“If you’ve never picked up DSM-IV™, we strongly recommend that you do so. You’ll find yourself in it. You’ll find your friends and associates in it. You’ll find your family members in it. Indeed, you’ll find everyone in it. In other words, from the point of view of psychiatry, everyone has a “mental disorder.” For psychiatry, there is no such thing as mental health, only degrees of pathology!” ~ C.S.Hyatt – psychologist and author of The Psychopath’s Bible
Dr. John Rengen Virapen worked 35 years for Eli Lilly & Co as an executive. He now speaks out on the many crimes “Big Pharma” was and is responsible for and he himself also participated in. Unfortunately, many of its crimes go passed public awareness as it enjoys the unethical protection from its big allies, the mainstream media, the FDA and governments.
Original mixed English-German source, here. More on Dr. Rengen Virapen here (only German).
John Virapen’s website – with contact info and book order instructions:
http://www.side-effects-death.com/
New interview dated 2009-07-27 on blogtalkradio.
Supplemental Material:
- From Wikipedia:
Eli Lilly is also one of many drug companies that give soft money to advocacy groups and political action committees (PACs) to help influence lawmakers and regulators. Historically Eli Lilly favors pro-business Republicans over Democrats with its political contributions (75% to 25% in the last nine US election cycles).[38] Source
He [Tobias] and Lilly have been major donors to the Republican Party. He gave $4,000 to Bush from 1999 to 2001, and he and his wife donated a total of $37,000 to the GOP and its state elections committee during that period. Lilly, meanwhile, gave another $23,000 to Bush’s campaign in 2000 and spent $234,000 on direct mail to its stockholders on Bush’s behalf, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Source
Also see the Political Base website for an oversight of Eli Lilly’s contributions to various political parties.
- From the New York Times article “Children’s Use of Prescription Drugs Is Surging, Study Shows”:
Prescription drug use is growing faster among children than among the elderly and baby boomers, according to a new study that says spending on prescription medicines for pediatric patients has increased by 85 percent over the past five years.
[…]
The research, scheduled to be made public on Thursday, did not find that children take more medicine than adults. In fact, said Dr. Robert Epstein, Medco Health’s chief medical officer, children accounted for just 5 percent of prescription drug expenditures.But in examining prescription drug use among 500,000 children under age 19, Dr. Epstein did find that more young people are taking medicine today than five years ago and are taking drugs for longer periods.
[…]
Experts, including Dr. Epstein, attributed the rise in spending to several factors. First, certain conditions, including asthma and allergies, as well as hyperactivity, are being diagnosed more frequently and treated more aggressively than ever before. In addition, the overall cost of medicines is going up; Dr. Epstein said 30 percent of the rise in spending was attributable to an increase in drug prices. SourceAlso check out the page by the New York State – Department of Health:
Q: How big a problem is prescription drug abuse?
A: Most people take prescription medication responsibly under a doctor’s care. However, there has been a steady increase in the non-medical use of these medications, especially by teenagers. Prescription drug abuse knows no boundaries; it occurs in all social, economic, geographic, and ethnic groups.
Q: At what age are teens abusing prescription medications?A: Kids as young as 12 are trying prescription drugs to get high. Prescription drugs are often more easily available to children than illicit drugs like marijuana because they can be stolen from the medicine cabinet at home, rather than having to be bought on the streets. An added danger of abusing prescription drugs is that teens consider them safer than street drugs because they are manufactured by a pharmaceutical company.
Q: What are some of the most commonly abused prescription drugs?A: Although any prescription drug can be abused, the three types of drugs that are most commonly abused are:
* Pain Killers, also known as narcotic or opiates. Examples include morphine, codeine, OxyContin (oxycodone), Vicodin (hydrocodone) and Demerol (meperidine). A large single dose can cause severe respiratory depression and death. Long-term abuse leads to physical dependence and, in some cases, addiction.
* Depressants, which are prescribed to treat anxiety and sleep disorders. Examples are Nembutal (pentobarbital sodium), Valium (diazepam), and Xanax (alprazolam). They slow down normal brain function and can cause a drowsy, uncoordinated feeling. Large doses can depress breathing and cause a coma. Long-term abuse can lead to physical dependence and addiction.
* Stimulants are often prescribed to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Examples include Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Dexedrine (dextroamphetamine). These drugs elevate blood pressure and heart rate. High doses can cause dangerously high body temperature and cardiac arrest brought on by an abnormal heartbeat. Source -
The Drugging of our Children (Gary Null) (SSRI drug dangers)(Columbine shooting)
-
Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging
- From Wikipedia:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. It is used in the United States and in varying degrees around the world, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and policy makers.
The DSM has attracted controversy and criticism as well as praise. There have been five revisions since it was first published in 1952, gradually including more disorders, though some have been removed and are no longer considered to be mental disorders. It initially evolved out of systems for collecting census and psychiatric hospital statistics, and from a manual developed by the US Army. The last major revision was the fourth edition (“DSM-IV”), published in 1994, although a “text revision” was produced in 2000. The fifth edition (“DSM-V”) is currently in consultation, planning and preparation, due for publication in May 2012.[1] An early draft will be released for comment in 2009. [2] The mental disorders section of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) is another commonly-used guide, used more often in some parts of the world. The coding system used in the DSM-IV is designed to correspond with the codes used in the ICD, although not all codes may match at all times because the two publications are not revised synchronously.
[…]Symptomatological bias
By design, the DSM is primarily concerned with the symptoms of mental disorders, it does not attempt to analyze or explain the conditions it lists or even to discuss possible patterns or relationships between them. As such, it has been compared to a naturalist’s field guide to birds, with similar advantages and disadvantages.[29] The lack of causative or explanatory material, however, is not specific to the DSM, but rather reflects a general lack of pathophysiological understanding of psychiactric disorders. As DSM-III chief architect Robert Spitzer and DSM-IV editor Michael First outlined in 2005, “little progress has been made toward understanding the pathophysiological processes and etiology of mental disorders. If anything, the research has shown the situation is even more complex than initially imagined, and we believe not enough is known to structure the classification of psychiatric disorders according to etiology.”[30] The DSM’s apparent superficiality is therefore largely a result of necessity, since there is no agreement on a more explanatory classification system.
Despite the lack of consensus, advocates for specific psychopathlogical paradigms have nonetheless faulted the current diagnostic scheme for not incorporating the innovations of their particular model; the most recent example being evolutionary psychologists‘ criticism that the DSM does not differentiate between genuine cognitive malfunctions and those induced by psychological adaptations, a key distinction within evolutionary psychology, but one widely challenged within general psychology.[31][32][33] Source
A Phil-for-an-ill Blog 
The Diagnostics and Statistical Manual (DSM), the Shrink’s bible, has been around for over 50 years in the United States. Within this manual, there are now possibly nearly 300 mental disorders or so.
As a dictionary of suspected mental illnesses, many redefined diagnoses are added to this manual with each edition, and how such disorders are classified and assessed.
On occasion, a mental disorder is deleted from the DSM, such as homosexuality in the early 1970s. Its purpose, this manual, is to assist mental health professionals to diagnose and classify mental disorders.
How a group sponsored by for profit pharmaceutical industry corporations that promote psychotropic drugs for various mental issues that may or may not fully exist make the determinations that they do while maintaining objectivity is a phenomenon.
Published and designed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the DSM is also used, I understand, for seeking mental diagnostic criteria to assure reimbursement.
The DSM is organized in part by the following:
I- Mental disorders
II- mental conditions
III- Physical disorders/syndromes, medical conditions (co-morbidity)
IV- Mental disorder suspected etiology
V- Pediatric assessments
The APA has historically directed the creation of each edition of the DSM, and assigns selected task force members to create this manual. This situation has proven to be controversial.
The next DSM involves 27 people. About 80 percent of these individuals are male, and only 4 members are not medical doctors. Most have had relationships with the NIH, and about 25 percent of these task force members have had relationships with the WHO.
Historically, at least a third of task force members have had, or do, have often monetary pharmaceutical industry ties in some way.
This makes sense, as about one third of the APAs total financing is from the pharmaceutical industry.
The APA required this task force for the next DSM edition to sign non-disclosure agreements- which is rather absurd and pointless. Lack of transparency equals lack of credibility because of these agreements of the content of the next DSM. It opposes any recovery model necessary regarding such disorders, I believe.
The DSM should be evaluated by another unrelated task force or a peer review of sorts to assure objectivity. This is particularly of concern presently, as many more are diagnosed with mental dysfunctions presently at a concerning rate- with very young children in particular.
Dan Abshear
Comment by Dan — July 18, 2009 @ 3:38 pm |