The NIMH: Using A Scientific Pretext To Fund Harm

Some research studies should be criminal. A good case in point is this study in an article found in Phys.Org, UC San Diego to study accelerated aging in schizophrenia.

Researchers at the Stein Institute for Research on Aging at the University of California, San Diego have received a $4 million grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), part of the National Institutes of Health, to study accelerated biological aging in schizophrenia.

Accelerated biological aging? They’re not really studying accelerated aging, are they? The short answer to this question is no. Poor health is often attributed to the psychiatric label that is actually the result, as is the case here, of the drugs given to treat the label. The researchers attribute this poor health falsely to the label as a method of getting more funding and of better deceiving the general public.

Scientists have long observed that schizophrenia is more than a brain disease, as it also affects a wide range of physical functions and entails more rapid biological aging. A number of studies have suggested that physiological changes seen throughout the body occur at an earlier age in people with schizophrenia. For example, young adults suffering from this mental condition are prone to diseases associated with growing older, such as diabetes and cardiovascular problems.

Suddenly we’re expected to digest the oxymoronic suggestion that there are old young people running around in the mental health system. Actually it is a well known fact that a metabolic condition associated with the use of the atypical neuroleptic drugs developed in the 1990s is the culprit. These drugs have a tendency to cause an excessive weight gain which accompanies the diseases mentioned in the article and results in early mortality. What these researchers will actually be studying is the iatrogenic ill health that doctors are directly responsible for causing. This is the research equivalent of poisoning somebody so that you can observe him or her in the process of dying.

To unravel biological mechanisms underlying faster aging, [principal investigator Dilip V.] Jeste and colleagues will measure and analyze a panel of biomarkers associated with insulin dysregulation, inflammation, oxidative stress, and cell aging. The last study involves measuring the length of telomeres – regions of DNA that protect the ends of chromosomes from deterioration and have been linked to longevity. In addition, researchers will investigate the effects of factors related to chronicity of schizophrenia, such as cumulative effects of medication.

There is an easy way to de-accelerate what these researchers are calling an aging process, and that is simply by reducing the dosage of neuroleptic drug that the research subjects are being given. The “cumulative effects of medication” are where the effects of the drugs have to be accumulated over the long-term in a subject. You could do the same thing with persistent low doses of potassium cyanine. “Chronicity” itself is related to the use of these drugs for what is termed “symptom management”. This “symptom management” takes place basically because the condition is thought to so severe in an individual as to place him or her beyond recovery.

The NIMH should have better places to put its money than into studies that damage people just so that damage can be studied. I can’t begin to express how unethical this sort of practice is. I would imagine that the impetus behind this research might be the development of a drug to de-accelerate the ill health that is brought on by psychiatric treatment that could be added to any drug cocktail a mental health consumer might be put on. This additional drug is proposed in order to rake in kickbacks from the drug industry that would not be there if the patient were detoxified. Detoxification, of course, comes with a reduction of drugs.

Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. This reminds me of something I came across recently. I was looking for another article but found a pamphlet by Lilly about their wellness programme
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16401160
    The pamphlet suggested that patients should be told they were gaining weight on drugs because the drugs were making them feel better about themselves so they had a better appetite. Really?

    • I wouldn’t call that rich, but I would call it fat. Obesity is becoming a major problem among poor people more than among other groups, what with genetic engineering and fast food. An abundance of body weight doesn’t tend to make people feel better about themselves. There is a real need for concerned citizens to counter this kind of drug industry propaganda with the facts.

  2. Where’s the pamphlet, Monday Morning, please? I just got the summary from the link and it doesn’t mention that.

  3. The link was just an article about the Wellness programme, so that people knew what I was talking about. I found the pamphlet the other day in the library when I was looking for something in the Irish Journal of Medicine circa 2003 and it just fell out of one of the issues. I don’t know if it is on the internet anywhere. I will have a look.

  4. That should have been the Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine

  5. The researchers really believe in the insanity. I swear.
    Only when they run out of money will the search stop, and they will never run out of money.

    • I’ve always been wondering how psychiatrists can be so blind to the damage they themselves cause. This research is about status and profiteering. Physical health is the last of their concerns. As long as they can claim “symptom reduction” through sedation, what’s good for your “mental health” can send you to the morgue. There’s no greater sedative than death after all.

      Here they are attributing the harm done by these drugs to something else, the “disease”, but only through a deception. Well, they themselves should know better, and I suspect they do. You’ve got all these people talking about “trade offs”, but the generally acceptable “trade off” should be unacceptable. Cut 25 years off a lifetime, for a zombified pseudo-sanity, and call that acceptable. How dare them!

      I can see them coming up with another way of profiteering. This is all about serving Big Pharma. It’s basically spin. Attribute drug induced ill health to pre-existing disease, and then you start looking for another drug to treat the ill health. When it comes to what’s in the medicine cabinet you’re confronted with three monkeys, one has his hand over his ears, another has his hand over his mouth, and the third has his hand over his eyes. This kind of research is just that, monkey business.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: