THE TRAGEDY KNOWN AS "U.K. SOCIAL SERVICES”.

WELL OVER 90% OF ITS STAFF

ARE CARING AND HUMANE

INDIVIDUALS, BUT THEY ARE

INSUFFICIENTLY TRAINED,

AND MUCH OF THE TRAINING

THEY DO RECEIVE PROVES

CLOSE TO USELESS.

The massive amounts of Taxpayers’ money lavished on Social Services should, if properly invested, be enough to guarantee superlative handling of the problems which regularly crop up in the social sector.

Unfortunately those problems are too often missed by Executives and Staffs who have never been properly trained to recognise and understand the significance of the vast range of human emotions and how they impinge on individual’s behaviour in relation to family and the wider community.

AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS REALLY RATHER SIMPLE.

Social Services are in the main governed by the same ancient and misguided research which forms the basis for Psychological and Psychiatric theories, the vast majority of which have been derived from a study of animals – Pavlov’s dogs, millions of rats, mice and numerous other assorted species.

Even though for centuries, practically every religion in the world has regarded Man as comprised of: “Body, Mind and Spirit”, or just simply as: “Body and Soul”, because ANIMALS CLEARLY DO NOT HAVE ANALYTICAL MINDS AND DO NOT MANIFEST THE SORT OF DECISION-MAKING AND FUTURE PLANNING ONE WOULD EXPECT FROM AN “ETERNAL” SOUL, practically every one of the multi-various and often opposing “psych” animal studies (which they regard as “life” studies) denies the existence of “Soul” and also of “Mind”.

Which denial is entirely to be expected, because, whilst both animals and Man possess flesh and blood bodies and the mental ability to IDENTIFY environmental phenomena, Man ALONE ALSO has the analytical abilities required to COMPARE and to DIFFERENTIATE between environmental beings, persona, objects and events, etc., PLUS having a Chief Executive Officer (or Soul) which determines the uses to which its body will be put and thus also the quality and duration of its body’s lifetime.

And in this last paragraph we have a very brief summary of why Mankind, although often physically inferior in size, strength, speed and attack & defence equipment, has to date proved himself the master of every other species on Earth, as well as master of an increasing proportion of his environment.

Taking mental, emotional and behavioural phenomena derived from animals which are demonstrably intellectually inferior to Man, and then using that same data to monitor and direct Man’s superior and fundamentally different behaviour, clearly continues the CREATING of social problems, rather than the solving of them.

300 years ago Alexander Pope rightly observed that: “THE PROPER STUDY OF MANKIND IS . . . . MAN”.   Nevertheless, psychiatrist Wilhelm Wundt (born in Leipzig in 1832, followed by Pavlov 1849, Freud 1856, Adler 1870, Jung 1875, Ellis and others) led the rest of psychiatry and psychology into the idea that we could all learn from experiments on, and studies of, the animal kingdom BECAUSE they all claim that Man is nothing more than a sophisticated 'animal' !

And these now proven desperately false theories they then applied – not only to individual men, women and children, and their monitoring and control - but also to their social interactions and responsibilities.

As a result, alongside butt-of-the-joke psychologists and provenly dangerous psychiatrists we have huge numbers of hard working and caring social workers tragically trying to do their best for humans with the “Social Sciences” designed by and for a totally different and inferior group of beings.

Problems dealt with by Social Services all inevitably involve “people”.  As a result Social Workers (just like Police and other Officials) must have a full understanding of both honest AND evasive human behaviour, if they are to recognise the fundamental and true nature of any individual problem, and thus come up with an effective solution.

There are nearly 60 identifiable human reactions to life and living, the majority of which you can NEVER learn from an animal, simply because animals just do not experience them.

These are the emotions which shape or hide the behaviour to be expected from an individual human in various sets of circumstances, and when a Social Worker is trained and practised in their recognition, that Worker is half way towards an effective solution, because he or she is operating from trained observation, knowledge, truth, facts, evidence, reality and actuality, rather than from theories, opinion, belief, hope and faith that Man IS, and is like, an animal.

But the psych theories on which Social Services mainly operate, in addition to regarding Man as fundamentally an animal, also regard the Brain as Man’s driving force in life.   BUT IT ISN’T.

The Brain is nothing more nor less than a superb electronic switchboard which handles communications between you (as a Soul) and your body, in order to be able to create effects in your environment AND to transmit to you the information about your environment which is collected by your five physical senses / perceptions.

Because psychiatrists and most psychologists – contrary to the massively greater number of religious faiths and believers - hold to the idea that Souls and Minds do NOT exist, the images they detect during brain-scans are falsely attributed to decision-making, planning, imagination, memory and all those activities actually originated – NOT BY THE BRAIN – but by the Soul in charge.  In other words, they are assigning CAUSE to what are in fact brain-scan detectable indications of Soul created EFFECTS as they take place in the Brain during their switchboard like transmissions between the Soul, the Body and the environment.

By missing and denying completely the Spiritual nature of Man and the existence of his Analytical Mind, and by mis-assigning the activities, qualities and goals of the Soul and the Analytical mind to the Brain, psychiatry, psychology, neurology and much of sociology have effectively diverted Man’s future progress down a path governed by psychiatrically promoted addiction and pharmaceutical profit motives

The fact that Brain is NOT the factor which distinguishes Man from animals is highlighted by the totally obvious fact that Man and animals BOTH HAVE BRAINS.  “Yes” say the psychs, “but they are of different sizes”. i.e. they are claiming that the varying size of a piece of grey matter from one flesh and blood animal body to another, is what determines each animal’s intelligence.

And some will even tell you that the reason a baby or young child is not as bright as an adult is because its head (and thus its Brain) is smaller !

So how do they explain the proven fact that in the first five years of a child’s life, a youngster learns far far more than the average adult in that same period ?  And does this mean that big adults are cleverer and more successful than small adults ?

Following a recent Social Services disaster in Derbyshire, when a baby was murdered by her own troubled mother, the main conclusion which seems to have been reached by the investigators is that, whilst it was well known that there was a problem, “there was a lack of professional curiosity”, and thus also a lack of effective decision-making and action.

But there has been no recognition or acknowledgement of the fact that this lack of interest or curiosity rests squarely on how much the APATHY which an unworkable, unsuccessful and failing set of professional theories AND TRAINING can dull workers’ perceptions, enquiring instincts and successful investigations.

And, because of INADEQUATE AND INEFFECTIVE TRAINING, that bored and monotonous level of enquiry extends beyond investigation and into the selecting of solutions for any problem which may have been rightly or wrongly decided upon.

In fact, because of the difficulties the average hard working, dedicated and caring Social Worker experiences in regularly producing fully effective outcomes, they themselves increasingly experience bouts of worry, uncertainty and apathy, and that apathy regularly manifests itself at all Staff levels including the Executive levels.

As consequence, whilst shortage of personnel or finance are usually publicly blamed, absence of full or appropriate training actually is very often detected.

Unfortunately however, because of the hold which Psychology and Psychiatry (as well as Pharmacology) has over the whole Social Services Sector, EVEN MORE costly IN-appropriate and IN-effective training is then entered into, along with a demand to government for more money.

The only proper study of the mind is to be found in the book: “DIANETICS® The Modern Science of Mental Health” by L. Ron Hubbard, which has sold infinitely more copies in practically every language spoken on Earth than any other mental health publication. As a result, Dianetics is by far the most widely used and effectively practised science of the mind, and one of Hubbard’s follow-up volumes entitled “SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL” laid the foundation for peaceful and effective social interaction.

Not surprisingly, Dianetics and Hubbard have both been viciously attacked since day one by German and American Psychiatry in a fruitless endeavour to perpetuate their pseudo-science and to maintain their entrenched “authoritative” "we've-been-here- longer" position with many government departments, including those in the United Kingdom.

Fortunately that situation is changing in many countries, not only because of Dianetics’ successes, but because of increasing psych failings in many sectors.

For further information and discussion, you may wish to phone (01342) 811099 any day after 11.00am & before 9.00pm or, if no reply, e-mail keneck@btinternet.com.

__________________________________________

This report posted by: S.A.F.E.

the

Society for an Addiction Free Existence

__________________________________________

THE ALLERGIES OF SIGHT & SOUND:

ALLERGIES, DRUG ADDICTION,

PSYCHOSOMATIC ILLNESSES

AND POOR MENTAL HEALTH.

IS THERE A CONNECTION ?

A recent T.V. programme on allergies proved excellent as far as it went. Unfortunately, whilst it painted a near perfect picture of what was known of that subject in 1955, it fell so far behind what is known today from 67 years of Dianetics® practice, that it renders the producer’s dedicated work nothing more than a description of what allergies, and particularly asthma, DO to sufferers and how best to handle and alleviate their symptoms.

This statement does not undervalue the work of that programme, but reveals that it did nothing to expose and handle the underlying cause of allergies.

Just ask yourself the question: “If bedbugs, cat hairs and dust mites are the real cause of asthma, because these are present in 99.9% of houses across the land – why have we not all got asthma ??”

Also - if we clean up the family home to a point which provides the relief so desperately sought, how do we handle their local school, or the hotel where they go on holiday ?

For many decades the medical profession has recognised and treated various allergic reactions to the touch, the taste, the smell and / or the ingestion of a wide range of substances.

Over the years, nuts, eggs, dairy produce, cats, dogs, animal fur, new mown grass, warm tar, tobacco-smoke, alcohol, sugar, shell-fish, fresh paint, chemicals, drugs and numerous other everyday substances have been identified as “triggering” asthma, hay-fever, bronchitis, eczema, dermatitis, re-occurring stomach problems and streaming eyes, as well as migraine headaches, coughing, sneezing, vomiting, diarrhoea, acne and other physical ailments.

Because of the growing incidence and recognition of allergies, it is increasingly suggested that we need to know more about their cause, so that we may know more about their cure.

SO LET’S START BY EXAMINING A TYPICAL PROGRESSION IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF ALLERGIES.

The first indication is generally when a person manifests an undesirable, unusual and unexplained physical – or even a mental - reaction.

As examples, the individual feels breathless, or breaks out in a rash, has bouts of sneezing, vomits, has a headache or other pain, feels dizzy or faint, exhibits irrational fear or anger, passes out, or even has more than one symptom occurring at the same time – all for no apparent reason.

If this later becomes recognised as occurring regularly and is suspected to be an allergic reaction to some substance in his or her environment, a search is then undertaken to discover the exact factor or re-stimulator in the surroundings which is triggering the particular symptom or reaction.

Observation, examination and testing is normally expected to eventually discover that a specific factor or factors in the sufferer’s environment is responsible. e.g. in the presence of dogs Bill has breathing problems or, (another example) the smell or taste of boiled milk makes Mary break out in a rash.

Steps are then taken to keep the subject patient away from dogs or boiled milk or whatever has proved to be the ‘trigger’.   Alternatively, medical attempts are made using medicines or drugs to reduce the sensitivity of the subject, or to reduce the impact of the triggering factor on the subject.

Questions might be asked as to why Bill should be affected by dogs in this way when neither his brother nor his sister have the same problem.   And similar questions might be asked as to why Mary should be so affected by boiled milk, when no one else in the family or amongst her friends is similarly distressed.

In fact, if the problem was ‘dogs’ or ‘milk’, then one might expect dogs and milk to have the same effect on everybody.  But they don’t.  So is the problem ‘Bill’ and ‘Mary’ ?  Or is it as a result of something which has earlier happened to Bill involving dogs, and also as a result of something which has earlier happened to Mary involving hot milk ?

In the medical profession anything from ten to fifty percent or more of medical conditions are considered to be ‘psychosomatic diseases’, i.e. illnesses caused by or originating in the mind or psyche - rather than as the result of a direct or immediate effect upon the organism of current infection, contagion, germs, viruses, impacts, injury or other physical causes.

In fact, according to the authoritative, widely used and highly respected “Black’s Medical Dictionary”: “Psychosomatic diseases are illnesses resulting from the effects of excessive or repressed emotions upon bodily function or structure.

They affect vast numbers of patients who are not out of their minds and yet do not have any organic disease to account for their illness.”

And in this dictionary definition we have what to many is clearly a rather accurate description of an allergic reaction.

But the trouble is that as soon as the term “psychosomatic” applies to a particular disease sector, the average physician regrettably tends to leave investigation and treatment of it to psychiatry.

Which unfortunately means that the whole field of psychosomatic disease and investigation of many allergies is left to THE MOST CONFUSED AND INEFFECTIVE BRANCH OF MEDICINE.

Clear signs of this confusion appear in the introduction to psychiatrist Angelina Gibbs’ book "Understanding Mental Health" where she asks: "What is mental illness?".

Which she goes on to answer with: "This is the first of many questions on mental health which cannot be answered conclusively."   "Theories abound" she writes, and in the chapter "What causes mental illness?" she tells us that "Usually only a partial answer can be given because not enough is yet known about the causes of mental illness . . . ."  i.e. about illnesses of the mind.

If one doubts the confusion which exists in psychiatry, one has only to consider the definition of “mind” as given in the authoritative "Dictionary of the Mind, Brain & Behaviour" by the well known psychology Doctor Chris Evans, and the definition of psychiatry itself which concludes as follows:

“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." (ISBN 0 09 918070 07)

And this “hit or miss variety” of medicine is that branch to which the other branches of medicine have delegated the whole field of non-organic, mental and psychosomatic medicine. i.e. likely up to 50% of all human health problems !

But, as we have just learned from the horse’s mouth - the trouble with modern psychiatry is that it is still without a working theory of the mind.  Which is too much like saying: “My son’s a judge, but has a difficult job because there is no agreement on what constitutes the law.”!

An astute doctor might rationalise that the dog (which playfully chased Bill down the field at five years of age and, after he had fallen in the grass, licked his face whilst he was lying crying, frightened, hurt and winded from running) ‘might’ have something to do with Bill’s asthma and pronounce his problem as being a psychosomatic allergic reaction to dogs.

Or a similarly astute doctor might note that when Mary had measles at four years, her grandma – believing that very hot boiled milk was a good old-fashioned measles cure – had insisted on tearfully force-feeding it to her for a whole week saying each time: “Now stop crying”. Resulting in a later aversion to those words and that beverage which would – ‘oddly enough’ - make her break out into a rash not unlike measles.

But now we have another very interesting observation.  Namely that, whilst physicians identify allergies in relation to the so-called ‘lower’ senses – i.e. the taste, touch and / or smell of a given substance – one seldom if ever hears of a person being allergic to the colour or shape of something, or allergic to the sound of something or to a word, statement, tone of voice or noise, etc.

Yet these involve the two ‘higher’ senses of sight and hearing, and one would expect that allergies via these two vital senses would thus have far more influence on a person’s life than allergies concerned only with the “lower” senses.

After all, we regard someone with poor or totally absent hearing or sight as very seriously disabled, but merely sympathise with a person who has a distorted or absent sense of taste, touch or smell which we consider as less of a handicap.

So . . . . are there also allergies to sights and sounds and, if so, how should we recognise / categorise them ?

We earlier started by examining the typical diagnostic progress of an allergy and the business of relating its incidence directly to the reoccurring presence of some physical ‘trigger’ in the subject’s environment, e.g. nuts, eggs, dairy produce, cats, dogs, bed bugs, new mown grass, chemicals, dust-mites, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

But if the trigger were a sight or a sound, are we able to know?   Transient perception available to the subject at the time is not there for a later researcher.

Could it be a visible action of some sort ?  Could it be a word or phrase ?  And we need to ask these questions because we can see that when a stage hypnotist tells his subject “If I touch my tie, you will take off your jacket” - THE SUBJECT ACTUALLY DOES SO !

And when the hypnotist tells his subject “whenever I say “its hot in here”

you will put your jacket back on” - THE SUBJECT DOES SO.

Therefore it definitely could be an action, and it could be a word or phrase.

In fact the mechanism which the hypnotist uses is very like that which takes place in the mind when an allergic reaction crops up.

Some painful, threatening, enforced and unwanted incident in the subject’s earlier life tells him that dogs are dangerous and frightening and that they leave you breathless and crying, and that when dog’s are around you have to get away from them but that because you survived in a breathless and tearful state last time that’s probably a safe state to be in this time.

Not dis-similar to the hypnotist saying: “Whenever there’s a dog present you will get out of breath and your eyes will water” – and the subject does this. And rather similar to the hypnotist saying: “Whenever I say “now stop crying” you’ll break out in a measles-like rash” – and the subject does.

A person becomes capable of being hypnotised under a variety of conditions.

There can be a hypnotist present practising his or her trade . . . .

Or a person can be under the influence of one of the drugs listed as a “hypnotic” in the British National Formulary pharmaceutical “drugs bible”.

Or a person can be tired, poorly from some germ or virus, feeling dizzy from travel or sea-sickness, fainting from hunger, fatigue or lack of sleep, slightly or seriously physically injured, drunk, affected by food poisoning, fully or partly unconscious or generally under the weather, etc.

Drugs and other chemicals which can make you susceptible to verbal and visual suggestions or commands are too numerous to list here, but include: the main ranges of sedatives and sleeping pills, tranquillisers, the benzodiazepines, methadone, buprenorphine, many pain killers, nearly all street drugs (especially heroin and cannabis), alcohol, solvents and even the so-called ‘uppers’ in their hangover stage after their initial stimulative effect has worn off.

We’ve all heard the hypnotist say that he is going to put his subject into a ‘nice sleep’ and that when the subject ‘wakes up’ he will feel wide awake and refreshed and will forget all that has happened between ‘sleeping’ and ‘waking’.

And so the hypnotist’s subject really does not remember what happened to him or her !

Likewise, Bill and Mary do not recall their dog and milk and “now stop crying” incidents.

Like other researchers, if you think about this, you will recognise that the reason the hypnotist can create these sorts of effects is because – knowingly or unknowingly – he is using an existing natural mechanism of the human mind.

The same mechanism which accounts for psychosomatic illnesses including allergies – i.e the Reactive Mind discovered by L. Ron Hubbard.

In the same way that the body is a self-protecting and healing mechanism, so also is the human mind.   But before we look into its self-protection mechanisms and how they can affect our lives, we need to look more closely at what the mind is and does, etc.   Much more closely than psychiatry has ever managed to do.

This is of course psychiatry’s first and most fundamental failure.  Its self-confessed failure to discover the true nature of the healthy mind and its operation.   Pretending instead to be able to deal with so-called ‘mental disorders’, i.e. symptoms assumed by psychiatrists to have their source in the BRAINS of the ‘mentally ill’.

In fact psychiatry is so far away from a scientific understanding of the “mind” and “brain” that it actually confuses “mind” with the “brain”, which of course is merely a flesh and blood extension of the nervous system, a fact which can be verified in any butcher’s shop.  (Somewhat like confusing ‘software’ with computer ‘hardware’.)

The mind is demonstrably:

i) an analytical mechanism which, using identification, comparison and differentiation, poses, observes and resolves problems to accomplish survival of the whole human organism and its controlling beingness, plus

ii) a reactive mechanism which works on a totally stimulus response basis restricted to identification (without analysis) to accomplish the survival of the body alone.  (The ultra-fast motion of removing one’s hand from a hot stove without calculating its temperature is stimulus response).

Both parts of the mind do their ‘thinking’ with mental image pictures of actual experience and the analytical part also uses mental image pictures of imaginable experience to presuppose or postulate future survival.

(For a fully detailed and accurate description of the human mind see: “DIANETICS, the Modern Science of Mental Health” by L. Ron Hubbard, – to which this article is totally indebted.)

Between the analytical and the reactive minds ALL the experiences of the human organism are recorded.  With the analytical mind operating at, and recording, only those times when the organism is awake and in good condition, and with the reactive mind continuously operating and recording, including those times when the body is experiencing actual physical pain, impact, injury and / or unconsciousness, loss, threat, fear, etc., . . . as well as times when the reactive mind is reminded by its environment of earlier physical pain, etc.

At such reactive (i.e. unreasoning) times, the analytical mind is fully or partially shut down, creating the condition of full or partial unconsciousness.   In addition, any tastes, physical touchings, smells, sights and sounds present in the original painful incident can act as allergic triggers attempting to get the individual to move away from the area of restimulation because historically those perceived sensations were earlier associated with pain and / or unconsciousness, etc.

Unconsciousness is thus a full or partial loss of analytical control of the organism leading to full or partial reactive control of the organism.

The organism’s perceptions of its current environment are (subject to normal working of the organs of perception) all essentially recorded in date and time order in three-dimensional animated colour picture form along with sound, taste, touch, smell and action, and any conclusions and speculations made at the time.

These records of perceptions, etc., are made in both the reactive and the analytical minds when the latter mind is in operational control of the organism, but are made in the reactive mind alone when the analytical mind is in a state of unconsciousness or semi-consciousness.  As a result, the analytical mind is basically unaware of the content of the reactive mind, and the recordings in the reactive mind are therefore un-analysed.

Stimulus response mechanisms in animals were first explored by Wundt’s student the Russian veterinarian Pavlov who confined his best known studies to what were essentially the reactive minds of dogs.   These same minds he then mistakenly also attributed to human beings, completely missing the fact that humans normally operate analytically, displaying reactive conduct only when the body is under physical or reactive attack.

The hailing by many, of Wundt as the father of modern psychiatry, was that profession’s second major failure, as it has permitted the generation of the idea that man is a stimulus response zombie-like organism which can be controlled in the same way that Pavlov controlled, motivated and manipulated his dogs, and other researchers manipulated rats.

However such zombie-like response can only be achieved if an individual is kept in a continuing reactive state by the application of hypnosis, drugs, physical pain or discomfort and threats to survival.

It is therefore interesting that Britain’s most prolific pushers of pharmaceutical prescription drugs are psychiatrists, and that their marketing activities have largely involved the hypnotic drug categories and the creation of lifetime addiction via so-called ‘habit management’ and 'behaviour management' based on benzodiazepines, methadone, buprenorphine and other powerfully addictive drugs - all with painful side-effects and / or acutely uncomfortable withdrawal symptoms.

As the reader may well by now have recognised, the allergies of sight and sound mirror those conditions loosely defined as ‘mental illnesses’.  It is a mental not a physical aberration when an individual will remove his jacket because someone else touches his tie.   It is equally a psychosomatic aberration or condition when an individual will go into an asthma attack because a dog is present, or break out in a rash because someone says “now stop crying” and / or offers milk.

No part of the so-called technology of psychiatry has ever consistently produced results which benefited the patient.

Narcotic shock ‘therapy’, Pre-Frontal Lobotomy, E.C.T. (Electric Shock ‘therapy’), leucotomy and Deep Sleep “Therapy”, etc., have over the years contributed more to bringing psychiatry into disrepute than they have to the restoration of sanity and a normal life to its patients.

On the medical TRAINING side, there has long been a close control by the pharmaceutical industry of medical practice in general.   However, just over half a century ago, with street drugs beginning to make their presence felt beyond the actual users, and with governments desperate for solutions to the growing “drugs problem”, the increasing “guidance” or “direction” by “big pharma” of the psychiatric sector started to become more marked, so that today it is without question true that a symbiotic relationship has been reached, and that psychiatry is now the pharmaceutical industry’s prescription drugs marketing arm.

This came just in time to give psychiatry a new lease of life based on a deliberate escalation of the prescribing of pharmaceutical drugs to mental health patients and drug addicts.  The psychiatrists made their contribution to the burgeoning psycho-pharmaceutical relationship by quickly “discovering” more and more “mental conditions” (from a dozen or so to nearly 400 in less than 65 years) all of which luckily ‘proved treatable’ “ONLY” with pharmaceutical drugs - OR SO PSYCHIATRY SAYS !

In fact it is the pharmaceutical industry, plus its expanding range of potent prescription drugs (many of which are unsafe), which today keeps psychiatry in business, whilst in return the American Psychiatric Association invents more and more ‘mental disorders’ for which the pharmaceutical industry can develop treatments based on more and more profitable drugs.

And here we have another of psychiatry’s major failures.  Instead of developing a true science of the mind & instead of totally inappropriately & dangerously applying research on dogs & rats to human beings, psychiatry has grabbed at the chance to be partnered with the wealth, power and influence of pharmacology and the international chemical industry.

The failures of psychiatry are not just:

1) its inability to truly help those with mental disorders.

2) its near total lack of real interest in beneficial results - the benevolence of many (but not all) psychiatrists having been subjugated to their desire for a good income based on a ‘fingers crossed’ dependence on pharmaceutical drug prescribing and,

3) psychiatry’s long-term attempts to rob Britain of truly effective prevention training and real cures by DELIBERATELY SABOTAGING those organisations which can deliver effective prevention and treatment, and which are thus able to expose psycho-pharmacological deceptions.

It is psychiatry which is doing most to usher in the bio-chemical society and thus condemn us all to a life as stimulus response drug controlled zombies. Their goal is a world population all daily dependent on medication or other drugs - SOLELY FOR PSYCHO-PHARMACEUTIC POWER AND PROFIT ! Which brings us back to allergies and “mental disorders” and why they do not get cured.

You will by now have recognised that an allergy is a condition which the sufferer carries with him or her.   An allergy is personal to each sufferer.   It is the sufferer’s mentally programmed personal reaction to a set of environmental circumstances which can occur anywhere and at any time.

Changing the environment does not change that condition.   CHANGING THE SUFFERER’S MIND DOES.

And because the allergies of sight and sound are essentially what we today recognise as “poor Mental Health” the sufferer’s reaction can be changed by a Dianetics practitioner who knows the structure and mechanisms of the mind, and can thus help the individual locate the reactive incident(s) in his or her life which are acting as a hypnotic command triggering past reactions which are inappropriate and irrational for current environmental stimuli.

Please therefore recognise: . . . . that creating good mental health is quick and inexpensive when you know about the reactive mind and how to defeat it.

But instead pharmaceutically grant trained G.Ps currently “treat” (quite unwittingly) bogus mental disorders psychiatrically invented just in order to promote addictive pharmaceutical drugs sales.

IN OVER 50% OF CASES, IT TAKES ONLY ONE 7 TO 14 DAY, 3 TIMES A DAY, DOCTOR'S PRESCRIPTION OF AN ADDICTIVE DRUG (such as Opioid painkillers, Valium or another Benzo, etc.,) TO CREATE A LIFETIME INVOLUNTARY DRUG ADDICT, PAID FOR BY U.K. TAXPAYERS.

As a result, at a cost to the U.K. Taxpayer of £10,000,000 (£TEN MILLION POUNDS) a day, there are four times as many patients FULLY ADDICTED to National Health Service supplied LEGAL pharmaceutical drugs as there are individuals addicted to ILLEGAL recreational drugs !

Recovery from addictive substance use starts with a lasting return to the natural state of relaxed abstinence into which 99% of our population is born.

Such full recovery can be achieved by self-help addiction recovery training, but never by so-called opioid substitution “treatment” !

AND PLEASE REMEMBER:

YOU CAN NEVER BECOME ADDICTED TO A DRUG WHICH YOU NEVER TAKE . . . . BECAUSE IT IS DRUG-TAKING ALONE WHICH CREATES ADDICTION.

Which makes: “SAY “NO” TO DRUGS” the best advice ever given !

PLEASE ALSO REMEMBER:

When you spend N.H.S. budgets on keeping millions of patients daily addicted without cure, you also annually increase the number of patients IN TREATMENT and so increasingly deprive every other part of our N.H.S. and our A&E services of the funds, personnel, premises and equipment they so desperately need.

____________________________________________

This Blog Posted by the:

Society for an Addiction Free Existence

(SAFE)

_____________________________________________

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND TODAY'S UGLY:

WHY THE SUBJECT OF

 

"MENTAL HEALTH" IS

SO CONFUSED AND SO

BADLY MIS-MANAGED

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.

BUT HOW DID PSYCHIATRY GET INTO THIS STATE ?

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.

WHY?

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.

WHETHER USING ILLICIT DRUG BARON SUPPLIES, OR LEGAL PHARAMAEUTICAL PRESCRIPTIONS, EACH U.K. ADDICT, IS DAILY TAKING AN ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE WHICH HAS TWO MAIN PROPERTIES:

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.

AND ALL IT TAKES FOR AN IMPROVING REVOLUTION IN “MENTAL HEALTH” TO GET UNDER WAY, IS FOR GOVERNMENT MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS TO START MEETING WITH AND LISTENING TO TRAINED SCIENTOLOGISTS.

THAT'S IT !

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:

A.W.A.S.H.

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:

https://goo.gl/DUm5Nr