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part of their professional lives condemning the status-quo psychiatry of Wundt, Pavlov and Freud as being not only out-of-date, but also ineffective and in fact a downright danger to the lives of a majority of mental patients at the receiving end of what these practitioners consider to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:

No comments:

Post a Comment