No doubt that only a mentally ill person could carry out a savage attack like the ones perpetrated in Newtown, Aurora and Oregon. The question is how does a person become mentally ill enough to kill. There is no doubt that prescription drugs are the main triggers of side effects which make people act violently to a point where they seek to murder children, men and women.
But the relation between pharmaceutical products and violent outbursts have found little place in the main stream media. How could it? Pharmaceutical corporations contribute millions of dollars a year to news networks and broadcast television. Rightfully blaming pharmaceuticals for many examples of violent behavior would be equivalent to killing the golden goose.
What is becoming more common in the media is the idea that anyone who experiences anger or frustration could be mentally ill and since that is a sign of a potential threat to society, because of the recent examples where angry men shot innocent people, everyone needs to be examined for mental health as a preventive measure.
The problem is that most of the diagnoses issued by psychologists and psychiatrists are based on a set of very abstract and ambiguous terms — not science — contained in the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of psychiatry; generally known as the DSM-IV.
The ambiguity of DSM-IV allows for all kinds of mental problems to be found on anyone who allegedly suffers from depression, anger, ADD, ADHD and a whole list of fabricated mental illnesses. People who question authority, for example, are diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. The symptoms are: often losing temper, often arguing with adults, often deliberately annoys people, often experiences anger and resentment and so on.
Depression, another common disease diagnosed using guidelines from the DMS-IV, is supposedly diagnosed on anyone who experiences fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day, diminished ability to think or concentrate, indecisiveness, insomnia and so on. These and other supposed symptoms of depression — according to APA’s standards enable so-called mental health professionals to diagnose and medicate anyone who experiences them. It doesn’t matter how irrelevant a person’s feelings are with respect to violence, psychologists and psychiatrists are authorized to prescribe pharmaceutical products to “cure” people.
Recently, the media and government officials — without conducting any kind of medical assessment — have labeled anyone who thinks freely, question authority, opposes government programs or has specific political beliefs such as Libertarianism as mentally ill.
The enablers of these lie seek to magically diagnose the population as incapable of properly conducting their lives and also unable to speak, think or act freely. The unsuspecting victims of this hoax are swindled into taking large amounts of pharmaceutical products, which in time make them so sick to the point of wanting to use violence against relatives, friends and almost anyone else.
Are you too sick to own a gun?
As part of the circus put together by the pharmaceutical industrial complex to justify their sales of millions of dollars in chemicals, the main stream media is now campaigning heavily to brainwash people into believing that their mental health needs to be tested and that they will need the medications prescribed by their shrink.
The most recent example I read is an article by Mathew DeLuca, from NBC news titled: “Anger, violent thoughts: Are you too sick to own a gun?” Mr. DeLuca presents the traditional model of diagnosing for mental illness as an effective way to avoid gun violence while trying to push for the U.S. government’s agenda that people may just be too sick to own a gun.
“Several polls conducted since the shooting in Newtown, Conn., have found widespread support for new legislation that would restrict the possession of firearms by the mentally ill, as well as for increased government spending on mental health,” reminds us DeLuca.
Indeed, under Obamacare and the newly proposed gun legislation, doctors will work as snitches for the government and they will be charged with “diagnosing” and reporting any suspicious signs of potential violence. Doctors were compelled by Obama to ask whether patients own firearms, which they will also include in their mental assessment report.
Currently, the United States bars the sale or transfer of firearms to a person who is thought — no real medical examination required — to have been “adjudicated as a mental defective.” According to DeLuca’s article, at least 44 states currently have their own laws regulating possession of firearm by mentally ill individuals. That program has not prevented the occurrence of violent act, DeLuca reports, because states do not report their mental health data to the federal government. Under the new Executive Orders signed by Obama, states will be required to report all cases of mental illness to the federal government. That information will be then fed to a database which will allow the government to deny people their Second Amendment.
New York’s recently expanded gun law demands that mental health professionals report anyone considered “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others”. Note the lack of scientific basis. “Those officials would be authorized to report that person to law enforcement, which could seize the person’s firearms.”
According to new legislation, mental health practitioners who do not report their patients run the risk of being labeled as criminals. “Now if you’re mistaken, you’re wrong about this, and you don’t report it, you could face criminal sanctions. I’m not taking any chances at that point,” said Steven Dubovsky, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Buffalo. But he then emphasized “That could encourage therapists to over-report.”
None of Obama’s Executive Orders tackle two of the most important problems about mental health. First, the criteria to decide whether a person is mentally ill is bogus, as confessed by mental health practitionersthemselves. Second, pharmaceutical products are the triggers of all kinds of violent acts, but their influence in gun violence won’t be studied under the proposals issued by the White House.
No real change will be achieved unless governments recognize that chemicals in prescription drugs are the real cause of mental illness and that to end violence as a whole, it is necessary to cut the gas that fuels the fire. Then it is necessary to use real science in the diagnosis of mental problems, as supposed to concepts that have no scientific value whatsoever.
The Second Amendment or any other constitutional right is that much closer to being taken away when government gives itself the prerogative to ‘diagnose’ who is unfit to exercise those rights.