The above excerpt is pretty much the paradigmatic model that still informs most of the institutional side of psychiatry. With more psychiatrists working for the state in some capacity, the idea of contractual-consensual psychiatry seems ever more quaint a notion. Not to dialate to much, however, what does the psychiatrist-or the profession for that matter-hold its allegiance? To the state or to the individual. By examining the various laws, PUBLIC policies and, generally, the professional rhetoric, the answer is self evident. One ineluctable outcome of the push for greater social health, has resulted in appreciable erosions of civil liberties (Take the “right to treatment” law that stands to punish both physician, for failing to “treat” and, patient, for refusing coercive measures.
As a Libertarian on most matters social and political, I cannot sit idly by without voicing my concern at those abridgements and erosions of rights, even under the aegis of “Therapeutic” measures. As long as a culture seeks such an institution to “care” for the deviants and, problematic individuals-those who have committed no crime-the state will continue its present course, along side the MH apparatus it has empowered.

Attempts to convince normally healthy people that they are in fact sick and there for require pharmacological intervention can significantly inflate the market specific to the disease state whose boundaries diagnostically are now artificially expanded through disease mongering.

The financial cost to both the individual and the community due to disease mongering is rather high. Deliberate separation from the pharmaceutical industry- as well as a tactical plan for thorough critical analysis- are necessary to combat disease mongering.

Furthermore, educating patients who in fact may not be patients by empowering them to make correct decisions regarding their health are of importance as well.

Disease mongering is medicalization, which is the deliberate marketing plan of turning what are normal and common lifespan events that are far from chronic into fictional medical conditions.

Through propaganda, disease mongering creates the perception among others that occurrences that are within normal limits are in fact concerning symptoms. This leads others to believe that risks are potentially disease states.

This propaganda done by the pharmaceutical industry is performed through public awareness campaigns ad nauseum in mass media with the intent to strongly persuade others to seek and acquire new marketed treatments by this industry.

In addition, the creation of support groups for these disease states that are not are provided by the pharmaceutical industry that are in reality front groups for members of this industry.

Clinical data shared with the public is often fabricated, embellished, or misrepresented. The frequent claim that a drug provides relative risk reduction greatly of a disease state believed to exist is a manipulation by the drug company. Absolute risk reduction, however, is the true representation of the efficacy of a drug.

For example, if drug A states that it provides a 50 percent relative risk reduction in the progression of alopecia often sounds impressive to many. In reality, this may and often means that out of, say, 100 people, two had progressive alopecia. Yet with drug A, only 1 out of 100 had alopecia.

When the ladder, absolute risk reduction, is presented, it gives the impression that drug A really is not that efficacious after all.

The copious amounts of advertising by the pharmaceutical industry is done so with the intent to create fear, anxiety, or sadness upon the viewer about their lack of ideal health that deceptively is far from the truth.

As a society in the U.S., we are falsely led to believe that youth and efficacy as an individual should be acquired at any cost. Any fallacy perceived by one that prevents the acquisition of youth and efficacy ultimately leads many others to eliminate such fallacies.

Examples of diseases simply created by drug companies include erectile dysfunction, which is a symptom often of a truly existing disease, social phobia, which is simply introversion- a normal personality component of humans, as well as male pattern baldness, which occurs naturally in about half of men due to genetic predisposition.

The danger and consequences of disease mongering include the waste of often precious medical resources, as well as the possibly of causing iatrogenic harm to one seeking restoration of their health.

And the pharmaceutical industry has allies with their business plans of disease mongering. These include again front groups, hired journalists, public relations companies hired by drug companies, as well as doctor groups.

All utilize mass media to facilitate their objective. Disease Mongering is more frequent presently due to lifestyle drugs- drugs that do not delay the progression of authentic disease, or treat these diseases, but rather comfort a consumer rather than a patient.

Lawmakers in the United States are aware of disease mongering. However through over saturated lobbying by those in the pharmaceutical industry, such government officials have chosen not to intervene to prevent this potentially dangerous marketing tactic.

This is concerning, considering that presently the restructuring of the health care system in the United States is in its first phase. Disease mongering is not contributing, but in fact is corrupting this restructuring,

Dan Abshear

When I was a child, I heard the phrase ‘war-monger’. I had to find out its definition, as I had no idea what that phrase meant.

I knew others could, and were, labeled with this phrase, as I had heard it in the past directed at others whoever said these two words. So I felt a need to know what these words meant, and how they affected others who heard them.

Finally, I found the answer: a warmonger is one who promotes war, which is undesirable or discreditable. In this case, one labeled this would have an affinity for what others are reasonably opposed to share the same views:

Others promote other things besides war.

Disease mongering is when a large pharmaceutical corporation implements various unethical if not illegal activities in order to sell more of their products by either creating or expanding a particular illness.

They do this by creating the perception that others are likely ill in some way when, in fact, they are not. Those in the pharmaceutical company do not call this disease mongering, but rather conditional branding.

Drug companies do this by seeking more of those who should be patients in need of treatment with the drug maker’s promoted medications, regardless if they are in need of such treatment or not, clinically.

How this is done by these companies will be described soon.

The drug makers clearly place the needs for their drugs to be for medical conditions whose treatment regimens are to be viewed by others as incomplete or unmet.

The companies want to let the public know of the progressive increase for the disease states and how their products treat this illness better than what is available now or has been used in the past.

How ironic it seems that drug companies, who make drugs to delay the progression of, or cure diseases with these drugs, wish for others to become as sick as possible to profit from their suffering that they create with disease mongering and sell more pills.

This disease-mongering in fact does occur often to widen the diagnostic boundaries of an illness, disorder, or syndrome by creating awareness of such medical conditions to the public.

The drug companies do this by utilizing in several ways the delivery of fabricated if not baseless information during this process.

Usually, the pharmaceutical either creates or expands a disease state by deception directly to consumers, often. Then the consumer, who now believes that they are ill, go see their health care provider.

The health care provider, due largely to the unfamiliarity of the patient’s symptoms expressed by the patient, if not the drug the patient is requesting, usually writes a prescription for the drug requested by the patient.

First, let’s take a look at this label of disease mongering. It is inappropriate in that, unlike diseases and illnesses, mongering occurs with medical disorders and syndromes as well.

It is accurate and authentic, however, that disease mongering does happen with deliberate intent and reckless disregard for the well-being of others by drug companies.

There was a book written by Ray Moynihan and Allan Cassels called, “Selling Sickness” in 2005. The book thoroughly described how big pharmaceutical corporations are turning all of us into patients, and into a over-medicated society.

Disease mongering progressively continues to create patients with illnesses, disorders, or syndromes that in fact may not exist without any intervention to discontinue this behavior.

What the drug company implements to make sure this happens includes the following:

1. Paying medical journals to publish fabricated clinical trials involving their promoted medications after paying those involved with such a clinical trial to create such fabricated data. That is disease mongering to the health care provider.

2. Subjective screenings, such as those for various mood disorders. These screenings, as well as the affective disorders, which were rare until about 1995, involve leading questions often- created by the drug company. It was around this time that the United States was becoming more of a psychotropic nation.

These screenings that involve the leading questions responded by select groups of people. They are asked these questions by certain disease state support groups who have been converted into front groups after being funded by those big pharma companies who produce drugs for particular mood disorders.

3. Disease creations I: Social Anxiety Disorder, or social phobia: This condition is in the DSM IV which was published in 1994, and some were forced to delete the statement regarding this disorder that said, “Social Anxiety Disorder is not well-established, and requires further study.”

Aside from what may be simply amplified introversion, social phobias are likely due to societal dysfunctions and certainly should not be labeled as a pathological condition requiring pharmacological treatment.

4. Disease creations II: Premenstrual dysphoric disorder. I call this a mid-life crisis, yet it was entered by instruction by the APA (American Psychiatric Association) into the DSM (the psychiatrist’s bible) in 1993. Anxiety about the inevitable does not require pharmacological treatment.

5. Direct to Consumer Advertising:. Most memorable were those commercials for erectile dysfunction. Their absurdness in creating these commercials appears to have multiple psychotic components:

A healthy man who could probably run a marathon is having a decent time with his wife at some upper- middle class location.

He is smiling all the time. Because now, his marriage is secure due to his ability to copulate- which was apparently absent before this wonder drug entered his system.

Of course, it is not possible to have a happy marriage without intercourse, right?

Then there are other conditions which are entirely natural in the human lifespan, yet have been determined to be diseases by those who can profit off of these lifespan events.

Examples include osteoporosis and menopause, as well as erectile dysfunction. It’s insane the FDA approves pharmaceuticals for these natural events that occur normally in a human being.

Finally, there are the required medical guidelines for various disease states, such as dyslipidemia. Drug companies that make medications to treat this disease are more than happy to support the financial needs involved in creating these guidelines.

Dyslipidemia, for example:

Publications such as the Lipid Letter, and Lipid Management, both offered more aggressive management of the lipid profiles of the patients of the readers.

And both publications were funded completely by those big pharma companies that promote statins.

Same with cholesterol screenings that occur often that are implemented by those drug companies with drugs that treat the disorder of dyslipidemia.

A myth is something unproven. A false belief, or invented story.

Disease Mongering is not a myth. Large pharmaceutical corporations promote illness and disease- not desired by anyone and discredited by many, and these companies do this for profit and profit only.

I worked for three of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world for over a decade, and the disease mongering protocols were similar if not identical with all of these companies consistently,

Dan Abshear

.

As a dictionary of suspected mental illnesses, many redefined diagnoses are added to this manual with each edition, and how such disorders are classified and assessed.

On occasion, a mental disorder is deleted from the DSM, such as homosexuality in the early 1970s. Its purpose, this manual, is to assist mental health professionals to diagnose and classify mental disorders.

How a group sponsored by for profit pharmaceutical industry corporations that promote psychotropic drugs for various mental issues that may or may not fully exist make the determinations that they do while maintaining objectivity is a phenomenon.

Published and designed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the DSM is also used, I understand, for seeking mental diagnostic criteria to assure reimbursement.

The DSM is organized in part by the following:

I- Mental disorders
II- mental conditions
III- Physical disorders/syndromes, medical conditions (co-morbidity)
IV- Mental disorder suspected etiology
V- Pediatric assessments

The APA has historically directed the creation of each edition of the DSM, and assigns selected task force members to create this manual. This situation has proven to be controversial.

The next DSM involves 27 people. About 80 percent of these individuals are male, and only 4 members are not medical doctors. Most have had relationships with the NIH, and about 25 percent of these task force members have had relationships with the WHO.

Historically, at least a third of task force members have had, or do, have often monetary pharmaceutical industry ties in some way.

This makes sense, as about one third of the APAs total financing is from the pharmaceutical industry.

The APA required this task force for the next DSM edition to sign non-disclosure agreements- which is rather absurd and pointless. Lack of transparency equals lack of credibility because of these agreements of the content of the next DSM. It opposes any recovery model necessary regarding such disorders, I believe.

The DSM should be evaluated by another unrelated task force or a peer review of sorts to assure objectivity. This is particularly of concern presently, as many more are diagnosed with mental dysfunctions presently at a concerning rate- with very young children in particular.

Dan Abshear

Cuba approves, makes available lung cancer treatment

Cuban scientists said on Tuesday the first vaccine to extend lives of lung cancer patients has been approved by Cuban authorities for use and is available in the island’s hospitals. The drug, CimaVax EGF, has been shown to increase survival rates on average four to five months and much longer in some patients, they said in a news conference at Cuba’s Center of Molecular Immunology. In contrast to chemotherapy, the traditional treatment for lung cancer, they said CimaVax EGF has few side effects because it is a modified protein that attacks only cancer cells.

Congratulations on a lucid, comprehensive and critical article. I hope you won’t mind me submitting a public call for testimonials from parents and teachers who used to be part of the diagnosing machine, but have since enlightened themselves.

I would also like to invite you personally to contribute to another project I am currently working on with two other researchers regarding the promotion of mental health/illness in North American culture. If you are interested, please contact me at ac.naitnerualnull@soladravm

Regards,
Marianne Vardalos Ph.D
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology
Laurentian University @Georgian
University Partnerships Centre
1 Georgian Drive
Barrie, Ontario Canada
L4M 3X9
ac.naitnerualnull@soladravm

PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY

I am a sociologist firmly committed to the current anti-psychiatry movement seeking to expose ADHD, ADD, and most LDs, as fraudulent diseases.

Critics of the ADHD industry often site the ‘educator-parental-psychiatric-pharmaceutical complex’ as complicit in the drugging of normal, disease-free, children. Yet, parents and teachers participating in the diagnotistic process for these so-called diseases have the very best of intentions and are misguided and misinformed by the pro-psychiatry/pro-pharmaceutical culture they live in.

A critical sociological perspective sees the present ‘epidemic’ levels of reporting mental disorder in children and youth to be a purely cultural shift. As we transfer from modernity to post-modernity the culture shifts away from whole-body interaction with nature, toward mind-only interaction with technology. Simply put, the new economy requires a workforce of docile bodies, immobile from the neck down but from the neck up, able to consume multiple images, monitor split screens and interact with several media at one time. Children either incapable or unwilling to comply based on nothing more than their unique character are deemed ill, disordered, diseased or otherwise. And the label is fraudulently substantiated with ‘evidence’ from biology, genetics and neurology.

This project seeks to feature the testimonials of parents and teachers who enlightened themselves and refused to reproduce the prevalent practice of labeling kids as ill because they either can not or will not conform to the needs of the new techno-economy. This is an invitation to parents and teachers who once willingly participated in diagnosing children with ADHD-like symptoms but now that they are aware of the problems of the industry, have chosen instead to embrace those children’s special gifts and spirited personalities.

If you, your child or your students have a story to tell, please send it to me at: ac.naitnerualnull@soladravm

Please ensure stories are no longer than 3 pages (single spaced) in an MSword attachment or in the text of the email. You may or may not change the identity of the child if you wish.

DEADLINE: AUGUST 15th, 2008

Marianne Vardalos, Ph.D
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology
Laurentian University @Georgian
University Partnerships Centre
1 Georgian Drive
Barrie, Ontario Canada
L4M 3X9
ac.naitnerualnull@soladravm

For details on the Human Condition Series please visit:
http://www.humanconditionseries.com

I think we’re nuts with change. We’re inculcated from the youngest age to be agents of change, change, change, change. Always something new, better, different … it’s the very essence of capitalism and the cornerstone of corporate success. On the pharma’ front, it’s: Try this drug; no, take that one; oh, here’s the latest; what, you have tried …?

We’re spinning ourselves silly from an overstoked ‘need’ for constant change. My mother took all sorts of drugs, always trying to change her moment-to-moment reactions to life and some long-term troubles she didn’t want to face and learn from.

Dr. Rosenthal, could you or someone consider writing about the insanity of excessive change in our lives, and the expectation – man, that’s marketing! – that this is normal? How can we focus on the precious few changes that matter when we’re so inundated from every direction?

It’s unfortunate that the discussions at Dissident Voice are so heavy on smart-ass comments. Don’t let it get you down.

I’m very fond of the ‘truth’ in that it, unlike fiction, has no limitations.

But I must agree with evie that it is not capitalism per se that contributes to mental illness. Every social system creates a hierarchy. Within each hierarchy, one must contend with the reality that many at the top deserve to be closer to the bottom, and that many at the bottom, in fact, many many more, deserve to be closer to the top. Yet people at the bottom must except the falsehood that they do not deserve the best life has to offer, and the people at the top know their position rests on deception and coercion, so they spend their lives looking over their shoulders.

In political science, there is something known as the “Iron Law of Oligarchy,” which says that no matter what type of system is put into place, all theoretical frameworks aside, the practical reality will be government by an oligarchy, that is, the few. Decisions ultimately rest with individuals, no matter what types of deliberative processes are put into place.

Anyway, life itself makes people crazy. The stress of survival, competition; these existed before modern capitalist society. In fact, historically, things have been much worse and less hopeful. What did Egyptian or Roman subjects have to hope for? What did nomadic tribes have to hope for? Mental illness has always been with us.

It is well-documented that both capitalist, socialist, and other societies label dissidents as “insane,” or perhaps, “possessed,” or “evil.” The use of language merely changes. In a capitalist society, those who want more cooperation and less competition are called pie-in-the-sky, utopian moonbats, whereas in a communist society, those who want the freedom to rise above their peers are labeled narcissistic, egomaniacal, inhumane, dangerous imperialists.

But I digress.

You may not agree with Susan Rosenthal’s political views, but you cannot deny the truth of what she says with regard to the problem. And you complain about the solution of “organizing,” or engaging in the political process. Many people know that there is a large scam component to psychiatry (Does anyone remember the advertisements for Paxil after 9/11? A perfect example of taking symptoms out of a social context.) But many people don’t. The people who know have a duty to make it known to those who don’t know. Organization results in more people knowing the nature of the beast. There are less victims that way. The less victims, the weaker the beast gets.

Personally, I think the best way to combat the excesses of our system, is to vigorously organize to the purpose of educating those who would be victimized on alternatives that deprive the victimizers of their victims. People should be channeled away from alienating, wealth-sucking, soul-less institutions like bars and clubs, where sober fraternization is frustrated by loud music and drugs, and into intimate areas people can get to know one another and do healthy, constructive things.

I think we’re already seeing a lot of that through the internet. People are learning of new alternatives to the old “play as work” model. It is now possible for people to meet with shared interests like never before.

But this does not stop those who profit from the destruction of others from counter-organizing. They cannot be expected to go quietly into the night. They are probably more aware than those who seek an escape of the necessity of sustaining their cruel apparatuses of control.

Since one good recommendation deserves another, I suggest you look for “Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory” (2002) by Ian Hacking. The author is a philosopher with a special interest in the history of psychiatry, and the book’s main topic is how from the late 19th century the psychological sciences of memory came to be surrogates for the spiritual and spiritualistic concepts to the soul. It treats the “recovered memory syndrome” in one chapter.

As for the psychological “professions,” well, P.T. Barnum had that figured out a long long time ago.
“There’s one born every minute, and two to take him” and “always leave them wanting more” are perhaps more fitting for Americans in this society of cheaters and the cheated.