PREVIOUS     BACK TO HOMEPAGE     NEXT

CHAPTER 14 : INVESTIGATING THE TRAP OF PSYCHIATRY WHERE THE ZIONIST GESTAPO          

             STILL HAS MY DAUGHTER AND MY SON CRUSHED BY THE SHRINKS

 

           The June 1996 issue of my newsletter is titled, The Deliberate Crushing of My Family By The Zionist Gestapo and The Failed Attempts By The zionist Gestapo To Stop Me Exposing Zionist Crimes, and it includes brief accounts of the background and the events which led to the crushing of my daughter first, and then of my son. My attempts to get my daughter and my son out of the psychiatric trap have been going on, simultaneously, together with my study and investigation of psychiatric theory and psychiatric practice, and I came up with some very disturbing and very alarming conclusions.

If I were to present my conclusions on my own, by myself, I would have a very scant chance of persuading anybody or of being believed. Therefore, I need to bring the testimony of qualified and experienced psychiatrists from the USA, and that of a doctor of science from Australia, and to present their conclusions in their own words. Let us begin with Dr. Loren R.Mosher(visit his website www.moshersoteria.com/bio.htm), a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the School of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, USA.

In a letter dated 12/4/1998 to the President of the American Psychiatric Association, the professional body to which all USA psychiatrists belong , Dr. Mosher opens with the following words :

 

"After nearly three decades as a member it is with a mixture of pleasure and disappointment

that I submit this letter of resignation from the American Psychiatric Association."

 

He then proceeds with an attack on the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as follows :

 

"This is not a group for me. At this point in history, in my view, psychiatry has been almost                                                                                 completely bought out by the drug companies."

 

Then his conclusion :

 

"So, do I want to be a drug company patsy who treats molecules with their formulary ? No, thank                    you very much. It saddens me that after 35 years as a psychiatrist I look forward to being dissociated from such an organisation."

 

The next American psychiatrist to be quoted here is Dr. Peter Breggin who describes the link between the psychiatric profession, the drug  corporations, the government, and even the parents of the patients as follows :

 

TOXIC PSYCHIATRY, by Peter Breggin,HarperCollins,London,1993 at p. 451 :

 

"What we have been examining is a giant combine similar to the military-industrial complex and involving the psychiatric profession (APA), government (NIMH and FDA), private industry (drug companies and health insurers), education (medical schools),and organisations representing the parents of patients (NAMI and other family groups)."

 

Here is what he says about the psychiatric profession there at p. 453 :

 

"Implicit in all this is the reality that organised psychiatry is big business more than it is a profession. As a big business, managed by APA and NIMH, it developes media relationships, hires PR firms, developes its medical image, holds press conferences to publicise its products, lobbies on behalf of its interests, and issues 'scientific reports that protect its members from malpractice suits by lending legitimacy to brain- damaging technologies."

 

In his book, Your Drug May Be Your Problem (Perseus Books,Massachusetts, 1999) Dr. Breggin describes the role of the media in promoting and protecting psychiatry as follows :

 

YOUR DRUG MAY BE YOUR PROBLEM, by Peter Breggin, Perseus books, Massachusetts, 1999 at p. 108:

 

"The media have become very protective of psychiatry - especially of psychiatric drugs. Except for occasional exposes...the media tend to publish testimonials to drugs while omitting their hazards. Books critical of psychiatric drugs are rarely reviewed in major newspapers and magazines and rarely discussed on television...In 1998 alone, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent over $ 1.3 billion for direct-to-consumer advertising in television, magazines, and newspapers. We anticipate that the total will continue to increase and that the media will become increasingly protective of their benefactors."

 

"Doctors fail to inform patients about the dangers of medications in part because they themselves are not fully informed. Many doctors rely too heavily on biased drug company advertising and sales representatives, and even the more skeptical among them are bombarded with information skewed in favour of drugs. Furthermore, medical educational and scientific programs are almost always funded by drug companies and, not surprisingly, tend to promote their drug products."

 

            Dr. Richard Gosden, an Australian scientist, in his book, PUNISHING THE PATIENT How Psychiatrists Misunderstand and Mistreat Schizophrenia (at page 184) mentions the use of psychiatry as a punishing or harassing tool . As an example he brings up the harassment of whistleblowers in Australia  as follows :

 

"An investigation into the harassment of whistleblowers in the Australian Federal Police (AFP) found 'four relevant instances since 1992 where the AFP has arranged for officers to undergo inappropriate psychiatric assessments, either under duress, or without their knowledge and consent.'

The support group Whistleblowers Australia is conducting a continuing survey of its members to discover how many have been treated in this way. It has found that many of them have received psychiatric diagnoses, ranging from non-specific conditions such as cognitive dysfunction to personality disorders and schizophrenia."

 

As for the psychiatric profession, and especially its links with the drug corporations, here are Dr. Gosden's findings in his above book (Scribe Publications, Melbourne, 2001) at pp. 92 - 93 :

 

 

"Like the psychiatric profession, the pharmaceutical industry has strong commercial interests in ensuring the continued dominance of the medical model for schizophrenia. The medical model provides the rationale for drug therapy and ,in turn, the pharmaceutical industry provides an extensive range of neuroleptic drugs from which prescribing psychiatrists can choose. In the United States the pharmaceutical industry openly funds the main psychiatric professional organisation, the American Psychiatric Associastion, which receives '30% of its total budget from drug company advertising in its many publications' :

'Pharmaceutical companies pay through the nose to get their message across to psychiatrists across the country. They finance major symposia at the two predominant annual psychiatric conventions, offer yummy treats and music to conventioneers, and pay $ 1000- $2000 per speaker to hock their wares. It is estimated that, in total, drug companies spend an average of $10,000 per physician, per year, on education.'

The pharmaceutical industry also selectively funds scientific research into the side effects of neuroleptic drugs, as well as research and development of new products. Drug company sponsorship of clinical trials is a major source of revenue for many psychiatric researchers. This flow of Money provides strong incentives for further promotion of the medical model, but it also casts doubt on the quality of the findings :

'This spring, the New York Post revealed that Columbia University has been cashing in. Its Office of Clinical Trials generates about $10 million a year testing new medications - much of which is granted to the Columbia Psychiatric Institute for implementing these tests. The director of the institute was being paid $140,000 a year by various drug companies to tour the country promoting their drugs.'

Pharmaceutical companies advertise their products in psychiatric journals, often alongside scientific research reports in the same areas of treatmentfor which their own drugs are being recommended. Because these drug companies are being driven by the normal market concerns for the promotion of product sales, there is often a certain amount of confusion concerning the difference between scientific findings and sales promotion."

 

In his above book he Dr. Gosden points out the role of the relatives of the patients in the promotion of drug treatment by psychiatrists as follows ( at pp. 94-95 ) :

 

"The importance of relatives as an interest group lies in their closeness to the problems that rise when a person manifests unusual thoughts and beliefs. It is usually the relaives who are the first to know when a family member begins to experience unusual mental phenomena. They are often alarmed at a sudden change in the person, and frequently become confused and fearful about the situation - fearful both for themselves and for the person displaying the symptoms. The first inclination of relatives is to seek help and advice, and this is readily available from the medical profession. Relatives usually see themselves  as managing a crisis situation, and medical treatment can be highly attractive because it quickly pacifies the person and provides a casual explanation of 'disease' which satisfies normal scrutiny.

In the United States, the consumer lobby is well organised, and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) operates nationally and has more than 220,000 members. NAMI's enthusiasm for lobbying on behalf of the medical model is encouraged by large donations from drug companies:

 

'The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, which is pushing to have mental health laws rewritten so that people can be involuntarily hospitalised for refusing to take their medications, received nearly $1 million in 1995 from more than 13 drug companies.'

Since 1995, NAMI's drug company funding has increased dramatically. The magazine Mother Jones recently did an expose' of this development :

 

'According to internal documents obtained by Mother Jones , 18 drug firms gave NAMI a total of $11.72 million between 1996 and mid-1999. These include Janssen ($2.08 million), Novartis ($1.87 million), Pfizer ($ 1.3 million), Abbot Laboratories ($1.24 million), Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals ($658,000), and Bristol-MyersSquib ($613,505).

NAMI's leading donor is Eli Lilly and Company, maker of Prozac, which gave $w.87 million during that period. In 1999 alone, lilly will have delivered $1.1 million in quarterly instalments, with the lion's share going to help fund NAMI's 'Campaign to End  Discrimination' against the mentally ill.' (Emphasis added)

 

 

Dr. Gosden points out that the situation in Australia is very similar to that in the USA, if not worse than there, because Australia is being used as testing ground for the USA market. Here is what his above book states at  p.238 :

 

"...early-psychosis research and intervention programmes are driven by funding and lobbying from the pharmaceutical companies that have recently launched atypical neuroleptics onto the market (the neuroleptic drugs are dubbed by the shrinks as "anti-psychotic medications", and they carry very heavy health risks for the patients who are forced to take them - B.M.). The objective of these pharmaceutical companies is to expand the market for their new drugs. The size of the existing market for palliative treatment of the psychotic and post-psychotic stages of schizophrenia is limited by diagnostic conventions. But the size of the market for for prophylactic treatment of pre-psychotic schizophrenia is open-ended. Austrlia figures prominently in this strategy because it is being used as a testing ground for the idea of preventive medicine for schizophrenia. This is in preparation for the introduction of full- scale preventive medicine campaigns in the much larger markets of North America and Europe."

PREVIOUS     BACK TO HOMEPAGE     NEXT