09-07-08: Special Virus Cancer Program: Iatrogenic Medical Industrial Complex

State v. Johnstone: Crimen Injuria Plaintiff: Hon. Patricia de Lille, MP, ID Defendant: Lara Johnstone, HARTSSTARH CT-CAS 1340/7/07 & 17/1384/07 & 14/1198/08 George-CAS 572/02 ::: HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04

crimeninuria.blogspot.com in-gods-name.blogspot.com

Dept. of Defence: Surgeon General Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Investigation & Special Virus Cancer Program Evidentiary Documentation RSA Dept of Defence: Surgeon General Restricted: Iatrogenic Aids Origins Theory, 29 August 2003 [SG/R/509/1] Receipt Form: Receipt No: 3215/04; Receipt for Top Secret/Secret of Confidential Documents: 509/1; 30/11/04 Request for Access to Records of Public Body, 21 February 2005 (Ref: 2360/05) [SG/Legal/R/509/1] Request for Access to Records of Public Body, 30 November 2004 [SG/C/509/1] Total Pages: Four (4)

1971 Special Virus Cancer Program Flow Chart (Provided by Dr. Boyd Graves): Flowchart: Research Logic of the Special Virus Cancer Program: Viral Oncology, Etiology, NCI – August 1971 AIDS is Manmade – Interview with Dr. Boyd Graves, by FinalCall.com News Total Pages: Six (6) + Flowchart

Excerpts from Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional, and Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism, and Toxic Warfare, by Dr. Len Horowitz 26.1 6.5 7.1 8.5 22.1 22.2 1.1 6.8 22.4 8.3 13.3

Abstract of Scientific Paper Presented at the XI International Conference on AIDS in Vancouver BC, Canaday, July 1996 Development of AIDS-like Viruses by Robert Gallo and Associates at the NCI and Litton Bionetics Theoretic Manufacture of AIDS-like Viruses From Bovine Leukemia and Sheep Visna Viruses Iatrogenic Theory of the Evolution of HIV-1 and HIV-2 Special Virus Cancer Program Book Cover Organisational Chart and Program Managers of the NCI’S Special Virus Cancer Program Department of Defense Appropriations Hearings for 1970 on the Development of Immune System Destroying Agents for Biological Warfare The Early Research of Dr. Robert Gallo at the National Cancer Institute and Its Implications in Relation to the Theory of Synthetic HIV Development A Description of the Molecular and Immunological Studies Conducted During the NCI’s Special Virus Program NIH Progress Report on Testing Mutant RNA Sarcoma and Leukemia Tumor Viruses at the Univ. of Calif. By Duesberg and Others, 1971 NIAID Grant Summary Report: Hepatitus Virus Experiments Conducted on Monkeys and Homosexual Males in N.Y.C.

22.5

Grant Descriptions and Summary Reports of AIDS-like Virus and Vaccine Studies Conducted by Bionetics, Merck, Hazleton, University of California, and Public Health Research Institute of the City of New York During the NCI’s Special Virus Cancer Program 22.6 Grant Description and Summary Reports of “Highest Priority” AIDS-like Virus Studies Conducted by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology During the NCI’s Special Virus Cancer Program 23.5 Summary Report of Monkey Inoculation Studies Conducted by Litton Bionetics and NCI Researchers in Northwest Uganda 25.2 Annual Funding Levels for Viral Oncology Segments of the NCI’s Special Virus Cancer Program 1.3 Litton Bionetics Contract Report to Investigate Viral Carcinogenesis in Primates by Developinig HIV/AIDS-like (“Type-C RNA Retro-)Viruses 1962 – 1972 14.3 Additional Grant Descriptions and Summary Reports of Primate Cancer Virus Production and Supply Services Provided by Litton Bionetics 14.4 Merck Pharmaceutical Company Contract Suggesting an Iatrogenic Origin of AIDS: Early Feline Leukemia/Sarcoma, Herpes Virus, and Monkey Cancer Virus Studies That Led to the Pilot Hepatitus B Vaccines Partially Prepared in Chimpanzees, Given to Gay Men in NYC and African Blacks by 1975 14.5 Population Control Funding FY’s 1993 – 5 16.4 American Type Culture Collection “Curatorial” Development & Distribution of Tumor Viruses including “Leukemogenic” Retroviruses 16.5 US-USSR Agreement Under Which Biological Weapons including The Most Advanced Cancer Viruses were traded During the Cold War 18.6 David Baltimore HIV/AIDS-like Virus Study at MIT During the SVCP, 1971 – 1978 18.8 Viral, Chemical, and Radiological Co-Carcinogenesis Studies by US Department of Energy With Special Emphasis on AIDS-like and Minority Diseases 18.10 Stunning 1977 Documentation Linking Robert Gallo and Litton Bionetics to Human Immune Virus (HIV-like) Cellular Disease Inductions Through Recombinant Infections with Cat Leukemia, Monkey Sarcoma and Epstein-Barr Viruses 18.12 Litton Bionetics List of Infectious Agents and Mutant Viral Recombinants Being Used in 1971 Primate Inoculation and Disease Induction Studies 23.6 Bionetics Summary Report of Studies Code Named According to Researchers last Names Including MK-SVLP (Manaker/Kotin – Special Virus Leukemia Program) 10.1 Persuasion Graphic Illustrating An Urgent Need for Population Control in Third World Countries 14.1 Combined Measles/Smallpox Immunization Campaign By Agencies Suspected of Spreading AIDS to Central West Africa 18.3 National Research Council’s Persuasion Graphic of Growing World Population Size 1900 - 2050 18.4 National Research Council’s/United Nations Data on Projected Fertility in Low Fertility Countries 18.5 National Research Council (NAS-NRC) Advises US Military on the Development of HIV-like Biological Weapons in 1969 26.4 Reply to CDC Director Dr. David Satcher from Dr. Leonard Horowitz Concerning Contaminated Vaccines and the Iatrogenic Theory of AIDS’s Origin 15.2 Organizational Chart for Global Control 16.1 Famous Members of the “Committee of 300” 11.1* Congressional Record of the CIA Biological Weapons Project MKNAOMI As Part of Top Secret Mind Control Project MKULTRA 12.4 Major US Military and Intelligence Agency Electromagnetic Mind-Control Projects 11.2 Declassified US Army Chemical Corps Document Showing Genetic Engineering of Fungi with Viral Nucleic Acids by 1962 11.1** Declassified Document Explaining the CIA’s Project Paperclip and Project 63 – Programs to Locate, Recruit, and Exfiltrate Nazi Scientists To Serve American Intelligence Interests Total Pages: Sixty-Three (63)

On the Road Again Truckers Journal HARTS/NSA_NEWS: RSA Political Perspectives on the Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Total Pages: Two (2)

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity”

Iatrogenic Medical Eugenics’ Industrial Complex 1. The Smoking Gun of AIDS: a 1971 Special Virus Cancer Program Flowchart, Boyd E. Graves, J.D. 2. Who’s Teaching the Doctors? Drug Firms Sponsor Required Courses – and See their Sales Rise, USA Today, March 9, 2000 3. Who Pays the Piper (American Medical Association), by G Edward Griffin 4. The Future of Mental Health: Radical Changes Ahead, USA Today 03/01/97 5. Psychiatry and the Psycho-Pharmaceutical Complex, Foundation for Truth in Reality 6. Reality, Belief and the Mind: An Example: Modern Medicine, by Gene Zimmer 7. Vioxx maker Merch and Co., drew up a doctor hit list, The Australian 8. Remembering AIDS Green Monkey Insanity, a foreword to Remembering Masturbation Insanity, by Thomas Szasz See Also:   

      

Mathew P. Dumont, In Bed Together at the Market: Psychiatry and the Pharmaceutical Industry, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol 60(4), Oct 1990, 484-485 Joanna Moncrieff, "An Unholy Alliance? Psychiatry and the influence of the pharmaceutical industry", Spinwatch, 27 June 2006.

Scott Hensley and Barbara Martinez, "To Sell Their Drugs, Companies Increasingly Rely on Doctors: For $750 and Up, Physicians Tell Peers About Products; Talks Called Educational: Dr. Pitts's Busy Speaking Tour; Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2005.

Victoria Kreha, "Checkbook Politics: Over the last seven years, the pharmaceutical industry has given $150 million in campaign contributions", Center for Public Integrity, July 7, 2005.

Alexander Cohen, "Surrogates for Their Agenda: How the drug industry uses non-profits to push its interests", Center for Public Integrity, July 7, 2005.

Joe Neel , "Medical Schools and Drug Firm Dollars", NPR.org, June 9, 2005.

M. Asif Ismail, "Exporting Prices: Drug makers' trade group makes the industry's priorities U.S. trade policy", Center for Public Integrity, July 1, 2005.

Emma Miller, "Big Pharma: Reaping Profits from Disease Mongering", Spinwatch, June 28, 2005.

M. Asif Ismail, "Drug Lobby Second to None: How the pharmaceutical industry gets its way in Washington", Center for Public Integrity, July 7, 2005.

Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, "Spin Doctored: How drug companies keep tabs on physicians", Slate, May 31, 2005

The Smoking Gun of AIDS: a 1971 Flowchart

by Boyd E. Graves, J.D. December 6, 2000 In 1977, a secret federal virus program produced 15,000 gallons of AIDS. The record reveals the United States was represented by Dr. Robert Gallo and the USSR was represented by Dr. Novakhatsky of the diabolical Ivanosky Institute. On August 21,

1999, the world first saw the flowchart of the plot to thin the Black Population.

The 1971 AIDS flowchart coordinates over 20,000 scientific papers and fifteen years of progress reports of a secret federal virus development program. The epidemiology of AIDS is an identical match to the "research logic" identified in the five section foldout. The flowchart is page 61 of Progress Report #8 (1971) of the Special Virus program of the United States of America. We today, challenge world scientists to discussion of this document find.

1

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity” We believe there is a daily, growing number of world experts who are all coming to the same conclusion regarding the significance of the flowchart. Dr. Garth Nicolson has examined the flowchart as well as other top experts from around the world. It is time for Dr. Michael Morrissey of Germany to examine the flowchart and report to the world. In addition, we have now examined the 1978 report. It is heresy to continue to further argue the program ended in 1977.

The 1978 report of the development of AIDS leaves no doubt as to the ("narrow result") candidate virus sought by the United States. The flowchart conclusively proves a secret federal plot to develop a "contagious cancer" that "selectively kills."

Following the presentation of the flowchart in Canada, the same information was presented to the United States in the rotunda of the Western Reserve Historical Society in Cleveland. Shortly thereafter a major African newspaper called and for four days in a row, this issue was the feature story in an uncensored press. The people of Africa already know about the U.S. virus development program. It is time for the rest of us to know.

In January, the U.S. had no response to my two page abstract submitted to the African American AIDS 2000 conference. In February, the U.S. Congress had no response to the 3000 Americans who signed signature petitions calling for immediate review of the flowchart and progress reports of the secret virus development program.

We firmly believe once the dust settles from the current election marathon, reviewing the special virus program will be the single most important pursuit of the 21st Century.

More scientists and doctors must join with Dr. Nicolson, Dr. Strecker, Dr. Cantwell, Dr. Horowitz, Dr. Lee, Dr. Wainwright, Dr. Halstead and Professor Boyle. In any public debate on this issue, we will continue to present the flowchart of the secret virus development program, as the "irrefutable missing link" in the true laboratory origin of AIDS. We have successfully navigated a federal maze and matrix and found a curtain surrounding the issue of AIDS. The 1999 discovery and presentation of the AIDS flowchart is a "smoke detector" wake up call. Society has an obligation to do more than don masks.

Non-inclusive random endnotes: U.S. Special Virus program, Progress Report #8 (1971), pg. 61 (the flowchart) National Security Defense Memorandum (NSDM) #314, Brent Scowcroft (1975).

"Special Message to the U.S. Congress on Problems of Population Growth", Richard M. Nixon, July 18, 1969

Public Law 91-213, "To Stabilize World Populations", John D. Rockefeller, III, Chairman, March 16, 1970 National Security Council Memorandum (NSCM) #46, "Black Africa and the U.S. Black Movement", Zbigniew Brezinski, March 17, 1978

Excerpt: Library of Congress: Thomas: Page E418 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/R?r106:FLD001:E50418] Save Money for Prescription Drug Research Act of 2000 – Hon. Fortney Pete Stark (Extensions of Remarks - March 27, 2000)

Who’s Teaching the Doctors?

Drug Firms Sponsor Required Courses – and See their Sales Rise

By Dan Vergano, USA Today, March 9, 2000 At first glance, Harvard Medical School and advertising giant Omnicom Group seem to have little in common.

But they share one trait: the right to award medical education credits that doctors need to keep their licenses in 34 states.

Omnicom, working through subsidiary Pragmaton, is one of a growing number of advertising and marketing firms that provide continuing medical education (CME) courses for physicians. The firms are fully accredited, but because the marketing firms often are working for pharmaceutical companies, the practice increasingly is setting off ethical alarms.

“It is unconscionable,”' says Catherine De Angelis, editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Marketing firms “advertise wares under the guise of medical education,'” she says.

But advocates say commercial CME courses use faculty from top medical schools, ensuring objectivity, while delivering updates on drugs to the medical community more quickly than academic educators.

“Companies live through education”' to ensure new products are used appropriately, says Bert Spilker of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in Washington, D.C. Without commercial CME firms, “you won't find enough Mother Teresas to provide everything doctors need,'” says Michael Scotti, a CME official with the American Medical Association. His organization is one of the seven medical groups that charter the Chicago-based Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the office that accredits courses nationwide.

The drug companies provide “unrestricted'' grants to the marketers, who hire the course faculty. But growing numbers of critics say there's nothing unrestricted about the involvement of pharmaceutical companies.

They fear that CME firms, which widely refer to course sponsors as “clients,” stack their programs with faculty

2

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity” physicians overly friendly to their sponsors' products.

Sponsors get a chance to market their products directly to doctors in a venue disguised as education, critics say.

In fact, one company, Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly, is directly accredited for CME, raising further concerns.

Regulations going into effect in June promise higher standards of separation between grant providers and course faculty, but critics say they are weak and unenforceable. Meanwhile, attempts to change the practice have been rebuffed even as the number of commercial providers has increased. Last spring, a resolution condemning accreditation of commercial CME firms, signed by In February, a federal appeals court turned away the Food and Drug Administration's latest bid for oversight of the CME industry, reaffirming a decision made on freedom-of-speech grounds.

PATIENT'S BEST INTEREST? The concern comes at a time when pharmaceutical influence on doctors is under scrutiny. A January study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that company-sponsored courses mentioned positive effects of the companies' drugs 2.5 to 3 times more often than other courses. Swayed by such marketing, doctors prescribed the sponsors' drugs 5.5% to 18.7% more often afterward, according to the study, without giving competitive products a similar bounce.

Critics fear that what's in the patient's best interest won't always be the determining factor when a doctor scribbles out a prescription.

They point to firms such as an accredited company called Interactive Medical Networks (IMN) of Rockville, Md., which promises pharmaceutical companies “a collaborative process with a provider who shares your expectations”' on its Web site (www.cmemuscle.com).

In translation, that means commercial grant providers can freely recommend faculty for courses, IMN head Jan Perez says. “If they're interested in Dr. Jones or Dr. Smith, we try to work with them.”

Under current conditions, “it's up to doctors to identify who's shilling for a company,” says cardiologist Richard Conti of the University of Florida at Gainesville, editor in chief of Clinical Cardiology.

Despite believing that the CME system works well overall, Conti wrote an editorial last year calling for all providers to have independent monitoring committees to ensure objectivity.

“We recognize that concern,” says Murray Kopelow, head of the ACCME. Under the standards going into effect in June, parent companies of commercial CME firms must possess a mission “congruent” with medical education.

Kopelow says commercial course providers will meet the standards if they maintain a “firewall” between corporate departments whose mission is selling advertising to drug companies and the people preparing medical education courses.

PAYING FOR THE SYSTEM

Accredited course providers report about $900 million in annual income to the ACCME. More than 40% of grant funding from drug and medical device firms goes to the 25% of those providers consisting of commercial organizations, not the medical schools and societies that control other aspects of physician training.

“We work the same way academic centers work”, says Dennis Hoppe of Chicago-based Pragmaton. At the insistence of clients, employees involved with education cannot have a role in advertising activities. In addition, the company hires external doctors and pharmacists to review programs for objectivity.

Pragmation has higher course standards than his hospital, says psychiatrist Michael Easton of Rush Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago, a review board member.

If the accrediting group arbitrarily banned commercial firms from offering CME, it would result in a classaction lawsuit aimed not only at the organization, but also against critics, says Jack Angel, head of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication, an industry trade group. “As long as we meet the same standards, we have a right to participate,” he says.

“Baloney,” De Angelis says. “Show me one of their programs where (faculty) physicians push drugs not made by the sponsor.”

On the industry side, Angel says academic providers may be complaining about commercial providers more for competitive than altruistic reasons. “They want more of the action.'”

FEW PHYSICIAN COMPLAINTS In response to the dispute, Kopelow says, the ACCME has considered requirements that independent monitoring committees oversee all providers. But even with the new standards, critics note other potential problems with the group's oversight: Providers get to pick in advance which monitors review courses for objectivity.

No requirements ensure that physicians take courses relevant to their specialties.

No explicit requirement exists for physician involvement in CME planning.

“We rely on faculty professionalism to a large extent,” Kopelow says. Industry participation in medicine is standard practice, he says, citing such examples as forprofit hospitals and health maintenance organizations as “the way we do things in the United States.” Private companies offering CME simply reflect that phenomenon, in his view.

The required disclosure of who finances a course and of any faculty ties to corporate sponsors goes a long way toward ensuring doctors who take CME courses know where advice is coming from, Kopelow says. “We have millions of eyes out there watching” in some 600,000 annual hours of accredited courses.

Over the past three years his organization has received 56 complaints about programs, 14 resulting in warning letters. But some point out that doctors who want to renew their medical licenses have little incentive to call

3

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity” into question a program that helps them reach that goal.

“Patients should be concerned about this,” Glotzer says. “The job and responsibility of these firms is to market drugs, not to teach doctors.”

Disputes over industry involvement in medicine extend into many areas, some physicians note.

“It's somewhat insulting to think that doctors don't have inquiring minds that can tell the good from the bad,” says Dolores Bacon of New York Presbyterian Medical Center.

“There's a huge variability in commercial (CME) programs,” she adds. “Ultimately, as physicians, our job is to be informed consumers.”

Who Pays the Piper (AMA)

by G. Edward Griffin The American Medical Association is the union for the medical establishment, but more than that, it primarily acts as a prostitute for the major drug companies. Truth, workability, effectiveness and health are not what it is concerned with. The AMA profits largely if the drug companies profit. A large percentage of the income of the AMA derives from drug company advertizing in it's journal.

The AMA has acted ruthlessly to destroy and silence alternative therapies and practices which threaten the traditional medical establishment - it's all about power and money and to hell with the health of the public. This has been it's modus operandi since it was created.

(This is taken from Chapter XVIII of G. Edward Griffin's book, World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17) The low state of medical education in the U.S. prior to 1910; the importance of the Flexner Report in dramatizing the need for reform; the role played by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations in implementing the Flexner Report; and the use of foundation funding as a means of gaining control over American medical schools.

There is an old saying: "He who pays the piper, calls the tune." This is one of those eternal truths that exist - and always will exist - in business, in politics, and in education.

We have seen how John D. Rockefeller captured the hearts of Baptist ministers with a mere $600,000 granted to Chicago University. What remains to be demonstrated is that he also captured control of the university.

Within a year after the grant, Rockefeller's personal choice, Dr. William Rainey Harper, was named president of the institution. And within two years, the teaching staff had been successfully purged of all antiRockefeller dissidents. A professor of economics and a

professor of literature distingllished themselves by proclaiming that Mr. Rockefeller was "superior in creative genius to Shakespeare, Homer, and Dante."

By comparison, another teacher, a Professor Bemis, was expelled from the staff for "incompetence" when he repeatedly criticized the action of the railroads during the Pullman strike of 1894. A few years later, after the Rockefeller family, through the "philanthropy" of John Archbald, had gained parallel influence at Syracuse University in western New York, an economics instructor by the name of John Cummons was dismissed by the Chancellor for similar reasons.

In 1953, Representative B. Carroll Reese of Tennessee received the authority of Congress to establish a special committee to investigate the power and influence of tax-exempt foundations. The committee never got very far off the ground due to mounting political pressure from multiple sources high within government itself and, eventually, Reese was forced to terminate the committee's work. During its short period of existence, however, many interesting and highly revealing facts were brought to light. Norman Dodd, who was the committee's director of research, and probably one of the country's most knowledgeable authorities on foundations, testified during the hearings and told the committee: The result of the development and operation of the network in which the foundations (by their support and encouragement) have played such a significant role, seems to have provided this country with what is tantamount to a national system of education under the tight control of organizations and persons little known to the American public . . . . The curriculum in this tightly controlled scheme of education is designed to indoctrinate the American student from matriculation to the consummation of his education.(1) Under the careful supervision of Fred Gates, John D. Rockefeller set out consciously and methodically to capture control of American education and particularly of American medical education. The process began in 1901 with the creation of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. It included on its board such politically oriented "medical" names as Doctors L. Emmett Holt, Christian A. Herter, T. Mitchell Pruden, Hermann M. Briggs, William H. Welch, Theobald Smith, and Simon Flexner. Christian Herter was slated for bigger things, of course, and became Secretary of State under President Eisenhower. Simon Flexner also was destined for larger success. Although his name never became as well-known as that of Herter, he and his brother, Abraham Flexner, probably influenced the lives of more people and in a more profound way than has any Secretary of State.

Abraham Flexner was on the staff of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. As mentioned previously, the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations traditionally worked together almost as one in the furtherance of their mutual goals, and this certainly was no exception. The Flexner brothers represented the lens that brought both the Rockefeller and the Carnegie fortunes into sharp focus on the unsuspecting and thoroughly vulnerable medical profession.

4

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity�

Prior to 1910, the practice of medicine in the United States left a great deal to be desired. Some medical degrees could be purchased through the mail and many others could be obtained with marginal training at understaffed and inadequate medical schools. The profession was suffering from a bad public reputation and reform was in the air.

The American Medical Association had begun to take an interest in cleaning its own house. It created a Council on Medical Education for the express purpose of surveying the status of medical training throughout the country and of making specific recommendations for its improvement. But by 1908 it had run into serious difficulty as a result of committee differences and insufficient funding. It was into this void that the Rockefeller-Carnegie combine moved with brilliant strategy and perfect timing. Henry S. Pritchett, the president of the Carnegie Foundation, approached the AMA and simply offered to take over the entire project.

The minutes for the meeting of the AMA's Council on Medical Education held in New York in December of 1908 tell the story: At one o'clock an informal conference was held with President Pritchett and Mr. Abraham Flexner of the Carnegie Foundation. Mr. Pritchett had already expressed by correspondence the willingness of the Foundation to cooperate with the Council in investigating the medical schools.

He now explained that the Foundation was to investigate all the professions: law, medicine, and theology (2) . . .

He agreed with the opinion previously expressed by the members of the Council that while the Foundation would be guided very largely by the Council's investigation, to avoid the usual claims of partiality no more mention should be made in the report of the Council than any other source of information. The report would therefore be, and have the weight of, a disinterested body, which would then be published far and wide. It would do much to develop public opinion.(3) Here was the classical "philanthropic formula" at work again. Have others pay a major portion of the bill (the AMA had already done most of the work. The total Carnegie investment was only $ 10,000), reap a large bonus from public opinion (isn't it wonderful that these men are taking an interest in upgrading medical education!), and gain an opportunity to control a large and vital sphere of American life.

This is how that control came about.

The Flexner Report, as it was called, was published in 1910. As anticipated, it was "published far and wide," and it did "do much to develop public opinion." The report quite correctly pointed out the inadequacies of medical education at the time. No one could take exception with that. It also proposed a wide range of sweeping changes, most of which were entirely sound.

No one could take exception with those, either. The alert researcher will note, however, the recommendations emphatically included the strengthening of courses in pharmacology and the addition of research departments at all "qualified" medical schools.

And so, the Flexner Report was above reproach and, undoubtedly, it performed a service that was much needed at the time. It is what followed in the wake of the report that reveals its true purpose in the total plan. Rockefeller and Carnegie began immediately to shower hundreds of millions of dollars on those better medical schools that were vulnerable to control. Those that did not conform were denied the funds and the prestige that came with those funds, and were forced out of business.

A hundred and sixty schools were in operation in 1905.

By 1927, the number had dropped to eighty. True, most of those that were edged out had been sub-standard.

But so were some of those that received foundation money and survived. The primary test was not their previous standing but their willingness to accept foundation influence and control.

Historian Joseph Goulden describes the process this way: Flexner had the ideas, Rockefeller and Carnegie had the money, and their marriage was spectacular. The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research and the General Education Board showered money on tolerably respectable schools and on professors who expressed an interest in research.(4) Since 1910, the foundations have "invested" over a billion dollars in the medical schools of America. Nearly half of the faculty members now receive a portion of their income from foundation "research" grants, and over sixteen percent of them are entirely funded this way. Rockefeller and Carnegie have not been the only source of these funds. Substantial influence also has been exerted by the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund (a Rockefeller interlock created by Edward Harkness of Standard Oil), the Sloan Foundation, and the Macy Foundation. The Ford Foundation has been extremely active in the field of medical education in recent years, but none of them can compare to the Rockefellers and the Carnegies for sheer money volume and historical continuity.

Joseph C. Hinsey, in his highly authoritative paper entitled "The Role of Private Foundations in the Development of Modern Medicine," reviews the sequence of this expanding influence: Starting with Johns Hopkins Medical School in 1913, the General Education Board supported reorganizations which brought about fulltime instruction in the clinical as well as the basic science departments of the first two years of medical education at Washington University in St. Louis, at Yale, and at Chicago. In 1923, a grant was made to the University of Iowa in the amount of $2,250,000 by the General Education Board and the Rockefeller Foundation. Similar grants in smaller amounts were made to the following state-supported medical schools: University of Colorado, University of Oregon, University of Virginia, and University of Georgia. An appropriation was made to the University of Cincinnatti, an institution which received some of its support from municipal sources. Howard University and the Meharry Medical School were strengthened, the latter

5

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� by some eight million dollars. The General Education Board and the Rockefeller Foundation later made substantial grants to the medical schools at Harvard, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Cornell, Tulane Western Reserve, Rochester, Duke, Emory, and the Memorial Hospital in New York affiliated with Cornell.(5) This list, of course is not complete. It is necessary to add to it the medical schools of Northwestern, Kansas, and Rochester; each heavily endowed, either by Rockefeller money, or by the Commonwealth Fund which is closely aligned with Rockefeller interests.(6) After Abraham Flexner completed his report, he became one of the three most influential men in American medicine. The other two were his brother, Dr. Simon Flexner of the Rockefeller Institute and Dr. William Welch of Johns Hopkins Medical School and of the Rockefeller Institute. According to Hinsey, these men, acting as "a triumvirate": . . .were not only involved in the awarding of grants for the Rockefeller Foundation, but they were counselors to heads of institutions, to lay board members, to members of staffs of medical schools and universities in the United States and abroad. They served as sounding boards, as stimulators of ideas and,progr;4ms, as mediators in situations of difficulty.(7) The Association of American Medical Colleges has been one of the principal vehicles of foundation and cartel control over medical education in the United States and Canada. First organized in 1876, it serves the function of setting a wide range of standards for all medical schools. It determines the criteria for selecting medical students, for curriculum development, for programs of continuing medical education after graduation, and for communication within the profession as well as to the general public. The Association of American Medical Colleges, from its inception, has been funded and dominated by the Commonwealth Fund, the China Medical Board (created in 1914 as a division of the Rockefeller Foundation), the Kellogg Foundation, the Macy, Markle, Rockefeller, and Sloan foundations.(8) By way of analogy, we may say that the foundations captured control of the apex of the pyramid of medical education when they were able to place their own people onto the boards of the various schools and into key administrative positions. The middle of the pyramid was secured by the Association of American Medical Colleges which set standards and unified the curricula.

The base of the pyramid, however, was not consolidated until they finally were able to select the teachers themselves. Consequently, a major portion of foundation activity always has been directed toward what generally is called "academic medicine." Since 1913, the foundations have completely preempted this field. The Commonwealth Fund reports a half a million dollars in one year alone appropriated for this purpose, while the Rockefeller Foundation boasts of over twenty thousand fellowships and scholarships for the training of medical instructors.(9)

In The Money Givers, Joseph Goulden touches upon this sensitive nerve when he says: If the foundations chose to speak, their voice would resound with the solid clang of the cash register. Their expenditures on health and hospitals totalled more than a half-billion dollars between 1964 and 1968, according to a compilation by the American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel. But the foundations' "innovative money" goes for research, not for the production of doctors who treat human beings. Medical schools, realizing this, paint their faces with the hue desired by their customers .(10) Echoing this same refrain, David Hopgood, writing in the Washington Monthly, says: The medical school curriculum and its entrance requirements are geared to the highly academic student who is headed for research. In the increasingly desperate struggle for admission, these academically talented students are crowding out those who want to practice medicine .(11) And so it hag come to pass that the teaching staffs of all our medical schools are a very special breed. In the selection and training process, heavy emphasis always has been put on finding individuals who, because of temperament or special interest, have been attracted by the field of research, and especially by research in pharmacology. This has resulted in loading the staffs of our medical schools with men and women who, by preference and by training, are ideal propagators of the drug-oriented science that has come to dominate American medicine. And the irony of it is that neither they nor their students are even remotely aware that they are products of a rigid selection process geared to hidden commercial objectives. So thorough is their insulation from this fact that, even when exposed to the obvious truth, very few are capable of accepting it, for to do so would be a tremendous blow to their professional pride. Generally speaking, the deeper one is drawn into the medical profession, the more years he has been exposed to its regimens, the more difficult it is to break out of its confines. In practical terms, this simply means that your doctor probably will be the last person on your Christmas card list to accept the facts presented in this study!

Dr. David L. Edsall at one time was the Dean of the Harvard Medical School. The conditions he describes at Harvard are the same as those at every other medical school in America: I was, for a period, a professor of therapeutics and pharmacology, and I knew from experience that students were obliged then by me and by others to learn about an interminable number of drugs, many of which were valueless, many of them useless, some probably, even harmful . . . Almost all subjects must be taken at exactly the same time, and in almost exactly in the same way by all students, and the amount introduced into each course is such that few students have time or energy to explore any subject in a spirit of independent interest. A little comparison shows that there is less intellectual freedom in the medical course than in almost any other form of professional education in this country.(12) Yes, he who pays the piper does call the tune. It may not be humanly possible for those who finance the medical schools to determine what is taught in every

6

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� minute detail. But such is not necessary to achieve the cartel's desired goals. One can be sure, however, that there is total control over what is not taught, and that, under no circumstances will even one of Rockefeller's shiny dimes ever go to a medical college, to a hospital, to a teaching staff, or to a researcher that holds the unorthodox view that the best medicine is in nature.

Because of its generous patron, orthodoxy always will fiddle a tune of man-made drugs. Whatever basic nutrition may be allowed into the melody will be minimal at best, and it will be played over and over again that natural sources of vitamins are in no way superior to those that are man-made or synthesized.

The day when orthodox medicine finally embraces the field of nutrition will be the day when the cartel behind it also has monopolized the vitamin and food product industry essential to it - not one day before.

In the meantime, while doctors are forced to spend hundreds of hours studying the names and actions of all kinds of man-made drugs, they are lucky if they receive even a portion of a single course on basic nutrition.

Many have none at all. The result is that the average doctor's wife or secretary knows more about practical nutrition than he does.

Returning to the main theme, however, we find that the cartel's influence over the field of orthodox medicine is felt far beyond the medical schools. After the doctor has struggled his way through ten or twelve years of learning what the cartels have decided is best for him to learn, he then goes out into the world of medical practice and immediately is embraced by the other arm of cartel control The American Medical Association.

So let us turn, now, to that part of this continuing story.

Footnotes: 1. As quoted by Weaver, U.S. PhilanthropicFoundations, op. cit., pp. 175, 176.

2. This is not the subject of the present study, but the reader should not pass over the fact that exactly the same strategy for control over education was being executed in other key areas as well.

3. Morris Fishbein, M.D., A History of the AMA, (W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia & London, 1947). pp. 987, 989.

4. Goulden, The Money Givers, op. cit., p. 141.

5. Article reprinted in Warren Weaver's U.S. Philanthropic Foundations, op. cit., pp. 264, 265.

6. Ibid., p. 268.

7. Ibid., p. 274.

8. Ibid., pp. 267, 268.

9. Ibid., pp. 265, 266.

10. Goulden, The Money Givers, op. cit., P. 144.

11."The Health Professionals: Cure or Cause of the Health Crises?" Washington Monthly, June, 1969.

12. As quoted by Morris A. Bealle, The New Drug Story, (Columbia Publishing Co., Wash. D.C., 1958), pp. 19, 20.

Source: http://www.sntp.net/fda/ama_griffin.htm

The Future of Mental Health: Radical changes ahead

by Fred Baughman Jr

USA Today Magazine 3/1/97 USA Today article - making an attack on biological psychiatry in a very widely read popular American news-magazine, and outlining the view (by Baughman, M.D.) that managed care in the U.S. is shaking the biological psychiatry tree.

"Managed care is putting a halt to open-ended diagnosis and therapy and is reducing mental health expenses sharply." OVER THE PAST 30 years, psychiatry has denigrated and jettisoned the human willpower-coping model and psychotherapy. It claims instead that all character flaws and emotional pains are "diseases," the result of biochemical imbalances of the brain, to be "balanced" with drugs. Were organized psychiatry not "one" with the pharmaceutical industry, with drugs to sell, the espousal of "biopsychiatry" and of onedimensional drugging for illusory diseases might be difficult to understand.

In an editorial, "In Bed Together at the Market-Psychiatry and the Pharmaceutical Industry," psychiatrist Matthew Dumont urged that psychiatry declare itself an arm of the pharmaceutical industry.

Typical of efforts to biologize and pathologize human emotions, the Yale University Anxiety Clinic announced active research programs in the "clinical neurobiology, psychopharma-cology, etiology, genetics, and neuroendocrinology" of anxiety. In a quid pro quo relationship with American public schools, child psychiatry has made "learning disabilities," "brain diseases," and "special education" out of the illiteracy, alienation, and discomfiture that are the result of massive educational malfeasance.

On the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress, just 25% of fourth-graders, 28% of eighthgraders, and 37% of 12th graders were "proficient" readers. Child psychiatry urges its members to establish service contracts with schools. For-profit psychiatric hospitals place personnel in schools, targeting children by providing free assessments--a sham and prelude to drugging and hospitalization. Not only do they invent diseases, they invent entire epidemics. Attentiondeficit disorder (ADD)--invented, in-committee, at the American Psychiatric Association, but never proven to be a disease--has burgeoned, from 500,000 diagnoses in 1988 to 4,400,000 today.

In drug company- sponsored physicians' seminars and parent-teacher presentations, ADD is portrayed as an actual disease, "like diabetes or cancer," and the drug Ritalin as "safe and non-addictive." These assertions are untrue and fraudulent. Both the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration have acknowledged that ADD is not a disease or anything organic or biologic. The United Nations' International Narcotics Control Board has expressed concern to U.S. officials over the level of Ritalin consumption in America--90% of the world supply, up sixfold from 1990 through 1995.

Lewis Judd, former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, urged inclusion in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM- IV) of a new "disease"--subsyndromal symptomatic depression (SSD). He claimed that SSD affects 24,000,000 Americans and that it

7

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� responds to Prozac. With no proof whatsoever that SSD is a disease, real and biological, it wasn't included--this time. No matter, child psychiatrists have found a new market for Prozac and for all psycho-pharmaceuticals- infants and toddlers. Paula Caplan, author of They Say You're Crazy, observes that "rocketing costs result from ballooning definitions of mental disorders and by implication, necessary treatments."

From 1987 to 1994, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual swelled from 297 to 374 diagnoses. Carol Tarvis, author of Mismeasure of Woman, suggests that the DSM's authors suffer from "delusional scientific diagnosing disorder." Psychiatric admissions for children and adolescents to private hospitals tripled between 1980 and 1986. Irving Phillips, professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, pointed out that "Excessive hospitalization of troubled young people has been a problem for some time, but had increased in the 1980s."

Congressional hearings published in 1992 under the title "How Inpatient Psychiatric Treatment Bilks the System and Betrays Our Trust" were told of children kept in for-profit hospitals for periods determined not by medical needs, but duration of insurance benefits, as well as bounties paid for referrals to school, emergency room, and law- enforcement personnel and even to clergy. Psychiatrist Walter Afield testified that, according to "The DSM III... everyone in this room will fit into two or three of the diagnoses.... Every new disease. .. gets a new hospital program, new admissions, a new system, and a way to bilk it...."

Whistleblower psychiatrist Duard Bok was fired and labeled "impaired." He testified that "Most of the doctors... for the past three to four years, have been much more dependent on the hospital's marketing department to refer patients to them, rather than they referring patients to the hospital. Ethical physicians who refused to keep patients in the hospital longer than necessary have seen the number of patient referrals dwindle to almost nothing, while physicians, some just having completed their residencies, who order treatments and therapies that the administrative staffs direct, are rewarded with numerous referrals. " In 1994, National Medical Enterprises, owner of Psychiatric Institutes of America, settled Federal claims for insurance fraud for $375,000,000, then changed its name. In Texas, site of much of the fraud, not a single physician lost his or her license.In Texas, one of the few states that keeps records on such things, 65-year-olds get 360% more electroconvulsive therapy than 64-yearolds. Are Medicare dollars the difference?

Having testified that one Reno, Nev., hospital had "two and a half times as many patients as all of the hospitals in Seattle [Wash.] combined," physician Kenneth Clark concluded: "Just as the Soviet Union was driven into bankruptcy by expenditures on arms, so might the United States be facing bankruptcy through excessive and unnecessary expenditures on health care."

The managed care "fix" of mental health is further along than in any other specialty. With the managed care staffing ratio at four psychiatrists per 100,000 patients, it has been predicted that half of the nation' s 36,000 psychiatrists (16 per 100,000) will not be needed in a total managed care system.

The steady drop of U.S. medical school graduates applying for psychiatry residencies, with 45% of slots now held by international medical graduates, is a further sign that all is not well with psychiatry. Its antiscientific claims of "disease" where none actually exist seem sufficient to deter anyone of a scientific bent.

The 12 corporations controlling 85% of mental health managed care are in a position to dictate terms. They adapt their own clinical criteria and mandate treatment objectives and target dates. Costs are ratcheted down, and the glut of caregivers, psychiatrists included, allows plans to use less costly psychologists and social workers to perform most of the therapy. Compounding the plight of psychiatrists, primary care physicians-"gatekeepers"--provide two-thirds of care for the severely depressed.

According to Monica Oss of Open Mind, a behavioral health think tank, "It's a period of incredible change in mental health care and a very trying time for psychiatrists.... Critics and supporters alike credit managed care with reducing the expensive and dehumanizing institutionalization of the mentally ill."

Managed care is challenging other long-held, unproved assumptions as well, the efficacy of long-term therapy among them. Enormous savings have been generated in hospital treatment. Managed care systems in Southern California have cut hospital stays for commercially insured patients from 350 days per 1,000 enrollees a decade ago to between 125 and 150 today.

In the most severe cases in child-adolescent psychiatry, cuts in hospitalization have been proven not only possible, but beneficial. "Mobile triage" systems with physicians assessing children in their homes, intensive family counseling, and 24-hour beeper accessibility have achieved 95% success rates in diverting hospitalizations. When safety can not be assured, twoto three-day "respite beds," half the cost of hospitalizations, are utilized. The majority of hospitalizations of 10 years ago are proving avoidable, reducing the length of treatment per episode and cutting the 90-day recidivism rate by one-third. Hospital stays and the number of psychiatric beds are declining steadily.

Contrary to assertions by fee-for-service psychiatry, treatment goals and timetables can and must be articulated in terms understandable to all. What will managed care tell the public of the validity of psychiatry's brain "diseases," "chemical imbalances" and their "epidemiology, " and one-dimensional "psychopharmacology"? Barry Nurcombe, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Vanderbilt University, admits that "the best [psychiatric] diagnoses are provisional and somewhat fictional."

Would it not be more scientific and pragmatic for psychiatry to revert to the "organic-not organic" determination, to which all physicians are obligated, but which psychiatrists refute, concluding that patients with psychological symptoms and no organic disease have real-life, situational problems for which psychotherapy is needed. To represent them as biologic and to proffer pharmacology is neither scientific nor "treatment" in a Hippocratic sense.

For health care to be affordable for all, costs must be controlled. To do so, the supply and distribution of physicians must be regulated. This is the first thing that

8

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� managed care does, making sure that every physician has enough patients and sees enough real disease to stay competent and has no motivation to overtreat in defense of the bottom line.

I am not a fan of managed care. I do not want "bigger and better" managed care for-even There is no doubt, however, that we will need managed care to contain costs for the 10 to 15 years it will take to mitigate the physician glut. As physician supply and distribution are brought under control, I foresee a resurgence of private practice and a lessening of the level of managed care required. I do not envision that the managed care genie ever will be put back in the bottle, though.

Finding chronic hospitalization counter to satisfactory patient outcome, managed care enacted change. Over the protests of the psychiatric establishment, finite treatment plans with explicit goals have been enacted and have succeeded. General practice physicians, psychologists, and social workers are replacing "biopsychiatrists."

How long will it take managed care to discover the lack of a scientific basis of virtually all psychiatric diagnosis prognosis and psychopharmacology? How long will it take managed care to discover that all of the so- called learning disabilities are educational and parenting problems, not medical at all, and to jettison them?

The psychiatric lobby Who are those lobbying on psychiatry's behalf?. What are their ties and credentials.

Should health policy of any sort be driven by the testimony of believers and collaborators or by scientific outcomes? What weight should be given the fact that some politician's sister, brother, or niece had committed suicide or was schizophrenic, institutionalized, or "cured" ? What weight should be given to the personal experiences and beliefs of celebrities such as Rod Steiger, Mike Wallace, William Styron, Roseanne, or even the millions that have come to believe it safe and essential to take Prozac, Zoloft, or one or several psychotropic drugs daily for life? What weight should be given the testimony of those who prescribe Ritalin daily to rear and educate 4,400,000 wholly normal children? Are they anything but believers-turned-proselytizers?

Wallace states, "I will take Zoloft for the rest of my life.

I'm not going to lose anybody's respect." That he believes proves nothing. Millions, in lesser circumstances, have the same belief in amphetamines and crack cocaine. Does Wallace have proof of the safety of lifelong use of Zoloft? One 12-year-old was offered no such proof when placed on the antidepressant desipramine for ADD. He died from the drag. Five other troubled, troublesome, normal children have died from desipramine, and four from the combination of Ritalin and clonidine.

What of the testimony of so-called patient advocacy groups in the policy debate on psychiatry? Who do they really advocate for? Children and Adults with AttentionDeficit Disorder, with 600 chapters and 35,000 members nationwide, has received nearly $1,000,000,000 from Ritalin manufacturer Ciba-Giegy. The pharmaceutical giant has acknowledged that "CHADD is essentially a conduit for providing information to the patient population."

Just as in industry-sponsored physicians' seminars, CHADD's message to the public unfailingly portrays ADD

as a real disease, "like a brain tumor or diabetes," and Ritalin as "safe and non-addictive." Both are tacit misrepresentations that, were they to come from a physician, would constitute flawed informed consent and de facto malpractice. The International Narcotics Control Board has suggested that CHADD is in violation of regulations that prohibit direct-to-the-public marketing of an addictive controlled substance.

"Science has demonstrated that [mental illnesses] are just as real as heart disease or cancer," says Laurie Flynn, executive director of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. The organization is parroting the "big lie" of biopsychiatry, its raison d'etre and reason for drugging.

Riese v. St. Marys, which was to expand the rights of legally competent patients to refuse antipsychotic drugs, was beaten back by NAMI in collaboration with the California Psychiatric Society. State Assemblyman Bruce Bronzan, who led the fight against Riese, was said to have received contributions from the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association as well as a host of pharmaceutical firms and hospital and psychiatric associations.

Psychiatrist Peter R. Breggin suggests that the failure of psychiatry to attract voluntary patients is the main impetus for the "disease- drug" biopsychiatry model. I would add that this is the reason behind psychiatry's efforts to have psychiatric care required by law wherever possible, as in public schools, the social welfare system, the juvenile and adult justice systems, and now, perhaps, Medicare and Medicaid as well.

While it has been charged that managed care mental health results in more drugging, this is not necessarily the case. Consider the declining numbers of psychiatrists and their displacement by general practice physicians, social workers, psychologists, and marriage and family counselors, none beholden to the diseasedrug m odel. Managed care is putting a halt to openended diagnosis and therapy and is reducing mental health expenses sharply. This has made mental health coverage affordable and available for larger numbers of patients in and out of the workforce. Although mental health under managed care is not what psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry want to see, they will be pragmatic if nothing else, opting for what works and for a fraction of the price.

By Fred A. Baughman, Jr., M.D. Dr. Baughman, a pediatric neurologist in La Mesa, Calif., is medical advisor for the National Right to Read Foundation and a Fellow of the American Academy of Neurology.

Baughman Jr., Fred, The future of mental health: Radical changes ahead, Vol. 125, USA Today Magazine, 03-01-1997, pp 60.

Psychiatry and the PsychoPharmaceutical Complex

By Foundation for Truth in Reality This article discusses the relationship of psychiatry with the Drug Industry. Psychiatry is only one segment of the field of "medicine", and

9

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� similar relationships, alliances and collusion can also be found in the areas of cancer, AIDS, and "medicine" in general. The Drug Industry is an international power spanning the planet which controls and directs the philosophy, education, studies, research and methods of the entire modern field of "medicine". The modern medical viewpoint of drugs and surgery originated in Germany, as also did modern psychology and the drug industry itself.

It acts as a monopoly, and as such, intends and actively ensures that it remains the "only show in town". It's motive is power and money, and never has been "health", "truth", "curing disease" or any other benevolent notion. As an arm of a larger power structure, comprised of a handful of incredibly powerful members and groups (the international banking elite - who own and control the drug companies), psychiatry may serve another more insidious purpose - the eventual drugging and psychosocial control of entire nations.

There are numerous relationships and connections between the drug companies (both national and international), IG Farben (a mammoth German drug company with numerous cartel agreements throughout the world), FDA (Food and Drug Administration), AMA (American Medical Association), APA (American Psychiatric Association), various "professional" journals and publications, research companies and organizations, philanthropic foundations, government organizations (NIMH - National Institutes of Mental Health), international organizations (WHO - World Health Organization) and the medical schools. The common factor in each is the presence of representatives of the "drug" approach to handling "illness". The drug companies are at the "top" of the hierarchy and they call the shots. Why? Because they are the source of the funding in all cases. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

This is difficult for most people to accept because "modern medicine" is a major social institution which we all naturally assume to be directed by the human values of "honesty", "decency", and "a sincere intetnion to help".

Sadly, this is just not the way it is. It hasn't been that way for at least 100 years.

While some aspects of modern medicine do appear to "help", this is not so with psychiatry, whose sole methods of addressing human problems is force. Physical force in the form of involuntary commitment, lobotomy (brain surgery), straight jackets and restraints; electrical force in the form of electric shock treatments; and chemical force in the form of addictive and damaging psychotropic drugs.

(This is taken from Chapter 15 of Peter Breggin's book, Toxic Psychiatry.)

The contacts of psychiatry with the pharmaceutical industry have been so overwhelmingly beneficial that it would be well-nigh criminal to jeopardize them. Psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist Nathan S. Kline "In Bed Together at the Market: Psychiatry and the Pharmaceutical Industry - Title of an editorial by Matthew Dumont, M.D., in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, October 1990 As we saw in chapter 11, Upjohn produces the most frequently prescribed minor tranquilizer, Xanax.

Despite its drawbacks and dangers Xanax recently became the first drug to win approval from the FDA for use in so-called panic disorder or recurrent anxiety.

Since panic disorder is a faddish diagnosis among psychiatrists and patients, this FDA imprimatur is worth a fortune. How did this happen? The previously untold story of how Upjohn has curried favor with organized psychiatry provides a model for understanding what I call the psycho-pharmaceutical complex.

The American Psychiatric Association The best way to influence psychiatry is to earn the goodwill of the American Psychiatric Association. APA represents more than thirty-five tlousand of the approximately forty-thousand American psychiatrists. In recent years APA has developed legislative and promotional departments to increase the power and influence of psychiatry. It spends money to win over the public, the press, and state and federal governments.

As we have seen, it periodically issues task force reports on such subjects as shock treatment and tardive dyskinesia, formulating the conclusions to support the profession against lawsuits, public criticism, and nonmedical competition. The task forces that deal with treatment never include skeptics or even mild critics.

APA publishes journals and a newspaper which usually support a biopsychiatric orientation.

APA and the Pharmaceutical Industry The drug companies provide the backbone of financial support for APA and for most of organized psychiatry.

The psychiatric newspapers and journals, including those published by APA, are largely paid for by drug company advertising. In 1987, for example, the APA newspaper Psychiatric News had a surplus of $1,311,554, largely the result of drug ads. In recent years, according to its annual reports published each October in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 15 to 20 percent of APA's total revenue has come from drug company advertising.

That 15 to 20 percent is but the tip of the pharmaceutical iceberg. APA's national conferences are underwritten by drug company monies to the tune of several million dollars a year. They literally could not take place without the drug company booths and drug company-sponsored seminars and entertainment. The drug companies also support special political projects,

10

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� such as APA's annual meetings on how to lobby for favorable legislation. They underwrite conferences in which biopsychiatric leaders get together and promote themselves as well as drug products. The "President's Fund," the APA Auxiliary, and even individual psychiatrists on fellowships at the national headquarters are supported by drug company funds.

Of course, as physician Stanley Wohl points out in The Medical Industrial Complex (1984), organized medicine in general is underwritten by the drug companies. This was recognized even earlier by Morton Mintz in The Therapeutic Nightmare (1965), when he excoriated the American Psychiatric Association for failing to speak out "on the abuses of Psychiatric drugs, abuses affecting millions." And this was before the plague of tardive dyskinesia had been discovered.

While it's true that the American Medical Association collects its own unholy share of drug company funds, there is something even more insidious about APA's ties to the pharmaceutical houses. First, it is more ultimate and more thorough. Second, the "illnesses" being treated with drugs are not, in reality, diseases. Third, the APA-drug company collusion sponsors a very narrow band of approaches, namely the psychoactive drugs and shock treatment, which also requires the use of medications. And finally, while many medical drugs have great worth, psychiatric ones have few redeeming features.

If any picture is worth a thousand words, it is the photograph of a smiling APA president Robert Pasnau on the front page of the January 2, 1987, Psychiatric News.

The caption explains that Pasnau is taking a check for an unspecified amount from a representative of Smith Kline and French, who is smiling even more broadly than the APA president. More significant than the check itself, the transaction took place at the annual meeting of the APA board of trustees; not even the deepest recesses of the association are off limits to influence peddling.

APA and the Upjohn Company The Upjohn Company manufactures and sells only two psychiatric drugs, the minor tranquilizers Halcion and Xanax. Both are noteworthy in being short-acting and therefore highly addictive, and both have drawn more than their share of adverse publicity in the media for their dangerous side effects, including mental dysfunction and death (see chapter 11). But Upjohn spends multimillions to guarantee that its two products are well received by psychiatry.

The April 3, 1987, Psychiatric News reports that APA held a Public Affairs Institute, a conference on how to get more influence, money, and patients for psychiatry.

It was underwritten by several drug companies, including Upjohn. Upjohn produced an expensive 35-mm slide show used by psychiatrists to woo referrals from other doctors. As a part of the same outreach PR program, APA's Division of Public Affairs created a calendar with cartoons aimed at helping psychiatrists relate to the colleagues who might refer patients to them. The calendar was produced by Upjohn.

APA president Pasnau then sent out a letter on May 4, 1987, to all APA members telling them about the calendar and making it easy for them to meet with the Upjohn sales representatives in order to get it:

Soon, your local Upjohn Representative will call on you to deliver your free copy of the calendar, which supports my presidential theme, "Psychiatry in Medicine/Medicine in Psychiatry.". . . For your convenience in establishing a suitable meeting date with your Upjohn Representative, I have enclosed a self-addressed, stamped postcard.

It is astonishing that Pasnau, in his official capacity as APA president, could affront the principles of conflict of interest by serving a company's interests in this manner.

It indicates the degree to which organized psychiatry has come to accept this kind of back scratching as routine business. Following the 1988 APA national convention, now former APA president Pasnau sent out a twenty-page expensively packaged glossy booklet on Consequences of Anxiety. In the letter to all APA members, written by Pasnau as professor of psychiatry at UCLA, he boasted that three breakfast symposia on anxiety at the recent national convention had drawn more than twelve hundred psychiatrists. The free events were sponsored by UCLA with financial support from Pasnau's old friend, the Upjohn Company. The fancy booklet itself was "made possible by an educational grant from The Upjohn Company."

Upjohn also pays for something called the Anxiety Disorders Resource Center, "as a service to science writers." An August 1987 press release from the center is written by professor of psychiatry Arthur Rifkin, who states that panic attacks "have been solidly related to biological or genetic factors." As a treatment for panic attacks Rifkin, not surprisingly, singles out an Upjohn product, alprazolam (Xanax), from among the many available and mostly interchangeable minor tranquilizers. He makes the nearly miraculous claim that the drug "completely eliminated panic attacks in 85% of a group of 27 patients"; but we can't corroborate his statement, because he does not identify the study.

The editorial board of the center includes such biopsychiatric luminaries as former NIMH director Gerald Klerman and drug advocate Donald Klein, director of research at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Presumably these individuals are compensated for their services.

Following their seminars on anxiety at the 1988 APA national meeting, Upjohn sent out still another promotional packet for its medication. The package, sent to all thirty-five thousand APA members, came with a "Dear Colleague" letter from two former directors of NIMH, Shervert Frazier and Gerald Klerman.

Frazier and Klerman, two leading psychiatrists, cochaired the Upjohn-sponsored APA workshop. The large envelope contained four glossy reprints of articles favorable toward Xanax as well as an eighteen-page booklet with many charts.(1) Upjohn continues to cement its financial relationship with APA. The January 20, 1989, issue of Psychiatric News reports: A recent $1.5 million agreement between APA and the Upjohn Company will bear fruit in the form of three public audience mental illness videos, a new medical education workshop for nonpsychiatric physicians and health-care gatekeepers, an exhibit and

11

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� symposia program that will reach out to other medical specialty societies, and faculty support for the 1989 APA Public Affairs Network Institute.

On top of all this, Upjohn advertises heavily in APA and other medical and psychiatric publications.

Upjohn Pays Top Dollar for a Psychiatrist Upjohn's Xanax is probably the most addictive drug commonly used in the United States today, by one estimate causing 1.5 million addictions a year (see chapter 11). As suggested in chapter II, the Xanax studies that led to FDA approval for panic disorder should have led instead to its rejection as a treatment.

The investigations showed that the main effect of the drug is sedation and that it produces many alcohol-like side effects, such as slurred speech and impaired coordination, as well as a withdrawal syndrome similar to that following chronic alcohol abuse. Moreover, the overall results of the eight-week drug trial were so negative (placebo did better) that Upjohn ended up citing only the first four weeks of the trial in its advertising. Despite the short trial period, most of the patients had withdrawal problems getting off the drug, including a worsening of anxiety.

In late 1990 Upjohn nonetheless got FDA approval. The key figure in promoting the Xanax studies does not appear among the long lists of official investigators. He is Gerald Klerman,(2) former director of NIMH (1971 to 1975) and former director of the superstructure that includes NIMH and NIDA, the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADA, MHA) (1977 to 1980). Klerman is now professor of psychiatry at Cornell University. This is the same man who was associated with Upjohn projects as an editorial board member of the company's Anxiety Disorders Resource Center and as an expert at Upjohn-sponsored seminars at the annual meetings of the APA. Years earlier Klerman was responsible for the badly flawed NIMH studies that led the profession and the public mistakenly to believe that neuroleptics have a specifically helpful impact on the symptoms of socalled schizophrenia, such as delusions and hallucinations (see chapter 3). Now Klerman was hired by Upjohn to organize and promote the Xanax studies required by the FDA. Klerman wrote a lengthy introductory statement to the FDA Xanax studies in the May 1988 Archives of General Psychiatry describing the apparent great lengths to which Upjohn had gone in order to guarantee objectivity and high scientific quality. Entitled "Overview of the Cross-National Collaborative Panic Study," Klerman's report is really an unqualified, enthusiastic endorsement of both Upjohn and its studies. What the reader has no way of knowing is that it was a paid endorsement in the sense that Klerman is a highly paid consultant to Upjohn. The only credential listed by Klerman in the appropriate footnote at the beginning of the article is his affiliation with Cornell University Medical School. There is no mention of his financial arrangements or his longstanding relationship with Upjohn. Within the article itself, however, there is a passing mention of "G.L.K." (Klerman) as one of three members of a "steering committee" for the Xanax project.

It was rumored from several professional sources that Kierman was paid $1 million by Upjohn for his role in the Xanax panic disorder studies required by the FDA. Klerman himself, in a lengthy telephone interview with me on January 8, 1991, specifically denied that he had been paid "anywhere near a million dollars" but refused to divulge the actual figure. He explained that the rules at Cornell University, where he has been a professor for several years, specify that faculty members are allowed to work only one day per week as outside consultants.

He said that he has had an "ongoing" relationship as a consultant to Upjohn for "no more than one day a week" since 1982 or 1983, and that he was hired specifically to help develop the overall package of Xanax studies for FDA approval.

Klerman at first said to me that he had identified himself as a paid consultant to Upjohn in the Archives report, but on reflection he decided he has begun to do so only more recently. Klerman said, however, that he had "never hidden" his relationship to Upjohn.

Nonetheless, as late as July 1989 Klerman defended the Xanax studies in a lengthy letter published in the Archives without mentioning the existence of his ongoing financial agreement with Upjohn. Klerman sees no inherent conflict of interest in his role and defends it on the grounds that "our society" wants drugs and other medical therapies developed "in the private sector governed by the profit motive."

Klerman's introductory assessment of the Xanax studies in the Archives of General Psychiatry is especially important because his stance is that of a disinterested scientist writing a report in a medical journal. Since he is not listed as one of the actual participants in the drug studies, the reader gets the impression that this wellknown psychopharmacologist, professor, and former director of NIMH and ADAMHA, is lending his independent, objective support to the research and its conclusions. Indeed, I have spoken to well-informed researchers who to this day know nothing about Klerman being on the Upjohn payroll.

Klerman remains one of America's most esteemed psychiatrists. The American Psychiatric Association awarded him its 1990 Distinguished Service Award.

The good-old-boy network that connects medicine in general to the pharmaceutical industry is illustrated again by Upjohn, whose chief executive officer, president, and board chairman is Theodore Cooper.

Cooper is former assistant secretary for health in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) and former dean of Cornell Medical School. Klerman attributes to Cooper, a fellow physician, what Klerman calls the company's "progressive" attitude in utilizing consultants like himself.

The May 18, 1990, American Medical News, put out by the AMA, reports that Upjohn's first-quarter earnings increased 10 percent to $114 million on sales of $773 million.

Upjohn and the Archives But what about the journal itself in which the studies were published? Could Upjohn money have reached into the Archives of General Psychiatry as well? In fact, Upjohn money greased the biggest wheel of all at the Archives, psychiatrist Daniel X. Freedman, its editor in chief for the past twenty years. Fifteen years earlier,

12

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� when the first report on the seriousness of the tardive dyskinesia epidemic had come out in the 1973 Archives, Freedman had appended a most unusual editorial, warning people not to exaggerate the importance of the drug-induced disease or to allow the negative publicity to interfere with the federal funding of psychiatry. Now in 1988 Freedman took on a remarkable dual role: editor of the journal publishing the Upjohn-sponsored Xanax studies and paid consultant to Upjohn as chairman of the company's oversight committee supervising "ethical and safety issues" in regard to the studies.

In an "Editorial Note" at the conclusion of Klerman's report on Xanax, Freedman informs us that his selfdescribed role as consultant and assistant to the "Division of Medical Affairs of the Upjohn Company" in no way influenced the journal's handling of the papers.

But psychiatrist Isaac M. Marks of the Institute of Psychiatry in London believes otherwise. Marks is one of the world's most respected researchers in the field of anxiety and drugs, and indeed, a book and an article of his are cited in Klerman's report. He is the senior author of the letter written by the international group of eleven psychiatrists and psychologists to the Archives in July 1989 in criticism of the Xanax studies (see chapter 11). In a telephone interview with me in January 1991, Marks said that Freedman had tried to obstruct publication of the letter in his journal. According to Marks, at first Freedman refused to look at the letter and later turned it down, despite its distinguished group authorship. When Marks called to find out what the problem might be, Freedman's secretary informed him that the margin settings were not standard and that the names of all eleven authors did not appear on the same page. Freedman then wrote a letter to Marks that Marks characterized as "insulting" in tone. The letter attempted to discredit the criticism made by the experts. After that Freedman refused to publish the most important part of the letter, what Marks called a "damning table" showing that Xanax was "almost ineffective" at eight weeks. Publication of the letter was delayed until fourteen months after the original article, significantly reducing its impact.

Freedman himself has his own version of the story surrounding the publication of the letter and an entirely different viewpoint on the overall relationship between drug company money and drug company influence. In a February 27, 1991, interview with me, Freedman stated that the "damning table" had not been included in the original letter received from Marks; but Freedman could not explain why the table was not included for publication along with the letter when the alleged mistake was corrected by Marks months ahead of the publication date. He emphatically denied obstructing publication of the letter and dismissed Marks as a "complainer."(3) Freedman rejected as unfounded any skepticism about his own dual role as a consultant to Upjohn and editor in chief of the journal publishing the Upjohn-sponsored research. At first he said he wrote the editorial note mentioning his business relationship to Upjohn in order to avoid any "appearance of conflict of interest"; but then he denied there was even an appearance. He is a "scientist," he said, and "the three P's in science are far more powerful and compelling than money." The three "P's," he explained, "are priority, prestige, and publicity."(4) While he admitted to being a paid

consultant to Upjohn for three years during the Xanax studies, the amount of money involved, he said, was "trivial" compared to his overall income. He would not, however, venture to estimate the amount he was paid or the percentage of his income it represented.

I pointed out to Freedman that the 1988 Archives publication on the efficacy of Xanax - under his editorship - seemed misleading because the introductory abstract described only the more encouraging first four weeks of the study without even mentioning that it had gone on for an additional month with much less promising results. Freedman replied that he was sure there was no intention to mislead anyone; but he could not explain how or why the abstract had been written in that manner. He ridiculed the idea that readers of the journal might sometimes rely on the abstract without studying the complete text. Then, as if to exonerate his journal, he reminded me that the FDA had approved the drug.

During the interview, without personally criticizing me, Freedman applied the labels "Marxist" and "paranoid" to concerns about drug company influence over research.

He felt that Upjohn should be praised for establishing the oversight committee that he chaired. Overall, Freedman believes that the funds pumped into the psychiatric profession by drug companies such as Upjohn do not encourage any bias on the part of investigators or psychiatry in general.

APA joins the Xanax Celebration Given Upjohn's bountiful financing of the American Psychiatric Association, it's no surprise that the January 4, 1991, issue of Psychiatric News describes the approval of Xanax for panic disorder in terms at least as laudatory as the drug company's own advertising. The drug is reported effective at four weeks. No mention is made of the fact that the study went eight weeks. The thousands of psychiatrists who regularly read the APA newspaper would have no idea that the drug became ineffective within eight weeks and, compared to placebo, produced many severe side effects, including an increase in anxiety and panic. Gerald Klerman is cited as calling for gradual drug reduction in order to avoid withdrawal symptoms, but the study itself shows that this was of little or no help. Klerman is described as a "researcher" and not as a paid employee of Upjohn.

The Xanax Doctors Are Not Alone I had the opportunity to discuss the funding of the Xanax doctors with a nationally known American psychopharmacologist,(5) who freely admitted to receiving money from another pharmaceutical company with with a competing product. Somewhat defensively, he told me, "I believe it's okay to take the money, but I speak the facts as I see them." He explained about psychopharmacology researchers in general: "We're all supported by somebody. The question is how much do you let it blur your judgment." He went to great lengths to explain to me that the payments he received did not affect his views on the drug; and yet throughout the conversation he minimized the dangerousness of his product while freely discussing the negative effects of its competitors. Indeed, one of his research reviews concludes with several paragraphs of near idolatrous praise for his patron drug company's product, and as usual, there's no footnote to indicate that he is a paid consultant to the company.

13

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity�

Nonetheless, this psychopharmacologist was critical of others in his field for their excessive devotion to the products of their sponsors. "Listen, I'll tell you that 'my drug' isn't always the best choice, but he [a Xanax study author] acts as if his drug is the only one. He gives lectures on how Xanax isn't anywhere near as addictive as it really is."

The psychopharmacologist went on to describe professional conferences as competitions at which the various doctors take sides on behalf of their patron drug companies. One expert would be defending Xanax while another was promoting Valium or BuSpar, and each was known to be a paid consultant to the respective drug company.

An extremely well known European psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist (who asked not to be named) told me that Upjohn "paid tens of millions of dollars" worldwide in consulting fees, honoraria, research grants, and gifts to influence psychiatrists around the world in order to affect the outcome of the Xanax studies and their reception by the profession. "Money talks," he said, adding that sometimes it seemed as if "the entire profession was working for Upjohn in one way or another." Nonetheless, he said that Upjohn's spending spree, while perhaps more extreme than many other pharmaceutical companies, is typical of drug company sponsorship of psychiatry and psychopharmacology.

Upjohn Is Not Alone Most pharmaceutical firms that produce psychiatric medications are much larger than Upjohn and some very likely spend even more on making friends with the profession. Companies that help to support psychiatry include Smith Kline and French Laboratories, Mead Johnson (a Bristol-Meyers company), Dorsey (a division of Sandoz), Merrell Dow, Roerig (a division of Pfizer), Ives Laboratories, ER Squibb and Sons, Dista Products (a division of Ell Lilly), Boots Pharmaceuticals, Burroughs Wellcome, and Lederle Laboratories. In defense of Upjohn, Klerman cites Mead Johnson as an example of other companies that also spend lavishly on the psychiatric community. Not surprisingly, Mead Johnson is a competitor to Klerman's patron company. It makes the minor tranquilizer BuSpar as well as an antidepressant.

APA Decides to Take From the Drug Companies The American Psychiatric Association's governing body made a conscious decision to rely more heavily on drug company funding for its activities, and that decision most likely influenced individual doctors to line up as well for the handouts. In the early 1970s APA was in financial trouble. It was losing membership and its total income was $2 to $4 million per year, compared to its current income of over $21 million. The newspapers and journals were operating in the red instead of generating huge surpluses through drug company advertising. In general psychiatry was losing badly in the competition with psychologists, social workers, counselors, family therapists, and other nonmedical professionals who charge lower fees for psychotherapy patients.

Psychiatric journals and newspapers were filled with gloom, lamenting that psychiatrists could no longer easily fill their workweeks. At the same time, psychiatry was coming under increasing criticism about

psychosurgery, electroshock, and the newly publicized drug-induced disease, tardive dyskinesia.

A turning point was the conflict over whether or not to divest from drug company influence. In April 1974 the American Journal of Psychiatry reported that "the matter of APA's relationship with industry, especially the pharmaceutical companies, was becoming a concern for some members of the board of trustees, who felt that "APA's relationships with pharmaceutical companies were going beyond the bounds of professionalism, were compromising our principles, and in some instances were involving members in conflicts of interest." These doubts were being raised about a degree of involvement that looks petty by today's standards.

In response to the doubters, APA formed the Task Force to Study the Impact of the Potential Loss of Pharmaceutical Support. Its very title suggests the fear that independence from the drug companies struck in the hearts of the leadership. The task force concluded that many local APA member organizations as well as various training programs would fold without the "lifeblood" support of the drug companies. Continued support for seminars at the national conventions also was found acceptable, provided that it was not credited directly to individual drug companies.

The floodgates of drug company influence were opened and would grow wider each year. Nowadays dozens of seminars are supported by the drug companies, and the individual names of the companies are honored conspicuously with advertisements in psychiatric journals and newspapers prior to the meetings A lonely voice, Robert Seidenberg, clinical professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York, Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, protested the APA's decision to cozy up to the drug companies in a November 2, 1979, letter to Psychiatric News. He calls the policy of drug company dependence "the nadir of ethical behavior."

Still struggling to make ends meet, in 1980 the APA board of directors threw ethical caution to the winds and "voted to encourage pharmaceutical companies to support scientific or cultural activities rather than strictly social activities as a part of the Annual Meeting program. . . . " In other words, give us more than coffee and entertainment; give direct support to our major professional and scientific activities.

In the following years, APA went on to develop a Political Action Committee (PAC) and special departments aimed at influencing Congress, state legislators, the media, and the public to hold psychiatry in higher esteem and to support its economic interests.

Many of these promotional efforts are now supported by drug companies.

Some of the motivation for psychiatry's new political thrust was expressed by the speaker-elect in his report published in the October 1984 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry. The PAC, he tries to explain, was not "buying votes," but trying to better public policy.

Meanwhile, he compares the rivalry between psychiatrists and psychologists to Star Wars, lamenting "an oversupply of competitive practitioners" that resulted in "a galaxy of turf wars."

Whatever function APA had ever fulfilled as a professional organization was now superseded by its

14

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� function as political advocate for the advancement of psychiatric and pharmaceutical business interests.

Continually reiterated is the conviction that only a medical or biological image can enable psychiatry to compete economically.

Protesting the Selling of Psychiatry As organized psychiatry and individual leaders in psychiatry became increasingly intimate with the drug companies, a few voices of concern were expressed within the establishment. In the October 1984 American Journal of Psychiatry the APA speaker-elect, Fred Gottlieb, entitled his report ironically, "Better Living Through Chemistry: Industry Money for Education and Amenities." In it he notes that APA's Scientific Program Committee had written recently to the APA president about drug cornpany influence on scientific programming. The committee questioned drug company funding of many aspects of the national conferences, including payment to members who participate in drug company-sponsored events.

Gottlieb cited research demonstrating "the powerful influence of commercial [drug company] sources on the non-rational prescribing behavior of physicians." In taking money from the pharmaceutical industry, he pointed out, "Our inherent conflict of interest is obvious" (p. 1333).

Gottlieb went on to subtitle one of his commentaries "Implications of APA's Expanded Funding Sources: He Who Pays the Piper . . . You Can't Have Your Cake and . . . or Can You, With Continuing Vigilance?" He declares, "The issue is to make sure such conflicts of interest are not hidden but are openly and carefully examined, as well as kept to a minimum" (p. 1333).

One year later, in October 1985 Gottlieb continued his warnings in his speaker's report. He says he previously "wrote about the millions of dollars of drug house money we receive annually from advertising and commercial exhibits and for awarded lectureships and social functions." Now he has been "startled to learn that our [APA] Federal Legislative Institute is similarly supported." He explains: I do not suggest that either they [the drug companies] or we are evil folks. But I continue to believe that accepting such money is, in the long run, inimical to our independent functioning. We have evolved a somewhat casual and quite cordial relationship with the drug houses, taking their money readily.... We seem to discount available data that drug advertising promotes irrational prescribing practices. We seem to think that we as psychiatrists are immune from the kinds of unconscious emotional bias in favor of those who are overtly friendly toward us.... We persist in ignoring an inherent conflict of interest. (P. 1248) Gottlieb voices regret over the APA's use of a Political Action Committee on the grounds that PACs serve a narrow self-interest rather than the long-range good of the profession or the public.

While Gottlieb was a significant voice of protest, the 1985 annual report makes clear that the APA board of directors has launched itself headlong into the era of

dependency on the drug companies. It authorizes accepting money from a drug company to support subscriptions for one of its journals and most incredibly tightens up its policy on giving members information on financial and budget matters, including "pharmaceutical industry support" (p. 1247). Indeed, such information became and remains largely unavailable. The board also voted to hire a "marketing" consultant at $150,000 per year.

Gofflieb's concerns were steamrollered by APA leadership - no further criticisms were made by APA officials in following years, and drug company dependence has grown ever more rapidly. So has the APA policy of financial aggrandizement. The motivation was made clear in the report by treasurer George Pollock in the October 1986 American Journal of Psychiatry. He warns that "the national economy has placed pressure on APA through the field of psychiatry as a whole as well as through our individual members."

The treasurer then unabashedly declares, "In fact, the field of psychiatry has become an economically driven profession" (p. 1 340).

The "economically driven profession" now devoted increased expenditures for "various economic affairs," including "government relations, public affairs, and education," always with a biopsychiatric thrust aimed at regaining dominance in the mental health field. One direct result has been the swell of positive media coverage in response to pronouncements from APA and NIMH about alleged breakthroughs in biopsychiatry.

Another has been increased federal support for psychiatry. While other federal budgets are being cut, NIMH's has again been growing. Still another is the public's growing acceptance of catchword phrases like biochemical imbalance and genetic predisposition.

A Drug Company Circus By 1987 the APA annual meeting had become a drug company circus.(6) Everywhere one turned there was drug company sponsorship. The Daily Bulletin for the conference was provided by one drug company and the "Message and Information Locator" by another. Even the shiny silver package of registration materials handed to each participant was marked "Provided by a grant from McNeil Pharmaceuticals, makers of Haldol (haloperidol) Decanoate." The CME seminars, where APA members can obtain their required continuing medical education credits, were credited as being supported by the drug companies. One irate psychiatrist, H. Steven Moffic, wrote to Psychiatric News on June 19, 1987, suggesting that APA was beginning to stand for the "American Psychopharmaceutical Association."

Psychiatrist Loren Mosher wrote an unpublished letter in August 1987 to APA treasurer Alan Levenson in reflection on his membership. Mosher observed about APA: Its dependence on drug company support for its annual meeting, journals, newspaper and organization itself has reached, as far as I'm concerned, an unacceptable level. This organizational behavior is leading psychiatrists to be perceived by outsiders as principally prescription writers. The narrowing of our professional role that occurs in part as a result of dependence on drug

15

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� company money will, I believe, be harmful to the profession in the long run. Hence, I believe APA's policies with regard to accepting drug company money should be changed. At the very least the membership should receive a complete accounting of drug company income and how it is expended.

That accounting of drug company influence has never been given. Nor will it ever be - without the intervention of Congress or the courts.

Debating the APA President on Oprah Psychiatry's contempt for conflict of interest was brought home to me when I debated APA presidentelect Paul Fink on television on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" on August 17, 1987. In my opening remarks I focused on the scandal of drug company funding of APA and pointed out that Fink himself had been head of APA's Public Affairs Division, which was drug company funded.(7) We then had the following exchange: DR. BREGGIN: No, the Psychiatric Association is not beholden to the patients now, it's beholden to the drug companies. And we need a "Psychogate" investigation of this. Congress should investigate this, Oprah, and I ask Dr. Fink as the president to come clean next year and talk about the millions of dollars being channeled through the American Psychiatric Association.

WINFREY: Well, Dr. Fink is fuming now.

DR. FINK: Yes, he is.

WINFREY: He is fuming.

DR. FINK: I'm glad you said that.

WINFREY: Okay, okay, go ahead.

DR. FINK: Well, I think the -DR. BREGGIN: Can you deny anything I just said?

DR. FINK: Can I deny that we get money -DR. BREGGIN: Millions of dollars are being pumped through the Psychiatric Association by the drug companies.

DR. FINK: No. I can't deny that we get millions of dollars of support from the drug companies. I also can't deny that that seems to be tangential to the issue of whether the drugs that are used are of value, and they are -DR. BREGGIN: Your scientific meetings are funded by the drug companies.

DR. FINK: I don't -- that's irrelevant. That's irrelevant.

DR. BREGGIN: How is that irrelevant?

DR. FINK: It's absolutely irrelevant, because the doctor on the street, the psychiatrist in the communities, is not affected by the fact we get some support -minimal, I might add, in terms of the entire budget -DR. BREGGIN: Twenty percent is from drug company advertising.

DR. FINK: Ten percent.

DR. BREGGIN: Twenty percent in the last three budgets, and if you want, I'll go out and get the figures during the next segment.

I had the official APA reports ready in the waiting area.

The actual figures for the previous two years had been 19.69 percent in 1985 and 19.92 percent in 1984.

DR. FINK: Go ahead. I have the figures, as the president-elect.

DR. BREGGIN: Twenty percent of the revenues.

DR. FINK: The point is, whether it's 10 percent or 20 percent. . . .

WINFREY: Let him speak, Dr. Breggin, please.

DR. FINK: It's not really the relevant issue. The relevant issue is, are the drugs valuable? Yes, they are.

Judi Chamberlin had been invited by me to participate on the show as a psychiatric survivor representative. A short time after my exchange with Fink she brought us back to the topic, declaring, "But how can you have a scientific debate as to whether drugs are good or bad if the drug companies are underwriting the discussion? It skews everything."

DR. FINK: The assumption is that we're unconscionable and therefore we don't -- we don't -DR. BREGGIN: But you're a psychiatrist, you understand self-interest. If you go to a convention and everywhere it says "Supported by this drug company, supported by that drug company --" DR. FINK: I don't understand. I don't understand.

Indeed, Fink seemed not to understand. He came back to the subject later in the show, displaying visible frustration: DR. FINK: . . . you're worried about a couple million dollars from the drug companies, and that 33,000 psychiatrists are just a bunch of rats who are just thinking we got that money from the drug companies.

It's kind of outrageous, it's very outrageous that the first thing you want to talk about is the fact that we are underwritten to a certain -DR. BREGGIN: The profession is now underwritten -DR. FINK: -- to a certain extent, by a faction of the pharmaceutical industry.

Fink may have understood more about money and selfinterest than he was letting on. Here is what he had declared in his candidacy statement for the APA presidency, published in the December 19, 1986, Psychiatric News: "It is the task of APA to protect the earning power of psychiatrists."

As the president of APA, Fink went on to sign the previously mentioned ground-breaking 1989 contract with Upjohn that delivers $1.5 million to APA's coffers for the promotion of psychiatry.

NIMH and the Psycho-Pharmaceutical Complex In recent years the National Institute of Mental Health has become dominated by biopsychiatry. When I was a full-time consultant with NIMH in 1967 and 1968, biological psychiatry was a relatively small section within the institute; now it is the institute. The outgoing head, psychiatrist Lewis Judd, like his immediate predecessors, was wholly devoted to the brain rather than the mind as the legitimate subject of psychiatric research and treatments Politically he moved NIMH very close to becoming a lab science institute; and inside sources during his tenure were unanimous in telling me that he wanted to get rid of those services that defend patients' rights (protection and advocacy programs) or support innovative consumer approaches (community support programs).

NIMH exerts control over the mental health marketplace by setting trends, pushing biopsychiatric treatments, giving grants to individuals and institutions for research, supporting training, holding conferences, conducting its

16

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� own research, and generally promoting biopsychiatry through the media. For example, when one flimsy study suggested that manic-depression might be linked to a gene, NIMH leaped forward to hold a press conference.

As we saw in chapter 7, the study's status and value among researchers quickly dwindled, but its media impact did not. Similarly, the media have also promoted the DART program, which aims at getting more people to consider themselves depressed and to take drugs and shock treatment. * 'The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a separate bureaucracy from NIMH, uses drug companies to sponsor some of its continuing-education programs. For example, NIH periodically holds updates in psychopharmacology for the practicing psychiatrist. In October 1987 its program at the Hyatt Regency in Bethesda, Maryland, acknowledged the support of Abbot Laboratories, Bristol-Meyers, Hoechst-Roussel Pharmaceuticals, and Warner Lambert.

The FDA As attorney James Turner wrote in The Chemical Feast (1970), it has long been known that the FDA is hardly the consumer watchdog it's supposed to be. It gets thrown too many bones from the pharmaceutical industry to bite the hand that feeds it. Earlier, in 1965, Morton Mintz of the Washington Post wrote The Therapeutic Nightmare, documenting the mutual, supportive relationships among the FDA, APA, and the drug companies. As an example, the FDA came close to permanently withdrawing Parnate, an MAOI antidepressant, from the market, because the drug was proving to be extremely dangerous with little evidence for effectiveness; but the FDA reversed itself under pressure from the APA and cancelled its planned hearings. Nonetheless, many psychiatrists rejected the drug and it fell into disfavor for a few years. However, in the current biopsychiatric climate Parnate and similar drugs are enjoying a brisk revival (see chapter 8).

In general the FDA has done little to monitor or control the use of psychiatric technologies or to highlight their damaging effects. It has backed off from requiring research on the safety of electroshock (see chapter 9) and it never did do anything about lobotomy and other forms of psychosurgery. While an unusual FDA regulation has required that drug companies show more honesty about the dangers of tardive dyskinesia, it was too little, too late. The 1985 intervention by the FDA came many years after the drug-induced disease had become a documented epidemic. And patients and doctors reading the FDA-mandated drug company advertising for neuroleptics would have no idea that rates of the disease approach and exceed 50 percent in long term use.

Mostly the FDA lends authority to the use of psychiatric drugs and electroshock by approving them, and in the case of psychosurgery it gives tacit legitimacy by not even investigating it. The public is lulled into believing that regulatory agencies are busy at work protecting them. In depositions when I am critical of the use of a specific psychiatric drug, opposing attorneys sometimes challenge me, "But wasn't it approved for that by the FDA?" When I am being deposed by the drug companies themselves, their attorneys always try to relieve their clients of responsibility by pointing to FDA regulation.

The pharmaceutical companies and their attorneys hope

that people sitting on juries will exonerate companies because they operate under the FDA umbrella.

Furthermore, as we've seen in regard to Prozac and Xanax, FDA approval of a drug misleads the public into thinking that thousands of patients have been tested in controlled studies for months or years, when the in reality a few hundred are tested for a few weeks. In regard to neuroleptic Clozaril (clozapine), the recent FDA approval is especially misleading. Parents, doctors, and patients anticipate that this drug is to be administered for years at a time, even for the lifetime of many patients, and frequently against the patient's wishes. Yet the FDA controlled trials for this extremely brain-disabling and sometimes life-threatening drug lasted only six weeks!

Similarly the newly approved drug for obsessivecompulsive disorder, Anafranil (clomipramine), was studied for only ten weeks, when it, too, frequently will be administered for months or years. The FDA warns: "Because clomipramine has not been systematically evaluated for long-term use (more than ten weeks), physicians should periodically reevaluate the long-term usefulness of the drug for individual patients." Published in the obscure FDA Drug Bulletin, this warning will go unheeded.

As we've also seen in regard to Xanax, FDA approval does not mean that the drug trials have really demonstrated either safety or efficacy. The FDA can bend over backward to accommodate the drug industry and its financially captive psychiatric experts.

Regulatory agencies are notorious for coming under the control of the industries they regulate because the giant corporations have the power and money with which to buy influence and to obtain favors from government bureaucrats and politicians. By comparison, the consumers have almost no voice at all. Recently Washington was rocked by disclosures of corruption in HUD, including housing industry influence over decisionmaking processes. Less known was a similarly outrageous scandal at the FDA, described by John Schwartz in "Corruption and Chaos Uncovered in the FDA Generics Approval Process," in the July 1989 issue of the Psychiatric Times, and by an ongoing series of disclosures in the general press." It is tempting to retell the lurid details of drug companies buying favors from FDA bureaucrats, but "corruption" really isn't the main problem. The real problem, as we have seen, lies in the normal functioning of the FDA as it misleads the public into believing that psychiatric drugs are safe and efficacious when in fact they are neither.

"Toxic Parents" Join Toxic Psychiatry Finally, there is the growing family movement, led by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI), with a rapidly expanding membership surpassing 100,000. It and its state affiliates consider all severe psychosocial disorders to be biochemical in origin and advocate lobotomy, electroshock, and drugs. It resists the growing movement of psychiatric survivors and supporters of patients' rights in general.(8) APA and NIMH work hand-in-glove with NAMI. They lobby Congress together and meet the press together.

NAMI leaders have direct access to the leadership of APA and NIMH, and they help plan national campaigns on behalf of biopsychiatry. NAMI recently published a

17

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� letter it received from outgoing NIMH director Lewis Judd in which he spoke of the "dedication and shared purpose which has forged a unique and strong relationship and collaboration between NAMI and NIMH." With no apparent awareness of the inappropriateness of handing a federal agency over to a self-serving parent lobbying group, Judd declared, "NIMH, in a very meaningful sense, is NAMI's Institute." He then went on to repeat their shared but wholly unproven credo: "During the last 15 years, we have unequivocally established that mental illnesses are brain related disorders, which often involve strong genetic influences." The public's false impression of breakthroughs in biological psychiatry is based on the repetition of these unfounded slogans.

NAMI is not content to support its own viewpoint. As already noted, it personally attacks critics of biopsychiatry and advocates of psychosocial approaches. It lobbies against the funding of psychosocial research, most vehemently opposing any project that implicates parents in the problems of their offspring. Thus it has tried to stop funding of relatively non-controversial studies indicating that the improvement of communication in families helps in the recovery of their mentally disabled members."

NAMI has helped to develop and direct several highprofile media campaigns whose hidden agenda is convincing the public that the children of NAMI parents have diseases that cannot be blamed on the parents. It has co-founded the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression, which funds research in psychiatry. Research investigators thereby become dependent for their livelihood on funding from an organization that compulsively opposes psychosocial viewpoints and vehemently supports biopsychiatric ones.

Like the APA and its local branches, NAMI and some of its state organizations actively solicit and obtain support money from the drug companies. The fall 1990 issue of the Journal, the official publication of California Alliance for the Mentally Ill (CAMI), expresses gratitude for "generous financial contributions" from Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Upjohn. Earlier we noted that Sandoz has given NAMI parents "scholarships" to pay for the newly approved and dangerous neuroleptic Clozaril (clozapine) for their offspring. The March 1990 issue of NAMI's national journal Advocate has an ad for Clozaril, plus an article describing the Sandoz scholarships, promoting the drug, and providing phone numbers to make it easier for physicians to get started using it. However, pressure on Sandoz more recently has caused the company to make it somewhat easier and cheaper to prescribe the drug.

Medical Schools and Professorships Medical school departments of psychiatry have gone largely biopsychiatric and often take money from the drug companies. Nowadays some heads of psychiatry departments are biochemists and nearly all are heavily biopsychiatric. Psychologically oriented department heads have gone the way of the California condor.

Naturally, as a central part of the medical establishment, medical schools want to support biological approaches.

The schools also receive money from the drug companies in the form of research grants, sponsored

professorships, and support for various projects.

Indeed, the amounts probably far exceed those involved in supporting the APA. Professors at medical schools sit on the boards or act as consultants to research and development companies attempting to create and market new psychiatric drugs. Bright young researchers may go directly from working on a drug company grant at the university to joining the drug company's staff.

Health Insurers Health insurers play a largely unexplored role in reinforcing the psychopharmaceutical complex. They tend to reimburse well for drugs, electroshock, and psychiatric hospitalization. On the other hand, they pay relatively little or nothing for psychotherapy and other forms of social rehabilitation, such as halfway houses, crisis centers, and residential homes, which ultimately can be more effective and less costly. Private practitioners, including psychologists and other nonmedical therapists, increasingly find themselves pressured by health insurers to give or to encourage drugs rather than to lose reimbursement for the treatment of specific patients. One colleague of mine, a psychologist, has been told by an insurance company to give one of his patients drugs for anxiety or the patient's coverage for the treatment will be terminated.

The practice of psychotherapy has been vastly curtailed by insurance company policies and successful psychosocial innovations for severely impaired people have withered from lack of support (see chapter 16).

There is hope, however. I talked to the director of a corporation that manages several health insurance programs. He was against psychiatric hospitalization as too costly and often damaging and was considering plans to pay for intensive, even daily, psychotherapy as an alternative. In my experience, a month's worth of very frequent psychotherapy would be much more useful to most acutely disturbed patients than hospitalization, and far less expensive or dangerous.

The Psycho-Pharmaceutical Complex What we have been examining is a giant combine similar to the military industrial complex and involving the psychiatric profession (APA), government (NIMH and FDA), private industry (drug companies and health insurers), education (medical schools), and organizations representing the parents of patients (NAMI and other family groups). But the psychopharmaceutical complex is not a "conspiracy" in the usual sense of a wholly secret or covert collaboration. Much of it involves aboveboard, frank cooperation among likeminded, self-interested parties. Nonetheless, much of it also remains largely hidden from scrutiny, including the amounts of money paid by the drug companies to the APA and to leading psychiatrists. And whether it constitutes a legal conspiracy remains untested.

The only interest group not included in the psychopharmaceutical complex is the true consumers - the patients and victims of biopsychiatry - as represented by the National Association of Psychiatric Survivors (NAPS; see appendix A). Not surprisingly, the patients and ex-patient leaders have no significant voice in the psychiatric power structure.

Given the power of the psycho-pharmaceutical complex, it is no wonder that the public hears so little criticism of the biopsychiatric approach and almost

18

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� nothing about psychosocial, human service alternatives.(9)

The Psycho-Pharmaceutical Complex Zeros In As reporter Vince Bielski discloses in "The Assault on Patients' Rights" in the July 4, 1990, San Francisco Bay Guardian, the psycho-pharmaceutical complex is willing to bring its weight to bear on local issues. A 1989 California court decision, Riese v. St. Mary's, expanded the right of legally competent psychiatric patients to give informed consent or to refuse antipsychotic drugs.

Perhaps because California tends to be a trend setter, this decision brought much of the psychopharmaceutical complex into the fray. The California branch of NAMI (CAMI) put pressure on state legislators to reverse the patients' rights decision. CAMI's attempt to make it easier to control its offspring was not surprising. As expected, the California Psychiatric Society also lent its considerable lobbying weight to reversing the court decision with new legislation.

According to Bielski, state assemblyman Bruce Bronzan, the leading advocate of gutting the Reise decision, turned out to be the recipient of vast psychopharmaceutical complex largess, including: contributions and honoraria from dozens of psychiatric and hospital associations, and pharmaceutical manufacturers, the Northern California and Central California Psychiatric Society, CA Hospitals, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation (maker of the neuroleptic Mellaril); Ciba Geigy Corporation (maker of Ludiomil and other psychiatric drugs) and Parke Davis (maker of Nardit and other psychiatric drugs).

Thus even national. pharmaceutical firms were supporting the assault on patients' rights. The psychopharmaceutical industry is one of the few American enterprises heavily supported by totally involuntary consumers.

Why is there so much interest in preventing legally competent patients from rejecting highly toxic drugs?

After mentioning the unrealistic fear of chaos on the psychiatric wards,(10) Bielski observes, "Moreover, now that drugs have become the basic tools of psychiatry, hospitals, psychiatrists and drug companies stand to lose money if patients refuse to swallow their prescriptions."

Psychiatry as Big Business Implicit in all of this is the reality that organized psychiatry is big business more than it is a profession.

As a big business, managed by APA and NIMH, it develops media relationships, hires PR firms, develops its medical image, holds press conferences to publicize its products, lobbies on behalf of its interests, and issues "scientific" reports that protect it's members from malpractice suits by lending legitimacy to braindamaging technologies. It tries to increase not only its share of the market, but also the size of the whole market.

One way to increase the overall size of the market is to convince the government, society, and individual

citizens that its services are needed. From this motivation grows "official estimates" of the "prevalence of mental illness" that the media latch onto in their stories about the need for psychiatric treatment.

The APA's Division of Public Affairs and Joint Commission on Public Affairs have the task of increasing business. They publish a "Fact Sheet" to help psychiatrists sell themselves to the public. The Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (GAP) is a private group made up of leaders in the field. In 1987 GAP published Speaking Out for Psychiatry: A Handbook for Involvement with the Mass Media, in which they reprint the "Fact Sheet." Here are the estimates for how many Americans are in need of psychiatric services: Anxiety disorders: I 1. I million Depression: 9.4 million Schizophrenia: 1. 5 million Substance and alcohol abuse: 25.5 million Emotional and developmental problems in children: 12 million These five estimates add up to 59.5 million Americans, and that's not including some of the more popular diagnostic categories, such as eating disorders, sexual dysfunctions, and organic brain disorders. Even assuming some inevitable overlap among the groups, 59.5 million potential consumers is a lot of business, more than enough to keep busy a mere forty thousand psychiatrists! Indeed, GAP's estimate that 15 to 25 percent of the elderly have "significant" mental illness would be enough to keep the entire profession occupied.

Perhaps not having added up its own figures, GAP estimates that a mere one in five Americans need psychiatric treatment; but that's 20 percent of the population, or approximately fifty million Americans.

Not content with 20 percent of Americans, NIMH has recently decided that one in five Americans suffers a mental problem in any six-month period. A Washington Post staff writer passes this on as the gospel truth in the June 27, 1989, Health magazine supplement.

Too Many or Too Few Psychiatrists?

There is an especially misleading aspect to these repeated attempts to inflate the numbers of allegedly mentally ill in need of psychiatric treatment. The PR line is that there aren't enough psychiatrists to help all of these people and that the profession must continue to grow in size and importance in the coming years.

Thus the December 1990 Clinical Psychiatry News displays the front-page headline SHORTAGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS EXPECTED TO CONTINUE. But is there really a shortage of psychiatrists? That is, are psychiatrists overburdened with too many patients?

No, the article admits, the opposite is true. Despite intensive promotional efforts by NIMH and APA to get people to go to psychiatrists, there are too many psychiatrists vying for too few patients. According to the Clinical Psychiatry News report, "the low demand for the services of adult and child psychiatrists may make it seem as if there is an oversupply of these physicians, but more Americans need to use their services, and would if they could afford them. . . ." This "low demand" for psychiatrists indicates that psychiatrists are continning to fall behind in their

19

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� competition with nonmedical therapists - psychologists, social workers, counselors, and family therapists.

Thus while psychiatrists continue to have too few patients to maintain their professional incomes at the desired level, their national organizations speak of a shortage of psychiatrists in order to convince the public, the federal government, and health insurance companies to give more support to the profession. The continued failure of psychiatry to attract voluntary patients is the main impetus behind the biopsychiatric propaganda we have been examining in this book.

Enforcing the Psychiatric Monopoly In addition to the psycho-pharmaceutical complex, psychiatry also draws support from its complex relationship to the state and the judiciary.

Psychiatrists, as physicians, are licensed to practice medicine by the individual states. Within the mental health marketplace this gives psychiatrists the unique power not only to prescribe physical treatments, such as drugs and shock, but also to dominate mental health practices in the hospital system, including state hospitals, general hospital psychiatric wards, and private hospitals. It gives them the all-important authority to use physical force to make consumers accept their services through involuntary treatment.

No other professional, indeed no other person, in Western society can exert such personal power over clients or consumers. Imagine if other physicians could force patients into treatment on the grounds that they were in need of it. No one would be allowed to die of cancer without the "services" of the local surgeon or radiologist. Or imagine if lawyers or priests could exercise this kind of power over anyone they designated as their consumers or clients. Because psychiatry can compel patients into treatment, it frequently abuses them and loses its incentive to develop more appealing treatment approaches.

Some psychologists, with their Ph. D. s rather than M. D.s, are becoming increasingly envious of psychiatric medical power. Instead of promoting the psychosocial model and resisting the medical and biopsychiatric model, they are going to court and to legislatures to demand nearly all the rights of psychiatrists, including the right to prescribe drugs. The drug companies are underwriting some of these efforts by sponsoring seminars at national meetings to discuss the possibilities and advantages of psychologists prescribing drugs.(11) Psychiatrists also have a pronounced advantage over non-medical therapists when it comes to health insurance reimbursements for their services. In the past, especially, health insurers were prone to pay for bills generated by psychiatrists but not by other mental health professionals. In order to qualify for reimbursements from health insurers, these other professions have tried increasingly to make themselves over in the image of psychiatry. In a field where innovation and variety should have top priority, limiting health insurance reimbursement to traditional lookalikes stultifies the field.

The requirement for CME credits at first glance looks to be in the public interest. Continuing medical education is supposed to keep psychiatrists on their toes by requiring them to go to seminars each year in order to

qualify for state licensure or membership in professional organizations. Actually the CME programs enforce conformity to the prevailing biopsychiatric viewpoint. The easiest way to get CMEs is to go to conferences sponsored by APA, NIH, mental hospitals, and medical schools - programs typically underwritten by drug companies.

Because the drug companies are not likely to pay for CME seminars that train doctors in psychosocial theories and practices, or that criticize drugs, the requirement for CME credits has become a powerful force toward biopsychiatric conformity.

Psychiatrists also exert enormous monopoly powers through the courts, where they are recognized as the experts in a variety of spheres, including the critical input on court decisions that declare people incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.

When psychiatrists are sued for malpractice, who appears in court to testify as to whether or not the accused doctor actually performed in a negligent manner? Other psychiatrists. Since professional retaliation can be brutal, trying to get one psychiatrist to testify against another is like trying to get Mafia members to rat on one another. I have seen cases where dangerous combinations and gross overdoses of psychiatric drugs have nearly killed patients, leaving them comatose or crippled, but no psychiatrists within the state could be found to testify on the patients' behalf Attorneys frequently complain, "Several psychiatrists have said that it was obvious negligence but that they didn't dare testify against their colleagues."

Biopsychiatrists have begun to turn on their psychosocial colleagues in a way not previously seen. In print they are recommending that doctors who fail to use drugs can be guilty of malpractice. Recently a famous private psychiatric hospital settled out of court for failing to give an antidepressant to a man who later claimed he was saved by the drug at another institution.

Threats of malpractice actions are intimidating social workers, counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals who are unable or unwilling to give drugs. More and more frequently nonmedical therapists are referring their clients to psychiatrists for medication, even though the use of drugs may be at odds with the psychosocial approach taken by these professionals.

The picture I have drawn looks overwhelming, yet it is not an exaggeration. Psychiatry is a giant industry, protected by a state monopoly and promoted by a psycho-pharmaceutical complex with multi-billion dollar power.

Despite these enormous advantages, psychiatry is not doing well financially and must struggle continually to maintain its monopoly power. This clearly indicates that psychiatry would lose out entirely in a genuine competition with psychological and social alternatives.

In almost every arena in which psychiatry operates, psychosocial interventions - to which we now turn-are much less harmful, often less expensive, and far more appealing and helpful to suffering human beings.

Footnotes:

20

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity�

1. My research assistant at the time, Wade Hudson, obtained estimates on the cost of printing the materials that came to roughly $70,000. This did not include producing the materials (editing, design, and so on) or collating, packaging, and mailing. Nor did it include any possible payments to the physicians involved.

network concerned with the impact of mental health theory and practices upon individual well-being, personal freedom, and family and community values. For 25 years ICSPP has been informing the professions, media and the public about the potential dangers of drugs, electroshock, psychosurgery, and the biological theories of psychiatry.

2. I first met Klerman around 1957-58 when I was working with the Harvard-Radcliffe Mental Hospital College Volunteer Program and he was a young psychiatrist at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center. We talked amicably about my interests in going to medical school to become a psychiatrist, and I explained my desire to learn more and eventually to contribute to our knowledge about human nature, human psychology, and psychosocial therapy. He advised me that I was headed in the wrong direction and that psychiatry was moving toward drugs and computerized diagnosis and treatment. At least in regard to drugs, he helped make that prediction come true.

Meanwhile, despite much experimenting, computerized psychiatry has as yet failed to materialize.

Suggested Reading:

3. I found Marks sincerely concerned about the problem of drug company influence in psychiatry. I also agreed with him that the tone of Freedman's letter to him was insulting.

4. When I described Freedman's "three P's" to one of my students at George Mason University, Louise Massoud, she declared with dismay, "He didn't include patients in his 'three P's.' Indeed, patients do seem far removed from the motivation of psychiatric researchers.

5. He gave me permission to use his name, but I don't believe he is aware of the extent of the potential backlash, and so I have withheld his name.

Drugs & The Psychiatric Industry Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry : Drugs, Electroshock, and the Role of the FDA Today! by Peter R. Breggin, M.D. Toxic Psychiatry : Why Therapy, Empathy, and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the New Psychiatry by Peter R. Breggin, M.D. The Manufacture of Madness : A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movements by Thomas S. Szasz, M.D., Professor Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry : An Inquiry into the Social Uses of Mental Health Practices by Thomas S. Szasz, M.D., Professor Bedlam : Greed, Profiteering, and Fraud in a Mental Health System Gone Crazy by Joe Sharkey The Limits of Biological Treatments for Psychological Distress

by Seymour Fisher and Roger P. Greenberg Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain by Peter R. Breggin, M.D. Source: http://www.sntp.net/fda/big_money.htm

6. Subsequent meetings have grown still worse.

7. I didn't mention that he was chief medical editor of a glossy monthly magazine put out by Merrell Dow. 8. Recently I have heard of at least one local exception to this rule. Furthermore, not all NAMI Parents have caused their children's problems, but the NAMI leadership has aggressively sought to suppress those with whom it disagrees.

9. In December 1990 Senator Ted Kennedy held hearings on the buying of doctors by drug companies through "lavish vacations, gifts and cash payments." As reported by Warren Leary in the December 12, 1990, New York Times, Kennedy observed that pharmaceutical firms Ire spending four times what they did in 1975 to promote drugs. However, it appears that the Psychopharmaceutical complex and psychiatry have escaped scrutiny at these hearings.

10. As I describe in Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain (New York: Springer, 1983), theo fear of psychiatric wards going wild has never materialized in states like Massachusetts th-q@ recognize the right to refuse treatment. Yet it is raised frequently by the psychiatric establishmen as a means of thwarting public support for increased patients' rights.

11. As of January 1991 1 became one of the few psychiatrists accepted for full membership in the American Psychological Association. One of my aims in joining the American Psychological Association was to encourage it to remain free of the psycho-pharmaceutical complex. Another was to help support the independence of psychologists from psychiatrists in conducting Psychosocial therapies. Psychiatry has always tried to limit the rights of psychologists to practice independently.

Meanwhile, as a psychiatrist. I have been a member of the American Psychiatric Association for several decades.

For more information on this subject and psychiatry and drugs in general get yourself a copy of Toxic Psychiatry : Why Therapy, Empathy, and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the New Psychiatry

by Peter R. Breggin, M.D., the book from which this information was excerpted.

Peter Breggin's Home Site - Peter R. Breggin, M.D. founded The International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP) as a nonprofit research and educational

Reality, Belief and The Mind

by Gene Zimmer Introduction One major problem in the world today, and this applies especially to "educated" people, is that they are not really very smart. Actually "smart" is not the right word.

What I am trying to say is that they are not very perceptive and suffer from a marked inability to look and see things as they actually are. The reason for this is that they are the most familiar with the ideas and notions of the times, having been thoroughly "educated" into these notions and ideas. This "education" (indoctrination) generally acts to create a set of cultural or "professional" blinders which prevents the "educated" person from viewing or understanding anything outside of the current "professional" framework that they have been indoctrinated into. It's not that they lack and need more knowledge, but that the knowledge that they do have, in itself, acts to prevent them from being able to view and understand anything outside their often limited framework of beliefs and attitudes - a framework that they assume to be be all-inclusive and often quite perfect. The rest of the culture goes along with everything that they promote as "facts" and "truth", because these viewpoints and attitudes tend to be everywhere newspapers, magazines, TV, schools and colleges.

An Example - Modern Medicine One example of this is modern western medicine, which is almost completely drug oriented. The drug companies are the largest supporters of the major medical schools

21

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity�

- through their extensive grants and yearly donations.

The main direction of western medicine is drug oriented, not because there is anything inherently superior to it, but because a huge amount of money pours into it and supports it year after year. No drug company will finance studies and research that fail to strongly encourage drug "solutions", or that encourage alternative solutions to health problems that they do not profit by. Individual people, groups, and especially commercial business ventures do not pay money to support their competition or adversaries. Imagine if two new board games hit the market (like Monopoly or Clue), and one group spent nothing on advertising while the second group spent millions over a ten year period on promoting its product. Which group would have the more successful, played, and profitable game?

Obviously, the game that had the huge amount of money spent to promote it. Which game might actually be "better" would be meaningless, because the money invested in advertising primarily determines which game achieves greater popularity. This is exactly the situation with modern medicine, and many other things.

chiropractic; simply do a search on Google, MSN or Yahoo for "AMA Chiropractic".

Using various medical journals, media outlets, and the FDA, the modern medical establishment actively attacks, derides and even attempts to eradicate alternative methods (especially if these alternative methods ARE effective and would pose a real competitive threat). Medicine is big business, the only goal is profits, and to hell with whether it works or not.

It's primarily a matter of balance sheets for their respective accounting departments. Factually, the AMA (American Medical Association) spent over 10 years, and much time and money ridiculing, attacking, and finding fault with chiropractic practices. They presented it all very "scientifically", with "numerous studies", but often simply resorted to juvenile name-calling in an attempt to belittle the chiropractic profession. Members of the chiropractic profession were often referred to as "quacks" or "side-show elixir salesman". Some of their methods were derided as being nothing but "mumbojumbo" and "hocus-pocus".

Modern western medicine views health as the "absence of disease". They have labeled or "named" various physical conditions and packages of symptoms as "illnesses". Their solution is to "attack", "battle" and "destroy" the symptoms of the diseases they have "named". They almost never address an actual cause of a health problem with the aim to solve it. Studies are never conducted to determine how to prevent cancer, but only how to attack it with drugs and other invasive techniques. The entire intention is to "manage" the pain and to destroy symptoms. If the illness were truly "solved" this would put their methods out of business.

There is absolutely no profit in curing anything. That is the main reason why they don't. Many of you may rebel at this notion, and react that this couldn't possibly be true. The notion violates our basic sense of decency and rightness about the operation of a major social institution. But regardless of intentions, in the real world of existing people and actions, this is practically the way it works.

This is a common practice today, where one group attacks another by calling them various things that are known to have unique associated connotations by the majority of the public. "Oh, he's a socialist", "they're atheists", "it's just a cult", and "she's a right-wing extremist" are all examples of where reason, proof and sane arguments are discarded in favor of simple namecalling with the hope that the listener blindly accepts the over-generalized label along with all its unspoken negative connotations. These planned attacks aim at a pre-conscious and emotional appeal level. The goal is never to honestly appeal to reason or to discover truth, but to change attitudes and opinions in one's favor.

Eventually, after a long drawn out legal battle, the AMA had to publicly admit and apologize for the dishonest tactics that they had used over many years in their attempt to destroy chiropractic. Their apologies appeared as full-page ads in USA Today magazine.

"Truth" and "public health" were not the concern of the AMA or of their cohorts in slander, the FDA (Federal Food & Drug Administration). Their only concern was (and still is) profits. The profits of the doctors and drug companies. Chiropractic was competition. It mattered little whether it actually helped people or cured poor health conditions. There is a great deal of information online about the battle between the AMA and

Drug advertisements make up the majority of the advertising in all "official" medical journals. The doctors take courses about what drugs to give for what diseases. The drug companies have worked closely with major medical schools for decades to establish the drug approach to modern western medicine. So, the doctor, whether caring, intelligent, honest or not, is basically "educated" (indoctrinated) within a very limited approach to the subject of health. Alternative subjects, such as chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture, and osteopathy, which have been around much longer than modern drug medicine, are routinely ignored and ridiculed by many doctors, even though most of them know next to nothing about these subjects. It is even popular to ridicule these subjects. I am sure many of them make wise cracks about these subjects at their conventions and social functions. Condescension by people who think they know better, when they actually don't, is a common albeit somewhat pitiful practice.

Their intention never has been, and isn't now, to solve cancer. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Medical Association work closely with the drug companies and exist to forward the profits of the drug companies. Otherwise the drug companies wouldn't support them. Many honest and caring people work with and for these groups, believing that they are sincerely searching for a "cure" for cancer. Even many doctors and drug executives believe the same thing, but this is not what they have done in the past, are doing now, or will ever do in the future. One doesn't bite the hand that feeds you (the drug companies). The doctors, colleges and medical associations know this better than anyone, even if this fact is rarely admitted to themselves or others.

Their entire approach isn't to "create health", but to "destroy disease". There is a large philosophical difference involved here. This philosophical gulf results in drastic practical differences in applications. For example, osteopathy views "health" as something to create through proper diet, nutrition, exercise, and living. It attempts to locate the underlying causes which manifest as the "disease" (physical symptoms).

Osteopathy might encourage a patient to locate and remove pesticides, food additives, and other chemical

22

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� poisons from the body's environment and intake, but this is done from a viewpoint of "handling" negative causes and not simply "attacking" negative symptoms.

It's a major difference in approach and effect. There MUST be actual reasons why people develop cancer, but the TRUE sources are not given due concern. The modern popular "authorities" like to assert that it's all due to genetics, so then there is nothing anyone can do about it except pay for their treatments once you have the "disease". It is ludicrous to believe that with all the millions of dollars spent on cancer "research" that solutions have not been found. This is because the actual causes are not being adequately or honestly looked for. Research continues to primarily address new ways to attack and destroy symptoms, with no aim at discovering actual underlying causes, which if properly addressed would do away with the symptomatic "cures" of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Additionally there has been a concerted effort by the FDA, the Gestapo arm of the drug companies and medical industry, to attack and destroy any and all efforts that actually do reduce or "cure" cancer. In modern America it is actually against the law to claim that you can "cure" a disease (even if you can). Strange place, huh?

Antibiotics are a "drug" which helps the body do what it is already trying to do. At the turn of the century, when antibiotics were discovered, great forward leaps were taken in the general health of the public, because infections no longer were untreatable. But most modern "medical" drugs do not act to "help" the body do what it is already doing or trying to do, and, in fact, often act to inhibit or harm the body and what it is trying to do.

Modern drugs, including psychiatric drugs, primarily attack and suppress symptoms, rarely addressing or correcting any underlying causes, and almost always with known or unknown harmful side-effects. Even prolonged use of antibiotics has detrimental effects on the body's immune system and other normal body functions. Various proponents of "drugs" try to equate the "antibiotics" with the other newer modern drugs in their attempt to justify their use, but all "drugs" are not equal. Medical and pharmaceutical specialists want us all to simply think that "drugs are good" and "drugs cure illness". They don't want anyone to have an in depth understanding of what drugs actually do, and that they primarily attack symptoms. Sadly, and for the most part, this is what they themselves believe.

Most drugs don't cure anything, and instead almost always attack symptoms. To make matters even worse, most doctors and drug specialists don't even know how or why the various drugs do what they do. Largely they have opinions, notions, and theories which they parade around as "scientific" facts. They believe it, and therefore they can be very convincing. As an example, psychiatrists (medical "doctors" of a sort), talk about "chemical imbalances in the brain" as if these actually existed, yet no such imbalance has ever been found in any of many medical studies, and no medical test exists for such an imbalance. But this non-existent imbalance, which has never been detected anywhere at anytime, receives constant attention by doctors, is discussed casually in medical journals, and is cited to patients as the "reason" for their problems. It's an illusion, or more to the point, it's a delusion. It's something that many people believe to exist, yet it actually does not exist at all in any way whatsoever. And of course, the drugs they prescribe supposedly "cure" the invisible and never detected chemical imbalance. It is a hoax. It may not

be an intentional hoax, but it is a hoax even if only due to their rampant idiocy. No two psychiatrists can or will agree on what defines a "schizophrenic" or what the proper treatment should be. The description and explanation of "schizophrenia" has drastically changed over the entire past century to where the concept can mean almost anything or nothing. In a nutshell, the "mental illness", the explanation for it, and the "cure" are all imaginary. They don't exist and are of the nature of modern mythology. True, psychiatry is a an often very detailed and complex modern mythology, but it's a mythology nonetheless. These "things", such as "chemical imbalances in the brain", and many "mental diseases" are concepts which don't relate to any actual observable realities. These things are fairy tales.

The point is that modern medicine, as it is officially accepted and practiced today, is far from a complete and valid system of health, in theory and in practice.

Doctors are promoted and treated as "professionals", "authorities" and "scientific experts". This is largely a false picture, but has been thoroughly accepted by the majority of the public as being true. Medical doctors enjoy large salaries because they are the primary sales arm for the extremely profitable drug companies. Make no mistake about it, without the drug companies the medical doctors would not enjoy anywhere near the financial benefits they currently do. This situation of very incomplete and limited approaches also exists in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and education. There are reasons why many modern fields of study are often incomplete, biased, limited, harmful or unworkable (meaning not getting useful effective results), even while the members are viewed at the same time as "professionals" and "authorities", but that is not the subject of this essay. But in case you are curious, it has mainly to do with profit, power, and elitism (the condition where a certain select few think they know what is best for everyone else due to their self-assumed superior intelligence and ability).

The drug companies and associated non-profit foundations, created by the same owners of the major drug companies, dumped billions of dollars into the medical colleges over the past hundred years to support and promulgate their "business". It was all advertising and PR, and sadly, had very little to do with "truth", "effectiveness" or an honest concern for the health of the general public. The doctor's image as the "kindly", "knowledgeable" and "caring professional" is primarily the result of many decades-long, slick, Madison Avenue type advertising campaigns. We all believe it, or at least did believe it at some point. We mostly take it for granted, never question it, and this is what keeps the situation going. Mostly they also believe it themselves.

It's not that they're really conniving and deceitful, although there are some who fall into that category; but instead they are simply, for the most part, wrongly educated (indoctrinated). Doctor's are often kind and caring, but that alone cannot make up for the lack of validity to their approach to human health.

Additionally, the entire nutty system is gaining momentum and continues to expand in terms of influence, power and control.

Modern medicine is not the result of a hundred years of objective, unbiased research representing Man's honest and legitimate desire to discover "truth" and to "help" solve human suffering. Modern medicine is the result of

23

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� certain huge financial interests that first, aligned themselves with the subject of western medicine, second, refused to support, actively inhibited and even destroyed alternative medical approaches (due to no profit potential and the threat of real competition), and third, completely oversaw, managed and directed the evolution of modern western medicine in theory and practice. Many people find this difficult to believe, and even completely ridiculous. This shows, not that what I state here is wrong, but that the majority of the public are completely "sold" on the idea of modern medicine as being valid, professional, scientific and all-inclusive.

These people are "modern believers". We all suffer from this to some extent, and none are immune. Any honest and observant investigator will find though that this is simply not true. But you will have to break through much of your own fixed ideas and erroneous basic assumptions about reality before you will be able to see it for what it really is. It is not easy to admit one has been believing a lie for most of their life. This comes as a shock to us all. It makes us feel like fools and idiots. It makes us feel uncertain, unsteady and shaky. Our world seems to collapse around us as the mental props we took for granted yesterday lay in shambles at our feet today. But it is better to temporarily feel like an idiot, endure the momentary confusion, push through to the other side, and reach a state of increased awareness, than to continue believing and contributing to the lies (modern medicine being only one example of many).

The modern doctors are "educated authorities", but ONLY within their extremely limited and largely incorrect domain of understanding. Within their own system of ideas or subject they are "smart". They can "diagnose" the "right diseases" by knowing the appropriate packages of symptoms, they can "prescribe" the "right drugs" according to the medical textbooks (which ONLY recommend drug treatments and are written in close affiliation with the major drug companies), and they can discuss "intelligently" their field with other doctors. The affluent doctors send their kids to medical school, because they have the money and can afford it, new western-oriented medical doctors are produced, and the entire situation continues happily along. You are familiar with the attitudes about doctors in modern western society such as 1) "being a doctor is a good profession", 2) "doctors are professionals", 3) "modern medicine is the best there is", 4) "medical studies use the latest in scientific methods and equipment", and 5) "listen to your doctor, because he knows best". It's all largely a sham. While this may not be due to any actual widespread political or financial conspiracy, it is minimally due to ignorance and stupidity regenerating and propagating itself through space and time.

The above things exists only because doctors use drugs.

If doctors, as a profession began to question drug use and began promoting alternative methods to handle patient complaints and ailments, because they honestly found them to be more effective, they would find themselves, as a profession, without a financial guardian angel, because the drug companies would cease to support them. They would find themselves without power, prestige, and authority, not because they weren't right, but because the big money would no longer be setting them up as the "professionals". Drug companies and therefore the entire medical establishment support drugs and drug use only. They do not support, and have never supported, "truth", "health"

and "honest advancement" no matter what they say, pretend, believe, assert, claim, or promote among themselves or to the public. It is a difficult thing to discover and understand that what we have been taking for granted about a major social institution is largely false.

As an example, most doctors don't have a clue about nutrition and its importance to the smooth operation of the human body. This should seem odd to anyone who honestly considers that good nutrition is a very basic requirement of the healthy operation of any human body. A human body is made up of atoms, cells, chemicals, minerals, and various structures. The body has numerous different systems, such as digestion, circulation, respiration, lymphatic, immune, and nervous, to name but a few, and these each have unique operations which involve utilizing material from the environment to keep the body going. The body is a tremendously complex biological machine. There is no man-made thing anywhere that comes even slightly close to it in terms of the sheer amount of systems, relationships of systems, and complexity. Specific body functions monitor and handle sugar levels, electrolyte relations, mineral levels and ratios, blood oxygen levels, cellular toxicity, and thousands of other things known not yet discovered or known. Apparently the body keeps itself running and functioning just fine if left to itself and allowed to. This FACT is one thing you will never hear come out of a doctor's mouth, that the body's own inherent intelligence operates continually, 24 hours a day, to keep it going, and to keep it going at an optimum level. It, whatever "it" is, "knows" what to do at the smallest cellular level right on up to the largest interactive whole body level. Anyone who cares to observe and learn about the various body functions will be truly amazed at what the physical body does all by itself. The body ingests, assimilates, organizes and utilizes various chemicals, minerals, vitamins, and enzymes as the raw material to keep itself going.

Thousands upon thousands of chemical reactions at a cellular and organ level occur in your body each and every second! So, if the chemicals aren't adequately supplied, or if certain of the body's monitoring and organizing functions become impaired due to a past failure to obtain the needed chemicals, it can't remain "healthy". The body needs raw materials such as minerals, water, vitamins, and various chemicals, which it largely gets through food (i.e. nutrition), but also from the air and water. These keep the body machine running and also keep it in good "mechanical" shape.

This is common sense, although apparently not to the modern western-oriented medical doctor.

And so many modern doctors pooh-pooh nutritional approaches to health. They sometimes use the notion of the "starry eyed, hippie, health food fanatic" and attempt to attach it to the entire nutritional approach with the purpose of diminishing the public's perception of it as valid and useful. A generalized caricature of the health-food fanatic is often attached to the various subjects of alternative medicine and used to prevent an accurate perception and understanding of these subjects. Sadly, these tactics work far too often. Too many people accept without question the conceptual associations given to them by others, no matter how untrue or inaccurate these might be.

The modern medical doctors have nothing to do with "creating health". They are only concerned with

24

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� eradicating or destroying disease, and the removing of disease (which is usually only a group of symptoms of some underlying and unrecognized physical problem) is a very incomplete and one-sided approach to the complete subject called "health". It's not that modern medical techniques don't have their place, they do, but their approach is only an isolated part of a much larger picture. The picture they present of themselves as being the whole picture is simply incorrect, and has devastating effects on people, the quality of life and society.

The body is a machine of sorts. It's a biological machine or engine. An automobile engine requires fuel for combustion, oil for lubrication, gas lines to deliver the fuel, oil lines and pumps to circulate the lubricant, a carburetor to monitor and direct the fuel into the combustion chambers, spark plugs to explode the gas, computer systems to monitor speed, oil pressure, gas levels and much more. Nobody questions the importance of using good gas, keeping the engine filled with quality oil, maintaining clean filters, patching leaks or keeping it clean. It's amazing that the human body, which is also a machine, but a much more complicated machine, is viewed entirely in a different manner. Most people take care to ensure their gas is good, clean and free of impurities, yet people eat and drink things everyday filled with toxins which are proven to harm body systems and functioning. The modern medical doctor often thinks and says that concern for decent nutrition is absurd. It's the doctor who's absurd! He is truly a veritable moron. The surgeon, who is among the highest paid "doctors", excels at cutting out various body tissue with a scalpel, when failure to assist the body in proper operation through decent nutrition, exercise and rest has gone on for so long that it is breaking down horribly. The surgeon is more often than not simply a butcher. That's what he does by definition. He cuts up meat. And society treats him as of he were something special.

Again, he cuts up meat like any butcher. Yes, there is a need for this, but no, there is no sensible reason that this should be such a high-paid, well-respected profession compared to others. With a car, any sensible and honest mechanic will look for the source of the engine trouble and repair that. If automobile mechanics followed the modern medical approach, what follows is an example of what they might do.

Let's say the engine is running uneven (symptom). It actually has a dirty spark plug (another symptom, and a minor secondary cause). The spark plug became dirty because the plug gap was 1) set to small, 2) the gas being used has been cheap (and dirty), and 3) the carburetor was adjusted incorrectly allowing too much oxygen in the fuel mixture causing too much heat in that cylinder. The "medical" mechanic, would aim to handle only the symptoms never looking to locate and handle the actual basic causes. He would say, "oh your cylinder is running funny". Your car has "rough cylinderitis". The symptom must be given a fancy name - this makes it sound so much more convincing. The problem or symptom or condition is viewed as a thing in itself, a disease, with little concern for actual causes. This disease or malfunction must be viewed as something that has a life all of its own, as a unique thing with its own independent and objective existence, with little relationship to anything else, and it is looked at as bad.

He would drill another hole in the cylinder, add a second spark plug to compensate for the poor

performance of the first spark plug, rewire the distributor cap, all of which would cost plenty of money. This action would weaken the cylinder due to the extra hole drilled in it, opening the door to other problems in the future. The engine would run smoother, but unless the faulty spark plug gaps, the dirty gas, and the air-fuel mixture error were located and repaired, similar or other symptoms and conditions (i.e. new "diseases") would develop later on. The car might even "appear healthy" for awhile. But 3 or 6 months from now, other problems would develop. Other cylinders would run too hot because the air-fuel mixture was never corrected, and this could "manifest" in new "diseases" such as 1) blackened cylinder walls and corrosive build up which cause the cylinders to experience greatly increased friction ("corrosivefrictional syndrome"), 2) cracked spark plug ceramics ("ceramic dysfunction") , and 3) piston meltdown ("pistonic heat-related failure"). Again, the "medical" auto mechanic would name in excruciating detail and address the conditions or symptoms only, making lots more money for himself, the auto shop, and the parts dealers, while still never correcting the actual true sources of the problem(s). Each of these new mechanical problems would require unique, expensive, but largely superficial solutions, all designed to benefit the "repair industry" and not the consumers. This analogy for the modern medical and the drug industries is very appropriate.

The above medical example portrays a specific case of an overall general tendency that exists on this planet in almost any area of modern western civilization. This is the widespread tendency to fail to address true underlying causes, and instead to concentrate only on surface conditions and superficial manifestations. In other words, true causes are ignored and neglected and symptoms receive the majority of the attention. Of course, failing to address the true reasons for anything cannot result in a legitimate repair or improvement of anything, and in a very real sense this is the actual reason for most failures occurring today on an individual, social, national and planetary level.

If you stepped on a nail and the nail became embedded in your foot and caused an infection, you would expect the doctor to remove the nail. You would not expect the doctor to examine the extent of redness and the swelling of the foot, test the infected tissue for the exact type of infection occurring on the foot, clean the area, bandage it, and send you home with a prescription for antibiotics and orders to stay off the foot until it is healed, leaving the embedded nail in your foot. Imagine - the infection keeps recurring because the source of the problem is still embedded in your body. The doctor simply prescribes stronger and stronger antibiotics to control the infection. And when that doesn't solve the infection problem, the doctor puts you on a long-term antibiotic treatment and declares you to be handicapped with a chronic infection that prevents you from walking on your foot. You cannot play sports or engage in other outside activities.

In addition, you are exposed to the side-effects of longterm antibiotic drug use, and the underlying problem of the nail in your foot will still be there when they take you off the medication.

A symptom is simply the body's way of letting you know that something is wrong. It's a clue, a red flag. The symptom should not be covered up with a drug. Doing

25

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� so will keep you from finding out what the body is trying to tell you - what's really wrong.

This is exactly the situation with modern medicine - the "human body repair industry". The institutionalized belief system inherent in the modern medical approach pooh-poohs any approach that attempts to address underlying causes instead of symptoms. Look at aspirin.

It handles symptoms. It never actually addresses why you have or get headaches, but only suppresses the symptoms. There are many reasons why you may get headaches, but the medical "professional" cares little about these. Your joints ache, but instead of locating what it is that is causing this to happen, the doctor gives you pain killers to "manage" the pain. Pain management is a huge billion dollar a year industry.

Alzheimer patients routinely have extremely high levels of aluminum compounds in their brain nerve tissue.

People without the "disease" do not. Instead of trying to discover why and where the aluminum comes from, the doctors give many of them psychiatric drugs to keep them calm, and well-behaved. The drugs "cure" nothing.

They suppress symptoms. In the case of aluminum, the primary causes are probably 1) cooking with aluminum pot ware, as it's a fact that cooking in aluminum results in the aluminum "leaching" onto other chemicals and forming toxic chemical compounds, which then get ingested, 2) underarm deodorants which are very high in aluminum compounds, and 3) stomach antacid medications, some of which are very high in aluminum compounds. I could give pages and pages of examples where symptoms are addressed at the complete exclusion of legitimate underlying causes Again, few people reading such material as this can accept and understand it initially, because they have accepted so much utter nonsense for most of their lives that directly conflicts with the truth here and what they have been led to believe.

Who knows what improved levels of health would be available today, if instead of dumping billions of dollars into drug medicine, the money had been invested in researching actual causes of unhealthy conditions? But the bottom line is that investing in these alternative approaches did not and does not enable the same degree of profit. So much for the success of pure unadulterated capitalism and the "business ethic" as far as human health is concerned.

It is really quite ludicrous that the farce known as modern medicine is viewed as "educated", "professional", and "state-of-the-art". It is an illusion that the entire public largely accepts and believes. It continues to exist only because of this reason - because the entire public largely accepts and believes it to be true. Big money keeps the belief structure intact through general public education, government support actions, television, radio, magazines, books, medical associations, and university level medical education.

The information you get from the environment around you tends to be the information you believe, especially when it also tends to be the only information available.

The reality of "modern medicine" is a contrived fantasy, an illusion, and a false view parading as "truth". Sadly, this is also true for many other areas of "modern" civilization and society.

Attacking the Negative, Eradicating the Undesirable

I will make a small digression here because this is paramount to a better understanding of what is going on in today's world. Most major subjects or fields today do not involve the creation of any positive thing, but almost always attack, destroy, annihilate or inhibit negative things as solutions to their respective problems. This is a key and basic tendency applied in almost all areas of modern activity. It is also a key tendency throughout human history. It is a basic, largely unconscious, approach most people and groups use to address "problems" today. A few examples are: 1) Governments largely do not concern themselves with creating or building an honest, productive workable society, but instead they concern themselves with attacking crime, handling dissidents, catching tax evaders, or inhibiting disorder. This is their usual solution to bringing about peace and order (both dumb goals in themselves but typical for the modern social planners). It generally involves stopping bad things from occurring instead of encouraging good things to exist.

This mindset falsely imagines that if one were to take away all the bad, then good would naturally be left.

This isn't the way it is and it never will be that way. The only good and decent things that exist anywhere exist only because somebody at some time actively created these things.

2) The military is always used to stop, control or destroy enemies. How any military functions is the epitome of this tendency. Police, as an activity that concentrates also on stopping or eradicating what it perceives to be bad or unwanted, also functions primarily in this way. Modern medicine views disease in the much the same way. It views the symptoms as enemies, and either cuts them out or drugs them into submission. Cancer treatments all brutally attack the cancer, and often leave the immune system very weakened or destroyed. Many cancer patients, having received modern official cancer treatments eventually succumb to pneumonia because their immune system is so horribly weakened from the attacks on their body from the cancer treatments. Modern official cancer treatments attack the entire biological organism, with the hope that the cancer dies before the patient. A better treatment, or at least a necessary additional approach, would be to also effectively rebuild and strengthen the immune system. That is often what alternative approaches propose, yet they are often ridiculed by the medical establishment. Again, the cancer industry is big business, largely involving major drug companies.

A capable government, with decency, understanding and an ability to communicate honesty (which doesn't exist anywhere on Earth now), would discuss problems with its neighbors, with a desire to isolate true sources of their conflicts. Then they would address the actual sources and resolve the true underlying causes of their conflicts. Obviously, this is an oversimplification, but the point is that attacking of the negative or suppressing the undesirable is the common modern (and historical) approach to handling international, national, social and individual problems. The aim is almost never to create a desirable condition, but to eradicate an unwanted one. It is assumed that removing the negative somehow brings about the positive. But this isn't so. The positive must be created. This onesided approach of attacking the negative has its flaws, and a general unworkability. Destroying and creating

26

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity� are two entirely different things, in theory, in practice, and in results achieved. Removing immorality doesn't result in morality. Suppressing crime doesn't create a safe society. Removing illness does not necessarily bring about health. Penalizing lack of responsibility doesn't bring about responsibility. All good things must be created as a positive, and not only attacked as a negative.

But with governments there is also another problem.

They often do not want anyone knowing what their true motives are and so are incapable of entering into honest discussions about actual causes. The US government talks endlessly about "spreading democracy", when in fact, the only thing spreading are the major corporations which control the US government. It is impossible for them to enter into honest discussions, because they promote the notion of "democracy" as a cover for their true underlying motives. These true motives are the consolidation and expansion of control by the top major financial powers on the planet.

3) Modern behavior modification techniques exhibit this. The theories and methods aim primarily to spot, name and eradicate unwanted behaviors. Again, any actual sources to the undesirable behavior are largely ignored or invented, and the symptoms (behaviors) are addressed with an aim to get rid of them. Ritalin is given to suppress the hyperactive child's unwanted behaviors, instead of attempting to locate underlying physical or emotional sources that, if corrected, could often handle the unwanted behaviors by allowing the natural health and natural desirable behaviors to surface. Factually, many hyperactive symptoms have disappeared in children when their diet or environment has been altered, thereby removing sugar, allergens or chemical toxins. But to the psychologists, psychiatrists and teachers (who have been educated into these crazy psychiatric notions), it's all "brain illnesses". The drugs act further to harm the child's mind and body. Most psychiatrists dismiss nutritional approaches as "unscientific" and "absurd". This is true stupidity and extreme one-sidedness parading itself as "educated", "intelligent" and "professional". While they may be "educated", they are, in fact total idiots. They are truly stupid people. Allowing them to exist as "professionals" is a burden we all must bear, because the only true thing they excel at is harming people, their minds and society. Their "intelligence" is a complete farce. That many of us have been suckered into accepting their ideas, and also hold the same beliefs and attitudes makes this no less true.

4) Psychiatry demonstrates this quite clearly.

Psychiatrists name and label numerous "conditions" which people experience. Again, these names are "packages of symptoms" of some sort. They then call these packages of symptoms "diseases" or "mental illnesses" (while most of them are NOT). Most of these conditions are problems people have with their own mind and life. Instead of ever trying to locate a source for the uncomfortable condition or unwanted symptoms, the psychiatrists "attack" them with surgery (lobotomy), electric shock, or drugs, each of which acts to overwhelm the patient's mind, behavior and condition. The psychiatric "treatments" actually act to push any true mental and emotional problem sources further into the background, making them much more difficult to address at a later time with a more legitimate approach (such as therapy, counseling,

family, support groups, or religion). Also, a person can and should be responsible for their own mind and emotions. Telling them they have a "disease" which is "not their fault" implies to them first, that they are somehow disabled, and second, that there is nothing they can do except take their drugs or receive their shock treatments. This is all very good for the drug businesses and psychiatrists, but not very good for their patients or society.

5) As an historical example, take the Spanish Inquisition. The Priests and Church wanted "holiness" and "Godliness" to reign throughout the land. Instead of creating it through communication and understanding, they instead concentrated upon the deviations from "holiness", and attacked heresy through extensive arrests, tribunals, court trials, torture and even public murder (burning at the stake, etc.). Of course, it's quite impossible to educate sane and observant people into a crazy belief system, and the only available avenue is oppression and force. There are many similar examples throughout history. Nazi Germany, following popular genetic theories, attempted to perfect Man and bring about the "Ubermensch" (Nietzche's "superman") by sterilizing people with low IQs, and eradicating "poor human stock". Again, they didn't try to locate the positive of what makes Man great, and build upon it, but instead tried to destroy what they imagined inhibited man's greatness. They basically assumed that if all the bad human traits were removed, then only the good traits would be left. What they completely missed is that the good always must be actively created. They basically had a noble idea with a brutally evil means toward reaching their conceived end.

The above examples are actually all cases of applying force against something with the aim to get rid of it.

The attitude is one of stomping things out of existence.

Sadly, this is the status quo approach on Earth for handling just about anything. This is always less effective and produces less lasting results than the opposite approach - creating or building something positive. Later, more will be said about the use of force to suppress things, and why it occurs.

The above examples exhibit a few of the many ways that Man and his institutions have tended to attack the negative instead of encouraging and bringing about the positive. Part of the problem here is that things are generally attacked that are viewed as or agreed to be bad, harmful or evil. Too often the things in themselves are not anything really, and the problem is that certain people fixate on these things to the neglect of creating and maintaining positive things. Numerous examples can be found in personal relationships involving family, sexuality, jobs and friendship. People chronically point out, criticize and attack what someone does wrong, and too often do little to actually help or bring about the positive condition they seem to insinuate they desire in the other(s). Mommy yells at little Billy for touching things in the store, yet fails to sensibly communicate to him why he should not touch things that are not his own. The husband yells at and beats his wife when caught cheating with a neighbor instead of discussing the problems they each have, how to handle these, and both working towards and becoming people capable of creating a worthwhile relationship and family.

27

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity�

Nothing exists if it is not positively created. Knocking down or destroying unwanted things does not result in the positive thing desired.

This tendency to destroy, as some sort of universal solution to any and all problems, exists in most areas of human involvement. It is largely unsuccessful, produces unanticipated results, and most often ends in failure or worsened situations. Many more examples, in the past and present, can be easily discovered by any observant person. They are everywhere in abundance.

Source: http://www.sntp.net/essay1_1.htm

Vioxx maker Merck and Co drew up doctor hit list Milanda Rout | The Australian April 01, 2009 AN international drug company made a hit list of doctors who had to be "neutralised" or discredited because they criticised the anti-arthritis drug the pharmaceutical giant produced.

Staff at US company Merck &Co emailed each other about the list of doctors - mainly researchers and academics - who had been negative about the drug Vioxx or Merck and a recommended course of action.

The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words "neutralise", "neutralised" or "discredit" against some of the doctors' names.

It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments.

"We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff.

Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, are being sued for compensation by more than 1000 Australians, who claim they suffered heart attacks or strokes as a result of Vioxx.

The drug was launched in 1999 and at its height of popularity was used by 80 million people worldwide because it did not cause stomach problems as did traditional anti-inflammatory drugs.

It was voluntarily withdrawn from sale in 2004 after concerns were raised that it caused heart attacks and strokes and a clinical trial testing these potential side affects was aborted for safety reasons.

Lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson, 58, claims the drug caused him to have a heart attack in 2003 after he took it for back pain and arthritis every day from May 2001.

Merck last year settled thousands of lawsuits in the US over the effects of Vioxx for $US4.85billion ($7.14 billion) but made no admission of guilt.

The company is fighting the class action in Australia.

The Federal Court was told yesterday that Merck wanted to gain the backing of researchers and doctors or "opinion leaders" - in the fields of arthritis to help promote the drug to medical professionals when it was launched in 1999.

Mr Burnside said internal emails in April 1999 from Merck staff showed the company was not happy with what some researchers and doctors were saying about the drug.

"It gives you the dark side of the use of key opinion leaders and thought leaders ... if (they) say things you don't like to hear, you have to neutralise them," he said. "It does suggest a certain culture within the organisation about how to deal with your opponents and those who disagree with you."

The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers who had criticised the drug.

"Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation," he wrote, according to Mr Burnside.

"This has happened to at least eight (clinical) investigators ... I suppose I was mildly threatened myself but I never have spoken or written on these issues."

Mr Burnside told the court Dr Fries went on to describe instances of intimidation, including one colleague who thought his academic appointment had been jeopardised and another who received phone calls alleging "anti-Merck" bias.

Dr Fries said in the letter that Merck had been systematically playing down the side effects of Vioxx and said the company's behaviour "seriously impinges on academic freedom". The court was also told a rheumatologist on Merck's Australian arthritis advisory board was angry he did not find out about Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx until an ABC journalist rang to tell him. Mr Burnside said James Bertouch wrote to other members of the board saying he was "extremely disillusioned" with the company.

"In every possible way the company exerted itself to present the impression to the world at large that Vioxx did not provide any increased cardio risk ... when (a) it probably would and (b) it probably did," he wrote, according to Mr Burnside.

Peter Garling, acting for Merck, accused Mr Peterson of not taking the drug Vioxx in the months leading up to his heart attack in December 2003.

He said Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme figures showed he did not fill a Vioxx prescription for the drug in the two months before his heart attack.

Mr Garling put to Mr Peterson during his crossexamination that this was because he had retired from his job as a safety consultant and therefore he did not need to take Vioxx because his back pain lessened.

Mr Peterson denied this meant he was not taking the drug.

"No, I wouldn't accept that at all," he said. "I can remember taking Vioxx regularly."

28

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity” The trial, before Justice Chris Jessop, continues.

Source: Timothy Truthseeker See also: sourcewatch.org: Pharmaceutical Industry 

Joanna Moncrieff, "An Unholy Alliance? Psychiatry and the influence of the pharmaceutical industry", Spinwatch, 27 June 2006.



Scott Hensley and Barbara Martinez, "To Sell Their Drugs, Companies Increasingly Rely on Doctors: For $750 and Up, Physicians Tell Peers About Products; Talks Called Educational: Dr. Pitts's Busy Speaking Tour; Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2005.

National Security Study Memorandum NSSM: 200, April 1974.

Opportunity: Significantly Financially Rewarding to Pharmaceutical Industry, for ‘Cure’ Research Purposes and Endless New ‘Suppress Symptoms’ Drugs, paid for

by Government, on behalf of taxpayers.

The AIDS originated as a result of Africans fornicating with Green Monkeys, consists of: AN UN-SCIENTIFICALLY EXAMINED BELIEF. The theory that masturbation caused blindness, epilepsy, gonorrhea, tabes dorsalis, priapism, constipation, conjunctivitis, acne, painful menstruation, nymphomania, impotence, consumption, anemia, and of course insanity, melancholia, and suicide; was also the result of: AN UN-SCIENTIFICALLY EXAMINED BELIEF.



Victoria Kreha, "Checkbook Politics: Over the last seven years, the pharmaceutical industry has given $150 million in campaign contributions", Center for Public Integrity, July 7, 2005.



Alexander Cohen, "Surrogates for Their Agenda: How the drug industry uses non-profits to push its interests", Center for Public Integrity, July 7, 2005.



Joe Neel , "Medical Schools and Drug Firm Dollars", NPR.org, June 9, 2005.



Remembering Masturbatory Insanity

M. Asif Ismail, "Exporting Prices: Drug makers' trade group makes the industry's priorities U.S. trade policy", Center for Public Integrity, July 1, 2005.

by Thomas S. Szasz, M.D.



Emma Miller, "Big Pharma: Reaping Profits from Disease Mongering", Spinwatch, June 28, 2005.



M. Asif Ismail, "Drug Lobby Second to None: How the pharmaceutical industry gets its way in Washington", Center for Public Integrity, July 7, 2005.



Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, "Spin Doctored: How drug companies keep tabs on physicians", Slate, May 31, 2005

Remembering AIDS Green Monkey Insanity Foreword by Lara Johnstone Is AIDS origins, Iatrogenic (manmade in a laboratory)?; or is AIDS origins, a result of poverty (does not exist); or Africans fornicating with Green Monkeys in the Congo (Note: A Green Monkey is the size of a chicken)?

The Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS Theory, consists of, among others, the following circumstantial evidentiary information: Means: Special Virus Cancer Program: 20,000 scientific experiments to create a US Gov. requested immune destroying virus, distributed to at risk populations, in vaccines (Virus Result: transmitted sexually, and does not affect those with CCR5-delta 32 gene).

Motive: Urgent Covert Population Reduction of those who are sexually promiscuous; thereby eugenically culling their sexually irresponsible, sexually promiscuous ‘African manhood’ genes from the human genome. This being the covert result, of the refusal of Overt Efforts to Publicly and Responsibly Deal with the Worlds Population Explosion Runaway Freight Train problem, with its impending collision with scarce and declining resources; by cooperating to educate on the importance and political, economic, socio-cultural etc. necessity of Sexually Responsible, Committed Parenting Small Family, Family Planning Options. See for example:

"Every age has its peculiar folly; some scheme, project, or phantasy into which it plunges, spurred on either by the love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the mere force of imitation."

--Charles Mackay, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" The contemporary mental health movement -epitomized by the dogmatic belief that "mental illness is like any other illness" -- is an instance of what Charles Mackay called a "crowd madness." It is in the very nature of such a popular delusion that, while it rages, it is impervious to criticism. The belief's overwhelming popularity and the absence of authoritative opposition to it are viewed as proof of its validity.

Long ago I became persuaded that it is not possible to understand modern psychiatric practices unless they are seen as manifestations of a popular madness; and that it is not possible to perceive them in such a light without being familiar with the history of psychiatry, which furnishes ample evidence to compromise its moral and scientific pretensions. In my previous column (January 2000) -- on Krafft-Ebing and the birth of sexology -- I presented an illustrative episode from that history. In this column, I shall briefly retell the story of what, until relatively recently, had been the most commonly diagnosed and most enthusiastically treated mental disease in the history of medicine, namely, masturbation.

Masturbation: The Ideal Mental Illness Masturbation was -- and, in principle, remains -- the ideal mental illness. First, it is a form of behavior: that is, something people do, not something that happens to them. Second, it is a form of behavior universal to mankind, engaged in from early childhood:* this makes it ideally treatable, since behaviors can be controlled, especially in children who are powerless to resist the well-intentioned brutality of adults. Third, the act makes use of a sexual organ, ideally suited for attaching fantasies of great harm (as well as great pleasure) to its uses and abuses.

29

Iatrogenic AIDS Origins Theory: Medical Eugenics Industrial Complex: “Means, Motive & Opportunity�

Not surprisingly, masturbation is a disease of modernity.

In antiquity and the Dark Ages, people worried about real diseases, such as the plague and consumption. Only after the Enlightenment did people awaken to the possibilities of scientific medicine, assigning material (physical), rather than spiritual (religious), causes to disease, disability, and death.

Not having the faintest idea what caused most diseases, the medical mind went in search of a scapegoat and found it in self-abuse. By the end of the 1700s, it was medical dogma that masturbation caused blindness, epilepsy, gonorrhea, tabes dorsalis, priapism, constipation, conjunctivitis, acne, painful menstruation, nymphomania, impotence, consumption, anemia, and of course insanity, melancholia, and suicide.

How did physicians know and why did people believe that masturbation caused all these diseases? The same way that physicians now know and people believe that chemical imbalances cause mental diseases, such as attention deficit disorder: By "diagnosing" and "treating" the (involuntary, child) "patient" and by discovering "cures" for the disease. Among the widely accepted treatments of masturbation, the most important were restraining devices and mechanical appliances (about which more in a moment), circumcision, cautery of the genitals, clitoridectomy, and castration. As recently as 1936, a widely used pediatric textbook recommended circumcision, double side-splints (such as those used to treat fracture of the femur), and cauterization of the clitoris.

Who were the beneficiaries of these medical miracles?

Children and the insane -- then, as now, the two groups of ideal (involuntary) "patients." Powerless vis-a-vis their relatives and doctors, minors and mental patients could not resist being fitted with grotesque appliances, encased in plaster of Paris, having their genitalia cauterized or denervated, or being castrated -- for their own good.

Error or Arrogance?

The contemporary reader is likely to dismiss masturbation-as-disease as a medical mistake.

However, scientific errors, especially obvious ones, are usually soon detected and corrected.

Young males always experienced and displayed nocturnal emissions, the manifestations of normal pubertal male genital physiology. What, in the eighteenth century, made nocturnal emissions turn into the dreaded "symptoms" of dangerous "spermatorrhea"?

The same thing that has turned youthful male exuberance into the dreaded symptoms of dangerous attention deficit disorder in our day: parental annoyance and anxiety combined with medical imperialism and furor therapeuticus. Today, diagnosing ADD and prescribing Ritalin is big business. A hundred years ago, it was big business to diagnose "spermatorrhea" and "treat" it with spike-lined rings.

Fitted around the flaccid penis before bedtime, when an erection began, the spikes pressed into the swollen organ, caused pain, and awakened the sleeper,

preventing ejaculation. For a glimpse into this aspect of the medical-economics of the anti-masturbation business, the reader may consult the facsimile catalogue of the American Armamentarium Chirurgicum [1898] -- introduction by James M. Edmonson and Terry Hambrecht (San Francisco, CA: Norman Publishing & The Printer's Devil, 1998) -- which contains pictures and prizes of many anti-masturbation devices.

Belief in masturbatory insanity and its treatment with castration and clitoridectomy was not an innocent error. This belief -- like beliefs in other popular delusions -- enhanced the identity and self-concept of the believers. Ostensibly, such beliefs assert facts; actually, they credential believers.

Henry Maudsley, the acknowledged founder of British psychiatry, stated: "The sooner he [the masturbator] sinks to his degraded rest, the better for the world which is well rid of him." For this and similar views he was hailed as a great humanitarian: A famed psychiatric institute in London is named after him.

For Freud, too, sexual behaviors of all kinds, especially masturbation, were manifestations of maladies of which he was a master diagnostician and therapist. This is an account of a "case" he evidently considered one of his diagnostic triumphs: "One day I was to examine a young man, whom I did not know, at his mother's house. As he came towards me I was struck by a large stain on his trousers -- made by albumen, as I could tell from its peculiar stiff edges. ... when his mother had left us alone I thanked him for making my diagnosis so very much easier ... he was suffering from the troubles arising from masturbation." (Emphasis added.)

As recently as 1938, Karl Menninger -- the undisputed dean of American psychiatry in mid-century -- declared: "In the unconscious mind, it [masturbation] always represents an aggression against someone." (Emphasis added.)

None of psychiatry's classic mistakes -- from masturbatory insanity and its cures with castration and clitoridectomy, to the disease of homosexuality and its compulsory treatment with "aversion therapy," and to the attribution of the cause of schizophrenia to reverberating circuits in the frontal lobes and its cure with lobotomy (rewarded with a Nobel Prize in Medicine) -- are "innocent" errors. Invariably, the false belief and the medical interventions it appears to justify serves the needs of the believers, especially the relatives of "patients" who seek control over the misbehavior of their "loved ones," and the physicians who gain prestige and power by "diagnosing" and "treating" misbehavior as if it were disease.

We fool ourselves if we believe that psychiatry's current popular delusions -- such as the chemical causes and cures of depression, schizophrenia, suicide, and so forth -- do not fit the same mold.

Source: http://www.szasz.com/iol8.html

30