Disease-mongering AKA Fear-mongering

Fear-mongering is a form of manipulation which causes fear by using exaggerated rumours of impending danger. It is used by many but often those who use this manipulation don't know they are being played by an insidious industry who hire some of the most ingenious marketing teams in the world.

Unfolding in the UK at present is a manipulation, make no bones about it.

England, Scotland and Wales have pre-ordered a product, they did so based on what scientists told them. That product has to be used by a certain date, in as much in the same way as the food you buy in the supermarket does. It was not purchased under 'sale or return' terms.

When all goes to plan, the product rolls out, in this instance the vaccine (even though it's not actually a vaccine I will use this term to avoid confusion)

The initial fear-mongering started with the Chinese media. How can we forget the images of the streets of Wuhan and also surrounding hospitals with citizens laying dead on the floor. The whole world saw those images - they were meant to. Unbeknownst to many this was probably the second phase which had been triggered by a disease escaping from a laboratory in the Hubei Province. There are still some that argue this isn't true and that it came from an infected Pangolin or Bat purchased, or indeed handled, in a wet market, ironically situated in the capital of the Hubei Province, Wuhan.

Any mystery surrounding a virus leak gives the real origins of the virus valuable time. Whilst everyone was focused on the Wuhan wet-market, the players could cover their tracks so to speak. It's a bit like hearing the police want to interview you for a crime you committed, you hear this second-hand so it gives you time to find a reliable person who will lie for you (an alibi)

The virus coming from inside a lab was, at first, deemed conspiratorial. Sky News Australia's documentary, 'What Really Happened in Wuhan', put the conspiracy theory slur to bed when it premiered in Australia on Sep 28, 2021

The lab leak was Phase 1, prior to the leak there would have been plans put in place as one has to prepare for all possibilities.

Disease-Mongering

Phase 2 was the daily media coverage - this needed to be out there 24/7. Cast your minds back to early 2020. You were around the TV soaking it all up, right? The 24/7 coverage showed us all the images coming out of Wuhan. Citizens, we were told, were keeling over in the streets and dying. Wuhan residents, we were told, were being confined to their own homes, in some instances the media told us many residents were being boarded up in their own homes. This gave us the illusion that this deadly virus was our worst nightmare come true.

Next Slide Please

There is nothing more powerful that images to spark a reaction. The body plummeting from one of the Twin Towers, the young immigrant boy washed up on a beach, the man lying dead on the street in Wuhan whilst being surrounded by men in Hazmat suits 

Nothing more powerful, right. This virus is real, it's killing people and now, according to whatever news media you followed, it's here.

Images like the one above had to be shown, as did much of the video footage in Wuhan hospitals. If footage wasn't shown then compliance would have been much more difficult to sell.

But sell it they did and we were all soon locked down in our homes - and what did we all do during those initial lockdowns? Well, we tuned in to fear, our human voyeurism wanted to take a look inside the window of each UK county - who were being responsible, who were ignoring the social distancing rules that had been implemented?

Well, our voyeur instincts were quenched by Prof. Chris Whitty who, just like the mainstream media had done in Phase 2, used imagery to reel in the viewers. It was bad in North East England but no so bad in South West England. There were a rise in cases in Merseyside but a fall in cases in Wiltshire. It all made for great theatre, it also caused a divide. (Phase 4)

The Great Divide

University of Illinois history professor Peter Fritzsche wrote the book “Hitler’s First Hundred Days - When Germans Embraced the Third Reich". In it, he highlights how in the spring of 1933, Germany became a one-party dictatorship. This whole process, according to Fritzsche, took just 100 days. Here's part of the blurb from his book:

"Fritzsche examines the events of the period — the elections and mass arrests, the bonfires and gunfire, the patriotic rallies and anti-Jewish boycotts — to understand both the terrifying power the National Socialists exerted over ordinary Germans and the powerful appeal of the new era they promised."

Sound familiar?

From the get-go we have been told we need to help flatten the curve by washing out hands, social distancing and staying indoors. This, we were told, would, in essence, make the virus go away. The 'science' behind this, we were told, was robust. We all watched as the daily death toll was announced on TV, not only in the UK but in Europe too where Italy and Spain seemed to be taking the brunt of deaths, particularly their elderly residents. It was harrowing TV. Slowly but surely news was coming out that the elderly in the UK were dropping like flies, it was all very grim indeed and, we were told, we had a vital role to play in keeping away from our elderly relatives. We, for the most part, complied.

The curve eventually flattened, we know this because Prof. Chris Whitty showed us images. It was, indeed, great news. Alas, the great news soon turned sour as the curve began to rise again. Something else was needed to help flatten it.

Vaccines

And here we are today. Promises were made with the vaccines - two jabs and the curve will flatten, the NHS won't be so under pressure, the elderly will be protected. At every corner we were being gently massaged - we would be rolling our sleeves up to protect others, not really to protect ourselves...but it does protect you as well, we were told. What we wasn't told, from the get-go, was the actual truth. You can still transmit the virus after two jabs and you can still fall foul of the virus. People, in the main, seem to have forgot that.

The scientists advising the decision-makers are, once again, painting a bad scenario with the newest strain of the virus, Omicron. We are now seeing a repeat on our TV screens and news resources of what happened when the original virus broke, allegedly from an infected Pangolin or Bat. The fear-mongering has been ramped up again but many have had enough. Constant calls for mandates are making the natives restless - the govt and their advisors have been fully aware of this, in fact, they were probably fully aware of any outcome before Phase 1 kicked in to action.

Now, we are told, restrictions will be placed on people who don't comply. Non-agreeable citizens of Australia, Germany, Austria, Greece, and Canada are having revolvers pointed in their direction - if you don't comply, you will suffer as a result, not because of the 'Pangobat' virus, but we, as your leaders will make it tough for you. Celebrities have joined in, announcing on their weekly chat shows or column inches that the unvaccinated should be punished. Most, if not all, give out wrong data to their viewers, listeners, and/or readers. When challenged they use what drug company marketing teams use, they belittle those questioning their position with negative terms such as 'anti-vaxxer', tin-foil hat' and/or 'conspiracy theorist'. Morning red sofa TV shows fair no better as they roll out the key opinion leaders, no tough questions from the likes of Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield or Lorraine Kelly. The target audience for these shows is the wimpish, the type that prefer a Posh and Becks story or like to look at Hollywood celbs who are aging, this makes them feel better about themselves. Those, who despite being shown evidence to the contrary, will roll up their sleeve on a whim whilst proclaiming, "We are doing it to protect the NHS." The nauseating compliant.

Drug companies are not allowed to advertise their wares in the UK, in fact the only two counties that allow Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) is the US and New Zealand. Drug companies have always found ways around this, often hiring spokespersons of celebrity status to talk about an illness, at the same time dropping in the name of a product that can 'help' that illness.

Rest assured, Pfizer are very much behind a lot of what we see unfolding in the UK. Many of the scientists advising parliament will have some sort of historic association with Pfizer, many will hold shares in the company. It's hardly an even playing field is it?

Who needs drug company adverts when the British press and celebrities or washed-up newsreaders are doing the job for the likes of Pfizer, Moderna and, to an extent Astra Zeneca (We don't hear about them anymore) - 'Reporters Expose Pfizer Misinformation And Power To Demand Eye-Popping Vaccine Profits' tells us more about this.

Also, bear in mind that almost every single 'scientific data' you read about in scientific journals wasn't actually written by the author who added his/her name to it. Chances are it was written by a PR firm hired by the likes of Pfizer, just as we saw with GSK and Paxil.

If you want to continue rolling your sleeves up then I'm fine with that. I'm not so fine with parents being hoodwinked by the 'science' and then dragging their kids to get jabbed though. Again, it's not really my business but it deeply saddens me that grown-ups just can't admit that they've been duped. Cognitive dissonance, perhaps, or maybe a strong case of Stockholm syndrome?

If the non-boostered are counted as unvaccinated, which is happening in many other countries, then expect more hospitalizations of the 'unvaccinated'. This will, in turn, be 'evidence' to show the boosters are working.

You see what they're doing yet?

Disease-mongering AKA Fear-mongering is a tactic whereby politicians, celebrities, and mainstream media outlets widen the catchment area of a disease on behalf of the drug industry so they can entrap more consumers with what people deem to be a cure for the disease. Many politicians, celebrities and mainstream media outlets don't know they're being used as advertising tools for the drug industry, who have some of the most genius marketing teams in the world. The drug industry has never been interested in finding a cure, to do so would be financial suicide. Don't fall into the trap of thinking a particular pharmaceutical product saved your life, chances are you are still taking that product - that is not a cure, it's a product that is making a very handsome profit for the industry. The drug industry is, basically, an insidious profiteering racket that has mastered the art of manipulation.

~ Bob Fiddaman, Researcher of Drug Company and Regulatory malfeasance for over 16 years

Paddy McGorry's DeLorean Program - The Survey

The early intervention program is akin to the chemical imbalance theory in as much that it is based purely on speculation. There is no science behind it, none at all. Possibility is not an excuse for treatment, if it were, then smokers would be offered chemotherapy years in advance of "possibly" developing lung cancer. McGorry et al can no more predict a mental disorder than you or I can next weeks Lotto numbers. To fund any program based on speculation is a high risk... in as much as the same way of treating the disorders with psychiatric medications that have a proven track record of causing suicide and horrific withdrawal problems.

You can now complete an online survey and also offer your thoughts on Patrick McGorry's EPPIC model. 

Take the survey HERE

More about McGorry and the DeLorean Mob:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,




Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE
OR UK FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

The Defence of Prof. Ian Hickie

Prof Ian Hickie

Patrick McGorry's sidekick, Prof Ian Hickie, has come out fighting this week with an opinion piece that was published on the Sydney Morning Herald website.

One would have thought that Hickie, who I have highlighted before on this blog, [Back story] would have used the Sydney Morning Herald as a platform to show evidence that the DeLorean Machine [The Early Intervention Program] was fool proof and robust.

Instead, Hickie chose to slam his critics...and he did so in the style and ahem, candour, that anyone who opposes his fairy tale theories would expect.

Here's a snippet:

...an odd mix of armchair critics, conspiracy theorists and a former chairman of the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual taskforce, Dr Allen Frances, oppose the expansion of early intervention programs for teenagers and young adults. Conversely, child advocates have attacked the proposed reforms for putting too little emphasis on the expansion of specialised child services.

In parallel, the Scientologists have repeatedly used freedom of information legislation to mount an ''investigation'' into the work of McGorry, our colleagues and myself. Various members of these groups have made highly personal ''conflict of interest'' allegations in an attempt to distract attention from the evidence that favours these new approaches.

Way to go Hickie!

When all else fails shout conspiracy or Scientology. One would have thought psychiatrists and professors would have devised a better argument after all these years. Amazing isn't it, they can pluck an "illness" out of thin air yet call them to task over it and you are labelled an armchair critic, conspiracy theorist or Scientologist.

These guys just love their labels eh.


Ian Hickie was the inaugural CEO (2000-2003) of 'beyondblue: the national depression initiative', which has very successfully sold depression in Australia, with many millions of dollars of government money. This has worked brilliantly for the drug companies, and beyondblue does not accept pharma funding, so the drug companies get the promotion for free. I've previously wrote about beyondblue back in November 2008.


Beyondblue and Hickie paved the way for EPPIC, a psychiatric service aimed at addressing the needs of older adolescents and young adults with emerging psychotic disorders.

Hickie and McGorry had already been working together for several years, in fact Hickie is a key player in McGorry's 'Headspace'.

The PDF above is a seemingly egregious example of the conflicts of interests that exist: a whole journal supplement based on the SPHERE project clinical audit. The audit was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (see p. S54), the manufacturer of Serzone. The publication of the supplement was funded by beyondblue with Commonwealth [Australian] Government money (see title page).

The audit, which used Hickie's SPHERE questionnaire, found ridiculously high rates of mental disorders. This was reported in the supplement by Hickie, Davenport, Naismith, & Scott (2001, p. 52) as:

'Sixty-three per cent of people attending general practice have some evidence of mental disorder (including alcohol or other substance misuse) by self-report or GP's diagnosis of psychological difficulties.'

63%?

That's some cash cow huh?

Not surprisingly, if you scroll to the bottom of the PDF you will find: Source: Hickie et al. Educational Health Solutions; 2000

As long as the DeLorean Mob continue to berate their critics with name-calling, their critics will continue to press for the science behind their theories.

To be honest, any name-calling aimed in my direction really is water off a duck's back. It just highlights the inability of the other side to prove their point and shows them to be straw clutchers. It's just their way of stifling voices.

I'm reminded of my childhood days:

Scene: Early 70's School playground, me eating a packet of crisps.

CLASSMATE: Give me a crisp Fid.

ME: No.

CLASSMATE: You big gay!

Some things just never change.

Related posts: -

Hickierie Dickory Doc - McGorry Turns Back the Clock

33 year old mother slams Hickie

This one is especially for Ian Hickie and his DeLorean mob:

Professor Graham Burrows - The "Cosmetic Psychiatrist?" [Updated 7.34pm]

 Professor Graham Burrows: "I don’t think there’s anyone in the world today who could emphatically say how an anti-depressant works." 

As Australian psychiatrist Professor Graham Burrows defends his corner against recent allegations of over medicating patients, misdiagnosing and bed-hopping with the pharmaceutical industry, many of his former patients are trying to get their lives back on track. Burrows, is, it appears, a firm believer in the pharmaceutical products he prescribes - one such product is GSK's Seroxat, known as Aropax in Australia and Paxil in the US and Canada.

In a 2002 short documentary Burrows claimed that shyness was a treatable condition, treatable with Aropax. In fact much of Burrows' statements from the 2002 transcript leave me wondering whether he was merely promoting GSK's product, I think it fair to make that assumption, tell me what you think:

Narration: Paxil or Aropax as it’s known in Australia is one of the Prozac-like antidepressants. And while many psychologists say they meddle with human nature, psychiatrists like Graham Burrows claim they’re merely much-need medications.

Professor Graham Burrows: I don’t consider it meddling if in fact this person is suffering so much that it’s interfering with their life that they want to be changed. They want to feel more comfortable, they want to be able to deal with the social situations. They want to enjoy life when they’re not enjoying life. That couldn’t really be called meddling.

The narrator continued by announcing that Burrows believed that up 13% of Australians had "chronic shyness" and more than half of them probably need permanent medication to turn their lives around.

Opposing this was psychologist Dr Sallee McLauren:

"One of the central things with people who suffer from anxiety is the sense of powerlessness. They think that they cannot control the anxiety. Now this is simply not true. We can certainly learn to manage that anxiety. That’s why it’s very important for people who suffer from anxiety not to just adopt that passive approach of just popping a pill. It’s very important instead to learn how to be an agent in your own life. So how to stand up to the anxiety".

Here's Burrows response to McLauren:

"That’s not true and I’d disagree with that sort of opinion and that’s often a divided opinion between psychologists and psychiatrists, it depends who you go to because there are people who have claimed that the person can be well, but in fact when you take them off the medication they get bad again and you get back into the CBT and they still have problems, that’s when they have to face the fact that this person needs medication."

"When you take them off the medication they get bad again?"

Did it, or indeed does it, ever occur to Burrows that they 'get bad again' due to the side-effects of the drug they are taking? Furthermore, to just take someone off Aropax is not recommended as the withdrawal symptoms can be horrendous.

Here, Burrows defies all the odds with one of the most eye-opening claims I have ever seen from a psychiatrist:

"There are people who have abnormal biochemistry in their brain. We can show that by blood tests. We can show that with positron emission tomography a neuro-imaging technique. We’ve done some studies to show that they actually have altered chemistry and by giving them the medication, their chemistry is converted back to normal if you like and they don’t have the anxiety and the depression they had beforehand."

First and foremost, THERE IS NO PROVEN PET SCAN to diagnose mental disorders.

Positron Emission Tomography, more commonly known as a PET scan is a pretty daunting procedure and one that doctors [GP's] certainly don't carry out before handing out psychiatric drugs, in fact, many of Burrows former patients have come forward to complain that he over-medicated them, one such patient claimed that Burrows prescribed him/her a psychiatric drug after just 30 seconds of diagnosis! If true, how did Burrows know his patient had a disorder?

The PET scanner is a ring-shaped apparatus with an attached table. You will lie on the scanning table, and the table will slide slowly through the opening in the scanner ring. One or two scans might be taken before the tracer is administered. After this initial scanning, either you will inhale the tracer or it will be injected into one of your veins, usually in your arm. Additional scans will be taken while the tracer is in your body.

During the scanning procedure, you must lie very still. The scanning table will glide you through the PET scanner, so you won't need to move. If your head is being scanned, special cushions may be placed against your head to hold it in place. The entire scan should take 30 minutes to two hours. Afterward, you can go home and resume your normal activities. [Source]

So if it takes a PET scan between 30 minutes and 2 hours plus the time taken for a medical team to assess the images caught, how can Burrows, or indeed any healthcare professional diagnose a patient with a 'mental disorder' based on a brief consultation? More importantly, if the PET scan is, once again, just based on theory it makes the whole process of dishing out psychiatric medication a complete nonsense, an unproven science with unproven disorders treated with unproven drugs.

The clincher, if a clincher was needed, of the 2002 short documentary come when Burrows made the following statement:

"I don’t think there’s anyone in the world today who could emphatically say how an anti-depressant works – whichever antidepressant group and having said that we do know a lot of chemistry about what actually occurs. Now I sometimes say does anyone know what electricity is, but we use it."

If Burrows can find the time I suggest he do a Google search, simply type in, "How does electricity work?"

In fact, Burrows should know how electricity works, in a study he co-authored [MJA 2007; 186 (3): 142-144] the use of electroconvulsive therapy is cited as being "the most effective treatment for severe depression."

Google the term, "How does electroconvulsive therapy work?" and you will find that nobody knows how it actually works, it's all based on theory, same as the chemical imbalance theory promoted by GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of Aropax.

The procedure for electroconvulsive therapy [ECT] is, for want of a better word, Frankensteinian. The treatment involves placing electrodes on the temples, on one or both sides of the patient's head, and delivering a small electrical current across the brain.

We know electricity can be dangerous if used incorrectly, after all, we wouldn't tell a child to go and stick his or her wet fingers into a live plug socket would we? We'd warn them of the dangers, the risks.

Children today are being prescribed psychiatric medication, the number is growing and it will grow larger if programs, such as Patrick McGorry's EPPIC program is not opposed. McGorry claims he can predict if a child will fall foul of a 'mental illness' in future years. The Australian government seem to back him, having thrown millions of dollars in is direction.

As Burrows rightly states, "I don’t think there’s anyone in the world today who could emphatically say how an anti-depressant works." Yet antidepressants are prescribed despite the medical and psychiatric profession not knowing how they work on the brain. If they don't know how antidepressants work then they won't know how to combat the side effects and, I put it to Burrows et al, that they are not in a position to defend the huge number of claims that antidepressant medication can cause those taking them to commit suicide or homicidal acts, all of which have been well documented.

Incidently, The a plus project was promoted in Burrows' Depression Awareness Journal (which was funded by GSK). The project saw starter packs being handed out to patients in 2002, around the same time the documentary was made. Counselling was offered to patients on the proviso that they continued taking Glaxo's drug, Aropax!

Burrows' (2002) editorial:

We also examine the a plus project, a partnership of patients, GPs, pharmacists and psychologists, working together to improve treatment outcomes in depression.

Singh (2002):

The a plus project is a national programme for the treatment of clinical depression which employs a multidisciplinary, cooperative approach to ensure patients achieve the maximum benefit from their treatment. The a plus project is an example of a healthcare partnership in action, as it adopts a cooperative mental health approach featuring GPs, pharmacists, psychiatrists, psychologists and patients. (p. 8)

According to Singh, the a plus project was developed to improve the treatment received by GP patients: 'It was in response to such unmet community need that the a plus project was devised' (p. 10).

Singh likened the a plus project to beyondblue:

Australia recently witnessed another first in the treatment of depression building on the major national initiative of beyondblue. (p. 8)



Burrows, Graham D. (2002, June). From the Editor in Chief. Depression Awareness Journal, 11, inside front cover.

Singh, Bruce. (2002, June). The a plus project: A partnership in action. Depression Awareness Journal, 11, pp. 8-11.



[Professor Singh is and was a prominent, influential psychiatrist.]



Memo to Burrows:

If you are going to promote the use of Aropax for shyness, here's an idea - find out how it works and what the possible implications are when taking it. Until you have all the answers and scientific data may I suggest that you promote products that have been scientifically tested and that have been proven to be safe and effective - a simple cup of tea could be right up your street, make sure you are careful when plugging in that electric kettle though.

PS - Shyness IS NOT a mental disorder...unless you can prove otherwise?

**If you, or anyone you know, is struggling withdrawal problems with GlaxoSmithKline's Aropax [Seroxat/Paxil], contact GSK directly and ask them for help. If they refer you to your doctor, please contact me by email. [Email address in left hand sidebar]



Transcript segments taken from COSMETIC PSYCHOLOGY, ABC Television.

Related Articles:

The Marketing of Aropax in Australia and the A Plus Project

Australian Psychiatrist Graham Burrows Denies Any "Wrongdoing"

Are The Wheels Coming Off Patrick McGorry's DeLorean?

News 7: More Complaints Against Prof Graham Burrows

Australian Psychiatrist Graham Burrows Denies Any "Wrongdoing"

Just before 7 News third installment highlighting Australian psychiatrist Graham Burrows abhorrent behaviour went to air tonight his lawyers issued a letter to the programme makers.

Burrows denied any wrongdoing and said that he is 'already subject to rigorous scrutiny by the medical practitioners board and peer review.' He also denied 'any suggestion that his patient care has been inappropriate.'

Tonight's airing sees "Barbara", a former patient of Burrows, say that she is "scared of him" and another former patient, "Lyn" claim that she has just over 20% of her kidney function left due to the drugs prescribed to her by Burrows. "Lyn" took her case to the medical board but it had to drop the case after Burrows notes were apparently destroyed.

News 7 coverage on this, although small, has been significant and more people have come forward to the program-makers.

Here's the third installment, the other two can be seen by visiting the links toward the end of this article.

7 NEWS PREVIOUS INSTALLMENTS

PART 1

PART 2

News 7: More Complaints Against Prof Graham Burrows

Australian psychiatrist Graham Burrows remains tight-lipped on recent allegations that he over medicated patients and prescribed them psychiatric drugs after just spending 30 seconds with them.

Australia News 7 yesterday broke the news and today, journalist Louise Milligan confirmed that "...the medical board is now monitoring the allegations to determine what action is necessary to protect the public."

The updated video below also features 'Diane' whose husband was prescribed Tolvin by Prof Graham Burrows, a week later he shot himself. In a startling interview 'Diane' alleges that upon hearing the news Burrows told her it was his fault as he should have hospitalized her husband.

The interview also features Bernard Daniels whose son, Garth, was prescribed Zyprexa by Burrows. Mr Daniels protested and Burrows tried to get legal guardianship of Garth to keep him on the drug.

I'm sure there will be more news about Burrows surfacing over the coming weeks.

Related story:

'Patrick McGorry's Delorean Pulls Over For New Passenger'

Are The Wheels Coming Off Patrick McGorry's DeLorean?

Biff Tannen and Psychiatrist Graham Burrows.One of them has delusions about going back in time... the other is Biff Tannen.

Back in May I highlighted Melbourne psychiatrist Graham "Biff Tannen" Burrows. Burrows had testified that Arthur Freeman, who threw his 4 year old daughter off the West Gate Bridge, had a "major despondent disorder" so he did not know what he was doing. Remarkably Burrows had been able to diagnose the mental state of someone 14 months back in time. Yup, that's right, Burrows had used the DeLorean to diagnose a patient... by going back in time by 14 months.

In my article, 'Patrick McGorry's Delorean Pulls Over For New Passenger', I highlighted the serious conflict of interests that surround Burrows:

Burrows is chairman of the Mental Health Foundation (founded in Melbourne Uni's Department of Psychiatry in 81); a department that receives funding from AstraZeneca, Servier and Pfizer. Burrows has also received travel assistance to attend Advisory Board meetings from most companies that market psychotropics in Australia.

Burrows is also the director of psychiatry at Austin Hospital in Melbourne where in 2006 the parents of a 30 year old man had to get a barrister to force the hospital to release him after the parents questioned the psychiatrists putting him on Zyprexa: [The parents won the legal battle to stop the psychiatrists "stripping them of all their rights to look after him."

The Mental Health Foundation issues press releases about the advantages of specific antidepressants: like Remeron [Avanza in Australia] and made by Organon.

In 2004, both Burrows and Patrick McGorry sat on the Advisory Board on Mental Health to advise the Victorian government on funding [Source]

It should come as no surprise then to learn that Burrows is now the subject of a major medical scandal in Australia. Calls for a government inquiry in to claims of over medicating and conflicts of interests involving drug companies.

This from 7 News Australia

Related Articles:

Patrick McGorry: "Hey... Paddy... Leave Those Kids Alone"

Patrick McGorry - Torn Asunder Down Under

Early Intervention, McGorry, Politics & TV Shows

Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry Slams His Critics [Diddums]

Is Australia's "Number One Man" Misleading The Public?

Pre-Mental Disorder Screening & Drugging - THE PHARMACEUTICAL DELOREAN

Patrick McGorry's Delorean Pulls Over For New Passenger

Patrick McGorry & Co Under Fire

Hickierie Dickory Doc - McGorry Turns Back the Clock

Psychiatrist's Assessment of Patrick McGorry

Patrick McGorry's "Back to the Future" 2008 Study

Australian Doctor Magazine Sees Patrick McGorry Defend His Position

Australian Member of Parliament, Martin Whitely, also speaks out against McGorry's Headspace initiative HERE.

Patrick McGorry Responds to Criticism by Allen Frances

Patrick McGorry

Australian Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry has responded publicly to criticism aimed at him and his early intervention program by Allen Frances.

Frances, a former chair of the DSM-IV Task Force, has openly criticised McGorry with an article he wrote in Psychology Today last month [Back Story]

This prompted McGorry to respond in his own article, although he sought the help of Alison Yung to draft it. The article [response] appeared The Australian, an online newspaper that reaches out to a global audience.

Reading through McGorry's response leaves me somewhat baffled. Here he has a chance to explain how his early intervention program actually works, instead, it appears, he juxtaposes Allen's argument by criticising the American Health system, citing that it "has seriously failed the mentally ill." Furthermore, McGorry adds that Frances "is not in a strong position to give us advice."

McGorry continues his tirade against Frances accusing him of being ignorant to the early intervention module and "patronizing" to the Australian community.

In his final para McGorry quotes Tom Insel, Director of the National Institute for Mental Health in Washington DC. He writes:

The director of the National Institute for Mental Health in Washington DC, Tom Insel, recently told a workshop on mental health research in Canberra, that Australia was a decade ahead of the US in early intervention for psychosis and other mental ill-health in young people. He also emphasised that classification systems such as the DSM have failed.

Wow! The DSM a failure? Who would have thought it?

Nowhere in the article does McGorry, or indeed Yung, offer any scientific evidence to show that the early intervention program actually works. McGorry basically justifies the money being pumped into his Headspace initiative by citing figures of young Australian people with mental disorders. He adds that the Headspace initiative isn't about using psychiatric drugs on children, he writes:

Frances, like other critics of early intervention in psychiatry, seeks to confuse the treatment of first episode psychosis with efforts to intervene at an earlier stage, the subthreshold or ultra-high risk stage. The latter is not a focus of the Australian reforms. Finally, unlike in the US healthcare system, these models are guided by young people and their families, not dominated by medication, and are heavily influenced by the value of psychosocial care, which is covered within our system of health insurance.

Again, there is nothing from McGorry that shows scientific proof about intervening before first episode psychosis occurs.

Are we led to believe that McGorry will never use prescription medication on children who may or may not hit the first episode psychosis stage?

Can he openly declare that neither he or his team will offer psychiatric medication to children who he and his team suspect may fall foul of a mental disorder? Could he also admit, one way or the other, that the choices of medication for children with mental disorders are safe and effective for children? If so, could he provide the proof?

I find it amusing that two psychiatrists are publicly having a slanging match, more importantly though, I find it enlightening that more and more people are voicing their opinion on McGorry's Headspace initiative.

Debate is good but scientific evidence is even better. To my knowledge there is no supporting scientific evidence that backs McGorry's initiative. Figures quoted may prove to McGorry that Australian kids need more help but hey even I, a blogger from Birmingham, UK, can quote figures by using the adverse reaction reports to psychiatric drugs that are posted on Medicine regulatory websites, the figures are drastically under reported yet still alarmingly high.

McGorry may believe he is the new Messiah for Australian youth. If he were to NOT use psychiatric medication on them I, for one, would kiss his feet!

McGorry's response to Allen Frances can be read in full HERE.

Fid


Related Articles:

Patrick McGorry: "Hey... Paddy... Leave Those Kids Alone"

Patrick McGorry - Torn Asunder Down Under

Early Intervention, McGorry, Politics & TV Shows

Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry Slams His Critics [Diddums]

Is Australia's "Number One Man" Misleading The Public?

Pre-Mental Disorder Screening & Drugging - THE PHARMACEUTICAL DELOREAN

Patrick McGorry's Delorean Pulls Over For New Passenger

Patrick McGorry & Co Under Fire

Hickierie Dickory Doc - McGorry Turns Back the Clock

Psychiatrist's Assessment of Patrick McGorry

Patrick McGorry's "Back to the Future" 2008 Study

Australian Doctor Magazine Sees Patrick McGorry Defend His Position

Australian Member of Parliament, Martin Whitely, also speaks out against McGorry's Headspace initiative HERE.

Do You Have A Mental Disorder? The Spoof Test

**The following is a parody post. There is no scientific proof behind the answers/conclusion offered.

SEROXAT SUFFERERS EARLY INTERVENTION QUESTIONNAIRE [SSEIQ]

FOR CHILDREN AGED BETWEEN 3 - 17

1. DO YOU SLEEP WHEN YOU FEEL TIRED
YES - NO - SOMETIMES

2. DO YOU EAT IF YOU ARE HUNGRY
YES - NO - SOMETIMES

3. DO YOU HAVE DREAMS WHEN YOU SLEEP
YES - NO - SOMETIMES

4. DO YOU LAUGH IF SOMETHING AMUSES YOU
YES - NO - SOMETIMES

5. DO YOU FIND SOME SUBJECTS AT SCHOOL DIFFICULT
YES - NO - SOMETIMES

6. HAVE YOU EVER WATCHED A HORROR MOVIE
YES - NO - SOMETIMES

7. HAVE YOU EVER DONE SOMETHING THAT YOU KNEW WAS WRONG
YES - NO - SOMETIMES

8. DO YOU DRINK FLUIDS WHEN YOU ARE THIRSTY
YES - NO - SOMETIMES

9. DO SPROUTS MAKE YOU FART
YES - NO - SOMETIMES

10. WATCH THIS VIDEO



DID YOU SEE THE GHOST?
YES - NO


11. CAN YOU COMPLETE THE MAZE WITHOUT TOUCHING THE WALLS?
{Guide the blue dot by dragging the mouse - try not to touch the sides]

**Tip - Go slowly, this is not time-tested. Concentrate and move closer to your screen

You have 10 attempts

maze game

YES - NO





If you answered mainly 'YES' - You have a mental disorder. Talk to your doctor about how this can be treated.

If you answered mainly 'NO' - Take the test again until your answers are mainly 'YES' or 'SOMETIMES'

If you answered mainly 'SOMETIMES' - You will be diagnosed with a mental disorder between the years 2012 and 2020. Talk to your doctor about how this can be treated.


The SSEIQ was designed by Dr Emmett Brown, Hill Valley, USA.

Dr Emmett Brown

Declaration of interests:

Dr Emmett Brown has received funding, educational and promotional monies from the following:

The DeLorean Motor Company
Universal Pictures
Nostradamus
Big Balls Inc [Makers of quality crafted crystal balls]
Dr Louis Cypher [Travelling snake-oil salesman]
Looney Tunes Motion Pictures
The Sugar Plum Fairy
Pinocchio
Walter Mitty


*Disclaimer
The following post was created by Bob Fiddaman. It is meant as a parody and is in no way real or scientific.




Fid

RELATED POSTS:

Patrick McGorry: "Hey... Paddy... Leave Those Kids Alone"

Patrick McGorry - Torn Asunder Down Under

Early Intervention, McGorry, Politics & TV Shows

Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry Slams His Critics [Diddums]

Is Australia's "Number One Man" Misleading The Public?

Pre-Mental Disorder Screening & Drugging - THE PHARMACEUTICAL DELOREAN

Patrick McGorry's Delorean Pulls Over For New Passenger

Patrick McGorry & Co Under Fire

Hickierie Dickory Doc - McGorry Turns Back the Clock

Psychiatrist's Assessment of Patrick McGorry

Patrick McGorry's "Back to the Future" 2008 Study

Australian Doctor Magazine Sees Patrick McGorry Defend His position

Australian Doctor Magazine Sees Patrick McGorry Defend His position

"It’s about early intervention to prevent the progression of the illness. The same principle you have in the treatment of cancer. It’s not rocket science." - Patrick McGorry

Australian Doctor, a popular magazine for doctors throughout Australia, is running with the article that appeared in Psychology Today [PT].

The PT article, written by Professor Allen Frances, who chaired the committee behind DSM IV, claimed there is insufficient evidence that the McGorry's EPPIC model works and warns that patients are at risk of being wrongly diagnosed as psychotic.

McGorry has, it appears, responded to his critics once again, this time he doesn't use the old Scientology mud slinging tool.

The Australian Doctor quotes McGorry:

“To say there is no evidence [for the EPPIC model] is simply not true. These models have been running for more than 20 years. There are centres in England, in the Netherlands, in Canada, in many Western countries. They have been properly evaluated and they have been shown to work. In many ways it’s Australia that has fallen behind rather than taking reckless bets.”

He added: “[Professor Frances] seems to think we are treating patients before a diagnosis. That is not what the EPPIC centres do. It’s about early intervention to prevent the progression of the illness. The same principle you have in the treatment of cancer. It’s not rocket science. Early intervention [in mental health] has been the one area where there has been a serious lack of investment.”

**INSERT AUDIENCE LAUGHTER HERE**

"It’s about early intervention to prevent the progression of the illness. The same principle you have in the treatment of cancer. It’s not rocket science."

So in essence McGorry is under the impression that people are treated for cancer...before they are actually diagnosed with cancer. Whatever next?

Treat children for smoking addiction...before they actually start smoking?

Treat newborns with obesity...before they take their first drop of breast milk from their mothers?

Treat children with cannabis/cocaine/heroin addiction...before they actually take any of the substances?

Judging by McGorry's logic we, as individuals, should all be treated for something we haven't got yet.

McGorry claims that EPPIC centres won't be treating patients before a diagnosis, he claims it's about early intervention and they [EPPIC] wish to prevent whatever it is.

So, how are they going to prevent it? In fact, how would McGorry prevent cancer from forming - would he intend to use talk therapy to someone he thinks will get cancer?

McGorry [drugs aside] claims that their are many methods for detecting and preventing mental disorders. If drugs are not going to be used then McGorry will, he claims, use other methods.

Forgive me but McGorry is beginning to sound like one of those Evangelical preachers we see on TV claiming to heal the sick and injured. They work, they claim, through the power of Jesus Christ. The difference between McGorry and a TV Evangelical is that we see people with physical diseases 'miraculously cured' by the preacher. With McGorry we see children without disease whilst McGorry & Co prevent a disease they think they may get.

I don't know who is more delusional here.

There are claims throughout history that Jesus Christ healed the sick. It would appear that McGorry wants to go one better than JC.

Maybe his 2010 Australian of the year award wasn't enough for him.

The local bishop of McGorry's neighbourhood should be notified so he can petition Rome to begin the process of beatification. There's plenty of time...both in the future and the past.

McGorry claims that early intervention to prevent the progression of the illness isn't rocket science. I concur but would like to ask, what science is it?

The Australian Doctor article can be read HERE.


Fid


Related Articles:

Patrick McGorry: "Hey... Paddy... Leave Those Kids Alone"

Patrick McGorry - Torn Asunder Down Under

Early Intervention, McGorry, Politics & TV Shows

Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry Slams His Critics [Diddums]

Is Australia's "Number One Man" Misleading The Public?

Pre-Mental Disorder Screening & Drugging - THE PHARMACEUTICAL DELOREAN

Patrick McGorry's Delorean Pulls Over For New Passenger

Patrick McGorry & Co Under Fire

Hickierie Dickory Doc - McGorry Turns Back the Clock

Psychiatrist's Assessment of Patrick McGorry

Patrick McGorry's "Back to the Future" 2008 Study.

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
US & CANADA HERE OR UK FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Patrick McGorry's "Back to the Future" 2008 Study.

Patrick McGorry

This will take some explaining...but I shall be brief.

Back in January 2008, a paper appeared in the General Archives of Psychiatry [Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(1):25-27]

The paper, entitled, "Back to the Future - Predicting and Reshaping the Course of Psychotic Disorder" was written by Patrick D. McGorry, Alison R. Yung, Andreas Bechdolf and Paul Amminger.

The authors write:

Similarly, in psychotic disorders an early prepsychotic stage is known to exist, one in which much of the collateral psychosocial damage is known to occur.

This earliest stage could, in retrospect, be termed the prodrome—the precursor of the psychotic stage. It is a case of "back to the future" because we can only apply the term prodrome with certainty if the definitive psychotic stage does indeed develop.

It's unnerving to see a paper written by a bunch of psychiatrists who base a theory they have on a Hollywood movie script, a science fiction one at that!

Come forward in time to the present day and we can see that McGorry's Hollywood style theory has been accepted by the Australian government, in fact they have thrown over $2 billion dollars into the project.

So, at some point between 2008 and the present day, I think it safe to say that McGorry must have been space-hopping in his time-travelling Delorean and can now show the world how a definitive psychotic stage does indeed develop. Nope, no evidence of that.

In layman's terms, a prodome is an early symptom/s that might indicate the start of a disease before specific symptoms occur. Some examples might be when you or I wake in the morning with a slight runny nose and just a minor headache, that could be deemed as the onset of the flu or, at the very least, a cold. An upset stomach may also indicate the onset of diarrhea, a body alarm that tells us not to bother wearing the white trousers or dress to work.

We can create our own mini-prodomes in easy scientific experiments. Sniff some ground pepper and you'll more than likely sneeze, we can nip this in the bud by...well, by not sniffing the pepper in the first place. We could fill a glass full of Pepsi and drink it straight down - chances are we may belch. Again we can intervene this by not drinking the Pepsi in the first place.

Simple experiments with simple solutions.

McGorry's early intervention program for spotting the prodome of "mental diseases" is somewhat different though. There are no physical tasks to undertake that will provide an outcome. We know we will belch if we drink a pint of Pepsi straight down, same way we know what the outcome will be if we sniff a pinch of ground pepper. If we touch a naked flame we know we will get burned.

McGorry has convinced the Australian government to part with $2 billion by predicting if a child will develop a mental disorder. No physical test [drinking Pepsi or sniffing pepper] has shown this. We are expected to believe that it will happen because, well, because Paddy McGorry says so.

McGorry et al own words; "...we can only apply the term prodrome with certainty if the definitive psychotic stage does indeed develop."  show us an admittance that his early intervention program is either based on guesswork or, since it was written, McGorry has concrete proof, for example, that a 3 year old will develop a mental disorder when he is 11.

We know not to touch a naked flame if we don't want to get burned, we know not to sniff pepper if we don't want to sneeze, we know not to drink a pint of Pepsi if we don't want to belch. That is our own brain telling us the possible outcome of the said events. [Apologies for repeating this point but I think the Aussie government are in danger of falling into a delusional trap]

McGorry, on the other hand, has sold his theory to the Australian government, a theory that is no doubt welcomed with open arms by the pharmaceutical industry. To prevent hay fever we can take a pill... or so they say. There's even pills to prevent the onset of gout and a vast array of other illnesses, these are normally given to patients who have periodically suffered, they are, in essence, preventative measures to help the patient because of his/her history with that particular disease.

McGorry claims he can also intervene but his 'science' will treat patients who have no prior history, instead they have a future of developing some mental disorder. It would appear that McGorry has the ability to travel into the future then come back to the present day and prevent an event from occurring. The likely prevention will be in the shape of a pharmaceutical pill, a pill that corrects a possible chemical imbalance that not even the pharmaceutical industry can prove exists, again it's based on theory.

One thing that isn't based on theory is the side-effects that these drugs can cause. Addiction, aggression, homicidal and suicidal thoughts, akathesia... the list goes on. The arguments of the pharmaceutical industry and those that grant licences to these drugs [medicine regulators] is that the benefits of ingesting these products outweigh the risks.

To recap:

A child will, in later years, develop a mental disorder caused by a chemical imbalance that cannot even be proven in the present day. This can be intervened with antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs, drugs that have shown throughout time can cause pretty horrific side-effects. Clinical trials have shown that healthy subjects have had suicidal thoughts during the testing of these drugs.

Based on all of the above, the Australian government are fully supporting the possibility of something that may or may not occur. Presently they do not offer support to those who have suffered as a result of taking these types of medications - even though there is physical proof of the damage.

One has to ask why.

Maybe the declaration of interests in McGorry and Co's 2008 published study can throw some light on why?

Drs McGorry, Yung, and Amminger have received financial support from Janssen Cilag Pty Ltd provided through unrestricted investigator-initiated research grants for prodromal clinical trials. Dr McGorry has also received grant support and consultancy fees from a range of other pharmaceutical companies for research and other ventures unrelated to the content of this article.

Prosecution rests M'Lud.


Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
US & CANADA HERE OR UK FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE


Related Articles:

Patrick McGorry: "Hey... Paddy... Leave Those Kids Alone"

Patrick McGorry - Torn Asunder Down Under

Early Intervention, McGorry, Politics & TV Shows

Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry Slams His Critics [Diddums]

Is Australia's "Number One Man" Misleading The Public?

Pre-Mental Disorder Screening & Drugging - THE PHARMACEUTICAL DELOREAN

Patrick McGorry's Delorean Pulls Over For New Passenger

Patrick McGorry & Co Under Fire

Hickierie Dickory Doc - McGorry Turns Back the Clock

Psychiatrist's Assessment of Patrick McGorry