Tuesday, 16 May 2017





In the same way that the word “catch” can mean “catch” the ball, the “catch” on the door, “catch” the thief, do you “catch” my meaning and there's a “catch” in this somewhere, so the words “mental health” have us fooled with one genuine and several false meanings - invented solely for profit !

The two longest existing fields of mental health investigation and treatment are of course psychiatry and psychology, going back as far as Wilhelm Wundt of Leipzig.  And whilst historians tell us that “mental” practices have been with us since time immemorial, it was the work and dominating character of Wilhelm Wundt of Leipzig which earned him his reputation as the “father” of today’s psychiatry.

Born in 1832, he is acknowledged as the major influence on other researchers such as Pavlov 1849, Freud 1856, Adler 1870, Jung 1875, Ellis and others, all of whom have contributed to the various views and practices of clinical psychology, psycho-therapy and psychiatry as we know them today.

It is interesting however, that more recent and current giants of mental theory and practice, such as Emeritus Professor Thomas Szasz (holder of the Chair of Psychiatry at New York State University), and Dr Matthias Rath MD (world famous nutritionist) have, along with many other enlightened and internationally revered psychiatrists, spent a considerable part of their professional lives condemning the status-quo psychiatry of Wundt, Pavlov and Freud as being not only out-of-date, but also ineffective and in fact a downright danger to the lives of a majority of mental patients at the receiving end of what these practitioners consider to be “treatment”.

However, even without these expert denunciations, psychiatry’s lack of successful results has been increasingly condemning psychiatric theories and practices for well over a century.  So much so that current practices and repeated treatment failures are now understandably inhibiting the enrolment of new students into psychiatry.

The main division in the mental health field is between the talking therapies and the invasive treatments which cut, electric-shock, drill or drug-poison the patients body in a vain attempt to improve his mental faculties and emotive behaviour.

Whilst we are “advised” that, in this country, pre-frontal lobotomies, leucotomies and other brain operations are more and more confined / restricted to the alleviation of accidental damage to the brain, this is far from true internationally and in fact such operations, as well as Electro Convulsive Therapy (ECT), are still weekly carried out under the direction of British psychiatrists in a vain attempt to “modify” the behaviour of U.K. mental patients.

Because the results in most cases include the patient “quietening down” and, like a whipped dog, becoming “more under control” there are still psychiatrists who believe they are succeeding !

However, patients and families seldom if ever regard the results of these treatments as “improvements” in the patient’s lifestyle.

The fastest expanding of psycho-pharmaceutical treatment modalities is of course the escalating prescribing and usage of (mainly addictive) toxic pharmaceutical drugs for a widening selection of so-called ”mental disorders”.  The American Psychiatric Association’s “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” continually expands its lists of such conditions – NOT on the basis of scientific proof – but solely on a show of hands at boozy psychiatric conventions.

Their purpose, for health insurance and profit reasons, is to try and demonstrate an expanding demand for mental health services to justify private and public health systems buying more and more drugs each year – many of them addictive and thus with a built-in never ending demand potential.

Today’s vested interest psycho-pharmaceutical fraternity is the “pincer-movement” which seeks, and too often succeeds, in controlling government health policies.   The “psychs” create the demand for treatments via counselling sessions, and then the “pharmas” satisfy that demand by supplying the prescribed drugs – not directly to the patient – but to the Department of Health and the NHS, so that the psycho-pharms can be paid by the government rather than by the patient.

Which brings us to the “talking therapies”.   These are delivered not only by psychiatrists, but also by psychologists, psycho-therapists, psycho-analysts and even hypnotists. And as you might expect, there are good and bad amongst them.

The “bad” are those who apathetically stick to what they have been taught on their training courses – irrespective of the poor results or lack of patient improvement over which they are presiding.

And the “good” are those who have recognised that their “technology” is not only desperately old-fashioned, but also ineffective, often damaging and without doubt in critical need of revision and modernisation.

They therefore often become researchers and experimenters, asking new questions and seeking new answers, as a result of which many are to be found in our universities.

There are also clinical psychologists who mix Freudian ideas with drug prescribing and hypnotism, those who borrow from other practices and those who develop successful practices of their own by combining careful scientific observation with humane goals for their patients.

Anyone who has fully studied the basics of Hubbard’s Dianetics and Scientology principles, will quickly recognise that the current fashion amongst psychological talking therapies – Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) – is no more than a failed effort to combine two separate facets of Hubbard’s 1950s and ‘60s works into one, in the hope of establishing a structured new approach.

Whilst Hubbard's original separate concepts worked well and still do, they had two separate goals in mind, so that, when they are amalgamated as in psychologically plagiarised CBT, they tend to cancel one another out and so produce strangely mixed results or mainly nothing of lasting value.

In his book: “A DICTIONARY OF THE MIND, BRAIN AND BEHAVIOUR”, well known international lecturer and broadcasting Doctor of Psychology Chris Evans (who has over one hundred scientific and technical papers to his name) provides us with “a basic introduction to the terms and ideas central to psychology” and psychiatry, and to what he describes as “a clear, invaluable source of reference for students”.

Whilst the English dictionary tells us that “mental” means “appertaining to the mind”, and that “mental health” defines the working condition of a person’s mind, it is clear that neither psychiatry nor psychology can provide a working definition of what the mind itself is.    Evans’ dictionary says:

At one time the mind was (correctly) equated with soul or spirit and assumed to be the conscious “control mechanism” for the body and qualitatively different from it. Freud’s ideas complicated this picture by introducing the disturbing notion of the power of the “unconscious”, which downgraded the status of the mind’s conscious component.”

Pavlov and the Behaviourist School further eroded its significance by ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF MIND from all experimental and theoretical considerations, and criticising anyone who dared use the word for being ‘mystical’ or ‘unscientific’.”

Today, whilst few psychologists think of mind as a spiritual entity separable from the brain and body, most now accept that the richness and reality of mental life cannot be denied and that a place must be found for the word mind in comprehensive theories of human behaviour”.

Unfortunately, that “place” is STILL to be found in both psychiatric and psychological theories and practices, all of which are without knowledge and understanding of the existence of “mind” and “soul”, which billions of religious adherents have held to exist for generations.

Whilst psychiatry is still a large (but shrinking) world-wide industry, its reputation as a profession and science has never been lower.   Jokes about “shrinks” and “how many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?”, etc., have never been more in vogue than today, and apart from the failures of their so-called “treatments”, there are every day reports of unethical conduct, fraud and serious abuse of patients.

In fact it is now clear that psychiatry’s main role today is as the U.K’s ‘pusher’ of addictive pharmaceutical prescription drugs.


And it doesn't take long to recognise that whilst psychiatry and psychology have derived their basic operating data and principles from mice, rats, Pavlov's dogs and other animals, Hubbard's “DIANETICS: The Modern Science of Mental health”, was based exclusively on a study of Mankind's mental processes.

An extremely vital factor, because Man's minds are quite different from other flesh and blood animals – which of course accounts for why Man is without question the dominant species on Earth, even though physically weaker than many other species.

Described in its own training and reference literature as: “The branch of medicine which deals with mental disorders, their origins, diagnosis, treatment and prevention”, modern psychiatry is revealed in that same literature as being comprised of a wide range of disagreements between various schools, factions or ‘authorities’ arising from “a long and controversial history”.

It is therefore not surprising that Dr Chris Evans’ authoritative description and definition of psychiatry concludes with the following revealing paragraph:

The trouble with psychiatry today is that it is still without a working theory, not just of the mind but also the disturbed mind.  Even a definition of ‘mental illness’ is not easy to come by, so perhaps it is not surprising that to this date psychiatric methods have inevitably been of a hit or miss variety” !

On the other hand, Emeritus Professor of Psychopharmacology C. Heather Ashton has lead the field in her research into, and treatment of, involuntary addiction to benzodiazepines and other tranquillisers – probably by far the country's most serious and widespread example of iatrogenically created illnesses.

These are extremely serious, damaging, costly and extensive health problems, caused by psychiatry’s main role today as the ‘pushers’ of addictive pharmaceutical prescription drugs to currently two million NHS Patients and even more each day.

Criticised by Ashton, the leader amongst these “prescribing psychiatrists”, and probably the most damaging, is Professor (Sir) John Strang, who runs the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College, as well as the National Addiction Centre at Denmark Hill, both in London.

And as we enter the field of ADDICTION, we move into that health sector where today the greatest concentration of psycho-pharmaceutical attention is focussed.


Because there is nothing easier to consistently sell to any consumer than a substance to which he or she can be rendered addicted.   An addictive substance is the supreme creator of demand for itself and thus the ultimate marketing tool.

Furthermore, because a majority of addicted drug users are seldom gainfully employed, the whole marketing strategy has been enhanced by the psycho-pharms having convinced government that the addict himself shouldn’t pay for his supplies !

YES! The government have been persuaded by the ever-so-helpful psychiatric and prescription drugs industries that the vast supplies of seriously addictive drugs delivered to millions of people in the UK should be PAID FOR BY THE NHS OUT OF TAX-PAYER FUNDS.

The cheek, impudence and downright nerve of the whole concept is breath-taking, and would be admirable if it were not such an atrocious “con”, ruining millions of lives and being a major cause of our national inability to recover more rapidly from the current economic recession and increasing social deprivation.

Because most of psychiatry has no fundamental or scientifically proven guiding technology, it is the easiest thing in the world for well-placed “professionals” like academic John Strang to come up with “expert” opinions and reports which favour the producers and suppliers of the addictive substances in respect of which he furnishes them with well-paid “consultancy services”.

Whilst Strang is at the sharp-end of influencing government policy, to ensure that he and other colleagues succeed in their manipulations, they are backed by numerous so-called “independent” advisory groups - themselves backed by psycho-pharmaceutical interests.

Roger Howard, a former local council worker with no recorded training or experience in addiction rehabilitation, was responsible for the costly DATS scheme, apparently established mainly to provide employment for psychiatric staffs from redundant asylums and mental institutions as a result of the psycho-pharms having persuaded the then government to introduce “Care in the Community”.

After establishing “SCODA” and later amalgamating it with the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependency to form DrugScope, it was mainly Howard who was behind the founding of today’s National Treatment Centre for Substance Misuse, where most of the senior posts were then staffed with DrugScope trained personnel.

In turn DrugScope spawned the “London Drug & Alcohol Network”, as well as the “Substance Misuse Skills Consortium”, the “Recovery Group UK” and “The Recovery Partnership”, all to provide what they hoped would appear to be other “independent” voices giving leverage simply by apparent weight of numbers in the arguments they are determined will take place as part of the psycho-pharm effort to resist the “lasting abstinence recovery” and “Payment by Results” drugs strategy. 
Howard also formed the political pressure group “UK Drug Policy Commission”, where he was CEO and where a non-executive director of pharmaceutical giant Astra-Zeneca was the Honorary President.   Here, along with ex-NTA Dale-Perera, we also find “Commissioner” Strang.

The same Professor John Strang was appointed in 2011 by the NTA to oversee the implementation of the then Government's recovery plans via 8 PbR pilot areas over a 3 to 4 year period.   These were expected to deliver success for the government strategy, BUT in fact reported that “lasting abstinence (and so also PbR) cannot be made to work, and that the better solution is to prescribe Suboxone or even to continue with methadone” !

John Strang is thus perfectly placed to ensure the drug rehab sector remains a profitable psycho-pharm marketplace for prescription drugs, by pseudo-scientifically convincing the Government that its drugs strategy goals, based on “recovery” to “lifelong relaxed abstinence” are not viable.

Today's psycho-pharm strategy is based on completely eliminating the residential rehabilitation and recovery sector, and replacing it entirely with “treatment” based totally on prescription of addictive pharmaceutical drugs to “manage” the increasing numbers of methadone, buprenorphine, naloxone and Suboxone addicts, as a result of which we find one of the leading rehabilitation sector magazines today asking: “IS THE SECTOR LIVING ON BORROWED TIME ?”

The psycho-pharms make massive amounts of money in two separate ways.


1) It quickly relieves the patient's current craving for that drug, and,

2) A few hours later, it re-creates that same irresistible craving for that substance by triggering the same “cold turkey” withdrawal symptoms.

This is the prime example of a “vicious circle”, and the main unique sales proposition which the ruthless marketing of addictive products depends on to create and maintain irresistible demand – whether those products are illicit or legal.

IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE, but in addition to medically hooking increasing numbers of NHS patients on addictive pharmaceutical drugs, this fundamentally simple sales strategy has been successfully hidden by numerous psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies to allow them to build another similarly gigantic and lucrative business called: Illicit Drug Addiction Treatment and Management”.

As a result, huge amounts of money are made by various psycho-pharms out of getting millions of N.H.S. patients legally and involuntarily addicted for life, and IN ADDITION further huge amounts of money are made by other psycho-pharms who are “treating” and “managing” the habits of those who have been persuaded into addiction by the illegal Drug Baron's street and school-gate drug pushers.
And because successive Ministers and Officials have over the last 69 years allowed themselves and their policies to rely on psycho-pharm “advice” and “guidance”, we not only have a working population increasingly decimated by addiction, we also have a National Health Service financially crippled by it, plus a tax-paying population who are paying to maintain all this addiction – because the psycho-pharms have now basically made nearly ALL addicts and addiction quite “legal” !

In terms of “Mental Health”, which is today so intimately linked with addiction, the “bad” are the psychologists, the Ministers and the Officials who are the policy and decision-makers who keep the “ugly” psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies in their controlling positions SOLELY to make more turnover, more profit, higher wages, higher bonuses, bigger dividends and more Corporation Tax.

The “good” are the Scientologists and Dianetics practitioners who, increasingly, are training families and individuals to cure genuine (not invented) emotional and mental conditions, and whose numbers - on a worldwide basis - are beginning to overtake all other forms of false psychiatric “Mental Health” handling.



THAT'S WHAT PSYCHIATRY AND THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY FEAR MOST.  That's why they have spent the last 67 years and billions of $Dollars blackening L. Ron Hubbard, deriding Scientology, side-lining and mocking Dianetics, and making it as difficult as possible for Hubbard's work to be recognised and used.

This is what Psychiatrists and Big Pharma fear the most.

Nothing more than Ministers and Officials starting to meet, question and listen to Scientologists !

Don't you wonder - just a little - why this might be ?


This is a report from:


Addiction Withdrawal Advisory Services & Help

The people who successfully train addicts to cure themselves.

The internet address of this report and other associated reports is:

Monday, 8 May 2017







Some pharmaceutical drugs are unquestionably useful. However, far too many are not only addictive, but also additionally relieve nothing other than the cold turkey effects they themselves daily re-create, thus keeping the “in treatment” sufferers on their prescription . . . . for the rest of their life.

What a unique sales proposition.  Consumers who just can never ever say “NO” ! And consumers who don't even have to pay for their addictive doses, because, courtesy of bamboozled and threatened politicians, U.K. taxpayers foot the bill.

And what a bill it is !

Only a relatively small percentage of hospital and high street dispensed drugs actually serve a useful purpose.   And these are not what we are talking about, even though these may be the truly useful drugs which actually “do what it says on the tin”, and for which Big Pharma can therefore demand the highest prices – and does.

No.   We are talking about the three Million U.K. drug addicts, TWO MILLION of which obtain their daily supplies from the British National Health Service, because, it was that Health Service which addicted the majority of them in the first place.

Across the U.K. approaching TEN Million doses a day of addictive medical drugs are dispensed to those two million involuntarily addicted pharmaceutical addicts.  That's 3.65 BILLION doses a year.

Because addicts have to be dispensed to on a controlled basis, if those doses cost only as little as £1.00 a dose – which is probably far too low – we are here looking at £3,650,000,000 spent just to keep two million patients addicted instead of curing them, because prescribing is good for turnover and profit, whilst curing is not !

British health spending is currently 9.9% of our Gross Domestic Production (GDP), and because this is 1.4% lower than the G7 average of 11.3%, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) says we MUST spend £20.8 BILLION more, and if we don't, they are taking advantage of Brexit to threaten to move their production and research elsewhere.  (Commonly known as cutting off their nose to spite their face.)

THE TIMES newspaper showed it understands the motives of the pharmaceutical industry better than Ministers when it some time ago initiated a successful investigation into increases in pharmaceutical pricing of their products, which in some cases had been hiked-up by thousands and thousands of per cents !

The biggest LIE circulating around Westminster and other national parliaments is that: “medical prescribing is the very essence of Health Care – and especially in relation to Mental Health” - as if medicine is nothing but drugs !

They get away with this because of
1)  the abysmal cure results of psychology and its “therapies”, and the damaging results in general of psychiatric so-called “treatments”, and
2) because of their own continuous condemnation, side-lining, marginalising, criticising, defaming, ridiculing and covert attacking of successful non-chemical cure procedures.

Probably the most financially successful operator in the medical field died only last month.  John D. Rockefeller made a major part of his vast fortune by bribing universities, colleges & teaching hospitals with training grants, which pushed physicians' worldwide medical education nearly exclusively into palliative medicine prescribing.

Palliative medicine, which Rockefeller and other Big Pharma bosses have made into today's major practice, is the main activity of the U.K. National Health Service, and was recently summed up by one doctor as:

Because it takes too long and costs too much to find out “why” a particular symptom is occurring, it is quicker just to prescribe a drug to handle that symptom, and only if this should become a regularly required alleviative dosage or is clearly not working, then the cause of the symptom can later be investigated (if it is not too late).

Whilst this allows some cases to cure themselves, and others to eventually be properly diagnosed, it can unfortunately lead to involuntary addiction in what is now becoming a significant number of cases.

This from a physician essentially defending the palliative system.

But in light of the fact that no one can ever become addicted to a drug which they never ever take, it becomes clear that there is no such thing as “accidental” involuntary addiction, simply because it is the pusher at the school gates who gives free samples, and the local G.P. who writes a 7 day 3 times a day prescription for an addictive “medication”, who actually condemns that patient to his or her addiction !

And in the last paragraph above we start to see what the past and present pharmaceutical industry is doing to our society, our economy and our people.

The past pharmaceutical Carnegie / Rockefeller led takeover of worldwide medical training, created the foundation for the current costly and wasteful N.H.S. situation.

The present pharmaceutical industry – instead of producing the required small-dose units of the various addictive drugs, which are vital to a comfortable step-down system of withdrawal from involuntary addiction - now want to blackmail the politicians they have spent years “courting” with “gifts” of sumptuous meals and “educational” trips abroad for “interesting” P.R. conferences - by threatening Ministers with a withdrawal of their lucrative industry to other countries.

The fact is that the £20 Billion increase in drug spending which Big Pharma are today demanding, will be used by their psychiatric allies to feed more and more addictive drugs to more and more victims of the psycho-pharm push to expand their so-called Mental Health prescribing.  A push being conducted with the naive assistance of our two great Royal Princes and beautiful Duchess Kate.

Wonderfully endearing innocents lulled into mistakenly promoting psychiatry in the mistaken belief that psychiatrist can actually cure emotional problems.   As a trained genuine Mental Health practitioner (NOT A PSYCHIATRIST) I personally could have handled the impingement on their young lives of their mother's tragic death, in less than three months part-time.

So why did it have to wait 20 years before they were sufficiently unburdened by maturity to be able to talk about their tragic loss ?

The answer is:- because the Royal Family and the Government unfortunately relied, and still do, on psychiatric and pharmaceutical advisers – the greedy commercial fraternity which has done most to promote involuntary drug addiction – simply because it is vastly profitable.

And last week that cynical fraternity again showed their true colours by resorting to actually publicly blackmailing our already manipulated Secretary of State for Health into creating even more millions of U.K. involuntary addicts, whilst at the same time saying they would be “happy to discuss” tax rises to pay for such increased spending.

All Jeremy Hunt has said since then is that (if he is re-elected in June) he will appoint and train 10,000 new Mental Health nurses.   God help us all, if he means the same old psychiatrically trained nurses such as we already have, rather than those trained in the Modern Science of Mental Health: DIANETICS - which is practised by more councillors in more countries, even though they are kept out of Government recognition by dictators like leading State psychiatrist Sir John Strang.

What Jeremy Hunt and Mrs May should both be saying to the pharmaceutical industry and their psychiatric running mates is: “We know that involuntary addiction to medical drugs can be cured over a few months with relative comfort by a managed small-dose step-down withdrawal system IF the necessary small doses are made widely and easily available.

As a consequence, if you fail to start producing the required small-dose units of all your addictive drugs by the end of this year, we will declare your present production sizes illegal and prosecute anybody involved in their production and distribution, in the same way as we deal with other illegal addictive drug pushers.”

Alternatively, the Government should nationalise an appropriate production facility, and start producing its own supplies of all the necessary addictive drugs in the required small-doses needed for comfortable step-down withdrawal.

What it costs to manage this mass withdrawal across the nation can easily be recovered out of the massive month by month reduction in prescribing costs.

The main thing is that, given the political will, involuntary addiction can eventually be eradicated, our pharmaceutical drugs spending can be slashed and our nation made much healthier and more productive with sane Government policies which do not rely on psycho-pharmaceutically profit biased advice.

Although they still pose as whiter-than-white 'GAME-KEEPERS', over the years since 1948, the psycho-pharms have actually mainly become covert 'POACHERS'.

And they NOW have to start being stopped - before it really is too late !


This blog is posted by:

Society for an Addiction Free Existence