Monday, September 21, 2020

Comments by Ginger Breggin

Showing 7 of 7 comments.

  • Peter asked me to share this comment with you (he is in session with a client right now).

    Peter Breggin: “People frequently note that they know someone who believes they were helped by ECT. For several reasons, this cannot be used to support ECT. First, consider what happens when an antibiotic that helps millions of people is discovered to cause severe liver damage in a few dozen people. It is likely to be taken off the market because there’s no way to determine who will be helped and who will be harmed. Second, of the millions of people given ECT over the decades, a remarkably tiny number have come forward in support of it. Whole organizations of ECT victims have been formed but no organization of post-ECT supporters. In my clinical experience, most people become so helpless after ECT that they cannot do anything requiring a high level of functioning, such as organize in support of the “treatment.” Third, when people are subjected to brain-damaging treatments, the resultant brain dysfunction typically renders them unable to full recognize or appreciate the harm that has been done to them. Patients don’t exaggerate their mental losses after ECT the way Dr. Healy suggests in his book; patients tend to minimize their losses. This is true whether the damage is inflicted by a blow on the head or by an electric shock through the skull, followed by an extremely intense seizures, hypertension, exhaustion of the neurons, and temporary flat-lining of the EEG. However, it is much more confusing for ECT patients than victims of accidental head injury because ECT victims are told that the electrical blow to their brains is well-intentioned, medically indicated for their disease, undoubtedly beneficial, and that their “complaints” are the result of their persisting mental illness.”

  • Ginger Breggin here, Moretoit- Dr. Breggin’s books are available from his professional website: http://www.breggin.com and are marked down greatly from retail. Additionally, if you want to order in bulk please telephone our public line, leave a message with your name, phone number and state you want to order bulk copies of Peter’s books. I’ll call you back and we can make arrangements. Thanks very much for your appreciation and your interest in helping to get the word out about these issues. Very best, G

  • Gynecomastia from neuroleptic, atypical antipsychotic drug exposure– the development of breast tissue in boys, is neither benign nor necessarily reversible. It can be a permanent mutation of a boy or man’s body. Some boys who have had mastectomies (to remove tissue) end up having tissue grow back again. Children or adults suffering from this drug induced condition, and children who are developmentally disabled in some say with self harming behaviors do not deserve either rage, envy or ridicule.

  • Very Important action to take: Laypersons and professionals can comment on the government regulations page where attorney Sheller has posted a petition to withdraw FDA approval of Risperdal and like drugs for children and adolescents– Please comment NOW and protect childrens’ health. Help push back the antipsychotic craze for young people by commenting today. Go here to comment: http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FDA-2012-P-0857

  • Calling all psychiatrists! There are enough wounded, damaged victims of psychiatry in need of psychiatric drug withdrawal and other attention to keep a generation of psychiatrists engaged in genuine good work. See Dr. Breggin’s newest book ‘Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families’ for detailed discussion on how to go about assisting patients off of their psychiatric drugs and into a process of recovery in a person-centered manner.

    Psychiatrists and psychiatry are responsible for the biological psychiatry model and power base, not insurance companies and not even drug companies.

    1. Psychiatrists got into bed with the pharmaceutical companies: Psychiatrist Peter Breggin MD reported in 1991 in his book: “Toxic Psychiatry” the decision on the part of APA’s Board of Trustrees to discard their ethics, principles and professionalism by embracing “Pharmaceutical Support.” Then the floodgates of pharma money poured in to APA, into psychiatrists’ pockets via speaking, research and junkets etc.

    2. Psychiatrists formulated the DSM and have expanded it at every turn, solidifying and expanding diagnoses that justify the biological psychiatry monolith

    3. Psychiatrists as practitioners have accepted and use the DSM and accepted the conclusions of flawed studies, which if read fully and intelligently reveal their flaws (Dr. Breggin has extensively examined and deconstructed the flawed ‘scientific’ conclusions of many of the most influential studies and has been doing so for decades. See his book Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry 2008 for instance. He is a psychiatrist, and he actually reads the studies not just the advertisements and the abstracts.)

    3. Psychiatrists indeed have sought and practiced biological psychiatry from the days of wet wrapping with sheets and spinning chairs. “Social psychiatry,” the Quaker movement, Soteria house, and all forms of psychotherapy have been suppressed and discarded by psychiatry. Psychoanalysis is a straw man, embraced very briefly by a small number of elite intellectuals and in the ivory towers of universities for a short time.

    In my personal opinion psychiatry has tainted medicine and medical doctors by spear-heading the practices of ignoring patients and instead turning to cookie cutter diagnoses and so-called treatments that desperate, wounded souls submit to in the vain hope that they can find some comfort and relief…. only to be saddled eventually with a host of disabling iatrogenic conditions resulting from toxic treatments (both drugs and ECT).

    I appreciate Bob Fancher’s elegant essay that touches upon deeper societal and human tendencies to turn to destructive treatments. We need that conversation as individuals and as cultures.

    But let us not delude ourselves about where the blame lies for destructive biological psychiatry.

  • It is with deep sadness that I see that Ageism and the moral (if not legal) crime of hate speech has been tolerated and overlooked here at MadInAmerica.com. “Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic,” according to Wikipedia.

    Even more disappointing is to see Ageism used against someone with over 50 years of reform work and experience in the field of ‘mental health.’ Consider that Dr. Breggin has a weekly radio show, blogs on HuffingtonPost, continues to publish scientific articles, has a new medical textbook coming out July 2012, has just signed another contract for his next mass market book, has spoken to 12 million people on the radio in the last two weeks, leads an international nonprofit organization, and frequently travels for conferences and legal cases. To bring up his age is surely the last ditch effort of a corrupt person with little or nothing of value to offer.

    Of course, this is additionally personal for me. I am 61 years of age. My beloved husband is a robust and vigorous 76 years old. My mother is a marvelously productive eighty-six years old, active and beloved in her community.

    To speak disparagingly of someone because he is an older person is an ad hominum attack (Merriam-Webster: “appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect”). Sites that tolerate such hate speech are considered hate sites, according to Wikipedia. I do not believe that is this site’s intention.

    I would caution this group and this site to remember that one of the most abused and neglected groups vulnerable to psychiatry and its many abuses are the aged and older persons. It is deeply alarming to read ageist attacks by self-identified psychiatrist, Ivana Fulli, MD, and self-identified professional “Para Doc” who are in positions to take out their prejudices against older patients. Elderly women especially are targeted for electroshock and older persons suffering from dementia or in institutional care due to frailities are commonly exposed to contraindicated drugs such as the antipsychotics, causing debilitation and shortened life spans. Hate speech toward any group or persons sharing characteristics will encourage negative cultural attitudes and outcomes toward those persons.