Main Menu



Available Books

New World War: Revolutionary Methods for Political Control

Dedication & Thanks

Volume I: Current Political Situation

Volume II: The New War

Volume III: Weapons of The New War

Volume IV: The Coverup


Another Look at Schizophrenia
Its Controversial Discovery

The idea that schizophrenia spectrum disorders are based on an underlying biological cause that has yet to be discovered is known as the disease model, also called the medical model. As we now know, the discovery of schizophrenia and the estimate that it is a biological brain disorder, can be traced to Kraepelin and Bleuler. In this section the terms dementia praecox and schizophrenia will be used interchangeably.

When Kraepelin and Bleuler were developing their disease model they were unaware that probably a large number of their patients had an organic brain disease called encephalitis lethargica (sleeping sickness). Multiple epidemics of encephalitis occurred in Europe, one happened between 1916 and 1927.

Encephalitis was identified by an Austrian neurologist named Constantin von Economo in Vienna in 1916. This was a few years after Kraepelin and Bleuler had completed their major writings. Although there were more cases in America and Europe, the epidemic occurred throughout the world. The last outbreak was reported in 1926 and it is said to have disappeared by 1930. Although the exact viral agent was never identified by von Economo, he was able to transmit the virus to monkeys, thereby verifying its biological nature.

The symptoms of the disease included: lethargy, rousable stupor, a multitude of cognitive and behavior problems, dyskinesia, tremor, chorea, dystonia, athetosis, and Parkinsonism. The disease was often chronic with no period of recovery. Encephalitis is now relatively rare.

Kraepelin, Bleuler, and von Economo noticed the following in their patients: an odd gait, lethargy, drooling, uncontrollable urination, weight fluctuations, tremors, skin discoloration, an inability to complete willed acts, restricted movements, and an eventual deterioration into dementia.

Not only is there a significant overlap between the descriptions of Kraepelin’s, Bleuler’s and von Economo’s patients, but both Kraepelin and Bleuler noticed signs of infection. In other words, their patients had an organic brain disease. Kraepelin gave detailed descriptions of severe brain damage which he microscopically observed many times during postmortems.

Considerable confusion followed von Economo’s discovery which caused clinicians to doubt their diagnostic practices regarding schizophrenia. Before von Economo’s discovery of encephalitis, those with the illness that visited hospitals would have been diagnosed with dementia praecox. It was even referred to as epidemic schizophrenia. Because Kraepelin and von Economo described their patient’s symptoms similarly, doctors began to wonder how they could distinguish the two.

In his 1931 publication Encephalitis Lethargica: Its Sequelae and Treatment, von Economo acknowledged the confusion. Despite the similarities, the European medical community was convinced that they were two separate disorders.

“Thus the social construction of schizophrenia as a form of disease was facilitated by erroneously sorting into a single class two types of persons,” explained Dr. Theodore R. Sarbin, Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. They included those suffering from encephalitis that had been mistakenly diagnosed with schizophrenia, and those exhibiting what others considered to be unwarranted behavior.

The original symptoms of schizophrenia included: lethargy, skin discoloration, an odd gait, drooling, uncontrollable urination, weight fluctuations, tremors, an inability to complete willed acts, and restricted movements. The condition often resulted in an eventual deterioration into dementia. The delusions and hallucinations were only secondary symptoms.

Because it appears that schizophrenia spectrum disorders were discovered by mistaking them for encephalitis lethargica, one would conclude that a decline in encephalitis would also reveal a decline in schizophrenia.

This is exactly what happened. Once encephalitis declined in the late 1920s, so did the schizophrenics who exhibited the original symptoms recorded by Kraepelin and Bleuler. The original signs and symptoms associated with Kraepelin’s dementia praecox or Bleuler’s schizophrenia are almost never seen in modern schizophrenia.

“The kind of deteriorated cases seen by Emil Kraepelin and Eugen Bleuler are rarely seen today,” proclaimed Mary Boyle, senior lecturer in psychology at North East London Polytechnic, London. Because encephalitis is now rare, the physical symptoms were gradually removed from the diagnostic manuals over the course of about 80 years.

What remained were the mental symptoms, specifically, hallucinations and delusions, which have only a “superficial resemblance” to the original symptoms reported by Kraepelin and Bleuler. Schizophrenia is now a thought disorder, with no organic origin.

What appears to have happened, according to these researchers, is that as encephalitis became rarer, the diagnosis of schizophrenia diminished. Then, the original characteristic symptoms of schizophrenia, which, again, was actually an organic brain disorder, were removed from the diagnostic manuals. The secondary symptoms which remained were the hallucinations and delusions. These now form the positive symptoms in the modern version of schizophrenia.

This significant issue is not discussed openly by mainstream medical researchers. If what these researchers are suggesting did in fact occur, and if Kraepelin and Bleuler form the basis for the medical model of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and if the DSM and other diagnostic manuals are based mostly on their discoveries, why hasn’t the medical community, and psychiatry in particular, addressed this critical issue?

“No detailed explanation has been offered,” commented Boyle. According to these authors, organized psychiatry refuses to investigate the controversial discovery of schizophrenia because it is too important to the industry’s survival. Some researchers have commented that this constitutes medical fraud.

Studies Show it Doesn’t Exist

In addition to the confusion surrounding the discovery of schizophrenia, there are several misconceptions regarding the proof of its existence. They include the following:

So, let’s have a closer look at this proof.

The current hypothesis for the cause of schizophrenia is that there is an excess of a neurotransmitter known as dopamine. According to the dopamine theory, either the presynaptic neurons are releasing too much dopamine, or the postsynaptic neurons have too many receptors.

Standard neuroleptics work by binding a kind of dopamine receptor called the D2 receptor. At a regular dose, neuroleptics bind (occupy) from 70 to 90 percent of these receptors, thereby shutting down higher brain functions. Metabolite tests provide an indirect way of measuring the amount of dopamine in an area of the brain. One, conducted in 1974 by Malcolm Bowers at Yale University found that the levels of dopamine metabolites in unmedicated schizophrenics were normal.

He published his findings in the 1974 issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, declaring that the results “do not furnish neurochemical evidence for an overarousal in these patients emanating from midbrain dopamine system.”

Then, in 1975 Robert Post at the NIMH, reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry, in an article entitled, Cerebrospinal Fluid Amine Metabolites in Acute Schizophrenia, that no evidence of elevated dopamine levels had been found in 20 unmedicated patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, compared to healthy controls.

Because the researchers could not determine that schizophrenics had an abnormal amount of dopamine, they decided to try to prove that the postsynaptic neurons had too many receptors. In 1978, studies conducted at the University of Toronto revealed that the brains of schizophrenics had about 50% more dopamine receptors than healthy controls.

However, all of these patients had been on neuroleptics, which, as the researchers even suggested, possibly caused the abnormality. Future studies conducted on animals revealed that this was in fact the case. The tests that showed an excessive amount of dopamine neurotransmitters were done on patients that had been receiving neuroleptics. The increase has been attributed to a normal brain adapting to the medication.

Drs. Peter R. Breggin, MD, and David Cohen, PhD, described the dopamine theory as “pure guesswork” from organized psychiatry. In a 1982 issue of Schizophrenia Bulletin, in an article named The Dopamine Hypothesis, UCLA neuroscientist John Haracz concluded: “Direct support [for the dopamine hypothesis] is either uncompelling or has not been widely replicated.”

The 1974 study by Bowers at Yale University revealed that after people had been medicated, a significant increase in dopamine levels occurred. This was evidence of a normal brain’s reaction of creating more dopamine after its signals had been artificially blocked by medication. Other studies soon reported similar findings.

An article published by German researchers entitled, H-Siperone Binding Sites in Post-Mortem Brains from Schizophrenic Patients, that appeared in the 1989 issue of Journal of Neuronal Transmission declared, “From our data ... we conclude that changes in [receptor density] values in schizophrenics are entirely iatrogenic [drug induced].”

No increase in dopamine levels has been found in unmedicated schizophrenics. The cases where an increase in dopamine activity exists in those diagnosed with schizophrenia, are always ones that consist of patients that have been given neuroleptics. The medication causes the imbalance.

No chemical imbalance has been found in the brains of those diagnosed with thought or mood disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anxiety, depressive disorders, etc. Instead, neuroleptics cause biochemical imbalances in normal brains.

The medications literally cause severe brain impairment. “In fact,” elaborated Breggin and Cohen, “most of what we know about the various neurotransmitters has been gathered by studying how psychiatric drugs disrupt or spoil their functioning.”

Mental and emotional experiences such as anxiety, depression, and psychosis originate from thought processes within the mind that are influenced by environmental conditions, personal history, and decisions. There is little or no chance that shutting down portions of the brain will beneficially alter mental and emotional experiences such as these.

Years of research into the dopamine theory of schizophrenia, agreed researcher Robert Whitaker in his book, Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, has found that the drugs not only profoundly hinder dopamine function, they also cause a pathological increase in dopamine receptors in the brain, the very abnormality believed to cause schizophrenia in the first place.

It may seem ironic that neuroleptics, which are intended to correct chemical imbalances, are actually causing them. The evidence, however, indicates that this is the case. “The only known biochemical imbalances in the brains of patients routinely seen by psychiatrists,” Drs. Breggin and Cohen advise, “are brought about by the psychiatrists themselves through the prescription of mind-altering drugs.”

Although psychiatrists such as E. Fuller Torrey have made claims that CT and MRI scans prove conclusively that the brain structures of schizophrenics are abnormal, the scans were conducted after the patients had been given neuroleptics, which caused the abnormalities. An MRI or CT scan cannot detect a mental disorder such as schizophrenia, manic-depression, or related mood or thought disorders. The belief that these disorders can be visualized with a brain scan is false.

The claim that genetic studies have found incontrovertible evidence that schizophrenia is hereditary is doubtful. The supporting literature is from three main studies. One is the concordance for schizophrenia in identical twins. Another consists of normal children that were separated and raised apart from their schizophrenic mothers. The last includes schizophrenic children that were raised apart from their normal biological parents.

The statistical and methodological practices regarding these studies have been widely criticized, as reported by Boyle. Most of the identical twin studies were done during an epidemic of encephalitis. Also, the researchers who conducted these twin studies made frequent references to symptoms associated with encephalitis such as cyanosis, dramatic weight fluctuations, greasy skin, profuse sweating, chronic constipation, convulsions, difficulty swallowing, tics, and facial twitches.

Prominent US psychiatrist Dr. Franz Kallmann conducted much of this early gene research on schizophrenia, which is used by the industry to promote the disease model. Dr. Kallmann was a confirmed eugenicist. Kraepelin and Bleuler are said to have been involved in the eugenics movement as well.

From 1929 to 1935 Dr. Kallmann worked at the Wilhelm Kaiser Institute (renamed the Max Planck Institute after WWII), founded by Emil Kraepelin, which was a major research center for the Nazi eugenics program. Its creation was made possible by substantial funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.

Dr. Kallmann demanded more sterilization practices than even the Nazis were willing to implement. He advocated the sterilization of every single member of any family thought to be flawed with schizophrenia, or showing any signs of eccentricity.

While in the US, Dr. Kallman became the head of psychiatric research at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. He was a prominent figure who conducted gene studies in an attempt to prove that schizophrenia was hereditary. His 1938 paper, The Genetics of Schizophrenia, is used as evidence by disease model proponents that schizophrenia is hereditary.

It was even included in the American Handbook of Psychiatry of 1959. He later conducted studies on twins in the US, which the industry also uses as proof that schizophrenia exists and is hereditary. He was a eugenics society fellow in the US from 1955 to 1957, and was a founding member of the American Society of Human Genetics in 1948.

The Danish adoption study is probably the most cited experiment regarding higher percentage rates of schizophrenia in relatives of schizophrenics. In reality, says Dr. Bruce E. Levine, author of Commonsense Rebellion: Debunking Psychiatry, Confronting Society, no increase has been found in close relatives of schizophrenics, such as parents and full siblings.

Only one was found on a half-sibling on the father’s side which was allegedly the result of a large family. Of the relatives of 34 adoptees diagnosed with schizophrenia, only 1 out of 150 had been diagnosed with complete schizophrenia. According to Dr. Levine, the studies reported in 1938 by Franz Kallman on identical twins raised together have not been replicated. And recent studies of this kind, which revealed only modest connections, are unreliable because inconsistent statistics were used.

Also, as reported by Boyle, the patients used in some of these earlier studies appear to have been suffering from encephalitis. The idea that schizophrenia has occurred at the same rate in primitive and civilized cultures is false. No gene for schizophrenia has ever been found.

Hereditary factors for schizophrenia, supported by credible scientists, have been widely publicized. Current medical textbooks cite these studies as truth. However, the fact that these studies have been extensively critiqued is not commonly known.

Professor Sarbin wondered why research to determine if the illness is hereditary is being conducted when the actual existence of the illness itself has not been scientifically confirmed. In fact, the BBC reported in October of 2006, under the headline, Schizophrenia Term Use Invalid, that the term schizophrenia should be abolished.

Although some people do hear voices and have periods of paranoia, psychiatric drugs should not be given as treatment to cure these experiences, they revealed. “We do not doubt there are people who have distressing experiences such as hearing voices,” proclaimed Dr. Richard Bentall of the University of Manchester, “but the concept of schizophrenia is scientifically meaningless.”

In his book Schizophrenia Revealed: From Neurons to Social Interactions, a proponent of the disease model, Dr. Michael Green, confessed: “No existing blood test, urine test or biopsy can make a definitive diagnosis of schizophrenia, and it is unlikely that any such test will be available in the near future.” Even the DSM admits, “No laboratory findings have been identified that are diagnostic of Schizophrenia.”

Professor Sarbin, along with another University of California psychology professor named James C. Mancuso, used primarily sources from the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (JASP) and its successor the Journal of Abnormal Psychology (JAP), between 1959 and 1978, to author their book Schizophrenia: Medical Diagnosis or Moral Verdict. In addition, they read the results of studies of 364 patients, which also occurred in these two publications during that time period.

Of the biological origin of schizophrenia, they had this to say: “Our scrutiny of the conclusions of the many reports on studies connecting biology and schizophrenia leads to the observation that ... biologically grounded hypotheses have added little to the explanation of human conduct which ... earns a person the diagnosis of schizophrenia.”

Regarding the widely publicized idea that schizophrenia spectrum disorders exist, Dr. Loren R. Mosher, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California’s School of Medicine in San Diego said: “A critical review of the scientific evidence available reveals no clear indication of hereditary factors, and also reveals no specific biochemical abnormalities and with no associated causal neurologic lesion(s).”

“In summary,” agreed Dr. Levine, “there is no cross-cultural, epidemiological, genetic, biochemical, or brain-structure proof for the existence of schizophrenia as a physical disease.” This extends to ADHD, depression, bipolar disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety, and any other mental illness.

In its Does Schizophrenia Really Exist? report of October 2006, the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work at the University of Manchester, UK announced that after a meeting in London experts from the university concluded that schizophrenia should be abolished as a psychiatric illness.

They included Professor Richard Bentall of the School of Psychological Sciences, Paul Hammersley of the School of Nursing, Professor Marius Romme of the Hearing Voices Movement, and others who met to discuss the controversial matter and issue a proclamation for a dropping of the term.

Likewise, Medical News Today mentioned in September of 2006, that psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia are based on false assumptions of mental illness that originated in the 1800s, (obviously referring to Kraepelin and Bleuler).

According to these experts, schizophrenia doesn’t exist as an actual disease and is a scientifically worthless label. The disease model is no longer credible. It was created during a period of confusion, where the diagnostic instruments at the time were unable to differentiate a disorder with a biological origin, from conduct that was considered by some to be inappropriate. It became a convenient method to attach moral judgments to a medical disorder.

Even literature that promotes the existence of schizophrenia admits that head trauma and brain infections cause bizarre behavior. In fact, as we’ve seen, tests are done to rule these out. The ancient descriptions of people acting strangely are easily attributed to actual brain diseases with a biological origin.

Sarbin and Mancuso tell us that proponents of the disease model are completely aware that there is no biological origin for the illness. In other words, they know it’s a fraud. Using credible scientists, however, the industry continues to search for a cause, which leads clinicians and the public to think that schizophrenia exists.

One reason for this, says author and lecturer Dr. Ron M. Leifer, is that the disease model is critical to psychiatry’s existence. He explained: “The personal, professional, and economic interests of psychiatrists are promoted by the medical model. No medical model, no medical psychiatry.”

Deceptive Initiatives by the Industry

It is no coincidence that most people are convinced that schizophrenia is an actual disease. The industry generates an enormous amount of propaganda to convince healthy people to overcome their skepticism about taking psychiatric medications that destroy their minds and bodies. Much of this propaganda is done through “awareness raising” campaigns and “educational” efforts.

The public receives its information from drug corporations, organized psychiatry, private foundations, patient advocacy groups, mainstream media, organized medicine, and federal agencies such as the FDA, and the NIMH. These are typically the first entities that people will encounter when looking for reliable information on schizophrenia and its treatment.

Unfortunately, due to the perceived credibility of these organizations, they may also be the only sources of information that people consider. After all, the FDA and NIMH are there for your benefit, right? Patient advocacy groups are there to educate and help you, right?

As we’ve seen, upon closer observation we find that these groups are basically part of a single complex. And controlling the activities from the top is the pharmaceutical industry, functioning through these front groups to deceive healthy people into thinking that they have a biological illness, and therefore, require ongoing medication.

The “genetic predisposition to schizophrenia is built into the DNA” of every one of our cells, according to the book, Schizophrenia: Diseases and People, by Jane E. Philips and David P. Ketelsen. This is a false claim. It has never been proven.

Another book entitled, Diagnosis: Schizophrenia, describes schizophrenia as “a biological illness,” requiring ongoing medication. “Even when the symptoms are gone,” they advise, “the medication continues to work to prevent the chemical imbalance in your brain from returning.” As a matter of fact there is no chemical imbalance. You’ve seen the evidence. It is not a biological illness. So, why are they advising ongoing medication?

The Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) portrays schizophrenia as a “chronic, severe, and disabling brain disease,” leading one to think that it is an actual disease with a biological origin. In a February 2007 report, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) stated that neuroleptics decrease the symptoms of schizophrenia by “helping to correct an imbalance in the chemicals” in the brain.

The “only” chemical imbalances that have been reported in people diagnosed with schizophrenia are the ones caused by the neuroleptics. Are they not aware of this? Why are they suggesting continuous medication for a chemical imbalance that doesn’t exist?

Dr. Levine described another tactic used by the industry that includes comparing a so-called mental disorder to an actual biological illness. This, he says, is false and misleading because psychiatric disorders meet none of these criteria. They have no biological signature, no known biological origin, and are not rationally treated with medication.

An example of this is the August 2008 report, Understanding Schizophrenia and Recovery put out by NAMI, where schizophrenia is linked to biological illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Once again, we’re told by NAMI that schizophrenia is a long-term illness that requires continuing treatment (medication).

A book heavily promoted by NAMI, entitled Me, Myself, and Them, had this to say about the “biological” origin and treatment of schizophrenia: “Schizophrenia is a biologically based brain disease, and as such, it calls for a biologically based treatment—in other words, medication.”

Organized Psychiatry

Drug corporations, which run the medical industry as well as the mental health system, make millions promoting fake illnesses and keeping people sick. Thought leaders are paid by drug corporations to conduct research, write guidelines, and give lectures at a variety of venues to promote prescription drugs.

As we’ve seen, these psychiatrists typically consult for multiple corporations simultaneously while serving in influential positions, and have connections to professional societies, and patient advocacy groups. Here are a few more examples.

Dr. Charles Nemeroff, Professor and Chairman of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, received about $2.8 million from various drug corporations between 2000 and 2007. He is a former editor of the scientific journal Neuropsychopharmacology. He has consulted for 21 corporations simultaneously.

In 1991 Dr. Nemeroff became an expert witness for Eli Lilly during a lawsuit in which he denied that their drug Prozac causes suicides. He is known for being a charismatic speaker and has authored about 850 research reports.

Dr. Alan Schatzberg at one time owned $4.8 million in equity in the drug corporation Corcept Therapeutics while serving as a principle investigator in an NIH-funded study on one of Corcept’s drugs mifepristone. He is a co-founder of Corcept and has initiated a patent process for mifepristone to treat depression. He is currently the president of the APA.

The industry gave at least $1 million to Dr. Thomas Spencer between 2000 and 2007. He is currently the Director of the Pediatric Psychopharmacology Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

Dr. Timothy Wilens, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, received a minimum of $1.6 million from drug corporations between 2000 and 2007. Dr. Steven Sharfstein is a former Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Foundation (APF), a creation of the APA. He is a former president of the APA and currently has connections to Eli Lilly, Merck, and Janssen.

Dr. Augustus John Rush, former psychiatrist and vice-chairman of the Department of Clinical Sciences at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, made about $30,000 from the industry between 2000 and 2007. He has worked for as many as 20 drug corporations. Between 2003 and 2005 Dr. Rush received a grant from the NIH to conduct training programs pertaining to medical ethics. He is currently employed at Duke University’s medical school in Singapore.

Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin is a research professor of psychiatry at George Washington University. From 1981 to 1988 he was the director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Between 2000 and 2007, Dr. Goodwin received $1.2 million from GSK while lecturing physicians on the benefits of prescription drugs over National Public Radio.

He has also been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by nine drug corporations to give promotional lectures on their products. He is the recipient of the Hofheimer Prize from the American Psychiatric Association (APA), as well as the Distinguished Service Award from NAMI.

Interestingly, the current president of NAMI, Anand Pandya, is a ranking member of the APA. NAMI’s medical director, Dr. Ken Duckworth, was honored with the Patient Advocacy Award of the APA at its 2010 Annual Meeting in New Orleans. Dr. Duckworth is also an assistant professor at Harvard University Medical School. He formerly served as the medical director for the Department of Mental Health in Massachusetts.

Two people who have direct experience with organized psychiatry include Drs. Breggin and Cohen. Dr. Breggin, a full-time psychiatrist since 1968 has written multiple books exposing the dangers of Ritalin. He is the founder of the Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, and is the chief editor of the journal, Ethical Human Sciences.

Dr. Cohen, Professor of social work at the University of Montreal, serves as an international consultant to consumer groups on the adverse effects of psychiatric drugs. He has authored dozens of scientific articles, and has provided testimony in court proceedings on the destructive effects of psychiatric drugs. Both have been active in multiple professional fields and have had the opportunity to catalog the various personality types which they’ve encountered. They describe organized psychiatry this way:

Psychiatrists as a group are much more controlling, authoritarian, and emotionally distant than other nonmedical mental health professionals ... It attracts doctors who feel more comfortable writing prescriptions than relating to people.

These tendencies, in turn, are reinforced by their training in clinics and mental hospitals, where they are taught to exert power and authority over patients and other professionals and where they learn to lock up people against their will, to administer electroshock, to write orders for solitary confinement and restraint, to control every aspect of the patients’ daily routine, to prescribe toxic drugs while denying their devastating adverse effects, and to generally maintain an authoritarian and distant relationship with their patients.

As a result, psychiatrists tend to seek power not only in the hospital ward and in the office but in administration and politics as well. They frequently become powerful leaders in the health field. In politics, they are extraordinarily effective.

The mental health lobby funded by drug companies and led by organized psychiatry, is one of the most powerful in the nation’s history. Biological psychiatrists, who comprise the majority of today’s psychiatrists, tend to react in a very suppressive manner to those who oppose them, including dissidents in their field.

They ostracize their critics and have been know to drive them from their positions in schools or other institutions. ... Organized psychiatry—with its natural tendencies toward accumulation of power and its funding from drug companies—now dominates the field of mental health.

Many hold precariously onto whatever positions they can get on journals and in clinics, professional schools, and national organizations. It is not exaggeration to say that they live in fear.

Dr. Mosher was the director of Soteria Associates, and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the School of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, California. In the late 1970s he conducted a controversial study, known as the Soteria House, which included newly diagnosed schizophrenics living with a trained staff for about a month and a half where they received only a type of talk therapy that included no medication.

The study worked better than expected, the patients recovered and went on to lead healthier lives. Although the successful results of the study were published in psychiatric journals, the project lost funding, and much controversy occurred.

As a result, Dr. Mosher became the target of retaliation. While working as chief at the Center for Studies of Schizophrenia at the NIMH he was placed under investigation and excluded from certain prestigious academic events. By 1980 he was removed from his position.

About a decade later, after finding employment at the public mental health system in Montgomery County Maryland, the Maryland Psychiatric Society asked a state pharmacy committee to review his credentials in order to ensure that his patients were receiving proper treatment. Allegedly, he wasn’t prescribing the proper quantity of medication.

In addition to this, a patient advocacy group sent over 250 letters to his employer complaining of his practices. He eventually resigned from the APA, complaining that the organization had formed an alliance with drug corporations resulting substantial fraud.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

The American Psychiatric Association (APA), which is outright controlled by drug corporations, is used by the industry as the primary promoter of these mental illnesses. It is the leader in organized psychiatry and represents most of the psychiatrists in the US.

In 2006 drug corporations funded about 30% of the APA’s total financing. About half of this originated from drug advertisements in psychiatric journals and exhibits at the APA’s annual meeting. The APA’s annual conference is funded by millions of dollars from drug corporations. During these conferences, members of the APA are paid by the industry to give lectures that promote prescription drugs.

The APA publishes the field’s major journals and its famous Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The current edition is the DSM-IV. The DSM is the most used sourcebook in the mental health system. It is used to assist patients involved in custody battles, school psychologists to determine referrals for medication, the judicial system, prisons, welfare agencies, and the military. It is also used to determine billions of dollars of Medicaid and Social Security funding.

According to multiple researchers, the bigger the supposed prevalence of mental illness, the easier it is for drug corporations to launch massive campaigns to promote their products. They make their largest profits selling medication to healthy people, and this is accomplished by making them and their doctors think that they need them. In order to do this, they must define as large a portion of the population as possible as suffering from a mental illness. This is accomplished by steadily increasing the symptoms which define a mental illness.

Most of the experts who write the drug related sections of the DSM have strong financial ties to the industry. This manual is basically a product of drug corporations. A 2006 article called, Financial Ties Between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry, by Dr. Lisa Cosgrove at Tufts University revealed that more than half of the DSM panel members for the 1994 edition had financial ties to drug corporations. But most revealing was the fact that 100% of the panel members for the section on schizophrenia and mood disorders were connected to drug corporations.

Dr. David Kupfer was a member of the DSM-IV Task Force. He has consulted for Eli Lilly, Johnson and Johnson, Solvay/Wyeth, Servier, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Hoffman La Roche, Lundbeck, and Novartis. As Chair of the DSM-V Task Force, Dr. Kupfer is helping to create the new edition which is due out in May 2012. Dr. Kupfer’s wife, Dr. Ellen Frank, is a former DSM-IV Task Force member and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Pfizer.

DSM-IV Task Force member and former APA trustee, Dr. Dilip V. Jeste now consults for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Solvay/Wyeth, and Otsuka.

Former DSM-IV Task Force member, Dr. David Shaffer has consulted for Pfizer and GSK. He is currently Professor of Child Psychiatry at Columbia University and Director of the Division of Child Psychiatry at New York State Psychiatric Institute. Dr. Shaffer has served as an expert witness for both Hoffman la Roche and Wyeth in court.

According to another study done by Dr. Cosgrove and Dr. Harold J. Bursztajn, 70% of the panel members of the DSM-V are connected to drug corporations. This is a 14% increase from the previous edition. “Pharmaceutical companies,” they explained, “have a vested interest in the structure and content of [the] DSM, and in how the symptomatology is revised.” Even small changes in symptom criteria, they say, have a significant impact on the prescribing habits of doctors.

When it was first released in 1952 the DSM had 60 diagnoses. The last major edition, the DSM-IV released in 1994, has over 300 disorders with about 400 separate diagnoses. “Not only has each revision of the DSM had increases in the number of defined mental illnesses,” says Dr. Levine, “institutional mental health studies show rising percentages of anxiety and mood disorders.”

In the mid 1980s social phobia affected about 2% of the population. By 1998 it rose to about 13%. According to Moynihan and Cassels, this is because the list of symptoms that define this illness in the DSM keeps steadily expanding. These authors have detected similar patterns of expansion with other mental illnesses.

In the 1970s panic disorder fell under the category of anxiety neurosis in the DSM-II. After it was branded a distinct condition in the DSM-III released in 1980, its incidence grew 1,000-fold. The branding of this illness originally led to an increase in the sale of the prescription drug Xanax. But since then, newer antidepressants have been created to foster expanding ideas about panic.

Bipolar disorder entered the DSM in 1980. Before that it was manic-depressive disorder. Since that change, new variations have emerged, such as bipolar disorder II, bipolar disorders not otherwise specified (NOS), and cyclothymia.

Dr. David Healy of North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine, Cardiff University, describes the growth of this disorder as “astounding” and says that it is a result of the expanded definition. In addition to the expanded definition of bipolar disorder, new initiatives were launched to promote awareness about the illness. Some included the creation of journals such as Bipolar Disorders, and Journal of Bipolar Disorders, as well as a multitude of societies, annual conferences, patient web sites, etc. “Many heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies,” notes Dr. Healy.

“Watching the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) balloon in size over the decades to its current phonebook dimensions,” explains the Madison Avenue marketing executive Vince Parry, “would have us believe that the world is a more unstable place today than ever.” However, he says, this is not the case. “In reality, the increasing number of identified emotional conditions has resulted ... through direct funding by pharmaceutical companies.”

Neuroleptics are Toxic

The neuroleptics used to treat these fake mental illnesses have been known to cause a major disruption of frontal lobe activity, resulting in a significant reduction in intellectual functioning, and a shortened lifespan. They include: Chlorazine, Thorazine, Haldol, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Abilify, Seroquel, and others.

Some neuroleptics belong to a class called the phenothiazines, which include: Compazine, Mellaril, Prolixin, Serentil, Trilofon, and Vesprin. Phenothiazines were used by the US Department of Agriculture in the 1930s to kill swine parasites. Although they are still used in veterinary medicine to control violent animals, most veterinarians won’t use them for long periods because they are too dangerous.

By the 1980s the results of the long-term effects of neuroleptics began to surface. They made people chronically ill, prone to violence and criminal behavior, and caused social withdrawal. They also caused permanent brain damage and early death.

Many of the traits that people associate with schizophrenia, such as the odd walk, vacant facial expression, sleepiness, lack of initiative, etc., are caused almost entirely by the drug-induced dopamine deficiency.

Dr. Breggin has researched many tragic case studies regarding the use of psychiatric drugs. Most of the time, he’s been able to obtain police reports, medical records, and interview surviving patients. He’s also been able to visit crime scenes, obtain coroner reports, and autopsy findings to formulate his conclusions.

He’s testified at medical hearings and has written legal reports of his findings. He’s authored multiple books on the effects of psychiatric drugs. And his research is based on documented scientific literature, most of which is confirmed by the FDA.

Dr. Breggin says that psychiatric drugs cause: confusion, depression, anxiety, poor memory, impaired concentration, mania, artificial euphoria, irritability, emotional blunting, reduced creativity, and depersonalization (feeling disconnected from others), and visual and auditory hallucinations. They also cause neurological problems like headaches, muscle spasms, abnormal dreams, insomnia, and lack of coordination, fatigue, general weakness, and seizures.

Psychiatric drugs cause apathy, lack of initiative to begin or complete tasks, difficulty making decisions, and have been known to “utterly crush the will.” The anti-depressants have been known to cause suicide and mania. “Psychiatric drugs, one and all, always cause brain dysfunction,” says Dr. Breggin, “that’s how they work.”

Antidepressants cause suicide. There is no convincing evidence that they reduce suicide. Although for years, drug corporations have had their paid researchers try to prove that these drugs prevent suicide, “no compelling evidence has been forthcoming.” In fact, the opposite has been proven. They literally cause suicidal behavior.

When patients complain that their symptoms become worse after taking neuroleptics, their doctors may tell them that the medication is just revealing the underlying symptoms, and may actually increase their dosage. The medical and psychiatric textbooks which advise on medication are written mostly by consultants for drug corporations, who typically ignore the dangerous effects of these drugs. Therefore, doctors can only be believed as much as the drug corporations who provide them with most of their literature.

But in addition to being literally toxic to the human body, neuroleptics shut down higher brain functions. A part of the brain called the prefrontal lobes, which is located in the cerebral cortex, is responsible for the highest brain functions, including empathy, independence, judgment, willpower, spiritual yearnings, creativity, and self-awareness.

However, in order for this most-developed portion of our brain to function, it requires the neurotransmitter dopamine, which allows it to send information across gaps between neurons. Dopamine is manufactured in an area of the midbrain (mesencephalon) called the ventral tegmentum, more specifically in the substantia nigra.

The dopamine created in this area of the midbrain is sent to the frontal lobes by a conduit known as the mesocortical pathway, which is one of the four major dopaminergic pathways in the brain. This pathway basically connects the midbrain to the frontal lobes.

In a lobotomy, the frontal lobes are cut off from the rest of the brain by severing the nerve fibers that act as a conduit which they use to receive dopamine. By inhibiting the transmission of dopamine, Dr. Levine says, neuroleptics cause a chemical lobotomy which produces a “zombifying” effect. In both instances, adds author Whitaker, whether it be a chemical or physical lobotomy, the integration of frontal lobe function with other parts of the brain is disrupted.

Neuroleptics facilitate a chemical removal of the human spark plugs. “Once that mechanism of action is understood,” declared Whitaker, “it becomes clear why neuroleptics produce symptoms similar to Parkinson’s disease and also why the drugs provide a type of chemical lobotomy.”

Organized psychiatry, drug corporations, patient advocacy groups, and federal “health” agencies, consider the shutting down of these higher brain functions an improvement. Ongoing, life-long treatment, they tell us, is necessary to correct the “chemical imbalance” that is causing the “brain disease.”

Drs. Breggin and Cohen similarly proclaimed, “It is no exaggeration to call this effect a chemical lobotomy.” This “zombie effect” they said, should not be viewed as therapy, but as chemical restraint.

The Rockefeller Foundation has had a significant influence on the use of the lobotomy. In the early 1920s when the foundation transformed organized psychiatry by financing it with about $16 million over a period of two decades, it funded the creation of research labs and new departments at medical schools.

One recipient, Dr. John Fulton of Yale University, was one of the initial promoters of the lobotomy. Another was Dr. Edward Strecker at the University of Pennsylvania, who employed these techniques in crowded mental hospitals where many lobotomies were given. Washington University in St. Louis Missouri had also received funds, and hired Dr. Carlyle Jacobsen to help their neurosurgeons advance their surgical techniques for lobotomy.


Organized psychiatry is vastly corrupted. It is obviously more concerned with power and profit than mental health. In addition to the APA as an organization being heavily funded and outright controlled by drug corporations, its panel members that update the DSM are individually connected to drug corporations as consultants.

The symptoms in the DSM which define mental illnesses have steadily increased over the years. Profit and control appear to be likely reasons. Schizophrenia and related disorders have no biological origin. These illnesses do not exist according to science.

The industry, disguised by its many fronts, releases an onslaught of propaganda to the public to convince them that toxic medication is safe and effective. However, neuroleptics destroy normal brains. They also shut down the higher brain functions, producing a chemical lobotomy.