Psychiatry: A Case Study of Institutional Corruption

Five years ago, I spent time as a fellow in a lab at the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard that was devoted to studying “institutional corruption,” and what I particularly appreciated about the lab was that it provided a clear method to investigate and conceptualize the problem. The framework was this: Identify “economies of influence” that may corrupt the behavior of individuals within the institution, document the corruption, and explore the resulting social injury.

Lisa Cosgrove and I joined together in studying the “institution” of psychiatry through this lens, and we focused on its institutional behavior since 1980, when the American Psychiatric Association published the third edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. This was when the APA adopted its disease model for categorizing mental disorders, with the profession then taking up the task of selling this new model to the public. This was the particular guild interest that arose in 1980, and has shaped its behavior ever since. We’re all familiar with the second “economy of influence” that has exerted a corrupting influence on psychiatry—pharmaceutical money—but I believe the guild influence is really the bigger problem.

In our book Psychiatry Under the Influence, we then documented the corrupt behavior, which could be found in every corner of psychiatry: the false story told to the public about drugs that fixed chemical imbalances in the brain; the biasing of clinical trials by design; the spinning of results; the hiding of poor long-term results; the expansion of diagnostic categories for commercial purposes; and the publishing of clinical trial guidelines that inevitably promoted the use of psychiatric drugs.

At the end of our investigation, I had a new way of conceptualizing the social injury that was caused by this corruption: our society had organized itself around a false narrative, one that was presented to us as a narrative of science, but was belied by a close examination of the actual evidence.

Now, with the publication of a new study in the American Journal of Psychiatry titled “The Long-term Effects of Antipsychotic Medication on Clinical Course in Schizophrenia,” we have a new opportunity to observe this “institutional mind” of psychiatry at work. The article, authored by former APA president Jeffrey Lieberman and seven other psychiatrists, is meant to serve as an evidence-based review that defends the profession’s current protocols for prescribing antipsychotics, which includes their regular long-term use. By closely examining this review, we can assess, once more, whether this is a profession that can be trusted to honestly evaluate its evidence base and use that evidence to guide its care.

The Context

In 2010, I published Anatomy of an Epidemic, and in that book, I wrote about the long-term effects of antipsychotics, and concluded that there is a history of science that leads to this conclusion: on the whole, antipsychotics worsen the long-term outcomes of people diagnosed with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Joanna Moncrieff has similarly written about the hazards of antipsychotics in her book The Bitterest Pills and in published papers. So too has Peter Gøtzsche in his book Deadly Psychiatry and Organized Denial and various journals.

All of this criticism helped to promote further inquiry into this concern, which put psychiatry on the hot seat: did it prescribe these drugs in a way that caused more harm than good? Did their protocols for the drugs—immediate use for all first-episode psychotic patients and then “maintenance” use of the drugs—need to be rethought?

In their newly published study, Lieberman and colleagues perform what they describe as an “evidence-based” review of these questions. They conclude that there is no compelling evidence that supports this concern. In a subsequent press release and a video for a Medscape commentary, Lieberman has touted it as proving that antipsychotics provide a great benefit, psychiatry’s protocols are just fine, and that the critics are “nefarious” individuals intent on doing harm.

Joanna Moncrieff has already published a blog on Mad in America that is critical of the study, and, in particular, of the authors’ dismissal of studies related to the effect of antipsychotics on brain volumes. Miriam Larsen-Barr, who has done research on user attitudes toward antipsychotics, also wrote a blogcriticizing the study and press release, focusing on how the authors ignore user accounts about how the drugs affect their lives.

In this MIA report, I simply want to look closely at how Lieberman and his collaborators reviewed the literature and individual studies. We can then see whether they have done so in a way that reveals the mind of a group interested in truly investigating the question of the long-term effects of antipsychotics, with the patients’ well-being uppermost in their thoughts, or whether it reveals the “mind” of a group interested in protecting guild interests.

Then, at the end of this exercise, we can ask this essential question: If we can’t trust the profession to develop “evidence-based” treatments that put the interests of patients first, as opposed to their own guild interests, what should our society do? …

https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/05/psychiatry-defends-its-antipsychotics-case-study-of-institutional-corruption/

Notable Quote: Tiger Love

Deep within mothers is a fantastic pulse of ferocious love: it binds us to our babies, and makes us vigilant in their lifelong care. This pulse has been eroded by the institutionalization of many basic life events; most significantly, childbirth and learning. Instead of ancient mothers selfishly guarding the individual loves and virtues of our children, we become modern custodians for the state- breeders and caregivers of an easily manipulated populace.

Women must once again claim birth as a powerful, liberating life event- instead of a painfully medicalized one; and families must allow themselves to learn and stay together in the short time they have- and shun the bizarre lessons in life given by often hostile institutions whose main focus seem to be that of severing families and crushing true intelligence.

It is revolutionary to reject what society so stringently dictates, and revel in being Mother: not as the producer of marketable goods, but as the conduit of life itself.

— Leilah McCracken

Jennifer Harbury/Dianna Ortiz: U.S. Involvement in Guatemala Torture

Making the hemisphere safe for sweat shops that helped destroy US industries.   Can there be any doubt that americans are next in line?

Actually since the CIA is not even a US government agency, ( http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2017/07/cia-chief-wikileaks-trying-to-take-down-america-any-way-they-can/ ) the question arises of whether CIA officials themselves should be rounded up as foreign intelligence agents, and any US citizen which cooperates with the CIA should be charged with treason.   And that’s even before you understand the institutionalized satanic/pedophile/blackmail influence operating within the CIA.  They OBVIOUSLY don’t work in the national interest.   http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2017/04/douglas-valentine-cia-as-organized-crime/ , http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2017/05/the-cia-and-the-crack-cocaine-epidemic/

And if that’s not enough, if american men really want a good reason to hate their guts, all they need to do is look between their legs: http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2014/06/cia-mind-control-project-financed-circumcision-psychological-research/

Fear is a very stupid and tautological reason to put up with this kind of crap.   There is nothing behind their mask of power except their fear of discovery.   They are the very essence of corruption.

(Jennifer’s speech starts at 11:00)

Since torture is worthless for getting information, obviously the purpose of torture is to terrorize the people and nothing more.

Puppets Get Strings Crossed, Abduct U.S. Nun

The abduction and torture of U.S. nun Diana Ortiz in Guatemala last fall generated little press interest here. Yet the reactions of the Bush administration, the State Department, and the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala — especially towards a recent religious delegation visiting Guatemala on behalf of Sister Diana — suggest that the case is political dynamite.

These developments have thrown into sharp relief once again the role of the U.S. in Central America — particularly the relationship between the Embassy and mysterious foreigners who work with Guatemalan “death squads.” Sister Diana’s torturers were interrupted by a man who burst into the room and halted them. The nun swore under oath that he was an American.

Sister Diana was forced away from a retreat house last November by two armed men. They took her to a deserted place where a member of the National Police was parked. The three then took her, blindfolded, to a warehouse where Sister Diana could hear screams and moans of men and women in pain. There they taunted her, sexually molested her, and burned her 111 times with cigarettes. When Sister Diana said she was a U.S. citizen, the men just laughed. In her affidavit, Sister Diana said, “The men who had stopped me in Guatemala City [previously] knew I was a North American nun, so I knew their laugh was from their sense of power, not disbelief.”

The terror abruptly stopped when the fourth man entered, uttered a common U.S. expletive in English, and then said in Spanish, “Idiots, she is a North American. Let her alone. It’s already on the news on television.” The foreigner took the nun out of the place and put her in a car, saying he would take her to “A friend from the U.S. Embassy” who would help get out of the country. However, Sister Diana escaped from the car in heavy traffic.

The case was immediately met with hostile responses from the Guatemalan government. on November 10, _Prensa Libre_ reported that Guatemala’s President Cerezo expressed doubt as to whether the attack had occurred at all. Defense Minister Hector Gramajo — the de facto head of state — stated the case was a self-kidnapping, staged in order to conceal a lesbian tryst. Interior Minister Morales (also a General) repeated the same accusations and officially closed the case.

Not only did the U.S.Embassy fail to defend Sister Diana — at least one official was reported to be making jokes to journalists about “the lesbian nuns” — but the State Department and President Bush have maintained a deafening silence about the case. The State Department told me November 20 that no protest had been filed, as the case fell under Guatemalan jurisdiction, and the Guatemalan police were investigating. This despite the fact that one of Sister Diana’s kidnappers _was_ a policeman. Moreover, according to human rights organizations like the International Human Rights Law Group and Amnesty International, the Guatemala National Police function as a virtual arm of the Guatemalan army’s counterinsurgency apparatus. Members of the police often comprise the “deaths squads,” usually under direct orders from their superiors. Further, the U.S. remained silent after the Guatemalan investigation was terminated.

When the U.S. Ambassador Stroock complained about the level of human rights violations the Guatemalan government last February, Sister Dianas’ case was conspicuously absent from his list of abuses. Despite complaints from Father Joseph Nangle and Paul Soreff, Sister Diana’s lawyer, this “omission” was never corrected in the official record, despite their complaints to the State Department.

In April, the Ursuline community in Kentucky, Sister Diana’s order, sent a delegation to Guatemala expressly to protest the false statement by Guatemalan officials and the U.S. Embassy’s indifference. Soreff reported that the delegation was immediately summoned to the Embassy where, “evidenced by the array of stone cold faces and the tone with which the encounter began, the Embassy people were most upset with the Ursulines.” The Embassy aggressively defended its conduct in the case and protested allegations of collusion, arising from the foreigners’ comment to Sister Diana about his “friend from the Embassy.”

Father Nangle, another member of the delegation, expressed dismay at the conduct of the Embassy. He reported that the Embassy was silent in the face of public accusations by top Guatemalan officials that Sister Diana was lying, and the Embassy inexplicably failed to publish medical finding of cigarette burns on sister Diana’s body — clear evidence of torture.

Father Nangle continued, “It must be said that once Sister Diana left Guatemala, the U.S. official presence there was inimical to her good name and interests. The Embassy did seem to show concern for her safety while she was in captivity and again before she took lease of Guatemala. But it is my distinct impression that afterward the chief concern of U.S. representatives in that country was `damage control’… Further, I am left with the strong impression that the identity of the mysterious American, named by Sister Diana under oath as the one with sufficient authority to take her away from her torturers, has the Embassy so upset that their chief concern is to sweep this case as far away from them as possible.”

The total impunity with which Sister Diana’s captors operate gives direct evidence of several of the shady structures of Guatemala’s national security state. The Guatemalan government has long denied the existence of secret places of detention and torture — places beyond the reach of the law. Yet the nuns’ testimony is proof of such clandestine centers, and the involvement of the national police. Inevitably, questions about the precise U.S. and CIA role in Guatemala’s national security structures again arise.

Patti McSherry is a human rights activists and a doctoral student in political science. She writes frequently on Guatemala and counterinsurgency

From: Heartland Journal, July-August 1990

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/misc.activism.progressive/losdUi1Q5iE/6pS0nnnmR0EJ

New York Times, 1/7/79; Page 2

Ex-analyst says CIA rejected warning on Shah

by Seymour Hersh

A former Iran analyst for the central intelligence agency said yesterday that his reports characterizing Shah Pahlevi as thirsty for power and a megalomaniac were repeatedly rejected by the agency as being contrary to official US policy.

Jesse Leaf said in an interview that for five years had had been the chief CIA analyst on Iran before resigning from the agency in 1973…. A spokesman for the CIA confirmed that Mr. Leaf had been an employee there but said, “We will not discuss former employees.”

Mr. Leaf also said in the interview that he and his colleagues knew of the torture of Iranian dissenters by Savak, the Iranian secret police set up during the late 1950’s by the Shah with help from the CIA. [1] Furthermore, Mr. Leaf said, a senior CIA official was involved in instructing officials in the Savak on torture techniques, although Mr. Leaf said that to his knowledge no americans did any of the torturing. The CIA’s torture seminars, Mr. Leaf said, “were based on German torture techniques from World War II.”

The Shah himself was “one of our sources” of information, Mr. Leaf said. “He was a regular contact for a case officer.”

Mr. Leaf said that because of the CIA’s complacency about the Shah, no one considered protesting about the Savak’s use of torture. “Why should we protest? We were on their side, remember?” [2]

Although the Iranian use of torture was widely known inside the agency, Mr. Leaf said, he knew of no americans who admitted that they witnessed such treatment. “I do remember seeing and being told of people who were there seeing the rooms and being told of torture. And I know that the torture rooms were toured and it was all paid for by the USA.”

Mr. Leaf said he decided to resign from the CIA after receiving an adverse fitness report in 1973. His basic complaint, he said, was that “policy pretty much determines reporting rather than the other way around.”

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/hershciairan.html

Since both the nazis and the CIA were creations of the satanic central banking cartel, this is no surprise.

The United States of Torture

And where do you think these american torturers come from?   Many of them come from the torture chambers of american obstetrical wards.

http://members.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/MGM/birthUSA3.html

Get some boundaries, doktor.

Deep within mothers is a fantastic pulse of ferocious love: it binds us to our babies, and makes us vigilant in their lifelong care. This pulse has been eroded by the institutionalization of many basic life events; most significantly, childbirth and learning. Instead of ancient mothers selfishly guarding the individual loves and virtues of our children, we become modern custodians for the state- breeders and caregivers of an easily manipulated populace.

Women must once again claim birth as a powerful, liberating life event- instead of a painfully medicalized one; and families must allow themselves to learn and stay together in the short time they have- and shun the bizarre lessons in life given by often hostile institutions whose main focus seem to be that of severing families and crushing true intelligence.

It is revolutionary to reject what society so stringently dictates, and revel in being Mother: not as the producer of marketable goods, but as the conduit of life itself.

— Leilah McCracken