Sluggish Cognitive Tempo – A New Diagnosis?

On April 11, 2014, journalist Alan Schwarz (brief bio here) published an article in the New York Times on this topic, titled Idea of New attention Disorder Spurs Research, and Debate.  Alan has written extensively on the rising rates of the condition known as ADHD, and on the abuse of the drugs that are used to “treat” this condition. He has drawn a good deal of criticism from psychiatry’s believers.

In the NY Times article Alan draws attention to the fact that sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) is being promoted as a new disorder  “… characterized by lethargy, daydreaming and slow mental processing.”  He makes the obviously valid point, that the formalization of such an entity  “… could vastly expand the ranks of young people treated for attention problems.”

The NY Times article was prompted by the fact that the Journal of Abnormal Psychology featured this emerging “diagnosis” in its January 2014 issue.  The issue contained eleven articles on the topic.  These articles addressed questions like:

  • Is SCT a sub-domain of ADHD?
  • Is SCT a disorder in its own right?
  • What are the symptoms of SCT?
  • What are SCT’s co-morbidities?
  • In what ways does SCT differ from ADHD, inattention type?
  • How does SCT differ from depression and anxiety, etc.?

It is a central theme of this website that mental illnesses/disorders, including ADHD and SCT, have no ontological or explanatory significance, are not a helpful way to conceptualize human existence, and in fact are intrinsically disempowering and stigmatizing.  The fact that these so-called illnesses are adduced by their psychiatric inventors to legitimize toxic treatments adds to their destructiveness.  The details of these critiques need not be repeated here.

HISTORY OF SCT

Sluggish cognitive tempo is not a new concept.  ADHD has long been criticized, even by psychiatrists, as embracing two very different kinds of presentations:  inattentiveness, on the one hand, and hyperactivity/impulsivity on the other.  DSM-III-R (1987) acknowledged this problem and created the new “diagnosis” 314.00 Undifferentiated Attention-Deficit Disorder (p 95).  The manual describes this condition as follows:

“This is a residual category for disturbances in which the predominant feature is the persistence of developmentally inappropriate and marked inattention that is not a symptom of another disorder, such as Mental Retardation or Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or of a disorganized and chaotic environment.” [Emphasis added]

DSM-IV (1994) also acknowledged this issue, and split ADHD into three distinct “diagnoses.”

  • ADHD Combined type
  • ADHD Predominantly inattentive type
  • ADHD Predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type

DSM-IV-TR (2000) created the “diagnosis” 314.9  Attention –Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Not Otherwise Specified

“This category is for disorders with prominent symptoms of inattention or hyperactivity-impulsivity that do not meet criteria for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.  Examples include:

1.  Individuals whose symptoms and impairment meet the criteria for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Type but whose age at onset is 7 years or after.

2. Individuals with clinically significant impairment who present with inattention and whose symptom pattern does not meet the full criteria of the disorder but have a behavioral pattern marked by sluggishness, daydreaming, and hypoactivity.” [Emphasis added]

DSM-5 has two residual categories in this area:

  • Other Specified ADHD (314.01)
  • Unspecified ADHD (314.01)

These “diagnoses” do not mention sluggishness, daydreaming and hypoactivity specifically, but these attributes are clearly embraced by the definitions.  This is particularly the case in that practitioners working with DSM-IV-TR would have become accustomed to conceptualizing this particular presentation as a “sub-diagnosis” of ADHD and, in addition, DSM-5 did not repudiate the SCT example given in DSM-IV-TR.  DSM-5 offers no examples of the residual diagnoses, the most reasonable interpretation of which is that the older examples are still to be considered valid as well as any others that individual practitioners encounter/invent as they go about their work.

It is noteworthy also that the DSM-5 main entry on ADHD contains the phrases: “mind seems elsewhere” and “may include unrelated thoughts.”  These phrases did not occur in the DSM-IV-TR main entry, and are clearly intended to embrace the notion of daydreaming.

So it is clear that the APA’s notion of ADHD (predominantly inattentive type) has long embraced daydreaming and lethargy, and it was probably inevitable that psychiatry, with its ever-expanding agenda, would eventually begin to conceptualize this as a distinct “illness.”  So today we have sluggish cognitive tempo emerging as a “diagnosis” in its own right, and attracting comment and attention.

CURRENT STATUS OF SCT

Earlier this year, Catherine Saxbe MD, a psychiatrist, and Russell Barkley PhD, a psychologist, wrote a paper reviewing the history of research on sluggish cognitive tempo.  The paper, The second attention disorder? Sluggish cognitive tempo vs. attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: update for clinicians, was published in the Journal of Psychiatric Practice.  Here’s a quote:

“Sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) refers to an impairment of attention in hypoactive-appearing individuals that first presents in childhood. At this time, it exists only as a research entity that has yet to debut in official diagnostic taxonomies. However, it seems likely that a constellation of characteristic features of SCT may form the criteria for a newly defined childhood disorder in the foreseeable future, provided limitations in the extant findings can be addressed by future research.”

The authors expressed the belief that sluggish cognitive tempo is an unfortunate name for the disorder  “…since the term sluggish is associated with connotations of being retarded, slow-witted or just plain lazy.”  They remind us that

“More than semantics is at stake here.  The nosology reflects the way we conceptualize a disorder, view our patients, and how they understand themselves.”

They suggest that “concentration deficit disorder” or “developmental concentration disorder” or “focused attention disorder” would be better names for the problem, and appear to be entirely blind to the fact that the negative effects of referring to a child as “sluggish” pale to nothing compared with the stigma and disempowerment inherent in the notion that he is a “patient” with a “mental illness” (regardless of the name given to this illness).  In addition to which, of course, must be reckoned the destructive effects of the “treatments.”

Here are some more quotes from the Saxbe and Barkley article:

“No large-scale medication trials have examined response to stimulants specifically in SCT, but one recent investigation shows promise for the potential use of atomoxetine.”

and

“This is an exciting finding and warrants further investigation as it is the first published report to show improvement in SCT with any medication.”

and

“Given the overlap of SCT with anxiety and depression, perhaps selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) might be [another] possible treatment.”

The study in question is Wietecha L. et al., titled Atomoxetine improved attention in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia in a 16 week, acute, randomized, double-blind trial.  This appeared in the November 2013 issue of Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.  The paper is a study of the efficacy of atomoxetine in the “treatment” of various attention problems including SCT.  Atomoxetine is a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI) marketed as Strattera by Eli Lilly.  The study (Wietecha et al.) found that:

“The atomoxetine-treated ADHD-only subjects significantly improved from baseline to Week 32 on…all K-SCT [Kiddie-Sluggish Cognitive Tempo Interview] subscales…”

and

“This is the first study to report significant effects of any medication on SCT.”

All of this is particularly interesting because:

  1. Ritalin, which is now off patent, and other stimulants, are reportedly ineffective in the “treatment” of SCT “symptoms.” (Saxbe and Barkley, 2014, p. 47)
  2. Atomoxetine, which is still on-patent, is now “proven” effective in this area.
  3. Linda Wietecha works as a Clinical Research Scientist for Lilly USA, LLC
  4. According to Dollars for Docs, the following co-authors on the study have also received money from Eli Lilly in the period 2009-2012: Bennett Shaywitz, MD, $963,003; Stephen Hooper, PhD, $16,540; David Dunn, MD, $56,886; and Keith McBurnett, PhD, $5,000.
  5. Russell Barkley, PhD, co-author of the article cited earlier, received $120,283 from Eli Lilly for consulting, speaking, and travel between 2009 and 2012 (Dollars for Docs), and as recently as February of this year gave a lecture tour in Japan sponsored by Eli Lilly.

All of which raises the interesting question:  is SCT disorder being promoted at the present time by Eli Lilly’s paid hacks as a way of increasing sales of atomoxetine (Strattera) while it is still on patent?

PSYCHIATRIC CREDIBILITY

Interestingly, and sadly, most of the research and promotion of SCT has been done by psychologists rather than psychiatrists.  This fact prompted Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, President of the APA, and very eminent psychiatrist to  tweet on April 11 “no credible psychiatrist takes this [SCT] seriously” in response to Alan Schwartz’s article in the New York Times.  Dr. Lieberman seems to be unaware that in DSM-IV-TR (2000), the APA created a specific “diagnosis” for the sluggishness/daydreaming/hypoactivity presentation (using those exact words), and that this “diagnosis” has been clearly retained in DSM-5 (though without those specific words).  I’ve never been aware of any great outcry from organized psychiatry, or from individual practitioners, on this matter.  So, if we are to take Dr. Lieberman at his word (and why would we not do that?), there must be an enormous dearth of “credible psychiatrists” within the APA’s ranks.

In this context, it is also noteworthy that the Wietecha et al. article was published in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, which suggests – at least to me – that the journal takes SCT seriously.  The editor-in-chief is Harold Koplewicz, MD, psychiatrist, founding member and President of the Child Mind Institute.  Dr. Koplewicz has held many prestigious positions, and has received numerous awards, including the 2009 American Psychiatric Association McGavin Award for lifetime contributions to child psychiatry.  But alas, he must now be considered a psychiatrist with no credibility.

And

The Saxbe and Barkley article was published by the Journal of Psychiatric Practice, the editor of which is John Oldham, MD, Senior VP and Chief of Staff at the Menninger Clinic, and a psychiatry professor at Baylor College of Medicine.  Dr. Oldham is a past President of the APA (2010-2011), and of the American College of Psychiatrists (2010-2011).  He has also been President of the International Society for the Study of Personality Disorders, and was a member of the DSM-5 Personality Disorders workgroup.  But, here again, no credibility!

The general point here is that psychiatry has embraced the concept of medicalizing daydreaming. Dr. Lieberman either doesn’t realize this, or is trying to conceal the fact.

DISCUSSION

It would be easy to get distracted by this recent attempt to promote childhood daydreaming as a mental illness.  As mentioned earlier, daydreaming, or to use psychiatric terminology, “the persistence of developmentally inappropriate and marked inattention,” has been a specific “mental illness” since DSM-III-R, 1987, (p 95).

The fact is that any human presentation can be considered a mental illness.  All that is needed is the APA’s say so.  And the APA made their position absolutely clear in the foreword to DSM-II (1968).  In the paragraph where they discuss what “diagnoses” should be included in the manual, they state:

“The Committee has attempted to put down what it judges to be generally agreed upon by well-informed psychiatrists today.” (p viii)

In other words:  if we say it’s a mental illness, then it’s a mental illness!

In subsequent editions of the manual, they offer a definition of a mental disorder, which when stripped of verbiage boils down to:  any significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving.  And who decides something is a problem?  A psychiatrist, of course.

Sluggish Cognitive Tempo (or concentration deficit disorder, as Drs. Barkley and Saxbe would prefer to call it) is more psychiatric nonsense.  But that’s all it is – more of the same; another inevitable result of psychiatry’s fundamentally flawed, spurious, and destructive medicalization of human existence.  Psychiatry continues to expand its net of entrapment into all aspects of life and into every corner of the globe.

By all means let’s speak out against this latest encroachment, but let us not lose sight of the corrupt and spurious engine that has been driving this endeavor since the 1950’s, or of the trail of human suffering and destruction that it has left, and continues to leave, in its wake.

Nor let use lose sight of the fact that many of the greatest writers, scientists, and artists were chronic daydreamers.  We can only imagine how much better the world would be today if these individuals had received the benefits of modern psychiatric treatment. We can also look forward to a better future – a future where daydreaming will be routinely recognized as the illness that it is, it’s victims will be “treated” appropriately with psychiatric drugs, and this plague, that has beset humanity since pre-historic times, will finally be eradicated.

* * * * * * * * *

There is absolutely no facet of human existence that psychiatry will not pathologize in the pursuit of its own self-serving agenda.

  • Anonymous

    Way more than 50 years. More like 200… that this hideous pseudoscientific pseudomedical charlatan “profession” has been propagandizing to society its ridiculous and unproven belief that problems in living are “illnesses”. I didn’t know that the current Pope of Psychiatry tweets. I don’t think I’ll thank you for telling me that. I’m going to try and not look at his Twitter. I wonder how many Twitter followers Pope Lieberman has. I know his religion is very popular, so popular they made it an arm of the state and gave it the right to RAPE THE BRAINS of anybody they choose to target. I suppose a bunch of the faithful follow him in Twitter, and listen to his ex cathedra pronouncements. How pathetic. It’s a wonder Pope Lieberman doesn’t travel around in a little bulletproof pope-mobile, washing the feet of the lepers his profession creates. Well, he does have his Swiss guard standing army of syringe wielding human rights abusing BRAIN RAPISTS that he can sic on anybody he declares “danger to self or others”. The catechisms of Vatican II, sorry, DSM 5, continue to be debated by the regime stenographers in the New York Times. The world waits, the media cameras are trained on the chimney of the Amphetamine Chapel waiting for the puffs of smoke to come out, as the conclave meets. The Cardinals of the Holy “See, it’s a real disease” are voting. Light smoke means “Sluggish Cognitive Tempo” is a “real disease just like diabetes”, dark smoke means “Big Pharma hasn’t paid us enough to vote this disease into existence yet”. I pity these fools. What a wasted life. Can you imagine flushing your entire life down the toilet and becoming an “MD Psychiatrist”? Can you imagine what gullibility it takes to throw a chance to become a real doctor, to get into med school, have the potential to be a real healer, and instead to come out as nothing but a human rights criminal, a menace to society that RAPES THE BRAINS of innocent kids? A dangerous charlatan that spews nothing but garbage labels and toxic poisons into the never-examined-nor-proven-diseased brains of the populace.

    No really, they really should install a chimney on top of the APA headquarters (Amphetamine Chapel, St. Zyprexa’s Square, Chemical Imbalance Basilica, I hear they have their own postal stamps how cute) and let out puffs of smoke so that we can see what’s going on with Pope Lieberman, Pontiff of the Holy “See, just like diabetes”. So far, the current Pope of Psychiatry has completely ignored the Psychiatric Church’s ongoing child brain molestation scandal. Molest more kids’ brains he says! The younger the better! Drug ’em in the womb! As a matter of fact, rip ’em out of the womb by force!

    ‘Judge approves forced Cesarian section for mentally ill woman’
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-25996231

    Another forced C section case out of the shameful United Kingdom, that’s two in six months. This one below was carried out on a tourist, the victim wasn’t even a UK citizen. Her baby was forcibly given up for adoption too. In this case, the woman was not even told she would be having the C section. She just got up one day at Camp X Ray, sorry Camp Not Even So Much as an X ray, sorry, a mental hospital, and suspected something was up when she was not given breakfast (doctor’s orders not to eat before an operation), she panicked, and the BRUTAL BRAIN RAPIST THUGS who work in every mental hospital in the world, were on hand to stick her with a needle, and the next time she was conscious, the baby had been ripped out of her. This is the morality of the people who choose to work “with” “involuntary patients”. If you’re prepared to stab strangers with needles and flood their brains with toxic tranquilizer drugs, raping the consciousness of anybody dragged kicking and screaming into your “ward”(because we have to pretend this is real medicine so we use words like “ward”), then it’s not much of a leap to start cutting open the bellies of pregnant mothers to be and ripping out their babies by force.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-25213214

  • Anonymous

    That really is one of your best comments ever.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks, but you shouldn’t be talking to yourself it’s a real brain disease to talk to yourself.

  • Anonymous

    That’s very concerning. Where do I go to get my brain tested?

  • Anonymous

    There is no test, but look at this brain scan from a research paper instead.

  • Anonymous

    Wow. Shiny colorful pictures of brains. These guys must know what they are talking about. I’m gonna go ahead and believe my brain is diseased for the rest of my natural life and tell all my friends and family my brain is diseased and I am also going to drug my brain for the next few decades until it turns into Swiss cheese, and I am going to not have children because they also said I have a genetic defect too. And someone showed me a research paper in place of actually testing my genes and because I believe mere research that has not led to any objective replicable biomarker discovery that can be rolled out population wide in a gold standard test is so impressive I am going to go ahead and just believe that a mountain of failed research papers should bulldoze all my common sense instinctual questioning of psychiatry and go ahead and believe mental illness is a thing because have you ever been around a crazy person? Have you ever had an aunt or uncle who was crazy? You’d believe it was a brain disease if you ever saw a person acting crazy, it’s so obvious there is something wrong their brain you’re worse than a Global Warming denier if you don’t agree. What are you? The flat Earth society? How dare you say I don’t have a real disease, how dare you. You have anosognosia which is also a real disease and they also have pieces of paper with brain scans on it to prove that too, because in psychiatry you don’t get a real brain scan, you get referred to a research paper that used a brain scanner because research has a cachet of authority and shiny sciencey 21st century cutting edge-ness and these people are very smart and they went to college and not only did they go to college they went to college for many years and if you disagree with them you are a denier and you are not as smart as them and did I mention look at this shiny brain scan in the journal article? Did you see that? They don’t use brain scans in clinical practice but they do in research you see, so that proves it, look, and the TV said you have a chemical imbalance and that guy who killed 20 kids is a brain disease too see who would do that? Only a brain disease would do that. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill because when I say those magic words the mentally ill it means I am talking about a real disease just like diabetes and you see in diabetes the pancreas doesn’t produce enough insulin well mental brain disease illness real illness is just like that except your brains doesn’t produce enough serotonin and then you have to take these pills called medication and it is a real medication because a real doctor prescribed it and what it does is it travels into the brain and fixes what’s wrong with your brain if you are an unhappy camper and it is treatable because I use the word treatable it makes me sound all medical and legitimate in fact watch me use the word diagnosis, patient, pronosis, hospital, clinical, clinician, morbid, premorbid, medication, illness, disorder, see if I use those words the problems of life magically transform into bona fide medical problems and so I am going to continue using those words because what would you know you’re not a doctor and if you ever saw my aunt at her worst you would know it is real how dare you say it isn’t real if you say it isn’t real you are in denial and have anosognosia and should be locked up and treated by force because you do not know you are sick what’s that you say you just disagree that you are sick well if I get in first and define you as not knowing you are sick then I get to convince the world that the fact of the matter that you are sick is an objective indisputable fact and if you disagree then it means you do not know and this is because you have a brain disease as shown in this brain scan of someone else’s brain in this research paper sorry we can’t scan your brain but the fact there is a picture of a brain in this research over here proves it beyond a doubt just like scientific racism was proven real because scientists measured someone’s skull 150 years ago see and if it isn’t science then why would it be in a scientific journal silly and why would scientists be researching it if it wasn’t science don’t you believe in science you science denier and if they aren’t real doctors why would they be wearing white coats and if they aren’t real doctors why would they be allowed to lock people up and treat them by force if necessary and if it isn’t necessary why would they be allowed to say it is and if isn’t a real thing why would the government let it happen and if it isn’t a credible science why is it allowed to put ads on TV they don’t let people on TV unless they are real doctors and you’re just wrong you meanie I suppose you are trying to tell me that the homeless people on the street aren’t brain diseases do you know how wrong you are you’re a Scientologist OK Tom Cruise go jump on Oprah’s couch what would you know you’re just a schizophrenic anyway I know more about you than you do look at this photo of a brain scan in this medical journal see its medical and its a journal it has credibility you don’t you aren’t even a real doctor mental illness is a brain disease see look at this picture of a brain scan how dare you my daughter is really ill she needs help and you are just standing in the way Reagan let all the mental patients out and now they are all homeless I don’t offer any evidence as to how these alleged incompetents managed to forage for food on the streets since 1983 (31 years on the street) but I heard it in the media so it is true and I also heard that the prisons are the new mental hospitals and insert made up percentage here of prisoners are mentally ill and when I say are I mean are because when I say are it means it is an indisputable fact that rolls off the tongue they are mentally ill and me saying they are proves it and it is a real brain disease and what we really need is to make it easier to get people the help they need and especially the people who try and say no to this help because if they say no that means they have anosognosia like my daughter and one time she walked down the street without any pants on and that proves her serotonin made her do it and also proves it is genetic that is why i had her tubes tied by force under a guardianship because three generations of imbeciles is enough and did you know that mental illness has been proven to be a brain disease yes look at this brain scan from a research paper you see if they use technical equipment in the research but not in practice that means amazing discoveries have been made and when i got diagnosed with breast cancer because my life has been so stressful looking after my mentally ill daughter the doctor magically diagnosed me with this tumor without even examining my breasts it was amazing it was just like psychiatry how psychiatry can diagnose brain diseases without even looking at brains isn’t science amazing i am now getting treatment because i have a real disease and i have never felt better yes did you see the ad on tv it said ask your doctor if this is right for you and i went to my doctor and he had a diploma on the wall so if he says feeling sad is an illness then that means it is because why would he say that if it wasn’t true yes i don’t really like thinking for myself but i vote, and i support the Murphy bill and there are many more moms like me and we all vote and we will change the commitment laws because entrusting a government policy to us is not madness no the real madness is my daughter you should see her she drinks soda all the time and she got a cavity and when I told the judge that she can’t even look after her teeth that proved once and for all she has a brain disorder and yes it is very hard being a mother and carer to a mentally ill daughter look at me everybody i am a caring person i have been through hell there oughtta be a law did I mention Adam Lanza, brain scans and when my daughter gets sick because when I say gets sick those two magic words are understood to be an objective fact so when i say gets sick that means needs treatment and when i say needs treatment who could argue with that you meanie imagine denying treatment to the mentally ill how cruel are you yeah you Scientologist you are a denier go to hell also Colorado movie theater shooting did you know he was an undiagnosed schizophrenic also when I use the word undiagnosed that means I know what I am talking about and it means that I can rewrite history and prove that if someone did diagnose him in time they could have prevented that tragedy and when I say prevented I mean take away the rights of thousands of innocent people because of the actions of one man but when I say prevent tragedy that sounds all nice so listen to that part of my sentence instead yes real brain disease brain scans genetic just like diabetes my daughter my son homeless guy shopping cart doesn’t take his medication scientologist see you at the NAMI meeting.

  • Anonymous

    You’re on fire today Anonymous.

  • Anonymous

    What do you call an alleged branch of the medical profession, psychiatry, that has never discovered a single biomarker for any of its “disorders”? (centuries of failure to prove real brain disease)?

    Sluggish discovery tempo.

    Any day now.

  • Phil_Hickey

    Anonymous,

    I’m beginning to detect some anti-psychiatry sentiments in your writings.

  • T.A. Anderson

    Hmm, this must be more of what Dr. Lieberman calls the “inevitable outcry from a small group of critics –made louder by social media and support from dubious sources —who have relentlessly sought to undermine the credibility of psychiatric medicine and question the validity of mental illness.” Wow.

    It looks to me that critics of psychiatric nonsense are neither small in number nor lacking in credible support. They are everywhere. And, they are coming from everywhere including from within that closed inner circle (APA and Big Pharma) that Dr. Lieberman would like claim as the mainstream. Yes, isn’t the power of social media wonderful. What a bummer for your group, huh Dr. Lieberman? You must be feeling fully exposed and vulnerable, huh? Having feelings of inferiority, lack of importance, and a lack of control, huh? You can no longer feel secure hiding behind that strange (yet totally unimaginative) parlance of psychiatry. Yes the internet has leveled the
    playing field. Welcome to the real world of instant access to information.

    Speaking of DSM parlance I missed the opportunity to comment elsewhere on “Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome.” Same points are equally applicable to this sluggishness stuff.

    OMG have they lost their minds? Do they lack the common sense to recognize
    how absurd this truly is? We have yet to prove we can accurately define and reliable identify the condition they call “schizophrenia” and now they propose that we target it in some fictional premorbid condition and call it “attenuated.” Attenuated? Grammar is not my thing so I will leave it to someone else to dissect the malignancy, or idiocy, behind choice of verb “attenuated.” I smell a rat. I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it. This is a deliberate attempt to disguise absurd thinking, behind scientific nomenclature. More descriptive terms would include “Apsychosis Syndrome,” “Inflated Psychosis Syndrome,” or “Iatrogenic Destiny Psychosis Syndrome.”

    Accept for the moment that there are those who are “high schizotypy” and who are at higher risk for schizophrenia. So what? They are also at higher risk for becoming great scientists, artists, and authors. Many of these children already know they are different and they fear it. Some are in a way “in hiding.” They are hiding from misunderstanding, ridicule, and stigma. So let’s prove to them they had good reason to be fearful by hunting them down and tagging them. Then, lets take these gifted children and reduce their risk of schizophrenia by reducing their imagination? You guys are fricking nuts. If successful your lunacy would bring a halt to human evolution.

  • The Right Hon. Cledwyn B’Stard

    Ha, well said. I would add to the last line, “..ripping out babies by force, sticking a needle in it, filled with some neuroleptic, to shut it up. After all, the baby is in constant breach of socio-ethical norms, anti-social as it is.” Give it a month or two, and there’ll be articles sprouting up all over the cyber space about the necessity of forced drugging babies as soon as they are violently ripped out of the womb, supplemented with the usual fear-mongering scenarios of the apocalypse that inevitably awaits a world where mental illness is left untreated, and other visions of catastrophe that prepare the way for the white knights of psychiatry to ride into the chaos on their caparisoned white horses brandishing their syringes.

    Then one encounters an article about the depravity and moral negligence of anti-science anti-psychiatrists who would leave a visibly distressed baby with its mental illness untreated, denying it the treatment it needs.

    The front pages of tabloids are found to be plastered with headlines such as; “seriously mentally ill baby runs into church and guns down Franciscan monks! Experts say undiagnosed mental illness the cause.”

    “Baby dies from untreated mental illness! Lacked insight into its illness and believed there were creatures in white suits out to poison him”

    Further down the line, at the Huffington Post, there’ll be articles about the retrospective gratitude of adults who were forced drugged as babies.

    Through the machinations of organized psychiatry, aided and abetted by the print and audio-visual media, the masses will come to believe that dangerously mentally-ill babies are lurking in the bushes, armed to the teeth, laying the foundations for the framing of the issue by psychiatric propagandists in terms of a trade-off, a choice between the rights of dangerous mentally ill babies and the rights of sane people, with the majority coming down inevitably on the side of the latter.

    The stereotype of the turd-slinging toddler is invoked by practitioners of psychiatric violence for babies, their thoughts and ideas visibly yielding under the weight of their despicable conduct, as psychiatrists and others who profit from the procedure weave ever more elaborate webs of deception and self-deception within in which to ensnare the minds of masses.

    Spurious statistics are employed in the conquest and manipulation of the mass mind.

    Most of the critics will offer the usual qualified criticisms, saying that only a madman would deny that some, perhaps most, babies need to be forced “treated”, yet not all.

    Books will appear inveighing against the abuse of the process in enemy countries, restricting their criticisms to the forced drugging of the supposedly sane babies, conceding the necessity of forced drugging those who supposedly really are ill and need treatment before the abstract canker lodged in their immature minds corrupts their every faculty and endowment.

  • Anonymous

    One day you might email me.

    But before that, remember,

    “Then one encounters an article about the depravity and moral negligence of anti-science anti-psychiatrists”

    You forgot pro scientology, pro pushing people off subway platforms, pro Reagan era deinstitutionalization, pro people thrown out of the asylums foraging for food on the streets since 1981, anti getting any kind of help, total denial of the proven fact of brain disease mental illness, total depravity.

  • The Right Hon. Cledwyn B’Stard

    Excellent points. Yeah it’s understandable why Lieberman hates social media.

    Problem is, nothing binds people together in the denial of the truth like complicity in crime, and there are so many people in society in some way implicated in this ongoing carnage, somewhat countervailing against the possibility of spreading truth by this means, because if the desire to believe is greater than the desire to see, then people can just either ignore or reject information, information which should be disturbing to a great many people in society, such as mental health professionals, members of grassroots organizations, big pharma executives, legislators, judges, family members of victims, and of course people in general who have acquiesced in all this, which accounts for so many people.

    It’s easy to see why there is such widespread resistance to the truth when so many profit from the maintenance of falsehood.

    This is why in Russia today there is still an unwillingness to confront the recent past of the crimes that took place under the Soviet dispensation; not just because of nationalist pride, but because of widespread complicity in those crimes, and when almost a whole society is implicated in a crime, the truth may never prevail within that society or at best will be consigned to distant posterity.

  • T.A. Anderson

    I agree. The complicity is pervasive. I have relatives in health care and even a relative who worked for Janseen selling psych drugs. Even those not somehow complicit in the conspiracy, will bind themselves to it. We humans have an incredible ability to blind ourselves to disturbing aspects of our present, and of our past (get that Phil). But ignorance and amnesia can hold only for so long. The tide is turning. J&J has their hands full right now trying to fend off all the lawsuits. Now Pharma is seeking the protection of those in government who would claim to favor free market. They want protection from the free market forces seeking to hold them accountability.
    The Hippocratic oath: First do no harm.
    Milton Friedman’s oath: People should be held accountable for the harm they cause.