New Fax Campaign

Why The MOTHERS Act Should Not Be Passed

Please go to  http://www.box.net/shared/810kj0b8g7 and  print a PDF that you can fax to the Senate: http://www.box.net/shared/4qx33jhgen

Here is the text of the fax if you want to format your own letter:

WHY THE MOTHERS ACT SHOULD NOT BE PASSED

On the surface, The MOTHERS Act (S. 324) reflects its sponsors’ compassion for mothers suffering from postpartum depression and psychosis. But when one looks closely at the important sections of the legislation, it is clear that this costly and sweeping mental health legislation not only fails the mothers of America, it’s intended to inflate the balance sheets of Big Pharma.

• The bill omits language clearly stating there will be an evaluation of the large amount of data available on the known risks of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications currently being prescribed to pregnant women and nursing mothers (including birth defects, heart defects, spontaneous abortions, and infant deaths). See May 9, 2009 Vogue article, “Pregnant Pause: With a flurry of recent reports challenging the safety of antidepressant drugs for unborn babies, doctors and concerned mothers-to-be are rethinking the guidelines” by Alexis Jetter at http://www.box.net/shared/deulxo16fp
• The bill defines ‘postpartum condition’ as only ‘postpartum depression (PPD) or postpartum psychosis.’ The danger is that per these DSM-extracted terms to label women with mental disorders, this is only psychological, not physiological conditions which will be checked for, ruling out discovery of any real physical causes, such as hormonal imbalances or vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and neglecting the treatments thereof. This relates to the issue of “screening tools” in development cited in the bill. Are these merely psychological questionnaires, and who is developing them? Are they pharmaceutically funded?
• The bill cites various “entities” that will be eligible for grants and for participating in research and/or development of screening methods and/or treatments and delivery. Who or what are these “entities?” Are they pharmaceutically funded? Do they have conflicts of interest? There are ongoing investigations of various “non-profit” organizations who heavily promote or conduct screening. For example, Screening for Mental Health, Inc., and its sub-organization Signs of Suicide, who heavily promote and conduct mental health screening, received $4,985,925 from pharmaceutical companies prior to 2008. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) receives 56% of its funding from pharmaceutical companies. Ten leading psychiatric researchers (many from prominent universities) have been exposed in the last year for failing to disclose millions of dollars in pharmaceutical payments – yet this bill contains no provisions for full disclosure of conflicts of interest for any “entity” receiving federal taxpayer funded grants.
• Given that the Senate Finance Committee recently exposed the financial conflicts of interest of the top ten psychiatric researchers in the U.S., it is no small issue that The MOTHERS Act provides no research guidelines for public disclosure.
• Under The MOTHERS Act’s current language, research will be conducted without peer review – no checks and balances, no one to validate the integrity of the research which then will be used to determine a woman’s mental health status.
• Simultaneously, without allowing any checks and balances whatsoever on the research, it promotes a national “public education” campaign to include Public Service Announcements and television and radio advertisements, essentially giving Pharma an opportunity for free, federally-funded advertising.

SUMMARY: Without a fully completed, published, and publicly disclosed investigation of the dangers of current methods of treatment (drugs), efficacy of non-drug treatments, and discovery and disclosure of the causes for these conditions, clearly defined and available for review by the medical/scientific community and consumers, there should be no endorsement of a national educational or advertising campaign. There must be no new or massive utilization or promotion of any “screening tools” without first disclosing the researchers, entities, and methods used to develop these “screening tools.”

Therefore, as a concerned citizen and voter, I urge you to vote “NO” on The MOTHERS Act (S. 324).

Sincerely,                                                                                  Address:

Stress Testing The MOTHERS Act

by Kelly Patricia O’Meara

May 7, 2009

It seems these days that everything is a test. Yes, the powers that be have decided that taxpayer benevolence now is contingent upon passing a stress test. But much to the dismay of those being tested, the results may reveal, for example, that the nation’s financial wizards and auto giants are actually bankrupt midgets and unworthy of America’s support.

Given that officialdom has embraced the stress test as a barometer of future viability and success and a determinant for public financing, it seems reasonable to request that other important issues that very personally impact the health and welfare of the American people be subjected to similar stress tests. There is none more deserving of stress testing than the proposed MOTHERS Act.

On the surface, the MOTHERS Act reflects its sponsors overwhelming compassion and empathy for women suffering from alleged mental health disorders resulting from childbirth – often referred to as Postpartum Depression. But when one conducts a brief stress test on important sections of the legislation, taxpayers may find that this costly and sweeping mental health legislation actually fails women of America, but goes a long way in inflating the balance sheets of one of the most lucrative industries in the nation – big Pharma.

For instance, the MOTHERS Act legislation that currently is pending in the U.S. Senate states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may “make grants to eligible entities…” to deliver essential services to individuals with a postpartum condition. What the legislation doesn’t delineate is who and what entities may receive these grants. Are these “entities” funded by pharmaceutical companies? Lawmakers have not specified what constitutes an “entity” so it will be impossible to know if there are conflicts of interest between those who develop the screening tools and conduct research and the pharmaceutical companies who most certainly will benefit financially from the increased diagnosing.

Furthermore, no research guidelines have been provided for public disclosure. This is no small issue, given that the Senate Finance Committee recently exposed the conflicts of interest of the top ten psychiatric researchers in the U.S. who had received millions of dollars in pharmaceutical funding. Where is the guarantee that the “entities” are not pharmaceutical front-men?

The legislation also allows for the “expansion and intensification of activities” into the research of Postpartum conditions and “evaluation of new treatments.” This is a humdinger. Despite ever-increasing published data and clinical studies challenging the safety of antidepressants and other antipsychotic drugs, there is no guidance provided by lawmakers to mandate that the public be made aware of the avalanche of scientific data that not only questions the efficacy of the drugs available to mothers suffering from these conditions, but also warning of the dangers associated with currently available “treatments.”

The section of the legislation dealing with expanding the research into the causes of Postpartum conditions is wholly void of any guidelines that insure the validity of the research conducted, and provides nothing in the way of public disclosure or peer-review of research before it is launched in education campaigns. In the real world, research is conducted and submitted for peer review. In this instance, it appears that Congress has learned nothing from the ongoing banking debacle and naively believes that the researchers will be on their best behavior – self-policing themselves. This is a dangerous omission in the legislation, especially since the Senate Finance Committee has exposed the serious conflicts of interest that exist between researchers and pharmaceutical companies.

Making matters worse, much of the legislation revolves around funding national education campaigns about Postpartum Depression, including Public Service Announcements and television and radio advertisements. Based on the current language of the legislation, research will be conducted without peer review – no checks and balances; no one to validate the integrity of the research which then will be used to determine a woman’s mental health status. Given that this research will be used to develop questions or tests for screening new mothers for possible mental disorders, one might find it important to know that the research has integrity and has been validated by the scientific community, free of pharmaceutical largesse. Congress apparently didn’t think integrity of the research is important and there are no provisions to protect women from pharmaceutical driven research.

Taxpayers may also expect that such important legislation would make provisions for some kind of oversight; some government entity that could provide feedback on the success or failure of this mental health campaign. One avenue that may help lawmakers’ determine if these new programs are working is the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reports. MedWatch collects information about people who have experienced adverse reactions to drugs overseen by the FDA. With the increased drugging that most certainly will occur with the increase in diagnosing, it seems logical that lawmakers would insert provisions in the legislation to annually review Adverse Event Reports collected by MedWatch, especially those relating to drugs prescribed in the treatment of Postpartum Depression. Unfortunately, because the nation’s lawmakers have provided no provisions for oversight, countless numbers of women may be harmed by the “treatments” but will be none the wiser because no protections were provided in the legislation.

There also is the very basic question of why the government is endorsing this sweeping mental health legislation and sanctioning a national advertising campaign about Postpartum Depression when there is no definitive data about the cause of the condition or that it is an objective confirmable abnormality – the scientific standard for disease. Given that there are so many unknowns in this legislation, it seems irresponsible to go forward without reasonable protections in place.

Congress must insure that all research and screening tests proposed and endorsed by this legislation be disclosed for peer-review and consumer input before implementing any screening tests and approving any research to be used in the national education campaign, including Public Service Announcements and radio and television advertising.

Given the documented risks related to the current modes of treatments, including antidepressant and antipsychotics, which are commonly prescribed for Postpartum Depression and documented to cause birth defects and host of other issues in pregnant and nursing mothers, Congress must include mandatory reviews of published research and clinical data on the drugs prescribed for the treatment of Postpartum Depression.

Finally, Congress must protect the integrity of the research by providing strict guidelines to insure that there are no conflicts of interest between the researcher and the pharmaceutical industry.

Without these safeguards, the MOTHERS Act cannot today, or ever, pass a stress test of viability and mothers and their children certainly will be on the losing end of this mental health campaign. Sometimes it’s in the best interest of the people for Congress NOT to act, and until our lawmakers are confident that all legislative precautions have been taken to insure optimum results, this is one of those times.

About the author:

Kelly Patricia O’Meara is an award-winning investigative journalist who authored more than two dozen articles examining the psychiatric pharmaceutical industry during her tenure at the Washington Times’ Insight Magazine. Her articles resulted in record sales of the issues in which they appeared and among the national and international press that have featured her articles are Fox News, the O’Reilly Factor, CBS News, BBC, ABC’s 20/20 and Hannity and Colmes. She is also the author of Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Sickness and Pushes Pills that Kill. Prior to working as an investigative journalist, O’Meara spent sixteen years on Capitol Hill and was the lead investigator in several Congressional investigations. She holds a B.S. in Political Science from the University of Maryland.

Filed under: mothers act , Kelly O'Meara, May 15 Fax

Weird Science!?: Investigating Attention Deficit Disorder

This is the first in a series of articles to be republished on The Bitter Pill by Ashleigh Stewart, a scholar investigating the drugging of children and natural alternatives. This initial series is based on research conducted for her dissertation. You will be hearing much more from Ashleigh. Her bio and a link to her website are coming soon.

WEIRD SCIENCE!?:

Investigating Attention Deficit Disorder

By ASHLEIGH STEWART

“Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry, the philosophy which does not laugh and the greatness which does not bow before children.” (Kahlil Gibran, 1923)

As scientific as the name may sound ‘Attention Deficit Disorder’ and ‘Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder’ (AD/HD) are alleged and somewhat mysterious ‘diseases’ of which, despite numerous studies dedicated to investigating their cause, no convincing evidence of any brain malfunction or other biological or genetic abnormality has been discovered.

Despite the fact that the source of this ‘so-called’ disease is still vague, the symptoms that define AD/HD are prevalent and prominent, so much so that approximately 6 million children in America alone have been diagnosed with an attention deficit disorder and prescribed with psycho-stimulant drugs, such as ‘Methylphenidate’, otherwise known by it’s brand name ‘Ritalin’, as the primary method of treatment.

My question is what is AD/HD? Why are so many children being diagnosed with it these days, and what could be the real cause of it? Also, how much do we really know about the effects of stimulant drugs on our children? How will taking these drugs affect children’s lives physiologically, psychologically, emotionally and socially as they grow up? Also, what are the implications in terms of the future of the human race and our world if we keep drugging millions of our children with dangerous and highly addictive drugs?

Never in the history of our planet have so many children been put on psycho-stimulant drugs to alter their behaviour, emotions and sense of perception, to treat a disease that remains to be proven to exist.

As a mum of two children under the age of three, a student of Yoga and Metaphysical Science I feel it is my duty to investigate this alleged disease and examine what lies at the source of society’s ‘Attention Deficit Disorder’ and why so many children are being drugged. As a result, it has become my goal to help children reconnect with their true inner essence, to simply be who they were born to be before their human rights, freedom and innocence was stolen away and replaced with a diagnosis that labels them as being damaged and disordered, just because they do not act in ways certain adult ‘authoritarians’ believe to be appropriate.

It is my belief that in the very moment we label children as being disordered we influence they way they will see themselves, and define their future in less than positive ways as a result. Also, the moment we choose to drug our children is the moment we rob them of their essence, steal their spirit and dis-empower ourselves as parents by giving the responsibility of our children’s well-being over to the medications we give them.

Just why are so many parents willing to succumb to this type of drug-influenced upbringing for their children? I am certain that this was not part of their dream of parenthood while planning to have children!

Does this happen because children these days are misunderstood? Is it because they are evolving and no longer fit into the convenience of the ‘one size fits all’ society that we have become, a society which, on the other hand claims to celebrate diversity, liberty and freedom of expression?

Drugging our children is apparently a more convenient method of handling the challenges that come hand in hand with raising children, while we as adults struggle through the daily grind, and the task of managing the hustle and bustle of life in this fast-pace and competitive world. This whole situation is nothing short of tragic in my eyes, and if we do not begin to address the issue of mass drugging of children now, I fear we are paving a dark and gloomy path into tomorrow’s world.

We do have a choice however; we can keep allowing these things to happen to our children, or we can take responsibility for their well being by taking action and educating ourselves about the reality of the AD/HD diagnosis and the stimulant drugs that are used to treat it. It is crucial that we stop labelling and drugging children now!

**Photo By Tara Meeks Copyright Tara Meeks Photography, All Rights Reserved.

Filed under: 'ADHD', Rebecca Riley, child endangerment, drugging children, pharmacology , 'ADHD', Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Children, Ritalin, symptoms, The ADHD Fraud

Brown Victory Brings Hope of Stalling MOTHERS Act in Health Care Bill

“I have no interest in sugarcoating what happened in Massachusetts,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, the head of the Senate Democrats’ campaign committee. “There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now. Americans are understandably impatient.”

Menendez says Americans have high anxiety and are impatient? Oh geez Louise… Speaking of sugarcoating… I recall using that word in reference to Menendez and the MOTHERS Act pushers a few more than 10 times.

In epic upset, GOP’s Brown wins Mass. Senate race

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_massachusetts_senate

By GLEN JOHNSON and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writers Glen Johnson And Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writers – 17 mins ago

BOSTON – In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office.

The loss by the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold was a stunning embarrassment for the White House after Obama rushed to Boston on Sunday to try to save the foundering candidate. Her defeat on Tuesday signaled big political problems for the president’s party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

“I have no interest in sugarcoating what happened in Massachusetts,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, the head of the Senate Democrats’ campaign committee. “There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now. Americans are understandably impatient.”

Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the president’s health care legislation and the rest of his agenda. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.

The Republican will finish Kennedy’s unexpired term, facing re-election in 2012.

Brown led by 52 per cent to 47 percent with all but 3 percent of precincts counted.

One day shy of the first anniversary of Obama’s swearing-in, the election played out amid a backdrop of animosity and resentment from voters over persistently high unemployment, Wall Street bailouts, exploding federal budget deficits and partisan wrangling over health care.

For weeks considered a long shot, Brown seized on voter discontent to overtake Coakley in the campaign’s final stretch. His candidacy energized Republicans, including backers of the “tea party” protest movement, while attracting disappointed Democrats and independents uneasy with where they felt the nation was heading.

A cornerstone of Brown’s campaign was his promise to vote against the health care plan.

Though the president wasn’t on the ballot, he was on many voters’ minds.

“I voted for Obama because I wanted change. … I thought he’d bring it to us, but I just don’t like the direction that he’s heading,” said John Triolo, 38, a registered independent who voted in Fitchburg.

He said his frustrations, including what he considered the too-quick pace of health care legislation, led him to vote for Brown.

Coakley called Brown conceding the race, and Obama talked to both Brown and Coakley, congratulating them on the race.

The Democrat said the president told her: “We can’t win them all.”

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin said he would notify the U.S. Senate on Wednesday that Brown had been elected. Originally, he had said he might take over two weeks to certify the results of the special election, giving Democrats a window in which to try to rush through final passage of Obama’s health care plan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., promised to seat Brown “as soon as the proper paperwork has been received.”

Brown will be the first Republican senator from Massachusetts in 30 years.

Even before the first results were announced, administration officials were privately accusing Coakley of a poorly run campaign and playing down the notion that Obama or a toxic political landscape had much to do with the outcome.

Coakley’s supporters, in turn, blamed that very environment, saying her lead dropped significantly after the Senate passed health care reform shortly before Christmas and after the Christmas Day attempted airliner bombing that Obama himself said showed a failure of his administration.

Days before the polls closed, Democrats were fingerpointing and laying blame.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, head of the House Democrats’ campaign effort, said Coakley’s loss won’t deter his colleagues from continuing to blame the previous administration.

“President George W. Bush and House Republicans drove our economy into a ditch and tried to run away from the accident,” he said. “President Obama and congressional Democrats have been focused repairing the damage to our economy.”

At Boston’s Park Plaza Hotel, giddy Republicans cheered, chanted “USA” and waved the “tea party” version of the American flag.

Even before Brown won, the grass-roots network fueled by antiestablishment frustrations, sought credit for the victory, much like the liberal MoveOn.org did in the 2006 midterm elections when Democrats rose to power.

GOP chairman Michael Steele said Brown’s “message of lower taxes, smaller government and fiscal responsibility clearly resonated with independent-minded voters in Massachusetts who were looking for a solution to decades of failed Democrat leadership.”

Wall Street watched the election closely. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 116 points, and analysts attributed the increase to hopes the election would make it harder for Obama to make his changes to health care. That eased investor concerns that profits at companies such as insurers and drug makers would suffer.

Across Massachusetts, voters who had been bombarded with phone calls and dizzied with nonstop campaign commercials for Coakley and Brown gave a fitting turnout despite intermittent snow and rain statewide.

Galvin, who discounted sporadic reports of voter irregularities throughout the day, predicted turnout ranging from 1.6 million to 2.2 million, 40 percent to 55 percent of registered voters. The Dec. 8 primary had a scant turnout of about 20 percent.

Voters considered national issues including health care and the federal budget deficits.

Fears about spending drove Karla Bunch, 49, to vote for Brown. “It’s time for the country, for the taxpayers, to take back their money,” she said. And Elizabeth Reddin, 65, voted for Brown because she said she was turned off by the Democrat’s negative advertisements, saying: “The Coakley stuff was disgusting.”

___

Liz Sidoti reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Beth Fouhy, Bob Salsberg, Steve LeBlanc, Karen Testa, Kevin Vineys and Stephanie Reitz also contributed to this report.

Filed under: Baby Matthew, Barack Obama, Birth Defects, Christian Delahunty, Christiane Schultz, Congress, ECT, Effexor, Effexor in pregnancy, Harry Reid, Health Care debate, Indiana, Manie, Melanie Stokes, Pregnancy, The Future of The United States, anitdepressants and pregnancy, antidepressant side effects, antidepressants, antidepressants during pregnancy, big brother, big pharma, bigpharmavictim, congenital heart defects, dead babies, heart defects, mothers act, prescription medication and pregnancy , Barack Obama, Bill, Brown, Democrat, Edward Kennedy, Harry, Health Care, Massachusetts, Menendez, mothers act, NJ, NV, Reid, Republican, results, Robert, Scott Brown, special election

Go Scott Go! Kill The Bill!!

Filed under: pharmacology , Health Care debate

Thoughts on the Health Care Debate…

Jenny Hatch after two years of “treatment”

I just finished watching two hours of sunday morning talk shows.  I stayed home from church this morning because of illness and enjoyed clicking around listening to all of the blather.  Health Care is front and center in all of this debate and it was interesting to hear all of the various arguments and see all of the familiar faces and voices sharing views.

For me the summation of all of these views are rolled into the picture that my husband took of me in 1990.  I share this with all of you so that the look on my face and the total blunting of my emotions that was captured in this picture can stand as a witness to the folly of chemical treatments for women.

As a teen I was grounded in medicine by the lifestyle lived by my family and my desire to become a nurse when I was an adult.  I made steps towards that goal by studying to be a medical assistant in high school and working in a medical office as a teen.  As I witnessed the medical profession up close and worked for a year with doctors, nurses, and observed the drug reps doing their thing, one thing became very clear to me during my year of being a part of the Medical Profession.

That being, I had zero desire to be a part of the Medical Profession as an adult.  I am so grateful to have had that experience at such a tender age.  It opened my eyes in ways that an outsider just can’t observe.  And it fueled my desire to pursue my singing and acting unfettered by the emotional need to do something “practical” when I went away to BYU to study Musical Theatre.

I was always a “sickie” as a child and have struggled mightily with my health for most of my adult life.  I suppose those of us who have interfaced most with the doctors and the drug companies who have trained them have the most significant testimony to offer as the health care debate rages.

If I thought for one second that what is being offered at taxpayer expense in the new health care bill would do one positive thing for families over the long haul, I might pause in my Free Market views and consider that perhaps an investment in our nations health would be a good thing.

Since the status quo of medicine as it is practiced today is what will be entrenched with this bill, I have to yell to anyone listening that Medical Slavery for the vast majority of our people is what will be practiced on the American Family for the next ten generations…if we make it that far.  With death, disibility, infertility, damaged babes, trauma, and a “pill for all that ails us” funded by the taxpayers the fruit of this abortion of a bill, we have to pray that with the election of Scott Brown, and his 41st vote, it will go down to defeat as the last and final attempt by the Commies in our Country to rob the American People of their sovereignty and force a Medical Dictatorship and Pharmacuetical Facism on the Men, Women, and Children of the US.

Rather than handing the pharma companies a fifty year guarantee of profits, the attorney general of the US should be serving them with papers of indictment for the past hundred years of medical fraud perpetrated on the American People and force them to refund every person medically damaged by Vaccines, Antibiotics, Bogus and unnecessary surgery, court ordered psychiatric meds, forced chemo, and the thousands of children pulled from their parents homes and put into foster care simply because parents refused to accept current medical dogma should be returned to their homes, detoxed from the psychiatric drugs they have been forced to take, and compensated financially for all of the side effects that the toxicity of the drugs caused.

The Fox is in the hen house and the Farmer has just come out and asked him if he wants that chicken baked or fried.  It is time to shoot the Fox and set the hens free.

Jenny Hatch 2001

Every positive step towards health that I have taken for myself and my family has come with taking personal responsibility, paying for my own books, supplements, alternative healing doctors, and by freeing myself from Medical Slavery.

As I have learned self sufficiency as related to my Mothering, the Medical Profession has stood as a very large barrier to me reaching Freedom.   But this Goliath of a profession that was built on lies and is supported by the most devious and insipid media propaganda is simply a paper tiger that when finally torched with go up in smoke.  As A health freedom writer I have all of the matches, gasoline, and molotov cocktails necessary to get the job done.

Please join me in the burning of the Medical Cartel in the coming weeks and months!

In Freedom!

Jenny Hatch

WWW.NaturalFamilyBLOG.com

Cross posted at the natural family blog

Filed under: Health Care debate , Jenny Hatch

Leonard Roy Frank Letter to FDA: Case Against ECT

From: Leonard Roy Frank

January 7, 2010

To: Food and Drug Administration

Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305)

5630 Fishers Lane

Room 1061

Rockville, MD  20852

Docket Number FDA-2009-N-0392

To whom it may concern:

As a survivor and opponent of electroshock (ECT, electroconvulsive “treatment”) who, over the years, has communicated with hundreds of other survivors of the procedure and has studied the subject and written extensively about it, I am responding to the Food and Drug Administration’s call for information and comments regarding the current classification of the ECT devices. I urge the FDA not to reclassify these devices from Class III (high risk) to Class II (low risk) because the procedure continues to be, as it has been since its introduction in 1938, an extremely harmful method used on persons diagnosed as “mentally ill.”

Here, in summary form, is my case against ECT:

1. Electroshock is a brutal, dehumanizing, memory-destroying, intelligence-lowering, brain-damaging, brainwashing, and life-threatening technique. ECT robs people of their memories, their personality and their humanity. It reduces their capacity to lead full, meaningful lives; it crushes their spirits. Put simply, electroshock is a method for gutting the brain in order to control and punish people who fall or step out of line, and intimidate others who are on the verge of doing so.

2. Brain damage is the most ruinous effect of ECT and lies at the root of most of ECT’s other harmful effects. It is also the 800-pound gorilla in the living room whose existence electroshock psychiatrists refuse to acknowledge, at least publicly. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than in the American Psychiatric Association’s Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy, which states that “in light of the accumulated body of data dealing with structural effects of ECT, ‘brain damage’ should not be included [in the ECT consent form] as a potential risk of treatment” (2001, p. 102). The exclusion of brain damage as a risk of ECT makes a sham of the entire ECT informed-consent process and turns what is ostensibly a medical procedure into an act of criminal assault. The following statements and reports, all by psychiatrists or neurologists, refute the APA’s position on the risk of brain damage from ECT.

A. “The importance of the [foregoing autopsied] case lies in that it offers a clear demonstration of the fact that electrical convulsion treatment is followed at times by structural damage of the brain” (Alpers and Hughes, 1942).

B. “This brings us for a moment to a discussion of the brain damage produced by electroshock…. Is a certain amount of brain damage not necessary in this type of treatment? Frontal lobotomy indicates that improvement takes place by a definite damage of certain parts of the brain” (Hoch, 1948). Paul H. Hoch, a Hungarian-born U.S. psychiatrist, had been commissioner of the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene.

C. In a report “based on the study of 214 electroshock fatalities reported in the literature and 40 fatalities heretofore unpublished, made available through the kindness of the members of the Eastern Psychiatric Research Association,” David Impastato found that 66 ECT patients had died from “cerebral” causes among the 235 patients for whom the cause of death had been stated (Impastato, 1957). Impastato, a Sicilian-born U.S. psychiatrist, was a leading figure in the early history of ECT in the United States.

D. An extensive American Psychiatric Association membership survey found that 41 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement, “It is likely that ECT produces slight or subtle brain damage”; 26 percent disagreed with the statement (American Psychiatric Association, 1978).

E. “Electroshock ‘works’ by damaging the brain…. [T]he changes one sees when electroshock is administered are completely consistent with any acute brain injury, such as a blow to the head with a hammer” (Coleman, 1978).

F. “The principal complications of EST are death, brain damage, memory impairment, and spontaneous seizures. These complications are similar to those seen after head trauma, with which EST has been compared” (Fink, 1978). Eleven years later, Fink was quoted in a magazine article as saying, “I can’t prove there’s no brain damage [from ECT]. I can’t prove there are no other sentient beings in the universe, either. But scientists have been trying for thirty years to find both, and so far they haven’t come up with a thing” (Rymer, 1989). Max Fink, an Austrian-born U.S. psychiatrist, is the world’s leading proponent of ECT.

G. “After a few sessions of ECT the symptoms are those of moderate cerebral contusion, and further enthusiastic use of ECT may result in the patient functioning at a subhuman level. Electroconvulsive therapy in effect may be defined as a controlled type of brain damage produced by electrical means…. In all cases the ECT “response” is due to the concussion‑type, or more serious, effect of ECT. The patient “forgets” his symptoms because the brain damage destroys memory traces in the brain, and the patient has to pay for this by a reduction in mental capacity of varying degree” (Sament, 1983).

H. “A vast medical literature provides strong evidence that electroconvulsive therapy causes permanent brain damage, including loss of memory and catastrophic deterioration of personality” (Polk, 1993).

I. “There is an extensive animal research literature confirming brain damage from ECT. The damage is demonstrated in many large animal studies, human autopsy studies, brain wave studies, and an occasional CT scan study. Animal and human autopsy studies show that ECT routinely causes widespread pinpoint hemorrhages and scattered cell death. While the damage can be found throughout the brain, it is often worst in the region beneath the electrodes. Since at least one electrode always lies over the frontal lobe, it is no exaggeration to call ECT an electrical lobotomy” (Breggin, 1998).

3. The most immediate, obvious, and distressing effect of electroshock is amnesia. In her book Doctors of Deception: What They Don’t Want You to Know About Shock Treatment, electroshock survivor Linda Andre described what that is like: “The memory ‘loss’ that happens with shock treatment is really memory erasure. A period of time is wiped out as if it never happened. Unlike memory loss associated with other conditions, such as Alzheimer’s, which come on gradually and allow patients and families to anticipate and prepare for the loss to some extent, the amnesia associated with… ECT is sudden, violent, and unexpected. Your life is essentially unlived…. You didn’t just lose your suitcase; you can’t say where you got it, what it looks like, what you packed in it, what trips you’ve taken it on. You don’t know that you ever had it” (Andre, 2009).

4. Electroshock’s harmful effects can be long-lasting. Electroshock psychologist Harold A. Sackeim and colleagues concluded their recent study with this statement:  “[T]his study provides the first evidence in a large, prospective sample that adverse cognitive effects can persist for an extended period, and that they characterize routine treatment with ECT in community settings” (Sackeim, 2007).

5. Electroshock causes a significant number of deaths. A 1995 report from the Texas Mental Health Department (Smith, 1995) revealed that there were eight deaths among approximately 1,600 patients (1 in 200 cases) who had undergone ECT in Texas over a then recent 15-month period, a rate 50 times higher than the death rate (“about 1 in 10,000 patients”) given in the consent-form sample in the American Psychiatric Association’s Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy (2001, p. 320). Reports in the professional literature give further evidence that the ECT death rate is much higher than

the rate claimed by ECT proponents (Frank, 2007).

6. There are no scientifically sound studies showing that ECT is an effective method of suicide prevention. The authors of a large study published in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry (Black, 1989) reported there was no significant difference in the suicide rate for depressed patients treated with ECT, anti-depressants, and neither of these treatments.

7. Unlike its harmful effects, electroshock’s supposedly “therapeutic” effects are brief at best. No study shows that these effects persist for more than at most a few months following the last treatment. One study indicates the relapse rate for ECT patients is up to 50 percent within six months following treatment, “even though antidepressant drugs are continued” (Fink, 1999). Another study of patients diagnosed with “unipolar major depression” concluded “that without active treatment virtually all remitted patients [i.e., patients whose symptoms diminished following ECT] relapse within 6 months of stopping ECT” (Sackeim, 2001). From this, it is clear that an ECT patient with a diagnosis of depression or manic-depression runs the serious risk of becoming a permanent outpatient which usually entails ongoing drug treatment, “maintenance” ECT, and/or occasional inpatient stays.

8. Contrary to claims by ECT defenders, newer technique modifications have made electroshock more harmful than ever. For example, the drugs accompanying ECT to reduce certain risks, including bone fractures, raise seizure threshold so that more electrical current is required to induce the convulsion (Saltzman, 1955): the more current applied, the greater is risk of brain damage and amnesia. Moreover, whereas formerly ECT specialists tried to induce seizures with minimal current, suprathreshold amounts of electricity are commonly administered today in the belief that they are more effective.

9. Not only does the federal government stand by passively as psychiatrists continue to use electroshock, it also actively supports ECT through the licensing and funding of hospitals where the procedure is used, by covering ECT costs in its insurance programs (including Medicare), and by financing ECT research, including some of the most damaging ECT techniques ever devised. One study provides an example of such research. This ECT experiment was conducted at Wake Forest University School of Medicine/North Carolina Baptist Hospital, Winston-Salem, between 1995 and 1998. It involved the application of electric current at up to 12 times the individual’s convulsive threshold on 36 depressed patients. This reckless disregard for the safety of ECT subjects was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (McCall, 2000).

10. The use of ECT is increasing. More than 100,000 Americans are being electroshocked each year; half are 60 and older, and two-thirds are women. Seventy percent of all ECT is insurance-covered. ECT specialists on average have incomes twice that of other psychiatrists. The cost for inpatient ECT ranges from $50,000 to $75,000 per series (usually 8 to 12 individual sessions). Electroshock is a multibillion-dollar-a-year industry.

11. Electroshock is especially dangerous and life-threatening for elderly patients. One Rhode Island study conducted between 1974 and 1983 divided 65 hospitalized depressed patients, 80 years and older, into two groups. Thirty-seven patients in one group were treated with ECT and the 28 in the other group were treated with antidepressant drugs. The death rate after one year for the ECT group was 7.5 times higher than that of the non-ECT group: 10 deaths among the 37 ECT patients (27%) compared with 1 death among the 28 drug-treated patients (3.6%). The authors, 2 psychiatrists, reported that “two patients had only 2 ECTs: one withdrew consent, and the other developed CHF [congestive heart failure] and died before ECT could be continued.” They also reported that there was “lasting recovery” for 22% in the ECT group and 71% in the non-ECT group. The authors attributed the poor outcomes of the ECT patients to “their advanced age and physical illness” (Kroessler and Fogel, 1993). In his extensive study of ECT deaths (referred to in paragraph 2C above), Impastato estimated that the ECT death rate for patients over 60 is one in 200, or 5 times greater than the death rate of 1 in 1,000 for ECT patients of all ages (1957, p. 31).

12. As a destroyer of memories and thoughts, electroshock is a direct, violent assault on these hallmarks of American liberty: freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from assault, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

Tens of thousands of people every year in the United States are deceived or coerced into undergoing electroshock. The FDA should do everything in its power to discourage the use of electroshock by:

• keeping ECT’s Class III, high-risk rating;
• insisting that electroshock psychiatrists, manufacturers of ECT devices, and executives and administrators in hospitals where ECT is administered, substantiate with scientific proof their claims that the procedure is “safe and effective”; and
• calling upon the Congress and the Department of Justice to investigate the fraudulent and coercive use of this cruel and inhuman procedure.

References:

Alpers, B.J., Hughes, J. (April 1942). “The Brain Changes in Electrically Induced Convulsions in the Human,” Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, pp. 172-177.

American Psychiatric Association. Electroconvulsive Therapy (Task Force Report 14). (1978). Washington, DC: Author, p. 4.

American Psychiatric Association (A Task Force Report). (2001). The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy: Recommendations for Treatment, Training, and Privileging (2nd Edition). Washington, DC: Author.

Andre, L. (2009). Doctors of Deception: What They Don’t Want You to Know About Shock Treatment. New Brunswick, New Jersey: RutgersUniversity Press, p. 2.

Black, D.W., Winokur, G. et al. (September 1989). “Does Treatment Influence Mortality in Depressives?: A Follow-up of 1076 Patients with Major Affective Disorders,” Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 165-173.

Breggin, P.R. (1998). “Electroshock: Scientific, Ethical, and Political Issues,” International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, vol. 11, pp. 5-40.

Cameron, D.O. (Winter-Spring 1994). “ECT: Sham Statistics, the Myth of Convulsive Therapy, and the Case for Consumer Misinformation,” Journal of Mind and Behavior, vol. 15, no. 1-2, pp. 177-198.

Coleman, L. (1978). Introduction to Frank, L.R. (Ed.), The History of Shock Treatment, San Francisco: Author, p. xiii.

Fink, M. (January-February, 1978). “Efficacy and Safety of Induced Seizures (EST) in Man,” Comprehensive Psychiatry, pp. 1-18.

Fink, M. (1999). Electroshock: Restoring the Mind, New York: OxfordUniversity Press, p. 12.

Frank, L.R. (Ed.). (1978). The History of Shock Treatment. San Francisco: Author.

Frank, L.R. (Spring 2002). “Electroshock: A Crime Against the Spirit,” Ethical Human Sciences and Services, pp. 63-71.

http://www.endofshock.com/leonard.htm

Frank, L.R. (2006). The Electroshock Quotationary (an e-book).

http://www.endofshock.com/102C_ECT.PDF

Frank, L.R. (Ed.). (2007). “Electroshock and Death” (an internet posting).

http://endofshock.com/101i%20brochure%20on%20deaths%203-29.pdf

Hoch, P.H. (1948). “Discussion and Concluding Remarks,” Journal of Personality, vol. 17, p. 48.

Impastato, D.J. (July 1957). “Prevention of Fatalities in Electroshock Therapy,” Diseases of the Nervous System, p. 31. This 42-page report of 254 deaths is the largest and most detailed study of ECT deaths ever published. It is rarely cited in the writings of ECT proponents.

Kroessler, D., Fogel, B.S. (Winter 1993). “Electroconvulsive Therapy for Major Depression in the Oldest Old,” American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, pp. 30-37.

McCall, W.V., Reboussin, D.M. et al. (May 2000). “Titrated Moderately Suprathreshold vs Fixed High-Dose Right Unilateral Electroconvulsive Therapy,” Archives of General Psychiatry, May 2000, pp. 438-444.

Morgan, R.F. (Ed.) (1999). Electroshock: The Case Against. Mangilao, Guam: Morgan Foundation Publishers.

Polk, H.L. (August 1, 1993). Letter to the editor, New York Times.

Rymer, R. (March-April 1989). “Electroshock,” Hippocrates, p. 71.

Sackeim, H.A., Haskett, R.F. et al. (March 14, 2001). “Continuation Pharmacotherapy in the Prevention of Relapse Following Electroconvulsive Therapy” (abstract), Journal of the American Medical Association, pp. 1299-1307.

Sackeim, H.A., Prudic, J. (January 2007). “The Cognitive Effects of Electroconvulsive Therapy in Community Settings,” Neuropsychopharmacology, pp. 244-254.

Saltzman, C., Konikov, W. et al. (May 1955). “Modification of Electroshock Therapy by Succinylcholine Chloride,” Diseases of the Nervous System, p. 154.

Sament, S. (March 1983). Letter to the editor, Clinical Psychiatry News. p. 11.

Smith, M. (March 7, 1995). “Eight in Texas Die after Shock Therapy in 15-Month Period,” Houston Chronicle, pp. 1A, 6A.

Leonard Roy Frank

Filed under: ECT, FDA, electroshock, forced 'treatment' , Electroshock Opposition, Leonard Roy Frank

The MOTHERS Act Passed and Almost Law, Plus Susan Stone’s False Statement About Melanie Stokes

*UPDATE – The word is that there will be no Conference Committee, but each chamber will have to have another up or down vote on the bill after the negotiations are made before it can be sent to the President. I am trying to get confirmation and will update again later.

I have been meaning to blog on this since it happened, but between being out of town over New Year’s and not having time to read a hundred bazillion page health care bill to find all the objectionable parts, looks like the Postpartum drug advocates beat me to it. As I have posted before, the bill is filled with much more mental health garbage than just The MOTHERS Act, but since Harry Reid introduced a brand new substitute bill right before Christmas and had it voted on in a matter of days, I didn’t want to post about anything that wasn’t totally verified. (Not that I believe everything that’s written on a PSI related website.) The Health Care bill has a number of highly contentious issues on which the House and Senate versions differ, so it would ordinarily need to pass through the Conference Committee in order to be sent to the President. (More on that later, but word is that there will be no Conference Committee but rather just some negotiations between key players in the House and Senate.) Now, I don’t think they are lying when they say that The MOTHERS Act passed via the Health Care Bill… but that won’t stop Susan Stone from making a ridiculous and untrue statement about something…

Susan Stone, past President of “Postpartum Support International,” has claimed in her blog on the passage of Harry Reid’s Christmas Eve Substitute Health Care Bill that Melanie Stokes died as a result of “untreated postpartum illness.”

Melanie, a beautiful, intelligent mother of a young child with every reason to live, leapt to her death as a result of untreated postpartum illness.

[emphasis mine]

Susan may not be good at retelling Melanie’s story accurately, although she is good at rewriting history.

Untreated Postpartum Illness? Oh really? From Carol Blocker’s Website “Melanie’s Battle:”

Melanie’s was hospitalized three times in seven weeks. She was given four combinations of anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety, and anti-depressant medications. She also underwent electroconvulsive therapy. Her family rallied around her with all their strength, but in the end, Melanie jumped to her death from the twelfth floor of a Chicago hotel.

We have Stone and her buddies to thank for tireless advocacy of pharma-friendly legislation which would risk the lives of many vulnerable women in need and their unborn and newborn babies.

If you are interested in reading the bill’s specific language, you can go to this link and click on “Full Text of Bill as Passed”. The language referencing The MOTHERS Act initiatives can be found on pages 595-604, section 2952 “Support Education and Research for Postpartum Depression.”

Also from her website:

Also, the Mikulski Amendment, which includes SCREENING for postpartum depression also passed in another part of the healthcare reform bill. It was actually the FIRST Amendment included in healthcare reform. Finally, women and mothers are being heard.

This about sums up the passage of The MOTHERS Act via the Health Care Bill: this bill NEVER could have passed on its own thanks to the massive opposition against it, but it takes a Christmas Eve vote on a giant Health Care Bill which nobody has read (well at least until “Tuesday, January 5th, 2010 at 2:45 PM”) in order to get it through.

So much for Democracy.

The truth about psychiatric drugs & electroshock is summed up in these videos.

Melanie Stokes:

Indi:

Matthew Schultz:

Andrea, Michael, Micayla, & Dylan Roberts:

Filed under: Congress, Melanie Stokes, PPD, antidepressants, mothers act, suicide , Carol Blocker, Health Care bill, Melanie Stokes, Mikulski Amendment, mothers act, Postpartum Support International, screening, Susan Stone, Susan Stone's False Statement About Melanie Stokes

Year End, New Year in Review

The Washington Times: MENTAL HEALTH TROJAN HORSE IN HEALTH CARE BILL

The MOTHERS Act in Health Care Bill Heads To Final Negotiations & Susan Stone’s False Statement About Melanie Stokes

Why The MOTHERS Act Should Not Become Law

ELECTROSHOCK COMMENTS

Go directly to the FDA web comment page about electroshock here:
http://bit.ly/FDAECT

At least say:

“I oppose the FDA’s proposed reclassification of the ECT device to
Class II. The FDA should investigate the ECT device for safety and
effectiveness. The FDA should call for Pre-Market Approval
Applications for the device.”

Electroshock Survivor Leonard Roy Frank to FDA: Case Against ECT

FDA – “Yes Man” to Electroshock?

Pharmalot’s take on the new study on meds during pregnancy being initiated by the FDA and others (FDA to look at medication safety during pregnancy)

Motherhood is Not A Medical Disorder, one of the top posts of the year on Psychiatrist Dr. Doug Bremner’s blog Before You Take That Pill.

Antidepressants no more effective than a sugar pill

Before You Take That Antidepressant, Visit This Website (Op Ed News Re: SSRI Stories)

Ritalin Use Linked With 500% Increase in Sudden Death of Children

Psychiatrist Under Federal Investigation After Writing 96,685 psych drug prescriptions- about 153 per day

Advocates Want New Rules to Protect Nursing Home Patients from Abuse with Antipsychotics

TOP POSTS ON THE BITTER PILL:

• What the Media Doesn’t Say about Antidepressants & Pregnancy
• Reps Should Remove Dangerous Psycho-Pharma Agenda From House Health Bill
• Take the BLUE PILL DOOCE….Please oh please, take the blue pill…
• Did the FDA Order Generic Armour Thyroid Maker to Stop Production?
• The MOTHERS Act Passed and Almost Law, Plus Susan Stone’s False Statement About Melanie Stokes

TOP POSTS ON BREATH (MADNAP BLOG):

• Quick Stats on Pregnancy and SSRIs
• MADNAP Founders & Activists
• How long did it take you withdraw from Paxil?
• Dr. Grace Jackson Comments on Detoxing from Antidepressants & Pregnancy Exposure, Damage to DNA/Eggs
• SIDS, Neonatal Deaths, and Breast Milk Exosure-Related Adverse Event Reports to MedWatch
• Zachary Stowe Wants His GSK Money
• Zachary Stowe Doesn’t Get to Claim “Paroxetine Undetectable in Amniotic Fluid” for GSK
• When Drug Trials Go Terribly Wrong – Lessons From a Bereaved Mother
• Intra-Uterine Deaths and Umbilical Cord Abnormalities Linked to Antidepressants in MedWatch Reports; Preventing Threatened Miscarriages
• CAUTION!!!!!!! This could happen to your baby.

Filed under: Birth Defects, ECT, Elderly, FDA, drug "safety", drugging children, electroshock, fight for kids , antipsychotics, electroshock, FDA, Health Care bill, Investigation, Mental Health Trojan Horse, New Year, Pharmalot, Pregnancy, psychiatrist, Ritalin, Round Up, Sudden Death, Year In Review

FDA “Yes Man” to Electroshock?

“I am still more frightened by the fearless power in the eyes of my fellow psychiatrists than in the powerless fear in the eyes of their patients.” – R.D. Laing

Well for the past couple of months I guess you could say it seems like nearly everyone in the world seems to be on autopilot between the Holiday festivities, shopping, and getting back to work for the new year. It sure makes it easy to miss out on everything that is going on such as Harry Reid calling for a vote on a  brand new health care bill the week of Christmas and holding the final Senate vote in the wee morning hours of Christmas Eve. One of my weaknesses in life has seemed to be over-trusting people which you could say led me to accept antidepressants days after my son’s birth. You would think scientists at the FDA who deal daily with studies from the drug industry and medical device companies and regularly have to consider the efficacy and safety of products would give something like electrocution of the brain a second look and not just blindly give it a stamp of approval. But after decades of electroshock being used on patients from Melanie Stokes to Ernest Hemingway and decades of protest over the resulting suicides and irreversible brain damage, the FDA is making its move to declare Electroshock devices safe without any testing whatsoever.

If I want to make money, all I have to do is find a way to torture a person inside of a mental ward, declare it therapeutic and ask the FDA to help me?

Here is an alert from MindFreedom on the topic. Thanks also to Jim Gottstein and all of the other activists who have been posting this commenting opportunity online for everyone for the past few weeks. Let’s not let the excuse of having missed out during the Holidays stop us from commenting now, we still have all of today and tomorrow to comment.

MindFreedom International – http://www.mindfreedom.org
United Independent Activism in Mental Health – please forward
[To stop receiving these public news alerts see info at bottom.]

Your Last Chance — Spread the Word for Last Minute Blitz!

Deadline is *Tomorrow* Friday, 8 January 2010, at 11:59 pm EST

Demand the USA Investigate the Electroshock Device

It Takes Seconds for You to Comment Via the Web

The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has *never* investigated the
psychiatric device used for electroshock or Electroconvulsive Therapy
(ECT).

Instead of doing their job, the FDA is proposing re-labeling the shock
device “low risk.”

You have only one more day to say “no” to the FDA’s proposed
reclassification from Class III to Class II.

FDA deadline for web comments is *tomorrow* Friday, 8 January 2010,
11:59 pm Eastern Standard Time. (Or postal mail comments must be
postdated by that date.)

This could be your last chance for an official comment to the FDA
about electroshock for a long time.

The FDA says that quantity counts!

~~~~~~~~~~

ACT NOW:

Go directly to the FDA web comment page about electroshock here:

http://bit.ly/FDAECT

At the least say,

“I oppose the FDA’s proposed reclassification of the ECT device to
Class II. The FDA should investigate the ECT device for safety and
effectiveness. The FDA should call for Pre-Market Approval
Applications for the device.”

Of course, if you add specific reasons and evidence, that is even
better.

But at the *very* least register YOUR public opposition to FDA rubber
stamping electroshock, NOW!

FOR MORE INFO

See the MindFreedom Gateway “Say ‘No!’ to FDA Rubber Stamp!”, click
here:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/shield/fda-ect/

~~~~~~~~~~~~

URGENT — PLEASE FORWARD this last-minute news alert to all supportive
people on and off Internet.

Filed under: FDA, electroshock , approval, electroshock, FDA, FDA to declare electroshock safe with no testing, testing

Green Mental Health Care Petition

Share

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/green-mental-health-care
From Genita Petralli:

Sign this petition to show your support in making non-toxic, non drug-centric Green Mental Health Care strategies the first course of action for today’s epidemic mental health conditions. Mental Health Care should be held to the ethical creed, “First, Do No Harm” and should be driven by positive patient outcomes!

Functional Medicine and many other respected bodies of medicine have established that over 90% of today’s mental health issues have an underlying PHYSICAL cause such as hypoglycemia, adrenal fatigue, thyroid disorders, allergies, toxic exposures, damage done by food chemicals, pesticides, and heavy metals, and many other assaults created by today’s over stimulating and toxic environment. None of these conditions nor the root cause of a person’s symptoms that earn them diagnostic labels such as ADD/HD, depression, anxiety, OCD, bipolar, schizophrenic are explored and treated. Instead, toxic assault in the guise of medicine is used 99 out of 100 times a person visits a psychiatrist and many times that diagnosis and prescription is determined in just 30 minutes or less!

For every mental health symptom plaguing our society today there are many Green, non-toxic approaches that have been proven to be far more effective (superior patient outcomes) at a fraction of the cost.
By signing this petition you express your support in our public medical practices ensuring that all non-toxic, and non-invasive mental health strategies are exhausted before life threatening and debilitating drugs are considered. And that the patient must sign an “informed consent” acknowledging that they have been advised as to the documented negative side effects, diseases and deaths the drug is associated with so that the person may truly consider committing to a Green Mental Health Strategy before accepting the risks involved with psychotropic drugs.

Psychiatric Drugs are associated with:

- Every mass school shooting
- Suicide
- Domestic Violence
- Violent Crimes
- Increased incarcerations
- Increased emergency room visits and hospitalizations
- Costly county support services for those debilitated by the drugs
- Car accidents
- Obesity, diabetes, cancer, aneurisms, stroke, heart attack, degenerative disease, birth defects, anxiety, depression, fatigue, panic, fear, loss of quality of life, drug withdrawal syndrome to name just a few and a documented early mortality rate of 25 years.

This pseudo medical model is costing tax payers billions of dollars yearly and is not producing positive patient outcomes. You have to get off drugs to get well. It is a for-profit treatment for life business model, not a consumer, curative patient outcome business model.

The government continues to pour billions of dollars into this treatment methodology without requesting and monitoring performance criteria. If the model worked, there would be less people in the system yearly. Not hundreds of thousands more.

DARE TO SAY NO TO DRUGS! Sign this petition to show your support for non-toxic, evidence based Green Mental Health Care therapies being the first strategy for mental illness.

This includes but is not limited to those systems that have now proven themselves in 3 counties:

- Laboratory testing of the major neuroendocrine systems responsible for mental health
- Laboratory testing for toxic exposures to pesticides, food chemicals etc…
- Education regarding toxic exposures in food chemicals such as Aspartame, MSG and over 1500 others
- Allergy testing
- Identification of toxic exposures and detoxification strategies such as chelation therapies and other aggressive detoxification strategies for pesticide accumulation
- Expert counseling – psychology and life practice coaching systems such as Integral Life Practice and Integral Recovery – proven effective counseling should be provided at every stage of a person’s healing journey
- Spiritual development

- Meditation
- Community participation
- Career development and guidance
- Nutritional education
- Nutritional supplementation – targeted nutritional therapies proven to alleviate and dismiss symptoms
- Exercise

- Tai Chi, Qi Qong, Yoga
- EFT, NLP, Biofeedback, HeartMath
- Acupuncture
- Chiropractic
- Discontinuance of treating drug addiction with legal drugs, usually the legal synthetic versions of the very same illegal drug they were using. It is criminal to give addictive drugs to a person that has demonstrated any level of propensity for addictive substances. This is bold face profiteering from an easy market!

There are many, many more adjuvant therapies to elimination of toxic substances, good nutrition, sunlight, water, detoxification, and exercise that are not listed here but have proven to be valuable in achieving full recovery from mental health conditions and it is the responsibility of our government to use tax payer money to offer and provide those services in the public health sector that do not pose health risks and possible death and instead provide solutions known to increase quality of life and success rates.

It is imperative that we refocus mental health strategies away from mind-numbing, disease and death causing methodologies as the pharmaceutical companies are acquiring so much power in our government that US citizens are now being force drugged- including our children. As soon as the people began educating themselves and turning away from psych drugs, the drug companies targeted children- especially foster children, pregnant women, and the elderly in convalescent homes whom they feel society is least concerned about. These populations are now facing forced and coerced drugging meaning that human rights such as education and other medical services are being denied if they do not comply. Other people that want to get off are being threatened by their doctors with hospital admission- psychiatric incarceration. Parents are losing their children to foster home and being charged for medical neglect and child endangerment for refusing to give thier children psychiatric drugs that have been linked to child suicide, diabetes, sudden death, obesity and violence.

Sign the petition to help us show congress that the American people want non-toxic medical care to be our first option and have those options provided in our public medical health care facilities and community services.

Remember, medical practice and philosophy is supposed to be rooted in “First, Do No Harm”! Bring the Care back in Mental Health Care – say no to Pharma profits and medical regulations and YES to Green Mental Health Care for all citizens!

We will seek congressional support for this change and are currently drafting a Green Mental Health Care Bill. Your signature will be used to show your support for that Bill which will embody what is expressed in this petition.

Shine, brothers and sisters, SHINE!
Genita Petralli H.H.P., N.C., M.H.

Filed under: pharmacology , Green Body and Mind, Green Mental Health Care Bill

Psychiatrist Dr. Grace Jackson Comments on Detoxing from Antidepressants & Pregnancy Exposure, Damage to DNA/Eggs

Psychiatrist Dr. Grace Jackson Comments on Detoxing from Antidepressants & Pregnancy Exposure, Damage to DNA/Eggs

Check out our latest informative article on BREATH, the official MADNAP Blog.

Amy

Filed under: Pregnancy, antidepressants , acute withdrawal, detoxing, Dr. Grace Jackson, Drug Induced Dementia - A Perfect Crime, Effexor, eggs, intermediate withdrawal, long term, miscarriage, Pregnancy