Are People Being Thrown Into Psychiatric Wards For Their Political Views?

Washington's Blog

Mental Health Diagnoses Are Sometimes Politically-Motivated

Many psychologists and psychiatrists are good people, who are only trying to help their patients.
But the Nazi government substantially supported psychologists … many of whom, in turn, espoused extermination of the people they considered to be “racially and cognitively compromised”.

Soviet psychiatrists famously aided Stalin in applying fake insanity diagnoses to political dissenters.  The official explanation was that no sane person would declaim the Soviet government and Communism.
American psychologists created the American program of torture which was specially-crafted to produce false confessions to justify U.S. military policy. And see this.

And authoritarian American psychologists are eager to label anyone “taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, … and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook” as worthy of a trip to the insane asylum. (Those traits may also get one labeled as a potential terrorist.)

As prominent forensic psychiatrist James Knoll – psychiatry professor at SUNY-Syracuse and director of a forensic fellowship program – writes in the Psychiatric Times:

When psychiatric science becomes co-opted by a political agenda, an unhealthy alliance may be created. It is science that will always be the host organism, to be taken over by political viruses…. [P]sychiatry may come to resemble a new organism entirely — one that serves the ends of the criminal justice system.

Even psychologists with good intentions can erroneously label people delusional simply because theythemselves make bad assumptions.

There is even a label for this – the “Martha Mitchell Effect” – defined as:

The process by which a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health clinician mistakes the patient’s perception of real events as delusional and misdiagnoses accordingly.

The authors of a paper on this phenomenon (Bell, V., Halligan, P.W., Ellis, H.D. (2003) Beliefs About Delusions. The Psychologist, 6 (8), 418-422) conclude:

Sometimes, improbable reports are erroneously assumed to be symptoms of mental illness [due to a] failure or inability to verify whether the events have actually taken place, no matter how improbable intuitively they might appear to the busy clinician.

In other words, psychologists who haven’t taken the time to examine for themselves the claims of their patients will tend to label as delusional anything which they “intuitively” feel is improbable.  As such, psychologists and psychiatrists are just as prone to acting out their irrational prejudices as anyone else … unless they take the time to investigate and educate themselves.

Governments Indefinitely Detaining Citizens In Psychiatric Wards Without Due Process of Law

As such, detention in psych wards on mere “suspicion” of posing a danger – without due process of law – is troubling.

For example, former marine Brandon Raub was just carted off and locked in a psychiatric ward for his allegedly “anti-government” Facebook posts.
AP reports today:

Police – acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional – took Raub to the John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell. He was not charged with any crime. 

*** 

Col. Thierry Dupuis, the county police chief, said Raub was taken into custody upon the recommendation of mental health crisis intervention workers. He said the action was taken under the state’s emergency custody statute, which allows a magistrate to order the civil detention and psychiatric evaluation of a person who is considered potentially dangerous.

New York Police officer Adrian Schoolcraft was  involuntarily hospitalizated in a psychiatric ward after he recorded videotapes of his fellow police officers engaging in corruption.

Claire Swinney of New Zealand was also held in a psychiatric ward and called “delusional” for criticizing the government.    Susan Lindauer was held under the Patriot Act for a year at Carswell Air Force Base – where psychiatric drugs were pushed on her – after she alleged government corruption.

The Daily Mail notes:

The [British] Government has established a shadowy new national anti-terrorist unit to protect VIPs, with the power to detain suspects indefinitely using mental health laws.

***
The team’s psychiatrists and psychologists then have the power to order treatment – including forcibly detaining suspects in secure psychiatric units. 

Using these powers, the unit can legally detain people for an indefinite period without trial, criminal charges or even evidence of a crime being committed and with very limited rights of appeal. 

Until now it has been the exclusive decision of doctors and mental health professionals to determine if someone should be forcibly detained. 

But the new unit uses the police to identify suspects – increasing fears the line is being blurred between criminal investigation and doctors’ clinical decisions.  

*** 

Scotland Yard, which runs the shadowy unit, refuses to discuss how many suspects have been forcibly hospitalised by the team because of “patient confidentiality”.
***
The purpose of the centre is “to evaluate and manage the risk posed to prominent people by…those who engage in inappropriate or threatening communications or behaviours in the context of abnormally intense preoccupations, many [Many? That means that some are not] of which arise from psychotic illness.”

Who gets to decide what “inappropriate” or “threatening” means?  What if a whistleblower has information that a member of parliament has engaged in bribes?  Would trying to reveal such information constitute “inappropriate or threatening communications or behaviours” in the context of “abnormally intense preoccupations” with that MP’s illegal actions?

Indeed, a study published in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry found a high rate of false positives in the British identification of dangerous persons.
The Mail continues:

So-called ‘sectioning’ allows a patient to be held for up to six months before a further psychological assessment. Patients are then reviewed every year to determine if they can be released. 

*** 

Human rights activists fear the team, whose existence has never been publicised, may be being used as a way to detain suspected terrorists without having to put evidence before the courts. 

*** 

Last night human rights group Liberty said the secret unit represented a new threat to civil liberties. 

Policy director Gareth Crossman said: “There is a grave danger of this being used to deal with people where there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution. 

“This blurs the line between medical decisions and police actions. If you are going to allow doctors to take people’s liberty away, they have to be independent. Thatcredibility is undermined when the doctors are part of the same team as the police. 

“This raises serious concerns. First that you have a unit that allows police investigation to lead directly to people being sectioned without any kind of criminal proceedings.
“Secondly, it is being done under the umbrella of anti-terrorism at a time when the Government is looking at ways to detain terrorists without putting them on trial.” 

*** 

The team examined thousands of cases and liaised with the FBI, the US Secret Service, the Capitol Hill Police, which protects Congressmen and Senators, and the Swedish and Norwegian secret services. 

*** 

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: “The Government is trying to bring in a wider definition of mental disorder and is resisting exclusions which ensure that people cannot be treated as mentally disordered on the grounds of their cultural, political or religious beliefs. 

“When you hear they are also setting up something like this police unit, it raises questions about quite what their intentions are. 

“The use of mental health powers of detention should be confined to the purposes of treatment. But the Government wants to be able to detain someone who is mentally disordered even when the treatment would have no benefit. 

“Combined with the idea that someone could be classed as mentally ill on the grounds of their religious beliefs, it is a very worrying scenario.”

Indeed, the whole “indefinite detention” process (which Americans living on American soil are subject to) can be based on circular reasoning:

The government’s indefinite detention policy – stripped of it’s spin – is literally insane, and based on circular reasoning. Stripped of p.r., this is the actual policy:

• If you are an enemy combatant or a threat to national security, we will detain youindefinitely until the war is over

• It is a perpetual war, which will never be over

• Neither you or your lawyers have a right to see the evidence against you, nor to face your accusers

• But trust us, we know you are an enemy combatant and a threat to national security

• We may torture you (and try to cover up the fact that you were tortured), because you are an enemy combatant, and so basic rights of a prisoner guaranteed by the Geneva Convention don’t apply to you

• Since you admitted that you’re a bad guy (while trying to tell us whatever you think we want to hear to make the torture stop), it proves that we should hold you in indefinite detention

See how that works?

This is an analogy.  We are not accusing psych wards of using torture.  However, they do often use powerful psychiatric drugs on patients … which can elicit false confessions.

Are we going to slide into Soviet levels of psychiatric detention of political dissidents?   Unless the spread of psychiatric detention without due process of law is checked, the mere belief that the government is interfering with your liberty may become grounds for locking you away.

Mainstream Doctors Say Supporting the 2nd Amendment is a Mental Disorder

Occupy Corporatism

Susanne Posnell

The medical industry in conjunction with Big Pharma want to classify the right to keep and bear arms as a mental disorder in another power grab to circumvent and eventually destroy our Constitutional 2nd Amendment.

More and more doctors are forcing the idea that we need a national healthcare approach to the problem that the recent shootings provide. While tobacco and alcohol is regulated, why not include the right to bear arms?

Dr. Garen Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine at the Prevention Research Program speaking about the installing of public guardrails, said : “People used to spear themselves and we blamed the drivers for that.”

The staged shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin are being used by some scientists to declare gun violence be treated like any other mental disease – and perhaps by popping a pill, American citizens would forget to fight for their 2nd Amendment rights.

Dr. Stephen Hargarten of the Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin claims : “What I’m struggling with is: Is this the new social norm? This is what we’re going to have to live with if we have more personal access to firearms. We have a public health issue to discuss. Do we wait for the next outbreak or is there something we can do to prevent it.”

Hargarten supports the limiting of access to all firearms in his advocacy with the Firearms Injury Center at the Medical College in Wisconsin which is funded by a US government grant to lobby taxpayers into believing that removing the 2nd Amendment will stop gun violence.

An estimated 260 to 300 million firearms are owned by American civilians which equals 1/3 of US households. While gun-related deaths are not raising according to police records, the fear-mongering continues as a supposed trend with no justification.

Propaganda studies into gun ownership claim that alcohol abuse causes the likelihood of gun-related violence to rise, according to Wintemute. Banning assault weapons would control the amount of rounds a person could shoot, while the police officers would still be allowed to tout automatic pistols. By restricting gun sales to include minor misdemeanors as well as convicted felons, 40% of gun sales would be curbed. And with the classification of gun support as a mental disorder, more control could be placed on who ultimately can own a gun.

By devising tactics to reduce shootings, experts are trying to legitimize profiling so that they can identify who would be most likely to commit such a crime. Combining the psychiatric industry with pre-crime seems to be a relationship conceived by the global Elite.

More mainstream support for mixing gun control with pharmaceuticals come from Paul Barrett who has authored a book that coincidentally claims that current gun laws are ineffective and need to be stricter to prevent more deaths. Barrett says: “Criminologists have studied it, and the consensus is that those laws simply did not have a statistically meaningful effect on crime rates.” He also feels that the mainstream media focus on the shootings themselves ignore the actual problem which is actually a “social problem” which is subverted by “the overall gun homicide rate.”

Daniel Webster, co-director of the anti-firearm John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, asserts that “gun ownership—a precursor to gun violence—can spread ‘much like an infectious disease” and wants healthcare professionals to have influence over whether or not American citizens are legally allowed to possess firearms. Webster would like to see Obamacare have ultimate control of the classification of mental states with regard to purchasing and obtaining FBI clearance for a gun.

As Obama has done in the past, an executive order could be signed to force the issue through compliance with Obamacare restrictions on those deemed mentally defective and unable to own firearms. As with the mandate through EO on religious institutions to provide birth control, Obama’s executive power can again be abused to ensure his bidding is done – like any good Fascist Dictator would do.

The blurring of the line between Liberal Democrats and covert Socialists is confusing the perception of the 2nd Amendment in the social meme being purveyed by the mainstream media. By aligning Constitutional authority with the convoluted power grabs of the Obama administration, our Republic for the people and by the people is quickly descending into a control grid of which there is no escape.

The link between gun control and health care is a coercive way to equate fear brought on my recent shootings and removal of Constitutional rights that stand in the way of the US government’s tyrannical declarations.

America Must See! FAKE YouTube Twitter Accounts From Libya Manipulated Social Media Mirror The Virtual War as part of the Psyops WAR

Federal Judge Orders CIA to Release Records on Secret Experiments on Soldiers

The CIA is being forced to produce specific information regarding secret tests conducted on thousands of soldiers over a 25-year period.

 

In response to a lawsuit filed by three veterans groups and six individual veterans, a federal judge, James Larson, ordered the CIA and other government agencies to turn over documents about testing programs and the substances used on soldiers from 1950 through 1975. The plaintiffs allege that the government used about 7,800 military personnel as human guinea pigs to research biological, chemical and psychological weapons at Edgewood Arsenal and Fort Detrick in Maryland.

 

The soldiers volunteered for the testing, but were not told at the time to what they were being exposed. They also were required to sign an oath of secrecy about their participation.

 

The CIA has put forth a variety of arguments to avoid revealing information about the 35-year-old experiments, including privacy protections, state-secrets privilege, the fact that the Department of Defense is conducting its own investigation, the passage of time, the fact that witnesses no longer work for the government, that the gathering of relevant information would take too much time, and the questionable claim that it never funded or conducted research on military personnel.

 

Judge Larson has insisted that the CIA must produce evidence relating to a 1963 CIA Inspector General report on an experiment called MKUltra; the basis for each redaction in that report; the doses and effects of certain substances administered to test subjects; any payments made to contractors or university researchers, any outside-party proposals concerning the experiments; a confidential Army memo about the use of volunteers in research; all government-led human experiments from 1975 to date involving specific drugs; and whether the government secretly administered MKUltra materials to “the patrons of prostitutes” in safe houses in New York and San Francisco, as the veterans allege.