[Marxism] People Say I'm Crazy

David Quarter davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Wed May 5 22:51:44 MDT 2004


Date sent:      	Wed, 5 May 2004 14:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	Adam Levenstein <cleon42 at yahoo.com>

--- Rachel Mendoza <aka at cts.com> wrote:
> These ailments are real because doctors make behavior judgments. The
> same
> doctors that carry around a clip board with a advertisement for mind
> altering drugs which have shown overwhelmingly to increase the risk
> of
> suicide. There is NO evidence that "mood" ailments have a biological
> basis.

ADAM:<<<Whoa whoa whoa...Are you actually saying that there's no such 
thing as
biological depression? Yeah, there's a "mood" version, but there IS
such a thing as biological depression. >>>>


DAVID: 
 What's "biological depression", Adam? Are you suggesting that  there is 
such as a thing as a  depression gene? 



> (I recommend Breggin as he has shown again and again the false
> reporting of
> research to benefit the "new pill")

ADAM: Breggin has "shown" this without any use of scientific study
whatsoever;>>>>

DAVID: I don't know what the "new pill" is, but I do know that Breggin's 
credentials speak for themselves and that he is definitely a lot more 
credible than the majority of his psychiatric critics, most of whom are 
heavily invested in the drug industry.  

Read Breggin's credentials here: http://www.breggin.com/



ADAM:<<<< the guy isn't even certified by the ABPN, for crying out
loud.More info on Breggin's "research" methods can be found here:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html>>>>

DAVID: Did you  just decide to do a google search on Breggin to pull out 
this article?

Have you even read any of Breggin's articles, including the ones published 
in peer reviewed journals?

FYI, people from the psy./drug establishment and their followers  have been 
going after Breggin for the longest while. The fact is that he dispells many 
of the myths peddled by the psy/drug establishment concerning the safety 
for drug treatment and cures for mental illness, which really annoys the 
APA reps and their drug companies backers. 

Just to provide an example, the crock who you cited that smears Breggin 
writes: 

"The prevailing scientific viewpoint is that ADHD should be regarded as a 
neuropsychiatric disorder, that it differs from simply rambunctious behavior, 
and that medication has been thoroughly studied and found to be helpful in 
managing the problem."

Of course, if the crock means by "prevailing scientific viewpoint" all of the 
main psychiatric bodies heavily invested in the drug industry, he is right to 
make this statement. On the other hand, if he broadens "the prevailing 
scientific viewpoint" to include all of the hard scientific bodies, for example, 
those for cancer, diabetes, neurology, etc, I'm sure he'd be able to locate 
quite a few detractors. 
I would also add that  if the ADD was seen as "neurological" disorder 
(which is what is actually meant by  "neuropsychiatric") then ADD would be 
better handled by someone actually trained in the treatment of neurological 
disorders -- i.e., neurologists. But the fact of the matter is that neurologists 
don't "treat" ADD -- they wouldn't waste their time with the "disorder" -- for 
the simple reason that they aim to cure identifiable problems in the body, 
not made up ones. 
Here's a an excerpt from an article written by a neurologist (if it matters, a 
member of the American Academy of Neurology), discussing the historical  
differences between the two disciplines: 

"When I graduated medical school, there was no such thing as a 
psychiatric disease. There was conjecture, as through the ages, that 
schizophrenia might be an organic brain disease, but that was conjecture 
only—members of the NYU (my alma mater), Department of Psychiatry did 
not represent to us that any psychiatric diagnosis was an actual disease, 
due to a brain abnormality, nor were any encountered during the teaching of 
pathology—the study of all diseases of the brain and body that took up 
most of our second year of medical school. Nor was their anything but the 
indelible organic vs. functional divide between neurology, the specialty I was 
soon to elect, and train in, and psychiatry, which, having no “hard” science 
basis, held no particular appeal for me. In fact, then, as now, the most 
fundamental part of psychiatric diagnosis was to rule out, that is, be certain 
that no organic disease existed in patients being referred to a psychiatrists. 
Not only was this the duty of the non-psychiatric physician doing the 
referring, it was the duty of the psychiatrist accepting such patients in 
referral to be sure that sufficient care and consultation had been undertaken 
to confidently rule out all possibilities of organic disease. And this had to be 
assured by all involved for the simple reason, stated above, (1) that no 
psychiatric diagnosis, then or now is known to be an organic disease of the 
brain or body, and (2) that psychiatrists do not undertake organic diagnosis 
as do all other physicians, and, as is the medico-legal duty of all other 
physicians. Rather, assured upon referral that all of their patients have had 
organic disease ruled out, psychiatrists set about performing psychiatric 
diagnosis which consists of nothing more or less than the arbitrary 
classification of subjective symptoms, which consisting of nothing but 
symptoms, never of physical signs/abnormalities/diseases, is unlike all 
else in medicine. The only organic diseases psychiatrists 
encounter—recognized or not-- are those that have been missed (gone 
unrecognized) by non-psychiatric diagnosticians, and, of course, by the 
psychiatrist, as well, or those induced by, the physical treatments 
employed by the psychiatrists—drugs, ECT, psychosurgery, etc. Again, 
there is no such thing as psychiatric diseases. All brain symptoms found to 
have an organic basis are found in the literature and textbooks of neurology. 
As a neurologist it is my duty, first and foremost, to determine and know 
when organic disease is present and when it is not. In particular it is my 
duty and that of all neurologists (and this is known by the AAN and by all in 
the leadership of academic neurology) to know when organic disease of the 
brain/nervous system is present and when it is not. It is common 
knowledge that psychiatry long ago sold out to the pharmaceutical industry 
and that they, long ago—not as science, but as a marketing ploy, began to 
call all emotional and behavioral symptoms “disorders”/ 
“diseases”/”chemical imbalances” of the brain—all, needing a “chemical 
balancer,” a pill."
FULL: http://www.adhdfraud.com/commentary/052603-4.htm

> Yes, labels are great. Who does one label a criminal? It helps to
> determine
> how to punish an offender, yes. "Requires anti-biotics" is an absurd
> statement as it suggests that without modern medicine there would be
> an
> outbreak of disease. Do you believe this?

ADAM: Honest to god, that's the biggest logical disconnect I've ever seen. It
suggests no such thing. What it DOES suggest--and I'll say it outright,
even--is that without modern medicine many diseases would not be cured
and many people would be dead.>>>>

DAVID: Labels can be helpful. But, labels given to actual diseases like 
cancer aren't the same of those given for "mental illness". 

As I've alluded to, modern medicine isn't the same as modern psychiatry. 
Psychiatrists are a type of white collar drug pusher. Most medications 
prescribed by doctors actually cure an ailment. 
What are psychiatrists curing? Physical diseases? No. 
Because there is no substantive evidence demonstrating a biological basis 
for mental illness. 

Psychiatrists pretend that they are curing a biologically routed brain 
disorders. That's why you will hear most refer to medications as 'correcting'  
chemical imbalances in the brain. In fact, there is no evidence that people 
diagnosed with mental disorder suffer from a  chemical imbalance that can 
distinguish them from so-called normal people. Whatever changes might 
occur to the brain chemistry of persons with the so-called mental illnesses 
have been shown to occur as well in the brains of  so-called normals. 
Without being on medications, there is no identifiable differences, say, with 
the brains  schitzos and the brains of mentally fit Rhode scholars. 

You would see a fews isolated studies floating around the net purporting to 
demonstrate the chemical imbalance theory, yet they are simply that: 
isolated studies. Never replicated, and cited only for propaganda purposes.  

I

> It's easy to throw someone
> in
> prison for doing "illegal" drugs just like it is easy to throw pills
> at
> someone when their behavior is not "normative." But who's judging?

ADAM :These sound like the words of someone who simply doesn't deal 
with the
mentally ill.>>>>

DAVID:  I don't know what your point is here, Adam. The fact of the matter 
is that once someone is labeled with a mental illness, a person can be 
forced to take 'drug therapy' against their will. The label "mental illness" 
implies being incapacitated mentally, and therefore unable to act rationally --
 a problem which the state, by way of psychiatry, then takes it upon 
themselves to correct. 

You have more rights being incarcerated in jail than you do being kept 
against your will in a mental institution since someone in jail is considered 
rational, where someone in a mental institution, no matter their cognitive 
capacity, is invariably considered insane. 

DOQ







More information about the Marxism mailing list