Substance Use Questionnaire Part I Substance Abuse History: Fill & Download for Free

The short answer: Yes.The longer answer:Adoption should not be classified as an easy solution to abortion because, for obvious reasons, adoption and abortion are no where near being the same thing. Women who choose to place their biological child for adoption do not do so for the same reasons women choose abortion. Yet, for some reason, adoption is labeled as something that fixes something else. When adoption is seen as a solution to abortion and not as a solution for a child who does not have a home or biological parents who are capable for caring for them, we start to see flawed thinking.Just like abortion, adoption is a complex decision. Other than that, the similarities between the two end.Why? Simple:The opposite of abortion is to give birthThe opposite of adoption is to raise the child you already gave birth toYes, many women who do not want/can not raise a child may consider both options - abortion or adoption - before they settle on one, but this doesn’t make adoption the solution. People continue to conflate that taking away access to one choice is fine because another choice is still there…that makes absolutely no sense, period, and I have numbers to back that up further. However, logically, the “adoption solves abortion” argument is inherently flawed thinking in its entirety.The thing about the anti-choice movement is this: forcing women to give birth is not “pro life”.I think it is very telling when you see the focus of priorities of anti-choice law makers.For instance, with abortion, there are laws that favor pressuring women who are pregnant to reconsider abortion:There are 27 states that make pregnant women have “Mandatory Waiting Periods” before they can have an abortion: [1]Many states require waiting periods between provider counseling and the abortion procedure. These mandatory waiting periods may require a woman to make two trips to the health care provider if the state requires the woman to receive counseling in person (as opposed to telephone, video call, or another avenue).“Informed Consent”: [2]A state may require a physician to provide a woman with such information such as alternatives to abortion, sources of financial aid, development of the child, and the gestational age of the child. Prior to 1992, informed consent provisions were unconstitutional.Another unethical thing with “informed consent” laws is that some states make doctors tell women that abortions will likely cause mental health issues: [3]In several states, including Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia, "informed consent" laws require health care providers to tell women seeking an abortion that the procedure can lead to mental illness. These laws are based in part on a 2009 study by psychology researcher Priscilla Coleman, who found a higher incidence of depression and other psychological disorders among women who had abortions.Since that time, many scientists — including Weitz herself — have published papers showing how Coleman's research methods were flawed. She made the basic "correlation equals causation" error, said Weitz. "You may have higher rates of depression in the population of women who choose abortion, but that's part of why they choose abortion. You can't make a causality argument, but that's what these studies try to do."Why is this weird? Because there are no informed consent laws regarding adoption.Why should there be? Because women should not be bullied towards one choice, period, especially if they do not have reliable information on either.So far, I see vulnerable women being taken advantage of, either way:Birth mothers can sign their rights away (permanently) as a mother to their child shortly after they give birth in these states: [4]Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin, WyomingWhy does this matter? Because a birth mother can still be under the affects of pain medication, hormone fluctuations, etc. when making this choice.Birth mothers are also not informed that their biological child placed for adoption will more likely struggle with identity issues, learning disabilities, low self esteem, depression, anxiety, addiction, abandonment issues, ADD, ADHD, suicidal ideation/attempts:Identity Issues: [5]Identity formation begins in childhood and takes on increased importance and prominence during adolescence (Grotevant, 1997). Adoption is a significant aspect of identity for adopted persons, even when they are adults (Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2009). The task of identity development may be more difficult for an adopted person because of:the additional issues related to adoption, such as why he or she was placed for adoptionwhat became of the birth parentsdoes he or she have siblingswhether he or she resembles the birth parents in looks or in other characteristics.Learning Disabilities: [6]Low Self-Esteem: [7]Often accompanying these issues of identity are issues of self-esteem—that is, how the adopted person feels about him or herself. A number of studies have found that, while adopted persons are similar to nonadopted persons in most ways, they often score lower on measures of self-esteem and self confidence (Borders, Penny, & Portnoy, 2000; Sharma, McGue, & Benson, 1996). This result may reflect the fact that some adopted persons may view themselves as:differentout-of-placeunwelcomerejectedSome of these feelings may result from:the initial loss of birth parents and from growing up away from birth parents, siblings, and extended family members.They also may be caused by an ongoing feeling of being different from nonadopted people who know about their genetic background and birth family and who may be more secure about their own identity as a result.Additionally, some adopted persons report that secrecy surrounding their adoption contributes to low self-esteemDepression: [8]Cubito (1999) compared adoptees to normative data utilizing the Brief Symptom inventory as a measure of overall distress, the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale, and the Anger Content Scale of the MMPI-2. Adoptees were compared to two normative scales; one for everyday people in our society, and one for a sample of outpatient mental health clinic patients.The overall finding was the adoptees scored about halfway between the outpatient and normative data on all of the test instruments. The same author found another sample of adoptees to score significantly higher (p<.01) on the same measures of overall distress and depression but not on the anger scale when compared with normative data for these tests (Cubito, 1996).Anxiety: [9]Another surprising conclusion that the Minnesota study produced was the fact that children adopted from within the U.S. are more prone to behavioral disorders than those adopted from overseas. Some 40,000 children worldwide annually emigrate from more than 100 countries through adoption, a trend increasing rapidly in the U.S. since the 1970s. But these foreign adoptees are far more likely to internalize their problems, suffering more commonly from depression or separation anxiety disorders.Domestic adoptees, on the other hand, tend to act out. While consistent with adolescents studied in both North America and Western Europe, Keyes says, this finding "goes against preconceived notions that kids from foreign cultures would have a harder time adapting to new families."Addiction: [10]Data collection included the Childhood Problems Scale, the Minnesota Substance Abuse Problem Scale, and the Minnesota Substance Abuse Treatment Questionnaire, and the Michigan Assessment-Screening Test/Alcohol-Drug. Findings showed that the prevalence of adoptees among SUD patients was 14 times higher than expected (95% Confidence Interval, 10 to 18 times).Adoptees reported childhood histories similar to those of non-adoptees with "any parental SUD", but they more closely resembled non-adoptees without parental SUD in regard to SUD severity and SUD treatment. Conclusion is that adoptees and their adoptive families should be alert to the increased risk of SUD among adoptees. Clinicians can expect that adoptees should manifest milder levels of SUD morbidity, similar to "non-heredity" SUD.Feelings of abandonment: [11]There can also be significant concerns about feeling abandoned and "abandonable," and "not good enough," coupled with specific hurt feelings over the birthmother's choice to "reject" the child" to "give me away" or "not wanting me enough."Such hurtful and vulnerable feelings may be compounded should the child learn that the birthmother later had other children that she chose to raise herself.ADD & ADHD: [12]First, most individuals adopted as infants are well-adjusted and psychologically healthy. Nevertheless, there exists a subset of adoptees who may be at increased risk for externalizing problems and disorders. The odds of being diagnosed as having ADHD and ODD were approximately twice as high in adoptees compared with nonadoptees.This excess of clinically meaningful behavioral problems in adopted adolescents has significance for researchers who examine the effect adoption has on individual functioning, for adoption agencies and their workers who counsel and advise members of the adoption triad, and for physicians who are dealing with an overrepresentation of adoptees in their clinical practices.Suicidal Ideations/attempts: [13]The study of more than 1,200 teens, all living in Minnesota, found that those who were adopted were almost four times more likely to attempt suicide. Out of all the participants, 47 out of 56 who attempted suicide were adopted, and girls faced a larger risk. Of the 47 adopted teens, 16 were boys and 31 were girls, and among those who weren’t adopted, four were boys and five were girls, Medscape reported.“Adolescence, in general, is a period of higher risk [for suicide attempt],” Dr. Victor Fornari, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at North Shore-LIJ Health System, told HealthDay News. “And now there’s evidence that the risk may be relatively higher for adopted adolescents.”American Academy of Pediatrics Study: [14]According to a 2001 survey conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, it was found that attempted suicide is more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents than among adolescents who live with biological parents.This does not mean that most adopted kids will venture down this route; merely that there are commonalities with adopted children that separate them from birth children and might make them more prone to the causalities of suicide.I want to make it clear that I am not saying that adoption shouldn’t happen; I am saying that the birth mother is led to believe that her biological child will live happily ever after when it is more likely they will suffer - this is important because women are told that one option has x amount of risks but the other option is regarded as perfect. This shows a gross disregard about women making informed decisions, period. In fact, it shows that many law makers are willing to exploit and bully women based on a falsehoods.I’m adopted - in no way am I suggesting that people should not adopt - I love my parents and feel sick to my stomach when I even think about the possibility of them not adopting me.I am making the point that women are bullied into not aborting and that is not how it should be. Women should have access to reliable information for all of their options - it should be illegal to try and control what choice the woman ultimately picks.Birth mothers are also not told how they might feel after placing a child for adoption: [15]3/4 of birth mothers still experienced feelings of loss 12 to 20 years after placing their newborns.A study from the Donaldson Adoption Institute shows extensive data regarding the pain that birth mothers feel the rest of their lives regarding placing their child for adoption [16]In essence, women are pressured to carry a pregnancy to full term and then lose their biological child due to information that is purposefully deceitful and manipulative.The following will be based on information available in the United States.As an example of anti-choice people oversimplifying adoption, consider this quote from Mike Pence: [17]"There are so many families around the country who can't have children. We could improve adoption so that families that can't have children can adopt more readily those children from crisis pregnancies."The falsehoods in Pence’s quote:The terminology of “Crisis pregnancies” is faulty because “crisis” shouldn’t be assumed to mean that the issue is the lack of a parentPence alludes to a false reality; he asserts that there is a shortage of kids to adoptPence also objectifies women by talking about them as if their bodies should be seen as property for reproductive reasons - that is dehumanizing and misogynistic.Pence is wrong in alleging that not enough children are available for adoption. For instance, just considering the Foster Care system alone, here are the numbers: [18]Of the 400,000 children in foster care, more than 100,000 of them are waiting to be adopted.The former VP of public policy at the Guttmacher Institute, Cory L. Richards, said: [19]“Increasing the rate of completed adoptions, however valid on its own merits, is irrelevant to the abortion rate. And increasing the rate of newborn relinquishments, even assuming it could be done in an ethically and socially acceptable way, at best would be tinkering at the margins.Even if relinquishments doubled, and each one of them represented an averted abortion, it would make hardly a dent in the abortion rate.”And even if there were a shortage of children to be adopted, this is still unethical and misogynistic thinking; this logic ultimately produces a narrative that women are like cattle to be breed to produce offspring for others. That is a disturbing and corrupt way to view women and their bodies period.The people that do adopt are not adopting in rates that would put a dent in the abortions that currently occur. There would still be hundreds of thousands of children that aren't placed into families: [20]Adoptions in the U.S. in 2015:Comparatively, 699,202 abortions were done in the United States in 2012. [21]Based on the above numbers and the other statistics I included, I think it is clear that anti-choice argument regarding adoption is disingenuous and irrational.Footnotes[1] https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/mandatory-waiting-periods/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D[2] Abortion laws - Information on the law about Abortion - State Of The Statutes[3] Why don't we know more about the long-term effects of abortion?[4] Consent to Adoption: What Biological Parents Need to Know - FindLaw[5] https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/f_adimpact.pdf[6] The Paradox of Adoption[7] https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/f_adimpact.pdf[8] Internet Scientific Publications[9] Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com[10] Substance use disorder among adoptees: a clinical comparative study.[11] Long-Term Issues for the Adopted Child[12] The Mental Health of US Adolescents Adopted in Infancy[13] Adopted Teens 4 Times More Likely To Attempt Suicide: A Stark Reminder That Clinicians Should Take Parental Concerns Seriously[14] Attachment and Trauma Specialists[15] Impact of Adoption on Birth Parents: Responding to the Adoptive Placement[16] https://www.adoptioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2006_11_Birthparent_Study_All.pdf[17] The Mike Pence vs. Tim Kaine vice-presidential debate transcript, annotated[18] About the children[19] The Guttmacher Institute Mourns the Loss of Cory L. Richards, Executive Vice President and Vice President for Public Policy[20] Statistics | Intercountry Adoption[21] Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2012

It’s worse than a scam.It’s a profiteering, brutal pseudo-science, ruining millions of lives every day. With that said, you should NEVER stop taking any psychiatric medication, without proper clinical oversight.That’s the hardest part, trying to find one who will taper you safely and humanely, when they financially incentivized to keep you hooked. If you think you need a shrink, I hope you will think twice. When you schedule that $250 intake session, prepare to park your civil rights at the door.How to Drive Someone InsaneThe Shrunken Heads’ How-To Guide for ShrinksIn The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, the uncle demon Screwtape counsels his junior demon, Wormwood, how to tempt his ‘patient,’ converting him from a new believer into a mindless foot soldier in their evil revolution.“I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy. The ‘Life Force’, the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful.”[1]– The Demon ScrewtapeIntroductionThough comprehensive, most shrinks need one or two methods outlined below to drive their patients insane. Before he determines the best approach, the shrink must evaluate each patient’s worst hopes and fears, and how the patient best serves the shrink’s needs, before he defines his unique goals for each target.The vast majority of shrinks spend an average 10-15 minutes with the patient.[2] Therefore, most shrinks need to employ “The Comorbid Stranglehold” (See Step One) to enslave their patients, cripple their nervous systems, and empty their bank accounts.Please remember the absence of evidence is your best defense.Shrinks that pay attention to corruption in the FDA should take notes from their playbook. Prozac went to market after less than six weeks of FDA testing [3]. The trials were not double-blinded and it barely out-performed a placebo.The antidepressant Cymbalta went to market in three months, despite a higher than average rate of suicides.How many suicides?No one knows for certain. Reporters who file Freedom of Information Act requests receive rejection letters on the basis the number of suicides represents “proprietary information.”“I received a database that included 41 deaths and 13 suicides among patients taking Cymbalta. Missing from the database was any record of Johnson, or at least four other volunteers known to have committed suicide while taking Cymbalta for depression.”- “What The FDA Isn’t Telling,” Jeanne Linzer, Slate Magazine, 09/2005The FDA slapped all modern antidepressants with a black-box warning for the suicidal effects of these purported miracle medications. Strangely, the agency allowed doctors to double the recommended average maximum dose for a broader range of disorders,before the patent expired.The manufacturer, Ely Lily, hit major pay dirt in 2008, when the FDA approved Cymbalta for the long-term management of Major Depressive Disorder. This escalating pattern continued through 2011.The patent expired in 2013.In addition, all ADHD drugs received approval after less than four weeks after trials on children’s brains. [4] Yet, the FDA claims the standard trial length for any medication lasts an average ten months, with six months for “fast-tracked” drugs. The FDA implemented these PDUFA regulations in 1992, shortening the average required trial length to address the AIDS epidemic.[5] So we can conclude FDA-approved medications prior to 1992 were subjected to more stringent protocols at the time.Profits drive the rush to market, but we must also consider plausible denial.What are PDUFA regulations?The Prescription Drug User Fee Act allows the FDA to charge pharmaceutical companies huge fees to evaluate new medications. These fees have become the FDA’s bread and butter, constituting between 58% - 68% of their drug review process.Pharmaceutical companies pay the FDA $2.3 million to approve a new medication. The FDA has collected $7.67 billion in these fees over the years. It begs the bigger question: Are the FDA’s incentives and interests aligned with the tax-payer or the corporations?When the FDA adheres to the 10-month average trial period, there is no prescription medication on the market, with any knowledge of its long-term effects. After the first year, the public becomes the clinical trial.This claims holds especially true for psychiatric medications, which rely on subjective assessment scales, with effects reported from paid clinical research candidates. In later Cymbalta trials, email exchanges between company executives confirmed no scales were used to measure discontinuation effects, concealing the harrowing and sometimes lethal withdrawal from this “non-narcotic” drug.Dr. Detke stated that “We didn’t use any elicited scales. The data that exist are nicely summarized in a Perahia paper.” Dr. Detke then explained “[i]f you use an elicited scale, you’ll see higher rates. This WILL end up in the label.”But shrinks? Please don’t concern yourselves with FDA Guidelines.Government regulations, warnings, professional standards and medical ethics – these are not enforceable laws. You cannot violate a standard of care that does not exist in court. So have some fun!Whatever happens, it’s never your fault.If you cannot blame the patient, you can always blame the system!BackgroundPsychiatry is so subjective from a medical perspective, but so well insulated in the judicial system shrinks and their diagnoses enjoy special exemptions under HIPAA laws,[6] the Americans with Disabilities Act[7] and the kangaroo court of public opinion. In popular culture, Carrie’s Fisher interred her ashes in a huge Prozac-shaped urn.According to her brother, as quoted in Rolling Stone magazine:“It was her favorite possession, bought a long time ago…a big pill. She loved it. It was her favorite thing, and so that’s how you do it.” [8]What is the strange irony here?Fisher served as advocate for mental illness and publicly discussed her bipolar diagnosis. If you are rich and famous enough to receive decent healthcare, perhaps she enjoyed a much difference experience than 99% of patients. It does not change this fact: The FDA rejects the treatment of bipolar disorder with SSRIs and other modern antidepressants.[9]As a popular advocate for the psychiatric state, her last wishes elevated these medications to the sacred.It served as a powerful symbol that psychiatry has evolved into the new American religion, sanctioned by a complicit state, with psychiatrists as its new priests.[10]With rare exception, shrinks are the only medical professionals not required to share their clinical or progress notes with the patient. I cannot find a legal or political rationale beyond the notion this special exemption somehow protects the patient’s sensitive healthcare information, and the paternal noblesse oblige that psychiatric patients do not possess the psychological stamina to review their shrinks’ private insights.[11]We find another sardonic irony here.My former psychiatric provider shared my personal contact and diagnostic information with a research institute for mass-marketing, direct-mail purposes. After I filed a HIPAA privacy violation complaint, the DHHS Office of Civil Rights rejected this grievance outright.In other words, I cannot access my shrink’s private clinical notes, but my psychiatric provider can sell or share my contact and diagnostic information for mass marketing purposes, subjecting the patient to humiliating images, and reinforcing stereotypes.Because the shrink’s clinical notes only serve as a front-line defense strategy in malpractice suits, this exemption provides him with the incentive to record the worst notes possible about the patient.Rates and plans vary from state to state, so I cannot reach a definitive consensus, but I can make the fair argument that these exemptions explain why shrinks remain the most frequently disciplined medical professionals by their peers but are the least often successfully sued doctors, and thus pay the lowest malpractice insurance rates by a wide margin. [12].This study indicates shrinks are most often responsible for abusing their patients, but rarely held accountable. If you were an unethical medical school student, prone to fraud, and seeking to specialize where you had the most latitude over your patients with the least accountability?Which medical specialty would you chose?The table below demonstrates the average malpractice claim ranked by specialty. Do you believe shrinks are the least often sued because they make the fewest mistakes? For you sake, I hope you are not that naive.1) Engaging the Comorbid Stranglehold.“An increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula.”[13]– The Demon ScrewtapeAddiction is the greatest marketing strategy ever!These tactics serve as parts of an orchestrated strategy to enslave the patient’s mind and drive him insane. Its overall goal entraps the patient by perpetuating a cycle of compounded psychological and chemical dependency. This strategy holds for most psychiatric medications, even the “non-narcotic” antidepressants, especially the SNRIs. Though a so-called non-narcotic, Cymbalta produces withdrawal so notorious for causing suicides Ely Lily has quietly settled more than 5,000 Cymbalta Suicide lawsuits since 2014.If you cannot ensnare the patient in chemical dependency, you can entrap the patient on the back end, rendering his escape attempts miserably impractical and even lethal.“Although antidepressants diminish suicidal ideation in many recipients, about as many patients experience worsening suicidal ideation on active medication as they do on placebo.”– Teicher, MH, Drug Safety, March 8, 1993.The commonly prescribed psychiatric medications backfire over time, causing central nervous system and brain damage, leading to higher dosages and more medications. The shrink never attributes worsening or elusive symptoms to the drugs or protracted withdrawal.You must remember this evil axiom:The cure is never worse than the disease.In his coup de gras, the shrink attributes these symptoms to a worsening “underlying condition,” prescribing more medications, creating a greater need for his services. This compounded cycle of medication-induced mental illness continues until the patient overdoses or opens his eyes.“You’re a tough case. It takes this many medications to find the right cocktail for you.”[14]“I have treated you for two years. Whatever I prescribe, your symptoms become worse, or new symptoms emerge, so I have struggled to diagnose you. I don’t know where to put you, but you might be Bipolar II. In the past 15-20 years, we’ve come to realize that bipolar is more of a spectrum than a single disorder.”– Former shrink assigning a Bipolar II diagnosis by default circa 2008, declared misdiagnosed by the state’s leading researcher in 2013.In this respect, the allopathic blinders acquired in medical school serve the shrink’s purposes well here. After the shrink addicts the patient, he applies the comorbid stranglehold: 1) branding the patient a hardcore junkie and 2) an erratic lunatic. Two or more psychiatric diagnoses humbles sensitive but otherwise lucid minds. Please remember that your prescription pad is your best friend.Most shrinks serve one purpose: to prescribe medications. Drugs are the one and only reason your patients need you. It provides you with an endless number of aces up your sleeve, rarely failing to produce repeat business. In this pursuit, the tightened noose of chemical dependence always provides the best departure. It turns your prescription pad into a short leash.2) Creating the Illusion of Choice“We become what we fear.”My first talk therapist shared this precious gem.In college, an anxiety disorder overwhelmed my mind with intrusive fears, and what I call “fatal sensations” – NOT suicidal feelings, but a haunting sense of impending doom. I came of age at the advent of the AIDS epidemic, raised in a conservative religion. These two clashing themes spiraled into hideous panic attacks, ruining my 4.0 grade-point average and estranging me from my parents.At this tender age, I could not control my fears about AIDS – and the public hysteria, the televangelists foaming rapid at the mouth, already had damned me to hell. But the shrink made it so much worse. Her pseudo-therapeutic prophecy double doomed me. Without a supportive family at the time, and my relationship with God severed, it elevated the anxiety to such extremes I clung to shrinks. With Prozac on the cover of Newsweek magazine, they became my priests and psychiatry became my cult religion.At the end of George Orwell’s 1984, our protagonist must choose between a starving rat eating his face or returning to Big Brother’s flock. He not only returns to the fold, but he embraces his tormentor as his savior.His worst nemesis becomes his messiah.He becomes the grateful slave, laboring under the delusion of choice.Based on my experience, many psychiatric patients are grateful slaves.I could choose between crashing off two-four dangerous medications, or I could sing in the psychiatric choir. I approached it the right way, embracing he chance to go inpatient, to taper from these medications.A godless team of shrinks pulled me off all medications in five days.I was on both Cymbalta and Klonopin for around 10 years.In the end, combined sudden cessation from both medications nearly killed me. If you do not believe me, Stevie Nicks posted a great interview with Oprah Winfrey, where she compares her withdrawal from Clonazepam as worse than her decade-long cocaine addiction. I cannot draw a personal comparison to cocaine use, but I endured a mental anguish I would not wish on anyone, even the shrinks who tortured me.3) Establishing a therapeutic bond based on false trust.I posed this question to a trained psychoanalyst, regarding the absence of any regulations that require objective screening before he assigns a psychiatric diagnosis. I used the example of a patient assigned a Manic Depressive diagnosis when his symptoms stemmed from cocaine use.In psychiatric terms, he suffers from an “addictive disorder” not “manic depression,” but the shrink shoulders no burden to assign an accurate diagnosis. Despite the S.C.I.D. (DSM Structured Clinical Interview), there are no qualitative or quantitative screenings to confirm a psychiatric diagnosis. In twenty years, I have seen the S.C.I.D. used once to screen research candidates.(That’s how I learned I was misdiagnosed, not because any shrink cared enough to prove or disprove a suspect diagnosis, but because one happened to need candidates for a research study. This irony made me realize that my “treatment,” through all those years, was always about their needs, not mine).Back to the absence of diagnostic standards:Shrunken Head: “A simple urine test would reveal the real problem. Instead, this patient’s doctors prescribed benzodiazepines and other drugs. Where is the responsibility to identify the real issue, rather than reinforce his addiction, and further endanger the patient’s life?”Shrink: “If we force that patient to take a blood or urine test, then we undermine the premise of mutual trust the underscores the successful, therapeutic bond.”It sounds like a good reason and not an excuse, but the patient violates this premise of “trust” that fosters this alleged therapeutic bond.”The shrunken head celebrates how shrinks have created a logical edifice that resonates as psychological gospel, but does not produce results.The patient concedes to this logical fallacy: If it makes sense, then it must be true. Trust does not take priority over honesty because trust cannot exist independent of the truth, but we keep this evil secret to ourselves.If psychiatric diagnoses are credible, the truth must take precedence.This claim holds should we dare to assume the shrink desires to improve the patient’s mental health. Otherwise, the shrink and patient embrace the mutual delusion of trust, malingering for medications that further entrench the patient in addiction.I know one woman misdiagnosed bipolar, when she had Graves Syndrome, an inflammatory disorder. I know another woman with Lyme disease, misdiagnosed with major depression, ending up with a lifetime of arthritis. I have interacted with people with cancer, misdiagnosed with depression.This point is a crucial one:There are nutritional deficits, inflammatory issues, bacterial infections and, of course, substance abuse problems that cause “mental health” problems, but no psychiatrist is required to rule out other possibilities before subjectively assigning a diagnosis. That GROTESQUE level of malpractice kills.And how that ethical medicine?How is that scientific?4) Estranging the patient from friends and family.The shrink declares the patient suffered from sexual abused by a parent in the first few sessions. If she claims no abuse history, the shrink insists she suppressed those memories, emerging in her symptoms.“You buried them out of sight, but not out of mind, and now they have taken on a mind of their own.”So you don’t need evidence.You only need to plants the seeds of doubt. The tumorous roots amass until it consumes the mind of the host. In the Paul Lazano case, a Harvard campus shrink lured a medical school student into a sadomasochistic sex scandal, ending with the patient’s suicide in 1991.What was her first move?She declared that he suffered from repressed sexual abuse by his mother and physical abuse by his father. After she estranged him from his family – especially his mother – the shrink became his maternal replacement, regressing the patient to his “wounded infantile state.”[15]In the absence of evidence, she wielded doubt to isolate and seduce her patient.5) Forcing the Patient to Question Her Core Identity.Most psychiatric diagnoses serve this purpose. The worst psychiatric diagnosis that you can assign to the patient, despite their fictional and politically driven criteria, can act as the most effective weapon in your clinical arsenal.The “unspecified” diagnosis is also quite useful.It sucker punches the unsuspecting patient, and it bewilders her when she cannot grasp its vague criteria and circular definition. Recently, I tried to locate a less expensive shrink who would help me with my tapering goals. In retrospect, the shrink wanted me to participate in a clinical call-and-response at my intake session, completing a questionnaire on his computer.As a well “seasoned” patient, and an honest one, I learned that the truth, often taken out of context, does not set you free. He wanted simple answers but dismissed my questions and concerns. I needed to share my story, and he did not care. So he played the symptomatic version of the shame the patient game.It triggered a heightened anxious response. In twenty minutes, he declared me “bipolar,” accusing me of “pressured speech” and “flights of fancy.”This terse exchange ended our session:Shrunken Head: “You have known me five minutes, and I am already bipolar?”Shrink: “Well, I have known you twenty minutes.”The shrink can assign the patient a “Personality Disorder, Unspecified” diagnosis, because he “cannot control his emotions.” It does shut him up long enough, forcing the patient to interpret each fluctuation in mood, quirks in character, and character traits through your warped diagnostic filter.It compares to an oncologist sharing this diagnosis with a patient:“You have cancer, unspecified. We don’t know what organ it affects. We cannot isolate real symptoms, determine a course of treatment, and there’s no prognosis. But guess what? We don’t need to justify our diagnosis.Only in psychiatry does an opinion equal evidence.6) Twisting the Patient’s Values into Symptoms.For example, you can seduce a patient who does not believe in sex before marriage. After you have engaged the comorbid stronghold, forcing her to interpret her values as symptoms, you claim she suffers from “anhedonia” or the inability to feel pleasure.When she resists on religious or moral grounds, claim her “hyper-religiosity” springs from erotic conflicts, and repressed abuse memories (See Step Four).The shrink must remember to shame her “clinical treatment resistance.” Because she cannot discuss the topic like an adult, you might suggest that “perhaps we should explore this issue using non-verbal techniques?”Then explain erotic transference, stressing this sexual tension is “normal and expected” when it enters the therapeutic relationship. The next step takes some gumption. It assumes the patient holds some attraction for you.It best serves the evil shrink to prime the target with Prozac and tranquilizers, striking right after the drugs take effect. The drug-induced “normal euphoria” endears the patient to the shrink. Grateful patients are the most compliant.Then you ask this question:“Why do you fear your erotic transference for me?”7) Escaping Blame for Apathetic Inertia.“I hear you.”This common refrain enables the cornered shrink to ignore the patient’s needs while perpetuating the mirage of trust and the empathetic bond. This smokescreen justifies your inaction, and your failure to solve the patient’s problems. It appears to validate the patient’s pain but exempts you from curing anything – whatsoever – in history, while it does allows you to perpetuate crimes against humanity for more than a century.The patient pays the shrink for nothing of clinical value.What’s the best part? It never ends!——————————————————————————[1] The Screwtape Letters, Lewis, C.S. Page 31. HarperCollins, 1942.[2] Psychology Today. “Psychiatry’s Med Check: Is Fifteen Minutes Enough?” November 10, 2015[3] Toxic Psychiatry, Breggin, Peter Dr. Page 168. St. Martin’s Press, 1991.[4] “Premarket Safety and Efficacy Studies for ADHD Medications in Children,” PLOS ONE, Volume 9. Issue 7, July 2014.[5] History of Prescription Drug User Fee Act.[6] Patient Access to Psychiatric Medical Records - LawRefs.[7] The ADA Does Not Protect Persons with Bipolar Disorder in the Fourth Circuit[8] Rolling Stone Magazine. “Carrie Fisher’s Ashes Placed in Giant Prozac Pill Urn”[9] U.S. Food & Drug Administration: The Fact on Bipolar Disorder and FDA Recommended Treatment.[10] Szasz, Thomas Dr. “In the Church of America, Psychiatrists Are Priests.” Hospital Physician (October), 44-46.[11] South Carolina Physician’s Patient Act, Section 44-115-60.[12] New England Journal of Medicine: “Malpractice Risk According to Specialty” August 18, 2011.[13] The Screwtape Letters, Lewis, C.S. Page 44. HarperCollins, 1942.[14] One shrink’s response, during a two-week period (October 31, 2013 – November 13, 2013) when I was prescribed eight psychiatric medications for a “bipolar, unspecified” diagnosis. After two referrals, I volunteered to enter the hospital on November 24, 2013.[15] McNamara, Eileen. BREAKDOWN: Sex, Suicide & The Harvard Psychiatrist, NY Pocket Books, April 1994.

I answered earlier on something similar pertaining to obtaining a security clearance that can apply to the FBI & other government agencies' employment requirements/disqualifications for being considered/selected. All need a security clearance at different levels as needed. See below.Disqualifying conditions for a U.S. Security Clearance/EmploymentFrom Federal Regulations, PART 710 - CRITERIA & PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED MATTERDisqualifying conditions may include but are not limited to:arrest and/or conviction of a felony;frequent involvement with authorities even as a juvenile;DWI/DUI;having been a patient in an institution primarily devoted to the treatment of mental, emotional, or psychological disorders;A history of not meeting financial obligations. A pattern of financial irresponsibility (bankruptcy, debt or credit problems, defaulting on a student loan);membership in any organization that advocates the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States;having petitioned to be declared a conscientious objector to war;moving violations with fines over $200;illegal drug use (to include any use of cocaine, heroin, LSD, and PCP); and the illegal purchase, possession, or sale of any such narcotics.Deceptive or illegal financial practices, such as embezzlement, employee theft, check fraud, income tax evasion, expense account fraud, filing deceptive loan statements, and other intentional breaches of trustInability or unwillingness to satisfy debtsUnexplained affluenceFinancial problems that are linked to gambling, drug abuse, alcoholism, or other issues of a security concern.Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of a material fact in any written document or oral statement to the government when applying for security processingOther key factors taken into account include:Vulnerability to Coercion: Any omission, concealment, or falsification of material information increases an individual's vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or pressure.Problems in Work Performance: The work environment offers many opportunities to exhibit behavioral or psychological problems associated with unreliability, untrustworthiness, or poor judgment. These problems include rebellious attitude toward supervisors, habitual cutting of corners or failure to comply with regulations or procedures, lying to cover up mistakes, overreaction to real or imagined criticism, lack of commitment to the organization, a pattern of attendance or tardiness problems, careless operation of equipment.Employment History: Depending upon an individual's age and circumstances, frequent changes of employment without advancement raise the possibility of unsatisfactory work performance due to dishonesty, irresponsibility, drug use, emotional/mental problems, or other issues of security concern. For more information, see the Inability to Form a Commitment under Emotional, Mental, and Personality Disorders. It is often difficult for investigators to determine the true circumstances under which an individual terminates employment. Fearing lawsuits, many employers refuse to provide derogatory information about a former employee.Conditions of Military Discharge: Applicants often claim "honorable discharge" from military service when, in fact, they were given a "general discharge under honorable conditions." The latter means the individual was discharged for cause. The cause is often the inability to adapt to military life or some other form of unsuitabilities, such as a drug, alcohol, criminal, or emotional/mental problem. The personnel security questionnaire contains one easily recognized clue that a so-called "honorable discharge" maybe something else. If the applicant served less than the minimum time of service (e.g., only 18 months of a four-year enlistment), or was discharged on a date other than the anniversary date of his or her enlistment, it may be a general discharge under honorable conditions. In this case, adjudicators may wish to evaluate the reasons for the subject's early discharge.Multiple Traffic Offenses: Multiple traffic citations for reckless or high-speed driving, including driving with a suspended license, are examples of high-risk, antisocial behavior that may be a security concern. Many such offenses are arrests for driving while intoxicated that have been plea-bargained down to a lesser offense. A person with a large number of unpaid parking tickets may be considered a scofflaw. A large number of minor offenses raises concerns about a person's attitude toward authority and responsibility. A person who feels above the law in this respect may also feel that some security regulations are picky and unnecessary and do not merit his or her compliance.Arguing/Fighting/Uncontrolled Anger: There are questions of judgment and reliability if an individual has offenses for disorderly conduct, shows anger or argues at inappropriate times, or has fits of temper. A pattern of violent or aggressive reactions during adolescence is a rather stable personality trait that is unlikely to be outgrown with age.Civil Litigation: Many crimes are now pursued through civil actions rather than criminal proceedings. Spouse abuse and child abuse are often pursued as civil litigation requesting damages because pressing criminal charges could cause the offender to lose his job and jeopardize his ability to pay spousal or child support. New laws make it much easier and faster for merchants to pursue shoplifting charges in civil rather than criminal court. Some people who file numerous lawsuits have problems in interpersonal relations.Weapons Issues: Carrying a concealed handgun without a permit or any other weapons violation is a concern. The belief that one has specific enemies against whom one must be armed is also a concern.Gang Membership: Gang membership, by itself, is not a security concern. In some cases, the goals and objectives of the gang, or illegal activities in which the gang engages, do make membership a concern. Gang efforts to recruit military personnel to raise questions about gang objectives. In questionable cases, local criminal investigative agencies may be able to provide relevant information.Behavior Patterns Associated with Espionage: There is no single profile of the employee who is likely to betray an employer's trust. However, clinical assessment of Americans arrested for espionage and academic research findings on white-collar criminals, in general, do identify behavior patterns commonly found among such persons.Individuals who betray their employer's trust tend to possess certain personality disorders or personal weaknesses. They may be impulsive or immature, and likely to do whatever feels good at the moment. They may engage in high-risk activities without thinking about the consequences. They may have a propensity for violating rules and regulations. They may have drifted from one relationship or job to another, with little sense of purpose or loyalty to anyone or anything. They may have a grossly inflated view of their abilities so that disappointment and bitterness are inevitable.These three disorders are the ones most likely to be found in individuals who commit espionage, although not necessarily with a degree of severity to qualify as a disorder. They are: Antisocial Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder & Paranoid Personality Disorder.In many cases, the pattern of the observed behavior or test results might be better described as indicating a personal weakness or undesirable character trait rather than a "disorder." These personal characteristics are associated with high risk, irresponsible, or emotionally unstable behavior: · Impulsiveness/Immaturity, Inability to Form a Commitment, Vindictiveness, & Risk-Seeking.Borderline Personality Disorder: The principal characteristics of borderline personality disorder are: Unwarranted fear of rejection or abandonment, usually associated with low self-esteem. Such persons are uncomfortable alone. Examples of such behavior include inappropriate anger when someone important to them must cancel an appointment or panic at a temporary separation. A pattern of unstable relationships with friends, lovers, or bosses. Such persons need a great deal of nurturing and support from any relationship. They may initially idolize someone who provides that nurturing, but then shift suddenly and dramatically to view that same person as hostile or cruel if they do not care enough or are not "there" enough for them. Suicide, threats of suicide, or self-mutilation precipitated by fears of separation or rejection, such as fear of abandonment by a lover. Unstable self-image leading to sudden changes in career goals, values, or types of friends.Potentially damaging impulsive behavior in several areas such as substance abuse, unsafe sex, gambling, spending money irresponsibly, reckless driving, or binge eating. Inappropriate expressions of anger, or difficulty controlling anger; chronic feelings of emptiness or boredom; or short but intense periods of irritability or anxiety.