Why Psychiatry Holds Enormous Power in Society Despite Losing Scientific Credibility
It helps to be funded by Big Pharma.
By Bruce Levine / AlterNet
January 6, 2015



“What’s a guy gotta do around here to lose a little credibility?” asked ProPublica reporter Jesse Eisinger in a 2012 piece about top Wall Street executives who created the financial meltdown but remain top executives, continue to sit on corporate and nonprofit boards, serve as regulators, and whose opinions are sought out by prominent op-ed pages and talk shows.

Wall Street is not the only arena where one can be completely wrong and still retain powerful influence. Influential “thought leader” psychiatrists and major psychiatry institutions, by their own recent admissions, have been repeatedly wrong about illness/disorder validity, biochemical causes and drug treatments. In several cases, they have been discovered to be on the take from drug companies, yet continue to be taken seriously by the mainstream media.

While Big Pharma financial backing is one reason psychiatry is able to retain its clout, this is not the only reason. More insidiously, psychiatry retains influence because of the needs of the larger power structure that rules us. And perhaps most troubling, psychiatry retains influence because of us—and our increasing fears that have resulted in our expanding needs for coercion.

But before discussing these three reasons, some documentation of psychiatry’s lost scientific credibility in several critical areas.

Psychiatry’s Lost Scientific Credibility

DSM Invalidity. In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic bible, the DSM, was slammed by the pillars of the psychiatry establishment. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the highest U.S. governmental mental health official, offered a harsh rebuke of theDSM, announcing that the DSM’s diagnostic categories lack validity, and he stated that “NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.” Also in 2013, Allen Frances, the former chair of the DSM-4 taskforce, published his book, Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life.

Biochemical Imbalance Theory Debunked. It was a great surprise for NPR reporter Alix Spiegelin 2012 to discover that the psychiatric establishment now claims it has always known that the biochemical imbalance theory of depression was not true. Ronald Pies, editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times stated in 2011, “In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend—never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.” NIMH director Insel had already told Newsweekin 2007 that depression is not caused by low levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin. However, psychiatry made no serious attempt to publicize the fact that the research had rejected this chemical imbalance theory, a theory effectively used in commercials to sell antidepressants as correcting this chemical imbalance—an imbalance psychiatry knew did not exist.

Rethinking the Effectiveness of Antipsychotic and Antidepressant Drug Treatments. In 2013, NIMH director Insel announced that psychiatry’s standard treatment for people diagnosed with schizophrenia and other psychoses has not been helpful to many people and needs to change so as to better reflect the diversity in this population. Citing long-term treatment studies, Insel concluded that in the long-term, many individuals who have been diagnosed with psychosis actually do better without antipsychotic medication. With respect to antidepressants, “60 Minutes” in 2012 reported on what antidepressant researchers have long known: placebos do almost as well as antidepressants even in drug-company studies that are biased in favor of the antidepressants. The “60 Minutes” report focused on research psychologist Irving Kirsch who used the Freedom of Information Act to study published and nonpublished drug company studies involving 6,944 patients from the FDA database trials of the six most popular antidepressants (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Celexa, and Serzone).

Psychiatric Treatments May Cause Increased Suicide.The FDA —despite protests by the psychiatric establishment—has issued “black box warnings” about the potential for increased suicidality for patients under the age of 25 who use antidepressants. In 2014, AlterNet reported about a University of Copenhagen study comparing Danish individuals who committed suicide to matched controls between the years 1996 and 2009. The researchers found that taking psychiatric medications in a prior year was linked to a 5.8 times increase in suicide; contact with a psychiatric outpatient clinic was associated with an 8.2 times increase; visiting a psychiatric emergency room was linked to a 27.9 times increase; and admission to a psychiatric hospital was linked to a 44.3 times increase in suicide.

While correlation by itself does not necessarily mean causation, an accompanying editorial in the same journal where the article was published pointed out that associations with the features detailed in this particular study indicate a good possibility of a causal relationship. Among the reasons why psychiatric treatment could well cause increased suicide, besides the adverse effects of medication, is the stigma and trauma of treatment, as the editorial authors state: “It is therefore entirely plausible that the stigma and trauma inherent in (particularly involuntary) psychiatric treatment might, in already vulnerable individuals, contribute to some suicides.”

Creating Stigma with Biochemical Defect Theories. In the psychiatry establishment, it has long been proclaimed that framing mental illness as a brain disease or a biochemical defect would result in less stigmatization. But the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF), in a review of the research reported in 2012: “Despite good intentions, evidence actually shows that anti-stigma campaigns emphasizing the biological nature of mental illness have not been effective, and have often made the problem worse.” One example is a 2010 study in Psychiatry Research that reported for the general public, the acceptance of the “biogenetic model of mental illness” was associated with a desire for a greater social distance from the mentally ill. The CHSRF review states: “The evidence shows us that while the public may assign less blame to individuals for their biologically determined mental illness, the very idea that their actions may be beyond their conscious control can create fear of their unpredictability and thus the perception that those with mental illnesses are dangerous...leading to avoidance.”

Corruption of Psychiatry by Big Pharma.Big Pharma heavily funds university psychiatry departments, sponsors conferences and continuing education for psychiatrists, advertises in their professional journals, and pays well-known clinicians and researchers to be speakers and consultants. I documented in 2007 and updated in 2012 how virtually every way the public and doctors get information about mental health has been corrupted by drug company dollars. In 2008, congressional investigations of psychiatry revealed that major psychiatry institutions such as the American Psychiatric Association and several “thought leader” psychiatrists, including Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Biederman, were on the take from drug companies, creating obvious conflicts of interest and further damaging psychiatry’s credibility.

The New York Times reported the following about Biederman: “A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007”; and the Times later reported that Biederman had pitched Johnson & Johnson that his proposed research studies on its antipsychotic drug Risperdal would turn out favorably for Johnson & Johnson—and then delivered the goods. Biederman was only one of several thought leader psychiatrists exposed by congressional investigations. TheDSM diagnostic manual is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and according to the journal PLOS Medicine, “69% of the DSM -5 task force members report having ties to the pharmaceutical industry.”

Why Psychiatry Retains Power Despite Lost Credibility

Drug companies need the general public to take psychiatric drug prescribers seriously, and so Big Pharma financially supports psychiatry institutions and thought leaders. And Big Pharma has huge clout over the mainstream media via the media’s dependency on Big Pharma’s advertising dollars. While Big Pharma is the most obvious reason psychiatry retains power despite a loss of scientific credibility, it may not be the most important reason. Psychiatry serves the needs of the power structure in general. And in our increasingly fear-based society, psychiatry meets our own increasing needs for coercion.

Meeting the Coercion Needs of the Power Structure

Ruling elites and power structures, from monarchies to military dictatorships to the U.S. corporatocracy, have routinely used “professionals” to control the population from rebelling against economic inequalities and social injustices so as to maintain the status quo. Power structures routinely rely on police and clergy, and today the U.S. power structure also uses mental health professionals. Medication and behavior modification treatments have been used to subvert resistance to a dehumanizing status quo, be it in a family or in the larger society. The following are a few examples of how both psychiatry and psychology have met the needs of the power structure in return for status and money.

MKULTRA: A piece of American history sounds like the rant of a crackpot conspiracy theorist but ultimately was confirmed decades later by the U.S. Congress’ Church Committee investigations, acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court, and documented in The Search for the "Manchurian Candidate" by former State Department officer John Marks. Ewen Cameron, president of the American Psychiatric Association in 1953, sought powerful ways to break down patient resistance, and he experimented with LSD as well as with electroshock and sensory deprivation. The CIA, under a project code-named MKULTRA, eager to learn more about Cameron’s techniques, funded him as well as other renowned psychiatrists in the 1950s and 1960s to conduct brainwashing experiments.

Assistance in Interrogation/Torture: Shortly after the tragic events of 9/11, the American Psychological Association made high-level efforts to nurture relationships with the U.S. Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and other government agencies. As Truthout reported in 2014, the APA aimed “to position psychology and behavioral scientists as key players in U.S. counterterrorism and counterintelligence activities.” The APA not only condoned but actually applauded psychologists’ assistance in interrogation/torture in Guantánamo and elsewhere.

Subverting Resistance by U.S. Soldiers: Psychiatrists and psychologists have subverted resistance by U.S. soldiers in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan via psychiatric drug treatments and behavioral manipulations. According to theNavy Times in 2010, one in six U.S. armed service members were taking at least one psychiatric drug, many of these medicated soldiers in combat zones. Martin Seligman, a former president of the American Psychological Association, has consulted with the U.S. Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness positive psychology program (as I reported on AlterNet in 2010). Seligman achieved not only “social position and rank” for himself but several million dollars for his University of Pennsylvania Positive Psychology Center, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, which quoted Seligman saying, “We’re after creating an indomitable military.”

Pathologizing and Medicating Noncompliance: Both psychiatrists and psychologists pathologize and medicate anti-authoritarianism and noncompliance, which I described on AlterNet in 2012. Many individuals diagnosed with mental disorders are essentially anti-authoritarians, and a potentially large army of anti-authoritarian activists are being kept off democracy battlefields by mental health professionals who have pathologized and depoliticized their pain.

Meeting Our Needs for Coercion

    “It seems to me that this coercive function is what society and most people actually appreciate most about psychiatry....Psychiatry has never ever needed scientific evidence to spread its ideas and practices, and possibly never will.” —David Cohen, co-author of Mad Science.

For two years early in my career, I worked as a psychiatry emergency room therapist. I observed countless instances of police dragging agitated people into the ER who were then forcibly placed in restraints. Some of those police officers emained in the ER to watch—in both admiration and envy—to see how quickly an injection of Haldol or some other antipsychotic drug could calm the person.

All societies, communities and families coerce and control members who frighten them. However, the kinds of behavior that frightens people varies enormously, and thus what is permissible to control and coerce varies enormously. So, while it would be fairly universal for a society to coerce and control someone who is physically attacking another of its members, it is quite historically exceptional—as is done in U.S. society—to use antipsychotic drugs to subdue a bored seven-year-old who is resisting classroom controls.

In December 2012, the Archives of General Psychiatry (renamed JAMA Psychiatry) reported that, between 1993-2009, there was a seven-fold increase of children 13 years and younger being prescribed antipsychotic drugs, and that nonpsychotic conditions such as “disruptive behavior disorders” were the most common diagnoses in children medicated with antipsychotics, accounting for 63% of those medicated.

The dramatic growth of antipsychotic drugs in the United States is largely about ever-increasing societal acceptance of using drugs to control unwanted behaviors. Antipsychotics grossed over $18 billion a year in the United States by 2011, and by 2013 one antipsychotic drug, Abilify, was the highest grossing of all drugs in the United States with nearly $6.5 billion in sales. In addition to children—especially foster children—the burgeoning U.S. antipsychotic market includes the elderly in nursing homes and inmates in prisons and jails, where antipsychotic drugs are a relatively inexpensive way to subdue and more easily manage these populations.

In a 2014 article, David Cohen, in the tradition of Michel Foucault’s Madness and Civilization, updates how the societal need for psychiatry’s “extra-legal police function” compels society to be blind to psychiatry’s complete lack of scientific validity. Cohen notes: “Society’s appreciation for psychiatric coercion subtly, but radically, imbalances the playing field. Because of psychiatric coercion, society gives psychiatric theories a free pass. These theories never need to pass any rigorously devised tests (as we expect other important scientific theories to pass), they only need to be asserted.”

Thus, journalists’ continued exposure of psychiatry’s lack of science and its corruption by Big Pharma has had virtually no impact on reducing psychiatry’s influence. Substantive mental health reform will not come about unless society itself is reformed to be less fearful and less in need of controls and coercions. For example, if society could return to the idea that there are many extremely intelligent adolescents who are not “academics” and who do not need extended standard schooling but some other form of education to succeed in many occupations, then adolescent rebellion against standard schooling would not be so frightening for parents, and the compulsion to coerce and control via behavioral manipulations and psychiatric medications would disappear.

Cohen concludes, “Let’s face it: No one cares that psychiatric research of the past 50 years failed to turn up one finding of use for a scientific clinical psychiatry.”

Of course, Cohen cares, and so do all genuine scientists, but Cohen is right that as long as society needs the “extra-legal” coercion that psychiatry provides, society needs to remain in denial about the scientific illegitimacy of psychiatry. Without a decreased societal demand for coercion, psychiatry abolitionists should beware that if psychiatry ever does lose its clout, another coercive institution will likely fill the vacuum.

Bruce E. Levine, a practicing clinical psychologist, writes and speaks about how society, culture, politics and psychology intersect. His latest book is Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite. His web site is www.brucelevine.net

A psychiatrist questions Big Pharma's influence ( on her profession.)

• 
  
• 
  

x prohibited^[?]

Posted: seconds ago

A psychiatrist questions Big Pharma's influence ( on her profession.)

AS A FE-MALE WOMENS I AGREE WITH THIS POSTER; THE PSYCHIATRIST WHO USED TO POKE FREUDIAN CIGAR SMOKE UP "Berkeley & Not in Berkeley's" ASININE ASSUMPTIVE DRIVEL!

SHE ALSO WOULD APPROVE THIS LADY FEMALE WOMIN'S EXPOSEE ON DRUGS CASH & PSYCHIATRIYS.
I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO RAISE AWRENESS YEARS- I KEP GET CRITICISED BECAUSE TARDIVE DISKYNSEAS & TUORETTES TYPING.

HERE IS A MORE BETTER PERSON sent me LINK to here.


In These Times · http://www.inthesetimes.com

Culture » November 27, 2014
Drug Shills Dispensing Pills

These are MY webpages
http://psychdrugskill.blogspot.com/
http://psychiatricmayhem.blogspot.com/


A psychiatrist questions Big Pharma's influence on her profession.
BY Jean Kim

By mid-decade, academic psychiatry had become glamorous. Drug reps, selected for their looks and charm, were the popular, beautiful best friends we geeky docs never had.

In 2009, as an eager young psychiatry professor at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, I presented to faculty on the need for a moral dimension to psychiatric diagnoses. I was laughed out of the room.

One psychiatrist, a schizophrenia specialist, said he didn't see the point. The acting medical director said he felt I'd called him immoral. A top research psychiatrist said, incredibly, "Morality and psychiatry should be kept separate."

So a few years later, when ProPublica launched its Dollars for Docs database to track the drug company money doctors were taking, I typed in their names. The acting medical director received $12,550 in 2010 and 2011 for speaking gigs. The researcher received more than $212,489 between 2009 and 2012 for speaking gigs and consultations. The schizophrenia specialist made more than $323,300. And the database only includes disclosures from 17 of the more than 70 drug companies in the world. According to Dollars for Docs, hundreds of thousands of doctors have raked in a total of more than $4 billion since 2009, with the top earner, psychiatrist Dr. Jon Draud, netting at least $1.2 million.

As a psychiatrist who "grew up" in the last decade, I was not surprised.

I started my residency training in New York City in 2000. Lunches and dinners provided by drug company reps were astaple of my diet. For a hungry, harried resident on a paltry salary, a free pit stop at a steaming Chinese buffet was heaven. All around me in Manhattan, investment bankers and freshly minted lawyers were living it up, and I admit that I wanted a piece of the pie as well. By mid-decade, academic psychiatry had become glamorous. A resident might schmooze with a drug rep and get invited to a trendy spot--Nobu, Olives, Tao--where we could imbibe Sex and the City-style cocktails and sample the freshest sushi. Drug reps, selected for their looks and charm, were the popular, beautiful best friends we geeky docs never had.

In 2003, I won a free ride to the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting in San Francisco as part of an Aventis-sponsored fellowship for women in psychiatry. An industry-sponsored gala featured an open bar and a Brobdingnagian spread: tables loaded with huge flower displays, chocolate fountains, petit fours and gourmet hors d'oeuvres. The conference also hosted a Disney-esque exhibit hall full of brightly colored drug company displays with touchscreen computer stations. I filled my free tote bag with gifts--pens, laser pointers, candy, textbooks. My favorite was the Xanax XR clock, whose hands rested on a bed of clear turquoise fluid, to simulate the feeling of floating on a summer pool.

I graduated from residency training and became an attending psychiatrist myself. Back then, it was viewed as a symbol of academic prowess to be on a drug company's speaker's bureau. So when an enthusiastic new drug rep from my alma mater invited me, a lowly junior attending, to a speaker training session, I was flattered and accepted. On an all-expenses-paid two-day training trip to Chicago, I stayed at a posh hotel on Michigan Avenue and sat through lectures about the then-new antipsychotic drug Geodon. I was paid $2,500 for going, and another $1,000 for giving a "talk" for about seven minutes a few weeks later at a dinner with a handful of colleagues. Persuaded that I needed to gain experience with Geodon so that I could be a better presenter, I began prescribing it more often. Then I began to see that it was less reliable than other medications. I quit the speaker's bureau, realizing I had been manipulated into writing more Geodon prescriptions. In fact, the drug rep's salary depended on such performance increases. Drug companies can track all physicians' prescriptions--a 2011 Supreme Court decision upheld their right to do so, citing data as "free commercial speech."

In November 2007, as the economy imploded, a prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Daniel Carlat, wrote a famous essay in the New York Times Magazine about a stint as a pharma shill. He concluded, "The money was affecting my critical judgment. I was willing to dance around the truth in order to make the drug reps happy. Receiving $750 checks for chatting with some doctors during a lunch break was such easy money that it left me giddy. Like an addiction, it was very hard to give up." I read it and realized that I had been going along with the tide--that a colossal, profit-driven advertising engine was using our own psychological tactics to manipulate us.

The next year, heads began to roll. In October 2008, Dr. Charles Nemeroff, then head of psychiatry at Emory University, made the front page of the New York Times for failing to report more than $1.2 million dollars in drug company-related income to Emory, which had strict guidelines for non-academic money. He resigned and now works for the University of Miami.

Dr. Joseph Biederman of Harvard Medical School went one step farther than Nemeroff. As the Times reported in November 2008, he not only hid from Harvard that he'd taken more than $1.4 million from drug companies; he publicly advocated for diagnosing more children with bipolar disorder and prescribing them more antipsychotic medications. The rate of prescriptions for these medications skyrocketed. Antipsychotics should only be used when absolutely necessary, given their potential for serious side effects, especially in children.

Since then, FDA regulations have gotten tighter, and in 2009, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America self-imposed a code on interactions with healthcare professions. Drug company speakers can no longer ad-lib invented uses for their medications and have to include mention of "negative studies" if available. Comped dinners must be modest by local standards and include presentations. Pens and trinkets are banned. The once-charming reps can speak to you only if spoken to, not unlike vampires who cannot enter your home unless invited.

The reforms have cut down on blatant pharma influence, but prominent psychiatrists still shill shamelessly, and much research is pharma-funded. Take the October 2014 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry, the elite scientific publication in our field. Five of the six research articles contain disclosures that one or more of the authors worked or consulted for pharma. It remains to be seen whether more data releases from ProPublica--and now from Open Payments, a federal database mandated by the Affordable Care Act and unveiled in late September--will create enough public backlash to convince these doctors that this type of income does harm. Conflicts of interest weaken the credibility of research and hurt patients by encouraging poor prescribing practices. They also undermine the crucial trust between doctor and patient by fueling the paranoiac skepticism that all psychotropic medications are mind-altering, toxic tools of profit.

The right medications, alongside psychotherapy, can save and improve lives. I have seen people frozen in psychosis or melancholia awaken, as though from a nightmare, after getting the right treatment. I have seen soldiers back from war, riddled with flashbacks, become able to do simple things again, like go to a shopping mall. I have seen people once stuck in hospitals able to work again, to finish school, to have loving relationships. Those moments fulfill me as a doctor and as a human being. But I wish my profession would recognize that our ethics are worth more than a quick buck.
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR

a psychiatrist and writer in Washington, D.C., who is finishing her M.A. in nonfiction writing at Johns Hopkins University

More information about Jean Kim

• do NOT contact me with unsolicited services or offers

post id: 4784215094

posted: seconds ago

email to friend

♥ best of ^[?]

• © 2014 craigslist
• help
• safety
• privacy
• feedback
• cl jobs
• terms
• about
• mobile

2 Female Police Shoot Schizophrenia Woman Blow Her HIPS OFF!

• News
• Sports
• Business
• A&E
• Food
• Living
• Travel
• Real Estate
• More

High court to hear S.F. appeal of ruling in police-shooting suit

By Bob Egelko

Updated 3:14 pm, Tuesday, November 25, 2014

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear San Francisco’s appeal of a ruling allowing a mentally ill, knife-wielding woman to sue police for shooting her, a case that could set standards for police treatment of the disabled.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in February that a jury ought to decide whether two officers should have waited for backup rather than charging into Teresa Sheehan’s room and shooting her when she lunged at them. The 2-1 ruling reinstated Sheehan’s damage suit, which a federal judge had dismissed.
The nation’s high court granted review of the case Tuesday and will schedule a hearing for a ruling due by the end of June.
The central issue is how the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires government agencies to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled, applies to police conduct toward a mentally ill person who may be violent.
“Police officers deserve clarity concerning their obligations under federal law, and public safety demands it,” City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office represents the officers, said Tuesday. “We hope the high court reverses the Ninth Circuit’s mistaken decision and restores reasonableness to this area of the law.”
Ben Nisenbaum, a lawyer for Sheehan, said the law must draw distinctions between a mentally ill person who poses a threat to the public — like “a person running down the street with a knife” — and someone confronted by officers while alone in her room, with backup police on their way.
According to the appeals court, Sheehan, then 56, suffered from schizophrenia and had threatened her social worker with a knife before he summoned police to her room in a Mission District group home in August 2008.
When Sgt. Kimberly Reynolds and Officer Katherine Holder entered the room, Sheehan came at them with a knife and threatened to kill them, the court said. They left and called for backup, but re-entered shortly before help arrived, breaking down the door when Sheehan tried to block it.
They tried to subdue her with pepper spray, and when she still refused to drop the knife, they shot her five or six times, the court said.
Sheehan survived but needed two hip-replacement operations, a lawyer said. Prosecutors charged her with assault, but dropped the charges after a jury deadlocked.
In defending against Sheehan’s civil suit, Reynolds and Holder said they had re-entered her room because they feared she might have access to other weapons or might escape. But the appeals court, in an opinion by Judge Raymond Fisher, said a reasonable jury “could find that Sheehan was in a confined area and not a threat to others,” and that the officers had known that a deadly confrontation was likely when they entered with guns drawn.
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, San Francisco argued that the federal disability law does not require police to consider the mental health needs of “armed and violent suspects who are disabled.” When mental illness causes “unpredictable, violent behavior as it did in this case,” said Deputy City Attorney Peter Keith, “officers must make split-second decisions that protect the public and themselves.”
Only eight Supreme Court justices will hear the case, as Justice Stephen Breyer’s√ brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, was the judge who dismissed Sheehan’s suit.
The case is San Francisco vs. Sheehan, 13-1412.

Are Mental Disorders Real "Diseases?

Mental Health Truth: Are Mental Disorders Real Diseases? DSM Facts & Psych Drugs by Psychiatrist

Dr. Ross recently received the First Place Award in Psychology from the Indie Book Awards for his book, The Great Psychiatry Scam. The book provides a critique of the misconceptions, pseudo-science and folklore that dominate psychiatry today, delivered in the form of satire, humor, and parody. The critique is interwoven with stories and vignettes from Dr. Ross’ life, medical school and psychiatry training, and career as a psychiatrist. It builds on a scholarly, academic version of the same analysis published in his 1995 book, Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry. A video of Dr. Ross discussing The Great Psychiatry Scam can be viewed at: www.youtube.com/CARossinst Dr. Ross Interviews on Psyche Truth Channel Dr. Ross is filming an ongoing series of interviews with Corrina Rachel from www.psychetruth.net. They are posted on the Psyche Truth Channel on You Tube under the mind control section. Topics include CIA and military mind control, violence and mental illness, psychological trauma and mental illness, and problems with biological psychiatry. http://www.thetruthtalks.net/category/experts/dr-colin-ross/ Gnostic Media Interviews Dr. Ross has done 4.5 hours of interviews with Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media covering a wide range of topics including mind control, psychiatric medications, the history of LSD and the philosophy of science. http://www.gnosticmedia.com/2013/04/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nThZ6Qq7VOY The Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma The Colin A. Ross Institute The Colin A. Ross Institute The Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma The Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma The Colin A. Ross Institute The Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma The Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma

		YouTube Videos THE GREAT PSYCHIATRY SCAM RECEIVES A FIRST-PLACE AWARD IN PSYCHOLOGY FROM THE INDIE BOOK AWARDS www.indiebookawards.com Dr. Ross recently received the First Place Award in Psychology from the Indie Book Awards for his book, The Great Psychiatry Scam. The book provides a critique of the misconceptions, pseudo-science and folklore that dominate psychiatry today, delivered in the form of satire, humor, and parody. The critique is interwoven with stories and vignettes from Dr. Ross’ life, medical school and psychiatry training, and career as a psychiatrist. It builds on a scholarly, academic version of the same analysis published in his 1995 book, Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry. A video of Dr. Ross discussing The Great Psychiatry Scam can be viewed at: www.youtube.com/CARossinst Dr. Ross Interviews on Psyche Truth Channel Dr. Ross is filming an ongoing series of interviews with Corrina Rachel from www.psychetruth.net. They are posted on the Psyche Truth Channel on You Tube under the mind control section. Topics include CIA and military mind control, violence and mental illness, psychological trauma and mental illness, and problems with biological psychiatry. http://www.thetruthtalks.net/category/experts/dr-colin-ross/ Gnostic Media Interviews Dr. Ross has done 4.5 hours of interviews with Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media covering a wide range of topics including mind control, psychiatric medications, the history of LSD and the philosophy of science. http://www.gnosticmedia.com/2013/04/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nThZ6Qq7VOY