Allen Frances Names and Shames the Power Players, but Not Himself

by Phil Hickey on October 29, 2015

On October 13, 2015, Allen Frances, MD, published a post on his Psychology Today blog Saving Normal.  The post is titled What Drives Our Dumb and Disorganized Mental Health Policies, and the subtitle is “Naming and shaming the power players.”  The article has also been published in Psychiatric Times and the Huffington Post.  Dr. Frances is a professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, and was chairman of the DSM-IV Task Force.

The gist of the article is that, here in America, the “severely mentally ill” are neglected, because our policies are based “…mostly on profit, political power, and ideology…”.

The article is fairly standard stuff, similar in a lot of ways to the material that the Treatment Advocacy Center puts out.  Here are the main points:

“1) The overtreatment of the worried well is promoted by Pharma, insurance companies, mental health professionals, primary care doctors, patients, and politicians.”

“2) The neglect of the really sick is promoted by state governments, federal agencies, mental health professionals, and antipsychiatry patient advocacy groups.”

“3) Research efforts provide no help for the currently ill because they are funded either by the NIMH or Pharma- neither of which has much interest in their welfare.”

Within this general framework, Dr. Frances touches on various psychiatry-absolving themes that will be familiar to those of us on this side of the debate.  These include:

  • Primary care doctors prescribe 80% of all psychiatric drugs.

This is probably true, but it ignores the fact that not a single one of these prescriptions could have been written without psychiatry’s fraudulent “diagnoses”.

  • Patients want a quick medication fix for the problems of everyday life.

Again, this is probably true of some of psychiatry’s “patients”, but doesn’t alter the fact that psychiatry routinely pushes drugs as legitimate “treatment” for non-medical problems, and that many of the victims of this drug-pushing become addicted to psychiatric products.

  • Many people with “mental illnesses” get sent to prison for nuisance crimes which would not have occurred had they received appropriate treatment.

Actually, a great many people who had been assigned psychiatric “diagnoses” were receiving psychiatric “treatment” at the time they committed their crimes.  And there is a good deal of prima facie evidence linking psychiatric drugs, not just to “nuisance” crimes, but also to mass murders.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In addition, there are three noteworthy points in the article, that to my mind, warrant closer scrutiny.

PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH IS NO MORE THAN A MARKETING TOOL

“Pharma sponsored ‘research’ does not come close to deserving the name, since it is no more than a tool of marketing aimed at higher profits, not patient benefit.”

I would certainly agree with this, but it strikes me as incongruous coming from Dr. Frances who, in 1996, along with his then partners John Docherty, MD, and David Kahn, MD, produced the “Expert Consensus Schizophrenia Practice Guidelines” which were essentially a marketing tool to promote the neuroleptic drug risperidone (Risperdal).  Dr. Frances, Dr. Docherty, and Dr. Kahn were reportedly paid $515,000 by Johnson & Johnson for producing these guidelines, and it has been stated in a court hearing that on July 3, 1996, Dr. Frances sent the following in an email to Janssen Pharmaceutica, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.  (Janssen is the manufacturer of Risperdal).

“We are also committed to helping Janssen succeed in its effort to increase its market share and visibility in the payor, provider, and consumer communities.” [Emphasis added]

So the pharma-sponsored research, that Dr. Frances so roundly criticizes today, is in fact an area in which he himself was deeply involved, and from which he profited greatly.  Dr. Frances has never apologized for, or as far as I can tell, openly acknowledged, his role in this affair.  The closest he has come in this regard is the following quote from his March 6, 2015 article in the Huffington Post:

“But in retrospect, there are two things about the project I much regret. Firstly, it was very unwise to do guidelines with drug industry funding. Even though they were fairly done, accurately reported, and contained built in methodological protections against industry-favorable bias, the industry sponsorship by itself created an understandable appearance of possible bias that might reduce faith in the sound advice and useful method contained in them. It was an error in judgment on my part that I apologize for. I have learned from my mistake and hope others do as well.

Secondly, I did not at the time anticipate, nor did the experts, that the atypical antipsychotics would be so frequent a cause of obesity and of the serious complications that follow from it. The considerable risks involved in using these new medications, and ways of avoiding these, were then unknown and not covered in the guideline.”

In other words, there was nothing actually wrong with the guidelines, but pharma funding created an appearance of possible bias.  But against this, here’s what David Rothman, PhD, Professor of Social Medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, had to say about the guidelines in his Expert Witness Report, dated October 15, 2010:

“From the start, the project subverted scientific integrity, appearing to be a purely scientific venture when it was at its core, a marketing venture for Risperdal.” (p 15)

“Indeed, from the start J&J had made it apparent to the team that this was a marketing venture.” (p 15)

“The three men [Allen Frances, John Docherty, and David Kahn] established Expert Knowledge Systems (EKS).  The purpose of this organization was to use J&J money to market the guidelines and bring financial benefits to Frances, Docherty, and Kahn.” (p 15)”

“EKS [i.e., Drs. Frances, Docherty, and Kahn] wrote to Janssen on July 3, 1996 that it was pleased to respond to its request to ‘develop an information solution that will facilitate the implementation of expert guidelines’… In its Summary of the document, EKS wrote: ‘Your investment in the development of state of the art practice guidelines for schizophrenia is already beginning to pay off in terms of positive exposure in the Texas Implementation project.’…” (p 15-16) [Emphasis added]

So it was very much not a question of pharma funding creating “an appearance of possible bias”. Rather, Drs. Frances, Docherty, and Kahn were actually working for Johnson & Johnson, and were “committed to helping Janssen succeed in its effort to increase its market share”.  This is not “an appearance of possible bias”.  This is actual deliberate bias that has been bought and paid for.  And they were doing this while at the same time maintaining that the guidelines were rigorously valid and scientific.  To the best of my knowledge, Drs. Frances, Docherty, and Kahn have never responded to David Rothman’s accusations.  Paula Caplan, PhD, has written a comprehensive and compelling account of this entire scandal.  Her article is titled Diagnosisgate: Conflict of Interest at the Top of the Psychiatric Apparatus.

With regards to Dr. Frances’ assertion that neither he nor “the experts” were aware that the newer neuroleptics caused obesity and  “…the serious complications that follow from it”, it needs to be noted that this information was available in the literature prior to the publication of the guidelines.  In 1995, Umbricht and Kane conducted a meta-analysis titled Risperidone:  Efficacy and Safety.  They examined nine studies, three of which linked risperidone to weight gain:  Müller-Spahn (1992); Hoyberg et al (1993); and Marder and Meibach (1994).

It is also noteworthy that when the guidelines were published, as a supplement in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, Alan Gelenberg, MD, Editor-in-Chief of the journal, wrote a preface to the supplement.  In this preface, Dr. Gelenberg stated:

“…in conditions such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, where the primary treatments are medications, industry is a looming presence.  Pharmaceutical companies devote enormous sums to academic departments and individual faculty members who consult, conduct research, and teach under the auspices of the company.  These then are the experts who create consensus guidelines.  While few of us sell our opinions to the highest bidder, fewer still are immune from financial influence.” [Emphasis added]

So apparently Dr. Gelenberg could see very clearly, the potential corrupting effect of pharma money, that Dr. Frances could only recognize with hindsight.

And it needs to be borne in mind that Dr. Gelenberg is clearly referring to potential bias on the part of the experts who were  consulted in the construction of the guidelines.  It is unlikely that he was aware that the three psychiatrists who were producing the guidelines clearly conceptualized their role as active marketing of Risperdal, and were committed to helping Janssen increase its market share.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Back to Dr. Frances’ article.

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUPS PROMOTE THE NEGLECT OF THE “REALLY SICK”

 “Consumer advocacy groups, dominated by former patients who are understandably resentful of psychiatric treatment they found harmful or unhelpful, do so [promote the neglect of the ‘really sick’] by fighting against all use of psychiatric medicine and involuntary treatment – even for those much sicker than they, who desperately require such help lest they wind up in prison, homeless, or harming themselves or others.”

Note the patronizing tone.  These advocacy groups just don’t understand.  They’re “understandably resentful”, and this resentment is clouding their judgment and their perceptions.  Also note the unsubstantiated implication that these “resentful” individuals were obviously less troubled than those who truly need “psychiatric medicine and involuntary treatment”.  If those “resentful” people had been “really sick”, they would be more appreciative of the coerced neuroleptic injections and high voltage electric shocks to the brain that psychiatry had so graciously and unstintingly provided.  Note also how the script has been neatly flipped:  psychiatry’s victims are portrayed as the wrongdoers.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EXPLOITING INCIDENTS OF VIOLENCE TO GET MORE FUNDING

“It is also promising that the media are picking up the story, although unfortunately this occurs mostly when someone with a mental illness commits or becomes victim of a violent act. This is unfairly stigmatizing—most of the mentally ill are never violent and most violence is not committed by the mentally ill. But if this is the only way to call attention to the plight of the severely ill and to get funding for adequate  services, and housing, perhaps the tradeoff is worth it.” [Emphasis added]

This is the DJ Jaffe argument:  exploit instances of serious violence to promote compulsory “treatment of the severely mentally ill”.  Dr. Frances acknowledges that this is “unfairly stigmatizing”, but nevertheless condones the sordid, self-serving practice.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The fact is that until 10 or 15 years ago, there was no effective anti-psychiatry movement.  There were some isolated voices of protest, including Thomas Szasz, Peter Breggin, CCHR, Leonard Ullmann, Leonard Krasner, and others, but their impact was slight, and psychiatry paid little heed.

Prior to about 2000, psychiatry and psychiatrists had been running the mental health system for about 170 years (since The British Lunacy Act of 1845), pretty much without criticism or even comment from outsiders.  And it was a disaster!  An utter travesty of medical care.

And in the last 50 years or so, they have poured their resources into the spurious medicalization of an ever-increasing range of non-medical human problems – a process, incidentally, in which Dr. Frances himself, as architect of DSM-IV, was a leading player.  For instance, DSM-IV eased the requirements for a “diagnosis of PTSD”.  In DSM-III, the precipitating incident had to be “…outside the range of usual human experience…”.  In DSM-IV this requirement was deleted, clearly opening the “diagnosis” to far more people than was previously the case.  Similar examples can be found throughout DSM-IV.

In this regard, it is worth noting that Dr. Frances was also a member of the DSM-III-R Work Group, and four of its sub-committees.  So his involvement in the expansion of psychiatry’s net goes back at least to 1983, the year that the APA approved the appointment of the DSM-III-R Work Group.  By the time the DSM-IV Task Force was appointed, it was eminently clear that DSM-III and DSM-III-R had resulted in a huge expansion in the use of psychiatric labels and “treatments”.  As chair of the DSM-IV Task Force, Dr. Frances was in a unique position to reverse this trend, but instead, he accelerated the expansion, by easing criteria (as in the above example), and in some cases by the addition of new “diagnoses” (e.g., acute stress disorder).

It is hypocritical beyond words for Dr. Frances to complain about the diversion of resources to those whom he describes as “the worried well”, when in fact, he himself was the prime mover in the spurious pathologizing of these individuals, many of whom are today trapped on the disempowering treadmill of psychiatric drug addiction.  It was Dr. Frances and his DSM-IV Task Force who decreed that these individuals were “mentally ill” and therefore in need of psychiatric “treatment”.  The psychiatric rank and file eagerly followed his lead, and have been avidly expanding the scope of their practices ever since.

Given all this, it’s a little late in the day for Dr. Frances to be re-inventing himself as the voice of psychiatric moderation and restraint.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And incidentally, in the entire article, Dr. Frances never once mentions psychiatry or psychiatrists.  He criticizes:  pharma (the hand that once fed him so generously); insurance companies; primary care doctors; “patients”; state governments; federal government; consumer advocacy groups; and the NIMH.  But never psychiatry or psychiatrists.

He does level some criticisms at “mental health professionals”, and presumably that term embraces psychiatrists.  But it also includes:  social workers, counselors, case managers, psychologists, job coaches, life skill trainers, substance abuse counselors, client advocates, grief counselors, marriage and family counselors, play therapists, etc…

But the architects and leaders of the destructive, corrupt, disempowering debacle – the psychiatrists themselves – are never specifically mentioned.  The other mental health professionals – whom, incidentally, psychiatry routinely refers to as “ancillary workers” –have little or no say on major issues and, in fact, are routinely marginalized if they even begin to question psychiatry’s spurious medical model.  Attempting, in this way, to dilute psychiatry’s responsibility for its flawed concepts and disastrous “treatment” is just more psychiatric spin.

The fact is that psychiatry is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and despite the criticisms it has received in recent years, has demonstrated no interest in substantive reform.  Certainly pharma was complicit in the hoax, but the primary responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of psychiatry, who grievously and persistently deceived their clients and the general public in order to enhance their own status and earnings.

Calling for a shift of resources from the “less severely ill” to the “more severely ill” is simply a distraction.  And attempting to shift blame away from psychiatry is not only craven, it is also a powerful indicator of psychiatry’s self-deceptive arrogance, and its continued refusal to engage in substantive critical self-scrutiny.  Once again, we have a clear demonstration, from an eminent psychiatrist, that psychiatry is beyond the possibility of meaningful reform.

  • Nick Stuart

    Still producing excellent articles Phil. I read most of them but do not post comments much these days… my criticism of Allen Frances is what got me banned from MIA! Keep up the good work Phil.

  • Phil_Hickey

    Nick,

    Thanks. It’s always nice to hear from you.

    Best wishes.

  • S Randolph Kretchmar

    Excellent points Phil. The only thing I might add is that there certainly were anti-psychiatry voices prior to 2000. The Citizens Commission on Human Rights was established 31 years earlier in 1969, by the Church of Scientology and Thomas Szasz. CCHR continues its work to bring psychiatry back under the law it has evaded since the 19th century, and the people who support CCHR are thrilled that so many others have joined this fight in the past 10 or 15 years! You are among less than a handful of the most eloquent and effective new crusaders.

  • Paula J. Caplan

    How fascinating that you manage not to mention any of the powerful people and groups who were exposing the truth about problems in the mental health system (not just psychiatry) before 2000 — including but not limited to the work of David Oaks, James Gottstein, Judi Chamberlin, Peter Breggin, Leonard Roy Frank, Robert Whitaker, and oh, dear, I am very tired and sure I am leaving out many other very important people. And the ones I have named are all from the U.S., whereas there have been so many people around the globe doing this work. I know who you are and am aware that it is not coincidental that you choose only to name your own groups, as is typical of Scientologists, acting as though they originated what other people actually did the hard work of doing. Everyone needs to know that the so-called Church of Scientology’s CCHR was partially started by Thomas Szasz but that Szasz later totally dissociated himself from it. (When I visited their so-called “museum” in LA, the “guide” said Szasz founded the CCHR and then hurried on in his spiel. I said, “Excuse me. Szasz later totally dissociated himself from it.” He looked daggers at me. I said, “You weren’t going to mention that, were you?” More daggers. And everyone needs to beware of what these entities do and inform themselves about these dangerous entities by reading widely online, and do read Lawrence Wright’s book, Going Clear. I know so many people who were harmed in the mental health system and then, in vulnerable condition, were taken in by Scient. and CCHR and suffered horribly! I have had terrible experiences with them in a great many ways myself and have written publicly about some of them.

  • Paula J. Caplan

    Mr. Stuart, I don’t know what went on with you and MIA, but you might be pleased to see this article that I wrote and that they just published a couple of days ago as a lead article, and it includes a lot of information about AF. http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/10/diagnosisgate-a-major-media-blackout-mystery/#comment-77361

  • Paula J. Caplan

    Thank you for another terrifically explained and argued article, Dr. Hickey. Every time I hear that Allen Frances has yet again bemoaned what he says is the fact that the “seriously mentally ill” are being deprived of neuroleptic drugs, I flash back in my mind to what I learned when reading the Rothman Report and discovered that Allen had played a fundamental role in promoting the neuroleptic drug Risperdal. I wonder if there is a way to find out whether he might still be financially involved with any of the drug companies that market such drugs. People who are interested in your article might wish to have a look at the two in which I addressed these issues. They are at http://www.oa.uottawa.ca/journals/aporia/articles/2015_01/commentary.pdf
    and

    http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/10/diagnosisgate-a-major-media-blackout-mystery/#comment-77361

    There is a video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgilBaRbulc

  • Nick Stuart

    After Thomas Szasz had commited suicide, Allen Frances quoted him (at a private ‘dinner’ conversation) which was an attempt to undermine the whole life’s work of Szasz. I even wrote to and received a response from Jeff Schaler on this matter. I left a comment on MIA to relay my disgust about Frances’ behaviour. Since, MIA were attempting at that time to inculcate Frances into the MIA movement… I was moderated. And then banned. I did receive an email from Robert Whitaker attempting to explain the position… but by then I realised that MIA was being corrupted. So I stopped commenting and withdrew. I will read your article with interest. Cheers.

  • Nick Stuart

    Oh.. I was banned because I called Frances a modern day Mengele for his experimentation on children…. ADHD for example. This was considered by MIA to be too strong an analogy. Maybe it was… but I expressed my anger which I felt was justified. Frances is a politician. He just wants to be on the ‘right’ side whenever there is money to be handed out.

  • Nick Stuart

    Good reading….. Jacques Lacan, Giorgio Antonucci, R. D. Laing, Franco Basaglia, Theodore Lidz, Silvano Arieti, and David Cooper. Others involved were Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman. Peter Conrad also.

  • Phil_Hickey

    Randolph,

    Thanks for coming in and for the correction. It had not been my intention to discount anybody’s contribution, but simply to make the point that up to about 2000, we weren’t actually having much impact.

    I don’t know about being a crusader. Mostly I just feel like a tired old man. But I do appreciate the thought.

    Best wishes.

  • all too easy

    Thank God for medical doctors who don’t listen to quacks like you, you who would have kept me chained to a brain that didn’t work and to the merciless harassment of fools like you. ADHD is a real, devastating, damnable disorder that can be treated successfully with medication. Neither you nor Breggin or Baughman or anyone else will ever again have the authority to dismiss those who are so afflicted. You have no clue. No clue!

  • Rob Bishop

    Nobody is dismissing those who are afflicted and suffering. We all suffer in many ways. Suffering is very real. But is suffering an illness, and a defect of the human body?

  • Nick Stuart

    Leave it out mate. It is obvious to all here you suffer from a incurable mental illness but can you stop bleating on about it. Thanks.

  • Nick Stuart

    Ok ok ok.You are a basket case. We all know this…you do not have to prove this anymore. FFS! Go away. Thanks.

  • Nick Stuart

    Allen Frances has a serious mental illness.

  • all too easy

    That’s quite a lovely bunch you’ve got as followers, Phil. Hope you are proud of their level of decency. They are idiots who have nothing to say, nothing to add of substance. They parrot you and Breggin. I am a misbehaving naughty boy who won’t discipline himself.

    You are a conduit of disrespect and hatred.

  • Cledwyn Pus Poetics

    MIA is getting steadily worse and worse, and its posting guidelines – largely the codification into communal law of the contemporary mass hysteria about words – have undergone so many accretions in the last few years, it’s preposterous.

    Quite amusing to watch though, as is Robert Whitaker’s transfiguration – amongst the convulsionaries gathered about the poor man, those for whom he has become the focal-figure of a frenzy of adulation and who gush oceans of semen at the very mention of his name – into some sort of martyr for truth, in the light of which any insult against him engenders a response from the faithful always utterly disproportionate to the magnitude of the offense (if offense it can be called), and is treated as lese-divinite (an affront to divinity) by the cult of followers who together have formed a human citadel around this eminent torchbearer of truth and justice, who it would seem are blinded by the illusory nimbus of light radiating from his most exalted person.

    Recently his cult of followers have been riding a wave of indignation after Jeffrey Lieberman called him a “menace to society”, as if something really bad had happened, some great injustice, affording a sobering insight into what happens when you mix the contemporary hysteria about words with the lunacy of celebrity hero-worship.

  • S Randolph Kretchmar

    I knew Tom Szasz personally, late in his life. My family and I had a meal with him the year he was keynote speaker at the annual CCHR awards banquet, I believe it was 2003. I corresponded with him for many years.

    I also know many of the groups and individuals you name. Each and every one of them is a hero, as far as I am concerned. One need not be a Scientologist (or an anti-Scientologist, Paula) to fight psychiatric abuse.

  • Nick Stuart

    Golly gosh! You have a magnificent way with words… thank you.

  • Nick Stuart

    Ha ha! As trolls go.. I must say you are pretty good. Cheers!

  • Nick Stuart

    Yes.We all know that you suffer from a genetic biological disease that limits your intelligence and rationality. What do you want? Sympathy?

  • Phil,
    This article should have been on MIA. Of course Allen Frances is/was a contributor there, so maybe the moderators of the site thought it would be too contentious. But calling someone out directly and bluntly should not be restricted because of the position or status of the person being called out. In this case, Frances deserves everything he gets.

    Frances is the ultimate two-face, the modern Janus of psychiatry, a man who promoted diagnosing and drugging while he worked for the cartel, before turning around and criticizing people doing the same way… naturally, after he made off with the loot (millions of dollars in salary and consulting fees). Frances is little different than the bankers who crashed the economy and were then rewarded with bailouts and plum consulting jobs after the crash.

    Regarding this, ““Consumer advocacy groups…. do so [promote the neglect of the ‘really sick’] by fighting against all use of psychiatric medicine and involuntary treatment… who desperately require such help lest they wind up in prison, homeless, or harming themselves or others.”

    There are two additional problems with this statement. One is the all or nothing phrasing. Consumer advocacy groups do not consistently fight against all use of psychiatric drugs. Second is the notion that drugs and involuntary treatment is helpful or effective. The long term outcome for psychotic people in wealthy countries is far worse than in poor countries probably largely because of this treatment… as studies like the WHO organization’s (Kim Hopper) and the recent Jaaskelainen metaanalyses show. Long term use of psych drugs, with its vicious side effects and cognitive damage, leaves psychotic individuals more, not less likely, to become nonfunctional and miserable in the long term.

  • Nick, You should consider returning to MIA. Frances has not written there for a long time, and the anti-Frances voices there heavily outnumber those who would support him, I think.

  • Cledwyn, If you have any real points to make, make them. Ad hominem attacks against the contributors of MIA / Robert Whitaker just make you look weak.

  • Paula J. Caplan

    I was not aware that MIA was trying to inculcate Frances into the MIA movement. I am confused and hope someone can help me understand — I had wondered what would transpire when I saw that Bob Whitaker had invited Allen to appear on a panel at the MIA Film Festival, but when I saw the video of that panel, it was clear that Bob was carefully holding him accountable for some of what he has done and was trying to make sure the truth would be heard. When I saw that Allen was scheduled to give a talk titled, amazingly, “Ethics of Psychiatric Diagnosis,” I wondered what in the world the ISEPP program chairs were thinking, but I was glad to see that at the conference, they had him in a joint Q&A with Bob, and whoever preselected the handed-in written questions chose some good ones that again were aimed at getting the truth out and exposing distortions and lies.

  • Paula J. Caplan

    Frances wrote there very recently — appearing to warn against the evils of putting children on psych drugs. The irony was not pointed out to readers who might not have been familiar with the history.

  • Ok I must have missed this Frances article, Paula.. But if I see another one by him I shall be sure to comment on the hypocrisy in my usual acidic style.

  • all too easy

    Phil, thanks as always for ignoring all the peer reviewed data that proves beyond a doubt that ADHD is all too real.

  • Paula J. Caplan

    I don’t think that he has written other articles for MIA besides that one, has he? It looked to me as though the only other times anything by him appeared there were I think two that were transcripts maybe of debates he and Bob had (if I recall correctly) and how MIA chose to handle my original “Diagnosisgate” paper http://www.oa.uottawa.ca/journals/aporia/articles/2015_01/commentary.pdf was to publish a small thing that was misleadingly headlined so it looked like it was about TMAP, which it most assuredly was not, then a couple of sentences that were about the Risperdal matter, followed by the link to my “Diagnosisgate,” the link to what many have called an ad feminism screed written by Allen Frances that he billed as a “reply” to my article and published in the Huffington Post, and a link to the Rothman Report itself.

  • He only had a couple of posts, you’re right –

    https://www.madinamerica.com/author/afrances/

    He couldn’t write regularly on MIA without being subject to withering assaults from readers there about his promotion of false diagnoses and his taking money from consulting for companies that overdrugged millions.
    Or, he’d have to genuinely repent and admit that he really lost his way and sold his soul for cash when he promoted the fallacious DSM and consulted for those companies.

  • Juan del Diablo

    Aww. Is woogums too sensitive to tolerate even a mere inkling of the kind of abuse he so prodigiously heaps on those whom he finds disagreeable? Too bad. Grow up, you sniveling milquetoast. If you can’t take an insult, then beat it, “pal.”

  • all too easy

    Dearest Beloved Philly,

    The girls here are really giving me a hard time. I don’t think I can carry on. I am a very sweet thang and deserve better treatment. I can only handle so many insults for heaven’s sake. Those big meanies call me troll and tell me to beat it. I continue typing through my flood of years. Please ban all of them for life just as Debbie and Robbie and anonymous and Stevie nickie and juannie the devil have insisted you ban me. Do you have any idea of the horrible ordeal I’ve suffered at the words of those big girls? Do you? I can’t eat or sleep. All I do is cry all day. I take 3 chapters of Breggin books 3 times a day, to no avail.

    Help me Philly. Help me! Woe is me.

  • Juan del Diablo

    Cheer up, Precious. You can always take pride in being a conduit of disrespect and hatred.

  • Phil_Hickey

    Edward,

    Thanks for coming in. The great mystery for me is why Dr. Frances didn’t just stay in retirement! He must know that he’s vulnerable to criticism. Perhaps he hasn’t realized that the Internet changed everything?

    Good point about the harm that drugs cause.

  • all too easy

    He busted your critique of him in 30 seconds.

  • all too easy

    Aye, tis the devil’s mistress. Hi honey. Golly, I’m surprised you resurfaced just it time to make a beautiful comment about your crush. ADHD doesn’t exist. It’s all a big ole conspiracy perpetrated by Robbie and his 4 reindeer. I cashed in on the drug cartels trading on the Big Board. Made billions and pocketed all the prescribing psychiatrists with massive financial incentives. Pablo Escobar is turning over in his grave, sweetheart. Love you. Say hi to your boys who have ADHD but don’t.

  • Rob Bishop

    All agree ADHD symptoms exist, but is this suffering caused by a malfunctioning brain or abnormal blood chemical levels? It’s tempting to think we’re fucked up!

  • Rob Bishop

    Is “All Too Easy” a man or a woman? Are you 18 or 45? A stock broker or a grocery store checker? Do you live by yourself in an apartment or do you have a spouse with a houseful of children? Tell us about yourself. Did your parents give you compassion? Did you grow up with a foundation of love and support? Do you like marinated artichoke hearts? Do you prefer love or hate? Come on, let it all out. We are here for you.

  • Juan del Diablo

    Atta girl, Betty. Way to rally.

  • Nick Stuart

    Thank you Edward.

  • Nick Stuart

    Yes Paula.The double standards of this man is cognitive dissonance at its finest. There should be a DSM category reserved totally for him and his kind.

  • Bradford

    I’m curious, Nick – I first found “MIA” a few months ago, and damn glad I did. But, they DO have a fairly severe “moderator” named “Emmeline Mead”. She does “play favorites”. I’ve had comments removed, parts edited out, and almost got myself banned. Yes, I use very strong language, and am NOT afraid of a word fight. Are you still “banned” at “MIA”?….

  • Bradford

    What “medications” do you take, and at what doses_____?….
    Remind me again – what’s the name of the diagnostic test that confirmed your ADHD diagnosis? I might have that devastating disorder, too. You never know, right?

  • Molli

    Emmeline Mead is a very aggressive moderator. Don’t try to criticize anyone from the madinamerica network. your comment will disappear soon.

  • Bradford

    That hoary old “ad hominem attacks” line got stale back in the 20th Century…..”Cledwynn Pus Poetics’s” comment was very entertaining, even if a little overblown and verbose. I’m sorry that the POINT of it seems to have sailed right over your head….I read on MiA daily, and I agree to some extent with Cledwyn….

  • Bradford

    Hello, Paula! Just read your article in aporia, that you linked to in a comment just above. That was very well written, and thanks again for the link. I doubt I would have seen it otherwise.

  • Bradford

    Frances, quoted above, says: “Many people with “mental illnesses” get sent to prison for nuisance crimes which would not have occurred had they received appropriate treatment.”…. I proved the LIE of that statement 30 years ago, the HARD way…. The local paper had an article about my “antics”, entitled “Crime Often Ticket for Psychiatric Help”. The *TRUTH* was, I *had* been seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Louise J. Dierker, and she was giving me “Triavil 4/25’s”, at 3xday. (That’s 4mg.s Trilofon, & 25mg.’s Imipramine) I quit “cold turkey”, and experienced a near-fatal toxic withdrawal, for which
    the State put me in the PRISON psych unit for 6 months, where I was further TORTURED by 1,000mg.s/day of Thorazine! The article SHOULD have been titled “Psychiatric Help Often Ticket to Crime.” Dr. Dierker was later stripped of her medical license, but I didn’t find that out until years later. Given that “the appropriate treatment” includes TOXIC DRUGS, I’d be surprised if fewer folks were incarcerated. Private, for-profit prisons are also a driver of the mass incarceration of the so-called “mentally ill”.
    In fact, a good case could be made for the whole CMHC scam to be nothing more than a vehicle for mass-drugging of the American population, for profit. The LIES of the pseudoscience drug racket known as “biopsychiatry” have done, and continue to do, far more harm than good.
    (c)2016, Tom Clancy, Jr., *NON-fiction

  • Bradford

    Yes, so-called “ADHD” is exactly as “real” as presents from Santa Claus. But not more “real”. I received MANY presents from Santa Claus, when I was a child, under the family Christmas tree on Christmas mornings. Sometimes, “all too easy” really *IS* “too easy”…. Again, so-called “ADHD” is all too real, like presents from Santa Claus./

  • Bradford

    Did you really get *BANNED* from MiA? Their comment moderator, “Emmeline Mead”, has censored several of my own comments – only sometimes justified – but did you actually get “banned”? I am seriously curious. RSVP?

  • all too easy

    LOL

  • Bradford

    Laughing at other people’s painful truths is either a sign of emotional maturity – or else of being a TRUMP VOTER….
    **GO**BERNIE**!…..Benghazi that b**ch, Bernie!
    ~ROTFLMFAO~
    easy~peasy

  • all too easy

    Funny. Let’s ask the doctor who once treated you exactly what happened, shall we? Whoops, what do you mean you can’t?
    I spot em so fast, their heads are spinning for days

  • Phil_Hickey

    Bradford,

    Thanks for coming in. I very much agree with you: psychiatric help is often a “ticket to crime”. And the community mental health centers have degenerated into little more than pharmaceutical store-fronts.

    Best wishes.

  • Bradford

    It’s worse than you know – or maybe, worse than you’re willing to admit. The “CMHC Act” was 1964, well after the first uses of Thorazine, etc., in the 1950’s, and the industry-specific advertising of that time. There are some excellent examples online, in the “DrBonkersinstitute” website.(sorry i don’t have the link….). The primary purpose of the CMHC’s was to greatly increase the proliferation of “psych drugs”. Expansion of both Medicaid & Medicare was part of that profit plan. Also, the whole “parity” debate, starting in the early 1990’s with “Hilary-care”. So, no, the CMHC’s haven’t “degenerated” into “PhRMA store-fronts”, they were specifically SET UP AS PhRMA store-fronts….Please don’t be so naive as to think otherwise….
    (c)2016, Tom Clancy, Jr., *NON-fiction

Previous post:

Next post: