Saving Congressman Murphy from Fraudulent Information

Shakespeare writes eloquently about the dangers of flattery and lies to great leaders. I’ve worked in Congress for Gerry Ford and Bob Dole, for Secretary Cheney during the Gulf War, various governors, and legislatures and at high levels for other national or provincial governments. Lies and fraud are often delivered in fat envelopes of flattery. I’ve come to realize that the very good intentions of Congressman Murphy to fix an obviously not-working mental health prevention, intervention, and treatment “system” has caused him to be swarmed by a flock of flatterers flogging fraudulent “facts.” Honest-to-God facts are the hardest thing for leaders to get their hands on when making important decisions. This is why all my counsel to leaders, as a scientist, is couched carefully and grounded in facts as best I know, even if I know the leader—of whatever party or persuasion—may or may not like it. Otherwise, a great leader cannot make a great decision.

Thus, at the behest of my colleague, I wrote a letter to Congressman Murphy, who is obviously a leader for issues of mental health. My letter was delivered to him personally, and I share much of it here. The more I thought about the pickle the Congressman is in—surrounded by people either flattering him or yelling at him—the more compassion I have for him as a human trying thread his way through the siren songs. So I ask that readers hold their judgments lightly as they read this letter.

* * * * *

Dear Congressman Murphy:

I am writing you at the urging of a colleague who is quite familiar with my work as child-psychologist and scientist bringing evidence-based practices and programs up from high-quality research studies to real use in the United States, Canada, and Europe. You may or may not know I am the person, behind the scenes, who helped Brian Stettin from the Treatment Advocacy Center get AOT on the NREPP list directly and indirectly, by contacting the people who do the work at NREPP.

Congressman, I wish to be blunt, based on verifiable facts that can be checked out. That was always my mode when I worked for Secretary Cheney as a GS-15 during the Gulf War, when I have done work for governors or their cabinets of different political parties, policy groups or foundations. Too often people slant “info” in such a way to obscure the truth for their own ends. I will give you the objective facts that you can verify, and you can be the judge of the veracity of the data.

I am specifically writing you about erroneous, false information you’ve been given about the National Registry of Evidence Base Programs and Practices. That erroneous information is likely to cause serious problems, which have been withheld from you.

You were led to believe that only four (4) evidence-based programs out of 300 were for seriously mentally ill persons. Seriously mentally ill (SMI) is not a DSM label; it’s a legal definition, such as found in state agencies found services (e.g., Oklahoma).1 Now, what are the DSM disorders that meet the legal definition of SMI? Here are the actual DSM diagnoses that can meet the legal definition of SMI:

  • Schizophrenia
  • Paranoid and other psychotic disorders
  • Bipolar disorders (hypomanic, manic, depressive, and mixed)
  • Major depressive disorders (single episode or recurrent)
  • Schizoaffective disorders (bipolar or depressive)
  • Pervasive developmental disorders
  • Obsessive-compulsive disorders
  • Depression in childhood and adolescence
  • Panic disorder
  • Post-traumatic stress disorders (acute, chronic, or with delayed onset)
  • Bulimia Nervosa 307.51
  • Anorexia Nervosa 307.1

No one told you to look up some of these actual DSM definitions on NREPP. If they had, you would have found many more actual evidence-based practices on NREPP out of the 300 listed related to major mental illnesses. I have attached PDF’s for several such searches: bipolar (6), schizophrenia (18), and psychosis (4). These name searches are underestimates of actual powerful evidence-based practice that are absolutely proven to affect major mental illnesses. The reason is that some of the randomized trials or other high-quality studies have major results on the legal diagnoses for SMI, yet be missing from the search just because the web-search engine cannot reach into the actual scientific articles, only the limited number of descriptors provided by the authors or drafts of the NREPP posting. For example, the single most powerful evidence-based strategy (randomize control, longitudinal study) to reduce relapse/re-hospitalization from psychosis in the scientific literature to date is on NREPP.1,2 Could the search engine logic be improved? Probably, as such things are moving targets based on software and artificial intelligence.

It gets worse, how you were misled. As a clinical psychologist who has worked with military vets, I know that you know that substance abuse figures powerfully some of the most violent, fatal events related to persons with serious mental illnesses. In fact, multiple studies show that serious violence involving major mental illnesses that makes headlines rarely happens without significant substance abuse and early history of aggression. One of these cases is personally well known to me that of Jared Laughner, which I am happy to detail to you. The very, very best strategies in the world to prevent or treat substance abuse are NREPP; and the very, very best proven strategies in the world to prevent or treat aggressive behaviors are on NREPP.

Witnesses to Your Committee
Your witnesses were disingenuous for reasons I cannot fathom. For example, D.J. Jaffe provided both written and oral testimony that there was no evidence for the prevention of serious mental illness, as a criticism of SAMSHA. Oddly, he cited the 1994 Institute of Medicine Report,3 not the 2009 Institute of Medicine Report.4 The 1994 IOM Report said there was only suggestive evidence that mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders might be prevented; the 2009 IOM report was clear on pages 1-2 that mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders ARE preventable including the most serious ones, but not in every case—just like cancer. Please note that DJ Jaffe is neither a scientist nor a licensed clinician, and Mr. Jaffe has never published a peer-reviewed scientific study on either the treatment or the prevention of mental illness. All this would have been quite different if you had called key members of the 2009 IOM members, such as acclaimed psychiatrist William R. Beardslee or the equally famous psychologist, Anthony Biglan. These are witnesses with powerful, randomized control studies that neither Mr. Jaffe, nor even Dr. Torrey has remotely achieved in terms of treatment of mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders who were witnesses who were so caustic in your hearings. In fact, Dr. Torrey has never been the first author of any randomized control trial or even quasi-experimental study of either the treatment or the prevention of serious mental illnesses. All of this is easily verified by a search of the National Library of Medicine at Dr. Torrey is most famous for his studies on the role of Toxoplasma Gondi in schizophrenia, a parasite carried by cats that can infect humans and cause schizophrenia. 

Submissions To NREPP
The terrible misdirection has been perpetrated on you, Congress and American citizens in other ways. Two examples come to mind.

First, government agencies like SAMSHA and the FDA don’t pick which evidence-based programs or medical devices or drugs get submitted to NREPP or the FDA. The inventor/ company/ scientist(s) must initiate the submission. The reason AOT was not on NREPP was because nobody with authentic skin in the game had ever submitted it for review, until I agreed to help Brian Stettin at the Treatment Advocacy Center. There are probably hundreds of things in the scientific literature that a good and should be on the list, but they do require a proven dissemination and training mechanism to get a good grade and the scientist(s) or entity responsible for submitting it. Now, AOT is on the list, though its scientific evidence-base is not as robust as Dr. Torrey and others lead members of Congress to believe or their messaging to the general public would support; one only need to review the politically and scientifically neutral Cochrane review.5 Successful AOT depends on the quality of T (treatments), and the NREPP list is chock-a-block full of exceedingly well-proven strategies to ramp up successful treatments. They could be indexed better arguably, but that is a software/conceptual user problem that the contractor for any such list has to work on.

In the second example, both Mr. Jaffe and Dr. Torrey either explicitly stated or implied that major mental illnesses cannot be prevented, as an indictment of the Congressionally mandated block-grant efforts of SAMSHA and its contractor, NREPP. Ironically, Dr. Torrey’s non-profit that he directs, the Stanley Medical Research Institute, funded the single most scientifically proven strategy to prevent first episode psychosis—with effects over the span of seven (7) years.6-8 How powerful is this strategy? You be the judge from the Randomized Control Trials that I presented as a graph to the most recent national conference on mental health research in Tampa:


Theoretically, this ridiculously low-cost strategy with huge epidemiological underpinnings documented by the National Institutes of Health could avert tens of thousands of first episode psychosis each year. Now, I am very troubled by the fact that Dr. Torrey refuses to submit this to NREPP, and I have begged him to do so with the promise of the full cooperation of the National Institutes of Health researchers who have been doing deep research on this, including with military service members funded by DOD. I have begged Dr. Torrey to submit this to NREPP, as he is the only person who can since the actual investigator is not an American citizen. Only American researchers can submit to NREPP, and Dr. Amminger, who was funded by Dr. Torrey, is not a US citizen. The potential impact of this study is huge, based on the fact that Dr. Insel from NIMH notes that 500,000 cases of first episode psychosis happen each year in the U.S. In theory, this simple strategy that costs about $15 could avert about 100K to 150K cases of first episode psychosis per year. I am happy to provide you with the correspondence I have had with Dr. Torrey. If funders or investigators DON’T submit to NREPP, powerful strategies for major mental illness cannot be known to providers or policy makers in government or the private sector. Dr. Torrey cannot blame SAMSHA and NREPP for this powerful prevention strategy for major mental illness for not being on NREPP, because he refuses to submit it or allow others to do so. I am puzzled, therefore, why the committee relies on his expert testimony. Presently, I am in discussion with other scientists at the National Institute of Health who are doing powerful research on omega-3 that Dr. Insel is aware of, so that NIH scientists might do the deed that Dr. Torrey has not.

Mr. Jaffe has been critical of NREPP for not reviewing medication regimens, both in public and personal communications with me—which I am happy to share with you. This is most peculiar, as SAMSHA has no statutory authority from Congress to have oversight of drug treatments. As you know, FDA approves medications, but not necessarily off-label or drug-treatment cocktail regimens. Mr. Jaffe insisted that NREPP should do so in private communications with me, and it was their “fault” for not doing so. These regimen studies are often published in medical journals, indexed in These drug-cocktail regimens as best practices would have to have new authority, and would raise many, many questions—given that the Wall Street Journal documented that 40.4 million children out of 75 million received one script for psychotropic medications in 2010.9

Potential Policy and Practice Chaos by Undoing NREPP
It’s wise to remember that medicine is failed prevention. What you don’t know, nor does your committee, is that grantees and states are supposed to use powerful, evidence-base practices and programs from NREPP for both treatment and prevention with block grant dollars. The notion that few powerful treatment protocols for “serious mental illnesses” are on NREPP is easily proven false, that a journalist intern could discover—if he or she did the proper homework. Your committee was misled for reasons I cannot comprehend, and I can assure you that I have personally trained hundreds if not thousands of grantees, providers, and state administrators in practices on NREPP to treat, reduce or prevent serious mental illnesses, often paid to do so by SAMSHA. (And SAMSHA folks will tell you I can be a thorn in their sides about this and other scientific, dissemination and policy issues). That does not mean providers use these powerful, proven strategies to treat, reduce, or prevent serious mental illness. If they did so, I wouldn’t be writing this letter.

The real issue is that the proposed legislation and existing legislation by Congress has created perverse incentives for NOT adopting these evidence-based practices. Creating some new entity to review and promote scientifically proven prevention, intervention, and treatment strategies will just foster bureaucratic mania with no change. Believe me, as I was the co-author of the largest single per-capita ($25 million in Wyoming) legislation and appropriation for the use of evidence-based practices ever adopted in the United States.7,8 That number is ½ of the dollar proposed in the bill for the whole country for AOT.

I would love to converse with you about the research on getting providers to adopt evidence-based practices for mental-emotional and behavioral disorders. That is the real problem, not the lack of them on NREPP or for current or proposed legislative remedies. We don’t have a scientifically, experimentally driven policy for getting providers to adopt evidence-based practices. These are issues that my colleagues have written about in the prestigious Brain and Behavioral Sciences Journal10 as well as in the American Psychologist.11 My paper for the special issue of Psychiatric Clinics of North America on implementing the 2009 evidence-based strategies from the IOM Report4 on mental illnesses details key proven principles for a large-scale, successful public health model,12 which is what is needed given the huge rise in prevalence rates of mental, emotional, behavioral disorders happening that is documented in the 2009 IOM report and other data by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality.13,14 

You may know that Brian Stettin recommended that people visit the star AOT site in the U.S., Hamilton, Butler County, OH. I did so at my own expense. As you know, AOT’s benefits really arise from the “T” (treatment) and less from the AO. By American standards, the operation of the AOT project in Hamilton, OH was a gem. I’ve written a detailed report about it. They naturally relied on a lot of drug-court training to do it, which the presiding judge confirmed. They were kind, gentle and helpful using excellent therapeutic language and processes.

That said, their AOT effort lacked a whole bunch of evidence-based procedures that would have made their outcomes more efficient and effective, which are in fact listed on NREPP that I’ve trained sites to do. Almost all of the patients in the system have significant addictions, yet they were not using NIDA’s most scientifically proven and cost-efficient way to treat addictions and to improve overall engagement ( in the multiple, needed therapeutic services and activities being “assisted” by the court. Folks with serious mental illnesses are notorious for have\ing procedural errors (I know from first-hand experience working with even high-IQ folks with serious mental illnesses) at follow-through tasks, which is compounded if they are co-morbid for substance abuse. Dr. Petry’s studies cited in NREPP are helpful with that, especially when coupled with goal and behavior mapping found in Life Goals Collaborative Care (LGCC) also on NREPP, which is explicitly and successfully designed to treat serious affective and mania episodes.

No-Cost or Low-Cost Solution
Much of the problem you encountered in searching NREPP is simply a software problem of search terms, which could be fixed by the new NREPP contractors. That’s a management and software programming issue; it’s not a Congressional legislative issue. Looking up “serious mental illness” without a “Google Thesaurus” of terms is likely to have reduced returns, not because malice.

If the bill passes as is, there is a probability of huge chaos among the states, their rules and regulations for sub-awards. Almost all states require the use of NREPP strategies for treatment, intervention, and prevention—which are embedded in state and local laws, regulations and policies. Of course, some strategies are better than others. That can be addressed. If, however, the Congress requires a wholly new review of evidence-based practices, that will take at least three years to do. The states and providers will be left in chaos, and more patients and clients with all manner of problems that can lead to bad headline news.

How To Get More Treatment Strategies on NREPP
Testimony to your committee alleges that SAMSHA somehow blocks submissions of powerful programs to treat major mental illness. That might make a good TV; it is not true. SAMSHA cannot place things on NREPP. Investigators and developers like me must submit SAMSHA, just like a drug company must submit to FDA. It’s not just the research finding that is required; it is a powerful dissemination system that has to come with the request. Otherwise, people can simply search for good ideas, which have research but are not commercially available. Dr. Torrey is the key to submitting to NREPP for his funded project for the prevention of first episode psychosis. I cannot, nor can the administrator of SAMSHA any more than the head of FDA or a member of Congress submit a drug to an FDA review panel.

What can Congress do? I suggest that the legislation be amended to require SAMSHA to have several “calls” in the federal register each year (say quarterly) for proven strategies to resolves important prevention, intervention, and treatment issues. Further, most academics have little or no skill in bringing proven strategies to market that might significantly avert or treat major mental illnesses. Dr. Torrey, himself, is an excellent example of failure to bring his practical treatment protocol to national use. Perhaps, NIH and other federal grantees might be required to have training and coaching for how to bring powerful mental, emotional, and behavioral prevention and treatment protocols to NREPP registration and market—which is beyond SAMSHA’s charter. 

Congress might even require that grants have a better plan for product dissemination (not just scientific dissemination) that is presently embedded in grant announcements and rules across the departments of the federal government that fund research and practices related to the prevention of mental, emotional, behavioral and related physical disorders. Publishing a scientific article is good for tenure at universities, but it is not a potent product or service in the hands of providers and consumers. I know this very well, as an entrepreneurial scientist who has brought multiple well-proven strategies to population-level scale. This is why we’ve started the First Carbon Based Valley initiative (not the Next Silicon Valley) to develop proven, practical prevention, intervention and treatment strategies that can be scaled nationally (and internationally) as cost-effective products. The reason we call this the Carbon Based Valley Initiative is that our largest problems in society are other humans, which are all based on carbon atoms. Your bill is not about silicon transistor health; it’s about human mental health.

Congressman Murphy, I am happy to converse further about ways to improve the bill because of your noble intent. Scrapping NREPP for a wholly new review won’t achieve your aims, as the rationale was based on completely misrepresented information to you and your committee. It is easy to fix your concern, without creating utter chaos in the states or providers with their allocations of funds based on reasonable long-term parameters, even though those parameters can be improved.

* * * * *


  1. Bach, P. and S.C. Hayes, The use of acceptance and commitment therapy to prevent the rehospitalization of psychotic patients: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 2002. 70(5): p. 1129-1139.
  2. Bach, P., S.C. Hayes, and R. Gallop, Long-Term Effects of Brief Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Psychosis. Behav Modif, 2011.
  3. Mrazek PJ and H. RJ, Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research. 1994, Institute of Medicine.
  4. O’Connell, M.E., T. Boat, and K.E. Warner, eds. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among Children, Youth and Young Adults: Research Advances and Promising Interventions. 2009, Institute of Medicine; National Research Council: Washington, DC. 576.
  5. Kisely, S.R. and L.A. Campbell, Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders. Schizophr Bull, 2015. 41(3): p. 542-3.
  6. Amminger, G.P., et al., Long-Chain {omega}-3 Fatty Acids for Indicated Prevention of Psychotic Disorders: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 2010. 67(2): p. 146-154.
  7. Amminger, G.P., et al., Longer-term outcome in the prevention of psychotic disorders by the Vienna omega-3 study. Nat Commun, 2015. 6: p. 7934.
  8. Amminger, G.P., et al., Predictors of treatment response in young people at ultra-high risk for psychosis who received long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. Transl Psychiatry, 2015. 5: p. e495.
  9. Mathews, A.W., So Young and So Many Pills: More than 25% of Kids and Teens in the U.S. Take Prescriptions on a Regular Basis, in Wall Street Journal. 2010, The News Corporation: New York.
  10. Wilson, D.S., et al., Evolving the Future: Toward a Science of Intentional Change. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 2014. 37(4): p. 395-416.
  11. Biglan, A., et al., The critical role of nurturing environments for promoting human well-being. American Psychologist, 2012. 67(4): p. 257-271.
  12. Embry, D.D., Behavioral Vaccines and Evidence-Based Kernels: Nonpharmaceutical Approaches for the Prevention of Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 2011. 34(March): p. 1-34.
  13. Soni, A., The Five Most Costly Children’s Conditions, 2006: Esitmates for the U.S. Civilian Non-nsitutionalized Children, Ages 0-17., A. Center for Financing, and Cost Trends, Editor. 2009, Agency for HealthCare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD. 20850. p. 5.
  14. Soni, A., The Five Most Costly Children’s Conditions, 2011: Estimates for U.S. Civilian Noninstitutionalized Children, Ages 0-17, A.f.H.R.a. Quality, Editor. 2014, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Washington, DC.

This blog is adapted from its first appearance on the Children’s Mental Health Network.


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.

Previous articleDr. Dennis Embry – Op-Ed Bio
Next articleDennis Embry, PhD – Short Bio
Dennis Embry, PhD
Dennis D. Embry, PhD, was responsible for drafting the letter signed by 23 scientists, who collectively represent scores of randomized prevention trials of mental illnesses published in leading scientific journals. His work has focused on children and adults with serious mental illnesses. He serves on the Children's Mental Health Network Advisory Council.


  1. Hmmm…Tim Murphy has a PhD in clinical psychology. Surely has had exposure to people who have recovered from mental illness.

    I also think Tim Murphy should know that DJ Jaffe isn’t at all qualified to assess the research literature and should know better than weigh on him so heavily, or really, at all. As a PhD psychologist, he should know who to go to get an accurate assessment of the current research on the question of preventability of mental illness, so I’m not letting him off the hook as having noble intent.

    Report comment

  2. So it’s good that this letter got written. But we’re going to lose big time if we depend on the “expertise” of mental health honchos.

    What we need as a movement are:

    a) A clearinghouse of basic information, including access to prominent speakers and experts of our own, to provide vital information we need to effectively reach the public, including

    — Studies disproving chemical imbalance theories;

    — Information exposing to the public the horrid dangers of the psychiatric drugs to which any person could be forcibly subjected, as we all at some time exhibit thought and behavior consistent with an “SMI”;

    — Clear, readily understandable explanations of the literal impossibility of “mental illness” and the logical absurdity of the “medical model,” when possible relating these to people’s everyday experience.

    — Access to articulate “survivors” who can relate their personal experiences of being invalidated, labeled and drugged for going through common personal crises and transitions;


    b) A legal network of attorneys and other advocates, trained in deconstructing courtroom psychiatric b.s., who are on call to defend any activist who is targeted for “treatment” because of political activity aimed at stopping psychiatric abuse, and to assist others in danger of AOT to the degree possible.

    Report comment

        • I know. I saw it there too. Then I kicked myself for not saying something to you about it. I wonder if the Official MIA bloggers could put the “best of” these types of lists as center pieces for (some of) their monthly/or weekly articles?

          This could also be posted by an MIA techie or moderator on the front page to jump start the discussion & planning. I know, I know, like you guys don’t have enough to do already!

          This was one of my original ideas of how to get people to post more & execute some of the great ideas on your list. Unlike software updates & tech-upgrades, the ideas themselves are not *more valuable* than the product itself. Not in a movement that has no voice, YET…. ; )

          I had another idea: if an official Blogger, or frequent poster, could have a grassroots type of gathering in their homes? To discuss your list, yes, & more!

          I would be willing to do this once people got to know me better, oh, & er, I cleared it with me significant other! It would be grassroots cause it would be sleeping bags over sleeping pads. Oh well…

          Report comment

          • Well, my thinking is that if more anti-psych people would regularly go to the organizing forum we could, even if in a plodding, 2 steps forward/one step backwards kind of way devise a method of making collective, democratic decisions among participants which could lead to the creation of a kick-ass manifesto and maybe more. But we need some critical mass to kick-start this process. I’ll keep suggesting this, maybe sooner or later enough people might agree. So pass it on, & thanks again for responding.

            Report comment

  3. While reading this sad letter I was reflecting on how much more fortunate people facing extreme states are in poor countries, compared to similar unfortunates in advanced nations like the US.

    In poor undeveloped African or Asian countries, psychotic symptoms are much less likely to be doused with neuroleptics nor responded to by lying to the person that they have an incurable brain disease.

    The greed and lies in American mental health care are just so bad and pervasive that I don’t feel much hope about what can be done with your system. The ideal although impractical remedy for most Americans stuck in our mental system would be to somehow get out of the US, since the USA is one of the worst nations in the world for mental health outcomes.

    Even this well-intended letter is frothing seeking to change the system with distortions:

    – “seriously mentally ill diagnoses like schizophrenia and bipolar” – as if these can be reliably distinguished from each other or from other emotional-mental conditions.

    – Saying that one study comprising 80 people is evidence that Omega 3 can stop hundreds of thousands of cases of psychosis from developing… please, you need much larger data sizes than that.

    – Viruses causing schizophrenia – this should be on the Onion, and schizophrenia is not even a valid condition that can be ruled in or out.

    Calling people’s problems “mental-emotional and behavioral disorders” and “mental illnesses” is tired, tendentious, repetitive, misleading, and stupid. People don’t experience their lives and problems this way. One of the first steps to making progress in our health care system would be to start talking about people’s problems in the way that people actually experience them. Medicalizing serious life problems is a dead end.

    Until psychiatric diagnoses are abolished, with a continuum/spectrum based approach focusing on individual symptoms/problems replacing it, and until psychiatric drug use is massively curtailed, no significant progress is going to be made. Until then the changes this guy is suggesting should be considered as cleaning the decks on the Titanic. I expect that this effort will go nowhere.

    Report comment

    • My thoughts exactly.
      The utter absurdity of labelling a symptom (as extreme as psychosis) as being
      provably “cured” by fish oil as a “Serious Mental Illness” is the true insanity begging to be eliminated. It a nutritional deficiency Dr.
      When this guy stops deluding himself and disseminating this more superficially humane lie – then and only then will the sea of lies stop killing us.
      All this really proves is how deeply imbedded and invested we are in myth.
      I was struck by how aptly Stanley Milgram (The Experimenter) captured the essence of the human weakness, of blindly following orders to harm others – to the point of their demise- is surprisingly common. The willingness to agree to pretend that the symptoms these people experience are brain diseases (SMI) better treated with nutrients than toxic drugs is a perfect example of the banality of evil clocked in a mask of superiority over those who are willing to destroy 50% of America’s children at the hands of pharma, vrs those who prefer to destroy them with fraudulent mythical labels. The first is motivated by greed, the latter, a sense of moral superiority and feigned benevolence. 2 sides of the same devalued coin.
      Shame, shame, shame……………………….

      Report comment

  4. Main stream health authorities the AMA , both APA’s and the ADA (America Dental Association) along with Big Pharma (should be broken into small pieces and honestly regulated by the people), along with corporations like Monsanto and other mainstream chemical adulterers of our food and water supply and air have become a danger to the population of the United States and further out there on the planet . To try and cover all this up with behavior control is ludicrous .

    Replace the above with Clinics like Paracelsus Klinic in Switzerland .
    Put Traditional Naturopaths , Homeopaths , and other first do no harm practitioners in charge .The best AMA doctors should be limited to treating physical trauma . Because of all the wars caused by robber barons and all the soldiers that have been physically wounded in battle I will grant that the AMA has become good at treating physical trauma .Nothing Else . Organic food production to the forefront . As far as Psychiatry it itself is a virus and a fungus attacking humanity . You want solutions ask the survivors who have come out the other side of it who spent 30 or more years being tortured by it . Put them in charge and push aside all the high paid titled imaginary educated doctors,pseudo scientists , predatory politicians, and orchestrating robber barons, and officials who never even tasted the effect of even one tab of Thorazine let alone a forced shock “treatment”. We the people above all need Health Freedom immediately . If he didn’t have so much power Murphy would be a joke . The truth is any human being with too much power is dangerous to the rest of us . Just as in nature scum rises to the top .

    Report comment

  5. “Just as in nature scum rises to the top.”

    Love this, Fred. I hadn’t thought of this metaphor before and it sure does give a refreshing perspective. I suddenly feel really good about myself, down here on the bottom rung! 🙂

    Report comment

  6. Sorry but My Congressman Dr. Tim Murphy doesn’t care about the facts! This legislation is not about facts or even about mental health it is a about POLITICAL PAYBACK!

    The first payback is taking money away from community mental health services and giving it to BIG PHARMA companies who are Dr. Murphy’s largest campaign contributors. If it was really about facts and helping people then the bill would do just the opposite.

    The other payback is in the form of giving the government more tools to lock people up who disagree with what the ruling party is doing. If you have a minority opinion then you must be suffering from a cognitive dissociation disorder and you must be treated, even against your will.

    It is all about control and money, NOT about mental health and helping people.

    Report comment

    • I would add that this is also part of the Gun Lobby’s effort to deflect attention away from gun control. If we can blame “the mentally ill” for these events and lock more of “them” up, they figure it takes the heat off of guns as a possible target for legislation. Of course, what they don’t realize is that they’re opening the door for more oppressive gun laws targeting the “mentally ill,” which given the DSM’s charge toward pathologizing any emotional reaction to anything, will soon include them and all of their constituents. It’s actually a great back-door way to disarm and disenfranchise Americans who object to the status quo, used effectively in the USSR and other places in the past. They really ought to be careful what they wish for, but as long as they can see “the mentally ill” as someone OTHER than them and their constituents, they will continue to support this odious legislation as a means of scapegoating someone other than their contributors for the problem.

      — Steve

      Report comment

    • So maybe if you’re in Murphy’s district you could write to the local papers exposing Murphy’s pharma ties and the inherent cynicism in his great “concern” for “those people.”

      Also any time anyone is heard defending Murphy on the basis of preventing violence they should be confronted with a stack of articles by Breggin and others pointing out the psychiatric drug connection to mass shootings.

      Report comment

  7. Speaking of Torrey, who figures prominently in this legislation — he seems to be largely discredited within the psychiatric “community,” no? Anyone, are there specific articles in the literature regarding this which could be cited while lobbying congressmen & others?

    Report comment

  8. Not an article, but I do know that his research institute is privately funded by the Stanley family. I looked in the NIH database for grants and he has not been funded by them as far back as the electronic database goes (early 90s). We can critique NIMH funding priorities, but I think the fact that he hasn’t been funded by the main government agency for mental health research at all for over 25 years does say something about his lack of representativeness of his field. Also, as the article says, his expertise is on infectious origins of schizophrenia. He’s not an expert of the preventative measures utilized by SAMSHA, so it’s odd he is being used as the main “expert” witness.

    Report comment

    • The infectious origins of schizophrenia, huh? Funny, in The Death of Psychiatry Torrey’s expertise seemed to be the myth of mental illness. Bad career move, he must have figured. All I know is, whether it’s on 60 Minutes or whatever he seems to be omnipresent with his faux-biochemical explanations of behavior and brain scans that are supposed to demonstrate this or that. He shouldn’t be that hard to expose, especially if we can document that he doesn’t represent a consensus, even of his own profession.

      Report comment

      • What I think would help is if people who have some authority on the subject of psychosocial origins of mental illness like Vincent Felitti spoke up. Unfortunately, the ACE study didn’t specifically look at so called SMI as an outcome (so people like DJ Jaffe will just say that is useless) There are plenty of other studies though that have found associations between SMI and ACEs, so I wish someone if that area would speak out.

        Report comment