Biopsychiatry Illuminated

THE CANDLELIGHT PROJECT
by Bob Collier

27 July 2003
Issue 52

"Failure to recognize the essential unity of the body-mind leads to inadequate understanding of human behavior."

- Will Schutz, PhD., "Profound Simplicity" (Bantam Books, 1979), p.18

The American Psychiatric Association publishes the 'bible' of psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Last week, I talked about how everything I've learned about human nature and behaviour over the past 25 years and have validated successfully in my 18 years as a parent seems to be almost totally contrary to the fundamental beliefs of this very interesting organization.

Since then, I've been reading something of the fascinating history of psychiatry at the website of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR).

Here are just a few clues to the mentality of the American Psychiatric Association that particularly caught my eye:

"In 1797, the "father" of American psychiatry, Dr. Benjamin Rush - whose face today still adorns the seal of the American Psychiatric Association - declared that the color of blacks was caused by a rare, congenital disease called "Negritude" which derived from leprosy. In an address to the American Philosophical Society, Rush said that the only evidence of a "cure" was when the skin color turned white.

Using "disease" as the reason for segregation, Rush drew the conclusion that "Whites should not tyrannize over [blacks], for their disease should entitle them to a double portion of humanity. However, by the same token, whites should not intermarry with them, for this would tend to infect posterity with the 'disorder'... attempts must be made to cure the disease.""

Creepy, or what?

"In 1865 ... Zurich psychiatrist Wilhelm Griesinger claimed that since most of the nerve coverage was in the brain, all mental problems must be diseases of the brain. Additionally, psychiatrists believed the "patient" must be sick because he behaved abnormally. By declaring his conduct to be symptoms, they concluded this, too, must be an illness. Undeterred by the absence of proof, psychiatry has since industriously built an empire that's no more than a house of cards. Unverified by the "scientific method" even today, these suppositions form the underpinning of most psychiatric theorizing and practice."

It's no wonder, now I think of it, that I've noticed a very backward looking attitude generally amongst the supporters of biopsychiatry that I've encountered on my travels! They often seem to refer back to scientific experiments conducted decades ago in search of 'evidence' to support their beliefs (there's one such mention in the Parental Intelligence Report on 'ADHD', in fact, of experiments with psychostimulant drugs carried out in 1937).

If you're a regular reader of Doug Bench's Brain Stuff, you'll be aware, as I am, that "98 percent of everything that medical scientists have learned about how the human brain works and functions has been learned in just the last six years! 98 percent of everything! 80 percent of everything that was totally believed to be true before 1990 has now been found to be false!" (Revolutionary Neuroscience Discoveries for Success, Part 1)

At least this is a little bit more up to date:

"In 1987, "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" (ADHD) was literally voted into existence by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and enshrined in DSM-III-R. Within one year, 500,000 children in the U.S. alone were diagnosed with this affliction created by a vote - a show of hands."

Psychiatry - Betraying & Drugging Children For Profit
http://cchr.org/children/eng/page00.htm

There's stacks more of this, and a lot of it will have you wondering, as I am, what the heck is going on here? Go and take a look and be enlightened. Especially read "Documenting Psychiatry - A Human Rights Abuse and Global Failure" - it's an education in itself. You'll find a link to the CCHR website listed at the end of this Candlelight Project section.

'ADHD', of course, is where I came in, so to speak. So, rather than stray too far into the wacky world of psychiatry generally, I'll get back to that.

Firstly, as promised, my thoughts on the similarities between psychiatry and paleontology, followed by a quick trip to Scotland. :)

Here are a couple of extracts from an article that appeared in 'Discover' magazine (September, 2000) about the creation of a dinosaur exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. I've selected these particular excerpts to make my point, but, you're welcome to read the whole article yourself if you want to.

It can be found right here:

What did Dinosaurs really look like ... and will we ever know?
by William Speed Weed
http://www.discover.com/sept_00/featdino.html

"Does anyone know what dinosaurs really looked like? Sure we do. We see them everywhere, not just in the museums, but in magazines, movies, even in value meals at McDonald's. But all of these lifelike renderings are mostly artistic interpretations based on very sparse scientific evidence. To begin with, dinosaur skeletons are rarely found intact, and figuring out how scattered bones fit together is not always clear. Then, making the leap of placing tissue and skin on those bones is a process fraught with unknowns. Some paleontologists trained in comparative anatomy are beginning to analyze microscopic marks that soft tissues make on bones in search of clues to what dinosaurs actually looked like. But taking a pile of bones and conjuring up what snarling dinosaurs about to battle each other really looked like involves at best equal parts educated guesswork and complete artistic fancy."

"The bones are evidence that's interpretable. The muscles are guided guesswork. Everything else - soft tissues, skin, folds, frills, cheeks, lips, eyes, nostrils, pattern, color, covering - is artistic license, or, in the case of Norell's feathers [referring to a recent idea that has since been dismissed as a hoax], scientific license. How far off could the dinosaur renderings be?

The most conservative answer, which many scientists give, is that we just don't know. Paleontology is the study of fossils; fossils are limited in the information they provide, so we will always run the risk of drawing a titanic hamster instead of an elephant, and we'll never know if we're doing it."

Think about what you've just read the next time you're looking at the pictures of Stegosauruses and Velociraptors and the rest of those prehistoric animals in your children's dinosaur books. How many of you assumed that they were science-based representations of what those creatures REALLY looked like?

I did. Once.

Now, compare the above with the following:

"Superstition and suspicion are the principal foundations of 20th century medical science. Error is built upon error and unproven theories are used as building blocks for new ideas. Assumptions, prejudices and hearsay compete with subjective observations and personal interpretations of symptoms and signs for the doctor's attention and allegiance. To be truly scientific, doctors would have to subordinate their personal opinions to impartial knowledge gained by analysis and experimentation; but if they did this doctors would lose the mystique and authority which has traditionally been a part of the medicine man's armoury. By becoming scientists, doctors would become technicians and lose their god-like powers."

- Dr. Vernon Coleman, "Modern Medicine is not a Science"
http://www.laleva.cc/choice/modern_medicine.html

It makes you wonder, doesn't it? If it doesn't make you wonder - WAKE UP!!

Finally this week, a flying visit to Loch Ness, in Scotland.

Loch Ness is a stretch of water about 24 miles (39km) long, 1 mile (1.6km) wide, and 755 feet (229m) deep. Legend has it that the loch is inhabited by a 'monster', which some experts suggest is possibly a descendant of a plesiosaur (that's, of course, if a plesiosaur actually looked like what they think it looked like!).

Apparently, since 1871, there have been 172 documented experiences in and around Loch Ness of 'something' that may or may not be a monster, including 28 occasions on which the 'something' has been filmed or photographed. But, nobody, as yet, has produced convincing evidence that there is indeed a plesiosaur-like beastie in those waters.

Thousands of visitors every year come to the loch hoping to catch a glimpse of "Nessie" as it's popularly known. The search for proof of its existence has become something of a quest for some people. There is even a team from the Academy of Applied Science in Massachusetts maintaining an all-year watch with sonar-triggered cameras and strobe lights suspended from a raft.

Some years ago, when I was watching a TV documentary about the Loch Ness Monster, a "Nessie Hunter", as they're called, when asked why he persisted in his search for a 'prehistoric monster' in the waters of Loch Ness despite the continued failure of the 'best in the business' to produce verifiable evidence of its existence, replied, "We'll keep looking for it until somebody proves it doesn't exist."

Ever since I heard that comment, I've used the term "a Loch Ness Monster argument" to describe any proposal that is being maintained only by a stubborn insistence that, despite a lack of evidence to support it, it should still be regarded as valid unless it can be definitely disproved.

It's my opinion that a 'Loch Ness Monster argument' is essentially all that is sustaining the proponents of 'ADHD', if not the entire cult of biopsychiatry.

For, given its continued miserable failure to prove that so-called 'ADHD', and all its other artificial 'mental illnesses', are real diseases as it claims them to be, biopsychiatry has, it seems to me, now fallen back on a last resort expectation that its detractors must prove that they are NOT.

The difficulty, of course, is that it's logically IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something *definitely* DOESN'T exist! Think of all the otherwise intelligent and rational people you know who believe in Santa Claus, for example - even when they say they don't, you'll still see them at your local shopping mall every Christmas happily participating in this annual delusion! Just like, in fact, all those parents I've discovered who've "kind of" accepted that their children "are ADHD", but, "heck, it's only a label. It doesn't have to mean anything if you don't want it to does it?". They seem to be just as happy participants in the grand 'mental illness' delusion. Perhaps that's just me.

In the meantime, the proponents of these alleged 'neurological diseases' seem determined to carry on regardless, employing so-called 'scientific research' I personally consider to be inconclusive at best (when I'm in a charitable mood, that is!) as if it constitutes, for all the world, 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'.

How bizarre. But, then, there appears to be a very strong ulterior motive that keeps these people on the treadmill.

It's called money.

Next week, I'll be casting a little candlelight on the prolific use of 'psychostimulant' drugs that drives the "manufactured epidemic" of 'ADHD' and the nature of Ritalin (the drug most commonly prescribed for its 'treatment') - including something very interesting I've learned about it since I published my Report.

ADHD-Report.com: The concerned parents' guide to childrens' attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD/ADD)

Contact
Resources