Pages: 1 2
by Jon Rappoport | Jon Rappoport’s Blog
Evidence isn’t something you make up out of thin air. You dig it up.
If you’re fortunate, you find crucial evidence in statements of the very people who are pretending to tell the truth.
That’s the jackpot.
I’ve written several articles debunking the “science” behind psychiatry. As you might guess, this is not a popular approach with the gatekeepers of our culture.
The gatekeepers want psychiatry to be thought of as a science, and since it isn’t, they exercise their only option: they lie. And then they lie again. It’s the time-honored strategy of all propaganda. Keep repeating the falsehood until people believe it and accept it.
Evidence doesn’t work that way. You don’t need to keep repeating it in order to make it real. If you’re digging in the sand to uncover clues to a lost city, you don’t need to re-dig that area of sand hiding the temple and the road and the statues. You do it once and that’s enough. You say, “See? Here’s the city.”
But culturally speaking, you do need to keep flashing photos of the lost city, because people have been trained to think there was no civilization way back when. You have to separate people from the false thinking and indoctrination.
So now I’m flashing evidence I’ve uncovered before. It’s a statement made by a prominent psychiatrist on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”
Here it is.
PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.
BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]
Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession, and then he turns around and makes it even better by claiming the incontrovertible evidence isn’t evidence at all. He claims we’re all illiterate when it comes to fathoming what science is all about.
So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.
These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.
If I said the moon was made of green cheese, even if I were a Harvard professor, sooner or later someone would ask me to produce a sample of moon rock that was tested for “cheese qualities.” I might begin to feel nervous, I might want to tap dance around the issue, but I would have to submit the rock to a lab.
In the case of psychiatry, the DSM, which is the bible of the American Psychiatric Association, currently lists 297 official mental disorders. They are named, labeled, and described. Dr. Barkley admits there is no lab test for any of those 297 disorders.
Yes, there is a lot of chatter about “chemical imbalances in the brain,” but there is no test.
Dr. Barkley employs a version of logical analysis in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. But if a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”
That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.
If psychiatry were nothing more than an intellectual game in a vacuum, it wouldn’t matter. But each diagnosis is followed by powerful and dangerous drugs, and people take those drugs.
In a business sense (and psychiatry is a business), the DSM is really a book that tells psychiatrists what they can bill insurance companies for. That’s the essence of the book. There are 297 ways a psychiatrist can get paid. No insurance company is going to step up to the plate and declare psychiatry a rank fraud. Insurance companies don’t operate that way. They are in partnership with psychiatry. Insurance companies employ actuaries to figure out how claims can be paid and still leave nice profit margins. That’s the game.
Think of all the studies that have been done to show that street drugs harm people. Has that stopped traffickers from selling heroin and cocaine? Well, the analogy has merit. Do you expect psychiatrists and insurance companies to hold a press conference and admit their whole operation is a top-to-bottom fraud with devastating health consequences?
At the root of this ongoing RICO crime is the issue of personal freedom. Do people have the absolute right to refuse psychiatric medication? If, for example, in the United States, Obamacare is not repealed, there are going to be many, many more diagnoses of mental disorders. Eventually, accepting these diagnoses, and the drug prescriptions that follow, is going to be made a condition of membership in the national insurance plan. That’s why drug companies and insurance companies are on board. They are looking forward to more business.
I have made this offer before, and I’m making it again. Let’s have an extensive web debate about the science of psychiatry. Let’s air the whole thing out, with people from both sides at the podium. I’m not talking about sound bites. I want a thorough exposition. Let’s see who makes more sense.
Here is what I believe would be exposed. People would finally understand that committees of psychiatrists, in their deliberations, take menus of human behavior, and then they group behaviors into clusters. For each cluster, they determine there is a disorder.
They sit in a room and argue all this out, and come up with labels and symptoms—and in this thoroughly unscientific fashion, they recycle human suffering and emotional pain and confusion and problems into neat categories. They provide no tests. They simply make the rules, and they expect obedience, because they are the self-appointed authorities.
This is a staggering fact. It may be hard to acknowledge the depth and breadth of the fraud, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t fraud. It only means people have been indoctrinated to salute “the experts.”
It also means other explanations are going to be needed for what we say are “crazy behaviors.” But that need doesn’t imply that the experts are right. It simply indicates we have been following an unproven path and we need to shift gears.
It’s always easier to give in to the experts. But Easier is not a scientific standard that should win our approval. Easier is what we opt for when we prefer a manufactured rigged consensus.
Independent thinking is a whole different animal. It applies and it challenges us across the board of our entire civilization. Should we believe what we are told without reflection? Should we buy the most popular items for sale? Or should we explore what lies beyond the comfort zone?
Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession. Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy. All sorts of new therapies were popping up. The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.
Pages: 1 2