The Philadelphia Inquirer Main Line psychiatrist stripped of her medical license A Main Line psychiatrist has lost her medical license after a state investigation found she had sex with a young patient for years, all while prescribing him a revolving mix of up to 12 medications, including highly addictive psychotropic drugs, without proper evaluations. Amy Mazza MacIntyre, a child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist in Bryn Mawr, started treating a then-17-year-old cancer survivor in 2004 when he was a senior at Lower Merion High School. MacIntyre first had sex with him in February 2011, when he was 24 years old. She stopped billing him for treatment around the same time, though she continued to take patient notes for another 2½ years. She continued prescribing him powerful psychiatric drugs while having sex with him through mid-2017, according to an investigation by the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine. The board revoked her medical license in May, finding she had engaged in sexual misconduct and inappropriate prescribing in violation of state medical licensing laws. She is appealing the disciplinary board’s decision, which followed lawsuits between MacIntyre and the patient, Justin Kopicki, in civil courts… psychsearch.net/amy-macintyr…

PsychSearch In Her Own Words – A Shock Therapy Survivor Colin Taufer In my last article I compared the brain damage caused by shock therapy and the brutal helmet to helmet collisions of American football. Both the patient and the player are left with short and long term symptoms such as memory loss, confusions and progressive dementia. Unfortunately, in the case of the shock patients, these detrimental symptoms are seen as the “cures” for whatever ails them. The patient’s fogged memory and impaired reasoning are seen by the psychiatrist as improvements. Dull the patient’s cognitive reasoning and emotional life force with enough shocks and convulsions and that which ailed them can no longer be felt, contemplated or pondered. The side-effect of this “cure” is that life itself is no longer felt, contemplated or pondered. I received a lot of great feedback from readers about this article. One of those who wrote in offered a unique perspective to shock therapy, also known as ECT (electroconvulsive “therapy”). Her name is Julie Greene. She is an ECT survivor and an avid blogger on human rights. Her mission, in her own words, is to joyfully expose psychiatry. Julie was kind enough to answer a few questions I had about her personal experience with ECT. What she had to say was frank, articulate and insightful. Hi Colin, First of all, thanks for sending these questions. I am always amazed at the questions that journalists ask me because they seem to reflect much inquisitive curiosity that I find delightful. Journalists ask witty questions that indicate their level of insight into the topic. The psychiatrists never asked me very intelligent or interesting questions. Instead, their questions were loaded, seeming to lead me to some dead end, or they reflected some agenda on their part. Often they attempted to trick me into admitting things. It felt like a cruel game. Years after receiving ECT, you are advocating against the practice. Why? I’d say after my ECT in 1996 I had no clue that the aftereffect, specifically long term, persistent intermittent confusion was a result of the ECT. I may, in the back of my mind, have known it, but since I was in so much denial and they were not admitting it to me, I never put two and two together for a very long time. Add to that the fact that the confusion itself blurred my thinking ability and in effect, clouded my memory of the ECT itself. It was akin to the spellbinding effect of drugs as described by Dr. Peter Breggin. This is why hindsight is so important. Now I know that the ECT was severely disabling to me. Prior to ECT I had a job. I stopped working because of unfair working conditions. At the time, many of the other workers were also quitting. I was discouraged and took a break. I know now that the choice to give me ECT was not because I was a “difficult to treat” case of severe depression. I was depressed, true, but the severity was not the depression I had, but the case of Revolving Door Syndrome. I believe that’s what they were, in effect, treating. I cannot say electroshock ever has a positive effect on Revolving Door Syndrome unless it kills the patient dead. That would have gotten me out of their hair. Almost all patients who are electroshocked either never recover, or the effects cripple the patients and the rehab is far more lengthy than anyone wants to admit. How would you describe the experience of receiving ECT? I think each patient remembers it differently. I remember many of the details. If you read my document you can see I recall the words of the anesthesiologist, the colors of the rug in the waiting room, the words of the nurse afterward, the orange juice, and being wheeled out of there back to the unit. I also remember washing the “goo” out of my hair. How did you feel physically after receiving ECT? I had a terrible headache. After a few times I had that headache consistently, so from what I recall, they had me swallow two Tylenol with a tiny spoonful of water just prior to the electroshock to prevent the headache. I remember that helped. I also recall wanting that drink of water very badly, since I had not had any water since midnight before. I have documented that they were often running so far behind that I had to wait for hours feeling extremely thirsty. I had undiagnosed diabetes insipidus (DI) from lithium carbonate, which meant I need to drink water all the time, much more than the average person. I focused intensely on the “reward” of the liquids afterward because the thirst was overwhelming by mid-morning. They also withheld food, but that didn’t bother me at all. Food and water were withheld because of the anesthesia. A few times I also felt nauseous and once I had the dry heaves from the anesthesia. Once I involuntarily wet myself during the shock. Apparently that is common. I don’t recall saying much afterward. I also wanted them to put my glasses back on me so I could see. It was much like waking up after surgery. They didn’t want me to get up or do anything. Did you give consent to receive ECT? Good question! My very first electroshock was late in 1995, late in fall. I only had four “treatments,” these every other day and then I was released from the hospital. I objected to it when it was first suggested. Then they showed me the video and I consented. After the very first “treatment” I felt a high. Looking back undoubtedly I felt that way from the anesthesia, or possibly because they had stopped a couple of my usual drugs. I remember feeling instantly high, almost euphoric. I assumed the electroshock was the cause. I figured, “Wow, these are amazing, everyone should have them!” I didn’t feel like I needed more, but they said I needed more to get them to “stick.” After a few weeks of course I felt back to the way I was before since the “high” was not from the ECT at all. The next spring I requested ECT. The doc didn’t want to give it to me, but finally agreed. I wanted the “high” again. I figured the same thing would happen and this was the great cure. At this point, though, here “consent” is iffy since after I became confused I was no longer able to say “I agree to continue” or “please stop” with any cohesiveness. I could barely put a sentence together at times. I was easily coerced into most anything. They say not to sign important documents after ECT, so how can one give consent to further electroshock after or during these disabling “treatments”? In my documentation I have stated and re-stated that the switch to bilateral was not done with proper consent. I was asked for my verbal consent while I lay on the table about to be put under. I signed no papers and by all means I was not warned of the risks. In my article, I described the effects of CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) on American football players. Symptoms include memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment, anxiety and progressive dementia. Have you experienced any of these effects? If so, which ones? Not currently. By all means I have an excellent memory, far better than most my age. I don’t think this has anything to do with psychiatry at all. I am positive that my memory is sharp because I am a prolific writer. I write several thousand words per day and never suffer writer’s block. I earned my master’s degree in creative writing in 2009. I also have continued academic pursuit throughout these years. I do not vegetate in front of the TV. I enjoy reading and I do not smoke nor drink alcohol, and I stay physically active. Another reason my mind is sharp is because I have a pet dog. I believe impulsivity is a normal trait of youth that gradually fades as we age unless there is interference such as psychiatry. As a kid I tended to lean on the cautious side anyway. My mother told me that she had fewer worries about me when I was learning to drive, for instance, than she had about my younger brothers, especially the youngest who tended to be a daredevil. Later in college I was the level-headed student who got her assignments done on time. I have made my share of stupid decisions, though. I’d say the dumbest was to go to a shrink. When I stopped going to the shrinks a few years back I felt much, much better. I do have insomnia, though. It has been persistent but very gradually has improved. I am still experiencing so much daytime exhaustion that am sure I can’t work full time. If you had a chance to speak before the American Psychiatric Association, what would your message be? I’d love to speak to them, if they’d have me. I’m studying how to improve my oral presentation and public speaking. I have been a lover of hamming it up in front of an audience ever since my days as a music major, or perhaps even before that when I acted in plays as a kid. I love reading my writings aloud for audiences and I’m a trained standup comic. Really, those psychiatrists could learn a few lessons from journalists like you, Colin Taufer. As I said in the beginning, their questions rarely reflect intelligence nor insight. All adult humans have preconceived notions to start with. It’s unavoidable. Psychiatrists are so bias-heavy I doubt that any of them can properly assess anyone. They are handed a patient and told, “This one has schiz,” or whatever, and from then on, the psychiatrist sees psychosis no matter what the unfortunate victim says. The patient might be acting completely straight-laced but the psychiatrist will say the patient is “faking normalcy momentarily to avoid hospitalization.” We just can’t win if they have deemed us “lacking insight.” It’s designed to be a cruel double-edged sword that will ensnare anyone they deem inconvenient or a troublemaker. Psychiatrists evaluate in the moment, rarely seeing the larger picture. So a patient might be “feeling suicidal” for ten minutes and then, end up hospitalized for the next six weeks. So many times I hear that people go to emergency rooms hoping for someone to listen to them. What happens is that they may feel bad when they go in, but by the time they are seen, they feel reasonably okay, yet they are often held while their goal of being heard is of course completely forgotten. The Mental Health System missed the boat for three decades. I laugh now remembering that I explicitly told all of them I had an eating disorder from the beginning, and that this was why I had originally gone to them. Almost always, my very basic eating difficulties, which were the core of my problems, were so overlooked that most of those so-called professionals didn’t even recall I had an eating disorder. The only way I could get better was to stop seeing them entirely, and to work it all out on my own. Leaving the System was the answer, and afterward, I didn’t suffer like before. Not only that, it doesn’t take rocket science to figure out how to remedy most problems, even tough ones. I wish I had known all that much sooner. psychsearch.net/colin.taufer…

The Daily Republic (now known as the Mitchell Republic) December 26, 2013 Florida man pries records away from SD officials By Chris Mueller It took nearly five months, but a Florida man has been allowed to view records about doctors excluded from Medicaid in South Dakota. In July, Ken Kramer, of Clearwater, Fla., asked the South Dakota Department of Social Services for the names of every doctor terminated or excluded from Medicaid, a federal-state health care program for the poor, since 2010. Individuals or companies may be excluded from federal medical programs for various reasons, including health care fraud, overcharging patients, charging for unnecessary services, failure to pay student loans, felony convictions, or failing to take corrective measures ordered by a federal agency. Kramer documents abuses of the psychiatric profession on his website, PsychSearch.net, which includes a compilation of public records about ethical misbehavior, over-prescription of medications, sexual misconduct and Medicaid fraud. As a result of his research, Kramer said he has become familiar with the rigmarole that can arise when dealing with government agencies. “You get into a rhythm of knowing what’s right and what’s screwy,” he said. South Dakota, Kramer said, is the only state in the country that attempted to withhold the records. Other states have either provided documents listing the requested doctors’ names or Internet links where the names of those excluded from Medicaid can be found. “I think it’s mysterious,” Kramer said. “It’s strange why records are withheld like that when the entire country is pretty much open.” Following Kramer’s initial request, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Todd, director of the South Dakota Department of Social Service’s Division of Legal Services, told Kramer “the information you request is not a public record in the state of South Dakota,” in a July 25 reply. In an answer to Kramer’s request for an explanation of why the records were being withheld, Todd cited state codified law 1-27-1.5, which has 27 subparagraphs listing exemptions from the state’s open-records laws. Kramer, who wanted to know specifically what part of the law excluded the information from public access, appealed in October to the South Dakota Office of Hearing Examiners — the office designated to handle disputes over government records. In a Dec. 5 letter, Chief Hearing Examiner Hillary Brady notified the state Department of Social Services of Kramer’s appeal. Two weeks later, in a Dec. 19 letter addressed to Kramer, Todd released the information requested. “The department carefully relooked at your request and will provide the requested information,” Todd wrote in the letter. The record is a list of four doctors terminated from Medicaid in South Dakota since July 2007 — Jeffrey Buckau, Brian O’Connor, Joshua Payer and Edward Wegrzynowicz. The list does not say where the doctors are from or why they were excluded from Medicaid, but The Daily Republic gleaned further information about each one from other sources. Payer surrendered his medical license in August 2010 for “alleged unprofessional conduct and violations of the South Dakota Medical Practices Act,” according to records from the South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners’ website. Payer pleaded guilty in March 2011 to aiding and abetting the distribution of a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, according to court documents. He was sentenced to 22 months in prison. O’Connor accepted a suspension of his medical license in March 2008 after he “engaged in the use of alcohol and/or controlled substances in a manner that would affect his medical practice,” according to the board of examiners’ records. In September 2009, the board reinstated O’Connor’s license, with certain restrictions in place to monitor him and keep him from using drugs or alcohol. Buckau gave up his medical license in March 2008 after he was caught over-prescribing addictive drugs to patients, according to the board’s records. No records appear from the state medical board on Wegrzynowicz. State Rep. Stace Nelson, R-Fulton, helped Kramer pursue the information. Nelson, who is a candidate for U.S. Senate, also requested the records in question and, according to an email sent Friday addressed to state Attorney General Marty Jackley, was denied and was also told the records did not exist. In that same email, Nelson requests an official explanation of the situation from Jackley. Kramer believes public officials who wrongly deny requests for public records should face some type of penalty, though he said he doesn’t believe any such penalties exist in South Dakota law. “There should be a criminal penalty in the statute that has some kind of deterrent to this type of non-compliance,” he said. psychsearch.net/psychsearch-…

PsychSearch One Million American Children Starting Kindergarten on Psych Drugs Colin Taufer Imagine one million toddlers suffering psychiatric drug-caused aggression or anxiety or depression or suicide or cardiac arrest or headaches — all before they start kindergarten. We’ve all experienced first-hand the exuberance and energy of a young child as they elbow their way through life in an effort to better understand all that is around them, to snatch up everything knowable from the world. “She, or he, is, indisputably, the most ravenous, and most successful, learning machine yet devised in the universe,” is how author Chip Walter describes the toddler in his book “The Last Ape Standing”. The first five years of a child’s life is full of growth, exploration and wonder. At four months old the infant can coo, laugh out loud and recognize their parent’s voice or touch. Around nine months they are able to crawl, imitate speech sounds and wave goodbye. Around their first birthday they will respond to their name, meow like a cat and melt their parents’ hearts by saying “Momma” or “Papa”. Between eighteen to twenty-four months play takes the form of stacking blocks and turning pages and kicking a ball. At the same time their ability to communicate strengthens. They’re putting together small phrases, stating needs such as hunger and thirst and, best of all, showing love by kissing their parents. Vision has fully developed by their second birthday. By their third birthday they can focus for longer periods of time and they begin to ask questions and play cooperatively. Four years in and the youngster now has a vocabulary of more than 1000 words and uses this greater fluency to be curious and ask many questions, to sing songs and to show more independence. And a mere half a decade into their life the young man or woman is outgrowing earlier childhood fears and has a group of friends. They will imagine and pretend while playing and question others, including their parents. All of this growth, exploration and wonder represents the natural development of the adolescent. As adults, it is easy to forget how much change happens in the first few years of a life. In these first years, every trait, physical and mental, is in the process of evolving. Nature is doing its job of building a human being, something it has done very successfully for eons. But what happens when we give a two-year old Ritalin, a Schedule II drug in the same classification as cocaine, morphine and amphetamines? What happens when the three-year is prescribed and fed an antidepressant like Zoloft? What does the antipsychotic Abilify do to the physiology of a six-month-old? How does a five-year-old react short-term and long-term to regular doses of the antianxiety drug Xanax? These are not hypothetical questions. They are very real. According to IMS Health, the largest vendor of U.S. physician prescribing data, over one million children between the ages of 0 – 5 were prescribed psychiatric drugs in 2013. What will happen to these children? Here is one consequence. According to the FDA, three of the most common adverse reactions of ADHD drugs are headaches, aggression and anxiety. When it comes to antidepressant drugs, the FDA reports depression and suicidal ideation as two of many of the most common adverse reactions. Some of the most common adverse reactions for Antipsychotics: weight increase, death and tremors. And for antianxiety drugs: contemplation of suicide and cardiac arrest. More bad news. The FDA estimates that less than 1% of all serious events are ever reported to it, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher. Now imagine every child in America free from psych drugs. psychsearch.net/colin-taufer…

PsychSearch How Psychiatry Labels Gifted Children for Psychiatric Drugging Colin Taufer A mother and a psychiatrist are relaxing in a park, both observing the mother’s son at play. The mother feels her child may be gifted. The psychiatrist observes the boy and speculates he is suffering from ADD/ADHD and needs medication. How could this be? How could two people viewing the same child come to such different conclusions? The first answer is, like all psychiatric diagnoses, there are no bio-markers (no blood tests, no brain scans, no genetic tests, no hair analyses) that validate the “disease” of ADD/ADHD. The diagnostic methods used are all subjective and based on the feelings of the doctor, counselor, teacher or parent towards the child. The second answer is equally troubling. In fact, its implications are a touch sinister. Psychiatry views the gifted child as having a “disorder”. “Millions upon millions of children and youth will never know their full potential because they grew up with an intoxicated brain — their neurotransmitters forever deformed by being bathed in psychiatric drugs during their formative years.” – Peter R. Breggin, MD Dr. Breggin has been called “The Conscience of Psychiatry” for his many successful efforts to reform the mental health field. He is a medical-legal expert who has testified for plaintiffs in numerous successful cases against psychiatric malpractice and criminality, helping victims of psychiatry win multi-million dollar settlements. Last year Breggin spoke about gifted children being misdiagnosed with ADHD at the 1st International Conference of Intellectual Giftedness in Mexico City. Dr. Breggin told PsychSearch, “The gifted child is an extraordinary child who is full of energy and very bright. We need to bring out their wonderfulness, not drug them. In class they’re not paying attention to the teacher because they’re paying attention to what they want to pay attention to.” He also referred PsychSearch to a study that shows ADHD drugs stunt growth in both height and weight in children. According to The National Association of Gifted Children, NAGC, the gifted child is one who demonstrates outstanding levels of aptitude or competence. They might shine at math, music or language. They might excel at painting, dance or sports. Both the mother and the doctor sit on a park bench and observe the youngster at play. The mother, looking to confirm her assumptions about the brilliance of her son, goes to the NAGC website and runs through a checklist of behavioral traits of giftedness in children. At the same time, the psychiatrist runs through his checklist of signs and symptoms of ADHD. The first thing they both recognize in the child is his tendency to flit from activity to activity, each one more interesting than the last: jumping from a swing, dashing to the pond, hanging from the tree. Mom checks off the box for “Spontaneity”, the psychiatrist checks his box: “Switches from one activity to another frequently”. Mom, impressed by her son’s inquisitive nature and gregariousness, checks off three more boxes: “Constantly questions,” “Non-stop talking/chattering,” and “Insatiable curiosity”. The psych sees it differently: “Frequently interrupts others” and “Acts or speaks without thinking”. Seeing her son bound from bug to tree to friend to slide, mom smiles and checks off “Highly energetic – needs little sleep or down time”, “Boundless enthusiasm,” and “Impulsive, eager and spirited”. The psych sees it differently: “In constant motion”, “Having trouble sitting quietly or still”, and “Running, jumping, or climbing around constantly”. The boy tries several times to build a castle out of sticks and rocks, only to see it fall each time. He becomes discouraged, finally gives up and moves on to a new activity. Mom, knowing his love of castles and perfectionism, checks “High levels of frustration – particularly when having difficulty meeting standards of performance (either imposed by self or others).” The psych attributes what he sees to “Being easily distracted or becoming easily bored”, “Having trouble focusing,” and “Having problems completing tasks or activities.” He tries to organize a game of freeze tag with other children on the playground. The other kids are willing and the game runs for a few minutes until one girl, confused by the rules, decides to leaves the game. This dampens the spirits of the others who disperse and leave the game behind. Her son becomes infuriated and stomps away to sit alone on a swing. Mom, somewhat chagrined, checks the box “Volatile temper, especially related to perceptions of failure.” The psych puts three exclamation marks next to “Impatient.” An afternoon of play over, goodbyes are said and the boy’s mother takes her son’s hand and they head home. Two observers walk away certain of their assessments, each with a label in mind that is perfectly correct. One is certain her child is gifted. The other refers to his DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and jots down his final note. “Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, predominantly hyperactive/impulsive presentation, diagnostic and billing code: 314.01. Prescription: Adderall.” psychsearch.net/colin.taufer…

PsychSearch “Forensic Psychiatry” Insanity Colin Taufer Forensic Psychiatry* – a subspecialty of psychiatry which applies to legal issues. There are two major areas of criminal evaluations in forensic psychiatry. These are Competency to Stand trial (CST) and Mental State at the Time of the Offense The American Psychiatric Association wants the world to know that mental illness is a disease just like heart disease or diabetes. This is simply not true. Diseases have biomarkers which can be tested for and proven to exist. A real doctor can examine an x-ray and diagnose heart disease or read a blood test and confirm diabetes. With this information they can work to stop the disease and return the patient to health. Not so with psychiatrists and mental illness. Biomarkers do not exist for mental illness. Where psychiatrists’ lack of scientific credibility and inability to cure patients gets most exposed for the quackery it is, is in forensic psychiatry. The defense brings their expert psychiatrist to the stand to declare their client not guilty by reason of insanity. The prosecutor counters with their own psychiatrist who claims the opposite, the defendant is sane and guilty. Both psychs speak of the mysterious criminal mind using psychobabble that is both incomprehensible and important-sounding in the hopes of dazzling the judge and jurors. Neither “expert” can prove their case by any objective measure. Instead they must rely on subjective guesswork to sway the judge and jury. One of the more recent high-profile cases of this very sort of forensic psychiatric fraud was the trial of mass murderer James Holmes who, in 2012, killed 12 and injured 70 in the Aurora, Colorado theater massacre. Holmes’ lawyer made his case with these words in the courtroom, “When James Holmes stepped into that theater in July 2012, he was insane. His mind had been overcome by a disease of the brain that had plagued him and pursued him for years.” The prosecutor’s case was the opposite. He brought his expert to the stand and asked, “Is it your opinion that on the period of time that is applicable to these proceedings that the defendant, James Eagan Holmes, met the legal definition of legal sanity?” Psychiatrist: “Yes.” More despicably, it was the action and inaction of one psychiatrist BEFORE Holmes’ bloodbath that deserved to be tried in a court of law. Four months prior to the killings, Holmes’ started seeing psychiatrist Lynne Fenton. Fenton learned of Holmes’ thoughts of killing others and his desire to not tell her everything for fear she would report him. She prescribed him the antidepressant Zoloft — with side effects that include becoming aggressive or violent and acting on dangerous impulses. Under the influence of the drug, he became grossly psychotic and began elaborating his plans and collecting weapons. Holmes’ last visit with Fenton was on June 11, 2012. At this time, he had been on Zoloft for 75 days. Six weeks later, seventy left the Aurora movie theater in ambulances, twelve left in body bags. Holmes left in handcuffs. In the end, the psychiatrists had all done their jobs. One was paid to find Holmes insane. One was paid to find him sane. The last one, the one who knew him best, the one who knew him before the rampage, the one who helped create the monster he was, didn’t care either way. She did her job. psychsearch.net/colin-taufer…

PsychSearch Drugging Children for Conformity Colin Taufer Throughout its long history, Ritalin has been a drug in search of a “disorder”. Its manufacturer Ciba (now Novartis) has spent millions on advertising and “doctor education” trying to find and create a profitable “disease” for its drug. In the mid-1950’s Ritalin was advertised as a way to boost spirits and to make patients more cooperative and manageable. Later, in the same decade, Ciba tried another approach and marketed Ritalin as a “safe, effective geriatric supplement”. In the 1960’s promotional focus again shifted and it touted itself as a way to “restore alertness, enthusiasm and drive” and a way to “spark energy”. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, housewives became the target population for this wandering drug. One magazine ad of the day was quite blatant. It featured a photograph of an exhausted homemaker sitting atop her vacuum, bags under her eyes, head resting in her palm. With RITALIN, trumpeted the ad, “fatigue and worry seem to vanish”. Even pop culture of this era reflected the sudden popularity of drug manufacturers targeting mothers. The Rolling Stones’ 1966 hit song “Mother’s Little Helper” contained these lyrics: Mother needs something today to calm her down And though she’s not really ill, there’s a little yellow pill She goes running for the shelter of a mother’s little helper And it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day But it wasn’t until the 1970’s when Ritalin began its ascent to become one of the biggest players in the multi-billion dollar market we know today. That was when it began selling itself to worried parents with anxiety-stoking ad copy like this: The mean child who doesn’t mean it… Is he a “hyper-active” problem child? At the same time, doctors began pushing childhood MBD, or Minimal Brain Dysfunction in children. Ads trumpeted with authority: Mischief or MBD? (Don’t mistake one for the other) He has disrupted his family…his teacher’s classroom…and his own life. But he can’t help it. He has MBD. MBD was the “all-encompassing, wastebasket diagnosis for any child who does not quite conform to society’s stereotype of normal children”. These words come from the article The Minimal Brain Dysfunction Myth published in November 1975 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Pediatrics. In the eyes of the psychiatrist and big pharma, what is a “normal” (conformist) child today? Using their own criteria, directly from the ADHD checklist, such a child: ● interferes with no one ● answers questions politely ● never interrupts ● pleasantly stands in line ● quietly waits for their turn ● stays focused on homework ● always completes activities before moving on to the next activity ● never makes careless mistakes ● stays organized ● never loses anything ● keeps self under control ● never fidgets ● remains seated ● always says the right thing at the right time ● sits quietly on task I myself can think of no child I know or have known, no matter how stellar their grades or wonderful their accomplishments or fantastic their parents, who meets all these criteria. Every child who does not conform to psychiatry’s definition of normal is the “right” target for Ritalin (or Concerta or Adderall or any other drug that targets such children) — the “right” target being all children. And thus, Ritalin’s “disease” of the “hyperactive child” was born: ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. (Not surprisingly, since 2000, the FDA has cited every single major ADHD drug manufacturer for false and misleading advertising.) Methylphenidate, the drug that is Ritalin and the basis of all ADHD drugs, has a high potential for abuse and it produces many of the same effects as cocaine, according to the DEA. It has also been shown to specifically suppress social play behavior. With over ten million Americans currently taking ADHD drugs, millions of adults included, psychiatry and big pharma are on their way to creating a nation full of quiet, unquestioning, and non-interfering conformists. Unless we do something about it. One suggestion is to file complaints against psychiatrists. psychsearch.net/complaints/ States seldom take action without first receiving a complaint. psychsearch.net/colin.taufer…

PsychSearch CONSUMER PROTECTION? Colin Taufer Recently, it was reported by the Consumer Product Safety Commission that someone suffered a knee injury after sitting on a brand of bench that collapsed. Six others reported this same bench collapsing but reported no injuries. Consequently, the CPSC told all consumers to stop using these particular benches and return them to their point of purchase for a full refund. Similarly, the CPSC ordered all consumers to stop using, and return for refunds a particular brand of glass dresser knob. The reason? They received two reports of lacerations from broken glass knobs. About 363,000 knobs had been sold in the United States. Based on these reports, representing some .0000006% of all units sold, the knobs were pulled off the market by the federal government and the retailers required to pay back all purchases to consumers. In 2015, the #2 selling drug according to webmd.com, measured by sales was the anti-psychotic drug Abilify. It took in $7.9 billion in a twelve month span. One reason for such exorbitant revenues is the profit margins. The cheapest price without insurance for Abilify for one 30-tablet bottle can be found at the cut-rate Walmart price of $1004.55. That’s more than $33 per tablet! This helps explain how big pharma could afford to spend over $244 million on lobbying in 2016 alone. Certainly such a financially successful product must have an equally stellar safety record with its consumers. Unfortunately, this is very much not the case. There have been 13,445 adverse reaction reports filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration in connection with Abilify. And these reactions aren’t simple knee injuries or cut fingers. These are 345 cases of psychotic disorders and 765 cases of tardive dyskinesia (involuntary muscle movements), to name two categories. More alarming than these reports, six countries have published drug regulatory warnings citing side effects with Abilify ranging from birth defects, strokes and causing death or increased risk of death. How is it possible that one consumer good gets promptly pulled from the market by the Fed because two people had to Band-Aid their fingers, but another consumer “good” caused psychosis in hundreds and is linked to deaths yet remains on the market racking up record profits? Thank you, Uncle Sam. I am comforted to know that because of you my fellow citizens can safely experience antipsychotic drug side-effects such as birth defects, strokes and psychotic disorders but their fingers will be saved from dangerous glass knobs. psychsearch.net/colin.taufer…