"Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined," Samuel Goldwyn, co-founder of Paramount Pictures and MGM Studios.
"Doctors have throughout time made fortunes on killing their patients with their cures. The difference in psychiatry is that it is the death of the soul," Dr R.D. Laing, M.D.
"Psychiatry is probably the single most destructive force that has affected American Society within the last fifty years," Dr Thomas Szasz, Lifetime Fellow, American Psychiatric Association (APA).
“Dr Loren R. Mosher resigned from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) saying that he could no longer square his conscience with being a member since they [ the APA] had totally sold out to the pharmaceutical industry,” Dr Fred A. Baughman, Jr., M.D., Pediatric Neurologist.
Experts Defining Mental Disorders Are Linked to Drug Firms
Every psychiatric expert involved in writing the standard diagnostic criteria for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia has had financial ties to drug companies that sell medications for those illnesses, a new analysis has found.
Of the 170 experts in all who contributed to the manual that defines disorders from personality problems to drug addiction, more than half had such ties, including 100 percent of the experts who served on work groups on mood disorders and psychotic disorders. The analysis did not reveal the extent of their relationships with industry or whether those ties preceded or followed their work on the manual.
"I don't think the public is aware of how egregious the financial ties are in the field of psychiatry," said Lisa Cosgrove, a clinical psychologist at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, who is publishing her analysis today in the peer-reviewed journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.
The analysis comes at a time of growing debate over the rising use of medication as the primary or sole treatment for many psychiatric disorders, a trend driven in part by definitions of mental disorders in the psychiatric manual.
Cosgrove said she began her research after discovering that five of six panel members studying whether certain premenstrual problems are a psychiatric disorder had ties to Eli Lilly & Co., which was seeking to market its drug Prozac to treat those symptoms. The process of defining such disorders is far from scientific, Cosgrove added: "You would be dismayed at how political the process can be."
The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the guidelines in its bible of disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), said it is planning to require disclosure of the financial ties of experts who write the next edition of the manual -- due around 2011. The manual carries vast influence over the practice of psychiatry in the United States and around the world.
Darrel Regier, director of the association's division of research, said that concerns over disclosure are a relatively recent phenomenon, which may be why the last edition, published in 1994, did not note them. Regier and John Kane, an expert on schizophrenia who worked on the last edition, agreed with the need for transparency but said financial ties with industry should not undermine public confidence in the conclusions of its experts. Kane has been a consultant to drug companies including Abbott Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer Inc.
"It shouldn't be assumed there is a true conflict of interest," said Kane, who said his panel's conclusions were driven only by science. "To me, a conflict of interest implies that someone's judgment is going to be influenced by this relationship, and that is not necessarily the case. . . ."
The DSM defines disorders in terms of constellations of symptoms. While neuroscience and genetics are revealing biological aspects to many disorders, there has been unease that psychiatry is ignoring social, psychological and cultural factors in its pursuit of biological explanations and treatments.
"As a profession, we have allowed the biopsychosocial model to become the bio-bio-bio model," Steven Sharfstein, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said in an essay last year to his colleagues. He later added, "If we are seen as mere pill pushers and employees of the pharmaceutical industry, our credibility as a profession is compromised."
He stressed that the association has strict guidelines to police the role of the pharmaceutical industry but said the profession as a whole needs to do a better job monitoring ethical conflicts.
Sharfstein added yesterday that the presence of experts with ties to companies on the manual's expert panels is understandable, given that many of the top experts in the field are involved in drug research.
"I am not surprised that the key people who participate have these kinds of relationships," he said. "They are the major researchers in the field, and are very much on the cutting edge, and will have some kind of relationship -- but there should be full disclosure."
At least one psychiatrist who worked on the current manual criticized the analysis. Nancy Andreasen of the University of Iowa, who headed the schizophrenia team, called the new analysis "very flawed" because it did not distinguish researchers who had ties to industry while serving on the panel from those who formed such ties afterward.
Two out of five researchers on her team had had substantial ties to industry, she said. Andreasen said she would have to check her tax statements to know whether she received money from companies at the time she worked on the panel, but said, "What I do know is that I do almost nothing with drug companies. . . . My area of research is neuroimaging, not psychopharmacology."
The analysis could not determine the extent or timing of the financial ties because it relied on disclosures in journal publications and other venues that do not mention many details, said Sheldon Krimsky, a science policy specialist at Tufts University who also was an author of the new study. Whether the researchers received money before, during or after their service on the panel did not remove the ethical concern, he said.
Krimsky, the author of the book "Science in the Private Interest," added that although more transparency is welcome, the psychiatric association should staff its panels with disinterested experts.
"When someone is establishing a clinical guideline for the bible of psychiatric diagnosis, I would argue they should have no affiliation with the drug companies in those areas where the companies could benefit from those decisions," he said.
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 20, 2006; A07
Why Psychiatry Should Be Abolished as a Medical Specialty
by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.
Psychiatry should be abolished as a medical specialty because medical school education is not needed nor even helpful for doing counselling or so-called psychotherapy, because the perception of mental illness as a biological entity is mistaken, because psychiatry's "treatments" other than counselling or psychotherapy (primarily drugs and electroshock) hurt rather than help people, because nonpsychiatric physicians are better able than psychiatrists to treat real brain disease, and because nonpsychiatric physicians' acceptance of psychiatry as a medical specialty is a poor reflection on the medical profession as a whole.
In the words of Sigmund Freud in his book The Question of Lay Analysis: "The first consideration is that in his medical school a doctor receives a training which is more or less the opposite of what he would need as a preparation for psycho-analysis [Freud's method of psychotherapy]. ... Neurotics, indeed, are an undesired complication, an embarrassment as much to therapeutics as to jurisprudence and to military service. But they exist and are a particular concern of medicine. Medical education, however, does nothing, literally nothing, towards their understanding and treatment. ... It would be tolerable if medical education merely failed to give doctors any orientation in the field of the neuroses. But it does more: it given them a false and detrimental attitude. ...analytic instruction would include branches of knowledge which are remote from medicine and which the doctor does not come across in his practice: the history of civilization, mythology, the psychology of religion and the science of literature. Unless he is well at home in these subjects, an analyst can make nothing of a large amount of his material. By way of compensation, the great mass of what is taught in medical schools is of no use to him for his purposes. A knowledge of the anatomy of the tarsal bones, of the constitution of the carbohydrates, of the course of the cranial nerves, a grasp of all that medicine has brought to light on bacillary exciting causes of disease and the means of combating them, on serum reactions and on neoplasms - all of this knowledge, which is undoubtedly of the highest value in itself, is nevertheless of no consequence to him; it does not concern him; it neither helps him directly to understand a neurosis and to cure it nor does it contribute to a sharpening of those intellectual capacities on which his occupation makes the greatest demands. ... It is unjust and inexpedient to try to compel a person who wants to set someone else free from the torment of a phobia or an obsession to take the roundabout road of the medical curriculum. Nor will such an endeavor have any success..." (W.W. Norton & Co, Inc., pp. 62, 63, 81, 82). In a postscript to this book Dr. Freud wrote: "Some time ago I analyzed [psychoanalyzed] a colleague who had developed a particularly strong dislike of the idea of anyone being allowed to engage in a medical activity who was not himself a medical man. I was in a position to say to him: 'We have now been working for more than three months. At what point in our analysis have I had occasion to make use of my medical knowledge?' He admitted that I had had no such occasion" (pp. 92-93). While Dr. Freud made these remarks about his own method of psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, it is hard to see why it would be different for any other type of "psychotherapy" or counselling. In their book about how to shop for a psychotherapist, Mandy Aftel, M.A., and Robin Lakoff, Ph.D., make this observation: "Historically, all forms of 'talking' psychotherapy are derived from psychoanalysis, as developed by Sigmund Freud and his disciples ... More recent models diverge from psychoanalysis to a greater or lesser degree, but they all reflect that origin. Hence, they are all more alike than different" (When Talk Is Not Cheap, Or How To Find the Right Therapist When You Don't Know Where To Begin, Warner Books, 1985, p. 27).
If you think the existence of psychiatry as a medical specialty is justified by the existence of biological causes of so-called mental or emotional illness, you've been misled. In 1988 in The New Harvard Guide to Psychiatry Seymour S. Kety, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Neuroscience in Psychiatry, and Steven Matthysse, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychobiology, both of Harvard Medical School, said "an impartial reading of the recent literature does not provide the hoped-for clarification of the catecholamine hypotheses, nor does compelling evidence emerge for other biological differences that may characterize the brains of patients with mental disease" (Harvard Univ. Press, p. 148). So-called mental or emotional "illnesses" are caused by unfortunate life experience - not biology. There is no biological basis for the concept of mental or emotional illness, despite speculative theories you may hear. The brain is an organ of the body, and no doubt it can have a disease, but nothing we think of today as mental illness has been traced to a brain disease. There is no valid biological test that tests for the presence of any so-called mental illness. What we think of today as mental illness is psychological, not biological. Much of the treatment that goes on in psychiatry today is biological, but other than listening and offering advice, modern day psychiatric treatment is as senseless as trying to solve a computer software problem by working on the hardware. As psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz, M.D., has said: Trying to eliminate a so-called mental illness by having a psychiatrist work on your brain is like trying to eliminate cigarette commercials from television by having a TV repairman work on your TV set (The Second Sin, Anchor Press, 1973, p. 99). Since lack of health is not the cause of the problem, health care is not a solution.
There has been increasing recognition of the uselessness of psychiatric "therapy" by physicians outside psychiatry, by young physicians graduating from medical school, by informed lay people, and by psychiatrists themselves. This increasing recognition is described by a psychiatrist, Mark S. Gold, M.D., in a book he published in 1986 titled The Good News About Depression. He says "Psychiatry is sick and dying," that in 1980 "Less than half of all hospital psychiatric positions [could] be filled by graduates of U.S. medical schools." He says that in addition to there being too few physicians interested in becoming psychiatrists, "the talent has sunk to a new low." He calls it "The wholesale abandonment of psychiatry". He says recent medical school graduates "see that psychiatry is out of sync with the rest of medicine, that it has no credibility", and he says they accuse of psychiatry of being "unscientific". He says "Psychiatrists have sunk bottomward on the earnings totem pole in medicine. They can expect to make some 30 percent less than the average physician". He says his medical school professors thought he was throwing away his career when he chose to become a psychiatrist (Bantam Books, pp. 15, 16, 19, 26). In another book published in 1989, Dr. Gold describes "how psychiatry got into the state it is today: in low regard, ignored by the best medical talent, often ineffective." He also calls it "the sad state in which psychiatry finds itself today" (The Good News About Panic, Anxiety, & Phobias, Villard Books, pp. 24 & 48). In the November/December 1993 Psychology Today magazine, psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D., is quoted as saying psychiatry has experienced "five broad areas of failure" including "inadequate research and theory" and "an increasingly poor reputation" (p. 11). Similarly, a Wall Street Journal editorial in 1985 says "psychiatry remains the most threatened of all present medical specialties", citing the fact that "psychiatrists are among the poorest-paid American doctors", that "relatively few American medical-school graduates are going into psychiatric residencies", and psychiatry's "loss of public esteem" (Harry Schwartz, "A Comeback for Psychiatrists?", The Wall Street Journal, July 15, 1985, p. 18).
The low esteem of psychiatry in the eyes of physicians who practice bona-fide health care (that is, physicians in medical specialties other than psychiatry) is illustrated in The Making of a Psychiatrist, Dr. David Viscott's autobiographical book published in 1972 about what it was like to be a psychiatric resident (i.e., a physician in training to become a psychiatrist): "I found that no matter how friendly I got with the other residents, they tended to look on being a psychiatrist as a little like being a charlatan or magician." He quotes a physician doing a surgical residency saying "You guys [you psychiatrists] are really a poor excuse for the profession. They should take psychiatry out of medical school and put it in the department of archeology or anthropology with the other witchcraft.' 'I feel the same way,' said George Maslow, the obstetrical resident..." (pp. 84-87).
It would be good if the reason for the decline in psychiatry that Dr. Gold and others describe was increasing recognition by ever larger numbers of people that the problems that bring people to psychiatrists have nothing to do with biological health and therefore cannot be helped by biological health care. But regrettably, belief in biological theories of so-called mental illness is as prevalent as ever. Probably, the biggest reason for psychiatry's decline is realization by ever increasing numbers of people that those who consult mental health professionals seldom benefit from doing so.
E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., a psychiatrist, realized this and pointed it out in his book The Death of Psychiatry (Chilton Book Co., 1974). In that book, Dr. Torrey with unusual clarity of perception and expression, as well as courage, pointed out "why psychiatry in its present form is destructive and why it must die." (This quote comes from the synopsis on the book's dust cover.) Dr. Torrey indicates that many psychiatrists have begun to realize this, that "Many psychiatrists have had, at least to some degree, the unsettling and bewildering feeling that what they have been doing has been largely worthless and that the premises on which they have based their professional lives were partly fraudulent" (p. 199, emphasis added). resumably, most physicians want to do something that is constructive, but psychiatry isn't a field in which they can do that, at least, not in their capacity as physicians - for the same reason TV repairmen who want to improve the quality of television programming cannot do so in their capacity as TV repairmen. In The Death of Psychiatry, Dr. Torrey argued that "The death of psychiatry, then, is not a negative event" (p. 200), because the death of psychiatry will bring to an end a misguided, stupid, and counterproductive approach to trying to solve people's problems. Dr. Torrey argues that psychiatrists have only two scientifically legitimate and constructive choices: Either limit their practices to diagnosis and treatment of known brain diseases (which he says are "no more than 5 percent of the people we refer to as mentally 'ill'" (p. 176), thereby abandoning the practice of psychiatry in favor of bona-fide medical and surgical practice that treats real rather than presumed but unproven and probably nonexistent brain disease - or become what Dr. Torrey calls "tutors" (what I call counselors) in the art of living, thereby abandoning their role as physicians. Of course, psychiatrists, being physicians, can also return to real health care practice by becoming family physicians or qualifying in other specialties.
In an American Health magazine article in 1991 about Dr. Torrey, he is quoted saying he continues to believe psychiatry should be abolished as a medical specialty: "He calls psychiatrists witch doctors and Sigmund Freud a fraud. For almost 20 years Dr. E. (Edwin) Fuller Torrey has also called for the 'death' of psychiatry. ...No wonder Torrey, 53, has been expelled from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and twice removed from positions funded by the National Institute of Mental Health ... In The Death of Psychiatry, Torrey advanced the idea that most psychiatric and psychotherapeutic patients don't have medical problems. '...most of the people seen by psychotherapists are the 'worried well.' They have interpersonal and intrapersonal problems and they need counseling, but that isn't medicine - that's education. Now, if you give the people with brain diseases to neurology and the rest to education, there's really no need for psychiatry'" (American Health magazine, October 1991, p. 26).
The disadvantage to the whole of the medical profession of recognizing psychiatry as a legitimate medical specialty occurred to me when I consulted a dermatologist for diagnosis of a mole I thought looked suspiciously like a malignant melanoma. The dermatologist told me my mole did indeed look suspicious and should be removed, and he told me almost no risk was involved. This occurred during a time I was doing research on electroshock, which I have summarized in a pamphlet titled "Psychiatry's Electroconvulsive Shock Treatment - A Crime Against Humanity". I found overwhelming evidence that psychiatry's electric shock treatment causes brain damage, memory loss, and diminished intelligence and doesn't reduce unhappiness or so-called depression as is claimed. About the same time I did some reading about psychiatric drugs that reinforced my impression that most if not all are ineffective for their intended purposes, and I learned many of the most widely used psychiatric drugs are neurologically and psychologically harmful, causing permanent brain damage if used at supposedly therapeutic levels long enough, as they often are not only with the approval but the insistence of psychiatrists. I have explained my reasons for these conclusions in another pamphlet titled "Psychiatric Drugs - Cure or Quackery?" Part of me tended to assume the dermatologist was an expert, be trusting, and let him do the minor skin surgery right then and there as he suggested. But then, an imaginary scene flashed through my mind: A person walks into the office of another type of recognized, board-certified medical specialist: a psychiatrist. The patient tells the psychiatrist he has been feeling depressed. The psychiatrist, who specializes in giving outpatient electroshock, responds saying: "No problem. We can take care of that. We'll have you out of here within an hour or so feeling much better. Just lie down on this electroshock table while I use this head strap and some electrode jelly to attach these electrodes to your head..." In fact, there is no reason such a scene couldn't actually take place in a psychiatrist's office today. Some psychiatrists do give electroshock in their offices on an outpatient basis. Realizing that physicians in the other, the bona-fide, medical and surgical specialties accept biological psychiatry and all the quackery it represents as legitimate made (and makes) me wonder if physicians in the other specialties are undeserving of trust also. I left the dermatologist's office without having the mole removed, although I returned and had him remove it later after I'd gotten opinions from other physicians and had done some reading on the subject. Physicians in the other specialties accepting biological psychiatry as legitimate calls into question the reasonableness and rationality not only of psychiatrists but of all physicians.
On November 30, 1990, the Geraldo television talk show featured a panel of former electroshock victims who told how they were harmed by electroshock and by psychiatric drugs. Also appearing on the show was psychoanalyst Jeffrey Masson, Ph.D., who said this: "Now we know that there's no other medical specialty which has patients complaining bitterly about the treatment they're getting. You don't find diabetic patients on this kind of show saying 'You're torturing us. You're harming us. You're hurting us. Stop it!' And the psychiatrists don't want to hear that." Harvard University law professor Alan M. Dershowitz has said psychiatry "is not a scientific discipline" ("Clash of Testimony in Hinckley Trial Has Psychiatrists Worried Over Image", The New York Times, May 24, 1982, p. 11). Such a supposed health care specialty should not be tolerated within the medical profession.
There is no need for a supposed medical specialty such as psychiatry. When real brain diseases or other biological problems exit, physicians in real health care specialties such as neurology, internal medicine, endocrinology, and surgery are best equipped to treat them. People who have experience with similar kinds of personal problems are best equipped to give counselling about dealing with those problems.
Despite the assertion by Dr. Torrey that psychiatrists can choose to practice real health care by limiting themselves to the 5% or less of psychiatric patients he says do have real brain disease, as even Dr. Torrey himself points out, any time a physical cause is found for any condition that was previously thought to be psychiatric, the condition is taken away from psychiatry and treated instead by physicians in one of the real health care specialties: "In fact, there are many known diseases of the brain, with changes in both structure and function. Tumors, multiple sclerosis, meningitis, and neurosyphilis are some examples. But these diseases are considered to be in the province of neurology rather than psychiatry. And the demarcation between the two is sharp. ... one of the hallmarks of psychiatry has been that each time causes were found for mental 'diseases,' the conditions were taken away from psychiatry and reassigned to other specialties. As the mental 'diseases' were show to be true diseases, mongolism and phenylketonuria were assigned to pediatrics; epilepsy and neurosyphilis became the concerns of neurology; and delirium due to infectious diseases was handled by internists. ... One is left with the impression that psychiatry is the repository for all suspected brain 'diseases' for which there is no known cause. And this is indeed the case. None of the conditions that we now call mental 'diseases' have any known structural or functional changes in the brain which have been verified as causal. ... This is, to say the least, a peculiar specialty of medicine" (The Death of Psychiatry, p. 38-39). Neurosurgeon Vernon H. Mark, M.D., made a related observation in his book Brain Power, published in 1989: "Around the turn of the century, two common diseases caused many patients to be committed to mental hospitals: pellagra and syphilis of the brain. ... Now both of these diseases are completely treatable, and they are no longer in the province of psychiatry but are included in the category of general medicine" (Houghton Mifflin Co., p. 130).
The point is that if psychiatrists want to treat bona-fide brain disease, they must do so as neurologists, internists, endocrinologists, surgeons, or as specialists in one of the other, the real, health care specialties - not as psychiatrists. Treatment of real brain disease falls within the scope of the other specialties. Historically, treatment of real brain disease has not fallen within the scope of psychiatry. It's time to stop the pretense that psychiatry is a type of health care. The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology should be renamed the American Board of Neurology, and there should be no more specialty certifications in psychiatry. Organizations that formally represent physicians such as the American Medical Association and American Osteopathic Association and similar organizations in other countries should cease to recognize psychiatry as a bona-fide branch of the medical profession.
THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric "patients". His pamphlets are not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for distribution to those who you think will benefit.
"I view with no surprise that psychiatric training is being systemically disavowed by American medical school graduates. This must give us cause for concern about the state of today's psychiatry. It must mean, at least in part, that they view psychiatry as being very limited and unchallenging. ...there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder. So, where are we? ... Is psychiatry a hoax, as practiced today?" From a letter dated December 4, 1998 by Loren R. Mosher, M.D., a psychiatrist, resigning from the American Psychiatric Association.
According to an article in the September 1999 American Journal of Psychiatry titled Attitudes Toward Psychiatry as a Prospective Career Among Students Entering Medical School, by David Feifel, M.D., Ph.D., Christine Yu Moutier, M.D. and Neal R. Swerdlow, M.D., Ph.D.:"The number of U.S. medical graduates choosing careers in psychiatry is in decline. In order to determine whether this disinclination toward psychiatry occurs before versus during medical school, this study surveyed medical students at the start of their freshman year. ... these students begin their medical training viewing a career in psychiatry as distinctly and consistently less attractive than other specialties surveyed. More than one-quarter of the new medical students had already definitively ruled out a career in psychiatry. New medical students rated psychiatry significantly lower than each of the other specialties in regard to the degree to which it was a satisfying job, financially rewarding, enjoyable work, prestigious, helpful to patients, dealing with an interesting subject matter, intellectually challenging, drawing on all aspects of medical training, based on a reliable scientific foundation, expected to have a bright and interesting future, and a rapidly advancing field of understanding and treatment. ... Contrasting these results with previous studies suggests that an erosion has occurred over the past two decades in the attitudes that new medical students hold toward psychiatry." [underline added]
"Psychiatric disorders are vastly different from physical disorders, however, because our understanding of how the normal brain works is incomplete. ... We know very little, however, about the neurological processes of learning, memory, thoughts, reasoning, and consciousness, and the production of emotions. ... The treatment you receive depends on the orientation of your psychiatrist, not on a solid foundation of knowledge about the etiology and pathogenesis of the disorder itself." Edward Drummond, M.D., Associate Medical Director at Seacoast Mental Health Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in his book The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000), pages 8-9. Dr. Drummond graduated from Tufts University School of Medicine and was trained in psychiatry at Harvard University.
"...biopsychiatry is a belief system, no more scientifically valid than any religion or philosophy. ... Iatrogenesis is defined as a doctor-inflicted injury, illness, or disease. ... In malpractice, a doctor is found guilty of acting against medical code in violation of the so-called standard of care. However, malpractice is only one kind of clinical iatrogenesis and is actually the least of our worries. Most of the damage inflicted by modern medicine occurs within the standard of care of ordinary practice. As noted, 106,000 Americans died in 1994 from medications that were administered properly, makng this the fourth leading cause of death, while two million more suffered from serious side effects. ... Among institutional psychiatrists and psychologists, there are two major strategies of 'treatment': drugs and behavior modification. There really is nothing else seriously discussed, and it would be fair to say that in institutional mental health 'treatment' is synonymous with 'manipulation.' ... institutional mental health's diagnoses are unreliable and invalid - and thus unscientific - rendering them more diversionary than useful. ... Know that sticks and stones may break your bones, but DSM* does permanent damage." Bruce Levine, Ph.D. (psychologist), Commonsense Rebellion: Debunking Psychiatry, Confronting Society (Continuum, New York, 2001), pp. 65, 103, 178, 269, 277.
*The DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association.
Misdiagnosing Mental Illness
By Nicholas Regush.
Some So-Called "Psychiatric Diseases" May Not Have A Biological Basis, So Do Drugs Really Help?
[Commentary By Nicholas Regush.]
Psychiatry has become a heavily drug-company influenced edifice which often trumpets highly speculative biological science. There are signs many Americans are disturbed by the insidious evolution of psychiatry as a shill for pharmaceuticals and a tool for behavior control
Two class-action lawsuits filed last month allege the American Psychiatric Association and Ritalin's maker, Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp (formed through the merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz) encouraged over-diagnosis of behavioral disorders in children Congress also recently convened hearings about whether Ritalin is over-prescribed to children who are diagnosed as having Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Is It Intrinsic or Culture? These are children who purportedly have disorder-related symptoms such as short attention span, impulsive behavior and restlessness. Some undoubtedly have these difficulties and need some help, but these days it would appear that when a child too often twitches in school, cracks a few jokes, or gazes off, bored stiff, he or she can be slapped with an ADHD label. This "diagnostic" enthusiasm has gone way off the deep end. Now, finally, there are serious calls to investigate.
Part of the problem lies in psychiatry's disorder classification system. I'm referring here to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, or DSM. It is at the core of modern-day psychiatric practice and influences how the entire field of mental health deals with patients and research.
Fidgeting Is a Sign of Illness
The latest DSM edition's description of ADHD is truly something to behold. In the inattention category, for example, one symptom is "Has difficulty sustaining attention." Another is: "Does not appear to listen."
One symptom in the hyperactive/impulsive category is: "Fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in chair." Another is: "Blurts out answers before questions have been completed."
If these types of symptoms occur frequently and appear to be severe, then the child has a good chance of being branded ADHD
The problem is, some of the symptoms listed could point to a wide variety of stimuli: Insufferably boring teachers. An out-of touch-with-reality academic curriculum. This is, after all, the Internet Age in which the flow of ideas and facts are fast and furious. And what about learning patterns at home that might play a role in how a child behaves at school?
To give so many children a drug such as Ritalin presupposes that specific biological problems underlie ADHD. And in psychiatry, this gets about as murky as you can possibly imagine.
The recent orgy of drug-giving to so-called ADHD children is no historical accident. It comes at a time when there is increasing pressure within psychiatry to focus more attention in the DSM on biological causes of disease.
Biology vs. Psychological Causes
Much of the history of psychiatry boils down to a duel between those who have attempted to relate mental disorders to specific brain functions (the biological approach) and those who have attempted to explain disorders in psychological terms (the mind approach).
As long as biological psychiatry had few treatments to bank on, psychology more or less held sway. But that changed considerably in the 1970s when moderately effective treatments for mental illness appeared on the market. That gave biological psychiatry a huge shot in the arm and it has grown in stature and power ever since.
But here's the rub. The brain has proved to be far more vastly complex than some of the biological enthusiasts have imagined. To be sure, there has been progress, but much of what is considered mental illness still is poorly understood and many drugs offer scattershot rather than well-targeted treatment. And that often translates into patients suffering serious drug side effects.
It is indeed very telling that psychiatry's disorder classification system, the DSM, still remains, as the section on ADHD shows - primarily a manual of descriptions of psychological states and symptoms - and not a manual pointing to disorders with specific underlying biological conditions.
Assumed ADHD Is Biologically Caused
Yet, in the case of ADHD, for example, there is clearly an unstated assumption that symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity have some biological cause. But the behavior that is described may have non-biological or social causes, such as bad parenting, poor schools and poverty.
There is certainly no indication in the DSM's description of ADHD that the "disorder" can be viewed as arising from a difficult or non-conformist relationship between an individual and his culture.
In other words, rather than spotlight problems in the culture, the subtle message in the DSM is that ADHD is biological in origin and therefore mental health professionals should opt for drugs to quell some ill-defined inner disruption
There is little in the way of worthy biological data available on something termed "ADHD" to make a scientific case for so much drugging of children.
Now, if either the current president of the American Psychiatric Association or the chief science officer of Novartis would enjoy debating me on this point, I'm sure we can arrange a public forum and an Internet Webcast.
THE RISE AND FALL OF ADD/ADHD
by Fred A. Baughman Jr.,
In 1948, 'neuropsychiatry' was divided into ‘neurology,’ dealing with organic/physical diseases of the brain, and ‘psychiatry,’ dealing with emotional/behavioral conditions in normal human beings . There was no such thing as a psychiatric ‘disease’ then, and there is no such thing today!
The 1950s were the dawn of the ‘age of psychopharmacology’--drugs for emotional/behavioral problems in physically, normal persons.
Between 1952 and 1994, the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) grew from 112 ‘disorders’/ ‘diseases’ in 1952 , to163 in 1968 , 224 in the 1980 , 253 in 1987 , and 374 in the 1994 .
The ADHD, ‘epidemic’ (by whatever name) has grown from 150,000 in 1970, to a half million in 1985, a million in 1990, and to 6 million today—12-13% of the nation’s schoolchildren.
In the 60’s, psychiatry and pharmaceutical industry launched a psychopharmacology marketing strategy. They would call all emotional/behavioral problems "brain diseases." Thus, the public came to believe in "chemical balancers"—pills--for "chemical imbalances" (of the brain). Moreover, they have ceased to understand what "normal" is.
On October 12, 1970, Congressman, Cornelius Gallagher  wrote to Secretary of the Department of Health Education and Welfare, Elliott Richardson, stating, "… a NIMH witness testified that at least one hundred fifty thousand children around the nation were receiving drugs." "I have received letters from people….highly critical of the focus of the medical side of minimal brain dysfunction, which is, incidentally, one of at least thirty-eight names attached to this condition…Such a high incidence in the population- as high as thirty percent in ghetto areas…may not be pathological at all…Amphetamines now rival and perhaps exceed hard drugs as a source of abuse, I recommend studies focusing on other medication to control the behavior of hyperactive children."
In 1980, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) was invented, in-committee, for DSM-III .
In 1987, ADD was revised, becoming ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) for DSM-III-R . Any 8 behaviors from a list of 14, qualifies a child for the ‘diagnosis.’
In 1994, ADHD is again ‘re-conceptualized’, this time for DSM-IV . Six of the nine behaviors from one of two lists qualifies for the ‘inattentive,’ the ‘hyperactive-impulsive’ or the ‘combined’ type.
On July 15, 1996, Congressman Christopher Shays  testified: "In ADHD, we are trying to draw the line between personality and pathology, and we are placing millions of children and adults on either side of the social, medical and legal boundary that divides the healthy from the sick. We should do so only with the greatest care, and with particular reticence to make our children medical patients because as a culture we have lost our patience with them."
At the same hearing, Jensen , of the NIMH and CHADD (he is a member of their Professional Advisory Board), assured the Congressman: "…studies have consistently pointed towards disturbances in brain functioning, particularly in brain areas responsible for attention and memory."
Jensen used the wording: "pointed toward disturbances in brain functioning" because there was no proof of brain malfunction at the time. Just as there is none today.
On September 23, 1993, Baughman , testified to the Panel on NIH Research on Antisocial, Aggressive, and Violence-Related Behaviors and their Consequences: "If, as I am convinced, these entities are not diseases, it would be unethical to initiate research to evaluate biological interventions—unethical and fatally flawed scientifically.
In December, 1994, Pearlman , wrote: "I take issue with Pincus’(for the APA) assertion that elimination of the term "organic" in the DSM-IV has served a useful purpose for psychiatry… elimination of the term "organic" conveys the impression that psychiatry wishes to conceal the nonorganic character of many behavioral problems that were, in previous DSM publications, clearly differentiated from known central nervous system diseases."
Baughman , also responding to Pincus’ APA assertion, wrote: "…to contend that something is a disease when that has not been established is to fail to provide the patient with information sufficient to make an informed decision."
On December 24, 1994, Leber  of the FDA wrote me: "…as yet no distinctive pathophysiology for the disorder has been delineated."
On October 25, 1995, Haislip  of the DEA wrote me: "We are also unaware that ADHD has been validated as a biologic/organic syndrome or disease."
In 1996, Schiller, of the US Department of Education, Jensen (NIMH, CHADD), and Swanson (UC, Irvine, CHADD) , wrote, "Once parents and teachers…recognize that children with ADD are not lazy or "bad", but have a biological disorder, they can stop blaming themselves or their children and take appropriate steps to prevent a pattern of failure."
There can be no doubt here, that they are calling ADD/ADHD a disease; the children abnormal, diseased.
On April 15, 1998, I  wrote to Attorney General, Janet Reno, stating: "The single, biggest heath care fraud in US history—the representation of ADHD to be an actual disease, and the drugging of millions of entirely normal American children, as "treatment," is spreading like a plague…That ADHD is wholly devoid of validity as a disease, a medical syndrome or, anything biologic or organic, is the pivotal element of the fraud." No answer!
On October 8, 1998, Diller , author of Running on Ritalin wrote to Sue Parry, a concerned mother: "The reason why you have been unable to obtain any articles or studies presenting clear and confirming evidence of a physical or chemical abnormality associated with ADHD is that there are none. Not that medical science, especially in recent years, hasn’t tried. However the search for a biological marker is doomed from the outset because of the contradictions and ambiguities of the diagnostic construct of ADHD as defined by the DSM. I liken efforts to discover a marker to the search for the Holy Grail."
On March 7, 1998, Swanson , of the University of California, Irvine and CHADD (a member of their Professional Advisory Board) stated: "I would like to have an objective diagnosis for the disorder (ADHD). Right now psychiatric diagnosis is completely subjective…"
On May, 13, 1998, Castellanos  or the NIMH wrote me: "… we have not yet met the burden of demonstrating the specific pathophysiology that we believe underlies this condition."
Opening the November, 1998, NIH, Consensus Conference on ADHD, Hyman , Director of the NIMH stated: "ADHD affects from 0-3% in some school districts up to 40% in others. Surely this cannot be right."
Addressing the Consensus Conference, Carey  concluded: "What is now most often described as ADHD in the United States appears to be a set of normal behavioral variations..."
Critiquing the report of the Consensus Conference Panel, Degrandpre  observed,
"… it appears that you define disease as a maladaptive cluster of characteristics…in the history of science and medicine, this would not be a valid definition of disease."
Having failed to validate ADHD as a disease, they seek to change the definition.
Baughman  testified at the Consensus Conference: "Without an iota of proof or credible science, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has proclaimed the … children "brain-diseased," "abnormal." CHADD, funded by Ciba-Geigy, manufacturer of Ritalin, has spread the "neuro-biological" lie. The US Department of Education, absolving itself of controlling the children and rendering them literate, coerces the labeling and drugging…ADHD is a total, 100% fraud."
My appearance was expunged from the government videotape of the conference.
NPR’s Joe Palca , chided the Panel: ""What you're telling us is that ADHD is like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography, 'You know it when you see it.'"
The final statement of the Consensus Conference Panel , delivered to attendees, and the press, November 18, 1998, read: " ...we do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction."
An indefinite period following the November 18, "final statement," of the Consensus Conference Panel, the NIH , published yet another "final statement" reading: "although an independent diagnostic test for ADHD does not exist, there is evidence supporting the validity of the disorder."
On April 29, 1999, Baughman  responded to Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association : "Once children are labeled with ADHD, they are no longer treated as normal. Once Ritalin or any psychotropic drug courses through their brain and body, they are, for the first time, physically, neurologically and biologically, abnormal."
On November 28, 1999, I wrote to Matthew D. Cohen, Esq.  President of CHADD, stating: "You and I know that whether or not ADHD is an actual disease with a confirmatory, physical or chemical abnormality, (detectable, patient-by-patient) is more fundamental to the debate now raging over the Colorado State Board of Education’s resolution, than whether or not psychotropic drugs cause violence or, are addictive, dangerous and deadly. You at CHADD, including all members of your Professional Advisory Board, are aware that actual, bona fide diseases, are characterized and validated by a confirmatory, physical or chemical abnormality. You are aware of this, even if the general public is not, and is inclined to trust and believe anything physicians tell them. Thus the widespread belief, by the public, in ADHD as a disease, something "neurobiologic", when there is no research-empirical proof. This brings me to ADHD and to your letter to Mr. Clair Orr, Chairman of the Colorado State Board of Education, of 11/2/99. You state: ‘Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is a severe neurobiological condition…’ The term "neurobiologic condition" says to the public that there is something wrong or abnormal with the brain or nervous system of the child/person with ADHD. How can CHADD make such a statement to the public, and now, to the Colorado State Board of Education, when there is no objective evidence or proof anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature, that there is any neurological (brain) abnormality in children (persons) said to have ADHD, or that there is anything physically, chemically, or biologically abnormal, at all. How does CHADD justify calling so many normal children diseased, abnormal--for surely you do--for purposes of justifying prescriptions for them, mostly of addictive, controlled, Schedule II, psychostimulant medications?"
I have never heard back from Mr. Cohen. However CHADD repeated its claim, still with no scientific evidence with which to back it up, that ‘Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is a severe neurobiological condition…’ in testimony to the Arkansas State House of Representatives, May, 3, 2000.
On December 13, 1999, Surgeon General, David Satcher released his Report on Mental Health. In it he alleged: "Mental illness is no different than diabetes, asthma or other physical ailments…Mental illnesses are physical illnesses…We know the chemical disorders we are treating…"
In a letter of January 25, 2000, I  responded: "Having gone to medical school and studied…disease, then, diagnosis, you and I, and all physicians, know that the presence of any bona fide disease, like diabetes, cancer, or epilepsy is confirmed by an objective finding--a physical or chemical abnormality. No demonstrable physical or chemical abnormality: no disease! You also know, I am sure, that there is no physical or chemical abnormality to be found, in life, or at autopsy in "depression, bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses…" Why, then, are you telling the American people that "mental illnesses" are "physical" and that they are due to "chemical disorders"?…Your role in this deception and victimization is clear. Whether you are a physician, so unscientific, that you cannot read their contrived, "neurobiologic" literature and see the fraud, or whether you see it and choose to be an accomplice--you should resign."
In January, 2000 Castellanos , summarized the state of ADHD science: "Incontrovertible evidence is still lacking…In time I’m confident we’ll confirm the case for organic causes."
On May 1, 2000, the law firm of Waters and Kraus  of Dallas, Texas filed the first class action suit charging that the APA, CHADD and Novartis: " planned, conspired, and colluded to create, develop, promote and confirm the diagnoses of Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, in a highly successful effort to increase the market for its product Ritalin."
As of September, 2000, five or six or such class action suits had been filed, 2 in California.
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that ADD/ADHD is a total fraud leading to the medical victimization of millions of previously normal, if troubled, mis-educated, children across the United States.
It is also impossible to escape the conclusion that many departments, offices, and officials, of the federal government, are, knowingly and unknowingly, parties to this fraud and victimization.
LEADING PSYCHIATRIST BLOWS WHISTLE ON PROFESSION: PROVES 50+ YEARS OF MIND CONTROL
By W.H. Bowart
Is the profession of psychiatry beginning to rival the legal profession as having the most useless information, the most know-nothing, corrupt and mercenary practitioners of any profession?
The proof of the psychiatric pudding might be that doctors who once easily earned $300,000 or more a year are having a hard time pulling in $100,000 a year these days. This could be due to the cuts in national health care payments, to the competition that has been created by the lower prices of the HMO's, and/or it could be partly caused by the accumulative effects of the CIA's fifty years of covert manipulation of that profession.
Almost every psychiatrist of the aged generation (especially those who also hold diplomas in psychology) worked for the CIA or another branch of the cryptocracy in one or another dirty project which tested drugs, hypnosis, brain stimulation and a variety of other things on unwitting humans -- often employees of the government who'd already signed their lives away. These psychiatrists were hell-bent on seeing that this government chattel would, since they hadn't give their lives for their country, give their minds and souls and too often their children's minds and souls for it.
In any of the professions it's hard to find a whistle blower. Seldom will one lawyer speak ill of a peer. Even harder is it to find justice in the self-regulated profession of health -- especially mental health. Doctor's seldom bear witness against other doctors. A good example of the insular attitude which sees regulatory board members looking the other way was the case of Dr. William Jennings Bryan III (WJB3). Great grandson of the great orator William Jennings Bryan, WJB3 was the director of the American Institute of Hypnosis in Los Angeles from the fifties to his death in the seventies.
Bryan was an innovator in the application of the uses of hypnosis. He designed a switchboard of electronic instruments which made it possible for him to hypnotize and monitor the feedback from three different clients at the same time. He had a taste for beautiful women, so, after he found beauties who were also highly suggestible, he encouraged them to pay him a "professional" visit.
"Psychiatry in the second half of the twentieth century has undoubtedly been strongly skewed -- not by an agenda that has to do with academic research, not by the best interest of clients, not by ethical psychiatry -- but by an intelligence agenda..."
-- Colin A. Ross, M.D.
During such sessions, after the women were in a "deep, deep sleep," WJB3 would slip into the room where they were lying on the couch and make suggestions which would eventually open them to accepting his sexual advances -- maybe while they were imagining they were having sex with their husbands, or some Hollywood icon of their dreams. While WJB3 might have thought of this as just a little creative visualization, some of the women eventually remembered episodes of this hypno-rape, and four of them pressed charges of sexual assault against him.
According to the April 22, 1969 Los Angeles Times, the California State Board of Medical Examiners found William Jennings Bryan III guilty of "unprofessional conduct in four cases involving sexual molesting of female patients." The penalty for this offense was five years probation -- a typical slap on the wrist for shrinks who are working for the cryptocracy. The Canadian psychiatrist, Dr. Ewen Cameron was the former head of the Quebec Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Psychiatric Association (the founder of the WPA, in fact), and the one-time President of the Association for Biological Psychiatry has been described as the most "politically connected a guy as ever existed in the entire field of psychiatry in the 20th Century." This Canadian shrink was funded through MKULTRA and Human Ecology Foundation, did LSD and other hallucinogen research funded by both the Canadian military and the CIA.
Cameron is one of the central figures in Gordon Thomas' book Journey Into Madness. Cameron developed an insidious technique of torture called "psychic driving" which produced Differential Amnesia and Schizophrenic appearing conditions. He gave his secret test subjects hundreds of ECT (electroshock) treatments using the Paige-Russell technique, in which the shock switch is thrown six times during a treatment instead of once. Then the "patients" would be given barbiturates and a deep, deep, neuroleptic sleep would be induced for three months or so. When the subjects finally came out of their comas they were usually depressed, disoriented, incontinent, and unable to state their names, read, drive an automobile, have sexual relations, cook, use the toilet, or recognize their spouses or children. This must have been of great use to the cryptocracy which supported such research for around fifty years since it appears that the cryptocracy is still supporting more advanced research in which possession and control of the human mind and soul is the targeted outcome.
Dr. Cameron escaped prosecution because no one knew about (or could remember) his criminal research until after his death. When news of his "experiments" was made public, the CIA was sued and quickly paid the mentally damaged subjects of Dr. Cameron's cryptocratic curiosity millions of dollars in out-of-court settlements. That figure might have been much greater had the majority of the subjects not died prematurely. The history of the CIA's search for tools to create and managed the perfect slave state are chronicled in a variety of books. But the profession has largely ignored this information, often giving the authors the armchair diagnosis as "cranks" and "paranoids."
But there are heroes even among psychiatrists. At least one, a Canadian Psychiatrist, Dr. Colin Ross, has begun to put a lot of time into trying to identify and correct the wrongs done by his countryman Cameron and his peers in the profession.
Ross said: "Virtually every leading psychiatrist in North America between the 1940's and the 1970's was involved in some aspect of the CIA's mind control research."
At a workshop he held at the 9th Annual Western Clinical Conference on Trauma and Dissociation in Costa Mesa, California, last April, Ross offered a preview of the research he's uncovered for a new book. He said, "When I systematically started looking into CIA military mind control, the more I looked, the more solid reality there was there. And as you will see as we go through these slides, and through this talk, it's a completely different deal from SRA. Somewhere out there in the justice system, there may actually be objective evidence where somebody has actually busted a SRA cult. If there is, that information is not generally publicly available to us. It is a fact that we have not nailed down human ritual sacrifice cults in North America if they exist. So it's all conjecture ... I will prove to you, completely locked down, documented, proven, beyond dispute or discussion that intelligence agencies have been creating Manchurian candidates and MPD for operational use since the Second World War."
"This is not a conspiracy theory," he said, "This is a fact." Now that's very amazing," Ross said, "because if you took an opinion poll of all the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association today -- or you took the same poll five years ago, over 99% of the psychiatrists would say 'It's fiction. We know the movie is fiction, Frank Sinatra (in the Manchurian Candidate) did a good job, but there's just no way, it's absolutely impossible.' There might be two outlaw psychiatrists in the whole group who would say that it's possible that Manchurian candidates are real. This is a very, very strange phenomena that actually, in 1996, this is a completely documented fact -- it's a very strange sociological development in the field of psychiatry."
"How could that be possible? Well, I'm going to try and explain how it's possible. So that's what I am going to talk about. Also I am going to talk about not just creating Manchurian Candidates, but the whole network of mind control doctors that is involved in this and supports this -- this kind of old boys' network that maintains all of this. And you will see a whole bunch of slides with godzillian interconnections that I will go into in detail. And every one of those steps -- unless I otherwise specify -- is completely documented. Absolutely objective in full.
"There is something real peculiar about the whole story. It's a very strange story. It tells us that there is something going on in our culture and in the mental health field that is hidden and secret. This is another kind of incest secret in the field of psychiatry that all of these people who have been running psychiatry in the latter half of the 20th century are either directly or loosely connected to a whole huge universe of covert, hidden, secretly funded mind control research, and as emphasized, that's a fact... If, in fact, experimental MPD has been created and has been tight and hard and real enough for operational use by intelligence agencies for the last 50 years, then it is something of interest to the dissociative disorders field. This is profound evidence in favor of the iatrogenic (doctor induced) pathway to DID that I talked about this morning.
"When I combine the expert witness experience that I have had at clinically created iatrogenic DID using the techniques of destructive psychotherapy cults in the course of persuasion, as I described this morning -- when I take that expert witness evidence and see those cases created out of a base of no preexisting DID and then I go to this CIA military mind-control literature, my only possible conclusion is, yes, you can create full tilt DID artificially from ground zero. Also, I have to conclude that you can create any degree of complexity, permutations of false memory that you want. There is absolutely no limit on the quantity, complexity, reality, congruence, plausibility of false memories that you can insert in somebody's mind -- wittingly or unwittingly.
"They didn't tell me that in medical school?
"This is a little sub-paradigm revolution in the DID field.
"There is a huge wealth of information, experimental information, clinical anecdotal information, and operational street smarts knowledge of DID that's been up and running and full tilt in the mental health field for 50 years now. This did not spring out of nowhere in 1980, and we are missing a ton of experimental research data that's still classified that bears directly on this false memory debate that is going on in our society now. And you will see some of the players in this whole scenario of interesting people..." Ross pointed out that it was not just psychiatrists and psychologists involved in the search for the way to create a "psycho-civilized society" but also sociologists, linguists, cyberneticists and other professionals (even a magician or two -- men who were expert in micro-muscle movement reading), people from the World War Two and Cold War generations. Today mind control research has bled into many other specialized areas and comes up under the general heading of "cognitive sciences," which includes biomedicine, anesthesiology, neurology, cybernetics, linguistics, neural networking in the computer science departments and so forth. All of these projects are scattered and compartmentalized so that one researcher usually doesn't know what another is doing, but the funders (the black budget spenders of the U.S. and other governments) collect all the data and put it together for the final devastating applications.
In his workshop Ross offered the names of some of the more insidious doctors and the institutions which supported them. At the top of the list was Dr. George Estabrooks who, in 1950 wrote: "I can hypnotize a man -- without his knowledge or consent -- into committing treason against the United States." Ross described Estabrooks as a pivotal figure in the cryptocracy's mind-control research. He drew an elaborate map connecting Estabrooks to the CIA's MKULTRA research, the FBI and other agencies. Then, he named the following professionals as part of the mind control conspiracy: William C. Hollinger, L. Wilson Green, Richard Ofshe (Sociologist), James Hamilton, Harold Abramson, Carl Pfeiffer, Louis Jolyon West (Psychiatrist UCLA), Carl Rogers, Martin T. Orne, George White (Army Col, CIA, BNDD), Maitland Baldwin, Harold Wolff, Raymond Prince (Mass. General Hospital), R. Gordon Wasson (stock broker and mycologist mushroom expert), John Mulholland (magician), B.F. Skinner (Harvard Behaviorist), Garner Murphy (Harvard), E.R. Hilgard (member of DSM IV Dissociative Disorders Committee), Ron Shore (collaborator with Martin Orne) Milton Erickson (Psychiatrist and inspiration for Neurolinguistics Programming), Daniel X. Friedman (Editor of Archives of the Journal of Psychiatry 1970-1993), Allen Dulles (Director CIA 1953-1961), Loretta Bender, Paul Hawk (psychiatrist who killed Harold Blauer in 1953 with an inject of supposed mescaline), Robert White (Harvard), J. Edgar Hoover (Director of the FBI), John Gittinger (CIA psychologist), Robert Lifton (psychiatrist and well-known author), Margaret Singer (psychologist, author of "Cults in Our Midst"), Paul McHugh (Chairman of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins), James Whitehorn (former Chairman of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins and advisor of the Human Ecology Foundation with Top Secret Clearance), Harold Lief (advisor of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation), Colston Westbrook (CIA Psy-War expert who worked at Vacaville Prison with prisoners such as Donald Defreeze and Timothy Leary), Robert Heath (doing brain electrode implant research at Tulane), Francisco Silva (Cuban psychiatrist who allegedly put Lee Harvey Oswald up in his home and got him a job at the hospital where Silva worked prior to the assassination), Mark Sweet (collaborator with L.J. West for the UCLA Violence Project), Wagner Joreg (son of Wagner Joreg who won the Nobel Prize for treating syphilis with malaria), Amadeo Morazzi (LSD researcher at the University of Minnesota), Gregory Bateson, Allen Ginsburg, Ken Kesey, Sydney Mallett, and the list goes on.
Ross linked dozens of institutions to the research which, he said he suspects, is still going on in one form or another. Among the institutions he reeled off the top of his head were: Butler Hospital Health Center (part of Harvard), Children's International Summer Village, Columbia University, Cornell University, Denver University, Emory College, Florida University, George Washington University, Harvard University, Houston University, Illinois University, Indiana University, Johns Hopkins University, Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals, University of Minnesota, New Jersey Reformatory, Bordentown in Tennessee, Ohio University, University of Pennsylvania, Penn State University, Princeton University, Stanford University, Wisconsin University, University of Texas, University of Oklahoma, McGill, the National Institute of Health, the National Institute of Mental Health, the New Jersey Psychiatric Research Institute, National Philosophical Society, Office of Naval Research, Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Vacaville State Prison, Public Health Service, Cornell, Bureau of Narcotics, Bureau of Prisons, and many others.
"You get the idea," Ross said. Then, the well-prepared researcher gave a litany of declassified code names under which many of these atrocities occurred: MKULTRA, MKSEARCH, MKNAOMI, ARTICHOKE, BLUEBIRD, STARGATE, CHATTER, OFTEN, CHICKWIT, DERBYHAT, THIRD CHANCE, MKDELTA, QK HILLTOP and others.
"It just shows you," Ross said, "the theme here is not that there is a military intelligence conspiracy to cover up Manchurian Candidate creation with the myth of borderline personality disorder. The point now is more of a global general meta point which is: this whole network of old boys in psychiatry and psychology, who were covertly funded for part of the military and CIA intelligence mind-control network, are very influential in the history of psychiatry in a kind of nebulous fashion that just permeates the whole field. It isn't part of the sort of one-to-one correspondences that I have been showing before. It's a matter of the whole mind set of psychiatry -- how we think about borderlines (Borderline Personality Disorder), how we think about temporal lobe epilepsy, how we are going to react to MPD? "The point is that the history of psychiatry in the second half of the twentieth century has undoubtedly been strongly skewed -- not by an agenda that has to do with academic research, not by the best interest of clients, not by ethical psychiatry -- but by an Intelligence agenda." Ross said that the full story of the CIA's involvement with his profession is still unknown.
"We are missing a ton of experimental research data that's still classified that bears directly on this false memory debate that is going on in our society now."
In an attempt to uncover more information Ross visited the CIA Reading Room in Washington, D.C. He said it was "a very unusual experience," and dealt with it with humor, as a skilled psychiatrist would deal with a client suffering from Dissociated Identity Disorder.
"This is the way it goes in trying to document this stuff and trying to make it public and identify the specific individuals. It's a big slow job. And when you make Freedom of Information requests, it's like interacting with any Federal Bureaucracy." Ross said that, in fact, the CIA had been extremely helpful to him. The CIA, he said, was "extremely polite, extremely courteous when I went to the CIA Reading Room..."
"Let me just tell you the story.," Ross said, "Here I am, a Canadian psychiatrist, going down to the Eastern Regional Conference, and a day early I pop over to the CIA Reading Room to look at the MKULTRA documents to figure out which ones I want to order at 10 cents a page which they then shipped to me. It arrives at my office via UPS with CIA stamped in the corner. I'm wondering who thinks that's weird?"
Ross said he found the CIA Reading Room "just this building in Virginia on a street. It is completely unrecognizable as anything. I get dropped off there ... whoa ... there's all these guys in uniforms and here I am, this civilian."
"I go walking along accompanied by this CIA person, and I go into the first room which has a steel vault door and says 'Secured Area: Treasury Department.' I go into that room and they close the door. I am now in a 'Secured Area.' I sit down and they bring in all the documents on a little cart and (an elderly woman) gives me 15-20 pencils beautifully sharpened, and a notepad and everything. You order which documents you want at the end of the day.
"I am sitting there working away on this huge amount of documents all day," Ross said.
"Work, work, work, work ...
"Some time in the middle of the day this old woman comes at me. Now I am thinking, is this old woman trying to pump me for information? What's here? (Is she) going to report back at the end of the day? She says, 'Well, what's that stuff you are reading?' I am trying to act casually, I just say, 'Well, it's just a bunch of mind control documents from the 50's and 60's.' And she says, 'Is that stuff classified?' And I say, 'No, no. It was declassified a long time ago,' And she says, 'Well what do they need me here for?' And I said, 'I don't know.' And then I stopped talking to her and I started focusing down on the paper."
Ross said his "beef" was not with the intelligence community or the CIA, but with the psychiatrists and psychologist "who created a little loophole where they can step out of normal ethical oversight, violate the Hippocratic Oath, get away with it, not talk about it. It's just like the conspiracy to keep incest under the carpet. This is all conspired and kept under the carpet - not by twelve guys in a room at Langley who are doing the planning, but just by this pervasive old boys network. That's what keeps the mind control secret down just like it kept the incest secret down. So that's another reason why this is important, and needs to be uncovered..."
"...The idea that there could be a deliberate disinformation campaign element to the False Memory movement is perfectly plausible, consistent with history, and could be expected. There is bound to be some sort of disinformation strategy if, in fact, Manchurian Candidates have been leaking out into civilian psychotherapy. So here we have, with all of this documentation, all of this proof -- we know that it is perfectly possible that people we are seeing in therapy who are claiming to be victims of systematic military mind-control experimentation are telling us about what actually happened to them...
"We have a major disinformation campaign which has basically fooled mental health professionals and the general public concerning brain-washing, concerning LSD.
"Fortunately those are the only two examples in human history," Ross said with sarcasm. "This analysis does not apply to the False Memory movement. There is no way it could conceivably be possible, you will all agree, that there could not be any nervousness in the Intelligence Community about Manchurian Candidates spilling out into civilian psychotherapies and that a disinformation program based on False Memories would be required. It is obviously absurd."
Ross continued his sarcasm, saying: "Nobody but a CIA conspiracy nut would ever suggest that. I guarantee you that that thought has never even crossed my mind until it just spontaneously appeared at this moment."
Then, after the laughter subsided, Ross resumed, in total seriousness, speaking of the declassified documents from the Atomic Energy Commission, alluding to the testimony before the President's Commission on Radiation at which victims of mind control testified they had been experimented upon with radioactive materials as children.
"This is no longer vague," he said. "We know the specific names of people, when they died, whether it was plutonium or whatever was injected, the names of the doctors, the names of the medical schools where it was done, it's all keyed up for compensation, the government has set up a whole compensation mechanism..."
Dr. Ross' book, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Diagnosis, Clinical Features, and Treatment of Multiple Personality is scheduled for release by the publishers John Wiley and Sons, N.Y., in December, 1996.
Journey Into Madness, by Gordon Thomas, was published in 1989 by Bantam Books, NYC.