With the Public Defrauded, the Illegitimacy of Forced Psychiatry Crystallizes

Robert Whitaker and Lisa Cosgrove (2015) hold a conversation (2015:156-159) concerning how the public has been duped into believing in psychiatry, and how the social understanding of psychiatry is based on fraud; “without genuine informed consent” (2015:158). If society is making decisions in “an environment riddled with misinformation (the chemical imbalance story), or a lack of information (the failure to disclose poor long-term results, for instance)” (2015:158), then as a society, we must reconsider those decisions about the reach of psychiatry, with the elimination of corrupting forces in the environment.

If we accept Whitaker and Cosgrove’s assessment that informed consent for a person to participate in psychiatry is not informed consent because of the fraud that Americans are subjected to by organized psychiatry, then the consensus for laws that support forced psychiatry have also not been garnered with informed consent.  If the average person is offering support to psychiatry via their legislators, because they are operating under the fraud organized psychiatry has perpetrated on the people, then that support is illegitimate.  Whitaker and Cosgrove (2015) address competing issues of the guild and the industry as mechanisms of institutional corruption.

This institutional corruption is what allows for forced psychiatry. If the public  supports psychiatry acting with state-power in limiting the freedoms of individuals psychiatry identifies as requiring such actions, then the decision of the public to support forced state-sponsored organized psychiatry must be retaken as it has been made under the guise of fraud. A decision about stripping basic human, constitutional, and civil rights in such a way ought only be made once a mass educational campaign about how the people of the world have been defrauded by the biomedical industry of organized psychiatry, aimed at the voters and lawmakers, has been successfully made.

The economic privilege of the psychiatric guild and industries has made technology wildly accessible to those in power. The digital world has sped the process of supposed ‘educational’ campaigns promoted by (p)harmaceutical industries and their supposed non-profit fronts, who act with state power given by he legislators, who in turn are funded via the lobbies, and if the lawmakers abide, kept in power by the industries.  The digital world also, however, via social networking platforms and other technology-based communications, has never been more accessible to the average person, who can reach civil society in a way that was simply not possible a decade ago.

One of the ways in which I now see the situation of people who identify as psychiatric survivors uses a framework of legal definitions. I am paraphrasing here, but legally defined, deadly force is any action that causes death or serious bodily injury (i.e. a psychiatric takedown; an injection). A deadly weapon is any substance, (i.e. drug) or device (i.e. mechanical restraint, electroshock device, etc.) that is known to cause death or serious bodily injury. By way of example, since we know that substances such as drugs, or devices such as mechanical restraints and electroshock machines, are known to cause death and serious bodily injury, they can be seen as deadly weapons. Therefore, those who have survived restraints, drugs, electroshock, etc., or people who identify as psychiatric survivors are also people who are survivors of deadly force, with deadly weapons.

Historically, over the centuries, the (d)evolution of the public psychiatric service delivery system has been put in the spotlight for its various forms of institutional corruption (poor/almshouse; asylum; hospital; psychiatric center; mental health center; behavioral health center). In short, each incarnation of this system has momentarily been stopped in its tracks, in part, by those incarcerated by it, who were successful in breaking free from its clutches, and calling the public’s attention to its abuses and torture.  Despite the efforts of those subjected to the abuses of this monstrous system that simply changes its name when the public is made aware of what it has been doing over time, unfortunately, with each new iteration, the system comes back stronger. The system becomes more pervasive in society. The individual more greatly suffers, while misinformation fuels the support of the institution.

The propaganda campaign Congressman Tim Murphy has launched against people who have psychiatric histories has support, largely, because people believe that psychiatry has something valuable to offer and therefore discount the mandatory losses of freedom that come along with his ideas as real violations. However, the bill is full of mechanisms that will translate into human rights violations and limitations of personal freedoms.

Among other things to be addressed at length in future posts, Murphy’s proposed law strips privacy rights away from adult Americans at their parent’s say-so and makes legal ways for parents to take over the ‘mental health care’ of their adult children, and have adults forced into complying with psychiatry under threat of (re)institutionalization. Murphy’s bill increases good will toward institutions while also increasing discrimination against those who have been psychiatrically assigned by further instituting involuntary outpatient commitment programming (forced drugging, housing, living arrangements; therapy group attendance, etc.).

Under the heading “Racial Disparities in AOT: Are They Real?” Swartz, et al. (2009) explain:

An April 2005 report on statewide demographic data from the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest found that African Americans were over represented in the AOT Program. Whether this over-representation is discriminatory rests, in part, on whether AOT is generally seen as beneficial or detrimental to recipients and whether AOT is viewed as a positive mechanism to reduce involuntary hospitalization and improve access to community treatment for an under-served population, or as a program that merely subjects an already-disadvantaged group to a further loss of civil liberties. (p. vii; 53)

As long as the State supports forced psychiatry, society will discriminate against those who are psychiatrically assigned, in all realms of experience, if not individually, institutionally. This is where the greatest result of the fraud is seen.  The researchers (Swartz, et. al, 2009: vii; 53) who were brought in to rule out institutional racism in the involuntary outpatient commitment law say that whether one sees involuntary outpatient commitment as discriminatory or beneficial is determined by the way one views psychiatry. The clear case Whitaker and Cosgrove (2015) lay out for institutional corruption in psychiatry and its resulting social injury must require us as a society to rethink these types of laws that cramp if not eliminate autonomy of individuals at the discretion of psychiatry.

These are all issues near and dear to the Mental Patients Liberation Movement, and because of the imbalance of power, in the past, with whom has had access to society via economics and privilege, there was a monolingual fraudulent message given to the public, that psychiatry is ‘good’.  Due to increasing availability to technologies, the previously muted messages of survivors, our allies, and those who are willing to report the truth are gaining louder voices.

A public defrauded by psychiatry created public support of forced psychiatry. Those who advocate for Congressman Tim Murphy’s bill, ‘Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act’, can illustrate such support. Perhaps, for at least some, this support has been given under false pretenses.  If an educational campaign was made, to firmly have the public understand the ways in which people have been deceived by organized psychiatry, would the population still support the notion of state-sponsored forced psychiatry and willingly pay for it with tax dollars?

I will continue in my next blog further considering the implications of Psychiatry Under the Influence: Institutional Corruption, Social Injury, and Prescriptions for Reform (Whitaker and Cosgrove, 2015) and a defrauded public’s consensus to support forced psychiatry.

For now, I will leave off by imploring readers to acknowledge that both a human rights framework and the perspective of survivors of psychiatry must be incorporated into this larger conversation.

* * * * *


Swartz, M.S, Swanson, J.W., Steadman, H.J., Robbins, P.C. and Monahan J.. (2009). New York State Assisted Outpatient Treatment program evaluation. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. Retrieved on June 4, 2015

Tenney, L. (2014). (de)VOICED: Human rights now. Volumes I, II, and III. Graduate Center, CUNY: Proquest.

Whitaker, R. and Cosgrove, L. (2015). Psychiatry Under the Influence: Institutional Corruption, Social Injury, and P{rescriptions for Reform. Palgrave Macmillan.


Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.


Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.


  1. “With the Public Defrauded, the Illegitimacy of Forced Psychiatry Crystallizes,” I agree. I’ve yet to read Robert’s new book, but must do so soon. I do agree, “A public defrauded by psychiatry created public support of forced psychiatry,” and the psycho / pharmaceutical industries’ current fraud goes so deep it’s staggering. Today’s psycho / pharmaceutical industries’ fraud is infinitely more insidious and evil, than the Nazi psychiatrists’ crimes within Nazi Germany. I look forward to your next contemplations.

    Report comment

  2. It is all about control. All our institutions are now corrupt. What a marvelous way to eliminate trouble makers and to take guns from Vets! The Soviets used this method with great results. WE need a new Fourth of July. I am afraid the American people have forgotten what Freedom is. They have been so frequently reminded of their need for Safety that poor old Liberty has been reduced to sitting alone in an empty room of history. Psychiatric servitude has replaced the Still Voice and Peace of Mind. What children know adults have cast aside and live in a greater poverty than any other peoples on the planet. Life is meant to be lived joyously–but it takes some courage. Good luck people and be yourself as much as you can.

    Report comment

    • I’d also add that a lot of people who end up on psyhicatric, “treatment,” are distressed for reasons that on the whole psychiatry ignores. Read and Bental’s research shows high levels of all sorts of trauma in people diagnosed with psychosis for example.

      Therefore I argue that psychiatry forces damaging procedures and damaging drugs for made up diseases on people while ignoring the real causes of thier distress.

      While the medical metaphor is somewhat streteched, at best, psychiatry could be compared to taking someone into hospital with a broken leg, locking them up and then forcibly injecting them with insulin while not setting the broken leg.

      Report comment

      • Therefore I argue that psychiatry forces damaging procedures and damaging drugs for made up diseases on people while ignoring the real causes of thier distress…..”….

        Stop “arguing”, ok….????……

        *I* ARGUE that water is wet…. sand is dry…. and mud is wet sand. (Unless it’s a more of a clay-based mud….)
        *I* ARGUE that the sky is blue, grass is green, bricks are red, etc….

        We both know that the TRUTH is, **IS**: ….”that psychiatry forces damaging procedures and damaging drugs for made up diseases on people while ignoring the real causes of thier distress.”…..

        So just stop *arguing*, ok?…..;)

        Report comment

  3. Perhaps the most effective argument against Murphy’s bill politically is the economic one: most republicans(Murphy’s political party) don’t like giving out something for nothing i.e. they have been cutting food stamps etc. The cost of some of these drugs is more than the monthly welfare stipend that politicians like Murphy are loath to hand out to destitute people who are unable to overcome stigma in order to reenter the workforce.

    Report comment

    • Yes, but they are often willing to make exceptions when it involves using force against a hapless or helpless population. Anything that can lock up, deport or kill more poor and minority people will fly with the Neocons, regardless of the economic impact.

      Report comment

  4. Lauren, I look forward to your analysis of what we can actually DO to stop the Murphy bill, which as far as I can see is the result of our human rights movement mostly being bought off by the mental illness system.

    We stopped fighting for our rights, instead taking money from the system, either as highly-paid bureaucrats doing public relations work for SAMHSA, or as low-paid “peers” helping at the lowest level to run the system. Now suddenly we see what happens when you do that.

    No other movement for liberation, and I hope that is what we still are, has ever won anything by taking money from their oppressors. The Murphy bill is the payback for this.

    Those who disagree, let’s see what you come up with at the next “Alternatives” conference, the conference that has been central to making the Murphy bill possible.

    Report comment

  5. Thanks for the great article Lauren! People thought tobacco was big, but we ain’t seen nuttin yet! Tobacco ‘only’ sold cancer to willing consumers. In the last few decades, Pharma and psychiatry have managed to quadruple the disability rates and take 25 years off the lives of desperate people in distress. They’re currently laughing all the way to the bank with the American public paying the tab. They’ve managed to do this despite the fact that independent longevity studies give your average person with ‘severe and persistent mental illness’ a 700% higher chance of recovering if they refuse or escape the treatment offered them. I can’t wait til the NAMI Mom’s finally catch on to the fact that they’ve been duped into poisoning their families so some fat corporate cat can buy another yacht. My best guess is that the force of that fury will make Hiroshima seem mild.

    Report comment

    • Boy, are you naive…. Those “NAMI Moms”….????….
      Try this (true) “case history”:
      Dad has sex with young daughter. And maybe, maybe not, also daughters’ sister….
      Either way, when daughter gets old enough to spill the beans, Dad takes daughter to
      shrink, has her labelled and dosed so she won’t be believed…. Daughter also gets scape-goated and black-sheeped by Family. ( and society….)…. Oh, and Dad & Mom are very active in local NAMI events….
      To0 many “NAMI Moms” are COMPLICIT…. the rabbit hole here is deeper, sicker, and more twisted than you maybe realize….
      The case I cite above could be any one of 3 that I know of personally, that are all
      about the same – variations on a theme….
      How about the “NAMI Mom” who took her young daughter to the family physician, and LIED, saying the girl had “seizures”, so Mom could get her daughter sedated on
      Recently, having barely survived “Mental Health Month”, we saw NAMI joining hand$ & force& with Pharma & the APA….
      I admit I’m getting a little picky, here….
      I agree 99% with 98% of what you’re saying here!….
      I’d say that’s consensus!

      Report comment

  6. I hope that those who continue to expose psychiatry’s institutional corruption both internally and of our state institutions (I want to say democratic institutions, but democracy has been a facade for some time) will be successful in undermining it’s hold on the public imagination and public policy.

    One thing I would add to your analysis, which is a little jarring to me from a human rights point of view. It’s not only that Murphy’s bill will introduce human rights violations – it’s that it will worsen existing human rights violations. Each and every instance of forced psychiatry that is going on under current laws is a human rights violation, and these laws have to be repealed or nullified, or simply discontinued in practice. We have to set the bar as high as we are fighting for – which is nothing less than the full abolition of all forced, coerced, deceptive and harmful psychiatry.

    There are potential strategies that can be worked on even in the US. I hope to come back and pursue these when I’m done with my studies.

    Report comment

  7. Hi Laura,

    Actually, considering that you’ve adopted a general attack on the issue of informed consent and started with the idiotic and weird practice of ECT as your route to get a handle on it, I like how it sits better among the most important issues for survivors. Well, just that infrence leaves me with a job, in the loser’s game set up on MIA for mincing your fine words to the users in favor of the defeatists: to wit, my new “job” is to decide how ECT and any other survivor issues now rank in importance as societal ones for us and anyone abroad, and then how they stack up as human rights issues among all potential human rights issues on a global scale. Anyway, backing up from that digression, your focus on the lack of informed consent brought me back here to write, with what I thought through yesterday with some help from other commenters and some news also counting. Beyond that and forever, I suppose it is true that thoughts of others worth something for their time, if nothing else, and usually the potential to feed them and take some enjoyment from keeping that pleasant–thoughts of the worth of the less than inspirational people around with you in a human rights fight, those thoughts count for something human and true, too, and therefore also must help. But having had the pleasure to meet you and here your voice in person, and see your contentment growing as you understood in your time at it a little more that the reality of informed conesent for ECT–if it ever exists–goes down hill fast after your prepped and not needed. And so it goes with the loss of rights game. My reckoning is that our civil rights getting abrogated is our number one cause. Human rights as a whole, something to learn all about, but our own what to focus on. Lack of apt informed consent, it’s virtual impossibility in many instances, our third priority for an antipsychiatry survivor movement with an abolishment platform for how we are made use of for psychiatrists and their business affiliates—all of them–and the critics and surviviors to get to write and sell their books. You have to take the good with the bad, when the work for which you need no special training is thought pretty tricky to get right. What a laugh. What a joke. What a screw-up. What a loss. Up theirs.

    Report comment

  8. Lauren Tenney, your analysis is brilliant, as usual!
    A word of caution, however, about the framework Bob Whitaker and Lisa Cosgrove advocate in their book — which they in fact do not follow consistently even within that book — is that they baldly state, “There are no bad apples, only bad barrels.” And Bob has said that the only way to make real change is to use that framework. However, if that were true, it would mean that the enormous power that many individual people in mental health and other fields hold, as well as their free will and their responsibility to behave ethically, are pretty much considered irrelevant. Sort of like “The dog ate my homework” excuse, people who abuse their power would by the Whitaker and Cosgrove theory be able to avoid being held responsible for unethical behavior by saying, “I couldn’t help it! That awful system MADE me do it!” Surely whistleblowers within those systems are to be commended and rewarded for bravely speaking the truth, and that is precisely because often it is only when _individuals_ within a corrupt system speak the truth publicly that these systems change. In fact, there is a good argument to be made that that has often been the primary way to make them change.
    Bob Whitaker has made it clear that he considers Dr. Biederman reprehensible for having been such an ardent promoter of the appalling notion that Childhood Bipolar Disorder both exists and should be cause for feeding children and even toddlers dangerous psychiatric drugs. He is right to see Biederman that way, but both Biederman’s role in causing harm and the roles that a vast number of other individuals have played in causing harm in the psychiatric and psychological systems belie the “no bad apples” assertion, rendering it clearly hollow. Thus, in their book, Bob and Lisa repeatedly name individuals whose conduct was deceitful, harmful, and otherwise unethical, but they protect others who have caused great harm and even quote them unquestioningly as though their claims should be considered true and reliable. So I want to caution people not to worry that it is somehow inappropriate or unwarranted to hold individuals responsible for harm that they cause by knowingly participating in corrupt systems and profiting from their participation. Such individuals by exercising their free will in harmful ways have deprived many readers of Mad In America, among others, of their freedom, human rights, dignity, and self-respect. And the full truth must always be spoken — about corrupt systems and about the individuals who keep those systems humming.

    Report comment

    • Beautiful comment. I agree that people are responsible for their actions and have free will whether to defy or enable a corrupt system. In the Nuremberg Trials, :”I was just following orders” didn’t cut it for a reason.

      Systems are made up of individual people and corrupt systems are made up of power abusers, victims, and enablers (turning a blind eye, protecting the power, maintaining the system), while projecting a blatant illusion to appease the public. Truth speaking inside such a system is a necessary leap of faith for change to occur, imo, because it shakes up the system and the abuse/enabling dynamics of the system comes to light. The brave ones step up, speak up, and trust the process.

      Report comment

      • One thing I wanted to add–

        Having felt victimized and betrayed repeatedly throughout the system–as opposed to being supported, encouraged, and my word being trusted–it was vital to my success in my own multi-tiered self-advocacy and activism to lose the victim identity and to start perceiving myself as someone deserving of much, much better, simply from being a self-respecting human being. We each play a role in the system.

        If a system is to change, our roles need to change; that is, how we self-identify. Leaders who are oppressive/deceitful/abusive/elitist will not change voluntarily, however enablers can wake up and find their integrity while victims can shift into social healers, leading society as examples of courage, fortitude, and healing. That would be the shift needed to turn this all around.

        Report comment

    • Paula,

      I have a different take on what Bob and Lisa are saying by focusing on bad barrels. My experience as a whistleblower, staff nurse on an inpatient child/adolescent psych unit and advocating for Justina Pelletier’s family has left me with absolutely no doubt that it is the system, the barrel itself that makes whistleblowing and exposing corruption via the media, moot points and futile acts. I have no regrets over what I sacrificed to speak out, but I don’t delude myself thinking for a moment that I made a difference. However, I do believe I have figured out why my efforts were fruitless and finally have a clue as to what could change the tide. Both are fairly recent realizations that I think would be best illustrated in a blog post, which I am actually working on– The recent comments on this post by Laura helped to align my ideas with the concerns of the audience I hope to reach. With the spirit of helping to create solidarity in purpose, I will explain my argument regarding your criticisms above.

      The systems, the barrels are part of our culture, entrenched in deep rooted beliefs held by prominent leaders who feed, fuel and protect them. The systems are wealthy enough to buy the political leaders we vote for– and while we can pay the salaries of our elected leaders, the systems that get them elected always have a leg up in terms of having their loyalty, if not their full attention. An ethically minded member of across the spectrum of any system, who speaks the truth publicly will sound an alarm that arouses concern in a relatively small segment of our population, but at the same time, this same alarm alerts other systems to reply in protection– or self- preservation mode. I think we have seen this dynamic often enough regarding the legal battles lost by pharmaceutical companies, the exposure of extreme conflicts of interest and fraud within the ranks of the most prestigious academic psychiatrists by Sen, Grassley, etc. All of these actions that made it into the media are worthy of respect, even praise, but the lack of impact on the corruption in the system(s) is what we all remember at the end of the day—And so the battle cry has been for more whistleblowers, more brave professionals to speak the truth about these systems publicly. Everytime I read a comment that ends on the note :”Why aren’t there more whistleblowers coming forth from the ranks of frontline staff on the units where the most harm is happening ?” I cringe. Should I answer this question, or keep hope alive for the person who is trying to stir the conscience of another potential whistleblower? I haven’t had the heart to answer the question. Maybe I should– now that I have something really hopeful to add–

      The capsulized version of my whistleblower tale of defeat, goes like this : I voiced my complaints to the top of the chain of command at Boston Children’s Hospital. Starting with Human Resources where I grieved a disciplinary action I incurred immediately after making my complaint about illegal restraints to the top administrators on my unit. HR was very concerned about the restraint issues, rightfully so, and reassured me that I was in good hands with their capable advocates. I felt confident when my HR advocate set up a meeting with the senior vice president of nursing, more so when she took careful notes during the meeting in which I was told that my concerns were alarming and a process would be initiated to investigate thoroughly. I was relieved, and happy to wait it out over the next few weeks. Imagine my shock and horror when I received a letter from the senior VP of nursing- via Federal Express, a few days later saying she upheld the disciplinary action. Investigation complete. It consisted of a meeting with the same nurse manager who had issued the disciplinary action. I’ll skip the next several months of baseless harassment I endured and cut to the chase. My complaint to the licensing board of this unit, the MA Department of Mental Health did cause an uproar and was substantiated– but the unit saved face even when the nurse manager was relieved of her duties. An appointment to a higher post in the psychiatry department was her punishment. I learned the limits of the power of our regulatory agency long before I found out that the director of child/adolescent mental health – the head of this state, regulatory agency, had been the first medical director of the unit I complained about. The most painful lesson though, was the way in which those nurses held in high esteem at BCH, rallied around one of their own, despite having clear, convincing information from me and several other nurses who took these administrators at their word and spoke the truth, that their colleague was as rotten as they come–. The cream of the crop, long time tenured, admired and respected leaders of BCH nursing staff, all chose to support the bad apple and maintain the integrity of *their system*. They repeated this performance when the Pelletiers went knocking on their doors in the summer of 2013. That story is a book that is sure to be banned in Boston.

      The really short answer is that blowing a whistle in the psychiatric system is like spitting into the wind. No agency comes running in to protect the patients, much less support the staff trying to protect the patients. No. What happens is the bigger parts of the system are put on alert that there is a blood traitor turned loose cannon in their ranks who must be eliminated. And so it goes—

      Bob and Lisa probably felt that their analysis would not be cause for celebration amongst psychiatric survivors of the system– former patients and whistleblowers alike. I bet they knew all of us would be extremely disheartened to hear how “society must decide how best to care for those who are suffering ..” from what is now considered a bogus psychiatric label by anyone who is truly interested in this issue. Didn’t Bob help to get that message across ? I was one of the commenters who blasted him on Bruce Levine’s blog post recently–for failing to endorse public defamation of the *bad apples*. He did not respond to my criticism, but I think I finally understand why—

      The actions needed from society to reform this system will require a massive unified campaign targeting an issue that is a slam dunk, in terms of discrediting psychiatry. I am talking about a mind changing, culture transforming event– starts with “we can all agree that ____ is a threat to all of our lives. Is there a movement to lead this campaign ?

      To date, there is way too much in- fighting and disagreement over what position to take to imagine the anti-psychiatry, or psychiatric survivors, or critical psychiatry movement coalescing when a slam dunk issue appears. Actually, the slam dunk issue is forthcoming and here, on this site, most are viewing it as another foot note in a long boring history of defeat by the wealthy, powerful 1%— and damn capitalism for good measure.

      I have gone on too long– I will write in detail about the significance of the restored Paxil Study 329, but will leave this one overlooked gem as a hint of what could be a major victory on the horizon. Study329.org is for the public- public education that is user friendly and a direct link to the RIAT team who will respond to questions, etc. It will go live very soon with free public access to their shocking report of the article that paved the way to the child/adolescent market, a gold mine for the industry. The main pieces of the previously missing puzzle, raw clinical data will be posted on this site as well– . The hint : the RIAT team is comprised of those who fought the hardest to have this article retracted and the truth about Paxil– and other psychotropic drugs liberally prescribed to children, to be widely disseminated to psychiatrists and all professional mental health clinicians. Study329.org is not for that rotten barrel. The web site is for all of us who need a banner, a cause, a slam dunk issue upon which a political agenda can be created–. Could we engage the public in our own unique ways, with one common goal that will resonate with the majority– the 99%? Aren’t we all at risk because of the contagious disease psychiatry has spread to our entire health care system ? What can the majority of citizens united and armed with undeniable evidence of willful deceit accomplish that none of the outspoken experts can achieve? A political platform.

      Paula, I hope you will just consider that targeting or even removing the rotten apples has had very little effect on the rotten barrel. The rotten barrel is an industry that currently is turning hundreds – maybe thousands of apples- bad, for every one bad apple that is under suspicion. Whistleblowing and public protests, both noble and courageous acts of truth telling about a corrupt system–. But here in the U.S.– and now, in the 21st century both are like spitting into the wind–


      Report comment

      • Recently, when I was seeing my now-former Dr. David Hall, at Cheshire Medical center/Dartmouth-Hitchcock,Keene, (CMC/DHK), I gave him a 3-page copy of a “Study 329” paper. He hadn’t heard of it. he has NOW!. He also hadn’t heard of Dr. Peter Breggins’ “Toxic Psychiatry”. he’s heard of that now, too! And, guess what? A few days later, CMC/DHK “Administration” (literally anonymously, no names at all….), emailed me a “Termination of Medical Services” Notice! They literally terminated my rights, as a Medicare/medicaid beneficiary, to receive ANY medical care at CMC/DHK, *EXCEPT* emergency, and “specialty care” – but without specifying *what* that “specialty care” might be!….So, Katie, my experience tends to confirm YOURS. Thank-you. Stay strong, my friend….
        ps: Back in Jan., 2016, CMC/DHK had a “sudden departure” by Dr. Marcia Pabo, a psychiatrist. As the direct result, CMC/DHK had to close their adolescent psych unit, and the continued operation of their adult psych unit was threatened, due to a lack of shrinks!. A recent patient census for the CMC/DHK psych unit – 12 beds – showed *1* filled!….. Don’t they “get it”? When they knee-jerk REACT AGAINST us, they only prove what we’re saying!….

        Report comment