Category Archives: mass killings

The NYT got it wrong in ‘When the Mentally Ill Own Guns’


Ok. Look, it’s December 29. I’m not in the mood for fancy arse commentaries here today. After all, year-in-year out only a handful of internet pedestrians walk by this site, so I can expect less visitors at this time, the end of the year.

So, the only comment I have about that NYT’s editorial, to which readers are not allowed to comment, is the following:

If this is true…

Most mentally ill persons are not violent, though The Times’s analysis of 180 confiscation cases in Connecticut (dealing with people posing an imminent risk of injury to themselves or others) found that close to 40 percent of those cases involved people with serious mental illness.

then logic dictates that it is the other 60%, the ‘sane’ ones, whom you need to deal with. Those are the ones on whom you need to focus to confiscate their guns if any guns are going to be taken away. Why focus on the minority? The 60% sane ones are a “threat to themselves or others”, that’s more than the 40% who are non-violent mentally ill.

There, I said it.

Happy New Years to all the crazies. Let’s make it our new year resolution to  scare the hell out of the politicians this new year.

 

Advertisements

Psychiatry is dead. Long live psychiatry. Part 1 of 3 (revised)


Note: Links left out in the first version are provided now, and the date of Mr. Insel’s letter to which the post refers  was corrected.

The DSM-5 can be considered the watershed of psychiatry. The old psychiatry’s shelf-life has expired. The new psychiatry was born on April 29, 2013.

For many years, since the 1960s, people who hadsmve been the recipients of psychiatric ‘treatment’ (voluntarily or against their consent) have said that there is no mental illness, at least as defined by the APA, that psychiatric diagnosis are not based on real science, and that the DSM is bunch of labels with no lab tests to back them up. Do you agree with those claims?

Most in the American public sees these people as anti-psychiatry fanatics who attack the profession because they don’t want to take their meds. Do you agree with those claims?

If you disagreed with the claims in the first paragraph and agreed with the second, I have a doozy coming up for you. Because, out of a sudden, on April 29, 2013, two weeks before the roll out of the APA’s new DSM-5, out of the NIMH cavern came this elephant noisily stepping all over the old psychiatry. The elephant’s name is Thomas Insel, Director of the NIMH who on that day made the following statement:

insel

“While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The weakness [of the manual] is its lack of validity…the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure… That is why NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.” Transforming Diagnosis

Wow! Is this guy an anti-psychiatry fanatic who doesn’t want to take his meds? For how long have we been saying this??

All these years we have been walking around stigmatized with INVALID, UNSCIENTIFIC diagnosis but no one believed us. Can we NOW finally say it safely: the psychiatric system is a SCAM? Can you all finally see that your emperor has no clothes?

A more important question would be Why is this man saying this? Insel has been in the board of the APA’s DSM committee and has approved previous versions, but he never before made statements like those. He actually has protected the APA and stand for all those crazy diagnosis contained in the DSM. He has contributed to our stigmatization and poisoning with psychiatric drugs.

So, before you go on cheering for him for his seemingly anti-DSM position, take a pause. The waters of the psychiatric profession are too muddled now to see what’s really going on at the bottom. With some life experience, common sense and political acumen, you can discern the feeding frenzy going on below the waters.

Insel must have known that his statement was going to be, as it was, like a tsunami in the psychiatric and mental health communities. To move away from the DSM, as he said, is like proposing the CHINESE CULTURAL REVOLUTION in the USA.

cult rev

For the last 60 years, at least, EVERYTHING from the psychiatric labels, to the laws that limit the civil rights of people with mental “illness”, to which drugs/narcotics the government will subsidize, to states and national mental health policies, to where research money goes, to how our culture perceives and understand mental illness and the people afflicted with it, all this have been deeply influenced and defined by the APA+ DSM. That’s why they call their book a bible: is the voice of our psychiatry god, it DEFINES NORMALCY for us, and consequently, many of our moral values.

If you ditch this book to promote the new classification system for psychiatric ‘illnesses’ (in his blog Insel stated that “we are creating a new nosology”), our society has to be re-trained to think of mental illness in a different way, don’t you agree? You better agree, because this is what he said:

“A rethink is needed in terms of how we view mental illness.” Mental Disorders as Brain Disorders-Thomas Insel at TEDxCalTech 

And what is that “rethinking”? That

“…mental disorders are brain circuit problems”

“…mental illness is referred to either as a mental or behavioral disorder. We need to think of these as brain disorders.” [same link]

Basically the new thinking is that there is no mental illness.

WHAT?! Mental illness doesn’t exist!!??  Where is this radical concept coming from? Funny ‘cause many in the anti-psychiatric movement have been saying that too for many years. What is he going to put in the place of the DSM? Part of the answers are in that May 16 statement.

As he said, the DSM is not valid because it is NOT based on science; there are no “objective lab measures” to back it up. Something that is not based on science can be done by just about ANYONE.

That’s the first and most important draw back of the DSM these days, that treating mental illness can be done by just about anyone. This guy, Bruce Cuthbert, Ph. D., the director of the Division of Adult Translational Research at the National Institute of Mental Health, state it pretty clear:

“…there is a rich research foundation showing that non-medication treatmentssuch as psychotherapywork equally well (if not better) for the treatment of many mental disorders. If these were pure medical diseases with clear and readily defined biomarkers, that shouldn’t be the case. After all, positive thinking can’t cure cancer.” http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/05/07/did-the-nimh-withdraw-support-for-the-dsm-5-no/

LUCY

It has got to hurt,  be embarrassing to both the APA and the pharma that EVEN psychotherapists, social workers, santería, Garry Null and all those bums on a T shirt without an Md degree can do the job BETTER.

BRUJO

It is PRECISESLY that fact which makes it difficult to justify spending millions of tax payer’s $$ in researching drug efficacy when just talking does the job. Another embarrassment is this statement by our friend Bruce:

“Pharmaceutical companies say that, on average, a marketed psychiatric drug is efficacious in approximately half of the patients who take it.” [same link]

ZOLOF

Guess which happy bubble is buying the placebo effect?

Of course,  in their TV ads, Zoloft and other brands  don’t include in the 1/2 minute list of things that can go wrong if you take their drugs the fact that chances are the drug will not have the effect advertised, but you could get a heart attack or go off on a killing rampage from it .

The public is on to the scam and are questioning the pharma based on all those mass murders by individuals on psychiatric drugs; drugs which have the potential to cause increase in violent and suicide behaviors but the pahrma has been hiding those facts from the public for years.

All this leads to the logical conclusion: the biochemical-imbalance model of mental illness, the marriage between pharma and the APA, is

OUTDATED, it leaves the ‘profession’ looking ancient, without pedigree, corrupt and without authority to dictate our social and personal mental and behavioral values. In the words of that NIMH’s elephant, that model is

“an impediment to progress”. [same link]

Of course, the progress he refers to here is more like the progress to rule our minds. The problem with his statement is that nothing will change for the public for the better with his new psychiatry, with his new “medical experimentation”. More on this tomorrow.

The old psychiatry has to go, it has to be sacrificed to the god of  science,

Old psychiatry and DSM, the sacrificial lamb.

neuroscience, if the pharma and ‘scientists’ want to continue to be perceived as the ONLY authority to dictate our mental health policies. At stake are: the billions of dollars we pay for research, political power, prestige, control over social perceptions about psychiatric science and the pharma, etc. etc. etc.

The new science, the new psychiatric god: neuropsychiatry.

That has been the ‘modern’ psychiatry professionals struggle since the 1800s, to be accepted as a branch of medicine and science. The medical profession has perennially looked at psychiatrist with scorn, as not been any different than the priests and exorcists of the past.

The APA was given a new lease on life. It either joins ‘the modern times’ or succumb to the weight of its own lies.

Either way we will continue to swallow the placebo.

Tomorrow in part 2: neuroscience, the new lobotomies, experimentation on humans.

Generation Rx documentary: psychiatry and pharma as drug pimps for our children, seriously.


Generation Rx, a 2008 documentary about the marketing of psychiatric (narcotic) drug “medication” for children, falsified ‘scientific’ research, etc. A most see. Won two Academy Awards. Director: Kevin P. Miller, producer is Charles L. Gilchrist. Can buy it at Amazon.com.

Man sets himself on fire on the Mall


Man is critically injured after setting himself on fire on the Mall

WARNING! Image that may be considered disturbing by some people is included in this post.

In the USA, contrary to Europe and the Middle East, the  visible evidence of the consequences of the war on the working class unleashed by their elected law-breakers…um…I meant to say law-maker’s policies, is not the working class seen in the streets fighting their corrupted elected politicians and their police-state. No. In the USA, the visible evidence of that class war is the disintegration of the public mental health in the form of self-immolation, increase in suicide rates, increase in ‘mass shootings’. It’s not ‘chemical imbalance’, it’s mental illness due to political imbalance. Mental illness  in healthy societies is very low and not a problem to that society.

This  evidence of the  increased mental deterioration of our people is what our president callously referred to as that pesky

ritual that we go through every three or four months

I know you don’t like to hear this but, our president’s and law-breakers (in both houses of Congress and both parties) laws redistribute our wealth up to the billionaire elite of Wall Street, to the war-mongering arms dealers and builders, the health insurance industry’s CEOs, the pharma and to the surveillance industry’s CEOs (among other privileged elitists) through trillions of dollars spent in contracts. This leaves the public safety-net destroyed when we need it the most.

The ignored-by-the-media epidemic increase in homelessness, usurious loan interest rates that guarantee the debt will be unpaid by an unemployed working class, the trillions in student loan debt that guarantee the students will not have a living-salary because the interest is prohibitive, veterans returning home without health and mental health services, all of this and more can have ONE guaranteed result: trauma to the mental health, individually and collectively.

But there are TWO public expressions of this problem: class struggle in the streets, as in Europe and the Middle East, or collective and individual depression expressed in self-directed violence and/or spontaneous, unplanned violence against the society. This last one is the one the law-breakers fear because they know it can turn into class struggle in the streets with THEM as the target.

Soo, before that happens, they and their media have DISCONNECTED from the public view the chain that ties  the INCREASE in ‘mental health issues’ to the economic and political war on the working class, and put the blame on mental illness as a threat to society, with the mentally ill turned in the public eye into a ‘terrorist’.

http://thoughtcatalog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/pavss.jpeg?w=584

Famous photo of Vietnam era Tibetan monk protesting the war.

Self-immolation has got to be the most extreme form of political statement. The Tibetan monks used it to protest the Vietnam war and even today. We have yet to see why that man in the mall here in the US set himself on fire but, whatever the reason, it’s a bad omen of the extreme effect this ‘economical crisis’ is having on our people.

These laws taking away the civil rights of people with ‘mental illness’ are NOT created for your protection. They have been created for the protection of the elected officials and the banking and financial elite AFRAID of what may happen to them when we finally wake up.

People, the medicine we need is ‘the people united’ putting the fear in the elite’s heart.

On criminals, terrorists, and mad men.


Before 9/11, a person who went out on a ‘killing rampage’ was viewed by the public as one who “went postal’, a ‘bomber without a cause’ or a ‘serial killer’. In other words, it was considered the act of a ‘common criminal’, not a political or act of war.  After 9/11, that same person committing the same act is considered ‘a war terrorist’ and ‘a crazy person’, to boot.

When and how did we decide to re-classify our definition of ‘common crime’ as ‘an act of war and terrorism’, and to link it to mental illness? Who helped shape our collective ‘perception’ of ‘imminent’ danger?

I will share my views about how mental illness has been scapegoat, after 9/11, as terrorism in a veiled effort to control political and social dissent in our nation, which our current president has declared to be in “a permanent state of war”.

Parts of this post will go under the headings:

The politics of crime: crime in the US before 9/11

Our a-political perception of crime

Mental illness to the rescue

THE POLITICS OF CRIME: Crime in the US before 9/11

Before 9/11, mental illness was seldom considered the sole culprit of acts of violence in our society. Acts of violence by ‘civilians’ (killing co-workers or loved ones) was seen by the public mostly as something done by someone who ‘lost it’ or who ‘went postal’. Implied in these descriptions is some sort of collective understanding that the person committing the crime was under the pressures of work, finance, love betrayal, or other social problems; the public was able to point to a ‘social context’ behind the act of violence. Because of this awareness of a social context behind crimes, the citizens of a town, city or state could look for a social solution to the problem of violence, not for a ‘war’ policy or armaments solution.

Also, pre-9/11 there was an unspoken social ‘agreement’ on the distinction between a ‘common criminal’ and a ‘terrorist’. A terrorist was a foreigner ‘at war’ against us but not here in the USA, and home-grown violence (by civilians) was just ‘regular crimes’. Thus, terrorism = act of war.

In other words, before 9/11 there seemed to be no ‘political’ crimes in the USA, acts of violence to advance political beliefs.  Seldom did the media or law enforcement agencies (at least publicly) tagged as ‘terrorism’ crimes that were clearly political in nature. Not even Timothy McVeigh, member of a separatist militia movement, was tagged as a terrorist, not until way after 9/11. The killing of a US President was NOT considered a political or even as terrorist act either. It was tagged as the act of a fanatical ‘lone-wolf’, who probably had been manipulated by the commies, a fact which would have made the crime a political one and a conspiracy. (But we never really went there, did we?) The ‘unabomber’ was a ‘rebel without a cause’, even a ‘mad genius’ but not a terrorist, certainly not a ‘political crusader’ for the animal rights movement, a fact many people don’t know about. And, finally, incarcerated political dissidents before 9/11, like imprisoned Puerto Rican liberation movement members, considered themselves ‘political prisoners’ (not terrorists) but the federal government had perennially refused to accept them as such, tagging them instead as ‘criminals’, until recently.

All of these examples of reluctance by the government to use the ‘t’ word, ‘terrorism’, fly despite the fact that it (FBI) had, before 9/11,  a clear definition of terrorism:

“the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals,against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

That is a political definition of terrorism, based on power struggle between the government and other groups of people to “furtherance of political or social objectives”. It required a “group” (“two or more”), and purposeful coordination of acts was implied. But we hardly knew about this definition, didn’t we? Why? This is in part because of the “two or more” requirement, given that our criminals were almost always portrayed as ‘lone-wolves’.

OUR POLITICAL PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME

The one thing the government (federal and state) must protect above anything else is…no, it’s not ‘the nation’.  It is the public trust in the government’s institutions. No trust in government = dissent, polarization, and power struggles for change in the way the government leaders run the nation, be it through peaceful civil disobedience or violence.

The public’s perception of ‘crime’ is shaped by the government’s criminal and justice systems policies and politics, among others. (It’s interesting to me that the first American group to be labeled as  ‘terrorist’ was the animals rights movement in The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006, something unrelated to war or Al Qaeda.)

So, it is conceivable that, to protect the public’s perception that the majority of the people are satisfied with the government’s policies, that there is no significant dissent within the society, the actions of dissenting groups are described as ‘regular crime’ and ‘crazy’ to devoid them of its political statement against the government policies. It reeks to Nazism, doesn’t it?

So, in a nation engaged in a ‘permanent war against terrorism’ and in enacting political, economic and repressive policies (police and surveillance state), which attack the middle class (leaving de-facto only two classes, the elite and the poor), how is the government going to label the natural political acts of dissent and resistance of those affected by its unfair policies and the impact it has on the social fabric?

Tomorrow: the pre and post 9/11 perception on crime, and mental illness to the rescue.

Americans Fault Mental Health System Most for Gun Violence


Interesting Gallup poll.

One thing: according to the poll, Americans have NOT change at all, since 2011, in their believe that the “failure of the mental health system to identify individuals who are a danger  to others” is the MAIN cause of mass shootings (48%). But, there was a REDUCTION of 6% since 2011 to 2013 in the amount of people who believe that guns are the culprit. The question is Where did those 6% put the blame now? Evidently their change in perception is NOT reflected as an increase in the category of people who believe that the mental health system is to be blamed.

Surprisingly enough, Democrats are MORE likely to believe that guns are NOT the main culprit (51%), which brings the question: Why is the Dem Party so intent in ramming down our throats gun control laws as a panacea to this problem? As I showed in my previous post, Obama stated that the MAIN reason we have ‘ritualistic mass shootings’  is because “we” (the public) refuse to adopt “firm background checks”, a sad and absurd statement from the president of “hope and change”.

“Independents” are MORE inclined to blame guns than republicans themselves (44 vs 49% respectively).

This all leads me to believe that the Democratic Party PREFERS to blame guns so it doesn’t have to explain Why are they cutting funds for mental health services while the American people understands that bad quality of mental health services is the main cause of mass shootings.

If we were to accept that Gallop poll as valid, then these would be some points for the mental health advocacy community to consider:

1. Is the NRA succeeding in its message that guns are not to be blamed for mass shootings?

2. Is blaming the ‘mental health system’ equivalent to blaming the mentally ill individuals? That would be disastrous for us.

3. How can the mental health advocacy community take ‘advantage’ of the believe that the mental health system is the main cause of mass shootings? This point ought to be ‘exploited’: demand REAL reform in the mental health system NOW. While mental illness is NOT the ONLY reason for mass shootings (wars, national economy, environment of police-state, home foreclosures by Wall Street, joblessness, homelessness and many other social issues are part of the problem of mass shootings),  we could focus on QUALITY of services as much as on QUANTITY as a response to mass shootings.

We must battle against ALL background checks that stigmatize the mentally ill. Background checks are NOT the answer, not even enough to accept them TEMPORARILY because, once the legal damage is done, we can’t fight it for the next 50 years.

I’m a skeptic when it comes to polls, but, given that Americans tend to ‘buy’ them,  it would make sense to take advantage of this one.

 

Obama predicts shooting in 3 months


Obama made some remarks yesterday (Sept 17) in the Spanish tv station Univision which I consider APPALLING. I bring them for your consideration here because, hopefully, I misunderstood said remarks, and you can clarify them to me. Feel free to post your comment.

This is my transcript, you can hear him directly  in the video below. Highlights are by me and my comments follow below the vid.

“The fact that we don’t have a firm enough background check system is something that makes us more vulnerable to this kind of mass shooting…uhm…I do get concerned that this becomes a ritual that we go through every three or four months where we have these horrific mass shootings and yet we are not willing to take some basic actions we know can make a differenceUltimately, this is something Congress is gonna have to act on. I have now, in the wake of Newtown, initiated a whole range of executive actions, we put in place every executive action that I proposed right after Newtown happened. So I’ve taken steps that are within my control. The next phase is for Congress to go ahead and move.”

Now, my reactions to each of his ‘compassionate’ statements.

1. Obama says that the reason we go through this “mass killing every three or four months” is because background check system is not “firm enough”. That’s it. That’s all that needs to be fixed, our background check system. Even George W. Bush was more useful to the mentally ill people than this president we have now. After all, it was W who gave us the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health and the super important ADA Amendment Act of 2008.

I challenge ANYONE to tell me how has Obama gone above and beyond what W did for the mentally ill people. FYI, I’m not a republican (rather die)  nor do I support nor sympathize with W. But, to Caesar what belongs to Caesar

2. Also, Obama says that we are more “vulnerable to this kind of shooting” because of lax background checks. The implications: mentally ill people make this nation “more vulnerable”, and mentally ill people MUST be ‘firmly’ checked.

Given the path our government has taken, since Obama came to power, towards a surveillance state branding every citizen or group that it considers ‘subversive or dissenting’, these ‘background checks’ are bound to apply soon to any mentally ill person, whether or not applying for guns. NYS Office of Mental Health has started the trend already. See my post ‘NY Safe Act:…

3. The “ritual”. Now THAT was interesting. Was that scripted? Or was it ad lib’ed? Wow. Is he talking about mentally ill people having a ‘compulsion’ towards mass killing? Is he EXPECTING a mass shooting by,er, December or January 2014?

Funny thing is that, IF that’s what he meant, that mentally ill people have a RECURRENT death wish, why can’t he prevent the shootings? Evidently he expects them to happen consistently every three or four months. Does he expect that this compulsion and RITUALISTIC behavior can be stopped with “firm background checks”? HELLO. IS ANYBODY AT HOME!?

4. Who is “we” in that “and yet we are not willing to take some basic actions we know can make a difference.”? Is he blaming the public because they don’t want laws that are clearly oppressive and fascist? Or is he blaming the NRA supporters? It could help if he were more CLEAR. I think he is blaming BOTH. The “basic actions” entails depriving people who visit a psychiatrist of their civil rights, just to protect “we”.

5. And then there was the throwing of the towel. He is basically saying that he ‘tried’ to do something but, because “we are not willing to take some basic actions” he can do no more. It’s “up to Congress to move”.

That is THROWING THE TOWEL. He’s doing it because you voted against his gun law this year. He doesn’t care anymore, is what he’s saying. ‘Deal with it’ is what he’s saying.

Well, I’m going now to prepare my post for December’s mass shooting.

See you later.