Psychiatry: Rotten to the Core - So What's New?

Diagnosis precedes prescription precedes sales precedes side effects precedes prescription. Rinse and repeat.

I am psychiatrist who has never prescribed a psychiatric drug (except once to wean a patient by using10 Xanax pills). I am a physician who has never prescribed a pharmaceutical drug.

It is my clinical belief, based on 54 years of experience, that, outside of the emergency room and the surgical and ICU suites, they are unnecessary when you use nutrition, detoxification, frequency treatments (including neuro bio feedback), herbal and other natural strategies, acupuncture, etc. And there is a LOT of “etc.”!)

But Psychiatry, as opposed to mental health, is all about drugging. And drugging is all about diagnosis because that is how a psychiatrist keeps the scam going and how s/he protects her/his derriere in court.

And drugging, which rests on diagnosis, is all about sales. Big, big, big pharma sales.

Even as corrupt and corrupted a “scientific”, “impartial”, “peer reviewed” publication as the British Medical Journal had to notice, eventually.

On January 10, 2024, they published in the Editors Notes section the following utterly appalling, utterly un-shocking note:

“JANUARY 10, 2024

Editors' notes

Panel members for new psychiatric 'bible' received more than $14M from industry, analysis finds

by British Medical Journal

Sixty percent of US physicians serving as panel and task force members for the American Psychiatric Association's official manual of psychiatric disorders received payments from industry totaling $14.24m, finds a study published by The BMJ.

Because of the enormous influence of diagnostic and treatment guidelines, the researchers say their findings "raise questions about the editorial independence of this diagnostic manual."

Often referred to as the 'bible' of psychiatric disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, text revision (DSM-5-TR) is the latest edition of the guide that doctors use to diagnose and treat patients. It is thus critical that authors of this psychiatric taxonomy should be free of industry ties.

However, until the development of Open Payments (a database of financial relationships between companies and physicians), it wasn't possible to determine the amount of money received by authors of diagnostic and clinical practice guidelines.

To address this, researchers used data from Open Payments to assess the extent and types of financial ties to the industry of panel and task force members of the DSM-5-TR.

Their analysis included 92 physicians based in the US who served as members of either a panel (86) or task force (6) on the DSM-5-TR from 2016-19, the time during which work was initiated and completed for the 2022 text revision.

Of these 92 individuals, 55 (60%) received payments from industry. These panel members received a total of $14.24m (£11.21m; €12.96m). Only two of the six task force members had any payments reported in Open Payments, totaling $196.02 and $792.67 for 2016-19.

The most common types of payment were for food and beverages (91%), followed by travel (69%) and consulting (69%).

The greatest proportion of compensation by payment category was for research funding (70%), which the authors point out was excluded from the American Psychiatric Association's disclosure policy for the previous edition (DSM-5).

They highlight some study limitations, such as not including payments to physicians based outside the US or non-physician prescribers, and acknowledge that amounts listed in the database may be imprecise.

Nevertheless, they say this study "provides novel data about the appreciable conflicts of interest in the DSM-5-TR and extends past research on this topic."

To ensure unbiased, evidence-based mental health practice, there should be a rebuttable presumption of prohibiting financial conflicts of interest among the panel and task force members of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, they write.

When no independent individuals with the requisite expertise are available, they suggest that those with associations with the industry could consult the panels, but they would not have decision-making authority on revisions or the inclusion of new disorders.

"As researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and leaders in evidence-based medicine have argued, guideline writers should be free of financial relationships with industry, especially those writers who are responsible for such an influential manual on psychiatric taxonomy," they conclude.

Corrupt? Oh, Hell Yes! Meaningful diagnoses are irrelevant as long as everything needs a drug, or several. And psychiatric diagnoses is, in my opinion, the most corrupt of all.

I was graduated from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Bronx, NY) in 1970. Under a special experimental program, a few aspiring psychiatrists were permitted to skip their internship years and go directly into a psychiatric residency program (although we still had to pass the exam at the end of the year which interns were required to pass (National Medical Boards, Part III).

I joyfully opted out of that grueling year since I had gone to Medical School to become a psychiatrist. It did not concern me at all that most doctors held “mere psychiatrists” in significant contempt and did not see them as “real doctors” since pretty much all they did was talk to patients.

There were a few drugs that were classified as psychiatric medications, including chloral hydrate for sleep, Valium ( ) and Miltown (meprobamate) for anxiety, Melleril (thioridazine HCl) and Thorazine (chlorpromazine), neuroleptics used as antipsychotics, Lithium Chloride for anti-mania (now bipolar depression) and Tofranil (imipramine) for depression. Then along came Prozac (fluoxitine) and the race was on.

I watched, and listened and learned as the pharma giants, with their giant research budgets, raced to win the sweepstakes of new prescriptions which required new diagnoses and indications galore. Patient populations expanded to include pretty much everyone, including children and the elderly and pregnant women and just about everybody else. Everyone had one disorder or many and every disorder required a one drug or many.

And the chief beneficiaries, at least as I could see it from my vantage point, were the psychiatrists. Not just because they had a much, much bigger population to fill their consulting rooms with, but because they became, in their minds, because they became it in the minds of other doctors, “REAL doctors”. At last! drugging people, now called “Biological Psychiatry” as if there were anything other than an exchange of symptoms for side effects going on, became respectable. Psychiatrists had meaningful prescription pads and other doctors invited them [back?] into the club and they could hold their needy little heads up high and feel like they really did have their big boy [they were nearly all male, by the way, if they were in powerful positions] pants on because they were welcome in the big boy’s party room!

And, my, oh, my, how they were courted by those attentive drug reps and “educators” as they learned to use the new formulations for old things and the old formulations for new things.

As it happened, a few years into that, at least to me, despicable process, I was asked, as a Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, to review all of the drugs approved for pediatric use.
I created a compendium of all of the drugs and all of the research that had been conducted prior to approval of each drug for pediatric populations. The longest time period before a drug was approved for LONG TERM use for a child was, as I recall, 12 weeks.

No examination of the long-term, and long-term developmental, consequences of dosing developing humans with neuo- and psychoactive chemicals was ever, to my knowledge, undertaken before these powerful drugs were approved. Nor were recommendations made to allow, encourage or promote NON-pharmacological approaches, solutions, investigations or procedures before babies, children and adolescents received neuro/endocrine/psychotoxic drugs. A lot of them.

True story: I was the Acting Director of a large children’s inpatient psychiatric ward in Connecticut. All of the kids, from age 4 to age 16 were on vast amounts of medication when I took over. The 4 year old was on 11 different psychiatric drugs, for example.

I could not tell what any patient had, or thought, or would say, because all I could see were side effects.

Over the strident objection of the entire nursing staff, I carefully discontinued the medication of every patient. While there were disturbed kids in that ward, by the way, there were no floridly psychotic or violent ones so the safety fears that the nursing staff had for themselves were unwarranted.

One of the kids, a 13 year old girl, was very sad and very scared. The nurse manager of the family’s insurance company was crying on the phone when she said to me that she knew that the girl was where she needed to be since it, unlike her family home, was a safe place and she felt terrible, but they could not pay for her to stay in the hospital since she was not receiving any medication. Without medication, “there was no treatment". She was sent back to her home that afternoon.
The Medical Director of the hospital told me that I was right but without someone paying for her stay, whatever happened to her, happened.

The 4 year old, once the meds were out of her system, sat calmly in my office. I was the first person, in or out of the hospital, to ask her why she plunged a knife in her mother’s boyfriend’s leg during the night.
She said “Joey was hurting me there and my mommy wouldn’t stop him.” while she pointed at her genitals.
I asked why she stabbed him in the leg while he was asleep and she answered, sensibly, I thought, “I couldn’t reach any higher.”
Joey and her mommy both went to jail. I will repeat: the child was on 11 different psychiatric medications and no one had asked her the questions that needed to be asked. They just diagnosed her. Then, of course, once she had a diagnosis, they medicated her. As much as possible.

Diagnosis, corrupted by industry interests, is a perfect recipe for disaster. But disaster is “fixed” by more medication, just as COVID-19 shots and their disastrous failures are “fixed” by more COVID-19 shots.

Drug companies need dispensers to sell their products. They need us to be sick and then, since they are part of the ill health management system, paradoxically, once they have sucked both the health and the riches we have available from us, they need us dead.
They are part of the Rockefeller-and friends death machine. They are served, and served up, by the World Holocaust Organization, which serves the United Nations/Agenda 2030/WEF/Globalist/Great Reset/Internet of Bodies/Depopulation/Enslavement Agenda.

Orthomolecular psychiatry, like orthomolecular medicine, environmental medicine, classical naturopathy, real Traditional Oriental Medicine, frequency medicine and other natural approaches that shun vaccination and pharmaceuticals are the tools of health management. Unless you are an ER doc, a surgeon or an ICU specialist, drugs may bring you what you want, but they do not bring the patient what the patient wants: health.

Every doctor is also, at some point, a patient. Every patient can be (or should have if they cannot be) an advocate for her/his needs. Whether your doctor likes it or not.