Most people aren't aware that when a doctor diagnoses someone with a
Chemical Imbalance based on some symptoms
that it is an invented diagnoses, not based on any evidence, to a get a
person on there product usually Prozac.When you ask the doctor what is the
chemical that has an imbalance he want have any idea what it is.How could he
hasn't done a biopsy.But he does know that the wonder drug[Prozac] can again
balance any chemical even if he doesn't know what one.Thats EBM for you.
Chemical Imbalance Flyer
PSYCHIATRY,
BETRAYING AND
DRUGGING CHILDREN
FOR PROFIT
http://children.cchr.org/eng/page13.htm
The Hoax of "Chemical Imbalance"
Through massive promotion and
marketing campaigns, psychiatric drugs
are increasingly prescribed as the panacea
for life's inevitable crises and challenges.
Psychiatry's most recent campaign is the
much touted theory of the "chemical
imbalance" in the brain, or
"neurbiological disorder."
Psychiatrist David Kaiser is unequivocal
about the lie of neurobiological disorder.
In 1996, he stated:
... modern psychiatry has yet to
convincingly prove the
genetic/biological cause of
any single mental illness...
Patients [have] been diagnosed with
"chemical imbalances" despite the fact that
no test exists to support such a claim, and ...
there is no real conception of what a correct
chemical balance would look like.
When this pitch is successfully used to
secure the cooperation of unwitting
parents it establishes a dangerous
precedent.
For more information contact:
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Ph/Fax 09 373 3897
P.O. Box 5257 Auckland
Ph Kevin Owen 025 941770
http://www.psychcrime.org
http://www.cchr.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Williams" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 5:10 AM
> Subject: Clinical Examination and Evidence base
>
>
> > Dear List,
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone else was interested in the evidence (or lack
of
> > it) behind clincial examination. It seems to be an interesting area,
> > especially given that most people accept the figures of 80-90% of
> diagnoses
> > being made on history taking and physical examination.
> >
> > Ever since I made the mistake of mentioning it in passing to someone,
they
> > have been asking me for help with a presentation on the evidence behind
> > eponymous and 'pathognomic' signs.
> >
> > I have covered some of the ground with the RACE series in JAMA from the
> > late 90's, and I have a few other references. Does anyone else have any
> > ideas?
> >
> > Yours,
> > Matt Williams
> > Medical SHO,
> > Charing Cross, London
>
|