medication Data Submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,, In Prevention & Treatment, Volume 5, Article 23, posted July 15, 2002.

10. Saying Yes to a Psychotropic Drug is almost Never an Informed Choice.

CALLS TO END STIGMA OF SCHIZOPHRENIA LABEL- FROM GLASGOW, SCOTLAND SUNDAY HERALD

Calls to end stigma of schizophrenia ‘label’
By Adam Forrest


Word is a disease in itself, patients and experts say


IT IS a label that feels like a life sentence, dooming sufferers to a life of verbal abuse and second-class-citizen status.

Ron Coleman, diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1982 and treated with electro-shock therapy and drugs, has cited his own nightmare experience in the psychiatric system to call for the term to be dropped altogether.

The 49-year-old from Fife said: "I lived the schizophrenia label instead of living as a person. People treat you as if you're a piece of crap, talk to you like a non-person. I got people battering on the door, shouting psycho' and throwing things at the window. I spent 10 years in a drug-induced, zombied haze.."


"I still hear voices, but I've found a way of living with them. It was only when I turned away from psychiatric medication that my life totally turned around. Since then I've got married, had kids, got a house and love going to work every day."

A growing number of mental health experts in Scotland agree that cases like Coleman's demonstrate the need to scrap the term schizophrenia, since it has, they believe, become a stigmatised and scientifically redundant category.

"It's a loaded, dated label and it can be difficult to see beyond," said Eddie McCann, senior lecturer in mental health at Napier University. "It gives the impression that it is a perpetual state, but people do get better and lead fulfilling lives.

"The label is connected to approaches dating back almost 100 years ago. We have to think about new categories based on different types of distress. Drugs have a place, but there are huge possibilities for therapeutic work."

Traditionally, advocates of the schizophrenia diagnosis argue that the illness is a deteriorating condition arising from increased activity in the brain of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Yet the success of behavioural therapies and counselling at the Scottish Hearing Voices Network in Dundee suggests that it may be traumatic experiences and other social factors that lead to the development of psychoses.

"The idea that you've got a brain disease from which you'll never recover is just not true," said Paul Hammersley, a cognitive-behavioural therapist leading the Campaign for Abolition of the Schizophrenia Label (CASL). "The claim that there is a medical condition called schizophrenia doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's an appallingly stigmatising diagnosis. It can ruin lives."

Coleman added: "It's clear to me that hearing voices was created by my experience of abuse, not biology, not this thing we call schizophrenia, which itself disables people."

In Japan, the term schizophrenia has been replaced with the term "integration disorder", although some believe stigma would soon become attached to any new label. Instead, there is growing support for splitting the symptoms into new sub-categories including sensitivity, anxiety, trauma-related and drug-induced psychosis, since these may point toward more nuanced methods of recovery.

Andrew Moskowitz, senior lecturer at Aberdeen University's department of mental health, said: "When it was first proposed almost 100 years ago, it was called the group of schizophrenias. There's a long-standing belief in sub-groups. The challenge is in re-classifying an individual's symptoms so you can actually help them."

Yet Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the mental health charity Sane, believes the word is still necessary to raise awareness and attract funding. "While we recognise that the term can act as a stigmatising label," she said, "without identifying this condition as a serious illness, how can there be any hope of researching it and providing better treatments?"

But Paul Hammersley is adamant that such reluctance is unhelpful. "If schizophrenia is a flawed concept, then we have to question what we're raising awareness and money for," he said.

Dr Andrew Gumley, senior lecturer in clinical psychology at Glasgow University and a consultant at Gartnavel Hospital, said the term schizophrenia told doctors and carers very little about the best modes of recovery. "Scotland has been really strong about new approaches, and there's a growing recognition that there needs to be an individualised understanding of recovery," he said.

ZOLOFT DANGEROUS REPORTS HARVARD PSYCHIATRIST JOSEPH GLENMULLEN

At a hearing that began Thursday morning, Dr. Joseph Glenmullen of
Boston testified that since those trials, FDA studies of the side
effects of antidepressants, including Zoloft, culminated in a 2005
warning that children and teens taking the drugs can experience
aggressiveness and hostility.

The so-called "black box" warning, because it appears in a black box at
the top of use instructions, is "the highest level of warning the FDA
issues," Glenmullen said. "It's just short of removing the drug from the
market."

Defense attorney Roy Black also led Glenmullen through a transcript of
the 1999 trial in which expert witnesses for the prosecution called
Zoloft a safe and effective treatment for depression.

That might have been the general knowledge about the drug at the time,
Glenmullen testified, but Zoloft "is neither effective nor is it
entirely safe for use among children and adolescents based on the FDA
warnings we have now."

FEAR

Fear leads to great emotional turmoil. Other so-called mental disorders also often arise from a sense of fear. A fear of individuals, a fear of society, a fear of having been hurt and maybe being hurt again, a fear of life, a fear of death, a fear of not understanding who we are or maybe even being afraid of discovering who we are or what we were, a fear of the uncertainty surrounding what we may become. A fear of persons, a fear that maybe we are not a person, or our identity as a person. A fear of challenges, a fear of not knowing the answers, or maybe a fear of not understanding the question, or even a fear of not knowing what questions to ask. A fear of not being loved, or maybe a fear of not knowing what love really is, or what it could be, or what we have been told that it is. A fear of being controlled, a fear of our freedom being taken away. A fear of what others may do to us, or have done to us, or will continue to do to us.
This is the human condition, we all have levels of fear, some more, some less. We all have the desire for security, for safety, for solace. If we begin to understand this, we will then begin to understand life, we will be able to connect with others, and realize that the only way out of this fear is for us to journey together. Life is a journey, it is filled with moments where we stray into thorns, yet it is filled with moments of delight. To truly describe day, we must see night. To truly describe that which is beautiful we must have something to compare it to. Thus, we have the conditions of suffering. We would not know joy fully, unless we had something to compare it to.

AGENTS OF OPPRESSION

I recall working with a young man who had undergone sexual trauma at the age of 4. He lived in a chaotic family with an aggressive, addicted father. There was little positives spoken to this young man. He had an extensive history of psychiatric hospitalizations. What I began to note was that within the hospital setting he was able to 'conform' and was discharged in only a few weeks, but problems would erupt again once sent home leading to further hospitalizations. In one instance, this young man stayed in the home of those outside his family. Though there remained some challenges, he apeared calmer and more able to communicate.
I recall a similar instance with another child. The step-father was abusive both verbally and physically. The mother often because of her own fear would 'cover' for the step-father's actions. The child in one on one settings never created any disturbance. However, his behaviors in the home were often 'disturbing'. I was pleased that during my work with him he was not hospitalized at any point nor on psychiatric drugs. However, I was aware that he had a prior history of this many times over. In both of these situations, I saw the fmaily dynamics as oppressive and detrimental and tried my best to help the children navigate through the challenges with the system doing little to collaborate in meeting these children's needs.
In light of these two situations, and hearing of others from colleagues, I determined that it was the home, the family dynamics that was the catalyst for making these children 'mad'. When apart from these dynamics, they were able to conform to the rules of the institutions because they were forced to do so. But really what were the psychiatrists accomplishing for them? They merely subdued them with drugs, forced their compliance, and returned them to the same oppressive environment which led to their being hospitalized in the first place. It became evident that the psychiatric establishment could really care less, for each admission added to their coffers. The family was pleased to create a scapegoat rather than addressing the core problem and to ahve a place to send the 'disturbed child' to so that they could continue in their own self-interest.

PROBLEMS WITH A MEDICAL MODEL- THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PSYCHOTHERAPIST AND A PSYCHIATRIST

The medical model was derived to address physical ailments of the body. In order to attempt to gain credility, psychiatrists adopted this same model to utilize with events related to the human soul, of how people live, cope, adapt, and find meaning. It is interesting how the term 'psyche' means 'soul' yet is not present within the current psyxhiatric establishment. The medical model thus reduces human experience to categorization and mere chemical processes, there is nothing explored or examined beyond this.
I believe it is important to differentiate the roles of psychiatrist, psychologist, and psychotherapist.

First, all require a certain level of educational training. However, ot should be noted that the psychiatrist and the psychologist do not necesaily know how to conduct psychotherapy or are even remotely interested in doing so. The psychiatrist iperates solely under the medical model, prescribes drugs or in some instances makes use of electroconvulsive 'therapy' to address a categorization of behaviors that the psychiatrist subjectively views as maladaptive. Psychiatry has no cures and does not purport otherwise. Psychology is basd on research of animal and human behaviors, and is intertwined as well into the medical model for its categorizations. It is more focused on subjective tests to assess human actions. Psychotherapy literally means 'healing of the soul', and in the right sense is a partnership between two individuals where the psychotherapist employing empathy and relaitonship seeks to help the other to develop meaning in life, understand their experiences, and develop a life map that will lead them to a greater sense of fulfillment.

ISSUES OF POWER

One of my clients had posed to me some interesting thoughts. He expressed to me that he felt that in the past mental health professionals saw him 'as a dollar sign'. He told me he did not feel I viewed him in this way, however suggested that if I did not have a professional relationship I would probably not associate with him or others who are disadvantaged. It is unlikely I would encounter him outside of a professional relationship but I cannot say I am one who is an elitist.
This caused me to think about the issues of power and class and how they impact the therapeutic relationship. Within the current psychiatric establishment, the psychiatrist is almighty and holds all the power as well as the supposed knowledge to 'fix life' for the person. The problem is that much of what has led to individuals being oppressed, distressed, and disadvantaged was created by those in power. So, it is evident that those in power prey on the vulnerable, and only become more powerful.
It is necessary to eliminate hierarchies and the sense of power and control vested only in the psychiatrist or therapist. There must exist mutual understandings and sharing on an equal level.


-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
www.DrDanEdmunds.com

SANCTUARY PROJECT

I am currently working on the development of a project to help individuals (adolescents and adults) undergoing extreme states of mind to be able to feel safe and supported and to limit the dependency on toxic psychiatric drugs. For more information see my website at www.DrDanEdmunds.com
I continue my work with drug free approaches for children who have been given the diagnosis of "ADHD".

DIAGNOSING JESUS

According to Fox News, psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians. It is interesting to note that psychotherapy literally means, 'healing of the soul', yet the current psychiatric establishment lacks a soul. It does not concern itself with udnerstanding spiritual issues or the human condition, but rather is focused on subjective diagnosis and suppression of behavior through drugs.
If Jesus Christ were to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, what diagnosis would be formulated? It is likely that Christ would fall into many of the criteria that psychiatrists have laid out for so called mental disorder.
The proclamation of Himself as the Son of God- delusional thinking? narcissism?
time spent in the desert tempted by the devil- visual and auditory hallucinations?
The Agony in the Garden of Gethesemane- anxiety issues?
after the Crucifixion- Post Traumatic Stress?
overturning the money changers tables- intermittent explosive disorder?
challenging the Pharisees- some oppositionality, possibly anti-social traits?

NUMB SOCIETY

I had the pleasure to meet with Jack Walters and Fred Strugartz at the IAM Counseling Retreat Center in New Albany, PA. Jack Walters made a striking comment to me about how people today desire to be 'numb'. I began to reflect on this further. In the past, individuals were more willing to delve into the core issues that impacted their emotional well being. Today, we frequently have a generation of apathy. There is no longer this desire to address pain and distress, to go through the process (which can often be painful), to go through the catharsis that may lead to transformation. Instead, society looks for escape and to be numb. The psychiatric establishment greatly profits and enjoys this new societal development and are able to prescribe the very things to create this 'numbness'. Managed care companies are accomplices, not beng concerned about psychotherapy which would produce long lasting results and address a person as a human being, but are rather concerned with the less costly avenue of inducing the numbness.

The Three Jewels

In Buddhism is identified the Three Jewels- the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.
Whether ine is a Buddhist or not, these three jewels are an important part of wholeness and being able to overcome adversity and emotional distress.
First, the Buddha does not reflect just a historical figure, but enlightened mind. To have a mind that is not centered in the past or grasping for the future, but can find peace and joy in this present moment that is often so fleeting. If individuals truly thought about how time is fleeting, how short our span is, they would not spend their time in quarrels and in greedy attachment.
Second, the Dharma implies truth. Within this lies conceptions of how one should relate to others and the virtues involved. If we live a life of Truth, a life of virtue, we can become more content and our human relations and society itself will prosper.
Lastly, Sangha. Sangha implies community. If we can once again forge into community, to be able to reach consensus, to share our thoughts, feelings, and our selves with one another, and to be able to form unity, our existence will be more harmonious. I see this often in the breakdown of families, where the sense of community has been lost and it is also responsible for the breakdown of society itself.

PSYCHIATRY AND THE DEATH OF THE SOUL

Another part of the problem with psychiatry, is that these are individuals who are trained to suppress behavior by drugs but have no training in understanding experiences. What causes people emotional distress are often questions of meaning and are spiritual problems. Psychiatrists, with no understanding of this, enter into a realm where they can do nothing but tranquilize a person. People in innocence come to them thinking their suffering can be relieved. But the form of alleviating suffering often only brings further suffering of another kind later. A pill cannot relieve the spectrum of emotion thought and emotion that leads to distress. Destroying the brain through psycho-surgery or by numbing it with drugs does not bring anyone a lasting peace. As Laing states, "Doctors in all ages hae made fortunes by killing patients by means of their 'cures'. The difference in psychiatry is that it is the death of the soul."

ABUSE OR ABUSE, TAKE YOUR PICK

Child Protective Services is a misnomer. They do not protect children. CPS has become an arm of bio-psychiatry and often functions in a gestapo like manner. Many parents who have become informed of the dangers of psychiatric drugs and refused to give them to their children have been threatened by CPS with removal of their children from their home. While CPS is busying itself with this infringement of parental rights, real situations of abuse are overlooked. I recall two nightmare experiences of my own with CPS. One involved a 5 year old boy who it was certain was being sexually abused. The teacher and myself made repeated calls to CPS about the situation who took no action until the 10th call. They removed the child for a brief time only to insist on placing the child abck with the mother who while not the offender was well aware of the abuse and completely inept in her skills as a parent. There was no change required on the part of the mother, and no protection given to the child that future problems would not impact him. In another situation, I was aware of the abuse of an 11 year old by his step-father. The step-father had an extensive history of abusive behavior. The mother remained in a state of denial to protect the step-father and the expense of the child. I found this child a bright young person with a lot of creativity and in one on one situations he was a great kid. His environment was one of chaos and despair, a horrible vortex taking the life out of him and leading him to self-destruction. CPS had been involved many times here. Nothing was ever accomplished and their final recommendation was for residential treatment of the child. Why is it the child's fault? What exactly is he being 'treated' for whereas the abusive environment is not being treated in any fashion at all. Psychiatry has its hands on another child who will be a cash cow. It is not their concern to prevent the abuse anbd resolve the distress impacting the child, instead they will send him to residential treatment, ply him with their drugs, and make a nice buck in the process. When they are done, they will return him again to the abusive home environment only for the cycle to start again. Who benefits? The psychiatric establishment. The child is taken from one abuse only to face another of a different kind.

RAISING RESPONSIBLE, AUTONOMOUS CHILDREN

Often, adults become overly controlling or overly permissive with their children.
Both are destructive. The overly controlling parent must 'let go' as the child demonstrates responsibility. C Discipline literally means 'teaching' and it should be employed only where their exists harm to another person. Children, as do all people desire freedom and autonomy. Freedom comes with responsibility. Freedom is not to be equated with chaos or merely doing what one so chooses without thinking of the community around them. Children want their parents involved, but they as everyone else do not desire to be controlled.

I have noticed that in conflicts between children, adults are often rushing to intervene. How is a child expected to learn conflict resolution unless they are given the opportunity to work through their own conflicts (even if it takes many attempts). With the current divorce rates and the current number of conflicts in the world, children themselves may be better at handling conflicts than most adults! Once again, the adult only need intervene where their exists serious harm to another, and in this, the role of the adult is to provide feedback and guidance, not to suppress or merely provide the solution. The child will never think critically if this is done.
Parental hypocrisy is another problem and frequently noticed by children. The idea of 'do as I say but not as I do". This is often a tactic of control. Families often also establish forbidden fruits. For instance, little Johnny says the word 'shit'. The parents tell little Johnny- 'don't say that word, its not allowed." Not to mention, mom and dad are frequently shouting it out at various occassions. Now it has become something little Johnny finds immensely curious and wants to do frequently. To me, the use of swear words as an expression is not as much an issue as the person who spreads malicious gossip. Of course the person who uses these swear words throughout their conversation, for no apparent reason, or compulsively will be looked upon in a negative way. But the occassional release of such a colorful word is not something that is something to make into a enormous issue. Actually making it an issue, does exactly that- makes it an issue!
Humiliation is often a tactic employed by adults on children. Making them an example is thought to 'set them straight'. It only causes them to shut down and become emotionally distraught. In many situations where children no longer have a zeal for learning in school and a lack of motivation, it often stems from a period where humiliation was used upon them.
Parents and teachers often pressure children to adhere to their definition of 'success'. They MUST learn! But children learn in spite of school. Many of the greatest lessons I learned in life were certainly not in a classroom. Learning should be tailored to the innate strengths of the child. Learning should be a desired activity not a mundane one. However, when one pressures a child or forces them to conformity to rote tasks, learning will become a mundane activity, motivation will decrease and possibly never be regained.

In my work with families, I have often developed a family constitution. This is a list of what all feel are their rights and responsibilities. It is designed collaboratively and certain laws are agreed upon. Grievances are worked through at family meetings where each party is given a voice and the right to speak uninterrupted to present their viewpoint. This helps to work through conflicts and use shared energy for problem solving. The family meeting also allows for together time, something very important but sorely lacking in today's society. It helps families to once again come together in community.


-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.