Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Big Lies From Big Pharmaceuticals: Americans Can't Handle The Truth

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Big Lies From Big Pharmaceuticals: Americans Can't Handle The Truth

http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/mcallister/20020519-fss.htm

 

By

M. Scott McAllister

 

I´ve come to the conclusion that Americans simply don´t want to know the truth.

 

Just as archeological finds which corroborate biblical teachings are often

ignored by short-sighted historians, clinical findings which disprove

commonly held medical views are often summarily discarded by the

intellectual elite. This problem is compounded by the fact that the

unthinking public is more than willing to take the word of so-called

" experts " at face value with little or no interest in examining the facts.

 

The Washington Post recently reported the findings of a Stanford University

study on the effects of antidepressant drugs like Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft.

The study proved that these drugs have no greater effect on depression than

sugar pills, a common placebo used in clinical trials. According to the

article by Post writer Shankar Vedantam, the new study is not the first to

expose the questionable effectiveness of popular anti-depressants.

 

" The new research may shed light on findings such as those from a trial

last month that compared the herbal remedy St. John's wort against Zoloft.

St. John's wort fully cured 24 percent of the depressed people who received

it, and Zoloft cured 25 percent — but the placebo fully cured 32 percent, "

Vedantam writes.

 

So what has been the result of these earth-shattering reports? Have Pfizer

or Eli Lily stocks plummeted? Has the FDA ordered the drugs taken off the

market? Has the American public reacted in outrage? No. The clinical

findings have passed with relative disregard. No one seems to care.

 

Imagine the upheaval such a dramatic finding would cause in any other line

of business. Imagine that a scientific study disproved the need for oil in

car engines. The result? Jiffy Lube goes bankrupt, people stop buying

Quaker State, and as Ricky Ricardo used to say, engine manufacturers have

some " splainin´ to do. " Of course this scenario would never happen, because

the internal combustion engine can be taken apart, studied, and examined to

determine not only its need for oil, but how much oil and what type.

 

This method of simple logical science has no place in the world of big

pharmaceuticals. The FDA requirements for approving the development of new

drugs are lax to say the least. According to Vedantam, " companies have had

to conduct numerous trials to get two that show a positive result, which is

the Food and Drug Administration's minimum for approval. "

 

Apparently the FDA is content to approve worthless drugs based on the

results of two statistically irrelevant tests regardless of the fact that

the drugs have failed an exponentially greater number of tests. Try this

with any other scientific experiment. Take missile defense for example.

Let´s imagine the Defense Department conducts a series of 20 missile

defense tests. At no time during the course of these 20 tests are any

modifications made to the system. The system fails 18 of the 20 tests. The

Defense Department´s findings? The missile defense system is a great success!?

 

The fact is that no area of science or medicine is so unapologetically

based on fabricated evidence and baseless theories than the field of

Psychology. So-called " mental illness " can be defined as anything from

being sad on a rainy day to hearing voices in one´s head. The treatments

are as varied as the alleged diseases, and no two Psychiatrists agree on

the correct way to treat a patient.

 

In 1992 the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment assembled a panel

of experts to examine the clinical evidence of mental disorders. When the

panel released its findings, it concluded: " Many questions remain about the

biology of mental disorders. In fact, research has yet to identify specific

biological causes for any of these disorders. ... Mental disorders are

classified on the basis of symptoms because there are as yet no biological

markers or laboratory tests for them " (The Biology of Mental Disorders,

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992, pp. 13-14, 46-47).

 

How then can an effective medical treatment be developed to treat a

disorder that cannot be defined medically? In a book entitled The New

Psychiatry, a Columbia University psychiatry professor, Jerrold S. Maxmen,

M.D., said " It is generally unrecognized that psychiatrists are the only

medical specialists who treat disorders that, by definition, have no

definitively known causes or cures. ... A diagnosis should indicate the

cause of a mental disorder, but as discussed later, since the etiologies of

most mental disorders are unknown, current diagnostic systems can't reflect

them " (Mentor, 1985, pp. 19 & 36 - emphasis in original).

 

Mental illnesses including clinical depression cannot be proved by

Psychology or Psychiatrists to be anything other than a collection of

symptoms. These symptoms cannot be proved to have any medical or biological

root cause whatsoever. Yet, big pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lily and

Pfizer continue to rake in billions of dollars from the sale of FDA

approved anti-depressants. And Psychiatrists are all too willing to lend a

helping hand by continuing to prescribe these so-called remedies to their

troubled clients.

 

Some in the field of Psychiatry would argue that mental illnesses are a

result of " chemical imbalances " or brain malfunctions. If this is the case,

then would not these disorders fall into the category of medical conditions

rather than " mental illness? " If a chemical imbalance exists, then which

chemical, and how much is it out of balance? These are logical scientific

questions that Psychiatrists cannot answer. Why? Because the diagnosis is

bogus.

 

Most psychiatric drugs including anti-depressants are neurotoxic, meaning

they produce a degree of general neurological disability. In other words,

anti-depressants interfere with the normal functioning of the brain and

thereby disable it from registering feelings of unhappiness or

" depression. " The drugs in essence create physical " highs " that offer

temporary distractions from the symptoms of a deeper problem. Calling this

type of drug therapy a " cure " for depression is absurd. And it is equally

absurd to conclude from the neurotoxic effects of anti-depressants that

depression is somehow a " biological " phenomenon. So if mental disorders

cannot be said to be rooted in biology or medicine, then what are they?

Surely no one can dispute the existence of serious psychological illnesses

such as Schizophrenia and Bi-polar Disorder, can they? And what about more

common " mental illnesses " such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

(ADHD)? Surely there is a case to be made for the existence of such disorders.

 

Can we conclude that these disorders are somehow diseases of the " mind "

rather than diseases of the body? Perhaps the correct treatment is found

not in drugs but in psychotherapy, hypnotism or some other form of

intellectual " voodoo. " In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA)

found an even more effective cure for a common mental disorder. They simply

defined it away.

 

In 1968, the DSM-II: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(2nd Edition) defined homosexuality as one of the " sexual deviations " (page

44). As you might imagine, this did not sit well with gay rights proponents

and " forward thinking " Psychiatrists. So in 1973, the APA voted to remove

homosexuality from its official diagnostic categories of mental illness.

When the third edition of the DSM was published in 1980 it stated,

" homosexuality itself is not considered a mental disorder " (p. 282).

 

The effect was instantaneous. All over the world, thousands of helpless

victims of mental illness were instantly cured of their disorders. Gay men

and women were suddenly free to live their alternate lifestyle free of the

label " mentally ill. " No drugs were administered. There was no

psychotherapy, no hypnosis, no art therapy or any other form of treatment.

Homosexual men and women were simply cured because the APA " said so. "

 

A scientific discipline that is not dependent on clinical evidence or

statistical proof is baseless. Likewise, a bureaucracy that is free to

remove a mental illness from its list of disorders for no discernable

scientific reason is equally free to add or define a mental disorder

without providing clinical evidence of its existence. If these disorders

were really " illnesses " , the idea of removing homosexuality or anything

else from the list of " mental illnesses " through a vote would be as

ridiculous as the American Medical Association getting together and voting

that Cancer can no longer be labeled a " disease. "

 

What would happen if tomorrow the APA decided that ADHD was no longer a

mental illness but simply an alternative lifestyle choice for children?

After all, who are we to say that children should sit still and listen in

class? Perhaps the educational system should simply change its approach to

fit the needs of fidgety disrespectful children with two-minute attention

spans.

 

Now I am not arguing that homosexuality or ADHD should be listed among the

mental illnesses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (DSM). To the contrary, I am suggesting that the DSM should not

even exist. If the list is determined by no more scientific means than a

majority vote in the APA, then it is worthless.

 

It´s time for Americans, and all citizens of this Earth for that matter, to

wake up and see Psychology for what it really is – a collection of excuses

and distractions from the true definition of " sinful " behavior. There is no

such thing as a " mental illness. " How can an intangible entity like the

" mind " be said to be " ill? " Harmful or abnormal behavior is the result of

either a medical disorder, in which case medical treatment is necessary, or

sin, in which spiritual treatment is necessary.

 

It is true that certain sinful " learned behaviors " can be unlearned through

the mental gymnastics of psychotherapy. But just as the neurotoxic effects

of Prozac do not prove the biological nature of depression, so the

psychotherapeutic treatment of learned behaviors does not prove the

" mental " nature of disorders such as Schizophrenia or ADHD.

 

Psychology by and large is the invention of man to cover the shame of his

own sinful behavior. If a disorderly child can be said to be " ill " with

ADHD, then he cannot be held responsible for his actions. After all, can a

person with Alzheimer´s be blamed for contracting his disease?

 

Certainly there are many individuals suffering from so-called " mental

illness " who have no control over their condition. These individuals cannot

and should not be blamed for their " physical " illness. But the treatment

offered should be based on medical fact, not psychological fiction. If

there is no medical proof of the patient´s condition, then we must conclude

that the symptoms do not imply an " illness " but a behavioral problem – a

sinful condition.

 

Until we are willing to recognize the true sinful nature of man, Psychology

will continue to define our morality, and big pharmaceutical companies like

Pfizer will continue to get rich through marketing worthless drugs under

the watchful eye of the FDA.

 

But don´t expect Americans to complain about this injustice. We like the

charade. It makes us feel better about ourselves.

 

 

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author,

you are invited to e-mail Scott at msmcall .

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release 5/7/02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

>

>Big Lies From Big Pharmaceuticals: Americans Can't Handle The Truth

>http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/mcallister/20020519-fss.htm

 

Yikes! What a rollercoaster! I was 100% behind this article while it was

talking about the DSM, the APA, the nonscientific methods of defining

" mental illness " , the laxness of the FDA and corruption of psychiatry and

big drug companies. But what the heck happened with that " sinfulness "

crap? Did this author get totally derailed by his/her opinion or what??

It all made sense until suddenly, without any logical intervention or

connection whatsoever, it was suddenly about the 'sinful nature of man'.

Well, IMHO, this article had a lot of good info, but you can't trust an

author who lambasts others for making wild leaps of pseudologic and then

makes one themselves a few paragraphs later! I myself find it perfectly

easy to have the opinion that the pharmacutical and psychiatric industries

are screwing people, without at all--AT ALL-- believing that man is

" sinful " by nature. And I see nothing by way of evidence here to convince

me otherwise.

 

Perhaps the greater lesson is that if people would just re-learn the

difference between " fact " and " opinion " , the whole world would run a lot

smoother. I vote for at least one class in this subject per year of

student education, from prekindergarten through postgraduate college!!

 

-Sara T

httpd://www.boredmail.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...