You are on page 1of 469


Schizophrenia and Delusions ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Heresy, Lunacy and Rumours of Madness ............................................................................................................................. 9

Disease Creation .......................................................................................................................................................... 11

eugenics and psychiatry in Australia .................................................................................................................................. 29

Schizophrenia and Dopamine Blockers .............................................................................................................................. 40

A Psychoanalysis of Psychiatry ........................................................................................................................................ 54

Private Hospitals and Military Connections ......................................................................................................................... 67

Behaviour Control and Social Control ................................................................................................................................ 84

Legacies of a Prison Colony .......................................................................................................................................... 123

British Prejudices in its Colonies .................................................................................................................................... 140

Mental Patient Rights in Australia................................................................................................................................... 154

Eugenics and Mental Hygeine ..................................................................................................................................... 157

Organised Selling of Madness ....................................................................................................................................... 175

Reasons for Diagnosis of Schizophrenia ........................................................................................................................... 190

Social Control and Delusions of Control ........................................................................................................................... 212

Self-Fulfilling Prophesies ............................................................................................................................................. 218

Persecution in the Guise of Psychiatry: soviet and NAZI Examples .......................................................................................... 235

Research on Dead Mental Patients in Australia ................................................................................................................... 244

Telepathy and Diagnosis of Schizophrenia ........................................................................................................................ 252

Nasty Labels............................................................................................................................................................. 264

Religious Wars for converts and madness ......................................................................................................................... 271

A Cure for Schizophrenia! ............................................................................................................................................ 344

The Amine Hypothesis in a New Light ............................................................................................................................. 381

Looking for Love and Emotional Health ........................................................................................................................... 405

Freedom of Movement and Chemical Restraints ................................................................................................................. 419

Mind Over Matter or Matter Over Mind? .......................................................................................................................... 434

Disease Creation by Psychiatry some diagrams ................................................................................................................ 452

REFERENCES:......................................................................................................................................................... 457


Schizophrenia is a term that was coined in 1908 by the Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler.
Since then, the criteria used to diagnose schizophrenia have changed considerably. This
book presents evidence that the term has little scientific justification, and should be
Though I believe that the term schizophrenia is a label that does more harm than good, I
dont believe that mental illness doesnt exist. On the contrary, I believe that some
degree of mental illhealth is close to ubiquitous. Delusions are widespread and affect most
people to some degree delusions are actively propagated by the mass-media, by political
and religious organizations and, for that matter, the holy books of different religions.
Delusions are inflicted on children by their parents and teachers; though some of what is
taught is true and correct, some is not such incorrect information, however widely held,
remains delusional.
The treatment of delusions by the psychiatry profession is centred on drugs rather than
counseling. It is difficult for a profession that is profoundly deluded itself to remedy
delusions though talk therapies. In reality, the psychiatry profession focuses on convincing
patients that they suffer from incurable mental illnesses by this token, accepting that one
has schizophrenia is regarded as gaining insight. It is a widely held doctrine in
psychiatry that people with schizophrenia and mania are notorious for lack of insight
in other words they do not regard themselves as mentally ill until they are convinced that
they are by the psychiatry profession and its agents. The coercive nature of psychiatry
results in people being punished by incarceration and injections until and unless they
accept that they have such incurable mental illness (and agree to take drugs volunatrily).
There is no greater insult than to be told that one has a sick mind. The colloquialism of a
sick mind is synonymous with evil. It also supposes that the mainstream of thinking is

healthy, while those who hold contrary beliefs are deluded. Yet the mainstream remains
deluded about many things. Only a fool believes everything on television. One needs to be
nave in the extreme to think that there are no vested interests involved in what is televised
and promoted as true by the mainstream.
Delusional thinking is but one of several characteristics of schizophrenia. The other
important criterion for the diagnosis of schizophrenia is hallucinations, especially auditory
hallucinations. Bleulers initial formulation for the label included auditory hallucinations,
and this was stressed in the 1959 re-formulation of schizophrenia by the German
psychiatrist Kurt Schneider in his list first rank symptoms.
Though antipsychotic drugs (and SSRI antidepressants) can sometimes cause
hallucinations, it seems likely that low doses of antipsychotic drugs can reduce auditory
hallucinations, and have a place in their treatment. It is also important, though, to address
the various environmental causes of hallucinations, rather than relying on such drugs in
the long term. The fact that people do experience hallucinations at times does not justify
the label of schizophrenia. Instead, certain people may be said to have a tendency to
auditory hallucinations this avoids the stigma of the terms schizophrenia and mental
The other term that is often used in reference to schizophrenia is that of psychosis.
Though this is a pathologisation of the Greek for process (-osis), which in this case is
taken to mean disease process, the word psychosis is usually interpreted as being out of
touch with reality. But who is to be the judge of reality? And can we be sure that the
psychiatry profession and medical profession (more broadly) are in touch with reality?


Delusions are regarded as typical symptoms of the supposedly incurable mental illness termed
schizophrenia. This is claimed, in psychiatric texts, to be a serious brain disease that affects about
one percent of the worlds population: about 60 million people. Of these, 5 to 15 percent (3 to 9 million
people, mostly under the age of 40) are predicted to commit suicide. This usually is said to be an
unavoidable consequence of the illness, and not a consequence of diagnosis and treatment.

Like other medical and scientific assumptions, such claims by the psychiatry profession must be
critically examined and rejected if logically unsound. Given that iatrogenic (treatment-induced) illness
exists, and the mechanisms by which medical diagnosis and treatment can cause illness and death are
well established, it is surely necessary that we look carefully at all areas of contemporary psychiatric
practice for flaws, and correct any situations in which illness is being created rather than cured.

This is especially important because mental illness has been predicted, by the influential World Health
Organization, to increase in the years to come. Because of well-documented psychiatric abuses in the
past related to the history of psychiatry as an agent of political and social control, it is crucial that this
branch of medicine be examined closely, looking at its possible role in increasing suicide rates, creating
drug addiction, promoting depression and other mental illnesses, and labeling normal and abnormal in
order to generate bigger profits from their patients.

The relationship between the psychiatric profession and the pharmaceutical industry will be closely
examined in this book, in which in which I will illustrate the blurred line between various mental
health promotion strategies and drug marketing strategies. In reality, far from lurking on street

corners, the biggest drug pushers in Australia (and elsewhere) are sitting in comfortable chairs in mens
clubs and lodges, playing golf with political leaders and receiving both private and public money in the
form of government grants, and even cash, collectables, antiques, real estate and other treasures left to
them in the wills of people who have been slowly killed by the psychiatry treatments.

The potential for pessimistic prognoses to create disease is obvious, and psychiatry is a particularly
pessimistic area of medicine. Hundreds of disorders have been named, all incurable, but all
treatable with drugs. In the case of schizophrenia these drugs are notorious for causing side-effects
and long term brain damage. They cause chronic illness, in other words. While this is undisputed, it is
argued that the untreated condition is worse than the treatment or the state of chronic debility that is
produced by long term ingestion (or injection) of dopamine-blocking drugs, and more recently drugs
that block serotonin receptors.

Justification for the use of such drugs, and the continued use of what many regard as cruel, stigmatizing
labels by the medical and mental health professions will be challenged in the following pages, in which
the hypothesis will be presented that what is described in medical texts as schizophrenia is primarily
an iatrogenic (treatment induced) illness.

I also am not opposed to the use of pharmaceutical medicines in a sensible, ethical and scientifically
valid way. I believe that there are many valuable drugs and have prescribed them regularly, over the
years, in my work as a family physician. The phenomenon I abhor is that of marketing drugs and other
treatments with the sole objective of financial gain, and with no regard for the health and rights of the
people that are experimented on or treated with excessive doses of drugs or for excessive periods of
time, simply because the drug company or treating doctors will make more money that way.

This involves relatively few of my profession, however these unscrupulous doctors and professors are
responsible for a great betrayal of the trusting public. Our political leaders and media accord these
crooked dons much respect, and may be disturbed by my findings or my criticism of these (mainly)
men, some of whom have become icons in our society. I have also reason to be critical of religious
institutions in general, and the Christian Churches in particular, because of their involvement in
centuries of cruel treatment of those deemed to be mentally ill.

Many the conclusions I have drawn from my research over the past four years are damning on the
medical profession and psychiatry profession in particular. I also have reason to believe that the
pharmaceutical industry and related industries have been responsible for some of the greatest crimes of
history, profiteering from the misery and illness of millions, by the promotion of drugs combined with
promotion (and deliberate creation) of diseases that justify the use of these drugs.

I do not, however, believe that many of the people involved in the creation of disease are motivated by
wicked intentions. Many believe that their actions are necessary for the greater good, or necessary for
the treatment of incurably sick people. Others would prefer not to look at the ethics of what they do at
all, reassuring themselves that everybody else does it too. Yet others are confused by moral issues, or
fear to speak out because of possible repercussions such as losing their job, their reputation or their
funding. Some fear even harsher punishment, including being called mad and being punitively treated
for it.


People have been, and still are judged as mad, or insane, mainly, or entirely, because of opposition to,
or defiance of, the laws, doctrines and authority of dominant religions. Heresies, in other words. In
Australia, the dominant religion, since colonisation by the British, has been Christianity. The
Christian Church is not, of course, a single entity, but rather a number of hierarchical institutions
sometimes cooperating, but also at war with each other in the age-old battle for converts.

Religious institutions, including Christian churches, have also tacitly supported open warfare between
different countries (for example, during the first and second world wars). Since the Crusades, many
wars have been fought with claims that God was on the side of the aggressors, with little evidence of
the Roman Church and its subsequent Protestant rivals turning the other cheek.

Various Christian churches have been responsible for, or complicit in terrible atrocities against
Indigenous people in Australia and around the world. These have been subject to, at best, ignorant
efforts to civilize them, and at worst, cruel and degrading treatments and punishments of
unimaginable cruelty. These include misguided efforts to protect children from their biological
parents to bring them up in good, white, Christian families and missions, or even punitive
Government institutions where they had prematurely short and horribly miserable lives in captivity,
physically and psychologically.

In the missions, still within living memory of many Aboriginal Australians, children were punished for
speaking their many languages and forced to speak English, as taught by various Christian
missionaries. This meant learning Bible stories and singing English hymns, believing in the Christian


miracles, praying to a White God and believing in creation as spelt out in Genesis, the first chapter of
the Christian Bible, rather than as taught by their parents and grandparents as dreamtime fables and
legends that had been transmitted orally for millennia.

Long before the colonisation of Australia the grotesque Inquisition, first instituted by the Roman
Church, was characterised by systematic terrorisation, torture and mass-murder of men, women and
even children accused of heresy. Proscribed beliefs and behaviour, seen as evidence of possession,
included talking to birds and animals, dancing spontaneously, singing songs that were not acceptable to
the Church, and scientific beliefs contrary to the doctrines enshrined in the Bible. Other practices,
many of which have seen resurgence in modern times in various New Age religions, were denounced
as witchcraft, ranging from belief in communication with the dead and reincarnation to medicinal use
of herbs. Thousands of women were tortured in the cruellest ways imaginable, imprisoned for years, or
relaxed, as the Inquisitors termed the hideous practice of burning people alive.
If one examines the criteria used today for the diagnosis of schizophrenia and mania (and the broader
term psychosis) it is evident that many of the beliefs and behaviours that were condemned as
witchcraft by the Christian inquisitors are now seen as evidence of serious mental illness, warranting
forced incarceration and drugging. It is declared by the strident biological psychiatrists (as they call
themselves) that this behavior is caused by a chemical imbalance in their brains. This is despite the
fact that these beliefs and behaviours are promoted by a plethora of New Age books that exort the
young (and older) public to believe in telepathy, spells, magic, tarot cards, clairvoyance, reincarnation,
channeling, astral travel, crystal healing and a range of things that have been proscribed by both the
church (of all denominations) and the state (via the public hospital and university-based psychiatry



This book explores in detail the politics, economics and science of disease creation by the psychiatry
profession, especially as it relates to labels of schizophrenia and psychosis. The motives for disease
creation are many, as will be seen, including profits for drug companies and those providing treatment
services together with profits for those providing pathology, radiology and other medical
investigations, and the acquisition of funds for medical and mental health research. These, and
other, motives provide a powerful disincentive for cures versus long term treatment. The medical
profession has been slowly transformed from a healing profession to a referral machine prescribing
endless drugs for maladies that can be successfully managed without pharmaceutical treatments.

In this book you will find evidence of what the American psychologist Seth Farber has called an
Orwellian Therapeutic State assuming a position of dominance in the modern world, and details of
what the courageous Australian reporter Ray Moynihan called disease-mongering in his 1997 book
Too Much Medicine.

In this analysis, some of the reasons why schizophrenia is diagnosed today will be looked at critically,
together with common medical and community assumptions about mental disorders including
schizophrenia. The influence of religion and politics on the development of concepts regarding
madness and the application of psychiatric labels will also be explored, and a model for developing
strategies to create healing psychotherapy based on talk therapies for psychosis and delusions will be
presented. By doing so it is hoped that the threat of millions dying by their own hand because of belief
they have schizophrenia, or slowly killed by over-prescription of drugs with crippling side-effects can
be averted.


While not questioning the validity of their pessimistic fears, the Oxford Textbook of Medicine (1998)
reports that:
About 10 per cent of schizophrenics die by suicide; the risk is particularly great in younger
patients with sufficient insight to appreciate the likely effects of the illness of their hopes and
plans. (p.4222)

The World Health Organization publication The Management of Mental Disorders, Vol 2: Handbook
for the Schizophrenic Disorders (1995) claims:
Overall, the rate of suicide among individuals with schizophrenia is approximately 10% in the
first five years following diagnosis. Suicide is often related to depression but may also occur in
the absence of depression, sometimes in response to delusional beliefs. Other factors associated
with depression and suicide include: a sense of personal loss; loss of future hope; low selfesteem through being labelled and stigmatised; a feeling of not being in control of things;
unpleasant symptoms; overmedication; or traumatic experiences while in hospital. (p.73)

Here we have a rare admission from the medical profession that the treatment given to people
diagnosed with schizophrenia, and the diagnosis itself, might contribute to their high rate of suicide,
together with their fears about the future consequent on diagnosis. The following diagram explores the
ways in which belief that one has a sick mind contributes to suicide and a sense of hopelessness.



Obviously, how young people envisage the effects of schizophrenia depends on what they believe
about schizophrenia. This, in turn, depends on what they are told and what they read about it, what
they see on television and what they gather by talking to other schizophrenics.

If a young person attempts suicide or commits suicide because he or she despairs of the future on
account of a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the reasons for such hopelessness are clearly evident in
psychiatry and psychology textbooks, popular psychiatry books and public educational literature
together with media portrayals of paranoid schizophrenics. The American textbook Psychology
(1995) by David Myers, from which university students can add to their misconceptions, describes
schizophrenia thus:
If depression is the common cold of psychological disorders, chronic schizophrenia is the
cancer. About 1 in 100 people will develop schizophrenia, joining millions who have suffered
one of humanitys most dreaded disorders. (p.523)

Schizophrenia, more than any other psychiatric diagnosis is associated with stereotypical ideas of
madness: it brings to the mind of the uninformed frightening images of deranged, deluded, dangerous
people who hear imaginary voices and behave in bizarre, unpredictable, frightening ways. How
people imagine and judge complete insanity, stark, raving madness, total lunacy and other
synonyms for serious madness are as varied as the individual experiences of members of the human
race. Most people have made, at some stage, judgments of others, at least in the privacy of their own
minds, regarding madness. They may have thought someone to be disturbed, deranged, crazy, a
nut, a fruit-loop, a weirdo, a lunatic, a psycho, a madman or some other similar derogatory


Is schizophrenia just another nasty name or does it have real scientific meaning and therapeutic
value? If it is the former, the fact that millions of people have committed suicide because of it is a
medical disaster that defies comprehension.

Schizophrenia is a medical term which has now, like many others, entered colloquial language. In
popular culture the term has been abbreviated to schizo or schizos: usually used as terms of abuse.
The medical coinage of this much-abused term was a distinct historical event and done for reasonable
(and more or less innocuous) scientific and medical reasons. This event can be identified, quite
literally, as the first creation of schizophrenia (but not, of course, of insanity or madness). Despite its
subsequent misuses, the name schizophrenia was undoubtedly an improvement on the misleading
and scientifically unjustifiable term it replaced, dementia praecox, which was also created by a
known person at a known time. The term dementia praecox was coined by the German psychiatrist
Emil Kraepelin in 1893 and Eugen Bleuler renamed the condition schizophrenia in 1908.

Professor Bleuler, a Swiss psychiatrist, created the term schizo-phrenia from the Greek schizo (split)
and phren (mind). He believed his neologism better explained the causation of the condition
previously described by the eminent German father of psychiatry, Kraepelin, as dementia praecox.
The early history of schizophrenia theory is summarised by Professor Irving Gottesman in
Schizophrenia Genesis: the Origins of Madness (1991):
Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926), the famous German clinical psychiatrist, became the definitive
categorizer and organizer of the abnormal language and behavior that make up the substance of
contemporary psychopathology. Kraepelins clinical analyses of schizophrenics stand, for the
most part, as the descriptive terms used today. Hegave this comprehensive malady the name
dementia praecox. Kraepelin believed that an adolescent who developed hallucinations and
delusions, behaved bizarrely, and remained ill in this way for an extended period of time
suffered from the illness...Kraepelin defined the disease as a series of clinical pictures with a
common feature: termination in mental weaknessIn Switzerland in 1908 Eugen Bleuler


(1857-1939) contemporary of Kraepelin, Jaspers, Freud and Jung introduced the term
schizophrenia; literally, splitting of the mind. By renaming the disease to focus on a splitting of
usually integrated psychic functions (that is, mental associations), Bleuler tried to call attention
to the phenomena Kraepelin had downplayed frequent social recovery and emotionality
thereby avoiding the focus on a relentlessly downhill course and hopeless outcome. He
believed that a yet-to-be-discovered toxin caused alterations in the thinking process and
disharmony of affect among schizophrenics. (p.8)

Professor Gottesmans account of Bleulers revision and renaming of dementia praecox as

schizophrenia describes the vital difference between the thinking of Bleuler and Kraepelin regarding
prognosis. To Kraepelin the disease inevitably resulted in mental weakness; in the words of other
authors according to this view, a schizophrenic who spontaneously recovers has been misdiagnosed in
the first place (Lewine, Bernheim, 1979). Bleuler believed that recovery was possible, suggesting that
a third of patients got better, a third remained the same and a third would get worse. This dramatically
different recovery rate may have been a reflection of relative kindness in the Swiss asylums (Bleuler)
compared to those in Germany (Kraepelin).

It is important to note the fundamental differences (and similarities) between what Bleuler and his
contemporaries called schizophrenia and how the label is used today. Bleuler described four cardinal
features ambivalence, inappropriate or blunted affect, abnormal mental associations and auditory
hallucinations. The apparent split or schism was between thought and affect.

The term affect has been a key term in psychiatry in the last century and a term I was introduced to in
introductory psychiatry lectures at the University of Queensland, when I studied medicine there from
1978 to 1983. Affect as used in psychiatry refers to the appearance of a persons emotional state to a
medically trained observer (as opposed to self-reported feelings or mood). At the same time mood


disorders (depression and mania) are also called affective disorders. Rarely is any distinction made,
clinically, between affect and mood though the understanding the difference between the two is
central to understanding concepts like inappropriate, blunted and flattened affect all taught as
typical features of schizophrenia.
Inappropriate (or incongruous) affect was described by Bleuler as a cardinal sign of schizophrenia
he gave the example of a person laughing upon hearing about the death of a family member. Of course
there can be several reasons for such behavior that are neither inappropriate or incongruous. Maybe the
patient disliked the particular family member, and maybe there was good reason for this. Also people
sometimes laugh because of shock or surprise. Such reactions cannot reasonably be described as signs
of mental illness. Also, in the reality of the medical consultation environment, a person who laughs or
smiles during the interview can be judged to be showing inappropriate affect if the interviewer
doesnt share the same sense of humour. This is especially likely if the patient is laughing at the
interviewer or mocking him or her.
Blunted and flattened affect are regarded as typical features of chronic schizophrenia. They also
happen to be the typical effect of the drugs used to treat acute schizophrenia. According to
psychiatric orthodoxy acute schizophrenia is characterized by positive symptoms such as
hallucinations and delusions, while chronic schizophrenia features more negative symptoms such
as social withdrawal and downward social drift, disorganization, loss of self-care and self-esteem,
lack of emotional intensity (described as blunted and flattened affect), lack of motivation
(amotivational syndrome). All these features of chronic schizophrenia can be explained as the long
term effects of dopamine and serotonin blocking drugs coupled with institutionalized punishment and
My description of modern psychiatric treatment in Australias public hospitals as torture may be seen
by some as overstating the case. But I stand by this term, and believe that understanding reactions to
systematized torture helps explain and understand the mysterious cause of schizophrenia. It can also
contribute to talk-oriented techniques that aim to validate rather than deny the torture that psychiatric
patients have all endured, but few recognized to be torture at the time they were tortured. Many still
dont. Though if you ask them about it most will have disturbing memories about their first experiences


as inpatients. Their first induction into the mental health system as administered by the public
hospital system.

Nowadays, schizophrenia is described in medical texts as being characterised by delusions and

psychosis, however the diagnosis of either is problematic from an egalitarian perspective. Starting with
the basic definition of a delusion as a false belief or set of beliefs we are confronted with the obvious
problem of ascertaining what the true nature of reality is. This is necessary if we are to judge anothers
madness on the basis of any criterion other than that it conflicts with our own. The same problem
affects the popular definition of psychosis as being out of touch with reality: how is reality to be
determined? Is truth to be determined by common consensus, by expert opinion, by long-accepted
traditions, by political or religious dogma or by logical deduction? These important questions of
epistemology must be considered before we can reasonably conclude that a person is deluded or
psychotic. One doctrines delusion is anothers deep wisdom.

Fundamental differences in world view and doctrines about the nature of humanity and various aspects
of the self characterise different religious, political and philosophical beliefs. These have battled each
other for converts and adherents, as well as for moral and political supremacy, over the past several
thousand years. It has been common, during this time, for people to accuse others of being mad, insane
or deluded. The history of calling ones opposition mad has a long history indeed, one far longer than
that of schizophrenia or delusional disorder, labels that are not much more than a hundred years

Schizophrenia, delusional disorder and mania are currently the most commonly used medical
terms for those regarded as being seriously deluded, a term equated with psychosis and insanity,
irrationality, unpredictability and mental disturbance. Interestingly, insanity is considered by the
medical profession to be a legal rather than a medical term. This is ironic because sane, a well-known


and frequently used term, is derived from the Latin sanus, meaning healthy. Logically, then, the
word in-sane, i.e., not sane, would refer to an unhealthy mental state, even any unhealthy mental
state, making sane and insane more appropriate terms than other commonly used alternatives for
the medical, psychiatric and psychological professions.

Determining who is sane and what beliefs are sane, and who and what are not is nevertheless subject to
the same difficulties as questions of irrationality versus rationality, psychosis versus lucidity, truth
versus falsehood and others which will be explored in the following pages. In doing so several common
assumptions of the medical and psychiatric profession will be challenged. These include the
assumption that schizophrenia is a biological illness and a distinct disease characterised by
structural and biochemical abnormalities in the brain; that belief in telepathy is irrational/unscientific
and the attribution of subjective experiences to telepathic phenomena is indicative of serious mental
illness and psychosis; that schizophrenia and manic-depression are largely genetically determined, and
other widely held psychiatric dogmas.
These will be explored regarding absolute and relative truth, while entertaining the possibility that they
are partially or totally delusional, or even that they are deliberate misinformation (disinformation). The
role of the psychiatric profession as an agent of social and political control will be explored together
with the religious, economic and political dogmas which have influenced and sometimes become
enshrined and formally structured within the past and present terminology used by the psychiatric
profession, especially as they relate to schizophrenia and the medical diagnosis of delusions.
It will take detailed analysis, outside the scope of this work, to examine all the currently and recently
used psychiatric terminology to determine which of the hundreds of terms are used primarily as
stigmatising labels. Different terms are popular in different countries, and, although this work is
conceived and written in English, many of the terms used by psychiatrists in English-speaking nations
are rooted in other European languages (notably Latin, Greek and German).


The names by which psychiatric illnesses are known are subject to constant change and creation, which
is confusing to doctors and patients alike. Some, such as manic-depression are no longer used in
textbooks but continue to be used in hospitals, clinics and by therapists, as well as in colloquial
language. Others, such as schizophrenia are used by the psychiatric profession in dozens of countries,
but the reasons for diagnosis vary considerably between nations and the textbook descriptions of what
constitutes schizophrenia have changed considerably over the past 100 years. They have also become
considerably broader, as we shall see; the consequence of which is that more people are eligible for the
label, but for very different reasons than when the term was first used in Europe in the early 1900s.
In the 1950s, the criteria for the diagnosis of schizophrenia was broadened considerably spearheaded
by the first rank symptoms listed by Professor Kurt Schneider of the University of Heidelberg in
Germany. During the Second World War this university had enthusiastically embraced the doctrines of
eugenics and supported the Nazi German governments policy of extermination of people labeled as
mentally ill. The ostensible objective of this mass-murder was to reduce the bad blood in the German
and European blood lines. Of course, those who opposed the German government of the day were
candidates for such labels of mental illness. The German governments view was that youd have to
be mad not to support Hitler.
The Cold War began with the treaties that ensued following the end of the Second World War and the
formation of the United Nations Organization from the vestiges of the League of Nations. The victors
of the Second World War placed themselves as the five permanent members of the Security Council,
with a mandate to prevent further wars. The World Bank and World Health Organization constituted a
triumvirate controlling global politics, economics and health. The modern criteria for the diagnosis of
schiozophrenia have been strongly promoted by the World Health Organization. From the 1960s
onwards these criteria have been based on Schneiders First Rank Symptoms.
In 1959, well into the Cold War, Schneider listed 11 symptoms and signs of schizophrenia. These
included some of the criteria (such as auditory hallucinations) that were in Kraepelins initial
description of dementia praecox and Bleulers four As (auditory hallucinations, inappropriate
affect, ambivalence and abnormal associations). The list also includes several criteria that pathologise
experience of or belief in telepathy. These were Schneiders 11 first rank symptoms of
schizophrenia, as described in E. Fuller Torreys Surviving Schizophrenia:


1. Auditory hallucinations in which the voices speak ones thoughts aloud.

2. Auditory hallucinations with two voices arguing.
3. Audiroty hallucinations with the voices commenting on ones actions.
4. Hallucinations of touch when the bodily sensation is imposed by some external agency.
5. Withdrawal of thoughts from ones mind.
6. Insertion of thoughts into ones mind by others.
7. Believing ones thoughts are being broadcast to others, as by radio or television.
8. Insertion by others of feelings into ones mind.
9. Insertion by others of irresistible impulses into ones mind.
10. Feeling that ones actions are under the control of others, like an automaton.
11. Delusions of perception, when one is certain that a normal remark has a secret meaning for
Criteria 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 clearly pathologise telepathy and telepathic interpretations of experiences by
patients. They can also be used to pathologise the experience of waking up to the powerful mindcontrolling effects of television and radio two important means of mind control that became
ubiquitous in the West during the Cold War.
Drugs that block dopamine have been used for the past 50 years to chemically constrain social and
political dissidents in countries around the world. In each country, the political and social environment
has determined which people were unfortunate enough to be treated with these drugs against their


will. Variations in criteria that allow diagnosis of mental illness have changed over time, depending
on ruling regimes, but the same drugs have been used against social and political dissidents around the
world. They have formed a major part of the chemical warfare armoury for several decades, but are still
prescribed as medicines despite horrific long-term damage to the nervous system. This was first
documented over 40 years ago.

The main reasons that dopamine-blocking drugs (antipsychotics/major tranquillisers/neuroleptics)

are used in Australia and elsewhere in the modern world are for the treatment of people diagnosed as
schizophrenic or manic and for the control of people considered to be potentially violent, although
they are also used to control behaviour in children (especially those diagnosed with autism) and the
elderly (especially those diagnosed with dementia or senile psychosis). Thus these drugs are mainly
used within the psychiatric and prisons systems (and more recently in Immigration Department
detention centres), although recently there have been efforts to broaden the market of major
tranquilliser (dopamine-blocker) sales by promoting them for children with behaviour problems
(other than autism, for which they have been used for several decades) and old people with sleeping
problems. In these marketing campaigns no mention is made of the connection with other dopamine
blockers, or the common risk, as these drugs accumulate in the body, of causing Parkinsons syndrome,
or even worse, tardive dyskinesia.

Tardive dykinesia is a grotesque neurological condition that is only known to occur through the use of
dopamine-blockers, and has no known cure. It is not amenable to drug treatment, and the drugs used to
treat drug-induced Parkinsonism can worsen tardive dyskinesia. This iatrogenic (treatment-induced)
disease is characterised by involuntary grimaces and spasms of the face, including uncontrollable
protrusion of the tongue, puffing of the cheeks and puckering of the lips (which causes terrible social
embarrassment and stigma, together with difficulty talking), and often strange writhing movements
(also involuntary) of the hands, arms and legs. Tardive dyskinesia, although more likely with high
injected doses of major tranquillisers, has also occurred after small doses used for short periods of time.
It sometimes develops following cessation of treatment, but usually occurs after long periods of


ingested or injected dopamine-blocking drugs. The condition occurs more readily in the elderly and is
not uncommon among residents in Australian nursing homes. It is too frequently seen in
psychogeriatric hospitals, centres and clinics in Australia.

In addition to treatment of young people diagnosed with schizophrenia and mania, dopamine-blocking
major tranquillisers are also used to control the behaviour of elderly people diagnosed with dementia.
Here, as in the young people, the drugs are being used, basically, as chemical restraints. The
development of Government-controlled systems allowing forced treatment of (reluctant) psychiatric
patients in Australia with regular injections of major tranquillisers under the community treatment
order (CTO) and involuntary treatment order (ITO) schemes, has resulted in a situation where all
Australians are under risk of being incarcerated and injected with drugs against their will if they
entertain ideas or speak about things defined as psychotic, paranoid, odd, unreasonable,
grandiose or deluded by the euphemistically named Mental Health System.

In fact, the number of views that Australians are allowed to hold on matters philosophical, scientific,
religious and political are rapidly decreasing and the number of mental illnesses they are being
diagnosed with continues to increase. This includes new labels for disobedient children and
overactive ones, such as the recently promoted conduct disorder and oppositional defiant
disorder. Young people can also be diagnosed as attention disordered, personality disordered,
thought disordered and learning disordered, as well as schizophrenic or manic.

Schizophrenia and mania are said to be characterised by unusual thoughts. According to the
World Health Organization (WHO)-promoted Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), unusual
thought content is to be suspected in people with unusual beliefs in psychic powers, spirits, UFOs or
unrealistic beliefs in ones own abilities, and that people who believe strongly in such things are, to put


it simply, mad. A range of leading questions are listed for health care workers to elicit these signs of

Have you been receiving any special messages from people or from the way things are arranged
around you? Have you seen any references to yourself on TV or in the newspapers?
Can anyone read your mind?
Do you have a special relationship with God?
Is anything like electricity, X-rays, or radio waves affecting you?
Are thoughts put into your head that are not your own?
Have you felt that you were under the control of another person or force?

No wonder people worried about radiation pollution and chemical pollution are afraid to speak their
mind. No wonder people dont talk too much about being under the control of the television
programmers or multinational corporations. No wonder people dont often mention telepathy publicly,
though a surprising number do believe in it privately. The above criteria, promoted by the WHO,
through a publication prepared by psychiatrists and psychologists at the University of New South
Wales in 1995, suggest that people concerned about radiation adversely affecting their health are
suffering from unusual thoughts (delusions/psychosis). The recommended treatments and the
treatments currently employed in Australia, the USA and Britain for delusional thoughts are
incarceration and injections with dopamine blocking drugs if the sufferer refuses to stop talking
about their concerns and/or take dopamine blocking drugs of their own accord. This is despite known
risks of tardive dyskinesia and other forms of permanent brain damage if the drugs are ingested or
injected for any duration of time. Yet if we do not speak our mind, the growing toxin load caused by


industrial pollution (including chemical, sound and radiation pollution) will continue to destroy the
diversity of life on the planet and threaten the health of the global human population. If we dont speak
up about the dangers of endless televised consumption and capitalism (and the fact that the TV puts
ideas in our minds that are not our own), human society is destined to follow the role models of greed,
consumerism and violence that dominate in the TV world.
Psychiatry, being the medical specialty discipline that controls the development and implementation of
national and international mental health strategies has a pervasive influence on modern Australian
society. This influence is largely unrecognised, but psychiatric theory and practice influence education
at all levels as well as prominent media stories, movies, and magazine articles. Even the few stories
that are critical of the treatment that psychiatric patients receive tend to validate the stereotypes and
diagnoses of psychiatrists (such as schizophrenia).

The psychiatry profession, with their access to information about dissidents in society has also
traditionally played a prominent role in the shadowy area of surveillance and control of dangerous
elements in society. Of course, how dangerous the citizens of a country are viewed as and for what
reasons, depends on the paranoia or otherwise of the governments and public institutions that control
the police, military and judicial systems as well as the psychiatric systems of the country concerned.
The colonial history of Australia, and specifically the fact that convicts and other undesirables were
sent by the British Crown to Australia, is pertinent to the development of punitive and repressive
attitudes towards the mentally ill by Governments in this country as well as by treatment centres and
the public generally. This is a complex area beneath which lurks a terrible series of atrocities.

Although Mental Health Acts differ between the States, every State in Australia does have laws
prohibiting politically motivated incarcerations, as have been described in the Soviet Union, apartheid
South Africa and other politically repressed nations. Such incarceration is, anyway, prohibited by
International Laws declared in the 1940s following the discovery of the extent of and reasons behind
the Nazi Holocaust. The reasons behind the Holocaust are complex, but even the most ardent apologist


for psychiatric abuses should agree that the eugenics policies that determined who would be killed, and
who would be encouraged to breed in an effort to create an Aryan super-race, were developed and
implemented by men who called themselves scientists, academics, physicians and psychiatrists. Many
of the most influential eugenicists were professors in the most respected universities and hospitals in
Germany, such as Professor Karl Schneider, who was head of psychiatry at the University of
Heidelberg in the 1930s.

Professor Sidney Bloch, a senior professor of psychiatry at the University of Melbourne, in the edited
transcript of his 1996 Beattie Lecture at the University, described Professor Schneiders horrible acts as
follows, when warning of the dangers of misused psychiatric theory:
Karl Schneider held an even more prestigious post as chairman of psychiatry at Heidelberg.
Alongside his celebrated academic activities, Schneider contributed energetically to the
euthanasia program. A party stalwart from 1932, he became imbued with the Nazi vision,
particularly racial hygeine. Ironically he was able to pursue two contradictory pathways. On the
one hand he elaborated progressive measures of rehabilitation for the chronically ill and, on the
other, participated actively in both the sterilisations and the medical killings. Moreover, he
developed a grand plan to establish a research institute dedicated to biological anthropology,
launching his studies with the examination of brains derived from the victims of Aktion T4
(other eminent academics also snatched the opportunity to examine the hundreds of available
The criteria for death were remarkably straightforward: a diagnosis of schizophrenia, epilepsy,
senile disorder, intellectual retardation and the like; hospitalisation for 5 or more years; an
incapacity to work productively in the mental hospital setting; or not being of German race and
nationality (all Jewish patients were killed). The 70 000 patients who met these criteria were
shunted off to transit centres in specially disguised buses and thence to one of six special
hospitals. Mercy killing was merciless killing. Naked patients were herded into chambers,
camouflaged as showers, and gassed with carbon monoxide by hospital staff. Relatives were
subsequently informed of the patients unfortunate death from a medical condition and


commiserated with. Killing by gas ended in August 1941, only in the wake of a hard-hitting
sermon by Bishop Clemens Von Galen of Munster, a solitary dissenting voice in the Church.

Following the allied victory in the Second World War, a radical restructuring of world politics
occurred, including the formation of a number of new nations with independent constitutions and
governments as well as the United Nations and related bodies, which grew out of the League of
Nations, a confederacy of European colonial powers formed after the First World War. Here the term
independent refers to the ostensible political autonomy granted to many of the countries previously
ruled as properties owned by European nations (and often specifically, European monarchies) that had
attacked and exploited these lands and people who lived in them, over the preceding 500 or so years.
The fundamental abhorrence of such actions is obvious now, as it was to the more enlightened
members of all societies over the thousands of years that slavery has occurred, in one form or another.

The master-slave relationship is such that the slave must do whatever he or she is told (ordered) to
do, and is usually punished for disobedience. Historically, this punishment has ranged from verbal
censure to the harshest and most cruel tortures and killings imaginable. Colonial atrocities are the
history of every country, and virtually every country has been subject to colonisation or attempts at
colonisation by other, usually larger and more aggressive nations. Of course, within these nations,
many, indeed the majority, of the population may have disagreed with the principle and practices of the
military-backed colonial expansions that the governments and monarchies that ruled them embarked
on, but then, as now, voices calling for equality, peace and friendship were drowned out by the
amplified rhetoric of war-mongers, profiteers and enslavers.
It is important to realise that the early implementation of eugenics programs was actively supported by
distinguished psychiatrists and other doctors in respected academic institutions as well as politicians
and social policy developers (including Church leaders) in several nations outside Germany. Australia
was one of these nations, along with many others, including the United Kingdom, the United States of


America, Canada, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Norway, South Africa and Japan. In each country
there were differences in the hierarchy proposed, along which lines humans were to be classified and
either encouraged to breed or prevented from breeding. There was also a variation in the methods used
to prevent young men and women (or children) from parenting children later in life, ranging from the
relatively painless to the most cruel forms of mutilation. These included literal castration of young boys
diagnosed as feeble-minded or morally depraved, often for petty crimes of poverty or resistance
to discipline. In the first three decades of this century thousands of boys and men were mutilated in
this way according to the stipulations of the first North American eugenics laws in the early 1900s.

The Nazi atrocities were carefully planned and executed, with an elaborate disguise of the mercy
killings as well as denial, at first, of what was occurring, and, when the evidence was incontrovertible,
denial that what they did was morally wrong, or evil. This denial of guilt was repeatedly seen during
the Nuremberg Trials, when some of the Nazi war criminals were tried for crimes against humanity.
Many who were executed remained defiant to the end, justifying or denying their crime. Yet others
were spared justice at the Nuremberg Trials if they were prepared to share their scientific discoveries
and research with the Allies or the Russians during the scramble for Nazi and Japanese scientists at the
beginning of the Cold War (for more detail, look up Operation Paperclip, conducted by the USA and
the notorious MK-Ultra and MK-Delta programs).
It is common knowledge that several senior Nazi scientists, including military scientists and medical
scientists were not committed for trial despite devising and orchestrating the murderous euthanasia
program and military aggression that the German government embarked on in the early 1930s and
continued until the end of the Second World War over a decade later. These scientists were given
asylum by the British, American and Russian victors of the war, and given safe passage to, and often
new identities in, a number of countries, including Canada and Australia. Others were said to have
been provided with a safe haven in South America, and some in Southern Africa. The asylum of war
criminals in Australia is not rumour, however. It is now officially accepted historical fact (although
denied for several decades). Many might suppose that the wickedness of Nazi philosophy became a
discredited and cruel aberration of the past, and that Neo-Nazis are just an inconsequential bunch of
skinhead football hooligans in Europe or drunken rednecks in America. This is not the case.



The mental health system in Australia grew out of the asylums of the nineteenth century, which
instituted routine, systematized torture of people who were diagnosed as mentally ill or mentally
defective. The general mental defectiveness label was applied to people who were also denigrated as
lunatics, criminals, degenerates, imbeciles, idiots and feeble-minded people. Masturbation
was viewed as evidence of feeble-mindedness, and disobedience as a sign of degeneracy. Under the
first eugenics laws of the 20th century (in the USA) thousands of boys were castrated for feeblemindedness and delinquency. The inmates of asylums were forced to work in menial jobs, while the
institutions that held them profited from their forced labour. Torture, including flogging, water torture,
chaining, and electrical shocks, was routinely administered in these asylums in the guise of necessary
There have been many reforms in the mental health system since then. There is no more water torture,
and all therapeutic electric shocks are given under anaesthetic. The huge asylums have been largely
replaced by smaller hospitals which are well-staffed and equipped with the best that modern
technology can provide. Patients are scanned, bled and given the most expensive treatments on the
market, all at taxpayers expense. The cornucopia of drugs, include varieties deliverable in a host of
forms there are tablets, capsules, caplets, wafers, syrup, and preparations that can be injected directly
into the muscle or vein. Unfortunately, these drugs shorten, rather than extend, the lives of people who
are subjected to them. They also cause a chronic state of illhealth.

Eugenics, referring to the science of breeding better human beings, has a long tradition in Australia
and is deeply embedded in university and hospital doctrines and culture in Australia, particularly in the
mental health sciences and the area of public health policy. This is because eugenics was actively
supported by Governments in Australia before the Second World War, using the euphemism of mental
hygiene, with financial support from American and British eugenic societies and wealthy individuals
and families, such a the Carnegie family in the US. Other notorious supporters of eugenics were the


Rockefellers and Kelloggs. The Rockefeller corporation played a singular role in taking American
psychiatry globally. This occurred before the Second World War and accelerated after it.
In Australia eugenic social policy was formulated by academics from the oldest universities, such as
the University of Melbourne and University of Sydney, in collaboration with business leaders (mainly
industrialists) and Commonwealth advisers. The policies paralleled eugenic programs in Nazi
Germany, with shared, British foundations. These foundations were inescapably racist and hierarchical,
based on assumptions of racial and cultural superiority of the eugenists, depending on the nation in
question. Thus the eugenics movement in Japan placed Japanese blood lines at the top of their
hierarchy. The Germans placed Northern Aryan blood lines at the top of theirs. In Australia, the
situation was more complicated, since eugenics was introduced into the country by races and groups
with different ideas about who was at the top of the hierarchy. They agreed, however, on who was at
the bottom of the ladder they created: Aboriginal people and those from the Torres Strait Islands.

Accompanying indigenous people at the bottom of the eugenic hierarchy, were (and are) drug
addicts, alcoholics and the mentally ill. These people were also inevitably from the poorer
sections of society, and the eugenics movement was very much a club for the rich. Rich men were the
only people involved in the inner circle of eugenic policy devisers, and many of them were highly
respected (at the time) doctors and professors. These men turned a blind eye to their own failings and
diagnosed a range of other races, cultures, classes and individuals as defective, constructing names,
such as schizophrenic to identify them and euthanase them. Euthanasia was the name given by
eugenists (eugenicists) for the many cruel methods of mercy killing employed to rid the world of
defective and degenerate individuals and races.

Eugenic theory first developed in the last years of legal slavery by European imperial nations.
Nations involved in the slave trade of African people included Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal,
Belgium and Holland (Nederlands) in Europe which exported slaves to North and South America
(especially Brazil) as well as the West Indies, Cuba and elsewhere. The Governments and monarchies


of these countries fought an ongoing war with each other over slaves from what they later termed the
Third World. Each government sanctioned the taking of children, women and men of all ages
forcibly to another country where they were subjected to cruel abuses as well as being compelled to
work in captivity. The above nations, many of which obtained slaves from Africa, also were involved
in genocide of people in the colonised country. The purpose of this genocide was to rid the land of
indigenous people and populate it with people loyal to the colonising country. Biological warfare
techniques, such as distributing deliberately infected blankets was used in the Americas and in
Australia. In Australia there were hideous attempts to genocide the indigenous population and destroy
their many beautiful languages. Half-caste children were taking away from their heartbroken parents
to be trained as housemaids and menial workers in missions run by racist white men and women,
under the auspices of various Christian churches and an industry developed, intertwined with the
Catholic, Methodist and Anglican Churches in particular to organize adoption by good (white)
Christian families.
Nazi philosophy assumed that people with white skin were superior to those with black skin, and
the many different hues of humanity were divided into blacks and whites. This was a central
precept of eugenic theory. The experts in the theory further classified people along anthropological
lines into different races based on Blumenbachs division of humanity into black, brown, red,
yellow and white races.

Eugenic theory was practiced differently in different countries that passed eugenic laws earlier this
century, but the theory inevitably brought atrocities to every nation that embraced this racist anthropomedico-political theory. This is because eugenics is divided into positive eugenics and negative
eugenics. Positive eugenics involves the encouragement of people with good genes to have more
children. In Nazi eugenic theory, these people had white skin and preferably blonde hair and blue eyes.
These were favoured as aesthetically superior to dark features. It is ironic that images of Jesus of
Nazareth, a man of Semitic origin, was portrayed at this time in Nazi sympathising countries as having
blonde hair and blue eyes.


Negative eugenics was (and is) centred on preventing those accused of having defective genes and
defective blood-lines from breeding. It is sad to reflect that the Christian Churches did little to
prevent the Nazi atrocities of negative eugenics and played a significant role in condoning and aiding
the abuse. Children in the care of the Catholic and Protestant Churches in Europe were, at this time,
voluntarily given up by Church authorities for negative eugenic treatment. This involved diagnosing
these children as mentally ill or degenerate and sentencing them either to sterilisation or death.
Sterilised children were then sold into slavery. Children who were considered unfit to live were killed
in a variety of ways by people who called themselves doctors and nurses. Chemicals were tested
on them for toxicity, and drugs and infections were forced into them. The effects of starvation
combined with hard labour on people who were being tortured in a variety of ways were studied
scientifically by men who called themselves professors, physiologists, and medical researchers.

The Nazi Party also developed a notorious secret police system of gestapo, and a social system based
on social and familial betrayal. Children were encouraged to inform on their parents in Nazi schools
and neighbours were encouraged to spy on each other and report dissident behaviour to the authorities.
An intricate system of espionage was accompanied by forced confessions, framing of innocent people
with crimes, summary executions, arbitrary arrest, political incarcerations and other features of
repressive political systems.

The detailed systems of interrogation and framing by the Nazis was developed by eugenists, many of
whom were psychiatrists. Germany already had an international reputation for psychiatry prior to the
Second World War. Professor Edward Shorter, in A History of Psychiatry (1997), writes:
Germany became the world leader in psychiatry during the nineteenth century precisely
because of this dispersal of academic talent into many separate universities, each nurtured by
the dynastic ambition of its own little principality. Germany possessed some 20 separate
universities in addition to two medical academies, each struggling for glory and competing in a
lively race for scientific advancement against the others.


Shorter is Professor in History of Medicine at the University of Toronto (Canada) and is a keen
supporter of biological psychiatry, but even he has to admit to the connection between eugenic evil,
Nazism and psychiatry:
Part and parcel of European culture, the fateful notion of degeneration was picked up by the
eugenists, by social-hygienists intent on combating mental retardation with sterilization, and by
antidemocratic political forces with a deep hatred of degenerate groups such as homosexuals
and Jews. Psychiatrys responsibility for all this is only a partial one. Academic psychiatrists in
the 1920s were not generally associated with right-wing doctrines of racial hygiene, though
there were exceptions to this, such as the Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin who after 1907
worked at the university psychiatric clinic in Munich, and the Freiburg professor Alfred Hoche
who in 1920 coauthored a justification for euthanasia. Academic medicine in Germany on the
whole stood waist-deep in the Nazi sewer, and bears heavy responsibility for the disaster that
followed. After 1933, degeneration became an official part of Nazi ideology. Hitlers
machinery of death singled out Jews, people with mental retardation, and other supposedly
biological degenerates for campaigns of destruction. (p.99)

In the above passage, Edward Shorter gives a somewhat misleading account of the targets of Nazi
mass-murder. The killing was not, in fact, limited to degenerate races, which, by the way, also included
Negroes, Poles, Russians, Gypsies and other races, in addition to Jews. The Nazis also targetted
political dissidents, regardless of race, particularly pacifists, socialists and communists. In addition to
the mentally retarded, many others of normal and exceptionally high intellect were also sterilised or
euthanased if they were from the wrong cultural, social, religious or political background. These
were generally diagnosed as mentally ill with labels such as moral degeneracy, schizophrenia
and personality disorders. Shorter also fails to mention that eugenic laws recommending the
castration of mental defectives were passed in several states of the United States of America many
years before the Nazi atrocities, or the widespread acceptance of negative eugenics by British, South
African and Australian doctors and academics before and after the Nazi holocaust.


A unique psychiatric secret police system has been developed in Australia over the past twenty years,
under the guise of The National Mental Health Strategy. This system has several stated objectives,
and has had very different practical results. It is ostensibly designed to streamline the mental health
services, get institutionalised people into the community, and treat the worsening mental illness
problem in Australia. The mental illness problem is said to include depression, anxiety, panic,
schizophrenia, attention deficit, hyperactivity, drug addiction, alcoholism and many others.
However, these are names, not cures. There is no known cure for most of the diagnoses promoted by
the Mental Health Strategy, and the treatment is almost exclusively on treatment with often addictive
drugs. Routinely, people who do not want to be drugged are forcibly injected with tranquillisers simply
because they refuse to agree that they are mentally ill (termed lack of insight) and thus refuse to take
drugs voluntarily. The entire psychiatric system in Australia is one where people are given drugs as the
sole focus, and punished for refusing to take them. It is drug enforcement of a different type.

Integrated with the psychiatric system in Australia are mobile treatment teams, which visit people at
home and ensure compliance with drug taking. These people are trained in eliciting evidence of
mental illness and are not above fabricating such if they are unable to detect it. They also have the
authority to break into peoples houses and take them away for treatment in public hospitals with the
assistance of State police. No warrant is necessary for such intrusions and the paperwork authorising
such actions may be signed by doctors who have never met the person to be taken in for treatment.

These actions are carried out by people who call themselves health workers and may be qualified as
doctors, nurses, psychologists or social workers. They are systematically programmed into negative
eugenics before they are allowed to work in these mobile attack and treatment teams, termed CAT
teams. CAT team is an acronym for Crisis Assessment and Treatment Team, but inevitably it is the
team that creates the crisis. People generally do not react well to being spied on in their own homes and
injected with drugs against their will.


To orchestrate their widespread slavery program and to control behaviour of the masses as their empire
expanded, the British developed extensive policing systems, espionage systems and punishment
systems. These were connected with police, the judiciary, prison system and mental
health/psychiatry/mental hygeine systems, constituting an intricate system of Commonwealth programs
involving people of many nationalities united by loyalty to the British Empire. The objective, during
the Second World War, was contributing to the war effort. The manic depressive Winston
Churchill oversaw the profound changes in the British Empire during this time and during the early
years of the Cold War. Churchill was both a eugenicist and a senior Freemason.
Various societies of Free Men (as opposed to slaves) existed during the time of open slavery, including
the Freemasons in the Protestant World and the Knights of Columbus in the Catholic World. When the
USA gained its independence from Britain, George Washington and most of the leaders who signed the
Declaration of Independence were Freemasons. In Australia, our first prime minister, Edmund Barton,
was a Sydney lawyer and Freemason, while during the Second World War, both Australian Prime
Ministers (John Curtin and Robert Menzies) were Freemasons (as was the American president
Roosevelt). It is historically evident that the Freemasons were champions of slavery rather than
freedom for the masses.
In Australia and the surrounding islands, as well as in South India and China, slavery continued long
after African cargo slavery was officially abolished (1830-1860). Due to public opposition to slavery,
the British referred to the Chinese and South Indians as coolies and indentured labour. In Australia,
after experiments with importing coolies from China and India, the governments of Queensland and
New South Wales approved the importation of kanakas, who were boys and young men who were
lured or kidnapped from the surrounding Pacific Islands to work as virtual slaves in the sugar and
banana plantations in North Queensland. The practice of blackbirding, or stealing/kidnapping
Polynesian and Melanesian boys who curiously arrived in canoes to check out the white mans slaving
ships, continued into the early 1900s.
The public opposition to African slavery that resulted in the cessation of this cruel trade grew over the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, culminating in the official banning of the slave trade and release
of slaves from bondage in the 1830s to 1860s. The Commonwealth slavers in Australia and Asia were


not to be so easily stopped, however, as by an International Ban on slavery. As Myra Willard wrote, in
The White Australia Policy to 1920:
The stringent enforcement of the international treaties which aimed at the extinction of the
African slave trade caused many in tropical lands who had become dependent on this form of
labour to look to Asia for a substitute.

This substitute included Chinese and Indian coolie labour, according to Willard, but the whole story
of the evolution of British and Australian Commonwealth slave theory and practice has been far more
complex and persistent than Willards book reveals. In fact, the British Commonwealths system of
slavery included all the countries in the British Empire, including Australia. Not all the Empires
countries were treated as harshly as Australia was, however. And this harsh treatment of Australia and
its residents by agents of the British Commonwealth in Australia has continued to this day. Involved in
this abuse of the Australian population are the numerous secretive police/psychiatry organisations
currently active in Australia, several of which have direct links with the British Commonwealth.

The centre of the British Empire was London, and this was also the centre of the British slave trade.
The concept of the Commonwealth was devised by social theorists, politicians and academics at the
University of London and also at the Oxford and Cambridge Universities. These Universities became
an essential part of British foreign policy during the time of open slavery, as well as in the times of
disguised slavery which followed. Brainwashing, involving indoctrination into the academic system of
doctors, degrees, honours and other titles were bestowed on students of the system creating a
persistent and highly authoritarian academic hierarchy. This system was exported to the colonies,
where an uninterrupted tradition has continued to the present day.


In the academic system, as in the police system and military, obedience to the chain of command was
ensured by a hierarchical system of titles. In the University and hospital system this hierarchy was
headed by professors, who had authority over associate professors. These had authority over
senior lecturers, who could pull rank on lecturers. Lecturers were above tutors and tutors had
superior rank to students. Senior students were viewed as superior to junior students in this system,
which also encouraged the entire academic institution to compete with and look either up to or down at
other academic institutions. A similar mentality was encouraged in Church owned high schools in
England and the British colonies, in which schools and universities were built by the British which
repeated the same hierarchical system, often with individual perversions of the British model.

The mind police systems devised by the colonial system in Australia involved a poorly integrated
system of police, prison and health departments, together with departments designed for social
welfare, the protection of natives, migrant policy and the corrections system. The police
departments included officers whose duties were to keep the peace amongst the Australian immigrants
and convicts as well as native police. The immigrants included free men and women who emigrated
to Australia from England, Scotland and other white nations, and also a smaller number from China.
In the 1860s, when the first large public hospital asylums in Australia were built to service the
goldrush, the police had to keep the peace between Chinese and European immigrants on several
occasions. Many people were locked up and pushed for suffering from gold fever, a madness
characterized by inordinate love of or manic/paranoid/persecutory delusions about gold. The treatment
was to give them a good whipping. Whipping the madness out of people was a cure-all back then.
Gold mania (also called gold fever) was, alongside dipsomania (alcoholism), the main diagnosis used
to incarcerate Victorians in the 1860s and 1870s, according to psychiatrist Eric Cunningham Dax in his
1961 book, Asylum to Community. On page 14 he wrote:
Victorias first mental hospital was opened in 1848 at Yarra Bend, in Melbourne, and
designed on the lines of a gaol, but afterwards some prefabricated wooden buildings, imported
from England, were erected on the spot to increase the accomodation.


The gold-rush began in 1851, but by the middle sixties it was trailing off, as much of the
surface gold had been mined so there were large numbers of restless, disturbed and often
drunken individuals who must have been a considerable problem to the government. Partly
because of the needs of the population, and perhaps mainly because of the unemployment, two
new mental hospitals were put up at that time, one in the western part of the state on the
goldfields at Ararat and the other in a rich gold-mining district at Beechworth in the northeast.

Lust for gold has played a major role in the development of social policy in Australia, and Victoria in
particular. The White Australia Policy, that embarrassing legacy of British colonial racism, was itself
devised in the 1860s to prevent Chinese exploitation of the newly discovered gold in Australia, among
several reasons, all racially and culturally discriminatory. The indigenous people of Australia were not
even recognised as human by the first English colonists who declared Australia to be terra nullius
(uninhabited land). This is despite over two hundred years of prior European knowledge that the
Southern Land was indeed populated with a race of dark-skinned people who spoke several different
languages. More recently, it has become evident that they spoke several hundred different languages.
From the English point of view, however, it did not matter what or how many languages they spoke:
they were all just natives, who were equated with savages.

The treatment of those deemed to be savages was indeed savage. Genocide of Aborigines in
Australia was committed through several techniques resulting in the mass murder of hundreds of
thousands, possibly millions, of men, women and children of all ages. Some were taken as slaves, but
most were killed mercilessly, mostly through poisoning (chemical warfare) and infections (biological
warfare). Infants and young children were taken forcibly from their families and biological parents to
be brought up in orphanages and foster homes, or enslaved as domestic servants. Their parents were
subjected to arbitrary arrest and arrest for crimes of poverty. Alcohol was used by the colonists to
stupefy natives in many lands, including Australia. These natives included aboriginal people as well
as native Australians of European ancestry. Alcoholism is still rife in Australia generally and it is of


note that the early psychiatric hospitals were full of people with alcohol-related problems. It is also of
note that alcohol was the first British currency in Australia.

In Australia, alcohol was used as a direct weapon for genocide of the aboriginal population by the
British in a similar way to that in which opium was used in the opium wars against China and India.
In these wars, which occurred in the early and mid 1800s, Indian, Burmese and Bengali farmers were
forced to dig up their rice fields by British colonial rulers and plant their homelands with opium
poppies. The opium was then pushed into Chinese society with the intent of addicting and subduing the
Chinese population. When the Chinese Government attempted, in the 1840s, to halt the opium trade,
the British threatened to attack Chinese cities with battleships poised outside Chinese ports. Hong
Kong was ceded to the British for the period of 150 years after this shameful act of international
terrorism and drug warfare. Shortly afterwards, and in the wake of the British success, the USA
demanded similar trade concessions to the British from China and maintenance of their own opium
export industry to the most populous nation on earth. It is of note that enforcement of free trade was
the justification the British Government gave to its people, for what later became known as the opium



Schizophrenia was invented in 1908 by the Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler (1857-1939), who
crafted diagnostic criteria for this mental illness of young people from the condition termed
dementia praecox by the German psychiatry professor Emil Kraepelin (1855-1926) in the 1890s.
Michael Stone, in Healing the Mind, writes:
Succeeding Forel as the director of the famed Burgholzli clinic in 1898, Bleuler worked
intensively with psychotic patients, visiting and talking with them five or six times a week,
such that his familiarity with them was comparable to that of psychoanalysts with their patients
(who were also seen about five times a week in this era). His great monograph on the group of
schizophrenias appeared in 1911; here he proposed a new definition of the condition Kraepelin
and others had been calling dementia praecox. Bleuler identified the primary signs of this
condition, which have become known as the four As: autism, loosening of associations,
ambivalence, and affect inappropriateness. The latter trait was the key element for Bleuler: The
patient who smiled while talking of the death of his mother, or who cried while talking of
inheriting a fortune, was showing a split (Greek: schizo) between thought and affect: hence his
term schizophrenia. Ambivalence and autism were also words Bleuler coined. (p.146)

Using the word language broadly, it is difficult to see how autism (inability or refusal to speak) and
these other abnormalities could be detected in people who do not speak the same language as the
diagnoser. How does one tell if a persons mental associations are loosened when they have a
completely different belief system, mode of speech and conceptual framework; when they think and
speak in another language? It is easy to judge smiling or crying inappropriately as suggestive of
madness evidenced by inappropriate affect if the reasons for such emotions are not understood due to
linguistic, social and cultural differences and barriers or due to failure to understand the individual
experiences of the patient. It is equally unclear as to how injections or tablets of dopamine-blockers can
improve such symptoms.


There have been many changes in the accepted criteria for diagnosis of schizophrenia in the modern
world, however, and considerable differences exist in different parts of the world. This is mentioned in
the World Health Organizations Handbook for the Schizophrenic Disorders (1995), which was
written by Heidi Sumich, Gavin Andrews and Caroline Hunt of the Clinical Research Unit for
Anxiety Disorders of the University of New South Wales at St Vincents Hospital, Sydney and
underwritten by the New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry:
There is no single specific symptom that is required for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. In other
words, the symptoms experienced by one person may not be exactly the same as the symptoms
experienced by another person. However, as a group, people with schizophrenia display an
identifiable set of symptoms. If someone exhibits one or more of these symptoms for a specified
length of time, he or she may then be regarded as having a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
The American Psychiatric Associations (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) is the alternative major diagnostic classificatory system to
ICD-10 [the World Health Organizations International Classification of Diseases]. In DSM-IV,
the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia differ slightly [!] from ICD-10 in relation to the duration of
time for which symptoms are required to have been present prior to diagnosis. DSM-IV requires a
minimum duration of six months, including a prodromal or residual phase, while ICD-10 requires
the persistence of symptoms for only one month.

The handbook continues to explain how these symptoms of schizophrenia are to be elicited, claiming
that the most important symptoms and signs include hallucinations, delusions, thought
disturbances, disordered thinking and negative symptoms (these are very different to Bleulers
criteria). Detailed methods for acquiring evidence of these abnormalities are given in the Handbook
for the Schizophrenic Disorders, which was distributed to health workers in Australia by the Belgian
drug company Janssen-Cilag, which manufactures several drugs for the treatment (but not the cure,
which is said to be impossible) of schizophrenia, including the crippling dopamine-blocker
haloperidol, which is marketed as injections, syrup and tablets of Haldol. This drug has been used
around the world for the punishment of social and political dissidents over the past 50 years. The


manual contains a series of questions and interpretations for doctors and other health workers designed
to increase both diagnosis of mental abnormality and treatment with Haldol and related drugs, and for
the most dubious of reasons. Injections and coerced ingestion of Haldol have resulted in literally
millions of people being crippled with tardive dyskinesia and other forms of chronic brain damage
since the 1960s. Others have died from overdoses (deliberate or unintentional) of Haldol.
The Handbook for the Schizophrenic Disorders contains a dangerously over-inclusive set of diagnostic
criteria known as the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). In it, hallucinations are described as
seeing, hearing, smelling, or tasting things that other people do not see, hear, smell, sense or taste
[which could be due to greater sensitivity] and are to be elicited by the following questions:
Do you ever seem to hear your name being called?
Have you heard any sounds or people talking to you or about you when there has been nobody
Do you ever have visions or see things that others do not see? What about smell odors that
others do not smell?

It is easy to see why schizophrenia was not diagnosed in Biblical times. All the prophets and
visionaries, including Jesus Christ, would have been committed for involuntary psychiatric treatment.
People who believe that they are Jesus Christ rate a special mention in the manual, for these people are
suffering from the typical delusions of schizophrenia:
Delusions [are] false beliefs that are firmly held despite objective and contradictory evidence,
and despite the fact that other members of the culture do not share the same beliefs; for
example, the person may believe that he or she is Jesus Christ, or that he or she is being
followed, poisoned, or experimented upon.


What about the people who are being poisoned and experimented on by the psychiatric industry itself?
These people can expect a diagnosis of delusions after being asked the following questions, which
are apparently indicative of unusual thought content if answered in the affirmative:
Have you been receiving any special messages from people or from the way things are
arranged around you? Have you seen any references to yourself on TV or in the newspapers?
Can anyone read your mind?
Do you have a special relationship with God?
Is anything like electricity, X-rays, or radio waves affecting you?
Are thoughts put into your head that are not your own?
Have you felt that you were under the control of another person or force?

Bizarre behaviour, another sign of schizophrenia is to be detected by asking:

Have you done anything that has attracted the attention of others?
Have you done anything that could have gotten you into trouble with the police? [the word
gotten betrays an American origin for the BPRS]
Have you done anything that seemed unusual or disturbing to others?


In the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (attributed in the manual to the World Health Organization
though it was actually developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs in the 1960s) is a
description of self neglect which is conservative, to say the least. A rating of 2 for self neglect is
to be recorded for hygiene/appearance slightly below usual community standards, e.g., shirt out of
pants, buttons unbuttoned, shoe laces untied, but no social or medical consequences. A rating of 3 (out
of 7, which is extremely severe) is merited by hygiene/appearance occasionally below usual
community standards, e.g., irregular bathing, clothing is stained, hair uncombed, occasionally skips an
important meal with no social or medical consequences. To be mentally well the manual insists
that we should be eating three meals a day, which many Australians cannot afford, and many others
choose not to consume. This strange obsession with regular meals is repeated in grade 4 self-neglect
which is to be recorded by the health worker if a person fails to bathe or change clothes or is
thought to have, clothing very soiled, hair unkempt, OR irregular eating and drinking with minimal
medical concerns and consequences.

It is difficult to see how genetic defects and chemical imbalances can be blamed for failing to tuck
ones shirt in ones pants, and eat three meals a day. In addition, the handbook contains a single-paged
table on which the level of severity (from a mild 2 to a very severe 7) of 24 symptoms and signs
elicited by the leading questions can be formally recorded by the health worker. The forms are
suitable for analysis by a computer, and provide a checklist of abnormalities to detect. These include:
somatic concern, anxiety, depression, suicidality, guilt, hostility, elated mood, grandiosity,
suspiciousness, hallucinations, unusual thought content, bizarre behavior, self neglect, disorientation,
conceptual disorganization, blunted affect, emotional withdrawal, motor retardation, tension,
uncooperativeness, excitement, distractibility, motor hyperactivity, mannerisms and posturing.

Suspiciousness is to be elicited by the following questions:


Do you ever feel uncomfortable in public? Does it seem as though others are watching you?
Are you concerned about anyones intentions toward you? In anyone going out of their way to
give you a hard time, or trying to hurt you? Do you feel in any danger?

For those who study psychiatry professionally, meaning they first gain medical degrees from
recognised universities, further training in techniques of interrogation are obligatory, always seeking
evidence of mental illness. The recommended undergraduate textbook in Psychiatry for medical
students in Melbourne is Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry written in collaboration between
psychiatry professors at the University of Melbourne and Monash University, and published in 1994 by
Melbourne University Press. In the chapter titled the psychiatric interview and evaluation of the
mental state Professor Nicholas Keks explains how persecutory delusions can be inferred and that
they are not necessarily untrue to qualify as delusions (reflected also in the psychiatric truism that
a delusion is still a delusion even if it transpires, by coincidence, to be correct!):
Delusions with religious or subcultural content can prove difficult to assess. Usually consultations
with a member of the patients social group is necessary. It should also be kept in mind that what
appear to be persecutory delusions may be true. It is not whether the delusion is absolutely false
that is relevant, but rather that the belief is adhered to by the patient very firmly despite manifestly
insufficient or inappropriate evidence. For instance, a man was convinced that his wife was having
an affair, and indeed she was in a secret relationship. However, the husbands conviction arose
from the interpretation he placed on entirely unrelated events such as the numbers printed on the
letter he received from the tax office.
In eliciting delusions, it is useful to first ask a question which should elicit a positive response
from anyone, and then to probe further for abnormal thought content. For instance: Do you ever
feel self-conscious or shy in a new place or with strangers? The answer should be yes if the
question was understood. Then the patient can be asked whether they worry if people laugh behind
their back, and so on, progressing to ask about organised persecution. (pp.73-74)


It is assumed that belief in organised persecution is indicative of serious mental illness: namely
schizophrenia. What of hundreds of years of organised slavery and other colonial atrocities? Did
these end with the official abolition of slavery by the French in 1794? Or by the British in 1834? Or by
the United States of America in 1863? Or by the Belgians in 1904? Did organised persecution of
Australian aborigines end with the banning of blackbirding (kidnapping of Aboriginal and Islander
slaves) in 1874? Was the 1940s persecution and mass-murder of people diagnosed as schizophrenic
in Nazi Germany disorganised? What about the diagnosis of sluggish schizophrenia in Soviet
political dissidents during the 1960s and 1970s?

Rather than looking for the social, political and historical origins of schizophrenia, the Mental Health
Research Institute (MHRI) in Melbourne is, in addition to conducting an extensive genetic study of
schizophrenia, actively engaged in trying to establish biological abnormalities in diagnosed
schizophrenics. The focus of the work of the Molecular Schizophrenia Division is on the
neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin. The institutes 1997 Annual report explains:
Dopamine is a chemical within the brain which is thought to be important in the pathology of
schizophrenia. The major evidence for this is that drugs which behave like dopamine in the brain
can cause a psychosis reminiscent of schizophrenia in non-schizophrenic individuals. In addition,
the antipsychotic drugs that are used to treat schizophrenia reduce the activity of dopamine in the
human brain. Together, these observations suggest that over-activity of the dopamine neuronal
pathways are important in the pathology of the illness. (p.18)

In other words, because dopamine-blocking drugs which have been forced into people to treat
schizophrenia (and mania) for several decades affect this particular neurotransmitter, dopamine must
be at the root of the postulated biochemical imbalance in this illness. It is a deft reversal of logic,
and if statistically significant differences were discovered it would be very difficult to ascribe
dopamine receptor abnormalities to the illness rather than the treatment. As it turns out, after


examining many brains from dead schizophrenics, the researchers were unable to pronounce any
difference between theirs and those of normal people:
Within the Molecular Schizophrenia Division there are a number of strategies being employed
to determine whether dopamine is involved in the pathology of schizophrenia. Tabasum
Hussain and Susie Kitsoulis have measured the density of dopamine receptors in samples of
brain tissue obtained from subjects who have had schizophrenia [with their permission?] and
compared these measures from individuals who have not had schizophrenia. There was no
difference in dopamine receptor quantities in either the caudate putamen or frontal cortex of
subjects with schizophrenia. In addition, Robyn Bradbury has shown that there is no difference
in dopamine receptor numbers in the hippocampus of people with schizophrenia. Our data have
shown that dopamine receptor quantities do not appear to be altered in the brains of subjects
with schizophrenia.

Not daunted by yet another failure to demonstrate actual abnormality in the brains of people diagnosed
as schizophrenic, the MHRI is also investigating serotonin neurobiology and schizophrenia, again
because drugs which are used on people labelled schizophrenic affect this neurotransmitter, which is
also the focus of a marketing campaign for new antidepressants. Here the institute claims to have had
some success, but also plans to make some ridiculous inferences from studies on rats:
Developments are being made on what cause the changes in the serotonin transporter in
subjects with schizophrenia. Lee Naylor has discovered that by injecting rats with a drug called
5,7-dihydroxy tryptamine, she can cause changes in their serotonin transporter which are
similar to those we have seen in subjects with schizophrenia. If her early findings are
confirmed, then this may provide a model by which the changes in the serotonin transporter in
the human brain can be studied using rat brains. (p.19)


In a situation repeated in all the large research institutions in Australia, most of the repetitive, often
meaningless, sometimes dangerous work which includes handling potentially infectious tissue samples
is done by young women, often of ethnic background. The Board of Directors, however is
consistently middle aged, all-white and heavily male dominated, with usually one or two token female
board members.

The Chairman and Company Director of the Mental Health Research Institute, which received
grants totalling $5,484,523 in 1997, was Professor Ben Lochtenberg, qualified with a Bachelor of
Engineering (BE), and medically unqualified. He was also Chairman of ICI Australia (Imperial
Chemical Industries), Director of Capral Aluminium and a Board Member of the Inner and Eastern
Health Care Network. He was a member of the University of Melbourne Council and the former
Chairman of the Ministerial Review of Medical Staffing in Victorias Public Hospital System
according to the 1997 Annual Report. All 14 members of the Board of Management in 1997 were
white, and 12 were male. They included one professor of psychiatry (David Copolov, the Institute
Director), one professor of medicine (Robert Porter, who is also Board Member of the Southern Health


Care Network and Member of Council, Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine), a professor of
surgery (Gordon Clunie, a Scottish surgeon, now retired), three lawyers, an accountant (who is
treasurer of the institute) and an economist. The female members were Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who
is described as Deputy Chairman of the Infertility Treatment Authority, Chairman of the Judicial
Remuneration Authority and Board Member of the Childrens Television Foundation and Dulcie
Boling, who is described in the 1997 Annual Report as Director of Seven Network, Mercantile Mutual
Holdings Ltd, Multi Media Asia Pacific Ltd and Country Road Ltd. Dame Guilfoyle also is the former
Chairman of the Human Rights Commission Inquiry into Rights of People with Mental Illness. One
might wonder, from the Annual Report of the MHRI, how closely the Board Members of the institute
identify with the problems of the oppressed and dispossessed in Australia. Unless we are to imagine
that in our free country no one is oppressed or dispossessed.
Since then, the MHRI has been led by Professor Colin Masters, previously head of laboratory research
at the institute. Though no longer headed by an explosive and cyanide magnate, the direction of the
MHRI has changed but little. The focus remains on the development of new drugs and broadening
therapeutic justifications for older ones; the idea of looking holistically at the cause of mental
difficulties and their treatment is alien to this paradigm.
In addition to their studies on schizophrenics brains and those who died with Alzheimers disease, the
MHRI is also involved in the Clozaril Patient Monitoring System (CPMS), which, according to the
institutes report, is an independent monitoring system established by the Mental Health Research
Institute. It is funded by Novartis Australia. Novartis (which also markets Ritalin for attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder) is the only company that sells Clozaril (clozapine) in Australia. The
reason it needs to be closely monitored is that clozapine is a very toxic drug, as the report admits,
whilst maintaining that it is a good drug for refractory schizophrenia:
Clozapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent of the dibenzodiazepine class of compounds. It is
chemically and pharmacologically distinct from standard antipsychotic drugs and has been shown
to improve both the positive and negative psychotic symptoms in many patients with schizophrenia
who are unresponsive to, or intolerant of present day therapy, while producing minimal
extrapyramidal side effects.


Unfortunately, clozapine can cause a life threatening decrease in the number of white blood cells
(usually the neutrophils) in some people. At present there is no way to determine who may be at
risk from this effect, but it is known that anyone who has experienced this problem cannot be
exposed to the drug again.

The toxicity if the drug is such that:

Everyone using clozapine must have a weekly blood test for the first 18 weeks of treatment, and
then blood tests must be performed no less than every 28 days thereafter.
Agranulocytosis is not the only problem clozapine can cause. The 1999 MIMS lists: agranulocytosis,
granulocytopenia, other haematological disturbances, fatigue, drowsiness, sedation, dizziness,
headache, weight gain, hypotension, tachycardia, transient pyrexia (fever), extrapyramidal symptoms
(such as Parkinsonism), seizures, neuroleptic malignant syndrome (another potentially fatal adverse
effect), dream intensification, hypersalivation, hyperthermia and others.

The 1996 American Publication Inside the Brain, by Pulitzer prize-winner Ronald Kotulak, purchased
from the Monash University Bookshop, makes no mention of these problems. Kotulak, an enthusiastic
promoter of any and all the drugs mentioned in the book, gives clozapine his unbridled support:
Unlike the standard antipsychotic drugs and tranquilisers, which often render patients dulled
and sedated, the new medications leave them clearheaded.
One such drug is clozapine (Clozaril), which dampens explosive aggression and clears
psychotic thoughts. At places like the Mendota Mental Health Institute in Madison, Wisconsin,
clozapine has swung open the doors of the back wards, allowing patients once doomed to a
lifetime under tight security to move into the community, going to school and work.


Doctors who have seen the drugs effect are enthusiastic. Its like these people were living
under a spell and clozapine is breaking the spell, said Dr.Gary J. Maier, of the University of
Wisconsin, and director of psychiatric services at Mendota, which houses the states most
violent patients. When that happens the long-standing immature personality that had been
struggling to be healthy but couldnt because it kept going crazy is freed. They start to grow
Harvards Dr. John Ratey, who treats Massachusetts most violent criminals at Medfield State
Hospital, also is sending some of his patients home after putting them on clozapine. He called it
the most exciting new drug Ive ever seen and likened its effect to a guided missile that goes
right to the site of aggression in the brain without making patients stupid, apathetic, sleepy, or
non-sexual. (p.88)

By inference, the usual drugs used for psychotic disorders do cause these problems. Ronald
Kotulak, a science reporter, was not commissioned by the editor of the Chicago Tribune to criticise the
new drugs but to praise them, and to find out Why do some children turn out bad? This question is
the motive given in the introduction, anyway, and the answer Kotulak provides is simplistic and
misleading: brain chemistry accompanied by being brought up in bad neighborhoods. When he
describes these bad neighborhoods as being characterised by poverty, single mothers, and lower
education and income levels it becomes clear that black neighbourhoods fit his description of bad
neighbourhoods. It is also evident that several pharmaceutical companies stood to benefit from his
book, particularly Novartis, the manufacturers of Clozaril, and the makers of the new antidepressants,
including Eli Lilly, manufacturers of Prozac, which is promoted several times in the book.
A key factor in the chemical imbalance theories propagated by Kotulak and the marketing strategies
for new antidepressants is blaming the neurotransmitter serotonin for a ludicrous range of mental
illnesses and mental abnormalities. Conveniently, the new SSRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake
Inhibitor) drugs are known to primarily affect serotonin metabolism. With scant regard for scientific
evidence, Kotulak writes:


Low serotonin is common to many mental problems in which one or more of our drives bursts
out of its chemical corral.
Medical researchers found that most of these disorders may be treatable with drugs that
change serotonin levels. First developed to halt the uncontrollable aggression of schizophrenia
and depression, these drugs are now being used or tested for a wide variety of problems,
including alcoholism, eating disorders, premenstrual syndrome, migraines, anger attacks,
manic-depressive disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorders, anxiety, sleep disorders, memory
impairment, drug abuse, sexual perversions, irritability, Parkinsons disease, Alzheimers,
depersonalization disorder, borderline personality, autism and brain injuries. (p.88)

This gives some indication of the widespread experimentation that has occurred since SSRI drugs were
developed. They were developed, however, as antidepressants, not antipsychotics or antiparkinsonian drugs. The list above, rather than demonstrating a low serotonin aetiology, merely
shows that when a new psychiatric drug is developed the medical profession tends to experiment
widely with it, trying it out on patients with a range of different problems. This has occurred with the
whole spectrum of psychiatric drugs, including minor tranquillisers, major tranquillisers, lithium,
antidepressants and amphetamines. In fact, if one looks at the history of medical chemical
discoveries, such as the discovery of new hormones, one of the routine targets for experiments have
been psychiatric patients. Thus, the discovery of insulin in 1921 was followed the next year by trying
out insulin-comas as a treatment for the insane. Cocaine, heroin and amphetamines were widely used
by the medical profession at the beginning of the 20th century prior to them being designated (illegal)
dangerous drugs. Indeed cocaine, heroin and amphetamines are dangerous drugs, but so are dopamineblockers (antipsychotics), benzodiazepine (minor) tranquillisers and alcohol. Nicotine is also a
dangerous drug, and so is Prozac. All these drugs have caused deaths directly and indirectly.
All these drugs (except nicotine and alcohol) were introduced to the worlds human population by the
medical profession, and all have been deliberately injected into experimental animals to test their
toxicity. These animals have included mice, rats, cats, dogs, sheep, goats, monkeys and chimpanzees.
With complete insensitivity towards the suffering of our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees have


been force-fed alcohol (to cause cirrhosis) and fitted with masks that forced them to inhale cigarette
smoke; they have been deliberately infected with human pathogens and psychologically traumatised so
that scientists can tell us more about human illness. It is assumed that by finding out more about
illness we will simultaneously understand how to cure and prevent it and that this end justifies the
unpleasant means (of creating illness in animals). This is a complex issue, and many hold that the
suffering and sacrifice of animals is vital for medical progress and the development of scientific
Most of the animals killed by the scientific establishment in Australia (and the world) today are not
being sacrificed for a good reason. They are being tortured and killed because they are victims of a
lucrative multi-billion-dollar industry. This industry breeds animals just so that they can be
experimented on using modern genetic technology and knowledge rats, mice, rabbits and other
animals that are genetically vulnerable to cancer and infections are being bred so they can be studied
after exposing them to various stressors and then killing them. The publication of research findings,
inevitably non-conclusive and requiring further (animal) experimentation is itself a multi-billiondollar industry as is the medical research training industry. They are not trained to bite the hand that
feeds them.



In recent years, many psychiatry departments in Australia have changed their name to departments of
psychological medicine, however, over the past 100 years, the philosophical, political and theoretical
divide between psychology and psychiatry (a medical specialty) has been deep, and in many ways
irreconcilable. It remains the case that genuine psychology (scientific knowledge of the mind) and
healing psychiatry (medical treatment of psychological problems) cannot be achieved without a
complete transformation of both disciplines. It will require more than changes of name. It will need a
change from a system of labels, statistics, punitive treatments, patriarchal attitudes and hierarchies to
one where the complexity of different cultures and individual perspectives is understood and valued. It
is hoped that the new systems of psychiatry and psychology are more open, egalitarian and democratic
than those of the present, which tend to be secretive, ruled by old boy clubs, prejudices and negative
preconceptions about psych patients (now officially called clients and consumers of the Mental
Health Services). In Australia the domination of psychiatrists over psychologists is obvious, especially
in the hospital system. It is a sad reflection of the state of the psychology profession that from being a
breeding ground for pertinent criticism of the medical model and commonsense (and logical)
alternatives to labels and drugs, in Australia, graduate clinical psychologists are often as certain of
the validity of psychiatric labels as they are about the miraculous nature of modern psychiatric drugs.

Psychology, meaning knowledge about the mind, has become increasingly splintered over the years
into different schools of thought, each with different approaches, assumptions, theories and research
methods. They also have different beliefs about the brain, ranging from schools of thought which argue
that all behaviour is caused by chemicals in the brain to ones that argue that the brain has little to do
with thinking or the destiny of individuals, which is preordained by karmic forces and past lives.
Other schools of psychology argue that all (or most) adult psychological distress is related to early
childhood traumas, or that psychological problems are usually caused by genetic defects and
susceptibilities, or the aftermath of viral infections. Some schools of psychology are preoccupied with
statistical analyses of behaviour, others consider these a waste of time and focus on developing


personality tests and intelligence tests. Some of the more outrageous psychology schools ascribe
what others interpret as psychopathology to alien abductions and channeling by extraterrestrials and
metaterrestrials. Many recent schools of psychology are heavily involved in animal experimentation,
including the torture of mice, rats, cats, dogs (a favourite) and monkeys, from which often
unreasonable inferences are made about human thought and behaviour. Some just focus on giving good
advice, concentrating on empowering individuals to make realistic, sensible choices and decisions, and
to find solutions to problems through their own creative thought and personal motivation. Some
schools of psychology are predictably more scientific than others, some are more philosophically sound
and therapeutically effective than others.

Psychology is a broad field of study, which developed from the arts and philosophy, rather than from
science and medicine, a point which has led to intense rivalry between adherents of psychology and
those of psychiatry over the years, with psychiatry, as a branch of medicine, claiming a mantle of
scientific superiority over unscientific psychology. In truth, however, neither is founded on firm
scientific ground, though both have tried hard to appear scientific, often by quoting statistics and
engaging in scientific-sounding double-blind trials and clinical trials.

Although Sigmund Freud and other early psychiatrists were medical doctors trained in neurology, they
focused on disturbances of thinking as well as dynamic processes affecting the development of the
mind generally, often using anecdotal and personal experiences as a basis for their theories. Freud
developed the concept of the unconscious, arguing that much of an adults behaviour is governed by
largely unrecognised unconscious motives. These required many years of analysis by an expert
psychiatrist (such as himself) to gain insight into. The dependence, and other undesirable results of
such prolonged talk therapies were themselves given names, like transference, in the new jargon.
This jargon grew in the new scientific discipline of psychoanalysis and the practitioners of this
style of psychiatry were (and are) called psychoanalysts.


Literally speaking, psychoanalysis refers to analysis of the mind, and in this sense it is an essential
prerequisite for understanding the mind and improving mental health in individuals and society as a
whole. In practice, however, the therapeutic value of psychoanalysis is dependent on the theoretical
assumptions of the psychoanalyst: how the psychoanalyst thinks other people think. This includes
assumptions about others motivations and the dynamic processes that shape the minds development
throughout life. Behaviour, the observable result of others mental activity can be interpreted in
different ways depending on the assumptions, beliefs, hypotheses and theories of the analyst, and can
also be misperceived because of prejudices of the analyst.

It is also inevitable (and probably desirable), that psychoanalytical theorists would include in their
models some elements of self-analysis, and whilst this sometimes denigrated as subjective and thus
not scientific, mathematical (statistical) analysis of normal behaviour (based on human and animal
experimentation) as the only objective scientific method of study has obvious limitations and
dangers, many of which have become increasingly apparent in recent years.

The most influential medical doctor this century to present a model of human mental processes was
probably Freud, a Jewish Austrian physician with rather suspect attitudes to women and children, who
developed his theories through a combination of clinical experience (with asylum inmates and affluent
private patients) and self-analysis. This was commented on by Professor Stanfield Sargent in the 1944
introductory textbook Great Psychologists (published by Barnes and Noble: New York), when the
early division (and splintering) of European psychological theory into different (and often conflicting)
schools of thought is described (with more than an element of idol-building and myth-making):

In a young and growing science internal disputes often occur. Psychology is no exception.
Psychologists have differed about what psychology should or should not include, about what it


should emphasize, about what research methods are best. When several psychologists strongly
support a certain viewpoint they are called a school.
Structuralism traces back to two men, WILHELM WUNDT and EDWARD BRADFORD
TITCHENER. Wundt is regarded as the father of experimental psychology since he established
in 1879 at Leipzig, Germany, the first psychological laboratory. To study with Wundt came
young and eager psychologists from many countries. One of these was Titchener, an
Englishman, who later came to America to head the psychology department at Cornell
University for many years.
Following Wundts basic ideas, Titchener established the school known as structuralism.
Psychology is concerned with studying images, thoughts, and feelings, the three elements
forming the structure of consciousness. The proper research method is introspection, performed
by trained observers. Learning, intelligence, motivation, personality, or abnormal and social
behavior Titchener ruled out of psychology [!]. He and his students did notable research
Functionalism is a less systematic and unified school. It grew out of the protests of many
psychologists against analyzing consciousness into ideas, images and feelings. The Danish
psychologist HARALD HOFFDING, and the American WILLIAM JAMES both emphasised
the dynamic, changing nature of mental activity and questioned whether it could be analyzed
into structural elements. Shortly after 1900 JOHN DEWEY and JAMES ROWLAND
ANGELL at the University of Chicago began to stress the ways in which an organism adjusts
to environment. Their aim in studying mental functions was to discover how thinking, emotion,
and other processes fulfilled the organisms needs. The views of the functionalists helped to
align psychology with biology and to bring about a genetic approach to psychological
problems. (p.5)

The author of the book, Professor S. Stansfeld Sargent (PhD) of Columbia University, fails to mention
the word eugenics as the outcome of the genetic approach to psychological problems, although this


was common knowledge at the time, nor does he admit to the atrocities that were being perpetrated by
biological psychiatrists in Nazi Germany over the years immediately preceding the writing of this
book. Although Wilhelm Wundt is described as establishing the first psychological laboratory, the
ethics of what was done in this laboratory and to whom, is not explored in this book, which idolises
the fathers of psychology listed in the preface as Binet, Freud, Galton, Helmholtz, Hollingworth,
James, Thorndike, Watson and Woodworth followed by Adler, Cannon, Cattell, Ebbinghaus, Gesell,
Goddard, Janet, Jung, Koffka, Kohler, Kraepelin, Lashley, Lewin, Pavlov, Rorschach, Terman,
Titchener, and Yerkes who are said to be associated primarily with more specialized work.

Of these names a few have grown in fame (and notoriety) over the past fifty years, including Freud,
Jung, Galton, Kraepelin, Rorschach and Pavlov. Freud and Kraepelin, especially, have many devoted
disciples within the medical profession. Much of the animal research industry and behavioural
sciences research is based on Pavlovs work on classical conditioning of dogs (and humans). The
Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung is best remembered for his self-analytical work on dreams, symbolism and
philosophy, although he was an active clinical psychiatrist (and physician). Michael Stone writes, in
Healing the Mind (1998), of the relationship between Adler, Freud and Jung:
Viennese-born Alfred Adler (1870-1937) was among the small group who met at Freuds
house in Vienna on Wednesday evenings to discuss important issues and developments in
psychoanalysis. Adler believed that the crucial dynamic motivating human action was the wish
for power. He articulated this notion in his 1907 book on Organ Inferiority (the source of his
coinage: the inferiority complex).
The first international meeting of analysts was organized by Jung in 1908. Freud read his
paper on the Rat Man, a case of obsessional neurosis. At this time C.G.Jung was Freuds
fair-haired boy. Freud regarded him as brilliant and, of equal importance, hoped that this
Christian physician, the son of a Swiss pastor, would help make psychoanalysis thus far
practiced almost entirely by Jewish professionals in Austro-Hungary acceptable in the wider,
gentile circles beyond the Viennese inner circle. (p.141)


Jung himself, wrote of Freud, in Memories, Dreams, Reflections (1961):

Psychiatry teachers were not interested in what the patient had to say, but rather in how to
make a diagnosis or how to describe symptoms and to compile statistics. From the clinical
point of view which then prevailed, the human personality of the patient, his individuality, did
not matter at all. Rather, the doctor was confronted with Patient X, with a long list of cut and
dried diagnoses and detailing of symptoms. Patients were labelled, rubber-stamped with a
diagnosis, and, for the most part, that settled the matter. The psychology of the mental patient
played no role whatsoever.
At this point Freud became vitally important to me, especially because of his fundamental
researches into the psychology of hysteria and of dreams. For me his ideas pointed the way to a
closer investigation and understanding of individual cases. Freud introduced psychology into
psychiatry, although he himself was a neurologist. (p.135)

The scientific disciplines of Neurology, Psychiatry and Psychology can be best understood from
the Greek roots of these composites of neuro, psyche, logos and iatros. Neuro refers to the
brain and nerves, and the logic based scientific study of the nervous system has long been described as
neurology. The idea of medical doctors trained in the treatment of the mind but not the brain is a
relatively recent phenomenon, and has led to the absurd situation where a mindless neurology and a
brainless psychiatry have become the only choices available for the medical graduate who wishes to
undertake further study in the neurosciences. Psyche is variously translated as mind or soul, but it
certainly does not mean behaviour, as some modern psychologists and psychiatrists suppose. Logos,
translated literally means word, however in the context of neurology and psychology can be used
to refer to the total scientific knowledge of the topic next to which the suffix is used. Thus neurology
refers to collective human knowledge about the brain and nervous system, whilst psychology refers to
collective human knowledge (including that of past times) about the mind, thinking and thought (and
even to scientific study of soul, if the term is used unusually broadly). Psychiatry, combining psyche
with iatros (treatment) refers to treatment of the mind (and soul) and it is difficult to see how the mind


can be rationally and scientifically treated by the medical profession without a rational scientific
understanding of both psychology and neurology.

Following his introduction to Freud, Jung continues, in Memories, Dreams, Reflections with a
description of his own psychoanalytical technique at work:
I still recollect very well a case which greatly interested me at the time. A young woman had
been admitted to the hospital suffering from melancholia. The examination was conducted
with the usual care: anamnesis, tests, physical check-ups, and so on. The diagnosis was
schizophrenia, or dementia praecox, in the phrase of those days. The prognosis: poor.
This woman happened to be in my section. At first I did not dare question the diagnosis. I was
still a young man then, a beginner, and would not have had the temerity to suggest another one.
And yet the case struck me as strange. I had the feeling that it was not a matter of schizophrenia
but of ordinary depression, and resolved to apply my own method. At the time I was much
occupied with diagnostic association studies, so I undertook an association experiment with the
patient. In addition, I discussed her dreams with her. In this way I succeeded in uncovering her
past, which the anamnesis had not clarified. I obtained this information directly from the
unconscious, and this information revealed a dark and tragic story.

The story, briefly, is that the woman, who was very pretty was rejected by the son of a wealthy
industrialist whom, according to Jung she thought her chances of catchingwere fairly good. After
marrying someone else, her depression had developed suddenly after being told that the wealthy
industrialists son had quite a shock when she got married, followed by a tragedy when her young
daughter died of typhoid fever, and she thought that the infection had been contracted by the child
sucking on a sponge tainted by impure river water.


In his description of the story and his miraculous cure of her mental illness by telling her she was a
murderer, Jung seems to accept, and indeed reinforce, the assumption that the child developed typhoid
by sucking on this sponge, even though the womans little son drank a glass of the river water without
becoming ill:
She was bathing her children, first her four-year-old girl and then her two-year-old son. She
lived in a country where the water supply was not perfectly hygeinic; there was pure spring
water for drinking, and tainted water from the river for bathing and washing. While she was
bathing the little girl, she saw the child sucking at the sponge, but did not stop her. She even
gave her little son a glass of the impure water to drink. Naturally, she did this unconsciously, or
only half consciously, for her mind was already under the shadow of the incipient depression.
A short time later, after the incubation period had passed, the girl came down with typhoid
fever and died. The girl had been her favourite. The boy was not infected. At that moment the
depression reached its acute stage, and the woman was sent to the institution.
From the association test I had seen that she was a murderess, and I had learned many details
of her secret. It was at once apparent that this was a sufficient reason for her depression.
Essentially it was a psychogenic disturbance and not a case of schizophrenia.

It is clear from Jungs writings that, whilst recognising this womans distress as due to psychological
traumas that she suffered in the past, he failed to realise that her predictable feelings of guilt that she
had caused the death of her own daughter through negligence could have been treated in a much
more humane way than by accusing her of being a murderer. He also accepted validity of the label of
schizophrenia and an attendant poor prognosis, although he believed the pessimistic prognosis had
been misapplied in this case. He also admits to being intimidated (and thus silenced) by the established
hierarchy in the medical profession, such that he did not dare disagree with the diagnosis made by his
superiors. In terms of ethical, biological and scientific logic, Jung appears to have failed to realise and
evidently failed to explain to his patient that the belief she held that her daughter contracted typhoid by
sucking on a sponge with river water in it was not a scientific certainty by any means, and the


accidental death of her daughter hardly made her a murderess, which by usual definition refers to the
intentional killer of another person. The fact that she did not have schizophrenia would seem obvious,
but a deeper exploration of why she had been diagnosed as such would have perhaps made more
interesting reading than this rather self-indulgent account makes. Jung explains why he considered his
psychoanalytical psychotherapy technique a success:
I told her everything I had discovered through the association test. It can easily be imagined
how difficult it was for me to do this. To accuse a person point-blank of murder is no small
matter. And it was tragic for the patient to have to listen to it and accept it. But the result was
that in two weeks it proved possible to discharge her, and she was never again
institutionalised. (p.137)

She may have committed suicide after being discharged.

Another great psychologist, according to Professor Sargent, the German psychiatry professor Emil
Kraepelin, is still venerated as the father of biological psychiatry in Australia, and acclaimed for his
work in formulating the basic classification of mental abnormalities and deficiencies that
underpins modern medical psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. Continuing with Professor Sargents
list of great psychologists, Rorschach is remembered for devising the ambiguous and unreliable
Rorschach test, where inkblots are presented to the subject to be analysed and their responses
interpreted by the analyst. Pavlov has become a household name (along with Freud) for conditioning
(programming) dogs into salivating in response to a bell, but whose experimental legacy included cruel
human experimentation also.
Professor Sargent continues his passage on Schools in Psychology with a description of
behaviorism, yet another school of thought regarding thinking:


Behaviorism was founded about 1914 by JOHN B. WATSON, then an animal psychologist at
John Hopkins University. He too was impatient with the narrowness of structuralism, but he
did not feel that the functionalists went far enough in their criticisms. Watson objected
particularly to introspection, which he considered unscientific. Psychologys real concern, he
said, is to study behavior, not consciousness. Expose an animal or a human being to a stimulus
and see how he responds; record this behavior objectively and you have real scientific
evidence. Watson and his fellow behaviorists experimented on learning, motivation, emotion,
and individual development.

The school of behaviourism has been very influential in Australia and the USA, to such an extent that
many psychology texts define psychology as the study of behaviour, rather than the study of thinking
or the mind. According to Professor Sargent, Psychoanalysis is just another school of thought out of
many competing models, and one that is scientifically suspect:
Psychoanalysis stood apart from the other schools. Founded by a physician, SIGMUND
FREUD, it grew out of his effort to cure persons suffering from mental and nervous disorders.
Psychoanalysis presents amazingly fruitful and provocative theories of motivation, of
personality development, and of abnormal behavior. Unlike other founders of schools, Freud
made no effort to verify his theories by scientific experiment. Freuds major interpretations and
those of his dissident disciples are presented in the chapter called Conflicts and the
Unconscious. (S.Sargent in Great Psychologists, p6)

In Chapter 12, titled mental disease, Professor Sargent lists his preference for psychiatric icons of all
time. Several names are listed in capital letters under the chapter heading: Hippocrates, Weyer, Pinel,
Dix, Kraepelin, Bleuler, Griesinger, Beers, Campbell, White, Jackson, Meyer, Rosanoff and Lennox.
The chapter begins with what, taken literally, could be a self-fulfilling threat:


About one person of every twenty in the United States will at some time during his life be
treated in a mental hospital. The care and cure of such persons is a tremendous problem.
Then is presented a very misleading reference to the current humane versus the prior inhumane
methods involved in the treatment of those deemed mentally ill or mad:
Apparently mental disease has always existed, but only in the last fifty years has it been
handled scientifically. We have progressed a long way from the days of cells and chains for the
insane. We still have far to go to reach an ideal solution.

The supposition that the mentally distressed, confused, upset or disturbed were routinely treated by all
countries, nations, governments and families with cells and chains is obviously not correct. In fact it
is a small minority of the population at any one time who have been treated in this way, and this sort of
treatment has been ordered by only a few people (mainly men) who have had the authority to give such
orders and have them implemented. Professor Sargent also fails to mention that the routine treatments
given to psychiatric patients who had been diagnosed as suffering mental disease (or mental illness)
were much more cruel and punitive than mere cells and chains. The imprisoned, chained lunatics
(by many names) have been whipped, immersed in cold water or hot water, sensorily deprived, injected
with known poisons and infections, made comatose, given electrical shocks to their head, genitals and
hands, surgically or chemically castrated, had their teeth removed, starved and tortured in many other
ways, always with the claim that these things were being done for the sake of the afflicted individual
and the greater society. Inevitably a scientific sounding theory has been used to justify what would
otherwise be clearly recognised as unethical and illegal abuse of the population by a professional

Convincing the increasingly skeptical population of the world that they have a superior understanding
of madness and sanity, mental illness and health to other experts and non-experts has been a
longstanding concern of the psychiatric profession, and a professional insecurity can be seen in


efforts of psychiatrists and psychologists to claim a position as legitimate scientists. The

problem of scientific credibility is addressed by Professor Sargent in the following way:
We have called psychology a science. Is this correct? Astronomy, chemistry, and physics are
readily recognized as sciences; they involve careful laboratory work, exact measurement, rigid
laws, and sure-fire predictability. Psychology is concerned with something less definite and
tangible; exactitude is hard to obtain and exceptionless laws almost never occur.
However, it is not the definiteness of its material which determines whether a subject is a
science. (If it were, biology might be excluded since it studies the great unknown - life.) KARL
PEARSON, an English mathematician and scientist, insisted nearly fifty years ago that the
criterion of science is not subject matter but the methods of investigation used. If scientific
method is used systematically, we may properly speak of a science, whether the object of study
is minerals, bacteria, human thoughts and feelings, or social institutions.
Scientific method is no mystery. It is a definite procedure used in trying to answer a question
or solve a problem. The problem may be a practical one like What causes malaria?, What
causes mental disease?, How does alcohol affect behavior? Or the problem may be inspired
by mere curiosity: Why do objects fall to the earth?, How does heredity work?, Can
animals learn?

It is interesting that Professor Sargent should mention these particular problems and questions and
it is worth looking at the ways in which these scientific, biological and social phenomena have been
researched in the years since this book was written, and what conclusions have been reached by the
scientific community about them. It is also worth looking at the medical research that was occurring in
institutions associated with Columbia University where S. Stanfield Sargent was employed as
Associate Professor of Psychology during the Second World War.


The first question, What causes malaria? can be answered easily on the most obvious level: infection
with Plasmodium malaria parasites, which are carried by mosquitoes, and transmitted into the blood
through the skin by mosquito bites, usually from Anopheles or Culex mosquitoes. This is, however,
only a partial explanation of what causes malaria. Firstly, not everyone who has malaria parasites
injected into their skin will develop malaria (depending on immune system health), and secondly, not
everyone who has contracted malaria has done so by being bitten by mosquitoes. Some have been
given infections by deliberate transfusion of infected blood to test new antimalarial drugs. And at doses
that made serious illness certain.
It is a little-known fact that during the Second World War and for a few months after it ended, disabled
Australian soldiers, along with Jewish refugees and interned Italians were subjected to secret
experiments in remote North Queensland where they were transfused with bags of blood that were
laced with malaria and subjected to bites from mosquitoes specially bred to carry huge loads of the
malarial parasite. The objective was to find ways to counter the mortality and morbidity of Allied
troops in the tropics, The infected blood was provided by the Red Cross; the mosquitoes capable of
carrying hundreds of times the normal load of malaria were bred by the Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR), the forerunner to the CSIRO. These human guinea-pig experiments were
first reported fifty years after they occurred, in the Fairfax press (publishers of The Age, which carried
the reports). True to form, the Murdoch press (which owns most of the other newspapers in Australia)
did not mention these experiments.
As for the vexing question of what causes mental disease, it depends on how mental disease is defined.
Is war-mongering is an indication of mental disease? Is the manufacture of landmines and
multibarrelled heavy weapons indicative of madness? Is demonizing dissidents a sign of mental illness?
By this token, can nations, as well as individuals. be mentally ill?



In the 1940s, at the same time that Professor Sargent wrote Great Psychologists, and the nations of
Europe were engaged in a bloody struggle for territory and supremacy, an undisclosed number of men
and women were deliberately infected with malaria in Australia by the Commonwealth army in
conjunction with the British and Australian (Commonwealth) governments, and American and British
pharmaceutical (drug) companies. The drug trials, on interred Italians and Jewish refugees, as well as
wounded Australian soldiers (who were obtained from convalescent hospitals), were reported in the
Australian newspapers over 50 years after they occurred, and were hardly commented on by the
scientific press or politicians in the country in which these terrible abuses occurred. The experiments,
on people described in the Age articles as human guinea pigs, were done in North Queensland (and
later, in Melbourne) during the Second World War and for several months after the official cessation of
hostilities, driven by the military and financial motive of testing new antimalarial drugs developed in
Germany for toxicity by the Allies on captive populations. It is difficult not to see this as a hostile act
against Australia and the Australian people, as well as the Italian and Jewish people who were
subjected to torture, which was then denied.

Even with the revelation of details of these cruel and unnecessary acts by the Australian and British
Governments of the day (who ultimately hold responsibility for their armed forces), the deliberate
infection and poisoning of these people was not described as torture or biological warfare by the Age
newspaper, although the reporters did describe the incident as abuse. The Murdoch-owned
newspapers in Victoria (The Australian and The Herald Sun) did not take the issue up, and The Age did
not persist with the historical story or make the necessary connections with contemporary medical
science and research activity in Australia (and Melbourne, in particular) to understand why Guy Nolch
may have written in the editorial of Australasian Science that little has changed in 50 years when
commenting on biological warfare suggesting that the fault lies not with the scientists but the
masters who control them.


The drug Paludrine was being tested for ICI chemicals, a large British-based company which continues
to market the drug today, and the director of ICI Australia, Ben Lochtenberg, had been, for several
years, the director of the Mental Health Institute in Parkville, Melbourne, when the reports of the
malaria tests were finally made public in The Age. ICI, which is an acronym for Imperial Chemical
Industries was founded in 1926, during a period of time between the two World Wars that has been
referred to as The Depression. Around the same time as the revelations about the infection and
treatment trials, ICI pharmaceuticals was transformed into Zeneca pharmaceuticals, which in 1999
became amalgamated with the Sweden-based Astra pharmaceuticals, forming a new giant drug
company called Astra-Zeneca. The huge non-pharmaceutical operations of ICI continued as ICI
chemicals, unaffected by the merger, according to the Information Service provided on a 1800 number
by Astra-Zeneca. The phone message of the old Astra-Zeneca number in Melbourne announced, when
I called the number on 1.9.99, that the Melbourne office of Astra-Zeneca has closed, and the head
office relocated to Sydney.

The malaria infections, which occurred in remote North Queensland, under the auspices of the Red
Cross, Royal Australian and British Military, involved deliberately exposing physically and
psychologically stressed individuals to extraordinarily high doses of malaria through specially bred
mosquitoes and transfusions of blood infected with malaria. The infected people were then subject to
physical trauma such as exposure to cold and then given massive doses of the chemicals to be tested,
observing for toxic effects. After the war ended, according to the newspaper reports, pressure from the
American drug company Winthrop (producers of Panadol) and ICI resulted in the trials being shifted to
the Heidelberg Military Hospital in Melbourne, which had orchestrated the Australian trials. Panadol
and Panadeine (paracetamol with codeine), previously Winthrop brands, are now marketed in Australia
by the Consumer branch of SmithKline Beecham.

Heidelberg Military Hospital, which was built in 1941, became the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital in
1947, and became incorporated with the adjacent Austin Hospital in 1995 to form the massive Austin
and Repatriation Hospital located in the North-Eastern Melbourne suburb of Heidelberg. The Austin


hospital, now the biggest hospital in Melbourne according to the Public Relations Department of the
hospital, was one of Melbournes first hospitals, and was built in 1882. It is, like Melbournes first
hospital, the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Parkville, which was built in 1848, affiliated with the
University of Melbourne, which was founded in the 1860s, at the time of the gold-rush. Both these
hospitals are major teaching hospitals (for medical students) and public hospitals which treat
Melbourne people who cannot afford, or do not want private medical care. They also both provide
public psychiatric services, including locked facilities for people to be injected in against their wills. In
February, 2000, the public relations officer at the Royal Melbourne Hospital explained to me that the
hospital has recently opened a unit with 25 acute beds and 8 for people (usually girls) with eating
disorders (mainly anorexia). Previously, the Royal Melbourne Hospital was associated with the
notorious Royal Park Psychiatric Hospital, which has recently been closed and partially demolished to
make room for a visiting athletes at the Commonwealth Games. The unsuspecting athletes will be
housed on a site where thousands of young Australians have been imprisoned and tortured over the
years with electric shocks and huge doses of chemical toxins. Many have died, either during their
treatment or shortly after it. Their deaths have inevitably been reported as suicide.

On 1.9.99, the Age newspaper in Melbourne announced in an article headlined titled Coalition pledges
$1b for health that, the coalitions announcement came as the Opposition launched its health
strategy, promising to spend an extra $270 million building and upgrading hospitals including $155
million to ensure the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre remained in public hands. The Austin
and Repatriation Medical Centre has never really been in public hands. Public hospitals in Australia
are, like the medical profession generally, controlled by elites who tend to support the pharmaceutical
industry as well as the military industry. The Heidelberg Military hospital, which became the
Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital, was initially a British-Australian Military Hospital, which
coordinated medical military activity during the Second World War (in the 1940s). This is the hospital
that coordinated the malaria experiments on interned Italian and Jewish refugees during the WWII, and
treated veterans for shell-shock (later termed post-traumatic stress disorder) after this war and all
the wars Australia has been involved in since then. These include the wars in Korea, Vietnam, New
Guinea, and Malaya.


The 1943 University of Queensland publication The Nervous Soldier by Professor John Bostock (of the
University of Queensland and Brisbane General Hospital) and Dr Evan Jones (of the University of
Sydney) gives an indication of treatment methods employed in Australia during the Second World
War, as well as the favoured diagnoses of the time. The book recommends traits which will suggest
need for psychological investigations in soldiers, because, according to the manual, the military
machine must have efficiency at all times. These traits include: resentfulness to discipline or
inability to be disciplined, unusual stupidity or awkwardness in drills or exercises, inability to
transmit orders correctly, personal uncleanliness, criminal tendencies, abnormal sex practices
and tendencies including masturbation, filthy language and defacement of property, distinct
feminine types, bed wetters, subjects of continual ridicule or teasing, queer or peculiar
behaviour, chronic homesickness and all recruits who show persistent fearfulness, irritability,
seclusiveness, sulkiness, depression, shyness, timidity, anti-social attitude, over boisterousness,
suspicion, dullness, sleeplessness [or] sleep walking. (p.80)

The authors rule out those with mental deficiency, epilepsy, schizophrenia or manic depression
from employment in the armed forces, and gives the following description of schizophrenia:
Whilst the fully developed schizophrenic personality is so obvious that it cannot escape
recognition, milder forms may be recognised by certain character traits. They are sensitive,
reserved, bad mixers, unpractical, abstracted and dreamy, and generally have difficulty in
facing ordinary problems. Their mind is made up with difficulty. They may lack the power of
concentration. These traits make them unsuitable material for soldiers. It is noteworthy that
during the last war 20 per cent of mental invalids belonged to this class.

Not surprisingly, the main problems diagnosed in soldiers were related to anxiety (ranging from
normal nervousness to grave anxiety states). The recommended treatments for more severe states of
anxiety were convulsion (chemical shock) therapy and narcotherapy. Milder cases were treated by
suggestion, hypnosis, hypno-analysis and narco-analysis. Electrical shocks are also briefly


discussed (as Faradism), and insulin coma, whilst considered an effective treatment by the authors,
was not considered appropriate for military use. Alcohol was also used as an anxiolytic and such use
was recommended as follows:
The role of alcohol for the soldier cannot be lightly dismissed. Drinking is a method of
evading reality. Those who deprecate the use of alcohol should imagine themselves attacking a
machine gun at dawn with death or mutilation a probability. In such cases some evasion of
reality is perfectly justifiable. The report by the War Office on shell shock states that whilst
alcohol must be rationed front-line medical and executive officers favoured the use of rum if
properly controlled: it was especially valuable in the early morning hours.
Service conditions create periods of abstinence, boredom and danger. At their conclusion
there is an irresistible urge for conviviality, which exposes the soldier to alcohol at a time when
his tolerance is low. It is not surprising that cases of acute alcoholism are inevitable. Whilst
such lapses are to be deprecated from the angle of discipline, the Medical Officer is concerned
purely as a doctor whose job is to make a presumably good soldier fit to resume his duty.

In The Nervous Soldier, alcohol and cigarette abuse are identified as being caused by military training,
although it is not admitted as clearly as that. Under the subtitle, the preliminary military training, in a
chapter titled The Stresses of Military Life, Bostock and Jones wrote, in 1943:
When Bill Smith receives his first uniform he must face an entire alteration in his living
conditions. His contacts are different. He is shorn of many personality props and of the friends
and relatives of a life time. They are replaced by new faces and strange voices. Soon he learns
that he is fettered and frustrated by disciplinary restrictions. His soul belongs to the army. For
both married and unmarried there is a modification of the sex routine. For some the change is
towards continence; others are snared in the net of promiscuity with its attendant worries. The
conditions of military life are calculated to stir into activity repressed homo-sexual tendencies
resulting in the development of anxiety states or of paraphrenic psychoses. Even the alcohol


and tobacco habits partake of the change. There is a move from teetotalism towards drinking,
often to excess. Tobacco becomes almost a necessity. (p.15)

The authors do not seem to realise how permanently destructive the training of young men in this way
is bound to be for society generally, whilst admitting that it destroys fundamental respect for life:
and in addition there is another aspect manifesting itself. The aggressive instincts are
unfolding. The soldier trained from infancy to regard human life as sacred must become
efficient in taking life when necessary. Unless he can learn to kill his enemies, military training
is futile. (p.16)

The prime motivator for a successful soldier, according to The Nervous Soldier is patriotism. Ironically,
the opening chapter suggests that fighting (and killing) in support of the British war effort (despite
the British imperial history of slavery and oppression), is actually a fight for freedom from Nazi slavery
and Japanese imperialism:
We are actors today in one of the great moments of history. We are called to help free a large
proportion of civilization from the enslaving serfdom of German Nazism and Japanese
imperialism. We realise, as never before, the value of personal and national liberty. This
liberty, which has been brutally snatched from the Czechs, Danes, Norwegians, Poles, Dutch
and Greeks, has assumed a new significance for us in the face of danger. Hitherto we took it
overmuch for granted. Democracy alone provides the way of life and the form of government
under which it can live and flourish. So Democracy must prevail or freedom will vanish from
the earth. This is an incentive, this is a motive that should have the power to light the torch of
unflagging enthusiasm in us. And today we of the Anzac zone have another motive perhaps
the most primitive of all that of defending our homes from destruction and our women and
children from slaughter.


The fact that democracy is incompatible with monarchies and authoritarian hierarchies evidently
escaped the psychology professors who wrote this manual, and the treatments they gave to nervous
soldiers were not based on the democratic will of the Australian people. They were based on the
psychiatric dogmas prevalent in British and Australian universities and hospitals at the time, and an
agenda based on producing efficient killing machines who obeyed orders unquestioningly, accepted
punishment without complaint (discipline) and were willing to sacrifice their lives for the elites who
gave both the orders and the punishments (whilst believing they were fighting and risking injury or
death for freedom and democracy).

The mainstay of treatment for severe anxiety was, incongruously, chemical shock therapy, involving
the intravenous injection of drugs which caused convulsions. These drugs included cardiazol and
phrenazol, which also caused acute terror and death, at times:
Shock therapy has received such widespread recognition during the last few years that there is
little need to describe the method in detail. As it is particularly useful in the early stages its
employment in anxiety and hysterical conditions associated with war will often be indicated.
The treatment should be carried out by a trained team, and under such conditions that
complications such as fractures, should they occur, can be adequately dealt with. This will
include access to an X-ray unit. It is obvious therefore, that the method is not applicable under
field conditions.

The book continues to give details of dose, and injection technique for inducing convulsions using
cardiazol, warning that, if a convulsion fails to occur the results are often most unpleasant, if not
harmful. The trauma of such treatment is easy to imagine:
The patient is in a dorso-recumbent position with a pillow under the head and another under
the upper thoracic region. During convulsions the upper extremities should be held adducted to
the trunk and the shoulders are pressed down to avoid violent flexion of the dorsal spine. Hold


patient rigidly by shoulders to the bed, see that the limbs are straight. A fracture of any limb
may occur, but is less likely if these precautions are carried out. (p.58)

Narco Therapy, essentially the same as the notorious deep sleep therapy, was reserved for resistant
cases. With an inexcusable ignorance about the difference between a good nights sleep and a
drugged coma, the authors gave a revealing case history:
There is a growing belief in the utility of narco therapy for early cases. Everyone is aware of
the benefits of a good nights sleep particularly after a heavy and worrying day. Public belief in
the efficacy of sleep is profound. Oh, doctor, says the patient, if I could sleep for days, I
would be cured. Today we are able to achieve this miracle often with remarkable results. As
an instance the following case may be quoted.
AB was profoundly depressed and said he had venereal disease. Suggestion and persuasion
with exhaustive blood tests were useless. Shock therapy was then tried without success. Finally
he was put to sleep for three weeks. When he awoke to reality the previous morbid ideas had
disappeared. Within a few days he was anxious to return to work. [He may have just stopped
complaining about his fear, for obvious reasons]
As will be seen by the above, certain cases which do not respond to cardiazol may respond to
narco-therapy. Quite frequently sleepnessness and restlessness or excitement render it either
impolitic or impossible to give shock therapy. Whenever this occurs, there is scope for the use
of narco-therapy.

As for physio-therapy the psychiatrists who wrote The Nervous Soldier were not talking about
aerobic exercise. The section on Physio-Therapy begins with an extraordinary description of the
value of electrical shocks:


Electricity plays a small but definite part in the treatment of nervous disorders. Faradism may
be used with dramatic results. The inert muscle at its touch leaps into spasm associated with
discomfort if not pain. Faradism has therefore a distinctly persuasive quality since it gives
ocular proof that paralysis is not complete. Furthermore as a method of treatment, it has the
merit of being uncomfortable and therefore carries with it the suggestion, Get well quickly
and be finished.
In hysteria faradism will be used most frequently for mutism and paralysis. In the former the
electrodes may touch the naso pharynx [the back of the throat] or be applied to the neck.

In actuality, the suggestion is: get back to the firing line or well torture you with painful electric
shocks and chemically-induced convulsions. The focus on efficiency means that doctors are
expected to return soldiers to active duty as soon as possible and while spending minimal time with
them (hence the enthusiasm for quick treatments like electrical and chemical shocks). In a section
titled enlisting the help of a cobber the book explains:
A medical officer can only be with any one patient for a few moments. He needs therefore an
extension of himself to carry on the good workOften a word with a mans cobber will infuse
new hope and if he has no cobber, see his platoon officer, and find him one.

A few years before George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four, Bostock and Jones wrote:
Most men are better for a big brother. When needed the Medical Officer must take practical
steps to find him. (p.71)


Wars make a lot of money for some industries, notably the weapons-manufacturing industry, mining
industry, chemical industry, espionage industry, drug industry and medical treatment industry
(including the psychiatric diagnosis and treatment industry). In recent wars, the increasingly influential
humanitarian aid industry has also become a noticeable profiteer. All these industries are now set up
along corporate lines, and compete with each other for credibility, sales and size. Many of the
humanitarian aid and charity organizations have completely betrayed the noble ideals expressed in
their titles and do the very opposite of what they are claimed by their public relations departments to

Although on paper these may be non-profit organizations, it should be remembered that in Australia
and America non-profit organizations including religions and charities do not have to pay tax.
Australia has therefore become a tax haven for corrupt religious organizations and charities, the money
raised from the public being spent on projects which are dubious, to say the least. Many of these
charities ostensibly raise funds for medical research which turns out to be largely spent on
promotion of disease and treatment services, drug trials and human (and animal) experimentation, often
orchestrated by universities and independent research institutions located in and connected with
public hospitals.

In Australia, as well as in Britain and America, the training people receive in universities regarding
philosophy (including ethics), economics, marketing, politics, sociology, medicine and psychology are
not directed towards ideals of truth, honesty, justice, kindness, generosity and peacefulness. The
reasons for this can be elucidated historically, politically, and economically. They can also be looked at
psychologically and scientifically. However they are approached, they should be looked at logically if
we are to recover from the militarisation and corporate takeover of Australian education. With the
corporatisation of the tertiary education system in Australia, the focus has been on training young
people to get a job, beat other people (compete ruthlessly), make more money and be compliant
consumers. The tertiary education institutions in Australia also teach, and have developed within a
support-of-the-military paradigm, especially in the areas of science and medicine.


This corporate takeover of medical education has been accompanied by changes in medical and
psychiatric terminology. The change of status of psychiatric victims from prisoners to lunatics to
patients to consumers and clients has been an official one overseen by senior members of the
psychiatric profession in Australia, along with other changes of name, such as mental hygeine to
mental health, and human-rights to anti-psychiatry. Others, such as eugenics and biological
warfare have disappeared from the vocabulary of doctors in Australia, to be replaced by psychiatric
genetics(when applied to local practices) or ethnic cleansing (when applied to the Allies military

The elaborate system of psychological training that soldiers are programmed with to stop thinking
about it and keep fighting without questioning orders, has profound effects on their behaviour
during action (fighting and supporting the war effort), as well as afterwards, when they find it
impossible de-program themselves and return to civilian life. This is where the repatriation and
veterans hospitals have developed and extraordinary system of blame the victim psychiatry. The
veterans were said to suffer from mental illness or nervous disorders and discharged from the
armed forces, sometimes on a pension from the Commonwealth Department of Veterans Affairs.
Alcoholism, aggression, violence, drug addiction, gambling, nightmares, depression and chronic
anxiety are all common problems amongst returned soldiers and are the real fruits of war.

Such men have been both honoured and ignored. The well-behaved soldiers, who accepted their
injuries and dwindling government services quietly were publicly lauded, once a year, at Anzac day
marches, lest we forget, while those who were angry, upset, confused or horrified by their war-time
experiences were impolitely pensioned off with whatever nervous disorder diagnoses were in use at
the time. These included shell-shock after the First World War and post-traumatic stress disorder
after the Vietnam War.


The old Heidelberg Military Hospital, which treated thousands of returned soldiers (and experimented
on others, according to the Age report on human guinea-pigs) is now part of the Austin and
Repatriation Medical Centre in Heidelberg, and proposals have been made, in recent years, to
privatise the hospital (sell the hospital to individuals and corporations), as has been done with several
ex-military hospitals around Australia in recent years.

One such hospital is the Repatriation Hospital at Greenslopes in Brisbane, which was sold to Ramsay
Health Care, who claim, in their glossy 1997 prospectus that:
Ramsay Health Care was established in 1964 and has grown to become one of the largest and
most successful private hospital operators in Australia. The origins of Ramsay Health Care
were in the field of psychiatric healthcare where it achieved a reputation for innovation in
many areas of psychiatry and for providing high quality care. The same culture and principles
apply in all its healthcare operations, which now encompass a diverse range of medical/surgical
hospitals in addition to psychiatric hospitals.
The prospectus also announces that the company, which owns and operates 11 hospitals located in
New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, with a total of 1,351
beds had signed contracts in May 1996 with TF Woolham & Son Pty Ltd to construct a new 30 bed
psychiatric ward at Greenslopes Private Hospital for the sum of $1,515,011 and Transfield
Constructions Pty Ltd (for $11,035,597) to build four more hospital wards at the Hollywood campus
in Western Australia. In May, 1996, the prospectus reports, Kilcullen & Clark was engaged to design
and construct a psychiatric unit on the Hollywood campus for the sum of $2,489,749.

In Victoria, the main centre of Paul Ramsays huge private psychiatric empire is the Albert Road
Clinic in Inner Melbourne. The prospectus explains:


Albert Road Clinic was opened in July 1995 and in part was a conglomeration of three
existing psychiatric hospitals owned by Ramsay Health Care. These hospitals were closed upon
the opening of Albert Road clinic. Albert Road Clinic is an 80 licensed bed facility which is
recognised throughout Melbourne as a major specialist referral centre. The clinic specialises in
the treatment of eating disorders, adolescent disorders and elderly assessment and through its
mood disorders programme, has formal links with the University of Melbourne.

Simultaneously, in a contract that has been kept secret by the Victorian State Government, a 135 bed
forensic psychiatry hospital has been constructed at Yarra Bend, adjacent to the Fairfield Hospital and
current home of the Macfarlane Burnet Virology Institute, which is to be relocated adjacent to the
Alfred Hospital in Prahran (in inner eastern Melbourne). The Macfarlane Burnet Centre, which advises
the National and State Governements on HIV, AIDS and AIDS prevention, is run by their Chief
Executive Officer and Executive Director the American Professor John Mills, who heads the
Childrens Virology Department, according to their 1998 Annual Report, as well as being CEO of
the company. Possibly presenting a major conflict of interest, Professor Mills is also described as the
Director of AMRAD pharmaceuticals, which has recently constructed a massive new complex also in
prime land by the Yarra River.

AMRAD corporation, Macfarlane Burnet Centre, the Alfred Hospital and Forensic Psychiatry Hospital,
as well as the Austin Repatriation Hospital all have formal and informal links with the University of
Melbourne, Melbournes oldest university, and one of only two in the State of Victoria authorised to
produce medical graduates and train them in various areas, the other being Monash University, founded
in the 1960s. This includes the training of medical specialists including psychiatrists and specialists on
public health, including international public health. This training is a prolonged process involving in
six years of undergraduate study, a years internship in the public hospital system, and a variable
number of years in the public (teaching) hospital system during which they are examined by senior
specialists and, if they satisfy various criteria, allowed to call themselves specialists also (and claim
both authority and increased fees). The same system, with some variations, is in operation throughout


the world, including Britain, where it originated, the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Europe, Africa, Asia
and Australia.

Predictably, given the history of Australia, the medical and scientific institutions in Australia maintain
close philosophical and political links with the old English Universities Oxford and Cambridge in
addition to an increasing influence from Harvard, Yale and other universities in the USA. It is usual
practice, and often considered obligatory, that as part of their higher education, medical graduates
spend at least one year in Britain or the USA before receiving their specialist qualification. It is also the
case that many doctors with medical qualifications obtained in the United Kingdom and New Zealand
are practising in Australia, without any particular qualification in the unique health problems and
psychology of the Australian people or a knowledge of their history or culture. Extraordinarily, many
of these doctors, some of whom also qualified in other Commonwealth countries, such as New
Zealand, Sri Lanka, India and Canada, are working in the area of clinical and academic psychiatry,
where a sensitive approach and detailed knowledge of the diverse cultures and languages of Australia is
surely essential.

There are several political reasons why the psychiatric system in Australia is disproportionately
populated by doctors who are not Australian by birth, or culturally. Many are not Australian citizens
and do not regard Australia as home. This is important because when treating peoples minds, ones
loyalties, including national loyalties (and concepts of patriotism) are important especially when
making diagnoses of political beliefs. Revolutionary thought and action is proscribed by psychiatric
diagnostic criteria, including revolutionary thought in the areas of politics, philosophy, religion and
science. Challenges to the authority of the state and the system (wherever it is located) are also
proscibed by psychiatric criteria for the diagnosis of delusions, psychosis, schizophrenia and mania.
Thus those who attempt to radically change the existing system or demonstrate hostility or aggression
towards it can be diagnosed, though a complex web of jargon and concepts (such as paranoia,
thought disorder, affective disorder) as incurably mad. This system of diagnosis can be, and has


been, abused in every part of the world in which it has been implemented, not least of all because it is
obviously politically expedient to discredit opponents as mentally ill.

It is so obvious that this system can be abused that most States which employ psychiatric diagnoses
also have laws proscribing the misapplication of labels of madness for political, religious and
philosophical beliefs. This is the case in every State in Australia however gross abuses in the
application of these labels occurs, and many people have been crippled and died, while they could have
been (and may have been) great artists, philosophers, poets, or politicians. The reason so many
potentially wonderful careers are destroyed by psychiatric diagnosis and treatment is that the criteria
defining abnormality enshrined in psychiatric texts are fundamentally anti-creative. Dopamineblockers inhibit creative thought, and the diagnosis of original (idiosyncratic) ideas as psychotic (out
of touch with reality as defined by the medical profession) also inhibits creative thinking. This
includes so-called lateral thinking (referred to as flight of ideas, a classical symptom of mania
and hypomania) and belief in things that others do not believe (delusions).

The label of mania can also be applied to people who become progessively more outspoken,
adventurous, spontaneous or generous. Giving away expensive presents and giving away ones
possessions are regarded as typical manic activities, as is, incredibly, striking up conversations with
strangers on a train, and increase in goal-directed activities (DSM IV, 1995). While states of insane
mania may exist, the criteria for diagnosis of hypomania and mania are biased against particular types
of activity and particular beliefs. These are proscribed, not because they are unhealthy, but because of
the political and religious background within which psychiatric diagnostic criteria were developed. In
terms of politics, acceptable views, according to the apolitical criteria of the DSM and ICD
classifications are essentially capitalist, obedient of the laws of land (whether good or bad laws) and
compliant with medical directives and orders.
Of course, the psychiatric profession in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and North America do not
admit to having been affected by Cold War paranoia (or propaganda) or to retain biases from the eras


of colonialism, imperialism and Christian crusades (and inquisitions). The struggle for emancipation
and human rights is not mentioned in psychiatric texts, and the history of psychiatric atrocities is
selectively omitted when the story of medical advances is told in the many popular medical history
books which tell of the miracles of penicillin, immunization, micro-surgery and modern genetics. This
is the version of medical history taught in medical schools around the world, including the University
of Queensland, where I myself learned the Official History of Western Medicine. Actually there was
hardly any history included in the medical curriculum, true or false we learned names of important
scientists but not where and when they lived (or what their assumptions and biases were essential
knowledge if one hopes to reasonably evaluate their theories and conclusions). Inevitably, every
medical student that graduated as a doctor (including myself) believed the core tenets of the Official
History of Western Medicine by the time we had finished our 6 years at university. We had been
carefully and methodically programmed to accept our place in the system that trained us, and to accept
that any fundamental changes to this system would occur very slowly and that anyone who thought
otherwise was unrealistic out of touch with reality.

For foreign graduates to be registered as medical doctors in Australia, they must fulfil conditions
stipulated by the Commonwealth Government-sponsored Overseas Doctors Training Program, which
makes it far easier for some doctors to work in Australia than others. This depends, largely, on where
they trained graduates from British, Canadian and New Zealand universities find it much easier to
gain registration to work as doctors in Australia than those who trained in the third world, China or
Russia. This is said to be related to the doctors proficiency in English, the argument being that doctors
who cannot communicate adequately in the English language should not be allowed to work as doctors
in English-speaking Australia. The same argument, however, makes it doubly inappropriate that
doctors who do not speak and fluent English should be employed in the area of public hospital
psychiatry where ability to communicate with patients and understand their culture and language is


The reason usually given for foreign graduates working, at least temporarily, as psychiatric registrars
and residents, when they first come to Australia, is that there is a shortage of local graduates to work in
the public hospital psychiatric system. This may be true, but if so, there are good reasons why local
graduates do not want to work in the capacities demanded of them by the psychiatric system signing
orders that take away their neighbours rights and freedoms, and prescribing that drugs and injections
be given to people against their will. Most in Australia do not regard such activities as fgiving people a
fair go, but most do not know what goes on inside psychiatric hospitals. Many have noticed,
however, that people often come out worse (after treatment) than when they went in.

There is large-scale public cynicism regarding the medical profession and suspicion regarding the cosy
relationship between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. I have heard accusations that doctors
often have shares in drug companies, which I do not believe to be the case. Most doctors overprescribe
drugs not because of pecuniary interest, but because they are trained to do so. They are trained to
diagnose illness, order investigations, refer to specialist colleagues and prescribe drugs. This is an
important part of medical training, which is necessary for the good scientific use of medications,
however, without a holistic approach and a knowledge of non-drug approaches, the medical profession
is seriously blinkered seeing people as labels and statistics which can be only treated with chemicals
and scalpels.



The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that no one shall be
subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 5). The same
collection of International Laws states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion (article 18) and that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression
(article 19). These rights are fundamental to any democratic society, however much they are ignored or
perversely misapplied.

The Australian population is ostensibly protected from the perverse misapplication and
misinterpretation of laws by a legal concept termed natural law or natural justice.

Natural law is rarely quoted in Australian courtrooms, but it is said to be an important principle in the
hearings of the Mental Health Review Board in Victoria and equivalent bodies in other states. These
are semi-formal hearings with the power to authorise the release or continued incarceration of people
held against their will by the public hospital system, when the usually drugged patient is interrogated
by a lawyer and psychiatrist, with a largely symbolic community visitor present to provide a
semblance of impartiality. The proceedings are unrecorded other than the notes of the lawyer for the


The Annual Report of the Victorian Mental Health Review Board and Psychosurgery Review Board for
the year ending 30 June 1998 states that the Board heard 4827 cases in 1997-98, an increase of 11.6%
from the previous year, when 4326 cases were determined. In 1990-91, 2657 cases were heard, and a
constant rise in the number of cases has occurred each year since then. Of these 4827 cases 33% were
involuntarily detained inpatients (held against their will in hospitals) and 63.4% were people objecting
to community treatment orders (CTOs) which had been made against them by psychiatrists. Of these
appeals, only 5.7% of patients were discharged.

An argument that could be put forward to justify this low release figure is that few of the people denied
their freedom were not in need of forced treatment and denial of the right of free movements that other
citizens are entitled to and take for granted. In other words, most of the people incarcerated and
forcibly injected with major tranquillisers (antipsychotics) need this treatment for their own wellbeing
and that of society, and thus no human rights abuses are occurring through the actions of the Mental
Health Review Board.

Examination of the criteria by which mental illness is judged, the personal experience of the author, the
Report of the Seeking Justice Project and several cases cited in the Annual Report of the Mental Health
Review Board (1998) show that, in fact, systematic abuses of young peoples right to freedom of
thought, speech and action are occurring as a direct result of inappropriate determinations by the
Mental Health Review Board, which largely supports the treatments meted out to psychiatric patients in
Victoria, regardless of how cruel these treatments are, often based solely on lack of insight in
patients regarding their mental illness and the need for treatment(drug treatment).

The Board routinely turns a blind eye to irregularities in paperwork and medical records, excessive
doses of drugs forced into patients, assault by nursing staff, long periods of solitary confinement and
punitive or coerced electroshock treatment, all of which are occurring in Australian hospitals today,


and which regulatory bodies such as the Mental Health Review Board have a legal and ethical
responsibility to identify and prevent.

According to the report, in 1998, only 3 of the 24 psychiatrists on the Mental Health Review Board are
women, but 10 of the 23 legal members and 14 of 19 community members were women. All five
professors (the highest rank in the academic hierarchy) were men. These included three professors of
psychiatry, Professor Richard Ball, Professor Graeme Mellsop and Associate Professor Sidney Bloch.
Professor Bloch co-edited Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry, the standard textbook for medical
students at Monash University and the University of Melbourne (at which he is one of several
psychiatry professors). He also gave the 1996 Beattie Smith Lecture at the University of Melbourne, a
revised version of which was published in 1997 in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of

In it he ironically warned:
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, claimed Santayana. What can we learn
from the Soviet and Nazi horrors? We can recognise in both contributory elements derived from
concepts moulded by the psychiatric profession itself. In the USSR the monopoly of Snezhnevskyism
facilitated the States embrace of psychiatry to stifle dissent. In Nazi Germany, the eugenic movement,
led in part by distinguished academic psychiatrists, was the foundation on which Hitler could erect his
murderous edifice. Thus we see that psychiatry is not necessarily an innocent victim when forces
beyond its borders seek its connivance to pursue pernicious goals.

Snezhnevskyism is a reference to Soviet psychiatric policies based on the doctrines of Professor

Andrei Snezhnevsky, described as an architect of the diagnostic schema which facilitated the Soviet
misuse of psychiatry for political purposes. Snezhnevsky, according to Professor Bloch, crafted the


reasons that a dissident could be labeled as schizophrenic because of the political beliefs and
behaviour, doing this over a period of thirty years during which he created new categories such as
sluggish schizophrenia which could be diagnosed in people who appeared quite normal to the
untrained eye.

Professor Bloch explains:

In essence, he devised concepts which profoundly shifted the way the condition was used clinically.
This was no mere academic exercise. Several crucial repercussions eventuated: (i) schizophrenia was
always genetically determined; (ii) although its features might only manifest intermittently, the
biological foundation of the illness always remained; (iii) recovery was not possible; (iv) the main
question was the speed with which a patient would deteriorate; and (v) rather sinisterly, because the
illness might present with mild symptoms and only progress later, schizophrenia was much more
common than previously thought. (p.174)

The Annual Report of the Mental Health Review Board (1998) states that 65% of patients seen at
hearings had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, with another 9% as having schizoaffective disorder
and 11% with bipolar affective disorder (BAD). A disturbing perspective is presented of one of these
cases, which is amongst 21 of the 4827 cases selected for presentation in the annual report, of a young
man diagnosed as schizophrenic for what are common new age ideas:
The patient had been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia with fixed delusional
symptoms. He was preoccupied by his space and research project which involved making
further contact with aliens from another planet and believed he and his girlfriend were the
living embodiments of people who had been burnt to death as witches in the 17th century. He
told the Board he had communicated with aliens from another planet via dreams and astral
travel. He did not believe he was mentally ill but was being persecuted for his religious
beliefs. (p.33)


The Board, which had considered whether the patients beliefs could be characterised as religious
decided that it did not matter whether or not they were religious, since even if [the patients] beliefs
were religious, the Board finds that aspects of [the patients] religious practice, namely his
interaction with aliens, falls properly into the category of hallucinations, rather than mystical
experience with the supernatural. The appeal for release was rejected and the Mental Health
Review Board decided that even were his beliefs to be characterised as religious, the Board can and
does take them into account, along with these other factors, to determine [the patient] to be mentally

The Mental Health Review Board hearings are usually held in a room at the same hospital where the
patient is held, and may have been held for several weeks or months, and some people have been kept
on involuntary status for several years with plans to continue certification indefinitely, against which
practice no real protections currently exist. It is important to note that these are not dangerous, violent
people who have murdered people or even broken the law. They are usually young people who have
been diagnosed as schizophrenic because of their beliefs and behaviour and refuse to accept the label
and the crippling drugs that have been forced into them (usually by injection if they refuse to swallow
them), usually in huge doses and in locked wards of psychiatric hospitals.

Despite claims of independence and impartiality, the Mental Health Review Board is closely associated
with the Public Hospital Psychiatry Departments (in which hearings are held) which, in conjunction
with the Victorian Department of Human Services and Commonwealth Department of Health,
implement the National Mental Health Strategy, which was launched in 1994 during the last year of
Paul Keatings Labour Government. This Federal (Commonwealth) Labour Government, in which Dr.
Carmen Lawrence (who has a psychology degree) was the Minister for Health, made many changes in
the Mental Health System that gave senior psychiatrists more power and money and this trend has
continued under John Howards Liberal Government.


The National Mental Health Strategy was introduced in 1994 as a joint Federal, State and Territory
Government project. According to the Director of the Research and Outcomes Evaluation Section of
the Mental Health Branch of the Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, in a letter
dated 6 March 1996, the Commonwealth Government has provided $269 million for the reform of
mental health services, of which $189 million has been allocated to state and territory governments to
achieve these aims.

The majority of this money has gone into restructuring of the existing mental health system, including
the formation of the Mental Health Council, integration of community psychiatry services and the
construction of several new psychiatric institutions, including a new 135 bed forensic psychiatry
hospital in Yarra Bend Park, adjacent to the Fairfield Infectious Diseases Hospital. The lack of public
consultation and sinister degree of secrecy concerning this major construction project is predictable
when the history of forensic psychiatry in Melbourne is known.

Forensic psychiatry literally means law-related psychiatry, but has evolved from the branch of the
public psychiatric system that diagnosed and treated people labeled criminally insane in asylums for
the criminally insane, as well as psychiatric treatment (meaning drugs and/or electroconvulsive
treatment) to prisoners within the prisons system. It has, for a number of years, been impossible to
obtain records of how many people are given electroconvulsive treatment (ECT, or electroshock
treatment) in public hospitals in Australia, but it is known to be several hundred every week. In recent
years it has been promoted in Australia, not as a last resort, but as important first line therapy for
particular psychiatric conditions, particularly depression, but the treatment is also given for mania
and schizophrenia as well as schizo-affective disorder and when injected drugs have failed to
produce improvement in behaviour.


The prisons system in Australia is closely linked to the public psychiatric system, and both are
integrated with police operations. There are several possible points of referral to the psychiatric system
from the police. The Protocol Between Victoria Police and the Victorian Department of Health and
Community Psychiatric Services Division of 1995 provided a list of indicators for referral to mental
health services. The police members are instructed to contact mental health services if one or more of
the following are thought to apply: Where a person is known to have a mental illness and
Has a history of violence or is a current threat to the safety of others
Is a serious threat to property
Shows significant self neglect
Has a high level of distress
Or is a person who:
Has a history or presents a current threat of deliberate self harm
Is behaving in a bizarre or unusual way
Is displaying gross mismanagement of personal affairs as a consequence of an acutely
disturbed mental state.

If the person is held in police custody or imprisoned by the courts, they may still be subject to
psychiatric drug treatment. As Professor Paul Mullen writes in Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry:


Psychiatrists also became involved in the care of those in prisons who though not so
disordered as to have been found insane were sufficiently disturbed as to require treatment. The
role of psychiatrists now includes a wide range of advisory and therapeutic functions at almost
every level of the criminal justice system. (p.322)

The word care is used very loosely. The prisons in Australia are not intended for the care of people,
they are intended for punishment. The punishments are termed custodial sentences and are the result
of judgements of guilt. Incarceration is unpleasant and widely recognised to be unpleasant, not least
of all because of the environment in which offenders are held. One has reason, then, to doubt a stated
intent to care for rather than contribute to this punishment. Painful, crippling injections, electric
shocks to the head and permanent labels of mental disorder are indeed cruel punishments. Professor
Mullen uses the term mental disorder repeatedly in the text, but makes a mess of defining the term:
Mental health legislation varies between definitions which leave the issue to the medical
profession and those which state clear criteria with the intention of placing a brake on medical
discretion. The latter attempt to wrest decision-making from the medical and vest it in the legal
profession rarely succeeds for it simply translates the decision about who is mentally ill into a
decision about who is and is not deluded, hallucinated or whatever. In a number of jurisdictions
antisocial personality disorder is specifically excluded from the forms of disorder justifying
committal. (p.335)

Antisocial personality disorder is described, in a previous chapter of Foundations of Clinical

Psychiatry, as follows:
People with this disorder manifest pervasive irresponsible and antisocial behaviour in adult
life. In their childhood, lying, truancy and vandalism are common. In adulthood they cannot
hold steady employment, fail to maintain monogamous relationships and behave irresponsibly.
They frequently break the law, are involved in aggressive outbursts and show little regard for


the property of others. They rarely experience remorse. They are reckless and seem unable to
plan or parent effectively. They often abuse both legal and illicit drugs in association with
complaints of tension, boredom and anger. The disorder is more common in males and is seen
in considerable numbers in criminal populations. In their background there may be evidence of
Attention Deficit Disorder and Conduct Disorder occurring in childhood. There is an increased
incidence of substance abuse and Somatisation Disorder. Relatives also show a high prevalence
of Antisocial Personality Disorder and substance abuse. (p.192)

Associate Professor Jayashri Kulkarni who authored the above and the chapter on personality
disorders in Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry from which it is quoted is one of the few female
psychiatry professors in Australia, and is, with Professors Graham Burrows and Robert Adler, a
ministerial nominee on the psychosurgery Review Board of Victoria. The Psychosurgery Review
Board is co-administered with Mental Health Review Board. Graham Burrows is the head of the
Mental Health Foundation and the Department of Psychiatry at the Austin and Repatriation Hospital at
Heidelberg, Melbourne, and Robert Adler is, in addition to being a professor of child psychiatry, is
the psychiatrist on the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria.

Professor Adler co-authored the chapter on Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Foundations of
Clinical Psychiatry. In it the American Psychiatric Associations recent labels for delinquent (or,
more accurately, disobedient) children, oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder, are
described in a single passage, providing an unpleasant stereotype for the impressionable minds of
medical students:
This disorder is characterised by negativistic and defiant behaviour which is excessive for the
childs developmental stage and has been present for over six months. There is debate as to
whether it is simply the early manifestation of Conduct disorder. Certainly many children who
present with more serious antisocial behaviour associated with the latter have a past history of
hyperactivity and negativism. Stealing, lying, running away from home, truancy and physical


aggression are common among conduct-disordered children, who often show little remorse or
concern for the feelings of others. Conduct disorder is described as socialised or unsocialised
depending on whether the children commit their offences alone or in company. A proportion of
cases proceed to more serious offending in later adolescence and Antisocial personality
disorder in adulthood. (p.281)

It is not surprising that the authors have difficulty differentiating Oppositional defiant disorder and
Conduct disorder. There is hardly any difference between the two: they are both stigmatising labels
for naughty children and adolescents. These are disciplinary diagnoses, social labels with deeper
political significance and implications. Together with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and AD/HD
(Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder), these are the most likely diagnoses that troubled (or
troublesome) children receive if they are introduced into the psychiatric system.

The American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fourth Edition (DSM IV) defines Oppositional Defiant Disorder as follows:
The essential feature of Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a recurrent pattern of negativistic,
defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least six
months (Criterion A) and is characterized by the frequent occurrence of at least four of the
following behaviors: losing temper (Criterion A1), arguing with adults (Criterion A2), actively
defying or refusing to comply with the requests or rules of adults (Criterion A3), deliberately
doing things that will annoy other people (Criterion A4), blaming others for his or her own
mistakes or misbehavior (Criterion 5), being touchy or easily annoyed by others (Criterion A6),
being angry and resentful (criterion A7), or being spiteful or vindictive (Criterion A8). (p.91)


It is assumed that children should obey adults, especially authority figures (including psychiatrists),
without question. These same children are stigmatised as being spiteful, intentionally annoying,
unreasonably resentful, irritable and angry. Their understandable reluctance to accept the label of
defective person which is forced on them is explained away as if this is part of the abnormality:
Usually individuals with this disorder do not regard themselves as oppositional or defiant, but
justify their behavior as a response to unreasonable demands or circumstances (p.92)

Conduct Disorder is described in the DSM IV as a mental disorder distinct from Oppositional Defiant
Disorder, although the authoritarian attitudes involved in creating the label are evidently very similar:
The essential feature of Conduct Disorder is a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in
which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated
(Criterion A). These behaviors fall into four main groupings: aggressive conduct that causes or
threatens physical harm to other people or animals (Criteria A1-A7), nonaggressive conduct
that causes property loss or damage (Criteria A8-A9), deceitfulness or theft (Criteria A10A12), and serious violations of rules (Criteria A13-A15). Three (or more) characteristic
behaviors must have been present during the past 12 months, with at least one behavior present
in the past 6 months. (p.85)

Inconsistently, but for obvious reasons, given the authors of the DSM, the adults who order bombs to
be dropped on other countries (or their own country), send young people to kill other young people and
order the execution of prisoners on death row are excluded from a diagnosis of conduct disorder.
The scientists who infect innocent young animals with Ebola virus and other killer-viruses are also
spared a diagnosis of conduct disorder: the label is intended with other targets in mind.


The DSM explains, without declaring the social, racial and cultural prejudices (let alone the age-ist
ones) underlying the practical application of this label, the collection of behaviours which are to be
expected in children unfortunate enough to be called conduct disordered:
Children or adolescents with this disorder often initiate aggressive behavior and react
aggressively to others. They may display bullying, threatening, or intimidating behavior
(Criterion A1); initiate frequent physical fights (Criterion A2); use a weapon that can cause
serious physical harm (e.g., bat, brick, broken bottle, knife, or gun) (Criterion A3); be
physically cruel to people (Criterion A4) or animals (Criterion A5); steal while confronting a
victim (e.g., mugging, purse snatching, extortion, or armed robbery) (Criterion A6); or force
someone into sexual activity (Criterion A7). Physical violence may take the form of rape,
assault, or in rare cases, homicide. (p.86)

In a single masterpiece of stigmatisation, children who break rules or are cruel to animals are
placed in the same category as rapists and murderers. These bad children grow into bad adults
according to the DSM IV, which claims that most of the adults who have Antisocial Personality
Disorder previously display symptoms of conduct disorder when they are children:
For this diagnosis to be given, the individual must be at least 18 years (Criterion B) and must
have had a history of some symptoms of Conduct Disorder before age 15 years (Criterion C).
Conduct disorder involves a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic
rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated. The specific
behaviors characteristic of Conduct Disorder fall into one of four categories: aggression to
people and animals, destruction of property, deceitfulness or theft, or serious violations of
rules. (p.646)

To make sense of conduct disorder one must first decide what the basic rights of others are. The
United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights could be used as a guide. Article 3 states that


everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. This is surely an indisputable and
fundamental human right. A child who takes the life of another person may be diagnosed as having
conduct disorder, according to the DSM IV, with good reason, but this is merely a description of the
crime, not an explanation of the cause of the crime. Oppositional Defiant Disorder is not an
explanation either: it just means that the child concerned refuses to obey the orders he or she is given.
This may occur for any number of reasons. Neither children nor adults enjoy being given orders, as a
rule. People usually prefer being asked to being commanded. Rules may be trivial, unreasonable or
harmful. Rules are, moreover, a social phenomenon, not a medical one.

One of the rules that children and adolescents are expected to obey, to avoid a diagnosis of conduct
disorder (or antisocial personality disorder in adults) concerns violence. This includes physical
violence and emotional violence (outbursts of anger or verbal aggression). Even passive aggression
can be viewed as evidence of mental disorder. Violence and cruelty to animals can also be
diagnosed. Yet children as a whole are subjected to a constant (and escalating) barrage of violent
images and ideas, aggressive modes of speech and behaviour from television and video programs, as
well as from adults in real life. They are presented with self-mutilating role models like Marilyn
Manson who scream or growl lyrics about killing people, hating people and destroying life. They are
fed sound bites and have their concentration interrupted every few minutes with commercial
breaks and are then labelled with attention deficit disorder if they fail to concentrate in class. They
are brought up watching television shows glorifying a promiscuous lifestyle and are then diagnosed as
mentally ill or mentally disordered if they adopt one themselves. They are given addictive drugs
(including amphetamines) from their early childhood and then labelled substance abusers if they
ingest or inject the same drugs (or other drugs) later in life.

Violence also comes in many forms which are not covered by the DSM, which also fails to mention
needles as possible dangerous weapons. It is also known that amphetamines, which are routinely
prescribed to children as young as four years old in Australia and the USA for AD/HD are notorious
for causing violent behaviour in both adults and children. Amphetamines were invented about 100


years ago and were first used to attempt to control the behaviour of hyperactive children as long ago
as the 1940s. It was a largely unsuccessful experiment, not least of all because amphetamines were
found to be highly addictive, and to cause psychosis and aggression. Methyl phenidate (Ritalin, from
Novartis) is the most prescribed modern stimulant for children diagnosed with ADD or AD/HD. It is
also an amphetamine-like drug, although it is less addictive than dexamphetamine, which is also
prescribed for ADD and AD/HD.

In the 1970s and 1980s, true hyperactivity, as it was then called, was considered to be a rare
condition, affecting about one in two hundred children (0.5% of children). These children were said to
show a paradoxical response to stimulant drugs (specifically amphetamines), but the prescription of
these drugs was restricted to psychiatrists (who were also allowed to prescribe them for narcolepsy)
and paediatricians. Children and adolescents (or adults) who obtained amphetamines by other means
were deemed to be committing a crime so serious that they could be sent to jail for it. Suddenly, in the
early 1990s, however, whilst maintaining the illegality of black market amphetamines, a huge
campaign was mounted to increase the legal market for amphetamines. The target population was

The first step, as with the marketing of any new diagnosis, was to claim that ADD is often undiagnosed
and is actually much commoner than previously supposed. ADD (AD/HD) was now said to affect up to
5% of children, a 10-fold increase on what was claimed a few years earlier. No cause for an increase in
the disorder was identified, however, and no explanation put forward for the sudden increase in
prescription of amphetamines. Furthermore, the well-recognised addictiveness of these drugs was
denied by senior paediatricians and psychiatrists.

In a seminar for general practitioners masquerading as medical education, Professor Ernest Luk,
professor of child psychiatry at Monash University admitted that drug prescription for AD/HD had


increased by 2000% between 1988 and 1994, and a further 700% from 1993 to 1995. The talk was
given in 1997, and included the promotion of a range of drugs, including stimulants, clonidine (an old
anti-hypertensive drug now relaunched), tricyclic antidepressants and SSRI antidepressants. Even low
dose neuroleptics (dopamine-blockers) are suggested.

Professor Luk provided notes to accompany his seminar, which promoted a genetic factor for
AD/HD, but listed other aetiological factors as brain damage, toxic substances, dietary factors and
psychological factors. Television and sensory overload are not mentioned as psychological factors,
which are listed as adverse upbringing experience and child rearing practice. Only lead and
foetal alcohol syndrome are considered as possible toxic substances which can contribute to the
problem. Amphetamine addiction is not mentioned, and the recognised fact that a disproportionate
number of children who have been diagnosed as suffering from AD/HD develop problems with
substance abuse is blamed on the condition itself, and not the practice of prescribing addictive drugs
to young children.

Dr John Court, a senior paediatrician at the Royal Childrens Hospital and Board member of the
Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria repeats this claim in The Puberty Game published by Harper
Collins in 1997. He is explicit about how safe amphetamines are:
Dexamphetamine has been used for children with ADD for over fifty years, and there is no
evidence that it has led to dependence or addiction. Both Ritalin and Dexamphetamine have
been highly researched, and long-term harmful effects have not been found. These medications
are now so widely used, particularly in the USA, that there is considerable experience over
many years in their use and confidence in their safety. (p.156)


He then goes on to describe a series of side effects which should cause serious concern about longterm damage as well as immediate risk:
There are some side effects that may occur with the medication but usually settle down
quickly and seldom last more than a few weeks at most. These include some loss of appetite.
With careful introduction of the tablets in correct dose, children usually notice very little
change, and the effect wears off in time for the evening meal. Dexamphetamine may lead to
some difficulty in getting to sleep, but only if the tablet is taken rather late in the day.
Sometimes, in my experience, children get an occasional headache or abdominal pain in the
first few days, though these dont persist.
Sometimes pre-teens and teenagers can get rather depressed when they start the medication. In
younger children this is seldom a problem, though they can be rather emotional at first. Older
teenagers may become quite depressed, perhaps because the tablets make them focus on their
past failures and faults. Depression is perhaps the most significant side effect of stimulant
medication at this age.
It has been reported that the stimulants may slow down growth. This should not be a problem
if the medication is used properly, but we always monitor growth with any medication given to
children. It has been shown that even if growth has been slowed, children catch up later, and
adult height is not effected [sic]. (p.156)

It is surely a big problem if drugs which cause depression are given to children when the incidence of
childhood depression and suicide has been steadily rising in both the USA and Australia. It is
interesting that Dr Court recognises that taking tablets (to improve behaviour) makes children focus
on their past failures. This is not, obviously, a pharmacological effect of the drug: it is due to the
diagnosis and the fact that they are being compelled to take a tablet because of past failures and
faults. John Court even admits that:


Its hard to resist the comment Have you had your tablet today, Peter? whenever an ADD
child misbehaves.

The paediatricians strategy to ensure compliance in drug taking is an effective technique if one wants
children to develop a misguided enthusiasm for taking pills:
I sometimes call the stimulants concentration pills that only the best kids are allowed to
have. (p.155)

Another keen promoter of the AD/HD diagnosis and the use of stimulant drugs in children is Dr
Christopher Green, author of Toddler Taming and other books about bringing up children. In 1998 he
authored an article in Modern Medicine titled Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder clearing the
confusion. Perhaps better sub-titled refuting the criticism, the article seeks to reassure doctors and
parents about the safety of stimulant drugs, while legitimising what is clearly a vague, subjective and
stigmatising label. He states the cause of the condition with authority but a noticeable lack of
Until relatively recent times, professionals blamed the parents attachment or relationships for
causing ADHD behaviours. Others said that ADHD was due to additives in food. Now we
know that neither of these is the cause, although the standard of parenting and some food
substances may influence already existing ADHD. Two things are certain: firstly, ADHD is
strongly hereditary and, secondly, it is a biological condition.

Dr Green fails to recognise the propensity of the medical profession to see what it looks for when he
claims that heredity of the condition is obvious as so many sufferers have a parent or close relative
who has a similar problem. Given the broad range of behaviours which can be viewed as


symptomatic of AD/HD, it is not surprising that once one member of a family has been diagnosed,
others with similar behaviour can be found. Green admits that the presentation varies considerably.
He writes:
Most parents present a restless, intrusive, unthinking child. Others tell of no obvious
behaviour problems, just a child who finds it hard to remember, to stick at a task and to
maintain work output at school. Some also have problems of dyslexia, language disorder or
clumsiness. Others are impossibly oppositional and a few have extreme behaviour that has
placed them in trouble with the law.

Green has difficulty explaining how it is that all these different behaviours are caused by the same
disorder or how it is that stimulant medication is miraculously able to control the problem. He
tries hard to validate his position that this disorder (which is diagnosed on the basis of unwanted
behaviour) is a biological condition. By this he means that it is caused by dysfunction of the brain (a
similar label, minimal brain dysfunction, was used for many years). He claims that this has now been
proved. He writes:
For years it was presumed, but not proven, that ADHD is caused by a minor difference in
brain function. Now this can be shown by imaging techniques such as PET, SPECT, and
volumetric and functional MRI. In ADHD, scans using these techniques show a slight
difference in function and anatomy in the behaviour-inhibiting areas of the brain (the frontal
lobes and their close connections). The mechanism of this underfunction seems to be caused by
an imbalance of the neurotransmitters noradrenaline and dopamine. The effect of stimulant
medications, which are used to treat ADHD, is to increase the production of these natural
chemicals. (p.119)

As in the dopamine theory of schizophrenia and the serotonin theory of depression (which
followed the noradrenaline theory of depression), the neurotransmitter theory of ADHD is inexcusably


reductionist, and merely follows the use of drugs which are known to affect these chemicals. One
wonders how Professor Luk can justify the use of low dose neuroleptics (which block dopamine
receptors) for the same condition that Green claims is caused by lack of the same chemicals. In truth,
neither an excess nor a deficiency in any of these chemicals has been detected in untreated ADHD
sufferers (or schizophrenics or depressives) and the chemical imbalance theory is merely one of
inference secondary to known pharmacophysiology.

John Court, in The Puberty Game, repeats the chemical imbalance theory, while presenting a
regressively mechanistic, reductionist model of mental function:
The rationale for giving medication to children with ADD is this: the brain acts like a
computer in many ways, but its function depends on chemical substances called
neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters help transmit messages between nerve cells, which are
called neurones. Neurones are the basic units of the nervous system, including the brain. These
neurotransmitters ensure that messages are sent through the nervous system in an orderly and
efficient way.
We believe that in ADD some of these neurotransmitters are not functioning properly. It
seems likely that the brain is not making them efficiently, or in sufficient quantity. What we do
know is that it is possible to increase the efficiency of these neurotransmitters through
stimulating them by medication. This seems quite logical, and there is ample experience to
show that this stimulant treatment is one that works in most cases, and is safe. (p.153)

The Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre in Melbourne lists some of the common symptoms in
amphetamine withdrawal in their 1996 booklet titled, Getting Through Amphetamine Withdrawal.
Days 1 to 3 (described as the crash) are typified by exhaustion, increased sleep and depression. On
days 2 to 10 the symptoms include, strong urges (cravings) to use amphetamines, mood swings
(alternating between feeling irritable, restless, and anxious to feeling tired, lacking energy and


generally run down), poor sleep, poor concentration, general aches and pains, headaches, increased
appetite and strange thoughts (such as feeling that people are out to get you misunderstanding things
around you, such as seeing things that arent there). The withdrawal symptoms, according to the
Turning Point doctors, start to settle down in 7 to 28 days, during which time common symptoms
include, mood swings (alternating between feeling anxious, irritable or agitated, to feeling flat and run
down), poor sleep and cravings. It is easy to see how the withdrawal symptoms of stimulant drugs can
be attributed to the conditions they are claimed to be treating: they sound remarkably similar to the
symptoms of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

The concept that initiating young children and their parents (and siblings) into taking tablets to improve
concentration and behaviour could lead to subsequent dependence on drugs generally is not difficult to
understand. The psychological ramifications (for the whole family) of singling out individual children
to blame for arguments and discordance in the family (or classroom) is cruel and socially destructive. I
have not read a single article blaming boring school curricula for lack of attention from children,
although inconsistent discipline from parents is blamed as a contributing factor at times.
Furthermore, the medical profession continue to turn a blind eye to the part they play in creating drug
addiction, despite growing concerns from the public as well as from dissidents within the profession.
Christopher Green refutes such concerns in Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder clearing the
Stimulant medication was first used for ADHD in 1937. The drug Ritalin has been used since
1958. These preparations have now been extremely well researched and proven; currently there
are over 150 published papers showing that stimulants are effective and safe in ADHD. Yet
there are still people in this country who state that stimulants are new, controversial, addictive,
dangerous and unproven. These ideas are out of date in 1998. (p.126)

It is not true that stimulant medication was first used for ADHD in 1937. In 1937, ADHD did not
exist. It is true, however, that some children were experimented on with amphetamines, and that these


children were labelled as hyperactive. The construction of the new disorder which is now accepted
so glibly as a distinct biological condition by Dr Green and others, was formally announced in the
1994 Fourth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by the American
Psychiatric Association (APA). The disorder is described as follows:
The essential feature of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is a persistent pattern of
inattention and/or hyperactivity that is more frequent and severe than is typically observed in
individuals at a comparable level of development (Criterion A).

Hyperactivity is described thus:

Hyperactivity may be manifested by fidgetiness or squirming in ones seat (Criterion A2a), by
not remaining seated when expected to do so (Criterion A2b), by excessive running or climbing
in situations where it is inappropriate (Criterion A2c), by having difficulty playing or engaging
quietly in leisure activities (Criterion A2d), by appearing to be often on the go or as if
driven by a motor (Criterion A2e), or by talking excessively (Criterion A2f). (p.79)

It appears that the psychiatrists who decided on these criteria were brought up in the school that insists
that children should be seen but not heard. Further evidence of hyperactivity is evidenced in
children who often get up from the table during meals or while doing homework. Far from
recognising any deleterious effects of television on concentration, according to the DSM IV, getting up
often while watching television is further evidence of abnormality.

Incredibly, the psychiatric profession, and medical profession generally, have failed to grasp the
influence of television on childrens behaviour. Rather than attributing increasing violence at younger
ages to increasingly violent television programs, video games, computer games and films, vague


chemical imbalance theories and statistics purporting to demonstrate genetic factors are put
forward, not as possible and partial explanations but as proven fact. Science fiction movies about
extraterrestrial invasions are all the rage, but if an adolescent (or even a child) seriously believes in
UFOs, he or she can be diagnosed as having schizophrenia according to modern psychiatric

The diagnoses of child psychiatry provide a justification to use the full spectrum of adult psychoactive drugs on children. In essence the related disorders of AD/HD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder
and Conduct Disorder are pseudoscientific gradings of delinquency. A child with AD/HD is bad, but
not as bad as a child with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. These children are not as bad as those with
Conduct Disorder. The latter is the favoured label for children whose behaviour is deemed bad enough
to go to prison for. Not surprisingly, many adults who are labelled as having antisocial personality
disorder have previously been designated defective as children with one of the labels, and been early
victims of psychiatric stigmatisation.

Antisocial personality disorder, which is the new label for people who used to be described as
sociopaths, is not a nice thing to be diagnosed with. The term implies that the person has no
conscience, and does not feel remorse for causing the suffering of other people or animals. There is no
doubt that such people exist, however the label is selectively applied for those caught up in the prisons
and psychiatric systems, and not those who make the sort of rules that allow the poisoning of European
rivers with cyanide, the distribution of landmines or the incarceration of children. Men who send young
men off to war and inject them with chemicals for corporate profits, or create depression and suicide
for personal profit are also spared a diagnosis of Antisocial personality disorder, together with men
who design taxes that further impoverish the poor and dispossessed in countries with an offensive
disparity between the conditions in which rich and poor members of society live.


The DSM IV defines Antisocial Personality Disorder as follows:

The essential feature of Antisocial Personalty Disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for,
and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and
continues into adulthood.
This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy, or dyssocial personality
disorder. Because deceit and manipulation are central features of Antisocial Personality
Disorder, it may be especially helpful to integrate information acquired from systematic
clinical assessment with information collected from collateral sources [hearsay and rumour].
For this diagnosis to be given, the individual must be at least age 18 years (Criterion B) and
must have had a history of some symptoms of Conduct Disorder before age 15 years (Criterion

The long term unemployed are targetted with this horrible label, which does not take into
consideration the frustrations, loss of self-esteem and boredom which can result from being denied
rewarding and meaningful activity:
Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder also tend to be consistently and extremely
irresponsible (Criterion A6). Irresponsible work behavior may be indicated by significant
periods of unemployment despite available job opportunities, or by abandonment of several
jobs without a realistic plan for getting another job. There may also be a pattern of repeated
absences from work that are not explained by illness either in themselves or in their family.

The hypocrisy of the description of Antisocial Personality Disorder becomes more obvious when one
remembers that infamous reproach to the Australian people from ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser,


now head of CARE Australia: Life was not meant to be easy. Such statements are apparantly a
feature of Antisocial Personality Disorder, according to the American Psychiatric Associations DSM
Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder show little remorse for the consequences of
their acts (Criterion A7). They may be indifferent to, or provide a superficial rationalization
for, having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from someone (e.g., lifes unfair, losers deserve to
lose, or he had it coming anyway). These individuals may blame the victims for being
foolish, helpless, or deserving their fate; they may minimize the harmful consequences of their
actions; or they may simply indicate complete indifference. (p.646)
The DSM IV stigmatises the victims rather than addressing the causes of poverty. Under Specific
Culture, Age and Gender Features the textbook claims:
Antisocial Personality Disorder appears to be associated with low socioeconomic status and
urban settings. Concerns have been raised that the diagnosis may at times be misapplied to
individuals in settings in which seemingly antisocial behavior may be part of a protective
survival strategy. In assessing antisocial traits, it is helpful for the clinician to consider the
social and economic context in which the behaviors occur. (p.647)

The textbook follows with a suggestion that the label is not applied often enough to women:
Antisocial Personality Disorder is much more common in males than in females. There has
been some concern that Antisocial Personality Disorder may be underdiagnosed in females,
particularly because of the emphasis on aggressive items in the definition of Conduct
Disorder. (p.647)


The Australian textbook Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry expresses different concerns about
antisocial personality disorder:
The diagnostic criteria consist of little more than a catalogue of obnoxious and disruptive
behaviours which, it has been suggested, far from defining a clinical disorder merely attempts
to medicalise evil. Many clinicians wish to banish those with APD (antisocial personality
disorder) from the realm of medicine and consign them as social deviants to the police and
justice systems. (p.339)

A case example is presented of a person typifying the label in what is claimed as an attempt to
establish that in addition to disturbance in behaviour such people also have a disorder of mental
A man in his mid-twenties was first encountered after slashing his wrists and abdomen while
in prison where he was awaiting trial on charges of burglary. He came from a disorganised
home in which he had been physically and sexually abused. At school he had been a behaviour
problem and had been referred to the educational psychologists for what we would now term
Conduct Disorder with features of Attention Deficit Disorder. He left school at fifteen with no
qualifications despite having above average intellectual ability. He was involved in petty theft
both at school and in boys homes where he spent part of his adolescence. In his teens he abused
alcohol and solvents. He had appeared before the courts on numerous occasions for theft,
assault, indecent assault and car conversion. He had been admitted to psychiatric hospitals on
two occasions, after an overdose and after slashing his arms and legs with a razor. Both
episodes followed the breakdown of relationships with girlfriends.

He presented as an articulate man with considerable charm which contrasted with his grim
appearance, not improved by tattoos over his face and hands. He acknowledged recurrent
periods of depression, usually lasting only hours and never more than days. During these


episodes of despondency he would experience self-destructive urges combined with violent

fantasies. He had a pervasive suspiciousness of others with a tendency to refer any chance
remark or overheard laugh to himself. This led to confrontations where he would accuse and
occasionally strike others. Sexual relationships soon disintegrated because of his excessive
jealousy. On one occasion when in prison he had entered a disturbed state with bizarre
persecutory beliefs and pseudo-hallucinations, but this had rapidly resolved on transfer to the
hospital wing. His behaviour was impulsive, unpredictable and often destructive of his own
interests as of the common good. Police, prison authorities and most ordinary people he came
into contact with considered him mad because of his unpredictable, self-destructive and
impulsive behaviour. Psychiatrists had on several occasions declared him to be sane and to
have a personality disorder. The extensive abnormalities in his state of mind as well as his
behaviour carried no weight with the doctors bacause they were not the types of disturbance
found in the schizophrenias or other psychotic disorders. (p.339)

Professor Paul Mullen, who presents the case history, omits some valuable information about this
man that could help understand his behaviour. It is easy to see unpredictability in people one does
not understand. What happened to this mans family? Did he have any siblings, and if so, where are
they and what is his relationship like with them? Was he a stolen child? What colour was his skin?
What religious beliefs, if any, did he have? Was he addicted to drugs, like much of the prison
population? What drug treatment had he been given in the past? Had he ever been given ECT? What
kinds of punishments was he subjected to in the boys homes and prisons where he had obviously spent
much of his youth? What had he stolen in the alleged burglary?

Mullen presents this case in this way to illustrate some points of psychiatric dogma. One is that people
with personality disorders are not insane. To put it simply, they are bad, not mad. This means that
they can be incarcerated in jails rather than psychiatric hospitals, although they can still be treated with
psychiatric drugs. Another point the professor is trying to illustrate, is that people who develop this
adult personality disorder demonstrate symptoms of Conduct Disorder earlier in life. Despite the fact


that the case example may be fictional or fictionalised, the story of this young man does illustrate an
all too common journey for unwanted children in Australia. Disobedience, disorder label, psychiatric
treatment, loss of self esteem, drug addiction, depression, alcohol abuse, aggression and violence,
police punishment, custodial punishment, worsening of drug addiction, self-harm, combined prison
incarceration and punitive psychiatric treatment. Not surprisingly, this journey often ends in early
death, often attributed to suicide.

Paul Mullen is a senior professor of forensic psychiatry at Monash University and Director of Forensic
Psychiatry Services in Victoria. He authored the chapter on Forensic Psychiatry in this textbook. He
describes his specialty as follows:
Forensic psychiatry is that area of psychiatry which overlaps with the legal system. Central to
it is assessment and treatment of the mentally disordered offender, and provision of expert
testimony to both criminal and civil courts. In addition, forensic psychiatrists may become
involved in legal issues concerning competence, consent and confidentiality, and malpractice.
In recent years forensic psychiatrists have had to care for a wide range of mentally disordered
people considered either of such high risk of dangerous behaviour, or so problematic as to be
unmanageable in normal psychiatric facilities. (p.321)

Forensic psychiatrists themselves predict risk of dangerous behaviour and their opinions on the
matter are taken seriously by police and the courts, despite their abysmal failure to make these
predictions with accuracy, or their inexcusable failure to abandon racial and cultural prejudices. It is no
longer politically correct to accuse particular races of violent tendencies, dishonesty or criminality,
so modern psychiatric textbooks make much of refuting racialist theories of violence, preferring
class-ist ones instead. The racist prejudices underlying the new theories are poorly disguised however,
and the proportion of blacks in custody (in Australia, New Zealand and the USA) speaks for itself.


Professor Mullen writes, under clinical prediction of dangerousness that social background is an
associated factor for high rates of violent behaviour:
Those who appear before the courts and populate our penal institutions are drawn
disproportionately from lower socio-economic classes. Poverty, though relevant, is less
important than a sense of exclusion from the rewards and regard of society. Those disabled by
mental illness are often drawn into the impoverished and drifting populations of the excluded
and rejected, and with this comes an increased risk of offending, arrest and re-offence. Those
who are economically and socially deprived as well as being members of minority groups are
at particular risk of offending and arrest, e.g. black Americans, Maori New Zealanders and
Aboriginal Australians. Race is not the issue; it is the social and economic conditions under
which these racial minorities live. The unemployed, the unmarried or unattached and the
socially isolated are all at higher risk. (p.332)

One of the roles of forensic psychiatrists, according to Professor Mullen is the investigation of
malpractice. This rarely affects his own profession, but in July 1991 there occurred an exception to
the rule. He was called upon by the Director General of Health in New Zealand to investigate the
treatment and death of Dolly Jane Pohe at the Psychiatric Unit of Rotorua Hospital, and the practice of
rapid neuroleptisation at the hospital. Responsible for this abusive practice was the psychiatrist Gil
Newburn, who was simultaneously conducting drug-trials-for-profit for several pharmaceutical
companies (including the new antidepressant Aurorix, for Roche). Dr Newburn had a treatment for
manic patients that routinely rendered them comatose with massive intravenous and intramuscular
injections of diazepam, chlorpromazine and haloperidol. Dolly Jane Pohe was one of his victims.
Although her race is not stated in the report, Pohe is a Maori name.

The committee of inquiry into this death consisted of Paul Mullen, who was then Professor of
Psychological Medicine at the University of Otago, and David Bates, a barrister. Despite his advice to
students that a psychiatric report can present them as people with backgrounds, personalities, strengths


and weaknesses, Professor Mullen presented a report that is cold and impersonal, but also negligently
omissive. It was, in fact, a cover-up.

Dolly Jane Pohe, whose age, race and family background are not mentioned in the report died on
Sunday, 7th April, 1990, after being admitted as an involuntary patient by Dr Newburn on Wednesday,
4th April, three days earlier. During this time she received 10 injections: 4 of haloperidol, 4 of diazepam
(Valium), one of chlorpromazine (Largactil) and one of clonazepam (Rivotril). All these drugs are
tranquillisers. In addition to this she was given a huge amount of oral neuroleptics (dopamineblockers) including chlorpromazine and haloperidol. This included 400 milligrams of oral
chlorpromazine as soon as she was admitted (which was followed by intramuscular injections of 30mg
haloperidol and 10mg diazepam an hour later) and 15 mg oral haloperidol later that afternoon.

The next day she was given 15 mg haloperidol at 8.00 a.m., with further doses of the same drug at 1.00
p.m., 3.30 p.m., 6.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. At 4.15 p.m. she was punished with intramuscular injections
of haloperidol (30mg) together with diazepam (10mg). Her crime was escaping from torture and going
down to the pub:

At 15:30 the security room door appears to have been open and Ms Pohe slipped through and
left the ward. The police were notified. She was returned to the ward by the police at 16:15
having been found in a nearby pub, the Palace Tavern. She was given haloperidol and
diazepam intramuscularly on return to the security room as she was noted by Dr.Finucane to be
more irritable and disturbed. She appears to have settled after the medication until about 18:00
hours when she was noted to be restless and banging on the door. She was threatening to the
nursing staff [from behind a locked door] and they recorded anxieties about her potential for
physical aggression. Ms Pohe seems to have settled from 19:30 and remained quiet and
probably sleeping until 07:00 the next morning.


The next day the torture continued:

On waking, Ms Pohe appears to have become more restless and disturbed [as one might if one
woke in such an environment]. She is described as aggressive, abusive, violent, uncooperative and physically aggressive towards staff. At the request of nursing staff Dr.Newburn
saw Ms.Pohe in the seclusion room. The trainee intern accompanied Dr.Newburn and
described how impressed he was, both with Dr.Newburns ability to calm Ms Pohe sufficiently
to talk with her and his ability to inject the haloperidol intravenously despite her initial
reluctance. Dr.Newburn considered her state to be deteriorating rather than improving and an
intravenous injection of haloperidol 35 mgs and diazepam 80 mgs was administered at 09:00
hours. A further 30 mgs of valium was injected by Dr.Newburn at 10:00 hours.

One thing that is obvious about Dolly Jane Pohe is that she did not want to be locked in a room, and
repeatedly banged on the doors, presumably to be let out. This was callously noted as evidence of
aggression, violent behaviour and restlessness, further evidence of mania. It is unclear as to what
specific evidence Dr Newburn found of a deteriorating state other than that she refused to co-operate
with the incarceration and was angered by it, and by how she was being treated. It is relevant that she
was calm enough to converse with the doctor before he injected her with the drugs. Maybe she hoped
he would let her go home, or at least leave the security room. This was not to be the case.

The next day, finding that she was still imprisoned, Dolly Pohe was obviously despairing, but also
suffering from poisoning by the drugs she had been given:


On the Saturday morning she was noted to be restless and irritable, banging on the door and
angry. It was possible to bath her and she had some breakfast. At about 09:00 she calmed down
and appeared to be asleep until 10:20. She was then noted to be in some distress, wailing
sounds were noted. She then slept until mid-day.
At 12:00 hours Nurse Young became aware that Ms Pohe was heavily sedated and was
apparently having difficulty swallowing. She decided not to administer any further medication
and phoned Dr.Finucane to inform him of Ms Pohes state and her decision. Dr.Finucane
supported her decision.
At 13:00 hours Nurse Young noted Ms Pohes pulse was irregular. She phoned Dr.Finucane to
apprise him of the situation. He instructed her to call the on duty house surgeon to request an

Dr Finucane examined Dolly Pohe at 4.00 p.m., but reassured the nursing staff that although he
found her to be drowsy and unco-operative he was able to examine her cardiovascular system and
her pulse was now regular. He thought, however, that the 400 mg of chlorpromazine she had been
given in the morning combined with clonazepam may have resulted in a cardiac arrythmia
(irregularity) and wrote in the chart, try to use just haloperidol for rest of day.

If the evening nurse had the same reluctance to further drug a heavily drugged prisoner as Nurse
Young, Dolly Jane Pohe may have survived. Mr Lee, the male nurse who took over the care of Ms
Pohe after Nurse Young did not share her concerns. He noted that whenever Ms Pohe did rouse she
showed signs of becoming disturbed again and he felt it was important to maintain the continuity of the
sedation effect. She was given 20 milligrams of haloperidol at 14:45, 19:00 and 22:00, according to
the report. She was given another 20 mg of haloperidol at 1.00 a.m. after banging at the door again, this
time because she wanted to go to the toilet. When nursing staff entered the seclusion room at 5.15 a.m.
she was dead.


The report, presented to the Director General of Health (New Zealand) made two recommendations,
after a single sentence of summary. The summary reads:
In our opinion there is no prima facie evidence against any person in respect of which a
prosecution should be recommended, or in respect of which a complaint should be made under
the Medical Practitioners Act.

The recommendations are as follows:

(1) We do not recommend criminal prosecution of any person nor complaint against any
person under the Medical Practitioners Act or Nurses Act
(2) We express our regret that there exists no suitable mechanism by means of which civil
remedies might be pursued against health care professionals in appropriate cases of which the
death of Ms Pohe might possibly be considered an example. We recommend investigation of
this deficiency in our civil law with a view to legislative action being taken.

The psychiatrist who made these recommendations, Professor Paul Mullen, is now one of the senior
psychiatrists in charge of the forensic psychiatry system in Melbourne. He is also a Professor of
Psychological Medicine (psychiatry) at Monash University, which is affiliated with both the Mental
Health Research Institute and the Macfarlane Burnet Centre. It is also affiliated with Monash Medical
Centre and the Alfred Hospital, both of which inject people with crippling drugs against their will.
Both hospitals also give coercive electoconvulsive treatment. This is what medical students and junior
doctors learn to do in Melbourne, since both of these hospitals are teaching hospitals.


Artificial chemicals, whilst mimicking the effects of natural stimulation of neurone cell membrane
receptors (at synapses or on the body of the cell) in some ways, behave in fundamentally different ways
in the long term. Natural neurotransmitters and neurohormones are constantly recycled by the brain and
are also being constantly synthesised from amino acids, which reach the brain through the blood
stream. This is a complex and intricate chemical orchestra conducted by the brain, but profoundly
influenced and in a real sense controlled by the mind. Both the mind, and the sensitive processes that
regulate the biochemistry of the brain can be adversely affected by exogenous (from outside)
stimulation of receptors designed for transient stimulation by naturally synthesised and catabolised
chemical messengers. These include the endorphins as well as neurohormones and neurotransmitters.

Some of the named neurotransmitters have been increasingly mentioned in popular literature and the
mass-media in recent years, mainly because of the aggressive marketing of a range of drugs that exert
their most obvious effects by increasing and decreasing the activity of neurotransmitters. These drugs
include the old and new antidepressants, amphetamines (and related stimulants) and major
tranquillisers (antipsychotics or dopamine-blockers). The older tricyclic antidepressants (such as
Tryptanol and Prothiaden) tend to stimulate noradrenaline and serotonin activity, according to
pharmacological literature, whilst the newer SSRI antidepressants are claimed by the manufacturers to
specifically target serotonin reuptake mechanisms in synapses in the brain, hence the name Selective
Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.

Prozac was the first SSRI drug to be marketed by a pharmaceutical company, although the chemical
precursor of the drug (also the precursor to the euphoria drug ecstasy) was discovered several
decades ago. Following the unprecedented sales of Prozac by Eli Lilly, the US based drug company
that manufactures and sells the drug, several other drug companies have brought out their own SSRIs to
get their share of the depression market, as their own marketing plans describe the troubled people of
the world. SmithKline Beecham, the huge UK-based drug company are one such company, and, in the
mid-1990s began an aggressive marketing campaign in Australia and New Zealand for their SSRI
antidepressant Aropax, with a particular push for the prescription of the drug by psychiatrists and


general practitioners for panic disorder. This was done with the assistance of the Mental Health
Foundation, headed by Professor Graham Burrows, who endorsed a series of patient education
leaflets promoting the diagnoses of depression, anxiety, panic disorder, and obsessive
compulsive disorder(OCD) and the new drugs to treat these conditions (including the ones produced
by the sponsor SmithKline Beecham notably Aropax).

The following information was provided by SmithKline Beecham to their sales representatives for
Aropax (paroxetine) in New Zealand as part of an intensive marketing campaign for the drug in the
Depression is a condition of the central nervous system-ie the brain. The basic unit of the
nervous system is a neurone, which looks like a rod with a swelling at each end. In the body
these neurones form long chains, or nerves. In the brain, they form massive, tangled
complexes. Chemical impulses pass from neurone to neurone like a bucket-brigade, leaping the
tiny gaps between each cell. These gaps are called synapses.
The most important chemical imbalance that causes depression seems to be related to a
substance called serotonin, which is produced by neurones and released into the synapse.
Serotonin is necessary as a medium for the brain to transmit positive emotions. Without
enough serotonin, it is physically impossible to feel happy or content. Serotonin levels are
usually kept at the right levels by the neurones themselves, which re-absorb any excess, and
release more in case of shortage. In some depressed people, however, the neurones seem to
hoard serotonin, letting out only a trickle while aggressively reabsorbing. As a result, the
persons ability to feel happy dries up, and they enter clinical depression.

This unreferenced and simplistic piece of nonsense fails to mention some important facts about
serotonin and distorts others in an inexcusable act of medical and scientific fraud in an effort to
promote a drug that specifically targets serotoninergic neurones in the brain. The promotional literature


fails to mention that serotonin is manufactured in the gut and nervous system (including the brain) from
the dietary amino acid tryptophan, and performs many functions in the body other than being a happy
chemical, which is what the promotional literature from SmithKline Beecham suggests. This
advertising blurb also fails to mention that serotonin is concentrated in the brain in the pineal organ,
where it is converted to the neurohormone melatonin, a scientific fact discovered in the 1960s and
conclusively proved in numerous studies. The fact that serotonin is concentrated in the pineal where it
is converted to melatonin during the night-time hours of darkness is generally not found in literature
about Prozac, Aropax and the other SSRI drugs, including information provided by the drug companies
to doctors or in the many books and medical articles published about (and promoting) the new
psychiatric drugs.

SmithKline Beecham, who are, with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) and the American
giant Mercke, the biggest marketers of virus vaccines in Australia, have played a prominent role in the
Commonwealth of Australias National Mental Health Strategy, and funded or co-funded a range of
public health and disease awareness campaigns and strategies in Australia over the past 10 years.
These have included collaborating with the Mental Health Foundation and other drug foundations to
produce, promote and distribute literature promoting the diagnosis of panic disorder for which the
new SSRI drugs were being promoted despite conclusive evidence that the drugs can aggravate anxiety
immediately after they are started precipitating psychosis and suicide in vulnerable individuals.

Australian ABC reporter Ray Moynihan, in his 1998 book Too Much Medicine? described an elaborate
launch of Aropax and panic disorder in Sydney, in 1996:
One of the top chefs in the country is catering at one of the best venues in the nation. A large
gathering of doctors are about to tuck into a $100-a-head meal. The live satellite link with
hundreds of their colleagues across Australia is soon to start: another lavish promotional event
dressed up as a scientific gathering, courtesy of the pharmaceutical industry.


This 1996 Sydney harbourside dinner was how the drug giant SmithKline Beecham chose to
educate doctors about the governments approval of its new antidepressant, Aropax, for the
treatment of a psychiatric condition called panic disorder. The night was just one component in
a highly sophisticated marketing campaign to promote Aropax and this little-known disorder.
The strategy included Panic, the book; Panic, the video; and Panic, the T-shirt. (p.115)

Moynihan continues to expose just a small amount of the ensuing cost to the Australian community:
The use of new antidepressants, including Aropax and the better known Prozac, has grown
astronomically in Australia since the early 1990s, from 5,000 prescriptions a year in 1990 to
over 2.5 million in 1996. Aropax is now one of the top-selling antidepressants. And as the
number of people using these expensive new drugs has dramatically escalated, so too has the
cost to the taxpayer. The new antidepressants now cost the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
funded through Medicare over $120 million in 1995-96. (p.115)

The 1992 SmithKline Beecham marketing plan, sent to the ACACP and HRIC by a human rights
worker in New Zealand in 1998, demonstrates a callous disregard for the human beings being targeted
to both prescribe and consume this drug. The following extracts show the general tone of the


We are to produce a strategy and creative execution to launch Aropax to GPs.


For the creative, we need a foundation concept and image, reflected in concept boards for:
A detail aid
An invitation to the launch seminar
An educational mailing pack
Branding advertisements

Thought should also be given to

Leave behinds
Neurone card, showing how the neurone can hoard serotonin
Branded give aways

The client wants to research and test the campaigns submitted. Our concept boards should be
designed with this in mind.



Marketing Objectives
Establish SSRIs as the future of antidepressant therapy by educating GPs.
Differentiate Aropax on the basis of its key attributes and strong branding.
As a result, establish Aropax as the SSRI of choice.

Direct marketing Objectives

Teach doctors about SSRIs.
Show why Aropax is the closest thing to an ideal agent.
Generate qualified leads for later sales calls.

Advertising Objectives
Build strong brand awareness of Aropax as the SSRI of choice. As we may
have a standing start race against a similar competitor, all branding must be
strong and emotional.
Build on the educational messages of the direct marketing.


Perhaps it is nave to imagine that the pharmaceutical industry would consider the health of humanity
as its primary objective. It is a clear conflict of interest when the same industry is allowed opportunities
to promote diseases (especially invisible diseases) for which the drugs they produce will be
prescribed. It is also against the law. The wilful creation of disease, termed biological warfare, is a
crime against humanity, and is prohibited by International Laws.



When the first large asylum was built in Australia, at Tarban Creek in New South Wales, the
Superintendent made a requisition that hints at the treatment the inmates were to receive when the
lunatic asylum opened:
63 iron bedsteads, six chairs for violent cases, 16 cribs of wood for dirty cases, 12 pairs of
leather hobbles of various sizes for males and females, 12 hard belts of strong leather and iron
cuffs attached to them with straps, 12 cuffs and belts for the hands in less violent [cases] (Dax,

The Tarban Creek Asylum was opened in 1838, and it accepted patients from Victoria who were
transported there by ship from Melbourne. The state of Victoria had not yet been founded, and the area
was still administered by the British colonists from New South Wales. Prior to this a smaller asylum
had been opened in 1811 in New South Wales, before which the insane were kept in jails. The close
connection between the prisons system and the psychiatric system has persisted to the present.

The next asylum was built in Tasmania (Van Diemans Land) which was then a prison colony along
with Norfolk Island, to the east of Tasmania. This occurred in 1829 and was followed by an additional
larger asylum at Port Arthur in 1842. The Australian psychiatrist Professor Eric Cunningham Dax
wrote of Port Arthur in A World History of Psychiatry (1975):
In 1842 an asylum was opened at Port Arthur. There were four dormitories, a central hall, 24
cells, and a padded room. One patient spent long hours in a cage. Port Arthur then had an evil
reputation, and Britain, in a wave of belated guilt, ordered the penal settlement to be


abandoned, so that by 1879 only 64 prisoners, 126 paupers (presumably housed in the invalid
block), and 69 lunatics remained. They were called imperial lunatics!
Another matter of psychiatric interest at Port Arthur was an adjacent establishment at Point
Puer which contained up to 730 delinquent boys, mostly aged 9 to 18. Some were transported
for trivial offences. It appears that Governor Arthur made a real attempt to educate and train
them as stonemasons, sawyers, and in other trades. (p.707)

The training and retraining of young people was one of the many agendas of psychiatrists and mental
hygienists, but they had to compete for the minds of the young with the Churches, which had a longer
history of both teaching children and looking after the poor and disadvantaged. It was the Anglican
Church and the Roman Catholic Church in Australia that controlled most of the primary and high
school education in these areas in Australian schools, but this was to change, according to the plans of
the mental hygiene movement and medical profession.

One way in which the psychiatric profession formed an unholy alliance with the Anglican and Catholic
Churches, was by providing the initial incarceration, enforcement of compliance (obedience) and
drug treatment of young people and collaborating with Church organizations in their subsequent
training in menial occupations, whilst providing on-going supervision and enforcement of drug
treatment. Cunningham Dax refers to such programs in From Asylum to Community, and continued
developments of this alliance are evident in an examination of todays youth-training programs and
psychiatric treatment and followup programs. Dax wrote, of the then new system in the late 1950s:
Prior to 1954 there were no full-time chaplains within the mental hospitals. Since that time the
Anglican Church have appointed five and the Presbyterians one, and it is hoped that three other
full-time chaplains from the Catholic and the Methodist churches and another Anglican will be
engaged before long. They are jointly appointed by the Church and the Mental Hygiene
Department. There is a chaplains advisory committee which discusses the terms and the


conditions of appointment, and the training. Opportunities are available for the chaplains of the
various denominations to discuss their work together and a series of successful seminars have
been held which have extended from a single day up to a full residential week. Three Anglican
chaplains have been abroad for training. (Dax, 1961, p.34)

Dax does not say which countries the chaplains were trained in but it was undoubtedly Britain or
America. Dax, who was born in Britain and graduated in medicine at the University of London in 1935,
is Anglocentric in his perspective, and, along with common medical views of British and British
trained psychiatrists had fundamental belief in physical treatments and drug treatment over talk
therapies and psychotherapy of a more gentle nature. This has been a feature of Australian psychiatry
since the time of Cunningham Dax, especially in the public hospital system, where the only treatment
is drugs and electric shocks. Psychotherapy is generally held to not work for serious mental illness,
and psychoanalysis, by which is usually meant Freudian analysis, is suspected (with good reason) to
confuse the psychotic further. Dax does not mention psychoanalysis, or Freud, and makes only passing
references to psychotherapy, which he says the psychologists employed by the Mental Hygiene
Authority and public hospitals were actively discouraged from doing. He writes:
Neither the psychologists nor the social workers are encouraged to do psychotherapy as it is
felt that they are more usefully used in their own special fields. On the other hand, it is hoped
to extend the group activities for both these associates within their own specialties (p.34)

In territorial fashion he defines what he sees the role of psychologists to be in this new empire
controlled and dominated by psychiatrists:
Nine years ago there was an establishment of seven psychologists; now there are nineteen.
They have not as yet been widely used in the mental hospitals, but more within the clinics and
particularly in those for children. The ways in which they have been occupied within the
Department are therefore as follows:


Intellectual Deficiency. Here the psychologists are particularly concerned with assessing the
intellectual abilities of the patient and his capacity for development. They give remedial
teaching, so the child may develop to the maximum of his ability. They supervise the patients
activities so as to direct them towards gaining a therapeutic benefit. They are able to guide the
patients into appropriate occupations or activities towards training them to live in the
Children. In child guidance clinics some of the psychologists are used for play therapy or
counselling, but the practice varies. Intellectual and vocational testing, educational assessment
and advice on overcoming difficulties, and remedial educational therapy are regarded as some
of the psychologists functions in this field. They do valuable work in the instruction of the
staffs of institutions for adolescents and children, especially through group activities. Also they
usefully undertake the management of parents; group discussions for remedial training.
Adults. In this field the psychologists undertake the intelligence, educational, vocational and
projective testing, and they direct the junction with the occupational therapists. They can set
out patients records in such a way that they will supply the needed data for statistical records.
Similarly they can prepare and plan controlled psychiatric experiments in a way capable of
statistical analysis.
Research. They carry out research into the various aspects of human behaviour and the best
means by which patients, in all the psychiatric fields can be taught fully to use their abilities
and skills. (Dax, 1961, p.34)

As far as spiritual needs of his patients, and of the Australian population generally, Dax assumes that
the Church can provide this:
Chaplains functions within the hospitals relate to the patients spiritual needs and welfare and
to their way of life, and therefore the duties of the chaplain may be defined as follows:


To see whether each patient admitted wants, or is likely to want, his spiritual help, and always
to be available at a definite time for patients to visit him.
To arrange for prayers, services and religious observance for the patients of his own
To supervise the care of the hospital chapel.
To co-operate with the chaplains of the other denominations for the welfare of the patients.
To act as educational officer in the hospital and so to interest himself in such items as the
library, debates, drama, English lessons, recreations, current affair discussions, choral societies,
music, and the patients magazine.
To be available to see patients relatives and to communicate, as needs be, with their clergy.
To participate with the other medical associates in the treatment, resocialization and
rehabilitation of the patients.
To further the understanding between the mental hospitals and the general public by
interpreting the hospitals functions to the community (Dax, 1961, p.35)

In other words, the mental hygiene movement seconded the Christian Churches, starting with the
Anglican Church, as public relations agents for the treatments, diagnoses and propaganda provided by
the psychiatric profession, which controlled the mental hospitals, despite the fact that what they were
doing and teaching were the very antithesis of what Jesus of Nazareth did and taught. They also
seconded the psychology profession, which competes with the psychiatry profession, to implement
psychiatrist-designed treatment programs, administer psychiatrist-approved intelligence tests and
personality tests for psychiatric diagnoses made by the psychiatrists (not the psychologists), and


process statistics which could be used by the medical and psychiatric profession, and, it turns out, the
pharmaceutical industry.

The care of intellectually deficient children was already a self-appointed responsibility of the Christian
Churches in Australia, and the conditions in which these children were kept from the earliest days of
British colonization is a national disgrace. Although Dax does not write about mistreatment of
psychiatric patients during his own years of office, his description of the conditions at the Kew
Cottages in the 1950s gives some indication of how unwanted children were treated in Melbourne:
There were open drains, children caught worms by drinking the water, there was little storage
accomodation, the paint was drab and peeling. The childrens clothing was awful; the small
boys had unlaced boots, long moleskin trousers turned up at the bottom, adult football jerseys
which had been given to the cottages by a football club with old army jackets on top and
whatever hats they could collect. They were dirty and had very little washing accomodation
indeed. Many played in a shed during the day in a half-nude state, there was a battery of
lavatories with eight or ten adjoining seats but there was no way of swilling the excreta out of
the trough except by walking thirty yards for water. They passed urine into the open drains.
The patients ate from tins with their fingers, slept on straw mattresses and the place smelt of
stale food and excreta and unsatisfactory drainage. (p.125)

Although there were improvements in the cosmetic appearance of many of the metropolitan institutions
in the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s, the abusive treatment of young people in Australia, including forced
labour, separation from families, and arbitrary punishment were to continue under the joint supervision
of the Mental Hygiene/Health Authority (and its successors) and Church Organizations, later
accompanied by bigger and bigger doses and combinations of crippling drugs. Dax explains:
The intellectual deficiency colonies are partly under the care of the Mental Hygiene Authority
and partly of several voluntary organizations. One of the latter is really a day-centre, organized


on a residential basis because it is in the middle of a sparsely populated district, where the
pupils cannot come by transport each day, in other ways it is similar to the retarded childrens
day-centres. There are eighteen boarders there who go home for holidays and frequently for
weekends. A few day-children are taken. The other two voluntary residential colonies are run
by the Catholic Church. Marillac House for retarded children from 6 to 16 was opened in 1943
by the Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul. In 1961, there were ninety-six girls, of a
higher intellectual level than the children in the retarded childrens centres and mostly of about
special school standard.
The Brothers of St John of God opened an institution in New South Wales in 1947 for the
training of intellectually handicapped boys, and another in 1953 in Victoria. The children in the
main training centre are at the special school level, but a lodge adjoining was later opened for
those who were no more than the day-centre level. In 1957 they opened a farm colony and
there are now 95 boys in the residential unit, and 40 in the farm colony. (Dax, 1961, p.124)

The Church directly sold out to the corporate interests of the chemical industry and psychiatric
profession by selling Churches for conversion into psychiatric treatment centres, where the treatments
were inevitably chemicals, combined, at times, with surgical mutilation and electric shocks, physical
restraint and solitary confinement, forced labour and brainwashing. Dax writes:
The Clarendon Clinic [in East Melbourne] was formed by redesigning a church, its vestry, a
church hall and an adjacent house. The body of the church has been converted into a
therapeutic workshop and the vestry into four consulting rooms. The church hall has been made
into a cloak-room, sitting- and dining-room, and a hall for the rooms, offices and staff rooms
and a female toilet block.
The clinic was designed to supply the needs of those patients who had been many years in
hospital, had been rehabilitated there by the new methods used, and were now fit for
community care. However many of them were unable to earn a living at first or to find
accomodation except by the use, at least on a temporary basis, of one of the departmental


hostels. Moreover, many of them still needed some medical care, and were therefore followed
up by their own medical staff who could visit the Clarendon Clinic to see them.

The new methods used are inadequately described by Dax, but included insulin comas, chemical
shock using cardiazol, injected and ingested tranquillisers, electric shocks (an older treatment) and
brain mutilation by psychosurgery. He explains of the upgrading of Larundel receiving house into
a major treatment centre, which it remains today:
Larundel has a residential early-treatment unit and a short-term rehabilitation hospital
attached. At Mont Park [the adjoining hospital] there is a longer term treatment hospital with a
long-term rehabilitation hospital attached; this has a subdivision consisting of the general,
medical and the surgical services and the neurosurgical unit, together with a geriatric hospital.
Opposite to Larundel is a repatriation hospital for psychiatric cases attributable to war service.
Within two miles is the old private hospital which is being used for geriatric patients but which
may be converted later into a short-term alcoholism treatment centre (Dax, 1961, p.177)

As they plotted to convert a general hospital for the elderly to an alcoholism treatment centre, the
Mental Hygiene Authority and associated hospitals explored new treatments for their captives and
converts with the aid of the then new Mental Health Research Institute in Parkville, Melbourne. Dax
In 1954 the Chief Clinical Officer, Dr Alan Stoller, was appointed, but much of his time in
that year was spent in an Australia-wide survey of mental health needs and facilities, so he did
not take up his position until 1955. Shortly after this the Mental Health Research Institute was
built and officially opened by the late Sir Ian Clunies-Ross.
In 1955 a Mental Health Research Fund was founded consisting of an annual grant by the
Victorian government to the University of MelbourneWithin the first year the University


Department of Anatomy was able to demonstrate its work on the neuro-anatomical basis of
emotion and growth on mongoloid children. The Departments of Physiology and
Pharmacology were working on cerebral sedatives and analeptics while the Department of
Pathology was doing research on cerebral arteriosclerosis.
By the beginning of 1956 the Mental Health Research Institute was able to give
demonstrations of the work proceeding in the Department on the incidence of schizophrenia,
Huntingtons Chorea, juvenile delinquency, the clinical effects of tranquilizing drugs, electroencephalographic studies of brain-damaged children and the results of infero-medial leucotomy
[psychosurgery]. Studies had also been made on the treatment of excitement with lithium and
its effects were being tried out at several hospitals. (Dax, 1961, p.139)

The passage above reveals the connection between the mental hygiene movement, the University of
Melbourne, the Mental Health Research Institute in Parkville and the public hospitals, including Royal
Park Hospital, also in Parkville. In all these institutions the main focus was on drug treatments,
although Dax was also enthusiastic about brain surgery for the treatment of psychological problems. At
Royal Park Hospital, Larundel and other psychiatric hospitals electric shocks to the brain were also
used for various conditions, the names of which have been changed over the past forty years. Electric
shocks to the brain, usually called ECT in Australia, are used against peoples wishes in dozens of
hospitals in Australia, today. The use of electrical shocks in Australia dates back to the 19th century,
and it has been an unchanging feature of Australian psychiatry over the past century, although the
discovery of ECT is usually attributed to Cerletti in Italy in the 1940s. Such is the nature of
psychiatric diagnosis and treatment terminology as well as history: it is subject to frequent changes.
Thus electric shocks to the brain have been called electroconvulsive therapy or ECT, shock
treatment, electroshock, electroplexy and electro-therapy. The same class of drugs have been
called analeptics, neuroleptics, anti-psychotics, major tranquillisers and psychotropics. The
use of lithium was experimented with, in Daxs terminology, for excitement (a suspect indication,
indeed), but now it is used for mania and bipolar affective disorder. Previously bipolar affective
disorder (BAD) was called manic depression.


Lithium was first used on psychiatric patients by the then 39 year old superintendent of Bundoora
repatriation hospital in Victoria, Dr John Cade. This occurred in the 1940s, and since then the Victorian
and Australian psychiatric hospitals have been avid dispensers of lithium, often referred to as a mood
stabiliser. Although it may indeed prevent fluctuations in mood, the ingestion of lithium is
accompanied by a range of unpleasant and dangerous side-effects and is extremely toxic in overdose.
Lithium is toxic to the kidneys and thyroid in particular, and, since the toxicity margin is recognised to
be low, regular blood tests to check lithium levels (also used to check compliance with drug-taking) are
necessary if this drug is prescribed, as it often is done in Australia. It also dulls emotional reactions
generally and produces a range of unpleasant mental side-effects in many who are forced to take the
drug under threat of incarceration if they fail to comply with treatment.

The medical education system in Australia has, since its inception, like the military, been rigidly
hierarchical, with professors at the top and medical students at the bottom, and the ladder is climbed by
the acquisition of degrees and publications, together with less easily identified factors, which come into
operation in the mysterious upper echelons of the academic world, an area where global politics
plays a greater role than most people realise.

The Mental Health Research Institute in Parkville, Melbourne is Victorias biggest psychiatry research
institution and is affiliated with the University of Melbourne, the citys oldest university. The Institute
was initially set up at Royal Park psychiatric hospital in the 1950s, shortly after, as was revealed in the
press recently, several Nazi scientists were smuggled into Melbourne.

The previous medical director of Royal Park Hospital, the psychiatrist Norman James, was, after the
closure of Royal Park, appointed Chief Psychiatrist of Victoria by Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, (a
government appointment), replacing the Sri Lankan psychiatrist Carlyle Perera who held the position
for many years. Norman James, a small bespectacled man in his 60s, is one of the most politically


powerful people in Australia, however, like other senior psychiatrists is hardly known outside the
medical profession, police and judicial system. James wrote the opening chapter in the undergraduate
textbook Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry (1994) titled A Historical Context.

In it he wrote:
It was in the asylums that the first widely available and effective biological treatments were
developed. Freud himself trained in neurology and recognised that the severely mentally ill
required organic forms of treatment. The discovery of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) by
Cerletti and Bini who worked in a mental hospital in Rome in 1938 led to a simple and readily
applied treatment for those who suffered from severe depressive illness and related disorders.
Despite the advent of World War II, ECT was rapidly adopted as a treatment internationally.
The discovery of lithium in 1949 as a treatment for mania and as a prophylaxis for bipolar
disorder (manic depression) was made by Dr John Cade, a distinguished Australian
Psychiatrist. This was soon followed by the development of major tranquillisers, the
neuroleptics, by Delay and Deniker in Paris in 1952, although the initial idea of their
application in psychiatry occurred in a general hospital when it was noted that they were
effective tranquillisers for patients undergoing surgery. Shortly after this Nathan Kline made
the discovery that a drug being tested for its effect in tuberculous patients had an antidepressant
action and thus the first specific antidepressants were discovered, again in a large mental
hospital and this time in Orangeburg, New York.

Professor Edward Shorter, in A History of Psychiatry (1997) gives more details of John Cades less
than exacting methodology in his rapturous description of the medical discovery of lithium:
The story began in 1949 with John Cade, the 37-year-old superintendent of the Repatriation
Mental Hospital in Bundoora, Australia [Victoria]. Cade, like Neil Macleod in late-nineteenth-


century Shanghai, had not lost his scientific curiosity despite his provincial isolation. He was
determined to see if the cause of mania was some toxic product manufactured by the body
itself, analogous to thyrotoxicosis from the thyroid. Not having any idea what, exactly, he
might be searching for, he began taking urine from his manic patients and, in a disused hospital
kitchen, injecting it into the bellies of guinea pigs. Sure enough, the guinea pigs died, as they
did when injected with the urine of controls. Cade began investigating the various components
of urine urea, uric acid and so forth and realized that to make urine soluble for purposes of
injection he would have to mix it with lithium, an element that had been used medically since
the nineteenth century (in the mistaken belief that it could serve as a solvent of uric acid in the
treatment of gout).
Then Cade, on a whim, tried injecting the guinea pigs with lithium alone, just to see what
would happen. The guinea pigs became very lethargic. Those who have experimented with
guinea pigs, he wrote, know to what degree a ready startle reaction is part of their makeup. It
was thus even more startling to the experimenter that after the injection of a solution of lithium
carbonate they could be turned on their backs and that, instead of their usual frantic righting
reflex behavior, they merely lay there and gazed placidly back at him.
Cade had stumbled into a discovery of staggering importance, yet he was able to develop it
only because of his resoluteness in taking the next step. He decided to inject manic patients
with lithium he injected 10 of his manic patients, 6 schizophrenics, and 3 chronic psychotic
depressives. The lithium produced no impact on the depressed patients; it calmed somewhat the
restlessness of the schizophrenics. But its effect on the manic patients was flamboyant: All ten
of them improved, though several discontinued the medication and were still in hospital at the
time Cade wrote his article late in 1949. Five were discharged well, though on maintenance
doses of lithium. (p.256)

No mention is made in this book, or in Professor James account, of the toxicity and risks associated
with swallowing (or injecting lithium), which are, in particular damage to the kidneys and thyroid. So
dangerous is this drug, that regular blood tests must be done to guard against acute and chronic toxicity.


According to the MIMS Annual (1993), its adverse reactions, better described as dangers and
toxicity, are briefly described as follows:
Administration of lithium carbonate may precipitate goitre requiring treatment with thyroxine,
but this regresses when treatment is discontinued. The ECG [electrocardiograph] may show
flattening of the T wave. Hypercalcaemia, hypermagnesaemia, weight gain and oedema may
occur, and skin conditions may be aggravated. The toxic symptoms are referable to the
gastrointestinal tract and the central nervous system. These must be known by the patient and
his or her nurses and relatives. Those referable to the gastrointestinal tract are anorexia, nausea,
vomiting, severe abdominal discomfort and diarrhoea. Those referable to the central nervous
system are lassitude, ataxia, slurred speech, tremor (marked) and agitation. If none of these are
present, the patient is not intoxicated. Patients suffering from lithium toxicity look sick, pale,
grey, drawn and asthenic. It is vital to bear in mind that lithium can be fatal, if prescribed or
ingested in excessAt serum lithium levels above 2 to 3 mmol/L, increasing disorientation and
loss of consciousness may be followed by seizures, coma and death.

Heralding the discovery of lithium by Cade by a Victorian psychiatrist as a great moment in medical
science, the Victorian medical establishment, including Professor Norman James, has long been
insistent on the treatment of manic and even hypomanic people with lithium. This is despite the
known risks and toxicity of the drug.

Lithium is said, by Australian psychiatrists, to stabilise the mood, and it is assumed that people who
have had even brief episodes of elevation or abnormal excitement need long term mood
stabilization with the drug. This includes single episodes of hypomania, which is described in the
American Psychiatric Associations DSM IV as follows:
A Hypomanic Episode is defined as a distinct period during which there is an abnormally and
persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood that lasts for at least 4 days (Criterion A).


This period of abnormal mood must be accompanied by at least three additional symptoms
from a list that includes inflated self-esteem or grandiosity (nondelusional), decreased need for
sleep, pressure of speech, flight of ideas, distractibility, increased involvement in goal-directed
activities or psychomotor retardation, and excessive involvement in pleasurable activities that
have a high potential for painful consequences (Criterion B). (p.335)

As if it makes the diagnostic criteria precise and specific, the DSM adds that:
If the mood is irritable rather than elevated or expansive [which are not further defined in the
DSM IV], at least four of the above symptoms must be present.

It is incredible that increased goal directed activities and non-delusional increase in self-esteem
could be cited as evidence of mental illhealth rather than an indication of improved health. Furthermore
DSM IV adds that:
The change in functioning for some individuals may take the form of a marked increase in
efficiency, accomplishments or creativity. (p.335)

It is strange that this mental state should be viewed as an abnormal one, but at least the American
Psychiatric Association (unlike the Australian psychiatric establishment) does not advocate
incarceration or forced drugging for hypomania. The reference manual says:
In contrast to a Manic Episode, a Hypomanic Episode is not severe enough to cause marked
impairment in social or occupational functioning or to require hospitalization, and there are no
psychotic features.


The University of Melbournes Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry is not as clear in their distinction
between hypomania and mania and hypomania has only two references to it, one relating to
diagnosis and one relating to treatment. Under Abnormal states of mood elevation is written:
Far less commonly [than depression], a persistent elevated mood occurs. Similarly, a
continuum of severity if found with the mild states difficult to distinguish from normality.
Moderate severity Hypomania, or severe state Mania, are obvious, the patients behaviour
having serious consequences if treatment is not swiftly initiated. Most manic patients also
experience depressive swings, and this condition is therefore referred to as Bipolar Mood
Disorder. (p129)

The recommended treatment is described under management of elevated mood states:

The assessment and treatment of the patient suffering from acute hypomania or mania is
essentially the management of the acutely psychotic patient. Organic conditions, including
drug-induced states, need to be excluded. For reasons of safety, most patients need
hospitalisation which, because of the lack of insight, may need to be recommended. The
mainstay of pharmacotherapy are the neuroleptics, such as Haloperidol or Chlorpromazine.
Although lithium carbonate is an effective antimanic agent at relatively high concentrations
risks of toxicity discourage its use. Occasionally, for particularly severe cases, ECT is needed.

The drugs recommended for the treatment of hypomania and mania turn out to be the same ones
recommended for schizophrenia and ECT is electroconvulsive treatment (shock treatment), which
is used for depression as well as its opposite, mania and also for severe or intractable
psychosis (including that supposedly due to schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder). Unlike


many other parts of the world, where ECT has been banned or seriously restricted, in Australia the use
of electrical shocks has increased in recent years and is used more widely (in more centres and for
more reasons). Most of the psychiatric hospitals in Australian cities give patients ECT, often against
their will.

Involuntary ECT in the State of Victoria is said to be restricted to emergency cases, but it is left to
the individual psychiatrist to define what constitutes an emergency. The systems of appeal open to
the protesting patient are very limited. They can appeal to the Chief Psychiatrist, Norman James, who
has the authority to stop the abusive use of drugs or ECT. It is most unlikely that he would, however.
James, who was previously head of psychiatry at the Royal Park Hospital is a keen advocate of both
ECT and the use of neuroleptic drugs. It is he who wrote the opening chapter of Foundations of
Clinical Psychiatry. In it, he wrote an intriguing passage:
The asylums inaugurated as a result of humanistic urges soon became grossly overcrowded,
despite the fact that some were among the largest and most expensive buildings erected by the
governments of the day. Numerous difficulties beset them. As a result of their isolation they
became large, impersonal, human warehouses. Patients had few if any rights and were
completely at the mercy of their carer a largely untrained workforce from which has arisen
the modern profession of psychiatric nursing. There was a total lack of any specific physical
treatment for mental illness until the advent of ECT [so much for walking in gardens, music
and warm baths]. Those who did improve did so largely by the passage of time and the happy
advent of a spontaneous remission [not recovery]. These conditions led to a cycle of scandals,
public inquiries, usually some temporary improvement and then a relapse into previous
conditions or worse. (p.9)

It could be time for another public inquiry.


In psychiatric wards and Mental Health Review Board hearings the psychiatric patient is judged guilty
unless proven innocent. Unfortunately innocence (of mental illness or personality disorder) cannot
actually be proved according to prevailing psychiatric theory which does not view humans in terms of
guilty or innocent. All psychiatric patients are officially innocent, just unfortunately inflicted
with an (invisible) illness. One which unfortunately tends to run in families. Thus entire families are
stigmatised without laying blame on any individual. It is not the fault of the family or the individual to
be afflicted with illness: it is just one of those things. Maybe genetics plays a role. That way
individuals in the family can scan their relatives (and in-laws) for evidence of insanity.

As for the diagnosed patient, regardless of whether he or she is called a mental patient,
schizophrenic, nutcase, client or consumer there is no escape from the judgement of
defective and the accompanying stigma. Even if no evidence can be found at a particular time of
mental illness, the patient can be accused of masking (hiding) their madness or be in remission.



The English colonists who decided on Australia as an ideal site for a penal colony were not
unprejudiced men, as their own records and transcripts of their speeches demonstrate. In 1779, when
Joseph Banks recommended Botany Bay as a site for a convict colony, he is recorded in the Journals of
the House of Commons as suggesting:
In case it should be thought expedient to establish a Colony of convicted Felons in any
distant Part of the Globe, from whence their Escape might be difficult, and where, from the
Fertility of the Soil, they might be enabled to maintain themselves, after the First Year, with
little or no Aid from the Mother Country, to give his Opinion what Place would be most
eligible for such Settlement? informed your Committee, That the Place which appeared to him
best adapted for such a Purpose, was Botany Bay, on the Coast of New Holland, in the Indian
Ocean, which was about Seven Months Voyage from England; that he apprehended there
would be little Probability of any Opposition from the Natives, as, during his Stay there, in the
year 1770, he saw very few, and did not think there were above Fifty in all the Neighbourhood,
and had Reason to believe the Country was very thinly peopled ; those he saw were naked,
treacherous, and armed with Lances, but extremely cowardly, and constantly retired from our
People when they made the least Appearance of Resistance (p.61, Sources of Australian
History, Manning C. Clark, 1957)

The British plan to make Australia into a penal colony was based on several factors about the large
island previously known as New Holland, after the discovery of the island continent by Dutch sailors
and merchants in the 1600s. The main reasons that Australia was chosen were that it was far away
and relatively unpopulated. The extraordinary beauty of the land was largely unappreciated by the
European colonists whose primary motive was exploitation of resources, including both natural
resources and human resources, but, until the discovery of gold in Victoria and New South Wales in
the 1850s and subsequently extensive mineral deposits in many other areas, Australia was considered a


useless piece of land by all the Europeans nations that visited. This included the Dutch, Spanish,
French and English and probably also the Portuguese, Chinese and Indians, all of whom explored the
area now called Indonesia prior to the 1800s. As the early historical records show, another important
motive by the English for colonizing Australia was to prevent their arch-enemies, the French, from
taking possession of the continent.

As the historian Manning C Clark explains:

External causes also contributed to the occupation of more territory. Fear of the French, a
chronic mental disease of the English over the whole period, led to the abortive settlements at
Western Port (Victoria) in 1826, and to a military settlement using convict labour at King
Georges Sound (Western Australia) in the same year. The prospect of capturing some of the
trade with Indonesia led to the creation of a convict settlement at Port Essington in 1826. Fear
of the French played a part, too, in the decision to create a new colony on the Swan River

In World History of Psychiatry Professor Dax, who presided over the reforms in mental health care
in the state of Victoria that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s only hints at the abusive treatment of early
psychiatric inmates in Australia:
There is little record of any special treatment other than the usual purging, bleeding, blisters,
and setons. The electrical machine at Lachlan Park in Tasmania has already been noted, and an
ominous sounding acid to the spine

The electrical machine Professor Dax refers to was a torture device, to which immobilised lunatics
would be strapped down and electrocuted for upto half an hour daily (p.709). This cruel piece of what


was then very modern technology was used as early as 1851 according to records from the Lachlan
Park hospital in Tasmania, which was then administered by the Commonwealth of Britain as a prison

Britain had, at the time, a horrible history regarding institutional treatment of those deemed insane by
the medical profession and other authorities. Bethlem Hospital, the first modern asylum, was
renovated in 1676, and was considered one of the finest buildings in London, resembling the
Tuilleries, a French royal palace, from the outside. This was a consequence of petty rivalry between
the King of England and the King of France, and Louis XIV of France was said to have been
displeased with what he saw as a deliberate slight against himself and the French Empire. As it
turned out, though, George III, the mad King of England, who reigned when Britain lost America
and claimed Australia was himself treated by the medical experts of the time, who for some reason
thought that he was even madder than other members of the British aristocracy. King George III was
subject to bleeding, blistering, scarifying, purging, emetics and solitary confinement when he went
mad recurrently during his reign, concluding with a final breakdown at the age of 82, according to
Professor John Howells who wrote the chapter on Great Britain in the same book.

Howells elaborates on the less harsh treatment given to inmates of British asylums in the late 1700s
and early 1800s:
Regulations provided for periodical inspections of chained patients, to make sure that the
circulation of the blood was not impeded. Blood-letting was the usual remedy for manic
patients, who were also calmed with warm baths, tartar emetic, and purgatives; melancholic
patients were given similar treatment, but they were immersed in cold water. Sores were
artificially produced, as it was believed that they provided an outlet for bad humours.(p.192)


Despite the high ideals professed by the carers of the mentally ill in England, a public scandal resulting
in a Parliamentary Enquiry occurred when in 1814, a Mr William Norris who was suffering from
tuberculosis (which used to be called consumption) was discovered in a dark damp cell in Bethlem,
having been kept there in chains for 10 years. He died a year after being removed from the place, but
Professor Howells, who recounts the story in World History of Psychiatry does not explain how,
exactly, he died. It is not unreasonable to wonder, given the public scandal surrounding his case,
whether the doctors who supervised his treatment in Bethlem had anything to do with his treatment
after he left the hospital.

Bethlem Hospital, from which the word bedlam is derived, was acquired by the City of London in
1547 and remained a city-run asylum until 1948, although it also housed private patients, some of
whom were young women whom Dr John Haslam, the physician of Bethlem in 1809, lamented had
been subject to a brutal operation termed spouting. The torturous mutilation, which included removal
of the front teeth of upper and lower jaw was intended to let the madness out through the mouth,
since, at the time, madness and mental derangement were still thought to be caused by bad humours.

Later in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it was also believed that madness was caused by
abnormalities of blood flow to the brain, a theory favoured by American psychiatrists such as Benjamin
Rush and others. This was used to rationalise the practice of bleeding and other physical treatments,
which were used on people who were physically bound, chained and imprisoned. Flogging was a
common punishment, and other treatments, following the industrial revolution, included technological
wizardry such as spinning chairs and beds, and Rushs own Tranquilliser Chair which prevented all
movement and vision.

British psychiatry, which developed during the era of official British slavery and imperialism has been
punitive from the outset. It has also been characterised by double standards based on class and race.


What was shrugged off as eccentricity in the upper classes was punished as insanity in the lower
classes, later called the working classes. The ruling aristocracy and monarchy (royal family), after
whom several Australian and British hospitals are still named were allowed to behave in ways and
believe things which were not tolerated in commoners as they referred to their subjects. In
Australia today, several people (mainly men) remain incarcerated indefinitely in forensic psychiatry
hospitals without having been found guilty of any crime. These people, who have been deemed
criminally insane are held at her Majestys pleasure. Queen Elizabeth of England has, of course,
never met any of the people who are imprisoned for life at her pleasure.

The treatments given to psychiatric patients in Australian Hospitals and asylums closely followed those
in England in important respects, but the level of experimentation with cruel new treatments in
Australia exceeded that of the mother country of Australian psychiatry. Because most of the biggest
hospitals and universities in Australia were built using British advice, British designs and British
systems of hierarchy, administration and organization, the political and cultural links between
Australian medicine (including psychiatry) have always been deep, although in recent years there has
been an increasing influence from American psychiatry in the style of the APA, whose DSM is
accepted as an authoritative source by Australian courts and public hospital psychiatrists.

Unlike American psychiatry, which was strongly influenced by Freudian psychoanalysis, Australian
and British psychiatrists have traditionally been more focused and often exclusively focused on drug
treatments and physical treatments (such as electric shocks, chemical shocks and brain mutilation).
The drugs used in Australia and Britain are largely the same, and prescribed for the same diagnoses,
although the doses used in Australia are usually higher, and they are often prescribed in combinations,
with some patients receiving three, four or five drugs at the same time. Many of the large drug and
chemical companies in Australia, including SmithKline Beecham and Imperial Chemical Industries
(ICI) are based in England. Likewise many mining companies.


This is a pattern repeated in other Commonwealth countries including Canada, South Africa and New
Zealand, in which universities and hospitals were also built during the reign of the British Empire.
These countries were the white colonies, but universities and hospitals, administered initially by
white colonists, were also built in other British colonies, which are now considered to be part of the
Third World. These include India, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Hong Kong, Fiji, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe
and Zambia), Ghana (in Western Africa, previously called the Gold Coast), Kenya (in East Africa)
and several islands in the Caribbean Sea (the West Indies). During the colonial era, a divide and rule
policy was employed by the British, where minority elites were established to rule over the majority
population through a British-controlled public service and colonial administration. This strategy has
had disastrous effects in nations around the world, resulting in prolonged civil wars in many countries
after they were granted independence in the tumultuous years following the Second World War.

The universities founded by the British taught British-style psychiatry, complete with schizophrenia,
manic-depression and personality disorders as well as the drugs favoured for their treatment.
British psychiatry was itself strongly influenced by Western European psychiatry, especially that of the
professors in German, Austrian and Swiss universities. Then and now, universities were closely
associated with hospitals and asylums which treated the poor and disadvantaged. In these hospitals, in
which young doctors were trained and old doctors established empires, various therapeutic
interventions were attempted to cure or control the mad, some more cruel than others.

The focus of treatment of the insane has always been on control of behaviour, rather than cure of
psychological distress and the diagnoses favoured were also based on outward evidence of abnormal
behaviour rather than the more subtle attempts by European and particularly Jewish European doctors
(including Freud) to understand the intricacies of the human mind through psychoanalysis.
Psychoanalysis, which was largely based on Freuds prejudiced and confused ideas about sexuality
became very popular in the United States of America after the Second World War, but never gained a
foothold in the more conservative British universities and hospitals. The same was and remains the
case in Australia: psychoanalysis and also psychotherapy based on words (talk therapies) are


generally thought as ineffective in the management of serious mental illness in line with a similar
belief prevalent amongst British psychiatrists.

The connection between British and Australian psychiatry (and other medical specialties) is more
than a historical one. Today the entire system of medical qualification and specialist recognition as
well as most of the postgraduate (and much of the undergraduate) medical education is controlled by
the so-called Royal Colleges. These shadowy remnants of British Imperialism (and possibly
Freemasonry) were instituted during the age of slavery and were centred in London, and the old British
Universities: the Universities of London, Oxford and Cambridge. These institutions were initially the
only ones which could confer academic qualifications in the British Empire, including degrees,
fellowships and professorial positions.

In the British academic hierarchy, which was exported to the colonies and instituted in colonial
universities, the heads of each department or faculty were called professor and they had authority
over the more junior academic staff. This junior staff included tutors and lecturers, who were graded
as junior lecturers and senior lecturers. It took many years to climb the academic hierarchy, which
was (and is) centred in the universities. This academic ladder could be climbed in several ways, but
was largely available only for those born into privileged families (and who went to the right schools).
One way to climb the ladder was simply by staying in the same institution, and waiting ones turn to
be professor. It could be a long and futile wait. Professorial positions were few, and jealously guarded.
The Royal Colleges, dominated by old men from private schools and with good connections had
control over professional qualifications generally, and this included who could call themselves
professor. This hierarchy was instituted in all the fields of science, as well as in the arts.

The British tertiary education system divided all knowledge into science or arts. Politics, history
and philosophy became faculties of the arts, while medicine, surgery, geology, biology and astronomy


were considered, along with some other disciplines, to constitute the sciences. Progress in the lower
grades of the academic hierarchy could only be by passing tests and examinations devised, controlled
and judged by senior academic staff, most of whom were, and still are, male.

The medical sciences were, in the British and European academic systems, fundamentally divided into
medicine and surgery the politics of which were controlled by the London-based Royal College
of Physicians and Royal College of Surgeons. In Australia, these became the Royal Australasian
College of Physicians (RACP) and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS). These
patriarchal, authoritarian bodies confer higher qualifications (post-graduate qualifications) to
medical graduates who continue in training positions within the public hospital system. Senior
members of these colleges were (and are) made, according to changing and inconsistent rules, into
fellows of the college, who were more highly qualified than ordinary members or unspecialised
doctors. They were allowed, according to the rules of academia, to write FRCP or FRCS after their
names and call themselves physicians or surgeons.

Over the past one hundred years, new Australian colleges have been founded based on a similar model
and with intricate political connections with the older colleges. These include the Royal Australian
College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of
Psychiatry (RANZCP). They too confer fellowships according to obscure and secretive rules and rites
of passage. These are not democratic organizations. Old boys are given honorary degrees for doing
favours for other old boys (or the Royal tradition). This is a world still dominated by old school ties. It
is rigidly hierarchical, authoritarian and patriarchal. Women who are allowed to climb to the
professorial top of the academic ladder are obliged to accept misogynist traditions and behaviour from
the middle-aged men who control all these colleges.


The diagnostic model favoured by British psychiatrists who taught in the teaching hospitals and
universities in England and Australia was developed initially by German and Swiss lunatic asylum
psychiatrists such as Professors Emil Kraepelin and Eugen Bleuler, who described, for the first time,
so-called organic mental illnesses such as manic depression and schizophrenia. Developed in a
background of Protestant Christianity, the ideas and views which were held to be irrational,
bizarre, odd, grandiose and in other ways indicative of psychosis and mental illness were
based on a fundamentally Judao-Christian paradigm. It was thus considered indicative of mental
abnormality if one had unconventional beliefs concerning God, good and evil, Satan, the
Devil, angels, saints, messiahs, spirits, reincarnation or possession. These delusional
beliefs included any of many personal experiences with the divine or supernatural, which were
included in the psychiatric symptom of religiosity, indicative of schizophrenia and mania.
Serious mental illness would also be suspected in young people who suddenly changed their religious
and/or political beliefs. A conversion to Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam, an embracing of Indigenous
American or Shamanic religions were all to be suspected, and words were developed to describe the
core beliefs of non-Christian religious beliefs as schizophrenic. This is reflected today in the World
Health Organizations Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) which suggests that unusual thoughts
can be elicited by asking, Do you have a special relationship with God? The BPRS explains that
delusions are to be suspected on the basis of preoccupation with unusual beliefs in psychic powers,
spirits, UFOs or unrealistic beliefs in ones own abilities. New Age ideas can also be diagnosed as
The treatment for these conditions was (and is) forced treatment in a secure environment. Secure
environments have provision for treatment in locked rooms, solitary confinement and physical restraint
while the treatment (usually initially in the form of tranquillising injections) is commenced. The
diagnosis is one for life. A schizophrenic can never be healed he or she can only go into
remission. In other words further episodes of madness and chronic mental deterioration are likely.
Ironically the seeing of visions, hearing of Gods voice, visitations by angels and battles with
demons which feature so prominently in the Christian Bible all became evidence of mental
derangement in the fundamentally atheistic blend of Psychiatry, Capitalism and Protestant Christian
moralism which evolved over the twentieth century and was implemented in mental hygeine
programs throughout the Commonwealth.


This Protestant Christian psychiatry involved the Anglican Church in fundamental ways in Australia
as well as England. The Church determined what were orthodox and conventional thus
acceptable and normal interpretations of the Bible and Theology, as well as being directly involved
in the rehabilitation of mental patients and the care of the chronically ill. A belief that one was
possessed by evil spirits or Satan was treated with chemical or electrical shocks at first, and later
by injections and tablets of dopamine-blockers. A belief that one heard the voice of God,
communicated with angels (or extra-terrestrials) or was the (or a) messiah was treated the same
way. A refusal to renounce the delusional (heretical) belief was diagnosed as chronic mental illness
and refusal to accept such an interpretation of ones religious beliefs was called lack of insight. The
same criteria for diagnosis and the same treatments (with minor variations) have been employed in both
Australian and British psychiatric hospitals. Australian psychiatry has also come under an increasing
influence, however, from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) over the past fifty years.

In every Australian university and psychiatric hospital will be found at least one copy of the American
Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), now into its
fourth edition which was published, with much fanfare, in 1994. The seal of the American Psychiatric
Association portrays the American Father of Psychiatry, Benjamin Rush, the most famous American
physician of his time (and place) and a highly placed officer in George Washingtons military forces
during the American War of Independence (1776-1783). Rush, who was the only doctor to sign the
Declaration of Independence, was a keen proponent of bloodletting, in line with his theory that all
mental illness is caused by derangement of blood flow in the brain. He also developed other methods of
torture including the gyrator chair as well as the tranquilliser chair. Flogging, too, was employed in
Rushs hospitals, not regarded as punishment, but for therapeutic reasons.

Rush had another theory that is not mentioned in the DSM or other current psychiatric texts, which are
generally omissive regarding historical detail, especially about the more unpleasant aspects of the past,
as far as psychiatric treatment and theory are concerned. Rushs theory regarding black people was
that they are affected by a disease (negritude) which causes both their abnormal skin color as well


as their abnormal behavior and beliefs. This was inline with his avid support of slavery of Africans
by naturally superior white people.

The acknowledgement of Rush as the official Father of Psychiatry followed an actual formal
declaration by the American Psychiatric Association, in 1965, according to the Canadian historian
Professor Edward Shorter who admits that the venerated physician was more a propagandist than a
promoter of health. In A History of Psychiatry (1997) Shorter writes:
Rushs partisans have argued that his occasional musings on moral suasion anticipated later
psychological therapies. Yet, psychological sensitivity is difficult to detect in his practice. As
one visitor to the Pennsylvania Hospital in 1787 recounted of Rushs rounds, we next took a
view of the maniacs. Their cells are about 10 feet square, and made as strong as a prisonIn
each door is a hole, large enough to give them food etc., which is closed with a little door
secured with strong bolts. Most of the patients were lying on straw. Some of them were
extremely fierce and raving, nearly or quite naked.

Rush, however claimed differently when he wrote his textbook, published in 1812, lying that his
patients, now taste the blessings of air, and light, and motion, in pleasant shaded walks in
summerhave recovered the human figure, and with it, their long forgotten relationship to their
friends and the public (Shorter,1997). The father of American psychiatry had a scientific theory that
rationalised his practice of bleeding patients until their overactivity decreased, and their mad
ravings were quietened (as happens with acute blood loss, prior to loss of consciousness and death if
the blood loss continues). This was his bizarrely reductionist and simplistic theory that the cause of
madness is seated primarily in the blood-vessels of the brain, and it depends upon the same kind of
morbid and irregular actions that continues other arterial diseases (Shorter, 1997). In truth, however,
this is no more stupid than the numerous equally simplistic explanations of madness (including
chemical imbalance theories) that have followed his reductionist line of thinking.


Bizarre mechanistic models of the body, brain and mind have existed in many areas of medicine, but
the most grotesque, prejudiced and outrageous ideas have originated in the minds of psychiatrists and
psychoanalysts, whose destructive theoretical assumptions are shared, although the two schools of
thought have been at odds with each other regarding the place of drug therapy versus psychoanalytical
psychotherapy for the treatment of mental disorders. The shared assumptions (with notable dissidents)
are that mental illness is underdiagnosed and thus undertreated and that serious mental illness is
incurable and very difficult to treat. This is predictable since it is they who get paid for the diagnosis
and treatment of sick individuals, as well as for advice and teaching about how mentally ill people
should be treated in the future. Euphemistically the mechanistic drug promoters in modern psychiatry
are referred to in the psychiatric literature as biological psychiatrists and their chemical-oriented
eugenics theories are referred to as biological psychiatry.

Professor Shorter, professor of the History of Medicine in Toronto, Canada, describes the false paradox
that has him confused:
Psychiatry has always been torn between two visions of mental illness. One vision stresses the
neurosciences, with their interest in brain chemistry, brain anatomy, and medication, seeing the
origin of psychic distress in the biology of the cerebral cortex. The other vision stresses the
psychosocial side of patients lives, attributing their symptoms to social problems or past
personal stresses to which people may adjust imperfectlyThe neuroscience version is usually
called biological psychiatry; the social stress version makes great virtue of the
biopsychosocial model of illness. Yet even though psychiatrists may share both perspectives,
when it comes to treating individual patients, the perspectives themselves really are polar
opposites, in that both cannot be true at the same time. Either ones depression is due to a
biologically influenced imbalance in ones neurotransmitters, perhaps activated by stress, or it
stems from some psychodynamic process in ones unconscious mind. It is thus of great
importance which vision has the upper hand within psychiatry at any given moment. (p.27)


Shorter is confused in believing that biological psychiatry and the bio-psycho-social model (of
which there are many) have irreconcilable differences. They are, in fact, in their present form, closely
related. The recognition that stress can cause mental illness and that psychosocial factors influence
both stress and mental illness are obvious. The focus on stress and mental illness or on
neurotransmitters is not conducive, however to the promotion of mental health. Genuine scientific
biology is also a far cry from biological psychiatry which shares more common ground with
biological warfare than the objective, logical study of living things.

Biological warfare and military medicine (including military psychiatry) are intrinsically related. Both
thrive on the preparation for and existence of warfare. Furthermore, the diagnostic criteria in the DSM
were originally designed to screen candidates for military conscription. During the Second World War,
when there was massive expansion of the propaganda industry and the chemical industry, the objective
of the military psychiatrists was to train soldiers, and return shell-shocked soldiers to the frontline.
To do this they used brainwashing techniques, drugs and electric shocks.

This was the case for all sides of the war. The American psychiatrists taught patriotism to America,
capitalism, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, the British psychiatrists programmed their
patients with patriotism for the Empire, love of King and Country and hatred of the enemy.
During the Second World War, the enemy included Germans (whose psychiatrists trained soldiers to
fight for the Fatherland), Italians (likewise, but for the Fascists), Japanese, Communists and
traitors (those who would not support the war effort).

Owing to the subservience of the Australian political, military, medical and social systems to the old
country the war effort and war propaganda in and from Britain produced jingoistic war fever
combined with patriotism not for Australia (and her very different needs) but for England, Britain
and the British Empire. The medical profession, Red Cross and Church leaders all contributed to


creating and maintaining this war fever. While Nazi doctors were engineering and implementing
eugenic theories with death camps, gas chambers and medical experiments on unwilling subjects, the
Allies instituted internment camps for Germans, Italians and Japanese unfortunate enough to be
living in Australia at the time, and gas chambers (they were actually termed as such) in Northern
Queensland to test the effects of mustard gas on young Australian volunteers from the army. These
young people, who were sworn to secrecy and told they were helping the war effort, discovered that
mustard gas causes horrific burns and permanent health problems following even brief exposure. At the
same time, Jewish refugees, interred Italians and wounded Australian soldiers were deliberately
infected with malaria (also in Northern Queensland) to test anti-malarial drugs, also ostensibly for the
war effort. Of shame to this charity, the Red Cross was directly involved in the malaria
experiments, providing the infected blood for transfusion into the victims.



Each State in Australia has different mental health laws, which is one of the confusing things about
human rights in Australia. In Victoria the current Mental Health Act was passed in 1986, with
significant, but largely unnoticed amendments in 1995, which greatly expanded the criteria for which
people could be incarcerated and forcibly treated in this State. The changes were centred on subtle
changes to the wording of the act including the addition of the term mental disorder to include the
term mental illness in the 1986 Act.

The reason for the addition of the term mental disorder was claimed, at the time, to provide for the
forced treatment of a small number of self-mutilating people who, suffering from what is
psychiatrically termed a personality disorder rather than a mental illness are excluded from forced
treatment under the existing law. However events in the psychiatric literature at the time and since
suggest far greater possibilities for application of this new reason for involuntary treatment. One is
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, another is Conduct Disorder and yet another,
Oppositional Defiant Disorder, all new mental disorders announced in the 1994 edition of the
American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV).

The American Psychiatric Association is not a democratic organization, nor has it a history of
supporting freedom, independence, human rights or friendship. The head on the emblem of the APA
seal is that of the white supremacist and medical charlatan Benjamin Rush, who is regarded by the
APA as the founding father of American Psychiatry. In addition to a legendary obsession with selfpromotion, Rush had theories that black skin is caused by disease and all mental illness is caused by
abnormality in blood vessels of the brain. Based on his simplistic theory, Rush advocated blood
letting as the treatment necessary for a range of mental illnesses and also devised or implemented
several torture devises such as spinning chairs and beds, immobilization chairs and other cruel


punishments and then justified their use with scientific-sounding reasons. None of this is mentioned in
the DSM IV, which does not mention Rush other than the words Benjamin Rush 1844 under the
portrait of this infamous man.

The DSM does, however have a brief section titled Historical Background, which gives some
indication of the perspective the organization would like to give of itself and psychiatry:
The need for a classification of mental disorders has been clear throughout the history of
medicine, but there has been little agreement on which disorders should be included and the
optimal method for their organization. The many nomenclatures that have been developed
during the past two millennia have differed in their relative emphasis on phenomenology,
etiology and course as defining features. Some systems have included only a handful of
diagnostic categories; others have included thousands. Moreover, the various systems for
categorizing mental disorders have differed with respect to whether their principle objective
was for use in clinical, research, or statistical settings. Because the history of classification is
too extensive to be summarized here, we focus briefly only on those aspects that have led
directly to the development of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM) and to the Mental Disorders sections in the various editions of the International
Classification of Diseases (ICD).
In the United States, the initial impetus for developing a classification of mental disorders was
the need to collect statistical information. What might be considered the first official attempt to
gather information about mental illness in the United States was the recording of the frequency
of one category idiocy/insanity in the 1840 census. By the 1880 census, seven categories of
mental illness were distinguished mania, melancholia, monomania, paresis, dementia,
dipsomania, and epilepsy. In 1917, the Committee on Statistics of the American Psychiatric
Association (at that time called the American Medico-Psychological Association [the name
was changed in 1921]), together with the National Commission on Mental Hygeine, formulated
a plan that was adopted by the Bureau of the Census for gathering uniform statistics across
mental hospitals. Although this system devoted more attention to clinical utility than did


previous systems, it was still primarily a statistical classification. The American Psychiatric
Association subsequently collaborated with the New York Academy of Medicine to develop a
nationally acceptable psychiatric nomenclature that would be incorporated within the first
edition of the American Medical Associations Standard Classified Nomenclature of Disease.
This nomenclature was designed primarily for diagnosing inpatients with severe psychiatric
and neurological disorders.
A much broader nomenclature was later developed by the U.S. Army (and modified by the
Veterans Administration) in order to better incorporate the outpatient presentations of World
War II servicemen and veterans (e.g., psychophysiological, personality, and acute disorders).
Contemporaneously, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the sixth edition of
ICD, which, for the first time, included a section for mental disorders. ICD-6 was heavily
influenced by the Veterans Administration nomenclature and included 10 categories for
psychoses, 9 for psychoneuroses, and 7 for disorders of character, behavior, and intelligence.

It is evident, then that the military (defence forces) have always been closely involved in the
development and application of psychiatric labels and physical treatments of nervous disorders.
This involvement is more sinister than most would imagine, and has caused more distress to the public
than would initially appear possible. This distress has been caused by much more than misapplied
labels of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (a label directly adapted from the old label of shell-shock).
The militarisation of the USA and Australia have resulted in panic, depression, suicide, psychosis and
drug addiction in these nations, as it is bound to in any nations that promote terror and horror on
television screens at the same time as handing out addictive tranquillisers in hospitals and clinics to
calm the nerves and giving free reign to alcohol merchants to use all the tricks of modern technology
and advertising in developing new markets. When one also realises how closely militarisation is
associated with privatization, globalization and establishment of a white-controlled New World
Order, more of the disaster that has befallen modern society might be recognised.



It may be worth briefly reviewing the eugenic doctrines that shaped Australian psychiatry in the 20th
century. Eugenics is a scientific theory concerned with breeding better human beings, and consists of
positive eugenics (encouraging people with selected gene pools to have more children) and negative
eugenics(preventing the breeding of undesirables). The theory was directly developed by blood
relatives of the English aristocrat and evolutionist Charles Robert Darwin. These were Darwins cousin
Francis Galton and his son Leonard Darwin, who founded the first society for eugenics in the 1880s,
not long after the official abolition of slavery in the United States of America. The Englishmen who
developed a human racial hierarchy for the implementation of their genocidal plans placed themselves,
their families and friends at the top of the list of favoured blood lines, and attempted, by various means
to prove their genetic superiority over the majority of the human population. Galton considered himself
to belong to a family well-endowed with geniuses, which included himself and his cousin Charles
Darwin, who was Britains most famous scientist, by the time Galton founded the first Society for
Eugenics, shortly after writing Hereditary Genius in 1869. In it he hypothesised that mental qualities
are biologically inherited, that the white race is biologically shaped to dominate and that, among the
white race, the English are the most superior.

Darwin himself argued in Descent of Man (1871) that:

The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the
greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here
be said.
So in regard to mental qualities, their transmission is manifest in our dogs, horses, and other
domestic animals. Besides special tastes and habits, general intelligence, courage, bad and good
temper &c., are certainly transmitted. With man we see similar facts in almost every family;
and we now know, through the admirable labours of Mr.Galton, that geniustends to be


inherited; and, on the other hand, it is too certain that insanity, and deteriorated mental powers
likewise run in families.

Darwin (1809-1882), who had travelled as a scientific observer on the HMS Beagle in the 1850s,
developed the theory of evolution of species by natural selection following detailed observation of
animal species (birds, in particular) and, to the outrage of biblical creationists, presented evidence that
man was descended from apes in Descent of Man. Although he himself was parodied in cartoons at the
time as being part-ape, his followers seriously embarked on a scientific quest to discover which races
were closest to apes, and which were the most evolved with several false assumptions already
clouding their judgement.

Murray and Wells wrote, in From Sand, Swamp and Heath:

From the mid-1800s the evolutionary theories of Darwin and the geological principles of Sir
Charles Lyell began to take hold of European thinking. Darwins ideas were applied to the
Australian native, and reduced him to the embodiment of primeval man. Thomas Huxley drew
comparisons between the Aboriginal skull and that of Neanderthal man and Schoetensack even
suggested that man originated in Australia. By 1900 the Aborigine was regarded as a simple,
habitual being, incapable of adapting to change. (p.83)

Racism inherent in supposedly anthropological analysis of the indigenous people of Australia has
been repeated in numerous ways over the past 150 years, ranging from scientific papers and texts to
school atlases. From the 1940s publication for Australian schoolchildren by the Adelaide Advertiser,
The Modern Pictorial World Atlas, is the following description of The Stone-Age Men of Australia:


Australia, it has been remarked, is the asylum of many quaint creatures, like the duck-billed
platypus, who have ages since disappeared from the rest of the world. It is also the home of one
of the most primitive of human peoples the Aborigines, the Stone-Age men in the twentieth
They live in the arid, semi-desert lands of Central Australia. With increasing white penetration
of their inhospitable bush, their numbers have rapidly dwindled. In thirty years at the beginning
of the century the Arunta tribe diminished from about 2000 to about three to four hundred
Their skins are of a dark chocolate colour, but well smeared with ochre and decorated with
coloured designs. They are, on the whole, a little shorter than the average white Australian, but
fairly well built, and they carry themselves with a graceful, erect carriage. Through work and
child-bearing, the women grow old and hideously ugly by the time they are thirty.
Very early man probably had a face resembling that of the Australian aborigine in his heavy,
overhanging brows and receding forehead. (p.78)

An obsession in skull size and shapes which apparently indicated mental attributes was a particular
feature of the nineteenth century scientific racists, who developed pseudosciences named
craniometry and phrenology to prove such things as the inferiority of blacks, the criminality of
half-breeds and the mental weakness of women. The famous neurologist Paul Broca, a keen
craniometrist, asserted:
In general, the brain is larger in men than in women, in eminent men than in men of mediocre
talent, in superior races than in inferior races. Other things equal, there is a remarkable
relationship between the development of intelligence and the volume of the brain.


Steven Jay Gould, the popular scientific writer and evolutionary biologist from Harvard University,
from whose 1983 collection of essays titled The Pandas Thumb the above quote is borrowed, points
out the biases that were demonstrated in the efforts of craniometrists to prove their own superiority:
In an outrageous example of data selected to conform with a priori prejudice, he [E.A.Spitzka,
an American craniometrist] arranged, in order, a large brain from an eminent white male, a
bushwoman from Africa, and a gorilla. (He could easily have reversed the first two by
choosing a larger black and a smaller white.) Spitzka concluded, again invoking the shade of
Georges Cuvier: The jump from a Cuvier or a Thackeray to a Zulu or a Bushman is no greater
than from the latter to the gorilla or the orang.
Such overt racism is no longer common among scientists, and I trust that no one would now
try to rank races or sexes by the average size of their brains. Yet our fascination with the
physical basis of intelligence persists (as it should), and the nave hope remains in some
quarters that size or some other unambiguous external feature might capture the subtlety
within. Indeed, the crassest form of more-is-better using an easily measured quantity to assess
improperly a far more subtle and easily measured quality is still with usThis essay was
inspired by recent reports on the whereabouts of Einsteins brain. Yes, Einsteins brain was
removed for study, but a quarter century after his death, the results have not been published.
The remaining pieces others were farmed out to various specialists now rest in a Mason jar
packed in a cardboard box marked Costa Cider and housed in an office in Wichita, Kansas.
Nothing has been published because nothing unusual has been found. So far its fallen within
normal limits for his age, remarked the owner of the Mason jar. (p.125-6)

The craniometrists used as their yardstick for big-headed, white geniuses the skull of the French
biologist Baron Georges Cuvier, who died in 1832. Gould writes, with characteristic wit:
Cuviers contemporaries marveled at his massive head. One admirer affirmed that it gave
to his entire person an undeniable cachet of majesty and to his face an expression of profound
meditation. Thus, when Cuvier died, his colleagues, in the interests of science and curiosity,


decided to open the great skull. On Tuesday, May 15, 1832, at seven oclock in the morning, a
group of the greatest doctors and biologists of France gathered to dissect the body of Georges
Cuvier. They began with the internal organs and, finding nothing very remarkable, switched
their attention to Cuviers skull. Thus, wrote the physician in charge, we were about to
contemplate the instrument of this powerful intelligence. And their expectations were
rewarded. The brain of Georges Cuvier weighed 1,830 grams, more than 400 grams above
average and 200 grams larger than any non-diseased brain previously weighed. (p.122)

These attempts at proving the superiority of white men occurred prior to Darwins theories, but with
the acceptance that men were related to apes additional prejudices became apparent as the efforts to
prove which race was superior gathered momentum. They reached new depths with the development of
eugenic theories which recommended the sterilization and later, the mass-murder, of defective and
degenerate individuals and races, amongst which were the previously enslaved Africans, as well as
Jews and Gypsies (another much maligned and persecuted people). The Nazi regime in Germany and
Europe also murdered communists, political dissidents, deformed and disabled children and adults, and
mentally ill people in their misguided efforts to create a pure, white Aryan super-race.

Unknown to many in the modern world, however, the eugenic theories and policies which gave rise to
the genocide of the 1940s were not an isolated aberration of Nazi madmen. The theories, which
originated in England, not Germany, were the predominant socio-medico-anthropological beliefs in
Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa of the time, and had been for many
decades. The first eugenic sterilization laws, legislating for the castration of feeble-minded boys were
enacted in the United States in the early 1900s, and centres for eugenic study and policy development
were established in association with major universities in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and other
Australian universities, which shared ideas and attitudes with American, British and Canadian
Universities, including those at Oxford and Cambridge. In the 1920s large amounts of money were
spent by the Carnegie foundation and other American eugenics supporters to develop the philosophy in
what was still intended to be a White Australia.


A similar corporate support for white supremacy eugenics in psychiatry and the medical sciences is
evident from the historical account of South African Psychiatry in A World History of Psychiatry as
described by Professor Lewis Hurst, professor of psychological medicine at Johannesburg, although he
does not describe it as such:
In 1926 the number of mental defectives in South Africa was estimated at 300,000. When in
1927 the president of the Carnegie Corporation visited South Africa, the Dutch Reformed
Church requested his assistance in investigating the matter. The Carnegie Corporation gave
substantial financial assistance and provided the services of C.W.Coulter and K.L.Butterfield to
assist in research. (p.616)

This quote is taken from the pro-psychiatry World History of Psychiatry, which was published in 1975,
when the racist apartheid regime continued white rule in South Africa. The injustices of racial
segregation and denial of civil rights to the African and coloured population of South Africa are not
considered important enough to mention in the professors account of psychiatry, but they are evident
in the limited statistics presented of patients accomodation in institutions for mental defectives.
Two, named as those at Alexandra and Umgeni Waterfall contained only whites: treating 879 and
445 patients respectively. Some contained both whites and non-whites, including institutions at
Komani (1,498 patients), Oranje (1,636), Valkenberg (1,911) and Weskoppies (2,122). The largest
institution (or most crowded) contained only non-white inmates, one at Bophelong, the patient
accomodation of which is listed as 2,500.

What does not become clear from Professor Hursts account of psychiatry in South Africa is what
constituted mental defectiveness and what type of treatment was given to the people thus diagnosed.
It is easy to deduce these things, however, by examining psychiatric trends and treatments in other
nations that have come under the influence of the eugenics movement, white supremacy movement and


Mental Hygiene Movement, including Australia and New Zealand. Hurst refers to this movement
under the subtitle National Societies:
Passing reference has already been made to the role played by the National Society for the
Care of the Feebleminded in the case of mental defect or subnormality. The mental health
movement originated in the United States, and came out of the experience of Clifford Beers. As
a result of his endeavors in this direction, the National Committee for Mental Hygiene of the
United States came into being on February 19, 1909, followed by the creation of local bodies in
various cities, a pattern followed in South Africa and many other countries (p.618)

Clifford Beers was an ex-psychiatric patient who wrote an influential book describing his illness,
hospitalisation and recovery titled A Mind that Found Itself in 1908, following which he was involved
in the foundation of the National Committee for Mental Hygeine, together with the American
psychiatrists Adolf Meyer and William James. While the mental hygiene movement urged some
reforms in the treatment of the inmates of psychiatric hospitals, based on Beers experiences which
were degrading and unpleasant in the extreme, their main agenda was an expansion of psychiatric
and eugenic influence and policies into the wider community. In this matter, accounts of various
historians differ. The psychiatric apologist Professor Edward Shorter writes, in his 1997 book, A
History of Psychiatry:
Psychiatry further reached out with the founding in 1909 of the National Committee for
Mental Hygiene. A book by ex-psychiatric patient Clifford Beers, A Mind That Found Itself
(published in 1908), prompted a number of prominent figures such as Meyer and William
James to promote the concept of mental hygiene. In subsequent years, the mental hygiene
movement involved psychiatrists in numerous plans to improve the mental health of
Americans through various well-meaning efforts. (p.161)


Bruce Wiseman, in Psychiatry, the Ultimate Betrayal (1995), presents a different view, and provides
more detail to support it:
The genesis of the Mental Hygiene movement is usually told as follows: In 1908, Clifford
Beers, a former mental patient, wrote the sordid story of his incarceration in a book entitled A
Mind That Found Itself. The book was so well received that Beers went on to found the
National Committee for Mental Hygiene, an organization formed to assist the cause of the
mentally disturbed as well as promote the prevention of mental illness.
But there is more to the story. Before Beers published the book, he sent the manuscript to the
Father of American Psychology, William James. James endorsed it wholeheartedly. And,
armed with William James support, he went to talk to psychiatrists, neurologists, social
workers and social-minded laymen.
In September, 1907, he took the manuscript to well-known psychiatrist Adolf Meyer. A
member of the Eugenics Society, Meyer had been a student of Alfred Hoche, co-author of The
Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value, the book promoting the killing of mental
defectives. He also studied under Swiss psychiatrist August Forel, whose influence on the
young student was great, according to one biographer. An example of Forels views: Even
for their own good the blacks must be treated as what they are, an absolutely subordinate,
inferior, lower type of men, incapable themselves of culture. (p.71)

In customary fashion, the medical apologist historians accounts omit any reference to racist theories by
eminent psychiatrists. Michael Stone, Professor of Psychiatry at the Columbia College of Physicians
and Surgeons, writes of Forel, in Healing the Mind (1998):
Swiss physician August Forel had been influenced by the Nancy hypnotists, Liebault and
Bernheim, as had Krafft-Ebing and Freud. Forel (1905) wrote on the topic of female sexuality,
including themes popular at the time, such as that of femme fatale and the flirt. He also
addressed the general topics of sadism, masochism, exhibitionism, fetishism, and


homosexuality in men and women. Turning toward forensic matters, his 1905 Die Sexuelle
Frage [The Sexual Question] included case histories of mothers who had strangled their
babies. (p.146)

Edward Shorter has yet another perspective of Forel:

A more dyed-in-the-wool organicist than August Forel, Zurich psychiatry professor between
1879 and 1898, would be hard to imagine. Forel spent much of his time doing neuroanatomy,
and his correspondence with colleagues reflects far greater interest in frog brains than in
clinical psychiatry. Yet Forel was a master hypnotist. So great was his reputation that one
colleague referred to him a woman whom another hypnotist had put into an evil hypnotic
trance, with the request that Forel lift the trance. Later in life, Forel even went beyond
hypnotism to talk of love and intimate knowledge of patients lives. Thus for Forel, there
was no contradiction between a neuroscientific view of psychiatry and psychotherapy. (p.139)

When describing Adolf Meyer in glowing terms, Shorter fails to mention his views on race either;
likewise Stone, who describes the once president of the American Psychiatry Association thus:
Adolf Meyer (1866-1950) exerted enormous influence on psychiatry in America, not just in
the 1920s, though this decade offers a convenient time frame to discuss his work. Like Jung, he
was the son of a Swiss pastor. He studied under August Forel in Zurich, then worked in France
with Dejerine, and later in England, where he was impressed with the work of HughlingsJackson, from whom he derived his ideas about the layers of brain organization and the
organisms adaptation to the environment.
Meyer came to the United States in 1893, working first as a neurologist. His interest in
psychopathology was stimulated by William James. He established a friendship with another
prominent psychologist, John Dewey. In 1907 Meyer met Clifford Beers and, joining hands


with this former mental patient, now reformer of hospitals, started a mental-hygiene movement
in America. Meyer also had an illustrious teaching career; he taught at New York State
Psychiatric Institute, later at John Hopkins and the Henry Phipps Psychiatric Clinic, both in
Baltimore. In 1927 he was president of the American Psychiatric Association (p.153)

Bruce Wiseman provides more of the picture:

In 1909, the National Committee for Mental Hygiene was formed, with Beers as its head.
Adolf Meyer and William James were among the original twelve charter members.
James role was not small. In a biography by Clarence Karier we are told: James was not
only a theoretical conceptualizer of the therapeutic society but also an active historical actor,
helping to shape its development. Late in life (1909), as an executive committee member of the
National Committee for Mental Hygiene, he wrote to John D. Rockefeller and begged him for
a million dollars to support the efforts of the National Committee for Mental HygieneShortly
thereafter, the foundations under Rockefellers influence began to pour millions of dollars into
the mental hygiene movement, into the development and construction of psychopathic
hospitals, and into the training of psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health workers in a
variety of institutions across the countryThe Mental Hygiene movement expanded rapidly
around the globe, setting up groups in the 1920s in Canada, France, Belgium, England,
Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Russia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland,
and Australia. Twenty-four countries had Mental Hygiene Associations by 1930. (p74)

According to Raymond Fosdicks The Story of the Rockfeller Foundation (1952) the Rockefellers were
centrally involved in this expansion of global Mental Hygeine Associations:
In 1913, shortly after its creation, the Foundation began a co-operative relationship with the
National Committee for Mental Hygeine, and for many years supported its activities and


studies of the institutional treatment of mental diseases. It was during the early part of this
period that Dr.Thomas W. Salmon was engaged by the Foundation as its adviser in matters
relating to mental hygeine, his services being placed at the disposal of the National Committee.
Under this arrangement the work continued to expand, with emphasis increasingly on the
problem of the individual. Out of Dr.Salmons recommendation that all criminals sentenced to
state prisons should first be sent to psychiatric clinics for classification [labelling] grew the
clinic established at Sing Sing in 1916, the first of its kind in America.
Dr. Salmon resigned from the Foundation in 1921 to take the professorship of psychiatry at
Columbia University, but the Foundations contributions to the general expenses of the
National Committee for Mental Hygeine and for its successor organization, the National
Mental Health Foundation, have continued up to the present time. During this period, the Laura
Spelman Rockefeller Memorial became interested in psychiatry and in the related subjects of
child psychology and industrial psychology, both in Canada and the United States. The most
ambitious undertaking of the Memorial in this field led to the creation of the Institute of Human
Relations at Yale. Over the years, the various Rockefeller boards contributed very substantial
sums to this Institute, and while even a broad definition of psychiatry would not cover all that
was done there, the major part of the support was for use in this field.
The activities which the Foundation began in 1933, however, were launched on a far more
comprehensive scale. Officially, the programme in psychiatry was initiated by a report made by
Dr. David L. Edsall, Dean of the Harvard Medical School, who was also a trustee of the
Foundation. (p.146-7)

At the same time, the Rockefeller Foundation funded numerous eugenics programs in the USA and
Europe (as well as Australia and South Africa). Fosdick writes:
But the classical field which has received the largest measure of support is genetics
[eugenics]. An accounting in 1950 showed that assistance had been given to fify-three
universities and other institutions, and the training of forty-six geneticists [eugenists] had been


aided directly through National Research fellowships. Altogether, up to that time,

approximately two and three-quarter million dollars had been contributed to genetics research
through the National Sciences DivisionIn England, Foundation grants have supported
projects in mathematical genetics at London University and the University of Birmingham. In
France, aid has gone to the genetics laboratory of the Rothschild Foundation at Paris and the
recently established French Institute of Genetics at Gif. But, to a greater extent than in any
other biological science, the bulk of the appropriations for genetics went to American research
workers. The research-team idea has found its finest embodiment in the United States, and the
Foundation is proud to have been a co-worker with such groups as the Muller-SonnebornCleland trimvirate at Indiana University, the Dunn-Dobzhansky group at Columbia, and the
Morgan-Sturtevant-Beadle succession at the California Institute of Technology. (p.183)

Professors Dunn and Dobzhanskys views on eugenics are described in an earlier chapter. Professor
Sturtevant of the California Institute of Technology was quoted regarding his opinions on genetic
damage to subsequent generations from nuclear fallout and X-rays, which was contained in the 1958
Allen and Unwin publication Frontiers of Science, in which the esteemed Charles Robert Darwins less
esteemed grandson, the physicist Sir Charles Galton Darwin called for a tremendous solution to the
problem of overpopulation that was more brutal than war, and more murderous than nuclear bombs.
George W.Beadle, Chairman of the Biology Division of the California Institute of Technology
(Caltech) since 1946, was Professor of Biology at Stanford University during the Second World War a
noted expert in the bread mould Neurospora. Professor Beadle authored the introduction to the
Biological Sciences section of Frontiers of Science, in which he gave a typically eugenist perspective
of the mind:
The Mind. Through knowledge of science man is capable of freeing himself of the limitations
of mutation and natural selection in his future evolution. Achievement of this freedom will not
be easy. It will require wisdom, courage, and faith far beyond anything man has so far


All this is possible because of the mind. What is the mind and how does it work? We are only
beginning to make progress in this enormously complex and difficult field. The most elaborate
computing machine that can be imagined is nothing beside the mind of man. The mind can
invent the machine, but the machine can do only what the information fed into it orders. And
the mind of man must formulate the information and must tell the machine what to do with it.
Through a series of ingenious and delicate experiments on the brains of fish, frogs,
salamanders, rats, cats, and monkeys, Professor Roger Sperry and Doctor John Stamm give us
a tiny glimpse of what the psychobiologist of the future might be able to learn about this mind
which makes man unique among all living things and can give him mastery of himself, the
world, and all the vast space that lies beyond.
Cultural inheritance is not separable from biological inheritance. The first cannot exist without
the second. It follows that, while man is nurturing his cultural inheritance, he must not let his
biological inheritance regress [what Saleeby called dysgenics]. And this it will surely do if
care is not taken. Relaxation of natural selection, or natural selection for the wrong
characteristics, can lead to a degeneration of the biological capacity for continued cultural
inheritance. (p.16)

Roger Sperry, who had previously held a joint appointment at the University of Chicago and the
National Institutes of Health at Bethesda, Maryland before his appointment at Caltech in 1954, was a
pioneer in animal and human split brain experiments. His ingenious and delicate experiments on
the brains of animals are described in his chapter in Frontiers of Science on Brain Mechanisms in
Behavior. These included connecting the cutting the nerves from the eyes of frogs (optic nerves) and
connecting them to opposite sides of the brain (under these conditions, the animals respond thereafter
as if everything is seen through one eye were being viewed through the opposite eye), and cutting out
various parts of the brain of animals (cats, monkeys) to study their effects on behaviour.


Sperry was the first to perform split-brain experiments in humans, ostensibly as a possible cure for
epilepsy, but equally out of scientific curiosity. This is evident from his comments on split-brain
experiments in 1958 (he did most of his human experiments in the 1960s):
It has been somewhat embarrassing to our concepts of brain organization that complete
surgical section of this largest fiber tract [the corpus callosum, the tract of white matter
connecting the left and right hemispheres of the brain] has consistently failed in human patients
to produce any clear-cut functional symptoms. In checking this observation in animal
experiments, however, we have been able in recent years to demonstrate definite integrative
functions for this structure.
In these experiments, carried out mainly in cats, we first section all crossed optic fibres at the
chiasma, in order to restrict the input from each eye to the same side of the brain. The animal is
then taught a few simple visual discriminations with a mask covering one eye. After the habit
has been stabilized by overtraining, the mask is shifted to the other eyeWithout the callosum,
such animals apparently have no recollection with one eye of what they have been doing with
the other eye. (p.57)

A primary technique used by Sperry was comparisons of the effect of brain mutilation between
different species. Writing of split-brain experiments on monkeys, which preceded his more extensive
work on human epileptics, the famous neuroscientist continues:
At the present time we are investigating the functional capacities of small islands of cerebral
cortex. In these studies we put to use the above-mentioned functional independence of the two
hemispheres in what we have come to call the split-brain preparation. This is an animal in
which the brain has been split down the middle by sectioning the corpus callosum,
hippocampal commissure [part of the limbic system], and the optic chiasma and, frequently
also, some of the lower-level connecting systems. To casual examination, these split-brain
animals after recovery are indistinguishable from normal in their general cage behavior. (p.59)


It is not normal for animals to live in a cage; thus their general cage behaviour is already on of an
imprisoned, suffering animal. Comparing animals with different degrees of brain mutilation prepares
the ground for similar experiments on humans and indeed these were being done at the same time,
most notoriously by the ice-pick lobotomist Walter Freeman.

Melbournes psychiatry reformer, Eric Cunningham Dax was also a proponent of lobotomies for
difficult patients during the 1950s and 1960s, at the time Walter Freeman was touring the Western
world conducting lobotomies (over 100,000 such operations were apparently done during this time).
Asylum to Community is Professor Eric Cunningham Daxs version of the development of the mental
hygiene service in Victoria, Australia, over which he presided, after he emigrated from England in
1952, as head of the Mental Hygiene Authority (later called Mental Health Authority). The book was
published in 1961 by F.W Cheshire for the world federation for mental health. Despite the fact that
the book was written during the days of the official White Australia Policy, or perhaps because of it,
aborigines and the treatment or even the existence of Aboriginal people in Australia is not mentioned at
all. The focus of the book is on new hospitals and clinics which were built with public support
(following newspaper support) of reforms for the care of the mentally afflicted white residents and
immigrants (some of whom were not strictly speaking white-skinned), describing in detail training
programs and construction programs, as well as details of administration and the complex network of
institutions involved in the reform of the mental health services which occurred after the Second World
War in the State of Victoria.

These institutions are listed in the appendix as clinics, hostels, social clubs, day hospitals,
early-treatment hospitals, mental rehabilitation hospitals, intellectual deficiency services and
other clinics. The focus is on early diagnosis and treatment, although cure of mental illness is
considered beyond the possibility of even successful treatment, which remains poorly defined
throughout the book. It appears on close examination of the book that the types of treatment instituted


in the network of psychiatric hospitals and clinics would be difficult to recover from, especially the
surgical treatments like leucotomy when areas of the brain were deliberately destroyed in the hope
of improving behaviour. Only one institution is listed in the appendix under other clinics:
Pentridge Prison. The Mental Hygeine Authority took over the medical staffing of Melbournes main
jail in 1959. Under the subtitle sociopaths, Dax writes:
For many years the country prisons at Beechworth and Ballarat have been supplied with
medical care by the staff of the local mental hospitals. Previously the Chief Government
Medical Officer and his assistant looked after Pentridge (which is the male prison in
Melbourne) though when a new psychiatric clinic was opened there in 1959, the Mental
Hygiene Department undertook the medical staffing of this unit and also of the prison. (p.133)

He continues to explain how closely the psychiatric system is involved with the courts and prisons
systems, painting a rosy picture of the prisoners liberties in what he admits are rather grim
most of them are occupied with industrial work, and there is some individual therapy there
and a most interesting programme of psycho-drama. The patients organize their entertainments
and have an active library and education section. Group therapy is highly organized and most
productive. This same medical staff looks after the Alexandra Parade Clinic, since the
sociopaths at Pentridge and the alcoholics overlap appreciably. When patients are remanded on
bond by the courts for medical examination the reports are made at the Alexandra Parade
Clinic, when they are remanded in custody the reports are made at Pentridge. Sociopaths who
have spent a short time in the prison psychiatric unit may be in need of more treatment when
they are discharged, and they will then attend the Alexandra Parade Clinic to see their doctors.
For this reason the staff of the clinic work in close conjunction with the probation officers and
one of these officers regularly attends the Alexandra Parade Clinic and sees patients there when
they have their appointments for psychiatric treatment. (p.133)


Although he does not explain treatment in other than the most vague ways in the text, a few comments
do give an indication of what was being offered to the Australian people in the way of health
promotion. In his final chapter, titled the future, Dax writes:
Within the past forty years vast strides have been taken, in two eras of psychiatric treatment.
First the physical treatments were used, malaria for general paralysis [syphilis], prolonged
sleep, insulin comas, cardiazol and electroplexy, leucotomy, abreaction, and the use of
barbiturates. Next the advent of social psychiatry, industrial occupation, group activities and
therapies, rehabilitation, resocialization and the tranquilizing drugs brought in a new phase of
Now we are on the edge of a more fundamental change. Even in our lifetime we shall see
psychiatry move into the community and a new attitude emerge to mental illness, its prevention
and its treatment. Perhaps this is the most exciting phase of all, for with support, tolerance and
group understanding we may together learn to carry more of the stresses of civilization within
our new community structure. (p.205)

Dax does not mention the word eugenics in his book, nor admit to the connection between the
eugenics movement and the mental hygeine movement, but he does include in another appendix a list
of drugs being studied under the auspices of the Mental Hygeine Authority, some of which are still
used today, but all of which can cause acute toxicity and chronic illness themselves. These drugs
include Chlorpromazine (Largactil), Reserpine, Melleril, Tofranil, Stelazine, Librium, Parnate,
Bromides and Mono-amine oxidases. Chlorpromazine, Melleril and Stelazine are crippling dopamineblocking major tranquillisers notorious for causing tardive dyskinesia and other forms of chronic
brain and nervous system damage. These and other toxic chemicals, including lithium and
benzodiazepines (the first of which was Librium) have been forced into people of all races and ages in
Australia via the public hospitals and community psychiatric services, over the past fifty years, and
especially in the past five.


Dax is best known in Melbourne, to which he returned from Tasmania in 1984, for the Cunningham
Dax Collection of Psychiatric Art which includes over 6,000 works of art by (often imprisoned)
psychiatric patients and is administered by the Mental Health Research Institute at Parkville. The
collection is used as a means to teach high school and university students in Melbourne how to
diagnose mental illness from peoples art. Professor Dax began this collection, he told me last year, in
1947, when he was working as a psychiatrist in Surrey, England, and continued to build a large
collection in Victoria since the 1950s, after he emigrated to Australia (largely by acquiring the art of
inmates of the Royal Park Hospital, several of whom are now dead, unlike Dr Cunningham Dax). The
ownership of the 80 or so paintings he first appropriated was disputed by the British hospitals he had
taken them from, and he says, he took 80 pictures back to France in 1952, and assumed they had
gone back to the hospitals. Dax is now 91 years old, and refused to comment on problems in local or
international psychiatry, saying his views were out of date. He said he still goes in, twice a week, to
keep an eye on his collection.

Is the collection really his, though? He certainly collected them, but the majority of the people who did
the art were prisoners of the system he headed, and are not even personally acknowledged for their
often amazing work. They become schizophrenics, manic depressives and psychotics. Their art
becomes evidence of mental illness demonstrating psychopathology rather than creative genius.
Their art was taken without payment or recognition, and they were able to produce brilliant works of
art despite forced treatment which robbed them of their freedom, dignity and physical health. They
were truly tortured artists.

This tradition of forced slave labour in the guise of occupational therapy has a long history in the
mental health system, and still, every year, the Mental Health System and allied organizations
pathologise creative activity by young people in Australia, while collecting their art, for free. One of
the most influential of these organizations, which often masquerade as independent non-government
organizations (NGOs), is the Mental Health Foundation.



According to the self promotional literature of the Mental Health Foundation of 1997, the Foundation
was established in 1930 as the Victorian Association for Mental Hygiene, however, the next year,
they were claiming something different:
The Foundation was established in 1981 by a group of mental health & business entrepreneurs
in response to awareness that governments could not permanently fund voluntary

The chairman of the Mental Health Foundation is Professor Graham Burrows, who heads a Board of
Directors which, according to their promotional literature, has a National Scientific Advisory Board
which comprises key resource people and leaders in mental health opinion & policy development
around Australia and a National Organisation which comprises organisations, individual &
corporate members throughout Australia. The 1998 pamphlet continues with the claim that these
include consumers and carers with experience of mental illness; members attracted by the mental
health promotion & education programmes, professionals attracted by the Partnership programs; and,
others are the corporate supporters & sponsors. These corporate sponsors include drug companies,
and the Mental Health Foundation avidly supports drug treatment for a wide range of mental
illnesses, and have provided a plethora of mental health education literature which promote both
mental illness diagnoses and drugs to treat them. This is despite claims that the aims of the Foundation
are to raise funds to promote mental health & wellbeing, public involvement in mental health, removal
of the stigma linked with mental illness, research on mental health issues, effective prevention
programmes and mental health education.


An example of mental health education by the Foundation is witnessed in a pamphlet titled Break
down the barriers of mental illness, sponsored by Eli Lilly, manufacturers and promoters of the SSRI
antidepressant Prozac. It begins with a most contentious claim:
One person in four in Australia right now is suffering a mental health problem or mental
illness severe enough to significantly affect their daily lives.

What, exactly, these mental health problems and mental illnesses are, is not explained in the
pamphlet, which is vague about this, in the extreme:
These can range from long term, but intermittent severe illnesses, to short term stress related
Mental health problems and illness affect people from all cultural backgrounds in rural and
remote areas as well as the cities.
All are treatable, and with care and treatment, people usually do recover.
After recovery, people with a mental illness usually want to continue to live their lives as they
did prior to their illness, as we all expect following a physical illness to return to work or
school, to have fun, to care for, and be loved by friends, while continuing to receive treatment
and medication for their illnesses.
Yet anyone who experiences a mental health problem or illness will suffer, in addition to their
illness, the pain caused by stigma and its related discrimination and isolation.


The irony that the psychiatric profession should be exhorting the public to be aware of stigma whilst
actively creating prejudice, drug addiction, social isolation and suicide clearly escapes the authors of
the pamphlet. The extent of discrimination (including governmental discrimination) against people who
have been diagnosed with serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar affective
disorder is listed in the pamphlet:

It is harder to get and keep work

Some government legislation discriminates against the mentally ill

It is harder to join sporting and recreation groups

Exclusion from membership of Boards of community associations or companies

Insurance companies often refuse to insure mentally ill people or raise premiums for
superannuation, health cover, travel and life insurances, amongst others

Some travel companies and airlines may refuse to carry people experiencing a mental illness

People with a mental illness who may look or act strangely or possibly cry in the street,
shopping centres, public transport are avoided or ignored instead of being comforted by others

Children whose parents have a mental illness find their friends at school may drift away or
ostracise them

There is even a popular misconception that people with a mental illness have a developmental
disability rather than an illness


This perspective on stigma is far from the reality of psychiatric survivors in Australia and it fails to
explain the genuine causes of stigma and prejudice against people who have been tortured as
psychiatric patients, euphemistically referred to, in recent mental health propaganda, as consumers.

The injections of dopamine-blocking anti-psychotics that people deemed to be seriously mentally

ill are routinely subjected to themselves cause the appearance to strangeness. They cause a
distressing range of movement disorders, including akathesia (difficulty staying still and an urge to
pace), Parkinsonism (tremor, rigidity and slowed movements) and tardive dyskinesia (involuntary
spasms and grimaces of the face and limbs).

Combined with the social isolation that results from weeks, months or years of imprisonment, paranoia
instilled in family members and friends regarding a relapse of mental illness, media demonisation of
psychopaths and systematic disinformation connecting mental illness with drug addiction and
violence, people who have been treated for mental illness in the Australian public hospital psychiatric
system can claim to have survived chemical and psychological torture.

The Mental Health Foundation, however, claims that this stigma and isolation is caused by myth and
misunderstanding of mental illness. In claiming to be dispelling such myths, the Foundation reinforces
the view that drug compliance is of paramount importance in the treatment of mental illness, and denies
the extensive human rights abuses occurring in Australian hospitals and psychiatric treatment clinics
and centres. The Foundation described its directly supported projects as:

Stress Management Programs for corporate, community & rural sectors

National Depression Awareness Campaign


Towards a Gentler Society Campaign (TAGS)

Quiet Crisis Campaign

Partnership Programme for GPs & Pharmacists

Mental Health Lecture Series

OPTIONS (Schools) addressing bullying

OPTIONS (Community) addressing suicide

Multimedia Information & Resources Project

Mood Disorders Group

G-LINE Problem Gambling Service

The Foundation claims that it enjoys a reputation built on its success in collaboration, support, auspice
& sponsorship, and that others to benefit include the Addiction Research Institute, Association
of Relatives & Friends of the Mentally Ill, Alzheimers Diseases & Related Disorders Society,
Anorexia & Bulimia Nervosa Education Campaign, Childrens Protection Week, Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder Foundation and States Mental Health Foundations. The Mental Health
Foundation claims to enjoy collaborative and support alliances with many national, state and
international agencies including:

Addiction Research Institute

Alzheimers Association Australia


Australian Medical Association

Australian National Association for Mental Health

Australian Red Cross

Australian Federation of Deaf Societies

Australian Society of Hypnosis

Council on Aging (Australia)

East-West Centre on Mental Health

Family Services Australia

Federation of Australian Jewish Welfare Societies

National Council of YMCA Australia

National Mental Health Council

Pharmaceutical Society of Australia

Royal Australian New Zealand College of Psychiatrists

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners

Many Church Social Justice Committees

American Psychiatric Association


International Society of Hypnosis

International Society for Stress

World Federation for Mental Health

World Psychiatric Association

The gold-embossed pamphlet, does not admit to an author, however, the activities of the Mental Health
Foundation are controlled by Professor Graham Burrows, Director of Psychological Medicine
(Psychiatry) at the Austin Hospital in Heidelberg, Melbourne and senior Professor of Psychiatry at the
University of Melbourne.

Professor Burrows, who is also on the honorary editorial board of the drug-promoting MIMS
publishing company and directs many of the organisations mentioned in the pamphlet, was mentioned
in Ray Moynihans expose of disease-mongering by the medical profession in Australia. In Too Much
Medicine? the journalist wrote, in 1998:
In a series on depression in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) in 1997, Professor
Graham Burrows and colleagues wrote that up to one in five people who visit a GP in this
country will be suffering from depressive or anxiety disordersThree weeks later, in the same
MJA series, another psychiatrist Professor Philip Mitchell gave these endorsements to the role
of drugs in the treatment of depression. Most patients do best with a combination of
antidepressant medications and some form of psychological therapythe vast majority of
depressed patients seen in the general practice setting have mild to moderate depression, for
which the new antidepressants are as effective as the old


Associate Professor Mitchell is with the School of Psychiatry at the University of New
South Wales, and is the Administrative Director of the Mood Disorders Unit at the
Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney. When questioned about the strong endorsement of
drug therapy, even for mild to moderately depressed patients, Professor Mitchell said
the wording could have been clearer

Moynihan tends to understate the impact of disease creation through the suggestion of mental illness
and the promotion of diagnoses such as depression, but he does make some pertinent points about
conflict of interest:
After reading the first MJA article on the prevalence of these disorders and the second on
treatment, the reader might be forgiven for forming the strong impression that up to 20 percent
of the Australians who visit a GP could benefit from treatment with the new antidepressants:
the medication of a nation on an unprecedented scale [subsequently exceeded by cholesterol
lowering drugs]. The other clear message is that depression and related disorders are greatly
under-diagnosed. This assumption has been at the centre of the company-sponsored depressionawareness campaigns in Australia as each company promoted its new antidepressant through
the 1990s. But are things really as bad as that?
Professor Burrows article stated, A general practitioner who sees 40 patients a day can
expect that eight will require support or treatment for anxiety or depression and thats not
counting those whose disorders go unrecognised. Yet at almost the same time a major report
on the treatment of depression prepared in Britain, while not ruling out that the prevalence
might be higher, referred to a prevalence in general practice of about 5 per cent for neurotic
and depressive illness
Discrepancies like these are hard to explain. Clearly the larger the prevalence of a disease, the
bigger the potential market for those selling drugs. In such a situation it seems reasonable to
expect that any relationship between those making the estimates of disease prevalence and the
companies selling drugs should be made clear. (p.144)


One of the dominant activities of the Mental Health Foundation is fundraising, and even in death one is
exhorted to support their vital work. In a grotesque appeal for Wills and Bequests the Foundation
has produced a tear-off glossy Form of Bequest which allows the dying to leave money and
possessions to be used by the Mental Health Foundation of Australia in its work of promoting good
mental health to all Australians.

The smiling face of Professor Graham Burrows explains:

About one in every five Australians more than three million people are suffering mental
illness severe enough to significantly affect their lives.
One person in ten will be hospitalised for mental illness at some time during their lives.
Mental illness costs at least $3 billion per year for hospital admissions, doctors fees and
invalid pensions.
Added to this are the human penalties: marriage breakdown, family disruption and child
Stress caused by the economic recession alone is already having an impact on the mental
health of millions of Australians.
Young people especially are at risk with long-term unemployment and homelessness in
danger of setting behaviour patterns for a lifetime.
There is a desperate need to act now to provide people of all ages with the support they need
to face the future with hope, confidence and peace of mind.
We need to make good mental health a vital part of the Australian lifestyle.


Professor Burrows does not make it clear as to what, exactly, good mental health is, or how he plans
to promote it for all Australians but he does make clear that he is prepared to accept anything of
Your bequest may specify the activity you want to support children, adolescents, corporate
stress, aged care, etc. or become a general bequest. You may specify the gift of a part of your
estate, or a parcel of shares, debentures or bonds, or a house or other real estate, works of art,
antiques or anything of value.

If in doubt about such a course of action the Mental Health Foundation explains, further, that:
The Mental Health Foundation of Australia has appointed Trust Company of Australia as
trustees of the Mental Health Foundation of Australia Charitable Fund. We would be happy to
arrange a meeting with a senior manager if you would like to discuss your will.

The G-Line is a joint project of the Mental Health Foundation of Victoria, Vic Health and Liberty
Victoria. Liberty Victoria is the government sponsored Human Rights Organisation of Victoria,
previously called the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties. G-Line is one of the Mental Health
Foundations OPTIONS projects. Graham Burrows is described in their promotional literature as
being qualified with AO, KSJ, MD, ChB, BSc, DPM, FRANZCP, FRCPsych, MRACMA,
Dip.M.Hlth.Sc (Clinical Hypnosis) being, in addition to other things, Professor of Psychiatry,
University of Melbourne and Director of the Psychiatry and Psychology Service Unit of the Austin and
Repatriation Medical Centre. He is Chairman of the Options Project, which claims to be promoting
mental health and human rights in the community.


In 1998, the options project produced an advertising pamphlet, with tear-off order form for a 59-paged
book titled Your Guide to Responsible Gambling, priced at $6 per copy. The book is heralded with
the grandiose claim, splashed in red letters above small photos of its two smiling authors:
This book is a must for everyone! Those who gamble, who know someone who gambles,
those who feel they have a gambling problem and everyone with an interest in gambling and its

The book is authored by Graham Burrows and a psychologist called Greg Coman. In contrast to
Graham Burrows long list of honours and degrees Greg Comans stated qualification is a humble
MSc. He is said to be a psychologist specialising in habit disorders, particularly problem gambling.
He apparently was instrumental in setting up G-Line, Australias 24-hr gambling telephone
counselling service and is currently researching the potential for telephone counselling as a treatment
approach for gambling and other psychological problems. He is described also as Treasurer of the
National Association for Gambling Studies.
It is ironic that the OPTIONS project claims to be promoting mental health and human rights in the
community is jointly sponsored by institutions with a long history of atrocious human rights abuses:
the psychiatric treatment industry and State Government of Victoria (which controls the Police Force
and public hospital system). Added to the irony of this alliance for human rights is the collaboration
of Liberty Victoria in the options projects. Their name appears at the bottom of the pamphlet
advertising Graham Burrows new book alongside the logo of VicHealth, but it is unclear as to what
their role in the project is.

In 1996 and 1997 two workers from the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties, Konstandinos
Karapanagiotidis and Steafan Kilkeary undertook an investigation into official complaint mechanisms
for aggrieved psychiatric patients in the State of Victoria. Their findings, after a one year investigation
including taped interviews and numerous personal interviews for the Seeking Justice Project,


confirmed, in addition to a complete failure of these complaint mechanisms, extensive human and civil
rights abuses of the most appalling nature occurring in Victoria. This included punitive treatment,
heavy drugging, misdiagnosis, unnecessary incarceration, and sexual abuse by psychiatrists. They give
examples of women who had been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted being disbelieved and
punitively diagnosed and treated by the psychiatric profession and hospital system:
A woman screaming saying that she had been gang raped by 5 men while on day leave and
that she was pregnant as a result of this abuse was not believed by anyone in the psychiatric
hospital in which she was a patient. The workers punished her for telling lies by not allowing
her to see a doctor. It was not until the woman was discovered in a pool of blood, having
miscarried, that the workers finally believed her.
The report, which the Liberty Victoria attempted to prevent the release of, quotes Fran Quigley of the
Geelong Rape Crisis Centre who says:
Women in the psychiatric system are treated in an appalling manner. They are often caught up
in the system for a long time[and] often do not have a mental illness. At one stage they are
told they have schizophrenia then it suddenly becomes a personality disorder. Clearly they
are not being assessed properly.

The report says:

The sad fact is that the dominant medical model of mental health dictates the way the mental
health industry is run. It imposes a biological, victim-blaming approach that diminishes the
individuals capacity for self-understanding and self-fulfilment. By instead concentrating on
those damaging and dangerous labels of mental illnessthis results in practices which cause
rather than cure distress.


The investigation of the Seeking Justice Project was focused on complaint mechanisms, specifically
about complainants experiences in dealing with the Office of the Public Advocate, Community
Visitors Program, Mental Health Legal Centre, Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council,
Health Services Commissioner, Chief Psychiatrist and State Ombudsman. The authors list
several fundamental failures of the existing system, including, lack of independence in which they
quote Isabel Collins, Executive Officer of the Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council as saying,
There does not exist in the state of Victoria a single independent body where a consumer can take
their complaint and have it dealt with objectively and fairly. In the same section they write:
advocates from The Office of the Public Advocate appear before the Guardianship and
Administration Board and actively speak against the wishes of those individuals for whom they
are supposed to be advocating. One such example was where the hearsay evidence of an
advocate led to an individual having his freedom of movement curtailed.

Of betrayal by supposed advocates they give several examples:

in 1996 we witnessed a Community Visitor in Footscray Psychiatric Hospital advocating
against an involuntary patient, while pretending to her that he was on her side. What he was
trying to do, without her knowledge or approval, was to have her children permanently placed
in the custody of her estranged husband.

They add:
It is really disappointing that the statutory complaints mechanisms, all of which have
sweeping legislative powers to act against abusive and negligent mental health workers,
steadfastly refuse to do so. Particularly when it is understood that lethargy, as Keith Jackson
from the Health Services Commissioner put it, is met with ridicule and contempt by workers
against whom complaints are made. He stated that psychiatrists for one in Victoria operate as a


law unto themselves. Laughing off even such serious allegations as the sexual assault of a
patient. The Ombudsman too, retains the power to initiate investigations on its own behalf, and
to name negligent service providers in Parliament. It however remains silent, neutered.

Referring to a Climate of Fear in the Victorian Mental Health System, Karapanagiotidis and
Kilkeary, who left Liberty Victoria after the human rights organization had refused to release the
report, write:
almost every mental health worker encountered during the SEEKING JUSTICE Project
made some reference to the climate of fear. With the exception of Dr Carlyle Perera [the State
Government-appointed Chief Psychiatrist], who conversely stated that individuals in Victoria
now live in a climate of openness.
A great deal has been written and said about the climate of fear in the mental health industry.
Indeed, it was one of the key reasons why Mr Brian Burdekin, then Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commissioner, reconvened his inquiry into human rights and mental health in
Victoria in 1994. It had been stated to Mr Burdekin that any worker who spoke out against the
mental health system would be persecuted. Usually by her or his job.

The human rights workers summarise treatment in the public hospital system:
from first contact with the mental health industry the individuals experience can be
typified and normalised by the use of excessive force, copious amounts of mind-stultifying
medication, and treatments such as solitary confinement, shock therapy, and stimulus aversion.
Treatments which tend to exacerbate rather than alleviate situations of mental unwellness.


In the brief conclusion of the report, the authors quote a response from Dr Carlisle Perera, who has
since been replaced as the head of State Psychiatric Services by Professor Norman James, previously
head of Royal Park (Psychiatric) Hospital in Parkville. They write:
Dr Carlyle Perera stated that do-gooders from organisations such as Liberty Victoria just
wanted to rush out there and give themtheir rights. That this would cause them distress and
would alienate them from the people who really cared about them (the workers in the mental
health industry). This is, at best, a dodgy line of reasoning.The bottom line is that when dogooders such as us talk about human rights, we are talking about everyones right to live free
from abuse. What came out of the Seeking Justice Project and the Know Your Rights
Workshops was that many individuals felt that their rights were being sorely trampled on in
Victoria. And that there was nowhere to go to either evince justice, and/or to prevent further



The fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM IV), published by the APA in 1994, describes schizophrenia as follows:
The essential features of Schizophrenia are a mixture of characteristic signs and symptoms
(both positive and negative) that have been present for a significant period of time during a 1month period (or for a shorter time if successfully treated), with some signs of the disorder
persisting for at least 6 months (Criteria A and C). These signs and symptoms are associated
with marked social or occupational dysfunction (Criterion B). The disturbance is not better
accounted for by Schizoaffective Disorder or a Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features and is
not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition
(Criteria D and E). In individuals with a previous diagnosis of Autistic Disorder (or another
Pervasive Developmental Disorder), the additional diagnosis of Schizophrenia is warranted
only if prominent delusions or hallucinations are present for at least a month (Criterion F). The
characteristic symptoms of Schizophrenia involve a range of cognitive and emotional
dysfunctions that include perception, inferential thinking, language and communication,
behavioral monitoring, affect, fluency and productivity of thought and speech, hedonic
capacity, volition and drive, and attention. No single symptom is pathognomonic of
Schizophrenia; the diagnosis involves the recognition of a constellation of signs and symptoms
associated with impaired occupational and social functioning. (p.274)

The key features of the disorder are impaired occupational and social functioning, according to the
DSM IV, however schizophrenia is not regarded as a social or political label: it is regarded as a
mental illness, and more specifically a brain disease. This is despite the lack of any specific
abnormalities in the chemistry or structure of the brains of diagnosed schizophrenics that cannot be
better accounted for by the dopamine-blocking drugs every diagnosed schizophrenic is routinely
subjected to.


Much time, money and effort have been expended over the years in an effort to prove that
schizophrenics have subtle brain abnormalities and many claims have been made of such
discoveries over the years only to be later disproved. Much time, money and effort have also been
expended on trying to prove the genetic basis of the disease. This began during the time of open
adoption of eugenic policies in the countries that developed the theoretical foundations of
schizophrenia before the Second World War; and it has continued with little interruption since then.

The Oxford Textbook of Medicine (1996) describes the aetiology of schizophrenia thus:
Studies of families point strongly to a genetic cause of schizophrenia; for example, the rates of
schizophrenia are consistently higher among monozygotic than among dizygotic twins, whilst
the adopted away children of schizophrenic parents have rates of schizophrenia similar to those
of children brought up by their own schizophrenic parents. Imaging studies of living patients
show abnormalities in the temporal lobes of the brain, whilst neuropathological investigations
after death confirm abnormalities in the parahippocampal areas, and also suggest that these
changes may have originated before birth. These findings have led to the suggestion that an
abnormality of brain development predisposes to schizophrenia.
Whatever the nature of the predisposing causes, the precipitating factors for schizophrenia are
stressful life events and occasionally physical illness. Life events are also important causes of
relapse after a first episode of schizophrenia.
Drugs that reduce the positive symptoms have in common the property of reducing
dopaminergic transmission in the brain. It does not follow, however, that schizophrenia is
caused by excessive dopamine function (similarly anticholinergic drugs control the symptoms
of parkinsonism but the primary disorder is not of cholinergic transmission).
At present these and other findings cannot be integrated into a convincing simple aetiological
hypothesis, and it is not known whether all cases have the same aetiology. It would not be


surprising if there were more than one cause of the complicated and variable behavioural
syndrome of schizophrenia. (p.4222)

The diverse range of symptoms and signs attributed to schizophrenia are indeed difficult to
explain by a simple aetiological hypothesis, or even a complex one. This is especially so when the
accepted criteria for diagnosis of the disorder are constantly changing, and are both subjective and
vague. It is difficult to see how the same disease, whether caused by genetically determined or
acquired chemical imbalance could produce in one person a fear that he is being spied upon by the
CIA, in another a belief she is communicating with extra-terrestrials, a third that he is the messiah, a
fourth that he is hearing the voice of angels, and a fifth that she is controlled by multinational
corporations. It is difficult to see how beliefs, whether factual or delusional, can be explained within a
chemical-genetic paradigm, or by structural abnormalities in the brain. Since beliefs are conceived and
expressed in words, the roots of delusions are more likely to be found in words, phrases and the ideas
that accompany learned words and phrases.

As children learn the vocabulary of the language or languages of their home environment they also
gather a growing collection of ideas and beliefs which accompany the words and phrases they acquire.
What they believe depends on what they are told and what they work out for themselves. People
continue to do this throughout their lives: they continue to be told things and to work things out for
themselves. Children and adults also acquire beliefs from things they see and hear. Television and radio
programs, films and videos, books, magazines and computers feed ideas, words, images and phrases
into the growing and often increasingly confused and contradictory belief system of children, while
they strive to understand the world and their place within it. In their quest to understand the world, and
driven by the common mammalian instinct of curiosity, young children start at the age of two or three,
to ask questions.


This continues, to a greater or lesser degree, throughout life, and, as children grow older they are also
asked questions, to which they give increasingly complex answers. All of us have been through this
process of learning the basics of verbal communication and philosophical inquiry when we were young
children. All of us also had delusional beliefs (beliefs which were inconsistent with reality) when we
were children and all of us still do. All of us also have some correct beliefs, as do children. In other
words, some of the things we believe are true and some are false.

While this is obvious enough (unless we regard some humans as infallible), it is an unfortunate
characteristic of the human being that we usually do not like finding out that we are wrong and usually
do not like being corrected. It is unfortunate because this is the only way in which our own incorrect
(delusional) beliefs can be corrected.

The learning of language and of ones belief system is dependent on memory. Without memory there
can be no beliefs and no learning. An abnormality in beliefs self-evidently involves an abnormality of
memory in that the abnormal belief is held in the memory. Even the profession of opinions which are
not actually believed (lying or pretence) requires functional memory. One might look, then, at memory,
and the areas of the brain involved in the registration and recall of memories, for an explanation of
delusions and delusional thinking.

The 1995 American neurosciences textbook Essentials of Neural Science and Behavior claims:
The prefrontal area of primates and other animals is particularly rich in dopaminergic
terminals. This dopaminergic innervation is thought to be an important modulatory input for
the storage of working memory. In fact, the delayed [spatial] response [in experimental
monkeys] is disrupted when dopamine is depleted from the principal sulcus [of the frontal lobe
of monkeys] by means of a localized injection of 6-hydroxydopamine, a drug that selectively


destroys terminals that use dopamine as a neurotransmitter. Moreover, disturbances of this

dopaminergic system contribute to the symptoms of schizophrenia, a disorder of thought.
Imaging studies of the brains of schizophrenic patients support this idea. The frontal lobe
tends to be smaller in schizophrenics than in normal individuals. Furthermore, whereas blood
flow to prefrontal areas increases in normal subjects challenged by a task that engages
prefrontal functions, such as with the Wisconsin card sort test, the increase is less in people
with schizophrenia. (p.353)

This textbook is used as a reference text by medical students and doctors in Australia and the USA and
is available in university bookshops in Australia. Although no references are provided for these claims,
they are stated with dogmatic certainty. The assertions about schizophrenia and schizophrenics are
couched in scientific language and are presented in a form resembling a logical argument. One
statement follows another and the second paragraph purports to provide support for the idea that
disturbances of the dopaminergic system contribute to the symptoms of schizophrenia.

The preceding sentence, however, is about injections into the brains of monkeys, which are said to
produce disturbances of memory through damage to dopaminergic neurones. The connection with
schizophrenia is logically untenable and scientifically unsound. Most obviously, monkeys are not
known to suffer from schizophrenia.

The vital fact that is not mentioned in this attempt to establish the neurological basis of schizophrenia is
the standard medical treatment of schizophrenia: injection and prescription of drugs that block
dopamine receptors and subsequently kill dopaminergic neurones. One might expect as a logical
inference that these drugs could interfere with memory (and other aspects of thought involving
dopaminergic neurones), and cause decreased blood flow in areas of the brain with dopaminergic


neurones and eventual shrinking (atrophy) of these areas. These have indeed been reported in people
who have been diagnosed with and treated for schizophrenia, but the observed changes have been
blamed on the disease rather than the drugs. Furthermore, the catecholamine neurotransmitter
dopamine is known to be centrally involved in enabling voluntary movement, hence the obvious role of
dopamine-blockers as chemical restraints.

Due to the 100 year-old schism between neurology and medical psychiatry, Essentials of Neural
Science and Behavior, which deals mainly with neurology, does not discuss schizophrenia (a
psychiatric illness) to any great degree; however what is mentioned is stated with scientifically
unjustifiable certainty and in conformity with the views of the American Psychiatric Organization,
reinforcing belief in the biological (neurological) nature of the diagnosis and the role of chemistry
and genes in its aetiology. On page 565 schizophrenia is mentioned again, this time in a chapter titled
Genes and Behavior. Under the dogmatic subheading Complex Disorders of Human Behavior Such
As Schizophrenia and Bipolar Affective Disorder Are Thought to Be Polygenic, the textbook claims:
Two of the most striking forms of mental disorder in humans show strong genetic
components. These are schizophrenia, a disorder consisting of delusions, auditory
hallucinations, and disjointedness of thought, and bipolar affective disorder (manicdepression), consisting of intermittent episodes of extreme mood elevation and overactivity
alternating with loss of energy and motivation. Both disorders are present in higher percentages
among relatives of affected individuals than in the general population, and both show a
significantly higher incidence among identical twins. The likelihood that both twins will be
affected is 30 to 50% in identical (monozygotic) but only 10% in fraternal (dizygotic) twins.
The higher rate for identical twins holds for twins reared apart as well as those reared together.
The 10% fraternal incidence is similar to that of nontwin siblings, but is still much higher than
the frequency in the general population (Figure 30-6). (p.565)


The figure, from a 1992 statistical analysis by Groves and Rebec comparing genetic relatedness with
lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia, associates identical twins (100% genetic relatedness) with
a 46% risk, fraternal twins (50% genetic relatedness) with a 14% risk, and other siblings (also 50%
genetic relatedness) with 10% risk. The children of two schizophrenics are reported to also have a 46%
risk of receiving this diagnosis, while people with one schizophrenic parent are reported as having a
13% risk. The conclusions drawn, done so in ignorance of the specific propagation of delusions and
idiosyncratic modes of thinking within families, biases favouring diagnosis of abnormality in family
members (by psychiatrists and researchers), and the possibility of conscious or unconscious telepathic
connections between identical twins, are that: schizophrenia probably results from the concerted
actions of many genes, each of which makes only a small contribution (p.565).

This polygenic theory purports to resolve the problem that the family clustering of schizophrenia
does not occur in a way that supports classical genetics. Identical twins, who have identical DNA
complements according to genetic theory, do not have a 100% concordance for schizophrenia,
indicating that nongenetic factors are also important, according to the textbook.

While these nongenetic factors are not elaborated on in Essentials of Neural Science and Behavior,
they are in many other texts, including the 1998 US publication Encyclopedia of Mental Health, which
mentions brain abnormalities, biochemical factors, genetics, obstetric complications and viral
infection as being associated or linked with the development of schizophrenia. These are integrated
into what is termed the diathesis-stress model, which is said to have dominated theories about the
etiology of schizophrenia for several decades:
This model assumes that certain individuals inherit or acquire a vulnerability to schizophrenia
(the diathesis), and that the behavioral expression of this vulnerability is determined or
triggered by environmental stressors. Although stress was originally conceptualized as
psychosocial in origin, contemporary versions of this model broaden the definition of stress to


include prenatal and postnatal insults to the central nervous system. Thus the diathesis,
combined with exposure to environmental stressors, can produce schizophrenia. (p.407)

The encyclopaedia strongly refutes the idea that families or parents cause schizophrenia (without
considering the phenomenon of shared familial beliefs of an iconoclastic, idiosyncratic or delusional
nature), whilst ignoring completely the possibility that psychiatrists and psychologists could cause
schizophrenia, beginning the section on the aetiology of schizophrenia with the following statement:
The causes of schizophrenia are unknown, but it is now widely accepted by both researchers
and clinicians that schizophrenia is biologically determined. This is in striking contrast to the
early and mid-1900s, when many subscribed to the theory that faulty parenting, especially cold
and rejecting mothers, caused schizophrenia in offspring. (p.404)

The Encyclopedia of Mental Health also states that family communication styles are unlikely to play a
unique causal role in schizophrenia, presenting a confused and contradictory argument:
There is good evidencethat exposure to high levels of criticism from family members can
increase likelihood of relapse in schizophrenia patients. The number of critical comments,
expressions of hostility, and emotional overinvolvement comprise a construct referred to as
expressed emotion (EE). Recovering schizophrenia patients in families high in EE are much
more likely to have a relapse compared with patients in families low in EE. There is also
evidence from studies of the adopted offspring of schizophrenia patients suggesting that
familial stress can hasten the onset of symptoms (p. 407)

The construct of EE is a strange one indeed, and a very misleading and dangerous one at that. On
reading this, from such an authoritative source as a contemporary encyclopaedia edited by a


psychology professor, families could be excused for thinking that a high level of emotional expression
is harmful, while confusing emotion with hostility and criticism. It is obvious that hostility and
frequent criticism are unhealthy attributes for any family and likely to make any distressed person
worse. They are, however, more likely to be caused by lack of emotional involvement rather than
overinvolvement. It is also undoubtedly true that over-controlling or intrusive families can cause
distress to the whole family, and especially to dominated and mistreated members, but this is surely not
the same as emotional expression. Significantly, the encyclopaedias discussion of family influences
ignores shared familial beliefs and the non-genetic inheritance of beliefs, also shifting blame from
carers to the disease which, by using the term schizophrenic, becomes synonymous with the
afflicted person.

The encyclopaedia, on reference in the Caulfield public library in Melbourne, lists several brain
abnormalities in schizophrenia, while ignoring the many findings and arguments which cast doubt on
these claims:
There are several sources of evidence for the assumption that schizophrenia involves an
abnormality in brain function. First, studies of schizophrenia patients have revealed a variety of
behavioral signs of central nervous system impairment, including motor and cognitive
dysfunctions. Second, when the brains of patients are examined with in vivo imaging
techniques, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), many show abnormalities in brain
structure. Similarly, post-mortem studies of brain tissue have revealed irregularities in nerve
cell formation and interconnections.
Laboratory studies of schizophrenia patients have revealed a variety of abnormalities,
including irregularities in smooth pursuit eye movements, psychophysiological responses to
sensory stimuli, and concentration. Research on the neuropsychological performance of
schizophrenia patients was first conducted in the 1950s and continues to the present time.
Individual neuropsychological tests are designed to measure functions subserved by specific
regions or systems of the brain. An early finding in this area was that schizophrenia patients
were the one psychiatric group whose performance on neuropsychological tests was


indistinguishable from people with known brain damage. The findings suggested a generalized
cerebral dysfunction in schizophrenia. However, patients show the most consistent deficits on
tests of attention and memory, indicating dysfunction of the frontal and temporal lobes and the
hippocampus. Further evidence of dysfunction in these brain regions is derived from poor
performance on tests of executive functions: the ability to formulate, maintain, and adapt
appropriate responses to the environment.
Brain-imaging studies of schizophrenia have yielded results that mirror those obtained from
neuropsychological research. Some relatively consistent findings are that the brains of
schizophrenia patients have abnormal frontal lobes and enlarged ventricles. Enlarged ventricles
suggest decreased brain mass, particularly in the limbic regions, which are intimately involved
in emotional processing. Furthermore, ventricular size correlates with negative symptoms,
performance deficits on neuropsychological tests, poor response to medication, and poor
premorbid adjustment. These associations between ventricular enlargement and both premorbid
and postmorbid characteristics suggest that the brain abnormalities are long-standing, perhaps
In addition to brain structure, investigators have examined biological indices of brain function
in schizophrenia. Functional brain-imaging studies, with procedures such as positron emission
tomography (PET) and measurement of regional cerebral blood flow, reveal that schizophrenia
patients have decreased levels of blood flow to the frontal lobes, especially while performing
cognitive tasks. (p.404)

What can we make of these findings and the presented interpretation of them: that schizophrenia is
caused by brain damage which is caused by a combination of factors, some genetic, some congenital
(present at birth, but not necessarily due to abnormal genes) and some environmental (viral infection)?
Is the evidence merely presented to justify a priori conclusions regarding genetic and brain
abnormality? How are we to be certain that larger ventricles, different sized or shaped frontal lobes
and differences in blood flow are not variants of normal, which can surely not be judged, in this area,


on the basis of bell curves? If brain damage has occurred, how do we know that it has not been
caused by the dopamine-blocking drugs that are ubiquitously used to treat diagnosed schizophrenics?

In fact, when one looks at the known distribution of dopaminergic neurones in the brain (notably, the
frontal lobes, limbic system and basal ganglia), their known involvement in the development of
Parkinsons disease, and the fact that all anti-psychotic drugs (with the exception of Clozapine and
the so-called new 'atypicals') act primarily as dopamine-receptor blockers (and can cause parkinsonism
and other neurotoxic effects), it becomes clear that ventricular enlargement around the limbic regions,
death of neurones and cerebral atrophy and reduced blood flow to dopaminergic areas of the brain
(such as the frontal lobes, hippocampus and basal ganglia) could be predicted from the known
neurotoxicity of the drugs used to treat schizophrenia, rather than from any underlying brain disease.
This neurotoxicity is not denied; almost all psychiatric texts admit to the fact that any and all
dopamine-blocking drugs can cause tardive dyskinesia (a common and crippling form of brain
damage that affects many who survive the first insults of schizophrenia) as well as extrapyramidal
side-effects such as parkinsonism, akathisia and tardive dyskinesia.

Furthermore, many of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, including amotivation and cognitive
impairment, which are said to correlate with findings of ventricular enlargement are recognised sideeffects of the same drugs, effects which occur at so-called therapeutic doses.

It has taken many years for the medical profession to admit that the drugs used in chronic
schizophrenia can worsen the negative symptoms of the condition. These are said to become more
and more prominent as time goes by (as the disease progresses). During this time, of course, the
cumulative dose of dopamine-receptor blockers has continuously risen, and any damage to neurones
consequent on this blockade would also be expected to have increased.


Recent admissions of worsening negative symptoms are very significant, even if given grudgingly,
with reservations, and belatedly. For example, in February 2000 article titled New Developments in
Schizophrenia, Melbourne psychiatrists Nicholas Keks and Robert Shields admit that:
Negative symptoms (flat affect, poverty of thought, lack of motivation) characterise
schizophrenic deficit. These symptoms may well be due to hypofunction of the frontal lobe of
the brain, and are poorly responsive to (or even exacerbated by) conventional antipsychotics if
parkinsonism is induced (p.129)

The so-called negative symptoms of schizophrenia such as flat affect, poverty of speech and
avolition which characterise the later progression of the disease have long been regarded as
relatively unresponsive to drugs as opposed to positive symptoms such as hallucinations which
characterise the early stages of the disease. Although critics of these drugs have pointed out for
several decades that the side-effects of these drugs are remarkably similar to the negative symptoms
and signs of chronic schizophrenia, it is rare to see an admission from psychiatrists that dopamineblockers can aggravate these problems (as opposed to being ineffective against them). While all of
schizophrenia cannot be explained as a consequence of drug treatment, the negative symptoms of
chronic schizophrenia are worth looking at in the light of the known side-effects and long-term
effects of the drugs used to treat acute and chronic schizophrenia, and the known psychological and
behavioural effects of serious abuse and torture.

As far as simple aetiological theories are concerned, the reaction-to-torture theory of chronic
schizophrenia combined with known effects of dopamine-blockers explains a surprising number of the
key symptoms and signs of the chronic disease as well as the behavioural abnormalities which are
described in textbooks and seen in psychiatric wards and clinics.


Accepting that one is mad is painful, and being forced to accept that one is mad is also painful.
Torture is defined in the Heinemann Australian dictionary as the inflicting of extreme pain. The
Oxford School Dictionary defines torture as infliction of severe bodily pain, esp. to extort something
from the victim; severe physical or mental pain. Both physical and psychological pain cause suffering,
and this suffering continues for a variable period of time as a result of the injury itself and the memory
of it. In the case of treatment for schizophrenia the pain is more psychological than physical, although
injections of dopamine-blockers (and their side-effects) can be physically painful.

The memory of severe pain (physical or mental) also causes fear and avoidance of things associated
with the pain, thus affecting behaviour in often noticeable ways. Severe pain can also cause problems
in the clarity of thought and the fluency of speech, as can anxiety, and its extremes, panic and terror.
Torture, including chemical torture and psychological abuse (including solitary confinement and
constant denigration or criticism) can also cause anxiety (chronic fear), panic and terror during and
after the mistreatment. It can result in paranoia and even hallucinations. It can elicit defiant,
oppositional, hostile, suspicious, rude or sullen behaviour (which can easily be interpreted as
inappropriate affect, catatonia, echolalia or poverty of speech) or, if it breaks the spirit of the
tortured subject, torture can produce dependent, fearful compliance.

The medical (psychiatric) term affect is often equated with emotion and feeling, however the term is
actually used to describe the observed appearance of patients emotional state: this being judged on
the diagnosers interpretation of the emotion the patient shows as opposed to the emotion he or she
actually feels. This is an important point to remember when considering two abnormalities of affect
which are regarded as characteristic of schizophrenia: inappropriate affect and flattened affect.

The classical example of inappropriate affect, which was included in Bleulers initial description of
schizophrenia is that of a person who laughs upon hearing of the death of a loved one. To Bleuler this


reflected as split or dissociation between thought and affect. Of course there are many other ways of
explaining why a person may laugh when hearing of the death of a loved one. Most people are familiar
with nervous laughter, when normal people feel like laughing because they feel uncomfortable.
People can also laugh because of shock or surprise.

On the other hand maybe they didnt actually love their loved one. Hatred exists within families:
between siblings, between parents and children. Of great concern is that rather than understanding the
puzzling emotional reaction of the schizophrenic the term inappropriate affect provides a label
which may be mistaken for an genuine explanation. No effort is made to understand what it is assumed
is to be inexplicable. Even worse, the term has massive potential for abuse and the justification of
abuse. The schizophrenic who shows indifference, amusement or irritation when ordered or scolded
may be judged as showing inappropriate affect. The person who weeps with no obvious reason
may be seen as showing evidence of their brain damage rather than reacting to real stresses and
expressing real distress.

The more commonly described sign of flat affect refers to the (outward) appearance of emotional
flatness, and is to be differentiated from anhedonia, which is a subjective feeling of lack of pleasure
(or enjoyment). While both are described as characteristic of chronic schizophrenia, the term flat or
flattened affect is much more commonly seen in psychiatric texts and patients medical records. This
flatness, like any other assessment of affect is largely judged on outward appearance: especially
facial expression and speech patterns. The sign of flat affect is regarded as a typical sign of chronic
schizophrenia. Is this flat affect of chronic schizophrenics a result of intrinsic brain disease or is it
caused by chemical and psychological damage inflicted by medical treatment?

It is well established that dopamine-blockers routinely cause muscular stiffness in the face as well as
general muscle stiffness. This is a typical sign of parkinsonism, a recognised side-effect of these


drugs, whether ingested or injected. The 1993 MIMS Annual describes the central nervous system
adverse effects of Haldol Decanoate as follows:
Extrapyramidal. Reactions such as Parkinson-like symptoms, akathisia or dystonic reactions
occur frequently with neuroleptics [dopamine-blockers] including oral and injectable haloperidol.
In most patients, Parkinson-like symptoms, when first observed, were usually mild to moderately
severe and usually reversible. They are more commonly observed during the first few days of
treatment, however Parkinson rigidity, tremor and akithisia tend to appear less rapidly. They
sometimes remit spontaneously when treatment continues, or can be relieved by the use of
antiparkinson medication or a reduction in dose. Antiparkinson drugs of the cholinergic type
should only be used when required because of their potential to impair the efficacy of Haldol
Other types of neuromuscular reactions (motor restlessness, dystonia, akathisia, hyperreflexia,
opisthotonus, oculogyric crises) have been reported far less frequently, but were often more
Akathisia is best managed by a reduction in dosage in conjunction with the temporary use of an
oral antiparkinson drug. Dystonias which can lead to laryngeal [throat] spasm or bronchospasm
may be controlled with amylobarbitone or injectable antiparkinson agents. Extrapyramidal
reactions appear to be dose related.
Tardive Dyskinesia. May appear in some patients on long-term therapy or may appear after drug
therapy has been discontinued. The risk seems to be greater in elderly patients on high dose
therapy, especially females. The symptoms are persistent and in some patients appear to be
irreversible. The syndrome is characterised by rhythmical involuntary movements of the tongue,
face, mouth or jaw (e.g., protrusion of tongue, puffing of cheeks, puckering of mouth, chewing
movements). Sometimes these may be accompanied by involuntary movements of the extremities.
There is no known effective treatment for tardive dyskinesia; antiparkinsonian agents usually do
not alleviate the symptoms of this syndrome. It is suggested that the dosage of all antipsychotic
agents be progressively reduced with a view to discontinuation if possible.


Should it be necessary to reinstitute treatment or increase the dosage of the agent, or switch to a
different antipsychotic agent, the syndrome may be masked. It has been reported that fine
vermicular movements of the tongue may be an early sign of the syndrome, and, if the medication
is stopped at that time, the full syndrome may not develop.
Tardive dystonia. Tardive dystonia, not associated with the above syndrome, has also been
reported. It is characterised by delayed onset of choreic or dystonic movements, is often persistent,
and has the potential of becoming irreversible.
Other central nervous system effects. Sedation, insomnia, restlessness, anxiety, euphoria, agitation,
drowsiness, depression, lethargy, headache, confusion, vertigo, exacerbation of psychotic
symptoms including hallucinations, and catatonic-like behavioural states which may be responsive
to drug withdrawal and/or treatment with anticholinergic drugs. Grand mal seizures can be
precipitated in previously controlled epileptic patients.
Neuroleptic malignant syndrome. As with other neuroleptic drugs, a symptom complex sometimes
referred to as neuromalignant malignant syndrome (NMS) has been reported. Cardinal features of
NMS are hyperpyrexia [high fever], muscle rigidity, altered mental status (including catatonic
signs) and evidence of autonomic instability (irregular pulse or blood pressure). Additional signs
may include elevated creatine phosphokinase, myoglobinuria (rhabdomyolysis) and acute renal
[kidney] failure. NMS is potentially fatal, requires intensive symptomatic treatment and immediate
discontinuation of neuroleptic treatment. (p.3-194)

This list of central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects is provided by the Belgian drug company
Janssen-Cilag which manufactures and markets Haldol (haloperidol) and Droleptan (droperidol)
injections in Australasia along with the 'atypical antipsychotic' Risperdal (risperidone) which
selectively blocks serotonin and dopamine receptors. Similar prescribing information is provided to
doctors by other sellers of dopamine blockers, including the French company Rhone-Poulenc Rorer
(Largactil), the Danish company Lundbeck (Fluanzol) and the US-UK companies Bristol-MyersSquibb (Modecate, Anatensol) and Smith Kline Beecham (Stelazine).


All these drug companies admit in their prescribing information that the antipsychotic agents they
market can cause and have caused permanent brain damage: because tardive dyskinesia, which can
result from any and all dopamine-blockers, is obviously the result of irreversible damage to the brain. It
is not an uncommon problem, either. Psychiatric texts admit to an incidence of 20 percent in people
receiving long-term treatment (Copolov, 1994). Since it may be masked by other drugs, and is
frequently not recognised or reported, the true incidence is likely to be much higher (as a careful
observation of people in many nursing homes and psychiatric wards suggests). It is also one of the
most disfiguring (and hence stigmatising) of iatrogenic conditions. A person seized by uncontrollable
tics, twitches and spasms is predictably viewed with apprehension by those who do not know what has
caused the condition.

It is easy to see how this odd behaviour may mistakenly be attributed to mental abnormality,
especially given the grotesque and bizarre movements (including cheek-puffing and tongue-protrusion)
that characterise the syndrome. It is not unusual for patients too, who are rarely warned about tardive
dyskinesia, akathisia and other signs of neurotoxicity, to mistakenly attribute drug side-effects to their

This raises the question of informed consent and also sheds light on the aetiology of chronic

How complete should be the information that psychiatric patients (and their families) are given about
the dangers and risks of the drugs they are advised or forced to take? How much of the illness called
chronic schizophrenia is a direct result of drug-related neurotoxicity?


It is significant that few doctors would or do take these drugs themselves (in contrast to antidepressants
and minor tranquillisers, which are more frequently consumed by members of the medical
profession). The main reason medical practitioners are reluctant to take dopamine-blockers, even if
they recognise or regard themselves as deluded or psychotic, is because of the immediate adverse
effects and long-term risk of brain damage in the form of tardive dyskinesia.

More often, doctors, like most people, do not doubt their own sanity, even if they recognise themselves
as being stressed, cranky or confused. Rather than regarding themselves as irritable doctors, like
most people, are more likely to say they are irritated (in other words, it is justifiable and caused by
external forces). Predictably, if they do start to recognise their own psychosis or delusions doctors are
more likely to hide them or deny them (often even to themselves). They know, better than most, the
problems with medical treatment of madness, and the terrible consequences of being seen as mad by
colleagues, family and friends.

Despite paying lip service to the importance of informed consent, when it comes to drugs, and
psychiatric drugs in particular, most doctors make an exception. It is almost unheard of for patients to
be informed of every risk and danger listed in the prescribing information for the drugs they are
prescribed because of time constraints and also the fact that they are much less likely to comply with

It is assumed by most doctors that encouraging compliance is an important part of clinical practice,
especially in chronic (long-term) problems, such as hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and asthma. Doctors
do not encourage the ingestion of all drugs, however, and many doctors try to prescribe the minimum
amount of medication necessary. With antibiotics and sleeping tablets, for example, nowadays most of
the pressure to prescribe comes from the public rather than from the medical profession (although the
prescribing habits of doctors over the past forty years caused the problem in the first place). In the case


of psychiatric drugs the pressure to prescribe comes from different sources depending on the type
(class) of drug and its effects. The psychiatric profession is also the branch of the medical profession
that is entrusted with diagnosis and treatment of drug addiction and drug-addicts.

It is clearly important for doctors to discourage drug taking as a general phenomenon, prescribing
necessary medication only after careful and objective balancing of benefits versus risks based on the
best available scientific evidence. This medication should be prescribed according to the fundamental
principle of minimum necessary dose for minimum necessary duration. The key word here is
necessary. Doses can be too large, in which case they are more likely to cause toxicity and are a
waste of money. They can also be too small, in which case they are not therapeutically effective (so the
illness is not cured or recurs after the medication is ceased). Medicines can be continued for too long,
in which case poisoning can occur, especially if the drug accumulates or is slowly metabolised and
excreted. If a medicine is stopped too soon, as in the case with antibiotics for bacterial infections, the
illness can recur, while if it was continued for longer it might not have. These are subtle and often
difficult decisions to make.

Several forces prevail upon doctors to prescribe more drugs at higher doses and for a longer duration
than is scientifically warranted. These come from within the profession, from the public and from the
companies that sell the drugs they prescribe. The motivations behind these forces are fundamentally

The pressure to prescribe from the medical profession, regardless of how misguided, is largely driven
by good ideological motives, with a primary objective of improvement in health of the person for
whom the drug is prescribed, although it is unfortunately true that doctors do, at times, deliberately or
unconsciously over-treat for pecuniary benefit, or poison people because of their faith in the drugs


they prescribe. (The case of forced treatment with dopamine-blockers is an important exception
regarding the generally benign nature of medical therapeutic intent, as will be seen).

The pressure from the public is also usually ideologically driven: a person who asks a doctor to
prescribe them a drug presumably believes its ingestion will improve his or her health in some way.
This may be to relieve their distress, remedy their illness or maintain their long-term health. They may
seek a drug to satisfy physiological or psychological addiction, or, occasionally with the deliberate
intent of getting high. The latter is uncommon and largely limited to benzodiazepine tranquillizers,
opiates and stimulants (there is no such demand for dopamine-blockers).

The pressure to prescribe from the pharmaceutical industry is economically, rather than ideologically
driven. The primary motive of drug companies is increased profit from sales of their drugs. This profit
obviously increases with bigger doses for more reasons and longer periods of time. Profits also increase
if drugs are prescribed for more reasons and in combination with other drugs from the same company.
Looking across the spectrum of modern drugs it is easy to find situations where the overuse of one drug
results in increased sales of other drugs to counter or prevent side-effects from the first. In the area of
psychiatry polypharmacy (prescription of multiple drugs) is common, and increasing. People
diagnosed with schizophrenia in Australia are often given several drugs at the same time, some oral and
some injected. In Australia today, it is not unusual to find people being given two-weekly or monthly
injections of depot antipsychotics while also being prescribed oral antipsychotics plus benzodiazepine
tranquillizers together with anti-parkinsonism drugs (usually Cogentin) and to remain on this
combination for many years. The life of such people is predictably shortened by such treatment.

Adding to the problem of psychiatric drug toxicity is the fact that dopamine-blockers are often given in
massive doses, especially to people diagnosed as acutely schizophrenic or manic. This usually
occurs away from the eyes of the public and most doctors, in the confines of locked psychiatric wards


where it is not unusual to see people rendered stuporose by huge doses of injected dopamine-blockers.
It is also not unusual to see people shaking, shuffling, pacing, dribbling and twitching from the
injections and tablets they have been given.

The class of drugs referred to here as dopamine-blockers are known by many other names, most of
which are euphemistic and scientifically inaccurate. First called major tranquillizers, drugs which
selectively block dopamine-receptors in the brain are also referred to as neuroleptics,
psychotropics and antipsychotics. The last of these is the most commonly used term in modern
psychiatric literature, although the others are also still used, especially in hospitals and clinics. Older
textbooks use these terms interchangeably. All members of this class of drug can cause tardive
dyskinesia, parkinsonism and the other neurotoxic effects quoted from the MIMS Annual in reference
to haloperidol.

They are also credited with being the greatest triumphs of psychopharmacology and are said to have
revolutionized the treatment of psychoses generally and schizophrenia in particular.

Since chlorpromazine (Thorazine in the USA, Largactil in Australia) was introduced into the
psychiatric armamentarium in the 1950s, there is said to have been an opening of the back wards,
progressive de-institutionalization and an ability to care for the mentally ill in the community. The
Australian health care system has long prided itself with being at the forefront of such improvements,
and we are frequently reminded that it is only because of antipsychotic drugs that this has become


Is this true or is this hype from those keen to form an impression that the undeniably atrocious past has
been rectified? Are dopamine-blockers crippling chemical restraints or are they miraculous medicines?
Are they being given to the right people for the right reasons (being genuine therapeutic ones), or are
they being misused for political and social coercion and control in Australia, Britain, the USA and
elsewhere in the free world as they indisputably were in the Eastern Bloc?



When it was revealed in the West that Russian psychiatry diagnosed schizophrenia (or delusions) on
the basis of paranoia or persecutory ideas about the KGB, this was understandably seen as
evidence of political manipulation of medical concepts. However, when North American psychiatry
texts refer to paranoia about the FBI or CIA, and British texts make equivalent claims about paranoia
regarding MI5, health professionals in these nations (and even in Australia) have difficulty seeing what
they can so easily perceive in their old Cold War enemies.

The chapter on schizophrenia in the 1998 US publication, Encyclopedia of Mental Health defines the
serious mental illness that afflicts 1% of the population at some point of time in their lifetime as a
psychotic disorder characterized by disturbances in thought, emotion, and behavior (p.399). The
authors of the chapter, Jason Schiffman and Elaine Walker of Emory University (in the USA) refer to
the DSM IV criteria for diagnosis of schizophrenia with deference, and provide definitions and
examples consistent with the mainstream psychiatric paradigm of the USA:
The term psychotic refers to symptoms that indicate an impairment in the patients ability to
comprehend reality. This includes beliefs that have no basis in reality and that are not
susceptible to corrective feedback (delusions), and sensory perceptions that have no identifiable
external source (hallucinations). In addition to hallucinations and delusions, the DSM lists three
other key symptoms of schizophrenia: disorganized speech, disorganized or catatonic behavior,
and negative symptoms. (p.399)

This definition of delusions being beliefs that have no basis in reality, is significantly different to
absolutely false beliefs, and one which lends doubt to the examples given in same text of delusions of
control, presented as typical of schizophrenia:


Delusions of control is the belief that one is being manipulated by an external force, often a
powerful individual or organization (e.g., the FBI) that has malevolent intent. (p.399)

It is incongruous that the example of the FBI should be used in this American text, and related
delusions of control explained as due to biological disease of a genetic or congenital nature. Any
beliefs about the (US) Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI), including both delusional and accurate
ones, are obviously learned, including the words themselves (federal, bureau, intelligence). The
same can be said for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other political organizations. These
agencies in particular are notable for their secrecy and therefore predictably feature in many peoples
concerns and suspicions about clandestine police-military activities (such as surveillance, psy-ops and
assassinations) in the USA and even outside the United States.

While not denying that people can be mistaken (and thus deluded in an absolute sense of the word)
about being spied on or manipulated, such beliefs are neither inexplicable or entirely without basis:
theoretically everyone is a target of international espionage and police-military propaganda.

In Australia, candidates for diagnosis of delusions of control include those with supposedly paranoid
ideas about either of these American organizations or of ASIO (the Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation), MI5, KGB, Mossad, the Freemasons, the Mafia or any other secretive organization. The
opinion, or even concern, that these, or any other organization or agency, have specific malevolent
intent towards an individual are deemed, according to psychiatric theory and common practice, to be
indicative of persecutory delusions [related to but different from delusions of control], as are beliefs
of individual persecution by employers, insurance companies, large or small corporations, family
members or government agencies.


Concern that these organizations, with the exception of the Mafia and KGB, might have malevolent
intent towards humanity or are involved in clandestine or overt conspiracies is also regarded as
delusional and paranoid: the official view that the police and military (and associated intelligence
agencies) protect (rather than spy on, manipulate, oppress or persecute) the public is to be accepted,
despite plenty of historical examples to the contrary.

If not absolutely altruistic, the activities of the CIA, FBI etc are regarded as, firstly, morally acceptable
and secondly, far removed from the experience of the psychiatric patient the therapist and the
public. In other words, the CIA and FBI are assumed to go after baddies (villains), and therefore
psychiatric patients who fear that they may be or are being targeted are regarded as deluded, since they
are not bad but ill.

The distinction between bad and mad is, however, blurred in medicine as it is in the general
population. Few people do not make judgements of badness and madness in other people (less
often themselves), and often no distinction is made between the two. In fact the most evil and
inexplicably brutal, cruel or terrible actions are frequently described colloquially as mad, along with
the people who commit them. Not surprisingly many members of the public assume that it is the
medically diagnosed mad, i.e., schizophrenics and the seriously mentally ill who are most likely
to do these mad things, imagining unstable psychotic people hearing commanding hallucinatory
voices telling them to commit murder or harm themselves.

While it is true that in very rare instances such things have occurred (usually after, rather than before,
psychiatric treatment), exponentially larger numbers have died as a result of very audible commands
given by police and military organizations of various nations over the past 100 years. Considering the
number who have died because of drugs they were given by the medical profession either in too big a
dose, for the wrong reasons, or in dangerous combinations (a figure in the thousands per year in


Australia, according to official figures), it is clear that even the (generally) well-meaning efforts of the
medical profession claim more lives than the diagnosed mentally ill do.

Unlike other medical specialists, psychiatrists have the legal authority to force treatment on people and
incarcerate them for the purpose of assessment and treatment. This, legally, can only be done if the
person is judged to pose a risk to themselves or others. Corresponding stipulation is contained within
International Law as well as the various Mental Health Acts of different States. Also safeguarding
against the pernicious use of this authority are various laws and International Covenants proclaiming
freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

In Australia, the Mental Health Acts of different States contain a list of reasons why people may not be
regarded as mentally ill. Section 8(2) of the Victorian Mental Health Act (1986) reads:
A person is not to be considered to be mentally ill by reason only of any one or more of the
(a) That the person expresses or refuses or fails to express a particular political opinion or belief;
(b) That the person expresses or refuses or fails to express a particular religious opinion or belief;
(c) That the person expresses or refuses or fails to express a particular philosophy;
(d) That the person expresses or refuses or fails to express a particular sexual preference or sexual


(e) That the person engages in or refuses or fails to engage in a particular political activity;
(f) That the person engages in or refuses or fails to engage in a particular religious activity;
(g) That the person engages in sexual promiscuity;
(h) That the person engages in immoral conduct;
(i) That the person engages in illegal conduct;
(j) That the person is intellectually disabled
(k) That the person takes drugs or alcohol;
(l) That the person has an antisocial personality;

The wording of the exclusion criteria in Section 8(2) contains a loophole which is routinely used by
psychiatrists who have made diagnoses involving the prohibited reasons (religious, political and
philosophical beliefs, sexual promiscuity, drug use etc.). This is the phrase by reason only of any one
or more of the following, and the use of the word only. It is said, therefore, that people have
affective symptoms, mood disorders, thought disorder, paranoia and the like. The fact that the
person might be judged as paranoid because of their religious, philosophical or political beliefs is
obscured (and denied) by the use of psychiatric jargon.

In Australia it is the public hospital system in which most forced psychiatric treatment occurs. The
large majority of those who are injected or given electric shocks to the brain against their will have


been diagnosed with schizophrenia or manic-depression. In a catch-22 situation for psychiatric

patients, mental illness generally, and schizophrenia and mania in particular, is said, in psychiatric
texts, to be characterised by lack of insight, especially in the early stages of the illness. Lack of
insight refers to failure of the patient to accept that they are ill, and inevitably, that they require
treatment with drugs which may well make them feel ill. The gaining of insight, by this token, is
acceptance that one is seriously and chronically ill and that recurrence of illness is inevitable if the
drugs are stopped against medical advice. Consequently, any improvement in behaviour is
attributed to efficacy of the drugs while any deterioration is blamed on the underlying disease
process or, more commonly, lack of compliance.

Lack of compliance, meaning refusal or failure to take the prescribed drugs is said to be, along with
lack of insight (and related to it), a common feature of schizophrenics and manic-depressives.
Ensuring compliance with drug taking is consequently an obsession of mental health workers in the
public psychiatric system in Australia, including doctors, nurses, social workers and psychologists.

The vast majority of health workers who encourage and enforce compliance with drugs and work
towards assisting the patient to gain insight have awareness neither of the socio-political role of what
they do, nor of the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on their beliefs about mental health and
mental illness. The vast majority of doctors who make or concur with a diagnosis of schizophrenia
have no idea of the history of systematic abuse which has accompanied the ever-changing use of the
term, or of the massive influence the pharmaceutical industry has had on their belief systems, including
their beliefs about what constitutes madness and what can and should be done about it. Few doubt the
validity of the term schizophrenia or the reality of the disease, nor do they doubt that it is caused by
underlying brain disease tending to run in families. Few know the real history of the term, or the way
its use has changed over the years.



One problem with labels such as schizophrenia is that they can become self-fulfilling prophesies.
The mechanism by which self-fulfilling prophesies become realised is logically obvious, especially in
the area of mental illness. While it may be that thinking one has cancer makes it more likely that one
develop the disease, it is not a common or inevitable consequence of such belief. This is very different
in the case of schizophrenia, depression, personality disorder or bipolar affective disorder
(manic-depression). Such labels can create mental disturbance through effects on both the person
labelled and other people, including therapists, family and friends.

The obvious way in which the word schizophrenia can cause illness in one diagnosed with it is
through the process of suggestion. People who believe they have a chronic, serious, incurable disease
become disturbed merely through such beliefs. They become prone to blaming their illness for their
past and present problems, and, since the illness is said to be incurable, despair of the future. This is
one obvious and studiously ignored reason why people diagnosed with schizophrenia (or manicdepression) might be expected to have an increased rate of suicide. As previously mentioned, between
5 and 15 percent of people diagnosed with schizophrenia are said, in psychiatric texts, to commit

The second factor contributing to self-fulfilling prophesies in mental illness is the treatment that
people thus diagnosed are given: both the drug treatment and the psychotherapy/behavioural therapy.
Freudian psychoanalysis and similar styles of psychoanalysis with deeply misanthropic views of
human nature are predictably unsuccessful in the treatment of mentally disturbed people, and can
disturb people who were not previously disturbed, again through the process of suggestion. Even in the
USA and Europe where Freudian psychoanalysis has gained the most acceptance, such
psychotherapy is recognised as useless and potentially disastrous in people who have


schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. The treatment of these conditions is centred on
ensuring drug compliance with antipsychotic drugs. These drugs, first developed in the 1950s, have a
common pharmaceutical action: they block receptors for the neurotransmitter dopamine in the brain.
This is thought to be responsible for the efficacy of the drugs as well as their well-recognised sideeffects including parkinsonism and tardive dyskinesia. The latter is the result of often irreversible brain
damage and occurs in 20 percent of people on chronic treatment, according to Professor David
Copolov in Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry (p.385). The development of tardive dyskinesia, one of
the most terrible of all iatrogenic conditions, is thought to be more likely with injected than oral
dopamine-blockers, and it is hoped that the new atypical antipsychotics (such as olanzapine, and
risperidone) will cause less tardive dyskinesia than the older drugs such as chlorpromazine (Largactil),
haloperidol (Haldol), fluphenazine (Modecate) and trifluoperazine (Stelazine). The long and short term
use of these drugs, which have formed the mainstay of medical treatment of schizophrenia for five
decades, have been responsible for the premature death of thousands of people and the crippling of
millions. The reasons for this include neurotoxicity producing tardive dyskinesia and other iatrogenic
problems including those listed in the prescribing information for Haldol, some of which were
previously described.

The third force in the self-fulfilling nature of the label of schizophrenia is the effect of stigmatization
in the sight of others, including family, friends, peers and organizations which discriminate against
people with mental illness. While the problem of stigmatization is recognised as a serious one by the
psychiatric profession, it is generally blamed on ignorance, with the implication that better
education and more education will reduce the community prejudice and negative preconceptions
which contribute so obviously to the isolation and distress of psychiatric patients and schizophrenics
in particular. A close look at the available educational literature, even that specifically addressing the
problem of stigmatization, reveals that most could be predicted to reinforce and worsen existing
misconceptions and prejudices rather than dispel them.


There is a great deal of public education material available in Australia on the subject of
schizophrenia. This is freely available at psychiatric institutions such as hospitals and clinics, and
also from Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) such as the Mental Health Foundation and the
Schizophrenia Fellowship. Some of this information is directed at patients and some at their carers
and family. In recent years a telling change has occurred in this literature regarding the people who
have been diagnosed as having schizophrenia or some other mental illness. They are now
described as clients or even more inappropriately, consumers. These terms are euphemistic and
misleading because firstly, the clients/consumers are often not being treated because of their own free
will: they are not clients in the sense that they have sought the services provided, which are often
being forced on them. Secondly, many are not consuming anything provided by the mental health
services: they are being injected (with or without their agreement) or being given electric shocks (with
or without their agreement). The vast majority of psychiatric patients do, however, consume the drugs
they are ordered to take. The majority also accept that they have schizophrenia and often that this
makes them schizophrenics. This is not surprising given the consequence of refusing to accept the
diagnosis: repeated incarceration and larger, more frequent doses of injected dopamine-blockers.

One way in which the educational literature creates stigma is by the myths it repeats which claiming
to refute them. For example, when a pamphlet from the (Australian) National Mental Health Strategy
of the late 1990s titled What is schizophrenia? asks the question Are people with schizophrenia
dangerous?, the misleading answer given is:
No. People with schizophrenia are generally not dangerous when receiving appropriate
treatment. However, a minority of people with the disorder become aggressive when
experiencing an acute episode, because of their fears. This is usually expressed to family and
friends very rarely to strangers.

The insinuation is that schizophrenics who are refusing or not complying with prescribed treatment
are dangerous. Another insinuation is that untreated schizophrenia causes fears and aggression. The


treated schizophrenic who has been quiet and well behaved but becomes fearful or angry is not
doing so because of legitimate feelings about the treatment he or she has been given but because of
relapse (for which, of course, lack of compliance with drugs is routinely suspected). The public
educational literature, magazine and journal articles, and textbook descriptions never question the
actual existence of schizophrenia as a biological disease as real as diabetes or cancer. It is unanimously
regarded as a serious mental illness; in fact some have gone as far as to describe it as the cancer of the
mind. This is despite the open admission that the term schizophrenia is a misnomer. Under the title
Myths, Misunderstanding and Facts, the same Mental Health Strategy pamphlet gives this answer to
Do people with schizophrenia have a split personality?:
No. There is no such thing as a split personality. Schizophrenia refers to the change in the
persons mental function, where thoughts and perceptions become disordered.

The term disorder is used frequently in modern psychiatry. It is commonly regarded in this area of
medicine (and in clinical psychology) as synonymous with the words illness and abnormality.
Illness, being the opposite of health, is not, though, the same as disorder or abnormality, especially
in the area of mental activity. Normality is a description of what is usual or typical. Biostatistically,
normal has a specific meaning: the area under a bell curve between the second standard deviations
in either direction. Such concepts of normality are familiar in the form of weight and height percentile
charts, which are used to assess the growth of children. By such models, those children more than two
standard deviations below the median or two above are abnormal, and the 97 per cent of children
within these limits are normal. If similar tools are used in the psychological sciences, the ridiculous
situation results where exceptionally gifted people are regarded as abnormal because they fall outside
the limits of what is usual or typical. Genius, by this token, is serious abnormality. Any unique idea or
ability is abnormal if that not possessed by the majority is regarded as so.

Over the past twenty years statistics have replaced verbal logic and inductive thinking as the main tools
with which psychologists and psychiatrists have attempted to understand human behaviour. Thus we


have the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as the bible of the psychiatric
profession and now even of the psychology profession. Although pertinent criticism of the labelling
mentality exemplified by the DSM is still heard from psychologists (such as Seth Farber) and a few
psychiatrists (notably Thomas Szasz and Peter Breggin), basic acceptance of terms such as
schizophrenia, attention deficit disorder, bipolar affective disorder etc is the rule, especially
among hospital-based clinical psychologists. A corresponding assumption of the importance of
medication is common, especially for the so-called organic psychoses, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and manic-depression. The treatment of people diagnosed with these psychoses is
widely regarded as outside the therapeutic capability of talk therapists, such as psychologists, and it is
commonly held that psychotherapy is ineffective in the treatment of psychosis and delusions. This
belief is not new, and has been actively propagated by the medical (psychiatric) profession over the
years. For example, the third edition of Brian Davies An Introduction to Clinical Psychiatry,
published by Melbourne University Press in 1981 gives the following advice regarding supportive
care of schizophrenic patients and their families (with their italics):
The social and personal problems that these patients develop can often be minimized by
regular supportive care from one interested doctor. He must be prepared to look after these
young patients who usually have considerable problems in their relationships with other
people. The illness may develop at a time when engagement and marriage problems are to the
fore, and supportive care through these times, as well as any pregnancies, needs considerable
clinical skill. Psychotherapy proper is contra-indicated for these people. (p.132)

He goes on to present a picture of chronic schizophrenia that could surely be avoided if proper
psychotherapy were given to people who are acutely disturbed:
Unfortunately, despite the best possible care, relapses occur. Sometimes this is associated with
the patient stopping the tranquillizing drugs. Further hospital admissions may be necessary, but
these should be as brief as possible. It is not known how many schizophrenic patients today
will need long term hospital admission in spite of the modern treatment as tranquillizing drugs
were only introduced in 1953.


The treatment of chronic schizophrenia is a more complex problem. Social and rehabilitative
measures are of great importance, while tranquillizing drugs are also of value. It has been
found that schizophrenic patients discharged from hospital often do best at a hostel or in
lodgings, rather than living at home with their parents. Disruptive emotional problems are more
likely to occur at home and the family doctor may have to help the parents accept this. Work is
of the greatest importance in the rehabilitation of the chronic schizophrenic. Sheltered
workshops are available in some centres, but work in the community no matter how menial or
monotonous the job may appear to the parents, must be actively encouraged. (p.132)

Although this psychiatric handbook says that admissions should be as brief as possible the passage
on treatment gives some indication of why recovery was, in the 1980s and is, 20 years later, slow and
In hospital, the treatment of the illness usually involves treatment with tranquillizing drugs
and sometimes a short course of E.C.T. along with general social rehabilitative measures.
E.C.T. is usually given 2 or 3 times a week for 6-8 treatments its effect on schizophrenic
illness is often to diminish the intensity of delusional and hallucinatory activity. These
symptoms will return however unless medication with tranquillizing drugs is also
commencedMedication must be continued once the patient leaves hospital for several years
in the majority of cases. (p.131)

Continuing these drugs for several years is, of course, likely to cause permanent brain damage in the
form of tardive dyskinesia (TD). This is mentioned under side effects and their management in the
same book, but no admission is made that the condition is often permanent or that it is caused by brain
damage. In fact it is described, along with akathisia, parkinsonism, dystonias and akinesia as a
component of the extrapyramidal syndrome, the symptoms of which, the book falsely claims, are
reversed by stopping the tranquillizer or adding anti-parkinsonian drugs. Furthermore, the book
claims, again in contradiction with the information from the companies that market the drugs, that the


symptoms can be prevented. This, it says, can be done by either using thioridazine (that does not
usually produce this syndrome), by increasing dosage of drugs slowly and perhaps giving them in
one dose per day or by giving anti-parkinsonian drugs with the tranquillizer.

Thioridazine, marketed in Australia by Sandoz pharmaceuticals as Melleril is, like chlorpromazine

and haloperidol, a dopamine-blocker, and can cause both parkinsonism and tardive dyskinesia,
although the company claims that these are relatively infrequent. Anti-parkinsonian drugs are known
to often worsen the symptoms of tardive dyskinesia, although paradoxically the syndrome can appear
when the drugs are stopped (referred to as masking of TD, which can also occur if the dose of the
offending dopamine-blocker is increased or another dopamine-blocker substituted or added).

These problems would be avoidable if psychotherapy, including talk therapies were to be successful in
resolving schizophrenia. If genuine mental health were to be promoted in the community, by what
might be regarded as public psychotherapy, could not schizophrenia be prevented? Professor Brian
Davies claimed, in 1981, that no preventative measures are at present possible regarding
schizophrenia, stating also that most schizophrenic and severely depressed patients are not candidates
for psychotherapy (p.58). Why should this be so? The answer becomes clear when one reads what
types of psychotherapy and behaviour therapy he was familiar with and advised against for the
treatment of schizophrenia. Confusing healing psychotherapy with Freudian psychoanalysis, he writes:
Patients referred for psychotherapy are usually seen by the therapist on several occasions
before a decision is taken to embark on formal treatment. Such treatment then means the
patient will be actively involved with the therapist for a 50 minute session, once, twice, or three
times a week, for several months. In formal psychoanalysis the patient may be seen five days a
week for several years in this way. The methods of psychoanalysis developed by Freud are
those of free association on the part of the patient and interpretation by the analyst of
preconscious and unconscious material. The analyst also relies extensively on interpretations of
the patients resistances and of the transference situation. This transference relationship is


encouraged by the structure of the analytic interview which is standardized. The patient lies on
a couch to promote relaxation, free association and the production of unconscious material. The
analyst sits out of the patients vision in order to minimize the inhibition of free association.
The relationship between the analyst and the patient is restricted to the analytic sessions and
any social contact is avoided. Because of expense and availability of analysts time, this form
of treatment can involve only a relatively small number of psychiatric patients. (p.58)

Apart from expense, one must also ask about effectiveness. Daily therapy for several years, while
suiting the bank balance of analysts, can hardly be described as effective. The reasons for this are
apparent from the specific techniques developed by Freud, their subsequent modification by
psychoanalytical psychiatrists, and the assumptions involved in these techniques. Assumptions which
influence the therapeutic effectiveness of psychoanalysis include those by which dreams, free
associations and the verbal expressions of the patient are interpreted, and what the analyst assumes
about humanity and the world we live in. An analyst with a negative view of humanity or a pessimistic
attitude towards the future is unlikely to be a healing influence on those who turn to them for analysis
and advice.

Transference is a phenomenon that was described by Freud as an inevitable consequence of

psychoanalysis. Professor Davies explains that the feelings which the patient develops toward the
therapist often mirror his childhood reactions to his parents, and are regarded as being a transference
from parents to therapist. He claims that the unskilled psychotherapist will not recognise these
transference situations nor his own emotional reactions to the patient (counter-transference), and so
increase the problems of treatment. He claims that psychotherapists are usually psychiatrists who
have spent several years training in psychotherapy, and this training ensures that these transference
problems can be dealt with for the patients benefit. A doctor who is not a psychiatrist, the psychiatry
professor states, should limit his psychotherapy to interested listening, environmental manipulation,
explanations, reassurance, advice, persuasion and re-education and should not uncover dynamic
material by free association or dream analysis or give interpretations.


The use of parentheses in the description of interested listening, explanations, advice etc as
psychotherapy gives an indication that Professor Davies did not regard such supportive
psychotherapy as of equal merit to psychoanalytical psychotherapy or behaviour therapy, or even
as genuine psychotherapy (he uses the term psychotherapy proper when claiming the
inappropriateness of psychotherapy for the treatment of schizophrenia). One can detect in his handbook
more than a hint of professional elitism and territorialism. He seems blind to the fact that what he calls
supportive psychotherapy is much less likely to cause harm than the treatments he recommends, and
has enormous therapeutic potential if done well.

The synonymous use of the words illness, abnormality and disorder, and the way the phrase
mental health is freely substituted for mental illness is revealed in preface of the 1997 Australian
Bureau of Statistics publication Mental Health and Wellbeing Profile of Adults, Australia:
This publication presents selected results from the National Survey of Mental Health and
Wellbeing in Australia, conducted from May to August 1997. Summary information is
included on the prevalence of selected mental disorders, the level of disability associated with
these disorders, and health services used and help needed as a consequence of a mental health
problem for Australians aged 18 years or more.

The report, which is a statistical presentation of psychiatric treatment in Australia rather than a report
on mental health and wellbeing, contains 8 graphs and 23 tables of figures, together with two
appendices and a glossary. The survey on which the report is based was part of the multimillion-dollar
National Mental Health Strategy, the professed aims of which are:
1. To promote mental health of the Australian community
2. Where possible, prevent the development of mental health problems and mental disorders


3. Reduce the impact of mental disorders on individuals, families and the community
4. Assure the rights of people with mental disorders.

The report, available to the public for $22.00, is based on a survey of 10,600 Australians who agreed to
participate after 13,600 private dwellings in all States and Territories were approached. One person
over the age of 18 from each dwelling was invited to participate and the response rate was a high 78%.
For unspecified reasons, the survey collected information only on anxiety disorders, affective
disorders, alcohol use disorders and drug use disorders, which are described as a range of major
mental disorders. Schizophrenia is not mentioned and is conspicuous by its absence. Six categories of
anxiety disorder and five of affective disorder were surveyed and statistically presented in the
report. The anxiety disorders included panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, generalised
anxiety disorder (GAD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). The five affective disorders were depression, dysthymia, mania, hypomania and
bipolar affective disorder.

The introduction of the report does briefly refer to mental health, but immediately turns to a discussion
of mental health problems and the diagnosis of mental disorder:
Mental health relates to emotions, thoughts and behaviours. A person with good mental health
is generally able to handle day-to-day events and obstacles, work towards important goals, and
function effectively in society. However, even minor mental health problems may affect
everyday activities to the extent that individuals cannot function as they would wish, or are
expected to, within their family and community. Consultation with a health professional may
lead to the diagnosis of a mental disorder. (p.1)


About the techniques by which they attempted to measure mental health, the report provides this
Measuring mental health in the community through household surveys is a complex task as
mental disorder is usually determined through clinical diagnoses. For the SMHWB [Survey of
Mental Health and Wellbeing of Adults] the diagnostic component of the interview was
administered through a modified version of the CIDI [Composite International Diagnostic
Interview]. This is a comprehensive interview for adults which can be used to assess current
and lifetime prevalence of mental disorders through the measurement of symptoms and their
impact on day-to-day activities. The World Health Organization (WHO) Training and
Reference Centre for CIDI (The WHO Centre) in Australia, contracted by HFS
[Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services], developed a computerised
version of the CIDI for the SMHWB. (p.2)

The summary of findings, based on these computerised assessments of the mental health of
Australians, claims:
Many Australian adults enjoy good mental health. Nevertheless almost one in five (18%) had
a mental disorder at some time during the 12 months prior to the survey. The prevalence of
mental disorder generally decreased with age. Young adults aged 18-24 years had the highest
prevalence of mental disorder (27%), declining steadily to 6.1% of those aged 65 years and
over. (p.5)

It is difficult to see how this survey contributes to the commendable aims of the Mental Health Strategy
as listed in the report, or helps remedy the problem identified in the conclusion of the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission (1993) that people with a mental illness are among the most
vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community; they may experience stigma and discrimination in


many aspects of their lives, which is mentioned in the report at the beginning of the summary of

The World Health Organization, the international health arm of the United Nations was contracted by
the Commonwealth Government of Australia to develop a computerised version of the Composite
International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) for the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing of
Adults, which, presumably, the taxpayers of Australia paid for. This is of concern given the contents of
the 1995 WHO handbook The Management of Mental Disorders: Volume 2, Handbook for the
Schizophrenic Disorders, produced by the Training and Reference Centre for CIDI. Distributed by
the Belgian drug company Janssen-Cilag, which coincidentally markets Haldol injections for the
treatment of schizophrenia, the manual contains a potentially disastrous brief psychiatric rating scale
(BPRS) which it claims is a widely used and easy to administer rating scale appropriate for symptom
monitoring among individuals with schizophrenia. (p.21)

Administering the BPRS involves asking the patient a series of questions and rating the presence of 24
symptom constructs from 1 (not present) to 7 (extremely severe). No caution is suggested regarding
putting thoughts into peoples head or the influence of the questions on the diagnoser or the diagnosed.
The 24 symptom constructs are: somatic concern, anxiety, depression, suicidality, guilt, hostility,
elated mood, grandiosity, suspiciousness, hallucinations, unusual thought content, bizarre behavior,
self-neglect, disorientation, conceptual disorganization, blunted affect, emotional withdrawal, motor
retardation, tension, uncooperativeness, excitement, distractibility, motor hyperactivity, mannerisms
and posturing.

The BPRS suggests that rating 2 self neglect if hygeine/appearance is slightly below usual
community standards giving the examples of shirt out of pants, buttons unbuttoned, shoe laces
untied, but no social consequences. It instructs that the following questions should be asked:


How has your grooming been lately? How often do you change your clothes? How often do
you take showers? Has anyone (parents/staff) complained about your grooming or dress? Do
you eat regular meals?

Moderate (rating 4) self-neglect is to be recorded if the health worker suspects irregular eating and
drinking with minimal medical concerns and consequences. (p.14)

Depression in schizophrenics can, according to the BPRS, be uncovered by the following questions:
How has your mood been recently? Have you felt depressed (sad, down,
unhappy, as if you didnt care)?
Are you able to switch your attention to more pleasant topics when you
want to?
Do you find that you have lost interest in or get less pleasure from
things you used to enjoy, like family, friends, hobbies, watching TV,

Suicidality can be elicited by:


Have you felt that life wasnt worth living? Have you thought about
harming yourself or killing yourself? Have you felt tired of living or as
though you would be better off dead? Have you ever felt like ending it

Guilt is rated after asking these questions:

Is there anything you feel guilty about? Have you been thinking about
past problems?
Do you tend to blame yourself for things that have happened?
Have you done anything youre still ashamed of?

It is easy see the dangers of leading questions such as those given in the BPRS to detect
Do you ever feel uncomfortable in public? Does it seem as though
others are watching you? Are you concerned about anyones intentions
toward you? Is anyone going out of their way to give you a hard time, or


trying to hurt you? Do you feel in any danger?

Blunted affect is described in the BPRS as restricted range in emotional expressiveness of face,
voice, and gestures ranging to marked indifference or flatness even when discussing distressing
topics. With a grotesquely comic lack of insight into normal reactions to silly questions the manual
Use the following probes at end of interview to assess emotional responsivity:
Have you heard any good jokes lately? Would you like to hear a joke?

The BPRS demonstrates that humanity cannot be programmed into people. Genuine interest and
empathy combined with a desire to help and preparedness to listen are far more likely to relieve mental
distress that a series of questions designed to elicit evidence of mental disorder. Furthermore, giving
health workers a list of questions such as these demonstrates a fundamental lack of faith in the workers
to think for themselves in a compassionate and humane way. It could be argued that mental illness, or
illhealth, is not necessarily abnormal in the sense that in some ways the majority may be unwell. If
thinking for oneself is regarded as healthy and submissive acceptance of doctrine unhealthy, it may be
that only a small proportion of the population is truly mentally healthy. If generosity is to be regarded
as healthy and greed unhealthy, honesty healthy and dishonesty unhealthy, or friendliness healthy and
aggression unhealthy, massive changes will need to be made to the terminology and concepts of the
psychological, psychiatric and medical professions, including a fundamental revision of concepts
regarding normality and abnormality, health and illness, disorder and order.

The concept of disorder is also fraught with danger, especially if taken literally, as it often is with
schizophrenia and mania. A commonly mentioned sign of schizophrenia is disorganization:


disorganized thoughts, disorganized speech and disorganized behaviour. This is blamed for the
downward social drift which is said to accompany the chronic illness, along with the negative
symptoms. How organized should ones thoughts be? Should they always follow each other linearly in
a logical way? If so, just about everyone has disorganized thoughts at times. In fact people spend much
time sorting out confusing and contradictory information, while experiencing an inner world of thought
which, although logical at times, is frequently not so. Our stream of thought is constantly interrupted
and changed by new information coming into our brain from our sense organs. If this is chaotic, our
thought processes also become chaotic. This need not be unpleasant nor is it necessarily unhealthy:
people enjoy many chaotic experiences which can be exciting, even thrilling. The point is that
disorder in thinking often reflects disorder in the surrounding environment.

The term disorder is more often used as a synonym for illness, disease or abnormality, rather
than literal disorder in the sense of disorganization. The suffix disorder follows many of the newly
named and renamed labels contained within the American Psychiatric Associations DSM IV, including
Conduct Disorder, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, ObsessiveCompulsive Disorder, Bipolar Affective Disorder, etc. The textbook itself is a manual of disorders,
with no cause or treatment suggested for them. It says, in other words, for what behaviours the labels
should be applied but not what can be done about it.

How then can psychiatric terms and psychological terms be used to help people instead of causing
chronic states of mental illhealth? How can delusions be most accurately defined? How can
psychosis be accurately defined? How can such terms be used to aid in recovery and cure? How can
they be applied objectively but compassionately? How can they be used in a way consistent with the
Hippocratic Oath, which I, like most modern doctors of medicine, was never asked to swear, but
assume an obligation to? How can the different meanings given to the same term, changing definitions
with time, and public and professional misconceptions about psychiatric terminology be reconciled? In
an effort to sort out the confusion I have attempted to be both literal and holistic, and to abide by the
Hippocratic Oath and the premise of first doing no harm. By holistic I mean looking at the whole:


the whole person and the whole meaning of words. I have tried to look at the broader meaning and the
deeper inferences within the words used by the medical and psychological professions, as well as some
of the equivalent or derivative terms used colloquially and by the scientific and non-scientific press. In
the ensuing discussion the psychiatric illness termed schizophrenia will be particularly focused on as
the most frequently diagnosed psychotic or delusional illness.



It is historically evident that delusions can be shared, and that people have, over the years, been
persecuted for refusing to accept shared delusions. For hundreds of years most people, at least in
Europe, believed the Earth to be flat. We now know this to be a shared delusion. If, in the year
1400AD, a lone voice proclaimed that the Earth was spherical, and reality was defined by majority
beliefs or expert opinion the dissident thinker who believed the Earth to be spherical would have
been regarded as deluded. During the period that the Christian Church maintained the dogma that the
Earth is flat, people were viewed as such and consequently persecuted for their heretical views. It is
common knowledge that Renaissance scientists who agreed with Copernicus that the Earth rotated
around the sun (contrary to the doctrines of the Church) were systematically persecuted for their
(correct) beliefs in the Inquisition. During the 1500s and 1600s many thousands of people were killed
for having beliefs unacceptable to the Catholic Church, this being done in a most unchristian way: by
burning people alive, drowning them and executing them after various forms of torture (often in an
effort to extract a confession). The men, women and children who were killed in the name of the
Christian religion and God were accused of being heretics, witches, sorcerers, blasphemers, and agents
of Satan.

The Spanish Inquisition began in 1478 when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain obtained the
consent of Pope Sixtus IV to appoint inquisitors for their growing empire. These were priests who
acted as judges with the authority to order the most cruel tortures and executions, ostensibly to test
Christian faith. During the first twenty years of the Inquisition thousands of men and women were
burned alive at the stake. These people were said to have been relaxed, while others were
reconciled by such penance as whipping themselves publicly and the payment of heavy fines after
confessing their errors (Burne, 1991, p.444). Were the people who were punished and killed in this
way deluded, or were the inquisitors deluded? Which were more evil: the torturers or the tortured?


Although the Spanish Inquisition was notable for its cruelty, intolerance and long duration, the
persecution of people with dissident views has a far longer and wider history than that of the Catholic
Churchs efforts to suppress criticism of its doctrines and activities, and neither did it end with the
formal cessation of the Inquisition. Such persecution has been implemented by religious as well as
political organizations and institutions, and it has also occurred within corporations, educational
institutions, cultures and families. This persecution of people with dissident views may be informal
(as in intolerant families) or highly formalized (and organized) as in the diagnosis of sluggish
schizophrenia in the Soviet Union during the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

The Australian psychiatrist Sidney Bloch revealed, in his March 1996 Beattie Smith lecture at the
University of Melbourne, the misuse of psychiatric labels by Communist Russia to persecute political
dissidents. The lecture was published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry in 1997
and tells of the celebrated career of Professor Andrei Snezhnevsky who developed the theoretical
framework by which critics of the State could be systematically persecuted:
A particular form of the disease, sluggish schizophrenia, accounted for the much wider limits
placed on the use of the concept, named so because its rate of progression was so slow.
Typically, patients given this label were purportedly able to function almost normally. Their
symptoms might resemble those of a neurosis or take on a paranoid quality including grandiose
ideas of reforming society; the latter feature was to prove a handy means for the State to enlist
psychiatry to pursue its political purposes. (p.174)

Professor Bloch gave details of how Professor Snezhnevsky altered the Russian medical professions
beliefs about schizophrenia to suit the Soviet Governments political agenda. These have much
relevance today, since similar alterations also occurred outside the Soviet Union:
In essence, he devised concepts which profoundly shifted the way the condition was used
clinically. This was no mere academic exercise. Several crucial repercussions eventuated: (i)


schizophrenia was always genetically determined; (ii) although its features might only manifest
intermittently, the biological foundation of the illness always remained; (iii) recovery was not
possible; (iv) the main question was the speed with which the patient would deteriorate; and (v)
rather sinisterly, because the illness might present with mild symptoms and only progress later,
schizophrenia was much more common than previously thought. (p.174)

Professor Bloch also drew attention to the involvement of the psychiatry fraternity in the German Nazi
genocide of the 1930s and 40s during the rule of Adolf Hitler. He told of the compulsory sterilization
of those diagnosed with schizophrenia and manic-depression, of the racial hygeine policy that
included the euthanasia of the mentally ill and intellectually retarded, and of the final solution: the
mass-murder of valueless life, including Gypsies, Jews and homosexuals. He reminded the audience
that prominent and highly regarded academic psychiatrists were involved the development and
implementation of the eugenic mass-extermination popularly and historically known as the
Holocaust. These included Professor Alfred Hoche who regarded the mentally ill as absolutely
worthless human beings for whom he advocated urgent death, and Professors Ernest Rudin and
Werner Heyde, who played prominent roles in the sterilization campaigns and mass-exterminations
which followed. Professor Kurt Schneider of Heidelberg, who is still venerated as the definer of the
first rank symptoms of schizophrenia was a Nazi Party stalwart who contributed energetically to the
euthanasia program, according to Professor Bloch.

Interestingly, given the two examples Professor Bloch (who is Jewish) gives of psychiatric abuses (the
Soviet Union and Nazi Germany), he fails to mention that the Nazis also euthanased communists, or
that eugenic sterilization laws advocating, for example, the castration of boys, were introduced and
implemented in several states of the USA as early as the turn of the twentieth century. This failure to
mention the political as well as the racial aspects of Nazi eugenic programs obscures the ideological,
ontological and historical connections between the Russian and German examples. It also makes it
more difficult to see the relevance of these terrible events to modern psychiatry in the free world,
including the USA, Canada, Europe, New Zealand and Australia. The society in which Professor Bloch


has worked for many years as a senior psychiatrist prides itself as being part of the free world and the
governments of Australia declare this to be a democratic as well as a free and peaceful nation. Thus,
when Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry, of which Professor Bloch is co-editor, declares that
delusional explanations for novel subjective experiences in which the persons mind or body seems to
be influenced by external forces are characteristic of (true) schizophrenia, a question that might
reasonably be asked is: has the concept of schizophrenia been politically doctored in the capitalist
world as it was in the communist world and by the Nazi regimes?

The belief that ones mind is controlled by external forces is regarded by modern American and
Australian psychiatry as being abnormal and indicative of mental serious illness described as both
psychotic and delusional. The American Psychiatry Associations DSMIV states:
Delusions that express a loss of control over mind or body (i.e., those included among
Schneiders list of first-rank symptoms) are generally considered to be bizarre; these include
a persons belief that his or her thoughts have been taken away by some outside force (thought
withdrawal), that alien thoughts have been put into his or her mind (thought insertion), or
that his or her body or actions are being acted on or manipulated by outside force (delusions
of control). If the delusions are judged to be bizarre, only this single symptom is needed to
satisfy Criterion A for Schizophrenia. (p.275)

Kurt Schneider (1887-1967), previously mentioned as a German psychiatrist who participated in the
forced sterilization and mass-murder of those, including the mentally ill, regarded by the Nazis as
degenerate, described, in 1959, eleven symptoms each of which he regarded as pathognomonic
(exclusively and specifically diagnostic) of schizophrenia. These were, as described in E. Fuller
Torreys Surviving Schizophrenia:
1. Auditory hallucinations in which the voices speak ones thoughts aloud


2. Auditory hallucinations with two voices arguing

3. Auditory hallucinations with the voices commenting on ones actions
4. Hallucinations of touch when the bodily sensation is imposed by some external agency
5. Withdrawal of thoughts from ones mind
6. Insertion of thoughts into ones mind by others
7. Believing ones thoughts are being broadcast to others, as by radio or television
8. Insertion by others of feelings into ones mind
9. Insertion by others of irresistible impulses into ones mind
10. Feeling that ones actions are under the control of others, like an automaton
11. Delusions of perception, as when one is certain that a normal remark has a secret meaning for

These symptoms, though now not regarded as pathognomonic (distinctive and conclusive
evidence) of schizophrenia, remain prominent among the reasons young people are diagnosed as
schizophrenic or manic in Australia, Europe and America today. It seems remarkable that a man who is
recognised as a proponent of mass-murder could continue to be venerated and respected for his views
on what constitutes schizophrenia. It is also of note that most texts that mention Schneiders first rank
symptoms do not mention his earlier involvement in the Nazi extermination program.


The Canadian medical historian Edward Shorter, in A History of Psychiatry describes Schneider as
one of the great modern investigators of schizophrenia, but fails to mention what, exactly, he
discovered. Michael Stone, in Healing the Mind gives the following account of the Heidelberg
professors work:
Another German, Kurt Schneider (1887-1967), wrote an important treatise on psychopathic
personalities (1923), by which he meant abnormal, not antisocial variants. His characterology
was atheoretic that is, it was not tied to any assumptions about etiology unlike
Kraepelins temperaments, which he saw as attenuated forms of manic-depression. Although
Schneider used a different set of terms, there are close correspondences between his typology
and the personality disorder labels in current use. Thus Schneiders insecure type, with its
two subtypes of sensitive and anankastic, correspond to our dependent and obsessive;
his fanatic is like our paranoid; his attention-seeking like our hysteric. Persons we now
distinguish as psychopathic/antisocial were affectionless in Schneiders terminology.
Later (1959), Schneider would enumerate some eleven symptoms he felt were pathognomonic
of schizophrenia. His first-rank symptoms included thought aloud, thought insertion,
thought broadcast, and hallucinations where the patient hears voices describing his activity
as it takes place. (p.148)

E. Fuller Torrey does not mention Kurt Schneiders Nazi past in Surviving Schizophrenia, describing
him as a German psychiatrist before listing his first rank symptoms. Torrey, an American
psychiatrist, admits some discordance between the USA and Europe regarding the application of
schizophrenia label, and refers to the Soviet abuses although he does not detail them:
These symptoms [Schneiders list] are commonly used in European countries as grounds for
the diagnosis of schizophrenia, although less so in the United States. Studies have shown that at
least three-quarters of schizophrenic patients have one or more of these symptoms. However,
they cannot be considered as definitive for the disease because they are also found in at least
one-quarter of patients with manic-depressive illness.


Until recently, the term schizophrenia was used much more loosely and broadly in
the United States than in most European countries. In fact the only other country in the
world where schizophrenia was diagnosed just as loosely was in the Soviet Union,
where it has been abused as a label to discredit and stigmatize opponents of the
government. (p.46)

Dr Torrey, who worked as a Special Assistant to the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health
from 1976 to 1984, claims that American psychiatry took a major step forward in 1980 when it
adopted a revised system of diagnosis and nomenclature and issued it in the third edition of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. He lists the (then) new criteria (which can be
compared with the criteria from the DSM IV, previously described):
1. Symptoms of illness have been present for at least six months
2. There has been some deterioration of functioning from previous levels in such areas as work
skills, social relations, and self-care
3. The disease began before age 45
4. The disease symptoms do not suggest organic mental disorders or mental retardation
5. The disease symptoms do not suggest manic-depressive illness
6. At least of one of the following symptoms is present:
a. Bizarre delusions where the content is patently absurd and has no possible basis in fact,
such as delusions of being controlled, thought insertion, thought withdrawal, and
thought broadcasting


b. Delusions of a grandiose, religious, nihilistic, or somatic nature if ideas of persecution

or jealousy are absent
c. Delusions of persecution or jealous content if accompanied by hallucinations of any
d. Auditory hallucinations in which a voice comments on the persons behavior or
thoughts or two or more voices converse with each other
e. Auditory hallucinations heard on several occasions with more than one or two words
and having no apparent relation to depression and elation
f. Marked loosening of associations, markedly illogical thinking, incoherence, or marked
poverty of speech if associated with either blunted or inappropriate affect, delusions,
hallucinations, catatonia, or grossly disorganized behavior

The wording of criterion 6(a) is important. The inference is than any belief in thought control,
insertion, withdrawal or broadcasting is delusional, patently absurd and bizarre (not that only
patently absurd or bizarre beliefs about these things should be regarded as delusional). This is an
important semantic difference, and the literal application of criterion 6(a) designates much of the
population as schizophrenic and presents extraordinary opportunities for thought control of the
public. This becomes evident when delusions of being controlled, thought insertion, thought
withdrawal and thought broadcasting are examined more closely.

Delusions of control and other delusions are inferred primarily from what a patient says, which, it is
presumed, represents what the person believes. This is not necessarily a valid assumption, since
patients, by virtue of the power imbalance in the doctor-patient (or nurse-patient) relationship, may say


what they think is expected of them or least likely to cause offence. People also express their beliefs
about control differently, depending on their actual beliefs, but also on their vocabulary, their turn of
phrase, and the questions they are asked. It is because of the latter that it is important to not ask leading
questions if one wishes to understand what a person really thinks. It is common knowledge that one can
put words in someones mouth, and one can give someone ideas. One must question, then, the
teaching that Australian medical students receive in Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry on how to
elicit delusions:
In eliciting delusions, it is useful to first ask a question which should elicit a positive response
from anyone, and then to probe further for abnormal thought content. For instance: Do you
ever feel self-conscious or shy in a new place or with strangers? The answer should be yes if
the question was understood. Then the patient can be asked whether they worry if people laugh
behind their back, and so on, progressing to ask about organised persecution. (p.74)

An effective way of inducing rather than revealing paranoia. This passage, from a chapter titled the
psychiatric interview and evaluation of the mental state was authored by Melbourne psychiatrist
Nicholas Keks, Professor of Hospital and Community Psychiatry at the Alfred Hospital and Monash
University, who was earlier quoted as admitting that dopamine-blockers can aggravate the negative
symptoms of schizophrenia (but not in this textbook).



The Alfred Hospital is in the Inner East of Melbourne and injects many members of the public, mainly
young people, with dopamine-blockers, often against their will. The commonest labels given to the
hospitals involuntary patients are schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, hypomania and
mania. Some are said to have personality disorders and many are regarded as drug addicts. Many
have been given several different psychiatric labels by different psychiatrists at different times. Some
of the people in the psychiatric wards of the Alfred Hospital have been diagnosed as being depressed;
most of these are there voluntarily. This is not the case for most of those diagnosed with
schizophrenia, hypomania or mania. These people are said to be notorious for lack of insight,
lack of compliance and tendency to abscond: in other words, they refute the diagnosis, refuse the
drugs and try to escape.

Professor Keks, who is also director of psychopharmacology at the Mental Health Research Institute
(MHRI) in Parkville, Melbourne, was one of the authors of a revealing article published in the
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry in 1998 titled Confirmation of the diagnosis of
schizophrenia after death using DSM-IV: a Victorian experience. Co-authored by Susan Roberts and
Christine Hill (psychologists), Professor David Copalov (Director of the MHRI), and Ken Opeskin of
the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, the paper described their method as follows:
Between 1990 and 1994, samples of brain tissue from subjects with a recorded diagnosis of
schizophrenia were collected. The diagnoses within the police records were based on
information received from medical records, clinicians and relatives. In this study, the case
histories from 83 subjects (56 males, 27 females) were reviewed. The males were aged between
18 and 83 years (mean age = 42.9 years), while females were aged between 20 and 81 years
(mean = 47.4). Forty-seven (56.6%) of the 83 subjects had committed suicide (males, 55.3%;
females, 51.8%). The mean age of suicide for males was 31.7 years compared to 34.0 years for


females, whereas the mean age for the non-suicide group was 56.7 years for males and 61.9
years for females.
The case histories of all 83 individuals were independently reviewed by a psychologist (CH)
and a psychiatrist (NK). In cases where the two raters did not reach a consensus diagnosis,
discussion occurred and a final diagnosis was agreed upon. To facilitate the standardised
extraction of the relevant clinical and demographic information from the histories, a systematic
assessment process based on a semi-structured chart review, the Diagnostic Evaluation After
Death (DEAD), was used. The DEAD [13] could not be used in its entirety because it only
permits the generalisation of diagnoses according to Feighner [14], DSM-III [15] and RDC
[16] criteria. Thus, additional information was collected to allow the classification of cases
according to DSM IV, as had been done previously for DSM-III-R and ICD-10 criteria. (p.75)

The methodology of this study reveals much about the mental illness research industry, a multi-billion
dollar global enterprise whose stated objective is to discover the cause and cure of mental illness. This
industry, centred in major cities around the world, is remarkably complex, and increasingly lucrative. It
receives funding though government bodies, private organizations and public donations. In Australia
much of the direct funding for the mental illness research industry from the government in allocated by
the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). This study acknowledges the financial
support of the NHMRC Brain Network for Research into Mental Disorders.

Confirmation of the diagnosis of schizophrenia after death using the DSM-IV: a Victorian experience
presents a dehumanized statistical analysis of retrospective re-classification of 83 people who had a
provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia at autopsy. Using the American Psychiatric Associations
DSM IV, the authors re-examined the dead patients case records (hospital charts and maybe outpatient
clinic records) and came to a retrospective diagnosis based on the (then) new DSM criteria. The
retrospective label was reached by consensus between Professor Keks and Christine Hill, (if they failed
to agree when examining the charts independently) and compared with previously obtained diagnoses


using DSM-III-R and ICD-10 criteria. They found that, according to the DSM IV criteria, 30.1% of the
presumed schizophrenics did not have schizophrenia, compared to 36.1% using DSM III-R (the
previous edition of the manual, published in 1987) and 51.8% using the ICD-10 (the World Health
Organizations International Classification of Disease). They found excellent concordance between
the DSM IV and DSM III-R, but only fair agreement between DSM IV and ICD 10. As they point out
in the discussion, it is not surprising that they reached similar diagnoses when using subsequent
editions of the same manual. They explained the closer concordance between the diagnoses in the
Australians police reports and American Psychiatric Associations classification than with the
W.H.O.s thus:
There are several possible explanations for the lower rate of misclassification found using
DSM-IV criteria compared to ICD-10 criteria. In cases where the antemortem diagnosis in
police reports was based on the use of standardized criteria, the difference could be due to the
more prevalent use of DSM-IV or DSM-III-R criteria within Victorian psychiatric hospitals.
For cases where the antemortem diagnosis was derived using DSM-IV or DSM-III-R criteria,
one would reasonably expect a higher rate of mismatch when applying ICD-10 criteria to those
cases post mortem. Unfortunately, we were unable to determine how many of the provisional
diagnoses in the police reports reflected formal diagnoses using established criteria. An
alternative explanation may be found in an examination of the diagnostic breakdown of
reclassified cases. Six (24.0%) of the 25 cases with an antemortem diagnosis of schizophrenia
were reassigned a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder compared to the 20 (46.5%)
cases when ICD-10 criteria were applied. While the ICD-10 definition of schizoaffective
disorder requires the simultaneous presence and approximate balance of psychotic and
affective symptoms, DSM-IV criteria specifies a distinct psychotic episode without prominent
affective symptoms. At this point, we do not have sufficient information to determine which of
these explanations is more likely reflected in the data. (p.75)

There are other explanations, which become evident when the two possibilities raised by the authors
are considered. This study compared the diagnosis presumed at autopsy (according to Victorian State
police records) with retrospective diagnosis from a systematic assessment process based on a semi-


structured chart review. This, termed DEAD (Diagnostic Evaluation After Death), involved the
standardised extraction of the relevant clinical and demographic information from the histories. The
diagnoses reached when using the DSM IV, DSM-III-R and ICD-10 were compared for concordance
with the diagnosis as stated in the police records (ante-mortem). The authors speculated as to
whether the closer concordance of the ante-mortem diagnoses with the DSM criteria than with the ICD
criteria was due to larger influence of the DSM than the ICD classification systems in Victorian
psychiatric hospitals, police diagnoses not reflecting formal diagnoses using established criteria, or
differences between the DSM and ICD classifications regarding the diagnosis of schizophrenia
versus schizoaffective disorder.

In discussing this lack of concordance the term misclassification is used, but not the legally relevant
misdiagnosis. The people who were re-classified according to their official medical records are not
able to challenge their new label since they are now dead. Tragically, these people, most of whom
committed suicide sometime after diagnosis and treatment, and must therefore be recognised as failures
of the mental health system, are not allowed to rest in peace, nor are serious efforts made, through
critically examining the treatment they were given, to find out why they died and how such deaths can
be prevented. It is easy to see what a semistructured chart review and extraction of the relevant
clinical and demographic information from the histories means: scanning the often illegible doctors
notes for words like paranoia, ideas of reference, delusions, expansive mood, auditory
hallucinations etc.

It is well known that the American Psychiatric Associations DSM classification is used as the
definitive labelling guide in Australian psychiatry, not just in Victoria but in other States as well. In
universities and medical schools the DSM is mentioned more frequently than the ICD, as in the
hospitals, clinics and both psychiatric and psychological literature. Often the DSM is quoted as an
absolute authority regarding the accuracy of classification although it is also taught in Australian
psychiatry that the DSM should not be used as a cook-book. By this it is usually meant that
diagnoses which do not fulfil DSM criteria are still to be regarded as valid. In fact, the DSM and ICD


classifications are very similar and based on the same paradigm, and thus congruence in diagnosis
using the different systems does not prove the validity of labels like schizophrenia, especially when
applied retrospectively on the basis of selected (extraction of relevant) information.

The fact that ante-mortem diagnoses differed from post-mortem diagnoses, and that these
differences were regarded as acceptable says much about how psychiatry differs from other medical
disciplines. If post-mortem examination found that, say, 30 percent of people diagnosed as having lung
cancer actually had cancer of the bowel (or diabetes) there would be justified accusations of medical
negligence against the institutions involved. A question worth asking, which could best be answered by
the authors and the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, is: if the provisional diagnoses in the
police records were not based on formal diagnoses using established criteria, what were they based on,
and who made them? It would also be of interest to know how many of the 47 people who committed
suicide did so by the self-ingestion of prescribed drugs or drugs which they were initiated into within
the psychiatric or prisons systems. Further light would be shed on the subject by knowing how many of
the people who died were objecting to their diagnosis and treatment, how much time they had spent in
hospital, what drugs were being prescribed to them at the time of death (and by whom), how soon after
diagnosis they died and what their reaction was to diagnosis and treatment. This is surely the obligation
of the medical profession, coroner and the hospitals at which they were treated, and of the police,
before their deaths are declared to be suicide. Mental health researchers also have much to learn
through critically examining past mistakes and failures.

Further information of value in preventing such deaths could be obtained by knowing the reaction of
the dead peoples families to their diagnosis and their subsequent reaction to their death. For these
families, actively seeking the writings, poetry, drawings and other person expressions of the dead
people would help those who did not understand these mostly young people in life, to at least
understand what they were trying to say.


The authors of this short paper do not mention what was done with the brain tissue that was removed at
autopsy, apart from the fact that samples of brain tissue from subjects with a recorded diagnosis of
schizophrenia were collected. The discussion, which follows the results in the usual style of such
papers mentions brain tissue again, suggesting a growing industry in human brain specimens:
The findings of this study have immediate and important practical implications for researchers
involved in studies of schizophrenia using human brain tissue. It is clear that newly developed
diagnostic criteria can be applied to existing data provided sufficient information has been
extracted from case histories. With the increasing number of postmortem studies, and
international recognition of the need to establish central tissue banks, it will be imperative to be
able to upgrade diagnoses as the new criteria are developed. To ensure this, rigorous and
standardised extraction of data from case histories must become an integral component of all
postmortem studies of schizophrenia. (p.75)

Dehumanization is the great enemy of humanity, and of genuinely healing psychiatry (and medicine). It
is easy to forget that these cases were living human beings with ideas, aspirations, loves and fears,
families and friends. Becoming statistics which can be manipulated by those who failed to heal them of
their distress (and significantly contributed to it) is bad enough, but on a personal level, as well as a
historical one the activities described as a research study do a terrible disservice to the dead.
Considering that many psychiatric patients actively fight against the system that would label them and
treat them against their will it is a cruel injustice that this same system should be allowed to pass
judgement after they die (while ignoring its own culpability). One wonders also about how many (if
any) of the schizophrenics whose brain tissue has been collected would want to have their diagnosis
upgraded, rather than the genuine causes of their death understood.

The issue of social control is a fundamental one in psychiatry, which is inadequately discussed by the
medical profession. The opinions of dissident psychiatrists such as Peter Breggin and Thomas Szasz
are routinely denigrated and dismissed by the hospital and university based psychiatrists who supervise


the forced treatment of the public in various countries. These universities and hospitals are mainly in
large cities, and a destructive competition for status occurs between hospitals and universities for
status, although collaboration occurs between cities, hospitals and universities in the development and
implementation of public health programs, including those relating to mental health and the
treatment of the mentally ill. It is consequently an undemocratic and elitist system that decides what
is normal and acceptable behaviour of the public, and then implements treatment of those who do not
come up to standard. This phenomenon occurs around the world, however the detailed socio-political
systems vary between nations. In Australia, hospital-based treatment of the public occurs in public
hospitals and private psychiatric hospitals. No details of the treatment given in these hospitals is
provided to the public, and people who have been forcibly treated are able to see what has been written
about them only by appealing through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Often the request is
refused because the information is judged by the treating psychiatrist or hospital to be potentially
damaging to the patient. It takes little cynicism to see how this clause could be misused.

The treatment of the public in Victoria, where the confirmation of the diagnosis of schizophrenia after
death study was performed, is implemented by public hospital-based teams called CAT teams. CAT
stands for Crisis Assessment and Treatment and the teams are under the authority of psychiatrists.
Professor Nicholas Keks is currently in charge of the CAT team based at the Alfred Hospital, which is
allied with Monash University in South Eastern Melbourne. Monash University and the University of
Melbourne, north of the Yarra River, are the only universities with medical schools in the State of
Victoria. Aspiring doctors from rural areas of Victoria are obliged under the present system to come to
the States capital city, Melbourne, to acquire a medical degree. In the city they learn how to diagnose
mental illness according to criteria developed by men in European and American cities many decades
ago. The CAT teams implement this diagnosis and treatment at the frontline: team members go in cars,
usually in pairs, and visit people in the community. Most of these people do not welcome the visit,
partly because of the obsession of CAT teams with ensuring compliance, and partly because the
teams have the power to recommend their incarceration and arrange it, with police assistance, if
necessary. They consider themselves legally authorised to break into peoples houses with local police
and take them away merely for the suspicion of non-compliance. Ironically, most CAT team
members, most of whom are psychiatric nurses, social workers or clinical psychologists genuinely


believe that their clients who hide behind closed shutters are paranoid, rather than hiding from their
unwelcome attentions.

Compliance with psychiatric treatment is ensured in Australia through Community Treatment Orders
(CTOs), which can only be legally made by qualified psychiatrists. These make people involuntary
patients of the State psychiatric system (centred in the public hospitals, from which CAT teams are
sent into the community). It is only public hospital-based psychiatrists who are allowed to place people
on CTOs, which can be removed on order of the Mental Health Review Board, if this regulatory
Board is convinced that legal criteria for forced treatment are not satisfied. It rarely is. Represented by
teams of three (a lawyer, psychiatrist and community member), the Board holds hearings in the
same hospitals and clinics where people are being incarcerated and drugged, amounting to an
inquisition, not of the treating psychiatrists, but of the clients. Over the past few years in Victoria,
since the introduction of this system, fewer than 5 percent of appeals for release from forced treatment
(and there are several thousand every year) have been successful. One reason for this is the general
insistence of the Board that refusal to accept a psychiatric label is itself evidence of mental illness
regarded as lack of insight.



According to any modern psychiatric text, thought insertion, thought broadcasting and thought
withdrawal are typical of schizophrenia: these being examples of what is termed formal thought
disorder (FTD). At the same time a silent majority of the world's population believe in telepathy or socalled Extra-sensory perception or ESP.

Major universities if Britain, Europe, Russia and the USA have seriously studied the possibility of
distant transfer of mental images and perceptions through carefully controlled scientific tests. Many of
the researchers have changed from scepticism to grudging acceptance that some degree of telepathy
does occur at times, though undoubtedly people ascribe coincidence to telepathy others.

Two key results emerge from this fact. Firstly, thought insertion and broadcasting are in fact
descriptions of belief in telepathy and these diagnostic criteria create a paradigm in which any genuine
telepathic experience will be pathologised and drugged. In fact the expression of belief in telepathy
without claims to have experienced it as a transmitter or receiver can be pathologised in this way.

The second result is that telepathic connection between identical twins, of which anecdotal reports are
common, will automatically be ascribed to genes rather than their real cause. Twin studies are the main
basis on which the claim that schizophrenia is genetically caused is made. In these studies identical
twins show far greater concordance in diagnosis of schizophrenia than non-identical twins and other
siblings. This is a powerful argument, in the absence of telepathy, that supports the common view that
schizophrenia is a genuine mental illness that is partly inherited. However, this view fails to consider
the deeper issue of the inheritance of traits which are systematically, but inappropriately pathologised.


If, for example, ability to receive telepathic messages from other humans (or from animals, for that
matter) are inherited to any degree, with the pathologisation of thought insertion and belief in thought
broadcasting, such 'schizophrenics' will predicably show family clustering. A similar phenomenon
would occur if tendency to auditory hallucinations are partly inherited, as appears, for example, to be
the case with musical ability.

Many people have experienced advertising slogans they have heard on the television popping into their
mind days, weeks or months later. Could this be viewed as thought insertion? Its a matter of

From the time of the Inquisition, people, who heard voices in their head, especially if they spoke to
them have been said to be mad or demonically possessed.

What about the systematic denigration and punishment of the opinions, beliefs and views which have
been diagnosed as delusional? Is this genuine persecution, or are all beliefs in persecution
delusional? What of the common advice given for how to deal with uncomfortable truths: forget it?
Could this not be regarded as thought withdrawal? Any person who believes in telepathy or prayer
believes also in thought broadcasting although they may believe in selective receptiveness (e.g., by
God, Jesus or some other deity).

The belief in mass population-control by any force, governmental or otherwise, can be interpreted as
delusions of control. Thus talk of mind control experiments by the CIA and US military, such as the
notorious MK experiments, makes many medical doctors (and other health-care workers) suspect
paranoia, schizophrenia or delusional disorder, as does talk of the New World Order, or corporate


conspiracies. The equation of the word conspiracy with paranoia is a feature of modern
psychiatry, and to a lesser degree, society, which has resulted in people of all ages in modern Australia,
America and Europe fearing even the discussion of conspiracies other than those revealed in the
mainstream media. The mass-media too avoids the presentation or discussion of conspiracies,
especially scientific and corporate conspiracies, despite the fact that they are of great public importance
and interest.

The fact that people are afraid to talk about conspiracies and the media to report them can be
guaranteed to facilitate their proliferation. Of course, people can be mistaken about conspiracies: they
can be deluded and they can be paranoid, imagining conspiracies to exist where they do not. They can
also be deluded about thought insertion and thought broadcasting. Take, for example a person who
believes that alien thoughts are radiated into their brain from, say, Pine Gap, the American military
base in Central Australia.

Such a person would undoubtedly be diagnosed as psychotic, as would a person who believed ideas
were radiated into their brain from Alpha Centauri, the Eiffel Tower or anywhere else. Most people
would accept that these beliefs are delusional, but what about the belief that thoughts are radiated into
ones brain from the local television or radio station, or by radio or television programmers?

In 1975, in the chapter on Disorders of the mind, the fourth edition of Professor John Waltons
neurology textbook Essentials of Neurology, advises physicians to suspect the delusions of
schizophrenia if a patient believes that he is being influenced by electricity or radio waves (p.139).
The 1995 WHO publication The Management of Mental Disorders, Volume 2: Handbook for the
Schizophrenic Disorders states that delusions can be elicited by asking, Is anything like electricity, Xrays, or radio waves affecting you? The rating of severe delusion, according to this handbook,
should be made on the basis of much preoccupation OR many areas of functioning [being] disrupted


by delusional thinking. One might think that to justify psychiatric treatment this should read AND,
but it does not. Severe delusions can be diagnosed, according to the W.H.O., because of
preoccupation even if functioning is not disrupted.

What then, of a person who gives up a 9 to 5 office job and decides to devote their time to studying the
politics of social control, drawing attention to the dangers of nuclear radiation, and stopping the
construction of a uranium mine? He would be regarded as deluded and psychotic because of his
concern about radiation and showing evidence of social and occupational dysfunction because of his
decision to quit his job. A thousand other similar examples can be given as to why people can be
misdiagnosed as mentally ill because they change their priorities, their attitude to authority and
convention or their lifestyle, their politics or religion.

The hypothetical revolutionary office worker described above would not necessarily be diagnosed as
schizophrenic: this would depend on how he behaved and how long he maintained his dissident
behaviour. Whether or not he would be diagnosed at all would depend on the reaction of his family, his
employer and society itself. It would depend on how he explained his change in ideas and his change in
behaviour. Supposing he did, however, due to the concern of his family or employer, come to be
considered for psychiatric diagnosis (and treatment). Regardless of whether or not he felt ill he would
likely be regarded as psychotic and deluded because of his current beliefs and behaviour, including his
preoccupation with control/radiation and for quitting his job without having another. If his beliefs
about control or radiation were regarded as bizarre, absurd, odd, unusual or strange, the
likely diagnosis would be schizophrenia or perhaps mania. If the delusions were considered
non-bizarre he would be eligible for a label of delusional disorder. In terms of treatment, however,
there would be little difference: tablets, and if he refuses them injections, of dopamine-blockers. He
would be accused of having lack of insight if he refuses to agree that firstly, he is mentally ill and
secondly, that he requires medication for the treatment of this illness.


The DSM IV describes delusional disorder as follows:

The essential feature of Delusional Disorder is the presence of one or more nonbizarre
delusions that persist for at least 1 month (Criterion A). A diagnosis of Delusional Disorder is
not given if the individual has ever had a symptom presentation that met Criterion A for
Schizophrenia (Criterion B). Auditory or visual hallucinations, if present, are not prominent.
Tactile or olfactory hallucinations may be present (and prominent) if they are related to the
delusional theme (e.g., the sensation of being infested with insects associated with delusions of
infestation, or the perception that one emits a foul odor from a body orifice associated with
delusions of reference). Apart from the direct impact of the delusions, psychosocial functioning
is not markedly impaired, and behavior is neither obviously odd nor bizarre (Criterion C). If
mood episodes occur concurrently with the delusions, the total duration of these mood episodes
is relatively brief compared with the total duration of the delusional periods (Criterion D). The
delusions are not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., cocaine) or a
general medical condition. (p.296)

The DSM IV presents seven subtypes of delusional disorder: erotomanic, grandiose, jealous,
persecutory, somatic, mixed and unspecified. The last of these is a catch-all: This subtype
applies when the dominant delusional belief cannot be clearly determined or is not described in the
specific types. Of these, the subtype of persecutory delusions is of particular relevance to civil
rights, politics and law:
This subtype applies when the central theme of the delusion involves the persons belief that
he or she is being conspired against, cheated, spied on, followed, poisoned or drugged,
maliciously maligned, harassed, or obstructed in the pursuit of long-term goals. Small slights
may exaggerated and become the focus of a delusional system. The focus of the delusion is
often on some injustice that must be remedied by legal action (querulous paranoia), and the
affected person may engage in repeated attempts to obtain satisfaction by appeal to the courts
and other government agencies. Individuals with persecutory delusions are often resentful and
angry and may resort to violence against those they believe are hurting them. (p.298)


The term querulous paranoia is less commonly used in Australia than litiginous, but the effect is
the same: people who threaten legal action against the psychiatric system or persist in seeking justice
through various legal channels can be diagnosed as seriously ill because of their behaviour. People
who accuse those who forcibly drug them with poisoning or mind control can also be diagnosed
with paranoid delusions and delusions of control.

Delusions of control, paranoia and thought disorder can be diagnosed on the basis of many common
New Age beliefs. A close study of Schneiders first rank symptoms and the fact that they are still
highly regarded by medical doctors and psychiatrists explains why people, young and old, who believe
in channeling, telepathy, clairvoyance, possession and similar phenomena satisfy currently
used criteria for diagnosis of the delusions of schizophrenia (and mania), as do people who believe
in astral travel, alien communication, reincarnation, transmigration of souls and similar
beliefs. These beliefs, some of which are common to ancient religious traditions (notably Animist,
Hindu and Buddhist ones) have become recently popular in the context of New Age religions and
conversions to Buddhism and Hinduism in the West.

Schneiders first rank symptoms assume firstly, that telepathy does not occur and secondly, any
belief that it does occur is evidence of mental illness. The word telepathy is derived from the Greek
tele: afar and pathos: feeling. It is also commonly referred to as extrasensory perception or ESP,
although this term can be misunderstood. Firstly, many things can be perceived on the basis of
internal contemplation and insight (rather than via the senses), and secondly, the perception of others
feelings from a distance may be sensorily perceived in a way presently not understood, but presumably
involving parts of the brain. In 1898, more than half a century before Schneider listed various beliefs
about telepathy as indicative of schizophrenia, his compatriot Dr Albert Moll wrote, in Hypnotism:
Telepathy means the transference of thoughts, feelings, sensations &c., from a person A. to a
person B. by some means other than the recognised sense perceptions of B. Consequently such


thought-reading is altogether excluded, in which one person guesses the thought of another by
means of the tremors in his muscles, i.e., by a recognized kind of perception. (p.399)

He goes on to describe a range of scientific experiments, some involving hypnotism (mesmerism)

that were performed to test for telepathy and the conclusions of eminent scientists at the time:
In making the experiments, the person B., who is to guess the thoughts of A., is often
mesmerized by A., as this is supposed to make the transference easier. Some English
experimenters, Guthrie in particular, have made experiments when both persons were quite
awake. The transference is supposed to be caused merely by strong concentration of thought on
the part of the agent. In the same way the subject feels the agents sense perceptions. If A. is
pricked, B. feels it; if A. tastes salt, B. tastes it &c. It is also said that A. can make B. act,
merely by concentrating on what B. is supposed to do. Others think that it is the concentration
of As will on B. which causes the action. Perronnet even maintains that it is possible to
influence the pulse and cause vasomotor changes telepathically, by an effort of will. The nearer
A. is to B. the better, but the phenomena are said to have been observed when the subject and
agent were separated by several kilometres. It is said to be even possible to hypnotise certain
people at long distances by concentration of thought; such experiments are said to have
succeeded at Havre. Among authors who vouch for the reality of telepathy, and whose
experiments deserve consideration, I mention Charles Richet, Ochorowicz, Pierre Janet, Gibert,
F. Myers, A. Myers, Gurney, Birchall, Guthrie, Van Eeden, Glaron and Podmore. (p.400)

Although he did not regard the evidence as conclusive, Dr Molls book demonstrates that serious
scientific investigation of telepathy by the medical profession was being done over a hundred years
ago. Since then, while continued research has occurred in respected Western scientific establishments
(such as Duke university in the USA) as well as Eastern ones (especially in Russia), interpretations of
subjective experiences assuming the existence of telepathy have come to be regarded as symptoms of
serious mental illness and characteristic of schizophrenia. It is, of course, possible to develop delusions


about telepathy, this being especially likely if one hears voices when no one is around. This, too is
considered characteristic of schizophrenia and listed among Schneiders list of first rank symptoms.
In fact the first 3 symptoms involve auditory hallucinations, including hearing voices commenting
on ones actions, voices arguing and hearing ones thought spoken aloud. Regardless of the source
of such voices it is clear that that firstly, the voices are experienced as real by the hearer and secondly,
they are attributed to different sources by the hearer, depending on their belief system.

The attribution of voices (by the hearer) may be scientific or religo-spiritual, or a mixture of these.
Scientific explanations include telepathic, technological and neurological ones. Religo-spiritual
explanations include hearing the voice of God/angels, possession, channelling. Since the 1970s,
and especially in the past 10 years there have also been claims of channelling from extra-terrestrials
and meta-terrestrials, the latter being supposed spiritual beings either of now dead people, from
other dimensions or so-called ascended masters. Extraordinarily, while New Age magazines exhort
the youth to listen to their inner voice, reject the skepticism of science and believe in magic,
numerology, astrology and other occult arts, tune into spiritual guides and discover their inner
wisdom, such beliefs and activities, and the thought processes involved in such belief-systems are
regarded as evidence of incurable madness by the medical profession. Not only are people with such
beliefs viewed as insane with a biological brain disease, but their illness is said to be largely
genetically determined and caused by structural brain damage and/or chemical imbalances rather than
being acquired through learning and experiences.

According to medical, psychiatric and psychology texts, and by dictionary definitions, hearing a voice
or voices when no one is visibly present is termed an auditory hallucination and the source of such
voices is assumed to be the very brain and mind of the person who hears them. There is much support
for this view in the vast majority of cases, in which instance belief that the voice comes from some
external source is incorrect, and therefore delusional. The fact that particular chemical stimulants,
especially amphetamines and LSD (less so) can trigger auditory hallucinations while intoxicated adds
support to the view that voices in the head can be caused by disturbances in brain chemistry. It is also


common experience to hear voices out loud occasionally during hypnogogic and hypnopompic states
(while waking up and falling asleep), in which case they are not considered abnormal hallucinations
but are nevertheless still regarded as hallucinations rather than the result of external forces.

All neurological explanations for auditory hallucinations are not chemical, and, anyway, a chemical
explanation is seriously limited without an anatomical and neurological localisation and integration. In
temporal lobe epilepsy the explanation of voices in the head is attributed to electrical malfunction:
involuntary and stereotyped electrical discharges in the lateral (temporal) lobes of the brain. These are
generally treated with anti-convulsant drugs and occasionally by brain surgery. While it might seem
rather unlikely that the voices characterised as hallucinations are the result of telepathic events, the
attribution of disembodied voices to telepathic sources or more bizarrely ascended masters or
extra-terrestrials is neither unexplainable nor entirely illogical when one considers the literature,
television and movies that have shaped the minds and beliefs of young people today. While their logic
may be flawed, and based on incorrect assumptions, the reasoning behind the conclusion (or suspicion)
as to where the voice or voices originate can be understood. It is of note that, even in 1979, according
to the American psychology textbook Psychology and Life, much of the public (in the USA) believed
in ESP (p.357).

Over the past 140 years, rivalry has occurred between telepathic and spirit theories to explain a
range of phenomena which are regarded as evidence of psychosis by the medical profession or viewed
with disbelief regarding their occurrence. Phenomena studied with intent to understand them
scientifically include examples of people dreaming or automatically writing about events that have
affected people far away at the time of the event. Serious injury, near-death and death have been
reported by family members of those injured, sometimes very accurately and in surprising detail, at
others as a more vague concern or sensation. There have also been many well-authenticated reports of
people having premonitions of future events. These have also been looked at by parapsychologists,
who have also attempted to scientifically refute or validate reports of people transmitting messages
from people now dead.


The serious study of such phenomena was regarded as a legitimate subject, indeed an important one,
for scientists to research and hypothesise about one hundred years ago, and many of those who became
convinced of the existence of telepathy came to do so from positions of skepticism and disbelief.
During the 20th century a clear divide developed between psychology and parapsychology, with
mainstream psychology becoming closely aligned, theoretically, with medical psychiatry, and
developing a sense of scientific (and intellectual) superiority over parapsychologists. Psychiatrists
and medical doctors, generally, regarded the study of parapsychology as unscientific, pseudoscientific or frankly delusional. Another reason why parapsychology became discredited was the
unscientific way in which proof of various theories was claimed and the design of various experiments.
Also the topics studied by parapsychologists evoked superstitious fear among the public at times, fed
by hostility from the Christian Churches to anything that seemed like occultism, polytheism or
animism. The politics and history of this confrontation between scientific and religious ideas about
the mind and transference of thought are complex, but must be understood if we are to understand the
many symptoms Karl Schneider listed as first rank symptoms of schizophrenia.

If telepathy does occur massive changes are required to the medical and psychiatric paradigm, and
huge changes will be necessary to public health strategies and research conclusions which equate
familial clustering of various diseases with genetic factors. In fact, even without the existence of
telepathy, what is now known about psychophysiology and psychology necessitate such changes.
Consider current prevention strategies for breast cancer and the research conclusion that schizophrenia
is (partly) inherited because identical twins taken from schizophrenic mothers and raised separately
are more likely to both be diagnosed with schizophrenia than non-identical twins and other siblings.
Both, if reassessed taking possible telepathic influences into consideration, result in very different

The incidence of diagnosis of breast cancer and the incidence of the disease has increased in recent
years. This partly reflects an aging population (since incidence of breast cancer increases with age),
but other factors, including psychological, hormonal, chemical (such a cigarette smoking) and radiation


factors may also be involved in the noted increase in this and other cancers. The main risk factor
promoted by the medical profession and breast-cancer prevention strategies is a hypothesised genetic
tendency, based on which women are advised to have regular mammograms. In some cases women
have even had their breasts amputated to avoid a predicted risk of developing the cancer because
several close family members have developed the disease or they have been found to have a breast
cancer oncogene. It has been observed that the daughters of women who have developed breast
cancer are more likely to develop the disease as are their sisters (first degree relatives). Breast cancer in
aunts and cousins is also reported to increase likelihood of developing this cancer (and also bowel
cancer and several other cancers).

The paradigm on which research into and treatment of breast cancer and other cancers is based ignores
two psycho-physiological possibilities: both of which could lead to spurious evidence in support of
oncogenes (cancer-causing genes) or other such gene-related theories to explain this family
clustering. The first, and most important, is the possibility that fear of cancer, specific or general, could
increase likelihood of developing the disease. It is easy to see why women whose mothers or siblings
developed breast cancer (or other serious diseases) would worry about developing the disease
themselves. A related possibility is that other psychological factors (such as attitudes) which are
similarly clustered (shared) among family members and can be inherited, not because of shared
genes, but because of shared experiences and children accepting the opinions and ideas of the parents.
Children develop similar attitudes (such as optimism or pessimism) and beliefs (including scientific,
political, social and religious ones) by learning them from their parents and siblings (especially older
siblings). This obviously occurs to some degree in everyone, and, although frequently neglected, is
acknowledged by scientific researchers in their quest to prove genetic inheritance through studies on
identical and non-identical twins who have been raised apart from each other and apart from their
biological parents. This is meant to exclude the possibility that schizophrenia is caused by shared
experiences in families rather than genes. Conclusions regarding genetic predisposition based on such
studies are invalidated in the presence of telepathy. Monozygotic and dizygotic twin and adoption
studies have not been considered necessary prior to categorical claims that the development of breast
cancer is genetically determined, but they probably are.


The standard, benchmark research techniques for investigation of genetic factors in different illnesses
assume the non-existence of telepathy, including the extensive twin studies which have purportedly
shown genetic tendency in the development of schizophrenia, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
and manic-depression (bipolar affective disorder). These studies are largely retrospective, and
compare the diagnosis of mental illness in monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (non-identical)
twins. Monozygotic twins, who are always of the same gender, have (almost) identical genetic codes in
their chromosomes.

Monozygotic twins are not, of course, literally identical. They differ in appearance, personality and
beliefs, even if the DNA in their cells is identical (this differs slightly between monozygotic twins due
to intrauterine and postnatal mutations). The special relationship of twins and the close emotional
connection between them, together with their shared genes, might be expected to increase the
likelihood of telepathic communication between identical twins compared with non-identical twins or
non-twins. Telepathy between twins, which has certainly been reported anecdotally, would obviously
challenge conclusions about the genetic inheritance of schizophrenia if these are made on the basis of
twin studies. Likewise telepathic influence of parents on children and siblings on each other explain the
familial clustering of schizophrenia at least as well as genetic theories or chemical imbalance
theories do. A significant point is that in addition to discounting the possibility of telepathy in
psychiatric and medical research, beliefs in telepathy themselves are diagnosable as delusional,
according to Schneiders first rank symptoms. If to this is added the factors of shared family beliefs,
the political and social control elements, the influence of religious and cultural elitism (and
antagonism), the reactions of the diagnosed individual (and family) to diagnosis and treatment and the
phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophesies an integrated aetiological theory of schizophrenia can be
developed which explains both the positive and negative symptoms of the disease. Such a theory is
not simple, but then, neither is schizophrenia.



The Dorland Medical Dictionary defines telepathy as extrasensory perception of the mental activity of
another person. Delusion is defined as a false belief which cannot be corrected by reason stating
also that it is logically founded and cannot be corrected by argument or persuasion or even by the
evidence of the patients own senses (p.418). The following types of delusions are defined: depressive
delusions, expansive delusions, delusions of grandeur, delusions of negation, nihilistic delusions,
delusions of persecution, delusions of reference, somatic delusions, systematized delusions and
unsystematized delusions. A depressive delusion is defined as a delusion in which the patient
experiences feelings of uneasiness, unworthiness and futility; a delusion of grandeur as delusional
conviction of ones own importance, power, wealth etc; expansive delusion as a pathologically
unreasonable belief in ones own greatness, goodness or power. Delusions of grandeur are said to be
found in megalomania, dementia paralytica [chronic syphilis infection of the brain] and paranoid
schizophrenia, while expansive delusions of manic depressive psychosis. Delusions of
persecution are also said to be characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia, defined in the Dorlands
Medical Dictionary as a morbid belief on the part of a patient that he is being mistreated, slandered,
and injured by secret enemies.

The 1998 Encyclopaedia of Mental Health edited by a professor of psychology at the University of
California (Howard Friedman), categorises the delusions of schizophrenia as delusions of control,
delusions of grandeur and delusions of persecution, describing also more specific delusions such
as thought broadcasting (the belief that ones thoughts are transmitted so that others know them) and
thought withdrawal (the belief that an external force has stolen ones thoughts) (p.400). The last two
examples of delusions are listed among Schneiders first rank symptoms. While it appears true that
genuine delusions can occur regarding thought broadcasting, thought insertion and thought
withdrawal it is important to look at these concepts holistically and logically before deciding such
beliefs to be indicative of mental illness rather that ordinary confusion which is amenable to correction
by discussion and education. It is also possible for thought disorder to be diagnosed because of


confusion about a persons use of language. Could not plagiarism (stealing of peoples ideas) be
regarded as thought withdrawal, and could not the effects of advertising and doctrinal education be
viewed as thought insertion? If it is true that telepathy exists, or even if it is not, how can belief in
thought broadcasting per se be regarded as delusional?

The symptoms of thought broadcasting, thought insertion and thought withdrawal, classical
signs of schizophrenia may be regarded as scientific delusions, if they are indeed delusional. They
are based on intellectual interpretation of subjective experiences with the attempted use of internal
logic, regardless of how illogical, irrational, unusual or bizarre the persons subsequent beliefs
and behaviour might seem to be. Logical extrapolation, even from sound assumptions can result in
conclusions that appear patently absurd to one who has not followed all the steps of the reasoning
process. It can easily be misled or incorporate false assumptions, in which case incorrect (delusional)
conclusions will be reached. The construction of a belief system, whether rational or delusional, occurs
temporally through the acceptance and rejection of ideas. These ideas may be internally generated
(insights) or come from others in the form of words, images etc. Ideas may be received through the
eyes and though the ears, and may be accepted or rejected. They may be remembered or forgotten. An
idea may be incorporated into the belief system and become a fundamental assumption without
conscious awareness of where it originated. Such is the nature of many of our core assumptions, which
include scientific, social and moral assumptions. Assumptions of various types underpin belief systems
generally, including delusional and non-delusional belief systems. The core assumption may be
reasonable but the extrapolations or inferences not so.

The process of developing a belief system involves gathering and integrating bits of information with
assumptions one holds to be true. When new ideas are received or thought of oneself they tend to be
accepted if they conform to ones expectations and preconceptions and rejected if they do not. This
leads to some degree of selective listening and selective vision in most people. The fact that one
tends to notice what one is expecting also has the effect of tending to strengthen the pre-existing belief.
This phenomenon may explain why peoples opinions tend to become more rigid as they get older.


For many years they have noticed things that strengthen their conviction about things they have
assumed, during which time they have also learned more reasons to disbelieve the things they were
brought up to disbelieve. However fundamental assumptions do change and may change suddenly.
Both the process of such change and the result of such change can be mistaken for mental illness,
when they may actually be signs of the development of greater mental health and sanity.

Sudden change in behaviour or beliefs can result in concern, worry and even anger among family
members (especially, in the case of children, parents). This is especially so with religious and political
beliefs. This results from the rejection of previously held beliefs and the expression of different ones.
Parents who believe in a particular political, religious, scientific or other dogma may be disturbed,
firstly when their child rejects the dogma, and secondly when an alternative theory is expressed which
challenges their opinion. These two stages of disturbance may be close to simultaneous, or they may be
temporally separated by days, weeks, months, years or even decades. The process may occur in as
many areas as dogmas and opposing opinions are held, and may cause varying degrees of disturbance
in the parents minds with very different outcomes for parent, child and family.

On dismissing the beliefs as mad (by any term) the internal logic that underlies most delusions, and
the roots of the delusional beliefs remain undiscovered, unchallenged and unchanged. When people are
diagnosed as psychotic or otherwise mad, the label itself is often regarded as the cause: it is
assumed that the beliefs cannot be understood, and consequently little or no effort is made to do so.
Furthermore, the word mad is used to describe anger and rage, and also to describe despotic or evil
people as well as opinions regarded as implausible, unreasonable or ridiculous. In the popular media
and mass-media and in lay society it is common to hear the word mad being used alongside
lunatic, nutcase, mental case and other terms of abuse. Such terms are not, of course, used in
psychiatric and psychological textbooks. However the descriptions of various mental disorders in
psychiatric textbooks reinforce negative stereotypes while disguising the underlying prejudices with
jargon, euphemisms and scientific-sounding words.


The term telepathy can also be confusing, because the prefix/suffix pathos is also used to mean
disease: hence pathology, pathogenesis, nephropathy, neuropathy, psychopathy and
sociopathy. The last two terms, still used in the fields of psychiatry and psychology, have given rise
to the stigmatising and commonly used psychopath and sociopath. These terms have, over the past
100 years, been used interchangeably for people judged by the medical/psychiatric profession to be
irredeemably evil, many of whom spend most of their life imprisoned (in prisons or asylums). The
word evil is never used, however, in psychiatric and psychological descriptions of the conditions.
The 1974 Dorland Medical Dictionary defines psychopath as a person who has an antisocial
personality and sociopath as a person with a psychopathic personality and a pathological attitude
toward society.

Take, for example, the description of Antisocial Personality Disorder in the DSM IV. This
supposedly incurable personality disorder is characterised, according to the widely used reference
text, by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in
childhood or early adulthood and continues into adulthood. The textbook states that:
Because deceit and manipulation are central features of Antisocial Personality Disorder it may
be especially helpful to integrate information acquired from systematic clinical assessment with
information collected from collateral sources. (p.646)

Systematic clinical assessment and information from collateral sources include asking questions
(with the expectation of lying and deceit) and accepting (often without question) reports from other
psychiatrists, family members, colleagues and governmental institutions. These sources of collateral
information are also used routinely to acquire evidence of other mental abnormalities, including
schizophrenia, delusional disorder and hypomania/mania as well as various personality disorders.
Not surprisingly, many, or most, people who are given these labels resist them, at least at first. This is


termed lack of insight, and regarded as a common problem in psychotic disorders. By this
definition, the acceptance of the label with coercion over time is regarded as the gaining of insight:
i.e., accepting what they are told by health care workers.

The acceptance of a label of personality disorder is to admit to being irredeemably flawed as a

human being, since no cure is thought possible. Schizophrenia, delusional disorder and manicdepression are also said to be incurable, however remissions are said to occur, when the mental state
is normal. This is routinely attributed to drug treatment with dopamine-blockers, however it is also
taught that many who receive a diagnosis of schizophrenia have only a single psychotic episode.
Thus schizophrenia and manic-depression are said to be mental illnesses while people with
personality disorders are not considered mentally ill, and hence recovery or remission is not
thought possible. A key aspect of this distinction relates to treatment by the law. A person who is
acutely mentally ill who breaks the law is theoretically regarded as innocent (by reason of insanity)
while someone with a personality disorder is held legally responsible for their crimes. Thus people
with so-called personality disorders populate the prisons, while the locked wards of psychiatric
institutions incarcerate the mentally ill (many of whom do not regard themselves as such, or, if they
do, would still rather be at home).

The label Antisocial Personality Disorder is only applicable to persons over the age of 18, according
to the DSM IV, however children are not spared permanently defective labels. Supposed antisocial
and anti-authoritarian behaviour in children is psychiatrically labelled as conduct disorder or
oppositional defiant disorder. These are the currently promoted terms for children who were
previously regarded as delinquent or feeble-minded. Those who were previously labelled
attention-seekers would now be diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder, oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder. It is clear, from the description of
these disorders in psychiatric textbooks, that what are primarily social judgements are being
described as medical problems. Furthermore, these social judgements are harsh, stigmatising and
grossly unfair.


The DSM IV describes conduct disorder as a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which
the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, characterised
by four main groupings of behaviors: aggressive conduct that causes or threatens physical harm to
other people or animals, non-aggressive conduct that causes property loss or damage, deceitfulness
or theft and serious violation of rules (p.85). According to the textbook, running away from home, if
it occurs twice (or once if the individual did not return for a lengthy period of time), is to be regarded
as a symptom of conduct disorder. Providing two linguistic loop-holes it states that runaway
episodes that occur as the direct consequence of physical or sexual abuse do not typically qualify for
this criterion (emphasis added). A serious omission, especially for a psychiatry textbook is
psychological abuse. This is much more common that physical abuse and is an obvious reason why
children run away from home and from homes (institutional care).

Oppositional defiant disorder is described in the DSM IV as a recurrent pattern of negativistic,

defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months
characterised by frequent occurrence of at least four of the following behaviours: losing temper,
arguing with adults, actively defying or refusing to comply with the requests or rules of adults,
deliberately doing things that will annoy other people, blaming others for his or her own mistakes or
misbehaviour, being touchy or easily annoyed by others, being angry and resentful, or being spiteful
and vindictive (p.91).

If one removes the age-ist assumptions and substitutes others for adults, one might wonder how
many politicians, psychiatrists, physicians, professors, priests and parents risk a diagnosis of mental
disorder for losing their temper frequently, arguing, blaming others, vindictiveness, negativity or


It can be seen that psychiatric labels can and have been used as nasty labels; labels which have been
applied variably depending on the political climate of the time. These labels are made primarily on the
basis of behaviour, although certain modes of thinking and inference, certain beliefs, and certain
attitudes are proscribed depending on the dominant paradigm, its own level of paranoia and the social
norms of the society in which these labels are applied. The British psychology professor Peter
Chadwick, in Understanding Paranoia (1995) claims that, whether a person is deluded or not is, in the
end, a social judgement and that we do not decide this on the basis of a blood test or a brain scan
and it is doubtful that we ever will, or should. (p.12) It would perhaps be more accurate to say that
delusions are usually diagnosed because of social judgements, but the specific reasons for which
people are diagnosed as psychiatrically deluded reflect the particular beliefs and disbeliefs of the elite
profession who have, over the past 100 years, crafted the criteria for diagnosis of schizophrenia and
other psychotic illnesses. The political, social and philosophical assumptions of this elite have
predictably affected the criteria they developed for the diagnosis and proclamation of madness in
others, and we shall soon see that their religious assumptions have also influenced these criteria.



The age-old battle between the great religions for converts has produced many casualties, and many
wars have been fought in the name of religion, with fervent belief in the hearts of all the warriors that
God was on their side. This war between beliefs and belief systems is complex, has continued for
hundreds of years, and has claimed countless lives, countless because most of the deaths are not
attributed to religious warfare. Consider all the millions who have been killed because of their religious
beliefs or the result of warfare between adherents of different religions (the Crusades and conquest of
the Americas, for example). Could it be that deep within the diagnostic criteria, terminology and
concepts of European, Australian and North American psychiatry lie prejudices against unconventional
or discouraged religious beliefs? After all, the psychiatric doctrines which are now taught in medical
schools around the world were developed in nations with Protestant and Catholic Christian traditions,
and within a Judao-Christian philosophical, political and religious paradigm. It would not be
surprising if concepts regarding normal and abnormal beliefs developed in such nations are biased
against Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and other religions.

Even a cursory review of history reveals that declared or undeclared warfare between different
religious adherents has been a noticeable and enduring feature of global conflicts over the past 1000
years. Many terrible atrocities have been committed with the fervent belief (or politically expedient
claim) that converting (or ruling or killing) non-believers was divinely sanctioned by the god or
gods of the aggressors. In Australia (and elsewhere), Indigenous children have been taken away from
their heathen parents to protect them and civilize them; and to give them a good Christian
education. Adults have been enslaved and suffered the devastation of their culture in an ostensible
effort to civilize them, a central aspect of which was to proscribe their religious and cultural practices
and convert them to Christianity. Regarding conflict between religious doctrines with relevance to
modern psychiatry it is also important to recognise the battles which have raged, for several centuries,
between different Christian Churches, sects and denominations, which have also been characterised
by persecution and mass-murder at times. Of these, the four-hundred-year-old conflict between


Catholicism and Protestantism is especially obvious. The conflict (and compromise) between Judaism
and Christianity is also of relevance to an understanding of psychiatric definitions of psychosis, since
the vast majority of influential psychiatric theorists have been of either Jewish or Christian extraction.
Psychiatric theory is, however, essentially atheistic and highly intolerant of esoteric, idiosyncratic or
iconoclastic ideas about God.

While it might be supposed that the split between science and religion has insulated scientific medicine
from religious and theological differences, in the areas of psychiatry and psychology, beliefs which
have been traditionally regarded as religious or spiritual are routinely subject to judgement as to
whether they are normal or abnormal. This is demonstrated in many psychiatric texts describing
various spiritual, religious and quasi-religious beliefs as indicative of grandiosity, delusions,
psychosis, mania and schizophrenia (in addition to various scientific, psychological and political
beliefs). The World Health Organizations Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) contains a series of
specific questions which may be used by health workers to elicit, rate and tabulate symptoms and
signs of schizophrenia, mania and other mental illnesses. According to the BPRS, unusual
though content can be revealed by asking the following questions:
Have you been receiving any special messages from people or from the way things are arranged
around you? Have you seen any references to yourself on TV or in the newspapers?
Can anyone read your mind?
Do you have a special relationship with God?
Is anything like electricity, X-rays, or radio waves affecting you?
Are thoughts put into your head that are not your own?
Have you felt that you were under the control of another person or force?


An affirmative answer to any of these questions is, according to the BPRS, indicative of delusions,
which can then be rated in severity according to how preoccupied the person is with their delusion
and how strongly held the belief is. Confusingly, the rating system (from 1-7, 2 being very mild and
7 being extremely severe) does not discriminate between preoccupation and disrupted level of
functioning. It is explicitly stated in the BPRS that extremely severe (rating 7) delusions are to be
diagnosed either because of almost total preoccupation or disruption to most areas of functioning
by delusional thinking. Of note, given the plethora of New Age books and magazines claiming such
things as fact, specific mention is made in the BPRS of unusual beliefs in psychic powers, spirits,
UFOs or unrealistic beliefs in ones own abilities as indicative of unusual (delusional) thought
A survey of the titles of the Harper-Collins Aquarian series of New Age books casts light on what
young people can be labelled as schizophrenic for: An introduction to graphology; Colour Therapy;
Dowsing; How to develop your ESP; Incense and candle burning; Invisibility; Levitation; The power
of Chi; Meditation: the inner way; Practical visualization; Understanding astral projection;
Understanding astrology; Understanding auras; Understanding chakras; Understanding crystals;
Understanding dreams; Understanding the I Ching; Understanding numerology; Understanding
palmistry; Understanding reincarnation; Understanding runes; Understanding tarot.

Understanding Auras: the reality of the human aura (1987) by Joseph Ostrom carries a muchwarranted warning, described as a disclaimer:
The material in this book is presented for educational and informational purposes only. It is
not intended to replace established medical diagnostic procedures or treatment. The author and
publishers are in no way responsible for those individual who choose not to heed this


The contents of Understanding Auras, if believed, would undoubtedly result in a bizarre, pseudoscientific delusional system, one that would satisfy current psychiatric criteria for acute schizophrenia.
It claims that auras are visible as colours which can be clearly seen by specially gifted people (such as
Ostrom himself), and that the appearance of the aura can be used to diagnose psychological, physical
and spiritual problems. The dogmatic text makes various scientific statements, and explains auras
using a combination of Western scientific, Eastern scientific, Western occultist and spiritist
(spiritualist) terms and concepts liberally mixed with Hindu, Buddhist and Christian ideas. The book
gives the following answer to the question What is the aura:
An aura is a collection of electro-magnetic energies of varying densities which are exiting
from the physical, vital, etheric, mental, emotional and spiritual bodies. These particles of
energy are suspended around the human body in an oval-shaped field. This oval field or auric
egg stands out from the body some 2-3 ft (1 m) (on average) on all sides. It is also found
above the head and extends below the feet into the ground.
Another auric egg can be found floating above the lower auric egg. It can be found
anywhere from just at the edge of the lower auric bodies to 50 ft (15 m) above them. This
separate auric field is called the higher auric bodies. (p.15)

Ostrom claims that he sees these auras with his eyes, and that he retained this ability from his
childhood, unlike most other adults. This is how he sees and interprets what he calls the aura:
I always see the auric bodies in cross-section much like the layers of an onion that has been
sliced down the middle.
Each layer tells me something different about the person that I am viewing. The first three
inner layers represent health matters and personality. The outer two layers are indicators of
what is going on within the mental and emotional life of the person.


The auric bands are translucent and colourful, appearing much like the colours in a rainbow,
only more subtle in intensity.
How bright these colours will seem to me varies with each individual. Some stand out like
neon lights and others are so dim that it takes special viewing conditions and a great deal of
concentration on my part to see them. (p.16)

Electromagnetic energies are a scientific concept with clear and unequivocal meaning. Visible light,
along with radiowaves, microwaves, gamma rays, X-rays and cosmic rays are forms of electromagnetic
radiation (EMR) of different wavelength and frequency. The visible spectrum is that that part of the
total EMR spectrum which is visible to the human eye. Just outside this range are the ultraviolet and
infrared frequencies, and it is thought that the visible spectrum for various animals (including insects)
covers some of these frequencies. Electrical currents also cause, around them, what are termed (in
conventional physics) electromagnetic fields (EMFs). These are created by natural and artificial electric
currents, the fields caused by the electrical activity in our bodies (in the nervous system and blood
circulation) being termed bio-electric magnetic fields. These fields are invisible, although it is
conceivable that light passing through such fields could be altered by them, causing the appearance of
auras around living organisms (as recorded by Kirlian photography, say). Biologically-generated
electromagnetic fields can apparently be measured (with machines such as the so-called SQUIDSuperconducting Quantum Interference Device), and they are minute in intensity compared to those
generated by artificial electricity (due to the massive difference in the relative strength of electric
currents in living organisms compared with man-made electricity or inorganic natural electrical
discharges, such as lightening).
While some form of electro-magnetic radiation has been postulated, over the years, as a mechanism
behind telepathy, such theories are highly speculative and not well supported by the available evidence.
It has also been credibly postulated that, like many other vertebrates, humans have some ability to
sense variations in ambient magnetic fields: that we have, located somewhere in our brains, a magnetic
sense organ. The best known proponent of this theory, and an acknowledged authority on biomagnetism, is the American physiologist Robert Becker, who identifies the pineal organ in the centre


of the brain as having a magnetic sense (Becker, 1990, p.76-77). Such a sense is common in various
vertebrate and invertebrate species, and is thought to be related to an animals sense of direction. In
birds the pineals role in magneto-sensation is relatively uncontroversial. In humans, although a
magneto-sensory function for the pineal is subject to some doubt, its overall importance is not, in view
of the fact that it secretes several important hormones, notably the indole amines melatonin and

The pineal organ, a small pine-cone shaped structure in the brain of humans and almost all other
vertebrates has long been the centre of scientific controversy as well as being located at the geometric
centre of the brain. This controversy is deeply connected with religious conflict, because, for thousands
of years, in India, and later elsewhere in the East, the pineal has been regarded as being the important
Third Eye which was regarded as having the spiritual function of perceiving truth. The controversy
arises because the search for truth, while it may be considered a spiritual quest, is also a scientific,
philosophical and theological quest. Science, philosophy, theology and ritualised religion have, as will
be seen, often been at odds with each other. There have also been compromises between major schools
of thought in the relevant disciplines, especially when they have had to co-exist in the same nations,
states, cities or institutions. In the case of the pineal organ and the myth about a third eye, both
institutional religion and institutional science, as well as the politics of deception had reason to
discourage the idea that humans have the inherent ability to perceive truth for themselves and that the
development of this ability is essential for spiritual and physical health. It was easy to disbelieve,
anyway; but not so the later discoveries about the importance of the pineal.

Throughout the 20th century, medical schools in Australia taught that the pineal was of minimal
importance (initially, in fact, that it had no use of all that it was vestigial), in line with universities in
England and the USA. Training doctors were also taught to disbelieve theories about magnetic fields,
such as those of Robert Becker, if these were mentioned at all. During the Cold War, students in
Australia and elsewhere in the Commonwealth to regard Communist Science (Russian and Chinese
science) with much more scepticism than was suggested for science emanating from British and


American Universities. It was mainly in Russia that work on neural biomagnetic fields was conducted
in the 1960s and 1970s, Beckers work being a notable exception. In Crosscurrents (1990), Dr Becker
Our use of energy for power and communications has radically changed the total
electromagnetic field of the Earth. Because we cannot directly perceive this with any of our
senses, most of us are unaware that it has occurred. Before 1900, the Earths electromagnetic
field was composed simply of the field and its associated micropulsations, visible light, and
random discharges of lightening. Today we swim in a sea of energy that is almost totally manmade. (p.187)

Through many years of research, Robert Becker has reached the conclusion that, the exposure of
living organisms to abnormal electromagnetic fields results in significant abnormalities in physiology
and function. In Crosscurrents he ties the evidence together, giving several examples of artificial
EMR and EMFs causing health problems, and also of many studies being sponsored by the electricity
industry and US military to discredit this evidence and present contradictory findings. These health
problems include blindness (via cataracts), cancers (especially brain tumours and white blood cell
cancers such as leukaemia and lymphoma) and genetic defects. Obviously, Robert Becker believes that
invisible radiation can affect humans (and he is correct in this belief). However, the W.H.O.s Brief
Psychiatric Rating Scale claims that belief that anything like electricity, X-Rays, or radio waves
affecting you is indicative of (psychotic) delusions. Dr Becker reveals how much and whose vested
interests lie in denial of EMR-induced damage:
The growth of electric power and communication systems was slow at first, but since World
War II it has been increasing at between 5 and 10 percent per year. In addition, new
technologies have appeared. Commercial telephone and television satellite transmitters and
relays blanket the Earth from 25,000 miles out in space. Military satellites cruise by every point
on Earth once an hour, and from their altitude of only 250 miles, they bounce radar beams off
its surface to produce images for later downloading over their home countries. New TV and


FM stations come on the air weekly. The industry has placed in the hands of the public such
gadgets as citizens-band radios and cellular telephones.
Engineers propose gigantic solar-power stations in space, which would relay the electrical
energy to Earth by means of enormously powerful microwave beams. Electrical-power
transmission lines are operating at millions of volts and thousands of amperes of current.
Military services of every country use all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum for
communications and surveillance, and the use of electromagnetic energy as an antipersonnel
weapon is being studied. (p.188)

Being influenced by changes in background electromagnetic fields, or by changes in ones own biomagnetic properties is very different from seeing magnetic fields (and different again from seeing
electromagnetic radiation outside the range defined as the visual spectrum). Even if magnetic fields
can be perceived by people with extraordinary vision, it is difficult to see how precise diagnoses (or
even imprecise diagnoses) can be made from their appearance, and they have nothing to do with
etheric, vital or spiritual bodies, and. In fact, if one looks at what Understanding Auras claims
these bodies to be, it becomes clear that these concepts are taken from Western occultism, spiritism
and mysticism rather than being based on scientific evidence. Adding to the confusion, the book, which
claims to present advice on how to see the auras explains their interpretation (and existence) using the
Vedic concept of chakras. The Sanskrit word chakra, meaning wheel, has been seconded by the New
Age Movement, but the Vedic concept has been turned on its head:
Charkas [sic] are short, squat, swirling, mini tornadoes of colour strung in an orderly line
along the spine from the top of the head to the tailbone. They are energy whirlpools where
incoming energy is processed and distributed, and where outgoing energy is cannoned outward
to where it must go. (p.62)


The belief that energy enters the body from above and radiates out through the chakras and can be
seen as colours which can be used to diagnose mental, emotional, physical and spiritual problems is
not based on scientific evidence or traditional doctrines, Eastern or Western. It also satisfies criteria for
the diagnosis of bizarre delusions, especially if interpretations are made along the lines of those
suggested in Understanding Auras:
Some of these centres I see with my physical eyes, although they are faint and I have to rely in
my Inner Eye as well as explanations from guides and my higher mind to get a clear picture of
how they are functioning. It is not important to actually see these centres in analyzing an aura.
If one sees a disruption or a helping ray near the fifth chakra (throat chakra), for example, one
only has to know that the fifth chakra is a centre of communication, and depending on the
meaning of the colours of the disruption or ray, can assume that the root of the activity is in the
area of communication that is, communication with others or with ones Self. (p.62)

Understanding Auras claims, incorrectly, that, traditionally, any listing of chakras starts at the root
chakra, which is described as the first chakra. This is the opposite of the original Vedic doctrine,
which teaches that the people should be guided in their thinking by the crown chakra at the top of the
head. This is an abstract concept related to morally good behaviour, and not a short, squat, swirling
mini tornado of colour! The problems which can result from trying to see auras and convincing
oneself that one can see not just auras, but holes, disruptions, rays and auric bodies are obvious,
especially if judgements are made such as this:
The first chakra is found at the base of the spine between the sacrum and the coccyx, or
When disruptions are seen in the auric layers near this chakra the subjects could be suffering
(depending on the degrees of disruption) from deep insecurities or immune system
malfunctions (such as AIDS) and related diseases. They may display outward symptoms such
as greed, theft or a feeling that the world is pushing them around and they have to fight back.
They are frightened and they feel there isnt enough to go round. Disruptions at this centre will


create a compulsive personality who is unable to find rest even when surrounded by positive
happenings. The basic animal sexual drives are rooted here as well. When disruptions are noted
and symptoms of out of control sexual drives are displayed, it is a good bet that the chakra is
open too wide, allowing too much base energy in and out. In the case of extreme impotence or
frigidity, the flow of energy is cut off from the body. (p.63)

It is easy to predict the destructive social effects of this offensive rubbish, but what require deeper
consideration are the motives of the author and publisher. Believing the many claims of Understanding
Auras could certainly lead to delusions and confusion, but is this the intent of the book? Believing that
books are written and published with the deliberate intent of causing madness, although theoretically
possible, could itself be diagnosed as delusions of control, since it suggests at most a deliberate
conspiracy between the author and publisher, or at least malign intent by the publisher. What benefit
could Harper-Collins gain from driving young people mad and getting them diagnosed with
schizophrenia? Is this just an unfortunate and unforeseen consequence of the publisher responding to
public demand from the New Age Movement? Does Joseph Ostrom believe what he has written? Is
he, in fact, a real person or has the book been written under a pseudonym (a not uncommon practice)?
Why the disclaimer?

The possibility of intentional deception (in this or any other matter) can be investigated scientifically
using processes of logic, deductive reasoning, assessment of probability etc, and an unprejudiced
scientific approach requires the consideration of (deliberate) conspiracies, along with inadvertent
mistakes when seeking an explanation for whatever are the observed facts. This is true for any area of
science: human error can be inadvertent or it can be intentional. In this case the observable fact is that a
book, titled Understanding Auras, published by the major publication house Harper-Collins as part of a
New Age series of books, contains suggestions which, if followed, could, as effectively as a
deliberate hypnotic induction into psychotic beliefs, lead to beliefs and behaviour described in current
psychiatric texts and other books published by Harper-Collins, as indicative of serious mental
illness (e.g., Understanding Paranoia by Peter Chadwick, Harper-Collins, 1995). These suggestions


are that with practice, people can train themselves to use their Inner Eye to see colours around and
above people (and both animate and inanimate objects) and make predictions about the future or to
identify health or personality problems in the people they observe. The judgements the book suggests
be made, based on a misconstrued Vedic concept (chakras), include medical diagnoses and
character/personality judgements of a socially and psychologically destructive nature.

A person who starts looking 15 metres above people he or she meets in an effort to see higher auric
bodies will obviously be demonstrating a noticeable behavioural peculiarity. If he or she starts seeing
colours around (or above) people that no one else sees these would be deemed hallucinations. If
assertions are made on the basis of beliefs obtained from Understanding Auras that the observed
people are suffering from serious medical illness (such as cancer or AIDS) or personality defects (such
as greed) on the basis of these colours, with or without a misinterpretation of chakras, significant social
effects could be predicted. The people thus diagnosed would likely regard the person seeing the auras
as mad, and the person making the diagnosis would withdraw from the defective or infected people.
One can easily imagine the social effects of staring at the groins of strangers, or family members for
that matter, in an effort to see the colours of their second chakra (in the model of Ostrom):
On the front of the body, just above the genitals and below the navel, is the second chakra. Its
location is often reported to be at the genitals, but I perceive it differently. The area of the spine
through which it passes is the lower section of the lumbar vertebrae.
When disruptions are noted near this centre the afflictions are usually of an emotional nature.
It is at this chakra that we first process or interpret the emotional world around us. When this
centre is seriously afflicted the lower digestive system is affected. The chemical balances in the
intestines, colon and stomach are destroyed, ulcers and even various cancers can result. On a
temporary, less serious side, we may suffer butterflies in the stomach (something I personally
have to deal with before each of my lectures and workshops). (p.64)


No biographical details are given in Understanding Auras for the author Joseph Ostrom (other than
those he presents himself) although opposite the disclaimer in the front of the book is a dedication to
his wife and daughter, who gave up her daddy for several precious months, and to one Gary
Raham, who receives thanks for his insight into things scientific. Gary Raham is described as a
delightful sceptic: the inference being that the book has been subject to scientific scrutiny by a
sceptic. The book, which liberally mixes snippets of science with personal anecdotes and occult
mysticism, begins with a fairy-tale like foreword:
A large oak, its leaves rattling in the warm summer breeze, lays its cool shadow on a young
boy. His feet dangle lazily over the sandy bank at the edge of a small pond. The boys eyes
watch colourful rainbows dance off the top of a nearby rock. A squirrel, surrounded in a
cocoon of blue and green light, peels away an acorn near the rock. The boy extends his hand
offering more acorns and the squirrel darts quickly to the far side of the old oak. Jets of light
pour out of the boys fingertips. Over two decades would pass before he would discover that
not everybody saw things as he did.
That boy was me. He was some of you as well. (p.9)

This passage is crafted like a hypnotic induction: the warm summer breeze and cool shadow of the oak
create a sensation of relaxation, and the imagery of the sandy bank, pond, rock and squirrel, though
trite, is vivid. The reader is encouraged to identify with Ostrom as a boy who saw things that not
everybody did. He then claims authority by referring to his lectures, and presents evidence to
suggest that this special ability is common:
In my lectures I usually start by asking for a show of hands from those in the audience who
see, or think they have seen, an aura. Now granted, a lecture on the aura will draw a very
specific audience, but these people come from all walks of life, all disciplines, almost every
stratum of society. When I began asking this question a few years back, the response was that
approximately one third of the audience had seen what they thought was an aura at least once
in their life. Now I find that the percentage has risen to almost half. (p.9)


In Understanding Auras, Joseph Ostrom refers to his Inner Eye. He describes the spiritual auric
body, which he says he likes to refer to as the extension cord to God (which he also describes as
the Source), as follows:
Contained within the outer layer (higher mental auric body) is the core of the higher aura. It is
called the spiritual auric body. It has been described as an unimaginable, radiant, mother-ofpearl white light. I have seen this auric body with my physical eyes, but my Inner Eye tells me
that it is encased in a protective blazing gold shell. (p.53)

Earlier he equates the Inner Eye with a psychic/intuitive sense, claiming that he used this eye to
detect also the astral auric body. In describing the astral auric body he assumes a belief in
reincarnation (past lives):
The astral auric body is created from the emanations from the astral body which is where we
store our complete past and present life history. We draw upon this information as needed in
our current lives to further our evolvement as spiritual beings. (p.35)

The concept of astral bodies is derived from Hinduism (Brahmanism), the ancient polytheistic
religion of India which was brought to the subcontinent by Aryan Vedic invaders about 3500 years ago,
and which subsequently shaped Mahayana Buddhism as well as Japanese Shintoism and Tibetan


Hiroshi Motoyama, a Japanese Shinto priest, in his 1992 book, Karma & Reincarnation begins the
first chapter, titled Individual Karma: Life and Death with an introduction to The Three
Dimensions, which claims that:
The karma and reincarnation of any individual existence functions within the structure of a
multi-dimensional reality. As people, or human beings, we exist simultaneously in three
dimensions of being: the physical, the astral, and the causal. These are the three dimensions of
existence that directly comprise the earth. Over the course of time, our bodies and souls
incarnate into and out of these planes through a process we call being born and dying.
While on earth we possess a corresponding mind, or consciousness, to each of the three
bodies. The mind/body complexes overlie and interpenetrate one another. The physical is the
smallest of the three and the causal is the largest, extending beyond the physical body in a
surrounding oval. (p.11)

Dr Motoyama then incorporates the Vedic (Indian) concept of chakras into his metaphysical model:
Each body-mind has within itself seven energy centres for controlling the vital energy and a
system of energy channels. These channels are known in Sanskrit as nadis, and the centres
controlling them are known as chakras. The chakras also work as centres of interchange
between neighbouring dimensions. (p.11)

He then evokes the Chinese concepts of ying and yang (without mentioning them) when describing
the characteristics of the physical and astral bodies:
The astral body/mind is the repository of all desire and all emotion, and unconsciously
determines much of our behaviour when we exist within normal human limits. Both the
physical and the astral bodies are characterized by duality, the qualities of attraction and


repulsion, positive and negative. The physical body sustains itself through the attraction and
intake of air, food all the elements that nourish and sustain it. When functioning in a healthy
manner, the body rejects all substances that are harmful or unnecessary to its maintenance,
maintaining a balanced relationship to the external environment. When this balance is broken,
sickness and abnormality result. Similarly, the astral body attracts what it desires and rejects
what it does not desire. (p.13)

Motoyama presents a complex metaphysical construct including the physical world, the world of
spirits and the worlds of divine beings. The world of spirits is structured as a hierarchy, with an
upper level of astral world and a lower level of astral world. The astral dimension, according to
Motoyama, is where most people exist after they die, and the Shinto priest equates these with the
Catholic concepts of hell, purgatory and heaven:
The astral dimension is the other side of life; it is where most people exist after they die. The
astral dimension has two divisions, the lower and the higher. The lower astral is similar to the
popular notions of hell and purgatory. The higher astral corresponds to the general idea of
heaven. (p.14)

He claims that as ones consciousness evolves, one is able to see the astral dimension and to
communicate directly with those living in it. He himself claims such evolution, and gives many
examples of his own communication with disembodied spirits. In Australia, and by both World Health
Organization (ICD-10) and American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV) criteria such experiences and
interpretations are diagnostic of schizophrenia, characterised by bizarre delusions. They are also
typical beliefs of Shintoism and Mahayana Buddhist traditions as well as Hindu traditions (which
strongly influenced both Mahayana dogmas and the Shinto religion). Motoyama attempts to integrate
these polytheistic religions with Christian concepts in a way that would have been regarded as heretical
by the Inquisition, but is an interesting attempt at reconciling and integrating different metaphysical
and religious views:


The causal body is the same as the Christian concept of the spirit (as the astral body is to the
notion of the soul), in that it is the highest part of our being, the part closest to God. At the
moment of creation, the individual is differentiated from the One, and the causal body is born.
The causal body is that most closely related to the Absolute; as such, it is beyond duality.
Accordingly, it is neither male nor female. All the elements necessary for existence are
combined here in perfect equilibrium of pure life energy. The urge to realize this part of our
selves and thereby to regain identity with the Absolute engenders the desire for spiritual
evolution. (p.13)

Dr Motoyamas work might be described as a cosmological and theological theory which draws from
many different religious traditions. The result is an inherently superstitious world view inconsistent
with his description as a scientist. He quotes the ancient Hindu Upanishads as providing a clear
explanation of karma, transmigration, and death. Adding the Chinese concept of meridians to the
Vedic concept of chakras, Dr Motoyama, who is credited with a PhD in philosophy and
psychophysiology, theorises that people generally leave their bodies in through different chakras and
to different states of being when they die. This depends on their life during this incarnation and, in
line with doctrines in Hindu Bhagavad Gita, on their thoughts at the moment of death:
Ones thoughts and ideas at the last moment of life play an important role in deciding where
one will go and how one will next incarnate. (p.92)

He claims that souls (he uses the term spirit interchangeably) have three possible fates following
death: they can become trapped in the lower astral plane (if they are unable to control their emotions
and imagination), they can inhabit the more pleasant higher astral plane (if they are capable of
controlling their emotions and imagination), or they can go directly to the causal dimension, which,
he says is, a paradise filled with love and intelligence, where the atmosphere is charged with
vitality and the residents live long and healthy lives. This fate awaits only those who have devoted
their lives to the betterment of the world and attained an evolved state of love and compassion, and


those who have attained true wisdom (and have no earthly attachments). He comes up with a theory
of tormented ghosts, as the fate of those who do not lead virtuous lives:
The soul and astral body of a person with karma of strong sexual and materialistic attachments
moves from the heart to the Svadhisthana Chakra below the navel. The Svadhisthana Chakra
controls the unconscious and the urogenital system through the Kidney and Urinary Bladder
meridians. These pathways run down the legs and terminate at the tips of the little toe. The soul
and astral body travel down the meridian and exit from one of these endpoints.
The soul stays in the astral body and is born into the lower realms of the astral world where it
leads a life of suffering. As we have seen from previous examples, beings in this state are
characterized by selfishness. Their attachment is so strong that they tend not to reincarnate for a
long time. (p.91)

According to Dr Motoyama, prayers for those trapped within the lower astral planes can assist in their
ascendance to higher astral planes, thus releasing them from suffering. This can be done at various
Shinto Shrines: and he is head priest of the Tamamitsu Shrine in Japan, where he founded the
Institute of Religious Psychology in 1960. At the shrine, Dr Motoyama performs spiritual
consultations, where he meditates with him or her, and looks back psychically over their past and
present lives to find the root cause of the problem. The introduction of the book, which provides the
preceding information, also claims effectively divine powers for Head Priest Motoyama:
Through years of spiritual discipline, Dr Motoyama has the ability to unify his being with
manifestations of the Absolute that he refers to variously as the higher being, God, expanded
consciousness. In this unified state, which transcends the limits of time and space, he is able to
directly and clearly perceive the past, the future, and the non-physical dimensions of existence
that are connected to the physical realm. In this unified state, his consciousness is able to
connect directly with an object in the external world and to affect it. This enables him, for
instance, to cure the illness of a person who is in a physically distant location when such action
is appropriate.


Karma & Reincarnation does not announce itself as a New Age book (as does Understanding Auras)
nor does it admit to evangelizing the Shinto religion, or to present the original metaphysical construct
of Dr Hiroshi Motoyama; it claims to be a work of science. On the back cover, Motoyama is described
as, in order, a scientist, Shinto priest, healer, guide, and parapsychologist. His work in the
research institute he founded in Tokyo, which, it is claimed, has won him international awards and
acclaim, is said to be directed towards the scientific understanding of karma, reincarnation and the
evolution of human consciousness. These are not unreasonable pursuits: it is possible to investigate
karma, reincarnation and human evolution (including that of consciousness itself) using scientific
modes of thinking. These are inescapably logic-based (if the are to be regarded as scientific) and
directed toward the unbiased (objective) determination of fact (truth). Of course, total (100%) certainty
is rarely achieved in science, but, although such assertions are unfashionable, it is possible to determine
some facts and laws as absolutely correct. Most accepted facts and laws are, however, only relative
truths: they may have exceptions, or they may be partially correct. Particular (scientific) explanations
(and theories) may be relatively true in that they are more correct than alternative or competing

It can be regarded as an absolute truth that human beings (and, say trees) exist. It is also absolutely true
that the sun, the moon and the earth exist. It is absolutely true that people think, as was famously
pointed out by the French philosopher Rene Descartes in the 17th Century. Descartes was attempting to
establish sound foundations for his scientific philosophy, and, by his statement, I think, therefore I
am, established his existence as a fundamental truth, an incontrovertible first principle upon which
subsequent beliefs could safely rest. Descartes, who also postulated (but did not claim) that the pineal
organ in the brain is the seat of the soul, was a scientist and philosopher who has had considerable
influence on Western scientific thought, even though his ideas about the pineal and God have been
ridiculed in recent years. His ideas and actions had political and religious influence, as well as
scientific influence, because he promoted scepticism. He drew the line, however, at scepticism about
God. This is hardly surprising given the fate of his scientific predecessors who had challenged the
doctrines of the Church, and his own experiences with the Inquisition.


Descartes (Latinised as Cartesius), was born in 1596 in France and died in Sweden in 1650. More is
known about his death than his birth. He died, according to historical records, on the 11th of February,
1650, in the palace of Queen Christina of Sweden, in Stockholm, still the capital city of Sweden. It is
said that Descartes, who had fled to Sweden to escape the Inquisition in France, died of pneumonia,
which he had contracted due the unfamiliar climate and Queen Christinas insistence that he rise at 5.00
a.m. every morning to teach her philosophy. Looked at from a scientific point of view and considering
probabilities, these facts about Descartes can be accorded variable degrees of certainty. How close to
one hundred percent certainty a particular fact approaches (the date of his birth or death, say) is,
hundreds of years later, dependent on the accuracy, or otherwise, of the historical record. And historical
records and notorious for presenting biased perspectives and half-truths. Historical records can also
contain deliberate untruths: the result of intentional re-writing of history. This occurs for several
interconnected reasons centred on power, status and material gain.

The word delusion can be used to describe both a delusional belief and the act of deluding someone
else. The latter use of the term refers to a person or people misleading or deceiving another or others. It
is obvious that people can intentionally delude other people, through propaganda, for instance, and it is
equally obvious that delusions (incorrect beliefs) can be transmitted to others without a deliberate
intent to deceive. In fact, if false beliefs are strongly and sincerely held they may be more convincing
to others.

Frederick Wood, in Training in Thought and Expression (1959) presents a key to the recognition of
propaganda repeated from A.J. Mackenzies Propaganda Boom (1938). The Seven Secrets of
Propaganda are, according to this analysis:
1. Repetition: he adopts one or two simple points and repeats them continually until the minds
of his audience become saturated.


2. Colour: He must bring personalities into the limelight, surround them with glamour and
interest, make the most of any incidents that will serve his purpose.
3. It should contain at least a kernel of truth: A deliberate lie is not likely to command credence
for long; but when a report, however exaggerated and doctored, has some truth behind it, the
public tends to take the kernel of truth as a proof that all the facts of the story are true.
4. It should be built around a slogan: The value of these phrases from a propagandist point of
view is that they strike home and provide a rallying-point.
5. It should be directed towards a specific objective: Arguments which seem to be directed at our
own particular interests should cause us to suspect an ulterior motive.
6. Concealment of motive: When a director of a firm of armament manufacturers advocates
stronger defence forces he does so from purely disinterested motives.
7. Timing: The propagandist must know when to speak and when to remain quiet in other
words, he must be able to gauge the psychological moment and to know what will best suit
his purpose at a particular time.
(pp. 37-41)

While Frederick Wood focused on examples of German Nazi propaganda, the list above gives some
indication of why, in the modern world, it is so difficult to sort out fact from fiction, when we are
surrounded and inundated by propaganda from various sources, all intended to influence our beliefs
and behaviour, often with the intent of selling something. Although much propaganda is primarily
motivated by a desire for financial profit, propaganda has, for thousands of years, been used to increase
power and authority over other people: for the purpose of social and political domination. It has also
been used, as it obviously was by the German Nazi regime, to motivate the masses for war, and to
deceive them into thinking that firstly, they are winning the war (or likely to win it); secondly, that
their side is morally in the right; and thirdly, that the enemy is fundamentally evil. The last of these, is


evidenced in the creation and promotion of various demonic figures usually the political leaders of
the enemy nations. During the Second World and for many years after, the most obvious of these
demonic idols was Adolf Hitler. He remains a classic example of an evil man, and indeed he was
a man who did some horrifically evil things. Was Hitler bad, mad or both? What about the other
political leaders of the belligerents in the Second World War: Hirohito of Japan, Mussolini of Italy,
Franco of Spain, Stalin of Russia, Churchill of Britain and Roosevelt of the USA?

The American high school textbook As it Happened: A History of the United States (1975) provides
this extract from President Roosevelts December 1940 address to the American nation:
The Nazi masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only to dominate all life
and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the
resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world.
Three weeks ago their leader stated There are two worlds that stand opposed to each other.
Then in defiant reply to his opponents, he said this: Others are correct when they say: With
this world we cannot ever reconcile ourselvesI can beat any other power in the world. So
said the leader of the Nazis.
In other words, the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace
between their philosophy of government and our philosophy of government

Roosevelt went on to call for public support for Great Britain against the Axis powers, claiming that:
If Great Britain goes down, the Axis powers will control the continents of Europe, Asia,
Africa, Australia, and the high seas and they will be in a position to bring enormous military
and naval resources against this hemisphere. It is no exaggeration to say that all of us in the


Americas would be living at the point of a gun a gun loaded with explosive bullets, economic
as well as military. (p.694)

As a rule, when politicians say this is not an exaggeration it is prudent to be alert to one. In this case
the exaggeration is obvious. While many of the claims about the philosophy and agenda of the Nazis
were true, it is certainly an exaggeration that Americans would literally be enslaved at the point of a
gun if Britain went down. Roosevelt referred, in his address to the nation, to the Western
Hemisphere, meaning the Americas, which he said had vast resources and wealth which constitute
the most tempting loot in all the world. He predicted that if Germany beat Britain, we should enter
upon a new and terrible era in which the whole world, our hemisphere included, would be run by
threats of brute force, and that to survive in such a world, we would have to convert ourselves
permanently into a militaristic power on the basis of war economy. War economies are fuelled by
paranoia and by expansionist (and imperialist) philosophies. Roosevelt chose to ignore the British
history of empire building and world domination when he equated Britains fight with Democracys
fight and argued that the United States must become the great arsenal of democracy:
Democracys fight against world conquest is being greatly aided, and must be more greatly
aided, by the rearmament of the United States and by sending every ounce and every ton of
munitions and supplies that we can possibly spare to help the defenders who are in the front
lines. It is no more unneutral for us to do that than it is for Sweden, Russia and other nations
near Germany to send steel and ore and oil and other war materials into Germany every day.
We are planning our own defense with the utmost urgency; and in its vast scale we must
integrate the war needs of Britain and the other free nations in resisting aggression.
This is not a matter of sentiment or of controversial personal opinion. It is a matter of realistic
military policy, based on the advice of our military experts who are in close touch with existing
warfare. These military and naval experts and the members of the Congress and the
administration have a single-minded purpose the defence of the United States.


As planes and ships and guns and shells are produced, your Government, with its defense
experts, can then determine how best to use them to defend this hemisphere. The decision as to
how much shall be sent abroad and how much shall remain at home must be made on the basis
of our over-all military necessities.
We must be the great arsenal of democracy. For us this is an emergency as serious as war
itself. We must apply ourselves to our task with the same resolution, the same sense of
urgency, the same spirit of patriotism and sacrifice, as we would were we at war. (As it
Happened: A History of the United States p.695)
Having associated the British Empire with freedom, democracy and the fight against world
conquest, Roosevelt evoked religious sentiment by claiming that the British people are conducting an
active war against this unholy alliance. The unholy alliance was between the Axis powers:
Germany, Japan, Italy and Spain. The Allies (by inference, the holy alliance) included Britain,
France and the United States. Roosevelt referred to so-called neutral states, such as Sweden which
supplied raw materials for the German war effort, and suggested that supplying massive amounts of
weapons to Britain was equally neutral. He claimed that by supplying arms to Britain in sufficient
volume and quickly enough, there was far less chance of the United States getting into war.

Roosevelt was not unopposed in his call to arms. Charles Lindbergh, remembered for his pertinent
observation that in times of war truth is always replaced by propaganda, argued in the New York
Times (24.4.41) that:
We in this country have a right to think of the welfare of America first, just as the people in
England thought first of their own country when they encouraged the smaller nations of Europe
to fight against hopeless odds. When England asks us to enter this war, she is considering her
own future, and that of her empire. In making our reply, I believe we should consider the future
of the United States and that of the Western Hemisphere. (Sellers, 1975, p.696)


To look at Roosevelts arguments from a balanced perspective one must look at the history of the
British Empire critically in terms of the crimes against humanity that the Axis powers, and German
Nazis in particular, were accused of. Roosevelt rightly claimed that, the Nazis have proclaimedthat
all other races are their inferiors and therefore subject to their orders. This was a central assumption of
the Nazi eugenics program designed to exterminate inferior races, which, by their definition, included
black races (Africans), brown races (including Gypsies) and Semitic races (Jews and Arabs). Jews,
in particular, were hunted and mercilessly killed by the Nazis, partly because of the many wealthy and
influential Jews in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe) at the time, and partly because of long-standing
traditions of anti-Semitism in Christian Europe. It is important to differentiate anti-Semitism from
anti-Judaism, the former being a possibly more malign force than the latter. Anti-Semitism refers to
racial prejudice and racially-based persecution against people of the Semitic race (Semitic peoples).
These include people of both the Moslem and Jewish religions, as well of people with Christian and
other religious beliefs. Anti-Judaism, Anti-Mohammedism, Anti-Buddhism, Anti-paganism,
Anti-Hinduism and Anti-Christianism are references to philosophical positions opposed to the
respective religions: they are not racial prejudices but religious ones. While both racial and religious
prejudice have fuelled wars in the past (and continue to fuel them in the present) it is not uncommon
for the two common prejudices to be confused with each other, so that the actual root causes of various
conflicts are obscured.

Religion provides an ideological motivation rather than a mercenary motive for war (though they may
be combined, and often are). Ideological motives for warfare are more powerful, and cheaper. Their
maintenance demands the ever-increasing use of propaganda. It is ever-increasing because propaganda
leads to counter-propaganda and this to counter-counter-propaganda and so on. The web of lies and
excuses for warfare grows like a mental and social cancer. What we now refer to the First World War
andSecond World War, when analysed in terms of the underlying ideological conflicts (political,
social, religious and racial), can teach us much about the varied use of propaganda, and how it has
contributed to the continued misery and wastage of warfare since Roosevelts decision to make the
United States of America the great arsenal of democracy. It can also teach us much about shared
delusions and how to see through the delusion that warfare is inevitable and unavoidable.


Human beings are not naturally a warlike species. As social creatures we are co-dependent on other
human beings for our survival, and as social creatures we savour the company and friendship of others.
Children who have been brought up in non-racist, non-sexist, non-ageist environments play together
and make friends with others regardless of skin colour, gender, age or religious beliefs. They can,
however, develop prejudices against other children in these areas at an early age, reflecting those of the
people who influence them. It is adults, and mainly male adults who prepare for war and wage war,
although inevitably many who die are children. It is adults who formulate arguments and
rationalizations for killing people in the interests of creating peace, and institute totalitarian regimes
while claiming to protect democracy and freedom. It is adults who interpret religious scriptures
intended to prevent violence to justify acts of violence and then teach this corrupted ideology to
children. The Australian educational text Clear Thinking (1961) contains some wisdom from Dr John
Rae, who wrote, in an article titled Children and the Myths of War (in the Listener):
Is it not true that even in peace-time, in an age when war is recognized by most to be insanity,
children all over the world are still being taught to think of war that is, the organized killing
of human beings by other human beings as a natural and perhaps noble part of human
experience? And if this is so, is it any use adults making elaborate plans to ensure peace when
at the same time they are teaching the next generation to accept war? (p.6)

Dr Rae explains his hope for the future, which many millions share:
Through our upbringing and education our minds have been conditioned to accept killing. It
follows from this that the best way to prevent war would be to educate children to think of
killing not just as something abhorrent but also as something of which they themselves are
incapable.I would like to see children everywhere brought to look upon our present
attitude to killing as uncivilized; to be taught that the existing state of affairs need not be
permanent, and that man is capable of outgrowing killing as he has outgrown cannibalism. I
would want children to be inspired by this vision of a world where deliberate killing is out of
date, a barbaric custom practised by the uncivilized tribes of the twentieth century. (p.7)


The Australian high-school history text Australians in Wartime might be examined to see how deeply
Dr Raes advice had penetrated in twenty years. Published in 1980, the history book presents the
following ambiguous conclusion:
War invariably creates change in a society, for the pressures it creates places great strains on
the social and political fabric. Both wars had a profound impact on Australia, arresting some
developments and hastening others. War produced significant change in Australia.
Australians have seen themselves as superb fighters and an honourable people whose word
can be relied upon. There is much that is noble and heroic in the story of Australians in
wartime, but also much that is regrettable. The tensions of war, it would seem, are both
creative and destructive. (p.89)

The first and second world wars evoked very different responses from the Australian people.
Australians in Wartime admits that Australians greeted the news of outbreak of war on 4 August 1914
with almost indecent enthusiasm. The Australian Prime Minister, Joseph Cook, declared that if the
old country is at war, so are we, the old country being England, regarded as Australias mother
country. The text reveals a shared delusion of the Australian people that resulted in war fever and
unashamed jingoism:
Empire loyalty and love of adventure were, it seemed, universal throughout Australia in the
early months of the war. From every quarter, from parliaments, shire halls, parish pulpits,
metropolitan dailies and obscure rural weeklies, came praise for the nobility of Britains
response and assurances of Australian loyalty and assistance. Newspaper editors explained that
Germany must learn how immoral was the doctrine that might is right. Germany must learn to
respect the rights of smaller, weaker neighbours, as Britain had done in defending Belgium.


There was a common belief in Australia that the war would be over in a few days, and that God was on
the side of the British Empire. Australians in Wartime quotes the Reverend Samuel Scholes, a
Methodist (Christian) priest who exhorted, in the Bendigo Methodist Church:
It is not for me just now to discuss the various bearings of the situation in which we find
ourselves as an Empire involved, but it is not too much to say that in the most deliberate
judgement of those most competent to determine, Britains attitude is justified not only before
the courts of men, but also before the face of Almighty God.

The text reveals that the Christian clergy in Australia played an active role in disseminating warpropaganda and manipulating the people into enthusiasm for war:
Australian clergymen gave an indication of how widespread was the enthusiasm for war.
Traditionally we might look to the clergy to encourage restraint and to remind people that the
Christian virtues of love and tolerance must still apply in war-time. Instead, Australian
clergymen eagerly developed the pro-war arguments, abandoning caution and committing
themselves wholeheartedly to the war. The battle, they argued, was not about territory, but
about principles and they soon demonstrated that since the Empire fought for ideals such as
self-sacrifice, integrity and fidelity, its cause must be blessed by God. (p.8)

The clergy, as quoted in this book, claimed that the war was not about territory, which some had
suggested it to be. In fact one might say many people recognised it to be about territory, since without
doubt territory (including control of territory) was one of the things the protagonists of the First World
War were fighting over. Territory is one of the things the protagonists of the Second World War were
fighting over as well; the outbreak of this war being greeted with considerably less enthusiasm than
that of World War I, during which over 60,000 (mainly young) Australians had been killed in defence


of the British Empire. The British Empire had been euphemistically termed the Commonwealth or
Free State by the British Parliament, back in 1649 (Burne, 1991, p.620). This occurred immediately
after the execution of King Charles I by the forces of Oliver Cromwell who had led a civil war against
the English aristocracy, again a war for control of territory, but also a war for freedom from oppression.
The First and Second World Wars were much more wars for and over territory than ideological or
independence wars (which followed, in the 1950s, 60s and 70s). The territory the protagonists were
fighting over was the entire world: the land and what lay under the ground, the air and the sea.
Furthermore, these same protagonists, with the exceptions of Japan and the USA, had been fighting
over this territory from the time they discovered it, four hundred years earlier.

The voyages of discovery by Magellan, Vasco da Gama, Bartholomew Dias, Columbus and other
Southern European navigators and explorers presented new continents for their aristocracies and those
of other European states to conquer and exploit. Previously Europeans had known only of Northern
Africa and Asia, both homes to ancient civilizations thousands of years old (and far older than their
own). The age of discovery heralded the era of colonisation, as each discovered territory was claimed
for one European power or another. The Portuguese and Spanish, who led the race at first, claimed the
Americas and proceeded to slaughter their inhabitants in the name of God and Christianity, but always
with an eye for gold, precious stones and slaves. Those who could be enslaved were not killed: human
beings became a valuable cargo (somewhat less valued than horses or sheep) and a merciless trade
began between European nations for slaves and territories in which people were already enslaved or
could easily be enslaved.

In 1494 AD, following Columbus discovery of the Americas, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal bull
(holy decree) dividing all the new lands which had, or were to be, discovered between the Catholic
monarchies of Portugal and Spain. This occurred after negotiations between Ferdinand and Isabella of
Spain and John II of Portugal, who managed to have an imaginary line dividing the world into two
hemispheres east and west of the Western Atlantic Azores islands, which the Portuguese had claimed,
sanctioned by the pope (and thus the Catholic Church). The Spanish were granted the Western


hemisphere (including the continents of North and South America) and the Portuguese, the Eastern
Hemisphere (including Africa and Asia). This followed the discovery of the Americas by Columbus,
who had been financed by Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain (in 1492), and the successful navigation
around the Cape of Good Hope (Southern Africa) by the Portuguese navigator Bartholomew Dias in
1488. Dias had been sponsored by King John II of Portugal, who had ascended the Portuguese throne
in 1481 following the death of his father, King Alfonzo V. Two years earlier, in 1479, Spain had
become a powerful new force in European politics when Ferdinand of Castile and Isabella of Aragon,
who had married 10 years earlier, joined their countries in a federation. Ferdinand, Isabella and John
were Roman Catholics and with their support the Roman Church (centred in the Vatican) gained
religious control of the Iberian Peninsula, which had previously been ruled by Semitic Moslems
(Moors) who were allied with the huge Turkish Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire, which was
finally destroyed only in the First World War, controlled, in the early 15 th Century, territory stretching
from modern-day Pakistan and Afghanistan in Asia through Northern Africa to Mali in West Africa
and the Southern Iberian peninsula. The Arabian Peninsula, Horn of Africa and Greece were also under
Ottoman rule which, as the centre of Moslem political power in the Old World, became the biggest
enemy of the Catholic Church, which was centred in Italy, at first, and later in Germany and Austria.

In the mid-15th Century Italy was divided into several feuding city states Rome, Naples, Venice,
Milan and Florence all of which bowed to the authority of the Roman Church and any inquisitions
ordered by the papacy. Periodic inquisitions which amounted to a constant inquisition of variable
severity and cruelty had been authorised by the Roman Church from the time of Augustine in the 5 th
Century AD, but they reached their worst ferocity and notoriety in the 15th and 16th Centuries.

The political nature of the religious inquisitions is obvious when one looks at who was questioned
and executed and how, when and why they were killed. Church-officiated and/or inspired inquisitions
were conducted all over Europe in the 15th Century, and the victims reflected political and
philosophical struggles which continue to this day. The Inquisition of the French peasant heroine Joan
of Arc and her subsequent burning as a witch in 1431 is one obvious example. Joan, a French peasant


girl had, since the age of 13, heard voices, and would, by modern psychiatric criteria, be diagnosable
as schizophrenic. The voices told Joan that it was Gods will that the English be thrown out of
France, which they had been occupying since the English King Henry V defeated the French army after
invading France in 1415. Henry V subsequently signed a treaty of perpetual peace with Philip, duke
of Burgundy (France), and married Catherine, daughter of French imbecile king Charles V. This
brought Henry closer to his ambition of ruling both the French and English kingdoms. It was the
Burgundians who sold the captured Joan of Arc, who had inspired the French troops to victory against
the English army in Orleans in 1429, to the British (for 10,000 gold crowns). The British organised for
Joan to be tried by an inquisition headed by the Burgundian bishop Cauchon who sentenced her to life
imprisonment. In 1431 she was accused of having a relapse evidenced by her wearing mens clothes
(possibly all she was given), diagnosed as a witch and burnt at the stake. In 1440, a former
commander of Joans troops, Gilles de Laval, was garrotted and burnt with two accomplices, after
confessing to the murder of at least 200 children. He had been accused of heresy, sodomy, apostasy,
sacrilege and violation of clerical immunity. After confessing to experimenting with alchemy and black
magic, modelling himself on the depraved Roman emperor Caligula, and torturing and sodomising
children after entrapping them, Gilles de Laval is said to have asked for his own execution. Given the
inquisitions notorious techniques of torture and putting words in its victims mouths, the confession
of de Laval tells us more about the preoccupations of the inquisitors than of its victims.

The Roman Church formally approved of physical torture as a means of extracting confessions by the
Inquisition in 1255. According to new laws, heresy was to be discovered by pairs of Dominican priests
(monks) who went from town to town giving public sermons on the evils of heresy. Those who
confessed were supposed to be pardoned, but those who did not could be legally tortured until they
admitted their guilt. The inquisitors were authorised to impose life imprisonment or execution on those
who were judged, or to impose lesser penalties on individuals, or whole communities. Informers, who
were often paid for their information (whether true or false), could remain anonymous, and networks of
spies developed throughout Europe, carrying rumour and innuendo to Rome.


With the papacy and the Vatican located in Rome, this ancient city remained politically powerful, but
soon its authority was challenged by the high priests of other European cities. In 1378 the French
cardinals of the papal court in Avignon (in France) defied Italian authority by electing Robert of
Geneva, cousin of Charles V (king of France) as a rival pope to the Italian Bartolomeo Prignano, who
had been elected by the cardinals of the Vatican as Pope Urban VI. In 1409 a third papacy appeared
when the Council of Pisa elected Petros Philargos of Crete as Pope Alexander V. He set up his papal
court in Pisa. In 1417 the Pisa papacy ended when Alexanders successor, John XXIII was found guilty
of adultery, sodomy, incest and the poisoning of his predecessor (Alexander) by the clerical council of
Constance in Germany. The conclave at Constance, with the support of the German King Sigismund
and Englands Henry V, appointed the Italian cardinal Oddone Colonna as the real pope, declaring
the French pope of Avignon a heretic and frightening the Roman pope, Gregory XII to resign. It was
Henrys armies in France that Joan of Arc fought against, and under the English-German-instituted
papal authority that she was imprisoned, tortured and executed. Henry V, having married Catherine,
daughter of the French king Charles V, was poised to become emperor of England and France when
Charles died; however, in 1422, at the age of 35, Henry V died instead. His son and heir, Henry VI,
was only nine months old, leaving the German King Sigismund the dominant ruler of the Holy Roman
Empire, the political power base of which was, at this stage, actually in Germany and Austria, rather
than in Rome or Italy. In 1433 Sigismund was crowned emperor of the Roman Empire by Pope
Eugenius IV. Eugenius hoped for support in his battle with the clerical council of Basle (in
Switzerland). Basle was another city vying for clerical dominance within the Holy Roman Empire,
along with Constance in Germany, Ferrara and Florence in Italy, and Avignon in France. Each of these
cities, and many others, conducted inquisitions.

In 1415 the Czech scholar and priest, Jan Hus, who had spoken out against corruption in the Church,
was sentenced to death by the Fathers of the Council of Constance. Hus, who inspired a Christian sect
called Hussites, was born into a Bohemian peasant family, and his criticism of indulgences by the
Church (later echoed by Luther) was popular among the poor and oppressed peasants of his homeland.
He was a figurehead of the Czech nationalist movement, which threatened the authority of the German
monarchy. Hus was granted an opportunity to recant his heresy by the German king Sigismund, but
refused to do so and was burnt at the stake for his intransigence.


Pope Eugenius, who crowned Sigismund as Emperor, was himself deposed in 1439 by the Basle
Council, who elected the wealthy Duke of Savoy, Amadeus VIII as Pope Felix V. Eugenius had just
been recognised by the (Greek) Eastern Byzantine Church as the head of both the Roman and Greek
churches, which had been split for a thousand years. This split had occurred in the 5 th Century, when
the Roman Empire was split between the Western Empire, centred in Rome, and the Eastern Empire
(Byzantine Empire) centred in Constantinople. The political rift between the Eastern and Western
Roman Empires followed a theological rift regarding the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the
Trinity, which came to a head in 484 AD with the Roman Pope Felix III excommunicating Acacius,
patriarch of Constantinople, and Zeno the Eastern Emperor. Acacius had issued an edict called the
Henotikon, which supported the Monophysites, who disputed the doctrine proclaimed by the Council
of Chalcedon in 451 AD. The Council had declared that Christ was:
One substance with us as regarded his manhood; like us in all respects apart from sin; as
regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood
begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the Godbearer; one and the
same Christ, Son, Lord, Only Begotten, recognized in two natures without confusion, without
change, without division, without separation. (Johnson, 1975, p.92)
The churches and priests that refused to accept this doctrine were termed Monophysites, and these
included the ancient Churches of Syria, Egypt and Ethiopia. By the time the Greek and Roman
churches agreed to unite in 1439, Islam had become the dominant religion in Northern Africa,
including Egypt, and throughout the Middle East, and the union of the churches under Pope Eugenius
was politically motivated by the advancing threat of the Moslem Ottoman Empire. However, in 1453,
Constantinople, the prized capital of the Byzantine Empire, was conquered by the army of the Ottoman
Turks. They subsequently made it the capital city of their growing empire, which had long been viewed
as the political and religious enemy of Christendom.

In 1478 Ferdinand and Isabella reintroduced the inquisition to Spain, which been previously under
Moslem (Moor) rule (until mid-14th Century). This resulted in intensification of anti-Semitism and
persecution of the Jews in Spain. In 1492 the 150,000 Jews in Spain were given four months to leave


the country by the Inquisition and a series of punitive laws restricting Jewish activities was passed by
the Catholic administration. Earlier, in the 1390s, hundreds of Jews in Spain had been killed for
refusing to be baptised and elsewhere in Europe Jews were persecuted, often with mercenary intent. In
1290 Englands King Edward expelled all Jews from England, confiscating their property and calling
in the debts that the Jewish usurers were owed. Usury the practice of lending money for profit
(through interest) was a specialty of Jewish financiers and this was proscribed by Edward by the
Statute of Jewry of 1275, which offered Jews the opportunity of working as merchants, artisans or
farmers. Philip the fair of France was less tolerant. In 1306 he replenished the royal treasury after
arresting local Jews and confiscating their money.

Throughout the hundreds of years that people were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Inquisitions,
those who refused to accept the laws and doctrines of the Church were labelled as heretics: they were
said to hold and espouse false beliefs, and this was regarded as a heinous crime. However there can be
little doubt that the inquisitors themselves were deluded (and often far more deluded than their
victims): they suffered from delusions of grandeur and systematised religious delusions.

In their broader but simpler definition as false beliefs, delusions exist in as many areas as beliefs do.
People may have political, social, religious, scientific, economic or personal delusions. We have also
all grown up with a background of propaganda, which has become increasingly technologically and
psychologically sophisticated in recent years following the official end of the (never officially
declared) Cold War. In the last few years the bombing of civilians has been justified by our political
leaders as being in the interests of establishing democracy, human rights, peace and security. While we
are expected to believe that biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction are imminent
threats from rogue states (coincidentally all in the Third World and most with predominantly
Moslem populations), we are not permitted to regard such warnings as terrorism. Instead we are
taught to fear deranged and fanatical terrorists from the Third World who, we are told, have no
respect for life or method in their madness. We are told that the biggest social problems in Australia are
caused by unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness and the breakdown of family values


while the growing gap between rich and poor individuals and nations continues to widen, and our
political leaders remain silent on local political, social and economic inequities, compensation to
colonised nations for hundreds of years of slavery and exploitation, redistribution of land and wealth,
the role governments have played in the breakup and breakdown of families (remember the Stolen
Generation), or who has developed and pushed the drugs that society is now addicted to. At the time of
writing the Age newspaper informs us here in Australia that the Federal Government which refuses to
even discuss a belated treaty with the original inhabitants of our country is considering treaty with the
United States, not in the interests of peace, but to further develop the nuclear capability of the United

We might ask, then, what influence has the prevailing political and economic environment had on
which views are regarded as delusional? How have the religious and political assumptions of the past
influenced concepts of sanity and insanity? In what ways do religious, political and scientific beliefs
contribute to the development of harmful delusions? Are all delusions harmful, or is it true that
ignorance is bliss?

Delusions are beliefs. They are, by general acceptance and dictionary definitions, false beliefs (or
opinions). By psychiatric definition, however, delusions are not necessarily false, epitomised by the
psychiatric truism: a delusion is still a delusion, even if it transpires, by coincidence, to be correct.
This seemingly illogical statement refers to the method by which a belief is acquired, the classical
example being a man who believes his wife is having an affair, which she is indeed having, however he
comes to his conclusion for unusual or bizarre reasons. A version of this example is given in
Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry (1994) in an effort to establish that delusions may be true:
It is not whether the delusion is absolutely false that is relevant, but rather that the belief is
adhered to by the patient very firmly despite manifestly insufficient evidence. For instance, a
man was convinced that his wife was having an affair, and indeed she was in a secret
relationship. However, the husbands conviction arose from the interpretation he placed on


entirely unrelated events such as the numbers printed on the letter he received from the tax
office. (p.74)

He may have been an enthusiast of numerology! The claim that delusions may not be false is
contradicted by the definition of delusions in the same textbook:
Delusions are false ideas, usually of great personal significance, held firmly despite all
evidence to the contrary, and are inconsistent with the patients sociocultural background.

This definition claims that for false ideas to be regarded as delusional they must be inconsistent with a
persons sociocultural background. In other words, incorrect beliefs which are widely (or
traditionally) held in a particular culture or society are not delusional, at least from a psychiatric
point of view. This is important given the treatment meted out to those who are diagnosed as having
psychosis in the modern world, especially in multicultural societies such as Australia.

Subtypes of delusional disorder in the 1994 DSM IV are: erotomanic, grandiose, jealous, persecutory,
somatic, mixed and unspecified (p.297). This classification, which is repeated in the Australian
textbook Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry (1994), is significantly different from previous psychiatric
classifications of delusions (for example, those listed in the Dorlands Medical Dictionary, previously
quoted). The American Psychological Associations Encyclopedia of Psychology (2000) defines
delusions as strongly held personal beliefs which are inconsistent with known facts but which the
patient continues to believe despite the contradictory evidence (p.162).


The American Psychiatry Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV) distinguishes
between bizarre and non-bizarre delusions, the former being regarded as characteristic of
schizophrenia and the latter, of delusional disorder. Both psychotic illnesses are regarded as
serious and incurable, although both are considered treatable: this treatment being primarily
dopamine-blocking antipsychotic drugs. Strangely, given that delusions are irrational beliefs, talk
therapies are considered, according to modern psychiatric dogma, to be ineffective in curing or even
treating delusions. In Australia, America, Europe and elsewhere schizophrenia and delusional
disorder are regarded as mental illnesses so serious that people thus diagnosed who refuse drug
treatment are routinely imprisoned and treated against their will with injections of dopamine-blockers.

The assumption that delusions are unhealthy is fundamental to psychiatric theory and practice, but has
a far longer history, in that religious traditions have also taught about the evils of delusion. Gautama
Siddhartha (the Buddha), the Indian philosopher after whose name Buddhism is taken is notable for
his detailed theories about how delusion (mara) can be conquered, teaching that the three fundamental
vices are hatred, greed and delusion. The man later called the Buddha (enlightened one) was one of
many philosophers whose teachings have been transformed into dogmas such that they may be termed
religions (despite his own insistence that his teaching be examined critically and rejected if found to
be unsound, or not in accordance with personal experience). Religion generally implies dogmatic
beliefs, usually held on the basis of faith rather than proof. As such, it has been said that many
fundamental theological and spiritual questions cannot be answered or properly studied by science,
in that many of the fundamental questions of spiritual inquiry cannot be proved or disproved by
scientific means, for example, the creation of the Universe or the existence of a soul or spirit
independent of the body. Even if this were true, and it may not be, peoples beliefs and thinking about
these things can be studied scientifically. This is true in theory, but difficult in practice since ones
own thinking and beliefs make the scientific ideal of objectivity a daunting task.

Acceptance of commonly-held religious, philosophical and scientific views is less intellectually

demanding than the thoughtful development of ones own beliefs on the basis of critical thinking and


the careful ascertainment of truth versus untruth. Passive acceptance of the most loudly or forcefully
promoted view inevitably leads to erroneous beliefs, however, due to the power politics of propaganda.
Consider the influential myths of Genesis, the first book of the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah,
which dogmatically states that God created the Universe and the Earth as well as all of life, including
humans. In the three religions of the Book, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the first people were
Adam and Eve and they lived in the Garden of Eden. The basic account of the creation of
humankind by God which is accepted by all three religions is contained in the first chapter of the Old
Testament of the Christian Bible and of the Jewish Torah: Genesis. Genesis tells the tale of temptation
of Adam by Eve, of their original sin (eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and
evil), their sons Cain and Abel, and the drowning of all of humanity (except Noah and his family) by a
massive flood. This flood, states the Bible, was sent by God to punish humans for their wickedness, but
Noah, being the only righteous man in the world, was spared, along with his family, the terrible
punishment inflicted on the rest of humanity and the animal world (other than those he saved in the ark
he built under direct instructions from God).

This account of early human history was taken as literal fact for many hundreds of years, by many
millions of people in several countries, but never by the majority of the human population and never in
all parts of the world. The Judao-Christian tradition (with shared belief in Genesis and the other books
of the Old Testament) has been carried, mainly through Christian missionaries, to every country on the
planet, but in some countries it has not been popular because it came into conflict with pre-existing
beliefs and religious traditions. In some it has not been popular because of the behaviour of Church and
clergy and in some it has not been popular because its teachings conflict with scientific evidence. It is
the tradition, however, within which the Western scientific paradigm developed. Over the past one
hundred years, however, the Churchs insistence in the literal accuracy of the Old Testament of the
Bible has waned in the light of geological and biological evidence, and with the widespread acceptance
of firstly, our common ancestry with other vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes and secondly, the
enormous age of the Earth, estimated as several billion years old. Some, however, still cling to the
discredited calculations of Bishop James Ussher. Most would accept that these people are deluded in
this particular belief.


In 1654 the Irish archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher concluded, after adding up the ages of the Old
Testament patriarchs, that the Earth was created at 9.00 am, on the 26th of October 4004 BC. This was
accepted as a dogma for over two hundred years by both the Catholic and Protestant Churches,
however, in the light of incontrovertible evidence of human existence long before this date, few
theologians would claim nowadays that that Earth is only 6000 years old. If they did, they might
reasonably be considered to be suffering from a delusion: one created by a specific person at a specific
time and place (Ussher, in 1654, in Ireland). It became, however, a shared delusion: one shared by
millions of people and actively propagated around the world by often well-meaning people with
unshakable faith that the stories of Genesis are literally true.

The widely held belief in the literal truth of the Genesis account is mentioned as an example of a
belief [which] may be unsound because it is based upon an idea which is commonly accepted as true,
but which is actually erroneous in a list of causes of crooked thinking in the interesting book by the
educator Frederick Wood, Training in Thought and Expression (1959):
At one time it was generally accepted that the earth was flat, but now we know that was not
true. Consequently any beliefs dependent upon this were unsound. In the same way many
religious beliefs, such as that of the fall of man, original sin, etc., were the outcome of the
supposed literal truth of the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. Now we know that these
chapters cannot be taken as a literal statement of fact, and this has rendered necessary the
revision of the dependent doctrines. We cannot, of course, always know whether the supposed
truths on which we base a great part of our thinking are actually true or not. So much that was
accepted as true a generation ago has since been proved inadequate or erroneous that we are
inclined to be sceptical. (p.65)

Dr Wood, then English Master at the Firth Park Grammar School in Sheffield, England provided a
guide to avoiding common pitfalls which can lead to incorrect beliefs and what he terms crooked
thinking (as opposed to straight thinking thinking straight). His advice can be applied for the


correction of delusions and the avoidance of their development. Prior to the discussion of specific
pitfalls, he explains:
It will be realisedthat the basis of all sound thinking is sound beliefs. If our beliefs are
unsound and illogical, any theory we base upon these beliefs, or any conclusions we draw from
them, will also be unsound and illogicalIf only we acquired the habit of taking mental stock
of ourselves periodically, and asking Why do I believe this or that? or Why do I hold this
opinion? or On what grounds do I subscribe to these ideas? we should probably be surprised at
the frequency with which we had to admit to ourselves that the grounds were quite inadequate,
and that therefore the beliefs in question were, from a rational point of view, not to be
justified. (p.54)

Dr Woods list of invalid grounds on which beliefs are commonly held is as follows:
1. Mere habit
2. The will to disbelieve
3. Acceptance of current ideas
4. Blind and unquestioning acceptance of what someone else tells us
5. Reliance on memory, which may play us false
6. Self-interest
7. Prejudice


8. Antagonism to some person or party who happens to hold the opposed view
9. Because it is based upon an idea which is commonly accepted as true, but which actually is
10. Misunderstanding of words and terms
11. Use of vague and undefined terms
12. Coloured terms
13. Euphemisms

He says, of mere habit:

Certain ideas become part of our mental furniture. We have acquired them early in life, or
they may even be heirlooms, handed on to us by our parents, and we never trouble even to
consider them any more than we consider why we wear a collar or a dinner jacket, or why we
prefer to sit in a particular chair at home. It is just habit. Thus we have the person who is a
traditional conservative, socialist, prohibitionist, atheist, etc. He made up his mind on the
subject years ago, and has never changed it nor questioned the validity of his beliefs since,
though the circumstances attendant on the original formation of his opinion may have altered
completely. For many people their religious beliefs are probably in this class; and where these
beliefs are formulated into a creed which is repeated Sunday by Sunday, this only serves to
perpetuate the habit. That there may be advantages in the repetition of a creed is not to be
denied, but we should not allow it to lead us into a blind and unthinking acceptance of the
beliefs it expresses. A mental habit tends to create a will to believe which makes for
gullibility and credulity. (p.55)


Family traditions in religion and politics are ubiquitous, and vital to understanding a persons belief
system. They are, however, often neglected by doctors taking psychiatric histories, even when making
diagnoses of delusional thinking and psychosis. This is contrary to accepted psychiatric doctrine,
which instructs that delusions should only be diagnosed after considering a patients social, educational
and cultural background. Professor Keks, in Foundations of Clinical Psychiatry, gives a convoluted
and confusing interpretation of this doctrine:
Delusions with religious or subcultural content can prove difficult to assess. Usually
consultations with a member of the patients social group is necessary. It should also be kept in
mind that what appear to be persecutory delusions may be true. It is not whether the delusion is
absolutely false that is relevant, but rather that the belief is adhered to by the patient very firmly
despite manifestly insufficient or inappropriate evidence. (p.74)

Of note, he refers to the assessment, not the diagnosis of delusions. Of course, delusions should only be
diagnosed after careful assessment, however often the existence of delusions in those labelled with
schizophrenia (or delusional disorder) is assumed and the interviewer (in this case the medical student
or junior doctor - the targets of this textbook) is expected merely to elicit the delusion and rate its
severity. If the supposed delusional belief turns out to be correct, the circular argument of Professor
Keks encourages the student to look for delusional thinking and insufficient or inappropriate
evidence in the patients reasoning. In other words, according to Professor Keks, delusions can be
diagnosed if correct beliefs are held for the wrong reasons.

This kind of teaching is disastrous and can be expected to cause fundamental philosophical confusion
in medical students and the doctors they become. If even true beliefs are regarded as being potentially
delusional (a fundamental contradiction), a situation results which is similar to the Soviet
(Snezhnevskyism) example described by Professor Bloch. Furthermore, most religious beliefs, being
held on the basis of faith and family tradition, are, by the measure of Professor Keks, adhered to despite
manifestly insufficient or inappropriate evidence.


In Australia, as in USA and Europe, most people have been brought up as traditional Christians,
although far fewer are practising Christians. Although immigration and religious conversion have
resulted in larger numbers of Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems and adherents of other religions, most
people in these parts of the world regard themselves as Christian if they claim any religious identity.
What people mean by Christian varies, however, and there are several competing Christian Churches
(denominations): Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Mormon, Presbyterian and so on. All these
churches engage in some degree of missionary activity, all have ritual and dogmatic beliefs, and all
claim to believe in God and Jesus Christ. The fundamental concept of One God is shared by
other monotheistic religions, notably Islam and Judaism. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are
historically and ontologically related, and all arose in what is now called the Middle East.

The adoption of the Christian religion by the Roman Empire in the 4th century AD resulted in radical
changes to Christianity, which was then exported throughout the Roman Empire: the Spain, Portugal,
Britain and elsewhere in Europe. Spain and Portugal exported Roman Catholicism to South America
and Central America, Africa and Asia during the early years of European discovery of the rest of the
world. The early voyages of discovery, from 1490AD until the early 1500s were by Spanish and
Portuguese representatives of the respective monarchies, who claimed the territories they conquered or
discovered for their respective crowns, thus creating massive empires. This was followed, in the
1600s by a race between other European nations to do the same. The turbulent 1500s, which saw the
continued cruelty of the Inquisition, the massacre of native Americans by Spanish and Portuguese
soldiers, and the split by Protestants (following Martin Luther) from the Catholic Church, also
witnessed the persecution of Jews by the Christian (Catholic) Church. The Chronicle of the World
reports events in Spain in 1581:
In the last two decades of the fifteenth century the Inquisition did acquire a fiercesome
reputation for the cruel persecution of deviants in general and Jews in particular. Some
thousands of Conversos Jewish converts to Christianity were arrested, thrown in jail and
sometimes tortured to extract confessions that they were still practising their old faith. They
were encouraged to betray their friends and relations. Some thousands were burnt at the stake.


Other proscribed behaviours which were punished by the Spanish Inquisitors at the time, according to
the Chronicle, included witchcraft, marital misbehaviour, blaspheming when drunk,
homosexuality and using love potions to attract the opposite sex. In 1585, King Henry III of
France also proscribed the pretended reformed religion: Protestant Christianity.

The Reformation, and the beginning of Protestant Christianity, was marked by the famous actions of
the 34-year-old scholar and theologian Martin Luther who nailed a written condemnation of certain
practices of the Catholic Church on the doors of the Wittenberg church in Germany on the 31 st of
October, 1517. Luther objected, in particular, to the idea that absolution of sins could be bought from
the Church (indulgences), arguing that any Christian who is truly repentant is entitled to forgiveness.
In 1520 Pope Leo X issued a papal bull condemning Luthers 95 theses as heretical and scandalous
and the German theologian was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Luther also argued that
priests should not stand between men and the bible, and in 1522 began a German translation, the first
edition of which was released in 1534. The example set by Luther of challenging authority inspired, the
Chronicle says, a series of peasant revolts in Germany in the 1520s:
The revolt was not a concerted movement so much as a series of local uprisings against
oppression by princes, landlords and the church. It was inspired in part by Martin Luthers
teachings and by radical Christian communities like the one set up at Allstedt in 1523 based on
common ownership.
Some peasant leaders did get as far as drawing up a manifesto at Memmingen. It proposed the
abolition of serfdom, the reduction of tithes and the right to choose and expel pastors. (p.474)

The German princes responded by massacring thousands of peasants at Frankenhausen in 1525 and
Luther himself denounced the uprising with a four-paged tract, Against the Murdering Thieving Hordes
of Peasants. In doing so Luther echoed the concerns of Augustine (in the 5th Century AD Roman


Empire) whose, in the words of the historian Paul Johnson, real fear sprang from his hatred of
religious dissent in alliance with social revolution (Johnson, 1976, p.85).

Chronicle of the World provides a summary of Luthers teachings which is of value in understanding
some of the core differences between the Catholic and Protestant religions. These have relevance to
modern psychiatric diagnosis and both the diagnosis and development of delusions:
Luther himself never considered his ideas to be anti-Catholic. He justified his denial of
transubstantiation (the doctrine that, at the moment of consecration by the priest, the bread and
wine become the body and blood of Christ) as a return to earlier Christian teaching. Luther
accepted the real presence of Christ, but argued that the bread and wine co-existed with the
body and blood, just as hot iron holds fire. This divided him not only from the Catholics but
from subsequent reformers, most of whom went further and insisted that the bread and wine
were merely symbolic or commemorative.
In other respects, Luther could claim to be developing ideas which had been part of academic
discussion throughout the Middle Ages. A central plank of his theology was his belief in
justification by faith alone. For him, salvation was not something to be achieved through
quality of life, expressed in good works and prayer, but through faith this was seen not as
coming from the individuals own efforts, but rather as a free gift of divine grace.
Justification by faith also had the effect of emphasising the power and divinity, rather than the
suffering and humanity, of Christ something implicit also in the doctrine of predestination,
which was most fully developed by John Calvin and his followers. This taught that an
individuals salvation or otherwise, was foreknown to God and not a matter of free will. Since
everyone was either saved or damned, belief in predestination did away with the need for
purgatory as a half-way house where sinners were cleansed of sin through suffering and made
fit for heaven. The great late mediaeval edifice of prayers for the dead, designed to help souls
though purgatory, was swept away. (p.476)


The concept of free will is very relevant to modern psychiatry, biology and psychology. A theory of
human behaviour which limits itself to questions of nature versus nurture, or, in the case of
psychology, genetic programming versus environmental programming, leaves little room for the
existence of free will. This, of course, reduces human beings to mere automatons. If human behaviour
is determined by our instincts, our early childhood experiences and our social training, what about
decisions and ideas that are truly our own and generated through free will? Are we to believe that this
is an illusion, and that our will is never truly free? That we are how we are brought up to be or how we
are genetically endowed? Surely these are merely anachronistic forms of reductionist determinism.

Faith, as described by Luther (and his followers), means unquestioning belief in doctrines which
cannot be proved scientifically or even logically. It is said that the Lord works in mysterious ways
and thus the will of God cannot be understood (and should not be questioned) by Man. The belief in
predestination, a preordained fate which is not altered by free will, is, unfortunately, fundamentally
disempowering and appears to be contrary to the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Gospels (of the
New Testament). Jesus of Nazareth taught that any sinner may enter the kingdom of heaven through
genuine repentance: a word that implies both recognition and regret for ones sins and, most
importantly, change. To enter the kingdom of heaven he taught of the importance of humility,
kindness, generosity and love. The path to salvation, as described by Christ is poetically presented in
the Beatitudes (part of the Sermon on the Mount) of the Gospel according to Matthew:
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for
they shall be filled.


Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

(King James Version, Matt.5: 3-10)

The concept of God suggested by the Beatitudes may be interpreted in many ways. An abstract concept
or a secular interpretation of God (as good, say) retains the essential philosophy that humility, purity
of heart, peace-making, mercy, and the pursuit of righteousness are virtues, which are vital to spiritual
health. One wonders, then, at the spiritual health of many institutions that claim to do Gods bidding
according to the example of His Son. A literal interpretation suggests that peace-makers might
rightly consider themselves the children of God. Yet today any peacemaker who calls themselves a
son or daughter of God is a candidate for psychiatric diagnosis: belief in a special relationship with
God (however the concept is interpreted) is regarded as delusional grandiosity (delusions of grandeur).
Even if God is interpreted as Nature, or even as an indefinable concept, the rigid criteria for
diagnosis of grandiosity leave no room for argument.

The diversity of views held by the public on such matters as God, angels, saints, demons and
spirits make it imperative that modern psychiatry and psychology make necessary corrections to
criteria for the diagnosis of delusions (and serious psychotic mental illness) recognising the prejudices
of diagnostic criteria that were framed within a Judao-Christian paradigm and which assumed a
hierarchy of supernatural God, below which was Man, below which was Animals. Such criteria
define many other religious beliefs, including Polytheistic, Esoteric and Animist beliefs as indicative of


The three tiered hierarchy of God, Man and Animals (and Nature), so visible in Judaism, (exoteric)
Christianity and Islam is not a feature of many other religions. Polytheistic religions such as
Hinduism teach of many gods and of the God or gods within humans as well as other animals. In
some religions particular animals are venerated above humans, and in some Nature itself is considered
to be God. For a Hindu to consider that they are part of God or intrinsically divine implies
something very different to a Christian, Moslem or Jew who believes that he is (the only) God.
Obviously this is taken into consideration by Indian psychiatrists in India (otherwise the majority of the
population would be diagnosed with schizophrenia), and, by stipulating that religious delusions only be
diagnosed if they are inconsistent with cultural background, the DSM IV and other psychiatric texts do
recognise this obvious problem of transcultural psychiatry. However, in the case of young people
who reject their cultural (usually familial) religious beliefs and embrace alien ones no such protection
exists. Thus the child of Anglican, Catholic or Methodist parents who entertains ideas obtained from
other religions, such as the divinity of humans, spiritual enlightenment, reincarnation or
transmigration of souls is at great risk of psychiatric diagnosis with religious delusions. Likewise
the children of Moslem, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist parents can be diagnosed for departing from their
cultural beliefs in the area of religious and spiritual beliefs. Of course, this does not happen to most
people who reject their parents religion. It only occurs if their parents, caregivers or family become
worried or somebody else with the power to arrange medical diagnosis becomes concerned. This has
been the case, however, with many diagnosed schizophrenics, and in many situations their diagnosis
has occurred at a time of religious, philosophical and spiritual confusion or change. Needless to say,
incarceration followed by injections and tablets of dopamine-blockers while successfully stopping
people from talking about their religious views has a poor record in curing them or correcting their

Ironically, many of the people who are diagnosed as acutely psychotic (with schizophrenia or mania)
do not themselves feel confused. On the contrary, they often feel exceptionally lucid and clear, as if
they are breaking through mass-deception and things make more sense: they are understanding the
world and themselves better, and feeling better, in other words. Such changes of perception, the


objective of many religious traditions and philosophical quests, is to be viewed with suspicion
according to psychiatric texts: it could be that the person has an elevated mood. The W.H.Os Brief
Psychiatric Rating Scale advises that moderate elevated mood (rating 4) is to be judged if a patient
shows excessive or unrealistic feelings of well-being, cheerfulness, confidence or optimism
inappropriate to circumstances, some of the time. People with moderately severe (rating 5) elevated
mood may report, according to the BPRS, feeling on top of the world, like everything is falling
into place, or better than ever before.

Having said this, it is also possible for people to genuinely be both abnormally and unhealthily
euphoric or high. Given that a normal level of happiness is difficult to define, arbitrary and variable
between localities, abnormal elevation of mood is likewise difficult to define. An unhealthy level of
euphoria and artificially-induced euphoria are more medically valid concepts. While a mild degree of
mood elevation is enjoyable and healthy, extremes of elevation are not. This is especially the case with
drug-induced elevation, commonly referred to as intoxication. The psychological and behavioural
effects of psycho-active drugs have been heavily researched over the past fifty years, and the results of
this research have been put forward as substantiating the validity of diagnoses such as schizophrenia
and mania as well as the theory that chemical abnormalities (or imbalances) are at the root of these
illnesses. In fact, the findings of this research conclusively refute the idea that schizophrenia and
mania are biological diseases caused by structural brain abnormalities, but conclusively prove that
serious mental disturbance can be caused by the ingestion of psycho-active drugs, and that this can be
indistinguishable from what is called schizophrenia and mania. This research also casts light on the
complex activities of neurotransmitters in the brain, and the activity of the brain, generally. However
much their importance has been exaggerated, neurotransmitters are vital for thinking, healthy or not.
This will be explored later when we consider the role of neurotransmitters in the speed and intensity of
thought, emotion and movement.
One central belief of many Eastern religions, notably Hinduism and the Mahayana schools of
Buddhism is in reincarnation. This, in its simplest form, means that the same spirit (or soul) is
reborn in different incarnations. Belief in reincarnation also exists in certain Christian and Jewish
sects, but has been actively proscribed by the Catholic and Protestant Churches over the past 500 years.


This is clearly reflected in diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia and bizarre delusions. A recent
documented example of belief in reincarnation (or allegorical reference to it) together with not
uncommon New-Age beliefs and an interesting philosophical and scientific quest being diagnosed as
symptoms of schizophrenia comes from the 1998 Annual Report of the Mental Health Review
Board and Psychosurgery Review Board of Victoria. The report presents Case 7 in an effort to
resolve the question, Religious beliefs or mental illness?:
The patient had been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia with fixed delusional
symptoms. He was preoccupied with his space and research project which involved making
further contact with aliens from another planet and believed he and his girlfriend were the
living embodiments of people who had been burnt to death as witches in the 17th century. He
told the Board he had communicated with aliens from another planet via dreams and astral
travel. He did not believe he was mentally ill but was being persecuted for his religious beliefs.
He wanted to be discharged from his community treatment order so he could think more clearly
and pursue his religious vision.

Held: The Board considered whether the patients beliefs could be characterised as religious
and, if so, the extent to which they could be taken into account in determining whether he was
mentally ill and stated:-

These experiences may be invested by (the patient) with a spiritual or religious aspect but the
mere fact that he says or feels that they take place with beings with special powers does not
necessarily make them religious. That is a question of fact, properly to be determined by this
Board on the basis of superior court authorityeven if (the patients) beliefs were religious,
the Board finds that aspects of (the patients) religious practice, namely his interaction with
aliens, falls properly into the category of hallucinations, rather than mystical experience with
the supernaturalthere are aspects to (the patients) behaviour and beliefs which support the
proposition that he is mentally ill rather than a devotee of a heterodox set of beliefs. His


(behaviour and preoccupations) are all indicative of a significant disturbance of thought and
mood which has found expression in his preoccupation with (his space research project). Even
were his beliefs to be characterised as religious, the Board can and does take them into
account, along with these other factors, to determine (the patient) to be mentally ill. (p.33)

It appears that the reluctant client of the mental health services had more insight into the persecution
of heretical beliefs than the psychiatrist and lawyer who refused his freedom to try and contact aliens.
Given that millions of dollars of American taxpayers money have been spent in the USA on the Search
for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program, it is ironic that a young Australian who tries to do his
own search for free and with no tools other than his dreams and his brain would be persecuted for his
behaviour. One must ask what harm his activities, regardless of how deluded, and whether or not
they are characterised as religious, did to anyone else. His reference to the treatment of witches in
the 17th century, even if taken literally, is not indicative of madness (merely of belief in reincarnation),
but in all likelihood was intended allegorically. It is a popular and well-known example of persecution
for unorthodox beliefs, and the man was, after all protesting about being deprived of his liberty and
presumably injected against his will for his cherished beliefs. Of course, the young man may have been
deluded in an absolute sense of the word: he may have held beliefs about extraterrestrials (aliens from
another planet) which are factually incorrect based on his dreams and astral travel, but then, who can
be confident about any ideas they have about life on distant planets? Importantly, he should surely be
allowed to speculate and believe whatever he likes as long as he is not harming anyone else.
Furthermore, dreams and astral travel (usually referring to a self-induced trance state) are not, by any
reasonable definition, hallucinations. In addition, the superstitious prejudice of the Board is shown
by their confusion between contact with aliens and mystical experience with the supernatural. Are
we to believe that creatures on or from other planets are supernatural that they are gods?

There is no doubt that people can, nevertheless, be unhealthily (and psychotically) deluded about
God, believing themselves to be all-powerful, all-knowing or otherwise supernatural. They may
believe themselves to be The Only God, or the only Messiah. They may believe themselves to be


capable of performing miracles when they are not. Successful treatment of such delusions is difficult,
but it can be done without recourse to brain-damaging neurotoxins, through the power of logic and
rational discussion. A model of how this can be done is presented in the accompanying diagrams and
the psychotherapy program I have rather clumsily called integrated multi-directional learning for
want of a better term. This is a logic and science based process of determining relative and truth which,
though challenging the idea of God as a patriarch in the sky attempts to accommodate different ideas
about God without destructive prejudice. Integrated multi-directional learning and holistic
psychotherapy will be elaborated on in later chapters.

The image of God presented in the New Testament, one associated with love and forgiveness
(however inconsistent with the behaviour of various Churches), is very different to the vengeful God of
the Old Testament. This can be seen in the Vengeance on the Midianites by Moses and the Israelites
as described in the book of Numbers:
The LORD said to Moses, Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Isrealites. After that you
will be gathered to your people. So Moses said to the people, Arm some of your men to go to
war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORDs vengeance on them. Send into battle a
thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel. So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a
thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. Moses sent them into battle, a
thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazer, the priest, who took with him
articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.
They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. Among
their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba the five kings of Midian. They also killed
Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children
and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where
the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils,
including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder and Eleazer the
priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from


Moses, Eleazer the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the
camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army the commanders of thousands and the
commanders of hundreds who returned from the battle.
Have you allowed all the women to live? he asked them. They were the ones who
followed Balaams advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in
what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORDs people. Now kill all the boys. And
kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never
slept with a man. (Life Application Bible, New International Version, Numbers 31: 1-18)

The Life Application Bible, published by Zondervan Publishing House and Tyndale Publishing House
(USA) presents the following profile of the Midianites:
The Midianites were a nomadic people who descended from Abraham and his second wife,
Keturah. The land of Midian lay far to the south of Canaan, but large bands of Midianites
roamed many miles from their homeland, searching for grazing areas for their flocks. Such as
group was near the promised land when the Israelites arrived. When Moses fled from Egypt, he
took refuge in the land of Midian. His wife and father-in-law were Midianites. Despite this
alliance, the Israelites and Midianites were always bitter enemies.

The notes provide an explanation for the merciless act of Moses which suggests that the mass-murder
and plunder of pagans is virtuous:
Because Midianites were responsible for enticing Israel into Baal worship, God commanded
Israel to destroy them. But Israel took the women as captives, rather than killing them,
probably because of the tempting enticements of the Midianites sinful life-style. When we
discover sin in our lives, we must deal with it completely. When the Israelites later entered the
promised land, it was their indifferent attitude to sin that eventually ruined them. Moses dealt


with the sin promptly and completely. When God points out sin, move quickly to remove it
from your life. (p.267)

Baal, the storm god and god of fertility, was an important god in the ancient polytheistic religion of
the Canaanites, which was closely related to that of the Babylonians. It is from Baal that the Christian
synonym for Satan, Beelzebub, is derived (Gray, 1982). According to World Mythology (1993),
archeological finds in the 1920s in Northern Syria of ancient Ugaritic texts revealed that in their
theology, the adversaries of Baal were Yam (the sea) and Mot (the destructive power of drought and
sterility and the god of death). Baal, who controlled the flow of water from the heavens, was credited
with bringing the rains on which agriculture depended. The Life Application Bible provides this
footnote for Baal:
Baal was the most popular god in Canaan, the land Israel was about to enter. Represented by a
bull, symbol of strength and fertility, he was the god of the rains and harvest. The Israelites
were continually attracted to Baal worship, in which prostitution played a large part,
throughout their years in Canaan. Because Baal was so popular, his name was often used as a
generic title for all the local gods. (p.259)

The massacre of the Midianites, when looked at from a socio-political perspective, presents valuable
insights into subsequent justifications for mass-murder in the name of God and the common practice of
demonising political opponents for the justification of war, slavery and plunder. The account of the
event, as described in the Old Testament book of Numbers, reveals a political alliance between Moses
(the political leader) and Eleazar the priest, both men. The politico-religious hegemony was instituted
as an inherited honour, subject to the control of male elders. This was sanctified, in the scriptures, as
being the direct word of God:
The LORD said to Moses, Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned
my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so


that in my zeal I did not put an end to them. Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of
peace with him. He and his descendants will have a covenant of lasting priesthood, because he
was zealous for the honor of his God and atonement for the Israelites. (Numbers, 25: 10-13)

The atonement that Phinehas had performed was to drive a spear through an Israelite man and
Midianite woman who had defied Moses ban on Israelite men consorting with Moabite women (who
had been blamed for tempting the Israelites to worship the Baal of Peor). Several other examples are
given in the Old Testament of Gods vengeance against people who worshipped many gods (pagans)
and other gods (heathens). In Judaism, all of humanity was divided into Jews and gentiles, a
tradition that continued in the Christian Churches as a division between Christians and nonChristians and parallels the division between Moslems and infidels. Non-Christians include
people with widely diverse religious views, ranging from Monotheism to Polytheism to Atheism. In the
scriptures of each religious paradigm the beliefs of the non-believers are described as being as
fundamentally evil. This has led to some of the most monstrous past crimes of (and against) humanity.
Surely it requires vigilance and careful scrutiny to root out religious prejudice from politics. The
current and historical psychiatric criteria for the diagnosis of schizophrenia suggest that it is also
needed in the discipline of psychiatry.

The philosophy expressed in the Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount) is suggestive of the law of cause
and effect, popularised in the saying that one reaps what one sows (also based on a Biblical parable).
This is similar to the law of karma found in Buddhist and Hindu scriptures. The initially Vedic
concept of karma, regarded as a fundamental Law of Existence by all schools of Buddhism and
Hinduism claims that the present situation is consequent on past actions, and the future on those of the
present. Karma is thus a theory of causality, one with moral (spiritual) as well as physical aspects,
and is a theory that may be subject to scientific and philosophical scrutiny (and use). The understanding
of causality (the relationship between cause and effect) has been a long-standing problem for
theologians, philosophers and scientists alike.


The law of cause and effect is one which is accepted by both Western and Eastern (and Northern and
Southern) paradigms, and can be regarded as a truly Universal Law, at least when applied to physical
phenomena. It is difficult, probably impossible, to conceive of a Universe where events do not have
causes. Based on the assumption that every event has a cause, one of the main objectives of serious
scientific (and philosophical) study is the discovery of these causes. With any search for causes,
however, one reaches a point at which an original event of (at least presently) unknown causes arises.
We may explain the cause of a piece of metal becoming warm when it is left in the sunlight as because
of the heating effect of electromagnetic radiation from the sun, but what causes the existence of
electromagnetic radiation in the first place, and why does it behave as it does? We may ascertain,
through scientific means, that the sun is largely composed of hydrogen and helium, and that these exist
as exploding atoms which produce enormous amounts of light that radiates to the Earth and the other
planets in the solar system, but where did the sun come from, and why do the atoms of hydrogen and
helium behave as they do?

For thousands of years the sun has, understandably in view of its life-sustaining qualities, been an
object of great veneration by many cultures. The Roman emperor Constantine, who was baptised as a
Christian on his death-bed, was previously a sun-worshipper, this being reflected in the Christian
Church rituals which began under his patronage. In A History of Christianity (1976) Paul Johnson
The so-called Edict of Milan, by which the Roman Empire reversed its policy of hostility to
Christianity and accorded it full legal recognition was one of the decisive events in world
history. Yet the story behind it is complicated and in some ways mysterious. Christian
apologists at the time and later portrayed it as the consequence of Constantines own
conversion, itself brought about by the miraculous intervention of God before the Battle of the
Milvian Bridge outside Rome, where Constantine defeated the usurper Maxentius. This was the
story Constantine liked to tell himself, later in life. Bishop Eusebius, who informs us gloatingly
that he was honoured with the Emperors acquaintance and society, says he heard from
Constantines own lips that a most incredible sign appeared to him from heaven. But there is
a conflict of evidence about the exact time, place and details of this vision, and there is some


doubt about the magnitude of Constantines change of ideasHe himself appears to have been
a sun-worshipper, one of a number of late-pagan cults which had observances in common with
the Christians. Thus the followers of Isis adored a madonna nursing her holy child; the cult of
Attis and Cybele celebrated a day of blood and fasting, followed by the Hilaria resurrectionfeast, a day of joy, on 25 March; the elitist Mithraics, many of whom were senior army
officers, ate a sacred meal. Constantine was almost certainly a Mithraist, and his triumphal
arch, built after his conversion, testifies to the Sun-god, or unconquered sun. Many
Christians did not make a clear distinction between this sun-cult and their own. They referred
to Christ driving his chariot across the sky; they held their services on Sunday, knelt towards
the East and had their nativity-feast on 25 December, the birthday of the sun at the winter

Mithraism involved worship of the originally Persian deity Mithra, preserver of law and order and
god of the sun and of war. The ancient Persian religion, known from later Zoroastrian writings,
included Mithra among a pantheon including Tishtrya, the rain-god and Vayu, god of air and wind.
There was, however, only one supreme god in the ancient Persian (and subsequent Zoroastrian)
religion, Ahura Mazdah (the Wise Lord). Ahura Mazdah, symbolising the forces of good, was
pitted against Angra Mainyu, god of darkness and sterility, symbolising the forces of evil (Willis,
1993, p.67). In about 600BC, the Persian prophet Zoroaster (Zarathustra), founder of Zoroastrianism,
taught that Ahura Mazdah created the whole beneficient universe while Angra Mainyu, leader of the
demon hordes, created his own evil offspring (vicious animals, whirlwinds, sandstorms and disease)
which attack the cosmos and spoil its ideal state. In the Zoroastrian beliefs, the supreme god (Angra
Mainyu) is destined to eventually triumph over his evil opponent.

Several analysts have pointed out the similarities between Mithraism, Zoroastrianism and the Christian
religion founded by Constantine and his immediate successors, and the many differences between the
early (before 300 AD) Christian Church (and beliefs) and the Roman religion which developed after
300 AD. Paul Johnson, in A History of Christianity writes, of Constantine:


Many of his ecclesiatical arrangements indicate that he wanted a state Church, with the clergy
as civil servants. His own role was not wholly removed from that of the pagan Godemperorthough he preferred the idea of a priest-king. Eusebius says he was present when
Constantine entertained a group of bishops and suddenly remarked: You are bishops whose
jurisdiction is within the church. But I also am a bishop, ordained by God to oversee those
outside the Church. Constantine does not seem to have acquired any knowledge of Pauline [St
Pauls] theology but, again according to Eusebius, he apparently imbibed some of Origens
more grandiose ideas and secularized them, seeing himself as the chief divine instrument. Thus,
said Eusebius, he derived the source of imperial authority from above; he was strong in the
power of the sacred title. Constantine was especially beloved of Christ and by bringing those
whom he rules on earth to the only-begotten and saving Word, renders them fit subjects for
Christs kingdom; he is interpreter of the word of God, a powerful voice declaring the laws
of truth and godliness to all who dwell on earthGod, said the Bishop, was the author of
kingship, and There is one king, and his Word and royal law is one; a law not subject to the
ravages of time, but the living and self-subsisting Word. (p.69)

It was during the reign of Constantine that Christianity changed from a persecuted religion to one that
was granted imperial favour and sponsorship by the State. Under the rule of the previous Roman
Emperors Caligula, Nero and Domitian, Christians, who were the victims of rumours of cannibalism
and incest, became official scapegoats for failure or disaster. They were tortured and killed in horrible
ways (such as being fed to lions) and were the subject to systematic persecution by the Roman State.
Following adoption of Christianity as the official State religion by Constantine, the killing of Christians
ceased, temporarily, but by then the characteristics of the Church and the religion had changed
radically. Constantine, in 325 AD, inaugurated the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (in modern-day
Turkey), summoning bishops from around the empire to decide on a theological debate which arose
from the Alexandrian priest Ariuss argument that if Christ is the son of God he cannot be eternal
since he had a beginning, and was therefore not wholly God (Burne, 1991). The matter was resolved
with the adoption of the Nicene Creed, which stated that Christ is of one substance with the
Father. This became an official doctrine of the Roman Church (and subsequently of Protestant
Christianity also) and before long those who refused to accept this creed were to face persecution.


By the time of Constantines rule, the Christian Church was already a hierarchical organization with
bishops and priests who, as members of the clergy, were viewed as deserving of obedience from the
laity. Johnson writes of the monumental work of the Alexandrian priest and scholar Origen who, in
the 3rd Century AD, created a Christian theology which dismissed the (previously venerated)
doctrines of the ancient Greek philosophers as false and sanctified a clerical system which later became
part of a political-religious hegemony:
Origen accepted an absolute distinction between clergy and laity. He gave it juridical flavour.
He portrayed the Church, as part of his theory of universal knowledge, as a sacred social entity.
The analogy was with a political state. Of course the Church had to have its own princes and
kings. Of course they governed their congregations far better than corresponding state officials.
Their position was infinitely higher and holier, since they administered spiritual things, but
their status was similar to those of judges and secular rulers, and therefore the laity had to show
them reverence and obedience even if they were inadequate or bad men. (p.59)

Origen did, however, denounce the avarice and ambition of individual members of the clergy and the
clergy as a whole, and had a turbulent relationship with the Church. He was, during his life, attacked
for propagating a false doctrine and failed to become a bishop, or even be officially ordained as a
priest. The account of Origens extraordinary behaviour, as told by Johnson, can be retrospectively
diagnosed as suggestive of schizophrenia (but then, so can the behaviour of Jesus of Nazareth):
Origen came from Alexandria, the second city of the empire and then its intellectual centre;
his fathers martyrdom left him an orphan at seventeen with six younger brothers. He was a
hard-working prodigy, at eighteen head of the Catechetical School, and already trained as a
literary scholar and teacher. But at this point, probably in 203, he became a religious fanatic
and remained one for the next fifty years. He gave up his job and sold his books to concentrate
on religion. He slept on the floor, ate no meat, drank no wine, had only one coat and no shoes.
He almost certainly castrated himself, in obedience to the notorious text, Matthew 19:12, there
are some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. Origens
learning was massive and it was of a highly original kind: he always went back to the sources


and thought through the whole process himselfHe seems to have worked all day and through
most of the night, and was a compulsive writer. (p.58)

What Johnson describes as Origens fanaticism would doubtless qualify as preoccupation

according to modern psychiatry. In fact preoccupation can be diagnosed on the basis of far less
single-mindedness than Origen displayed. Giving up his job and going around in a single coat and
without shoes is definite evidence of self neglect and downward social drift, according to the BPRS
and similar symptom rating scales. His obsession with what was then a cult religion fits comfortably
with modern ideas of schizophrenia, and the fact that his father was martyred suggests genetic tendency
to one looking for it. His probable act of self-mutilation (castration), based on religious delusions
would confirm a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. If modern coercive psychiatry was operational
in the 3rd Century AD, he might have returned to his job and realised the inappropriateness of his
behaviour. Likewise, Jesus, given dopamine-blockers rather than crucifixion, might have returned to
being a carpenter having been successfully treated for his delusions of grandeur.

Origens younger contemporary, Cyprian of Carthage had a much more politically successful career.
Within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. Born into a wealthy family with a tradition
in the Empires public service, Cyprian claimed that salvation could only be obtained through the true
Church, and that the hierarchy of the Church was established by Christ and the apostles. Johnson
writes, of Bishop Cyprians teaching:
Through the bishop all ecclesiastical measures whatsoever must be carried out. Without the
office of bishop there could be no Church; and without the Church, no salvation. The man who
determined who was, or was not, a member of the Church, and therefore eligible for salvation,
was the bishop. He interpreted the scriptures in the light of the Churchs needs in any given
situation; the only unambiguous instruction they contained being to remain faithful to the
Church and obey its rules. With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the
power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church; it was


retained only by delegated bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still workedThey were
rulers, operating and interpreting a law. (p.60)

Following the short-lived attempt by Constantines successor Julian to restore Paganism as the official
religion of the Roman Empire, from the 5th Century AD onwards the Catholic religion remained the
official state religion of the Empire. The head of the Catholic Church, known as the Pope (Papa, or
Father), was regarded as infallible: Gods representative on Earth. It was Pope Gregory who, in the
early 5th Century, sent the Augustine, the bishop of Hippo (in Northern Africa) to evangelise the AngloSaxon kingdoms in England. Augustine, regarded as an important Christian saint, regarded physical
coercion as a legitimate means to obtaining conversion. It is from Augustines justification of
persecution (and motives for persecution) that the Spanish Inquisition, centuries later, drew its
inspiration. Johnson defends Augustine, but the bishops idea of how heretics should be examined
says a great deal about the Churchs methods of evangelism at the time:
We must not imagine that Augustine was necessarily a cruel man. Like many later inquisitors,
he disliked unnecessary violence and refinements of torture. He thought heretics should be
examined not by stretching them on the rack, not by scorching them with flames or furrowing
their flesh with iron claws, but by beating them with rods. (Johnson, 1976, p.116)

The influence of Augustines theology on psychology and psychiatry, and on Western thought,
generally, is explored in Eternal Day (1998) by the American psychologist Seth Farber. He writes of
the bishop:
When Augustine became powerful and was supported by the Roman state as the Bishop of
Carthage, he advocated laws denying civil rights to non-Catholic Christians, evictions from
public office, and finally denial of free discussion, exile of heretical bishops, and the use of
physical coercion. He came to find military force indispensable in suppressing his ideological
opponents. (p.62)


Dr. Farber quotes Alistair Kee (Constantine vs Christ, 1982) in his analysis of how the Church came to
practice the opposite of Christs doctrine of non-violence:
In collaborating with the state the church implicitly or explicitly sanctioned its policies, e.g.,
war, imperial plunder, slavery, and itself came to emulate these policies as exemplified by the
Inquisition. Kee believes that the decision to collaborate with Constantine led to the Great
Reversal. The values of Constantine were deemed to be the values of Christ, were accepted by
the Church, and became known as Christianity. Kee notes that it is in this way that the values
of Constantine disguised as the values of Christianity determined the subsequent course of
European history. (p.63)

Seth Farber, in his analysis, presents six philosophical premises of Augustinianism which resulted
from the fusion of Church and State:
1. that human beings at present are lacking in intrinsic worth and have lost the capacity to
freely choose between good and evil.
2. the situation was not what was originally intended. Human beings were created worthy:
they were innocent and good. They were deserving of Gods love. But then a dramatic event
occurred in Augustines version, Adams sin destroyed the pristine plenitude of being,
bringing tragedy in its wake. The paradise that man inhabited was transformed into a Hell;
man was transformed from a godlike being into a vile wretch.
3. Mankind is now divided into two groups: an elect destined by God to be rescued from its
plight and restored to its original condition, and the masses doomed to eternal torment in


4. The transcendence of God is emphasized to the highest degree and stands in marked contrast
to the depravity of human beings. This is the core premise of Augustinianism and has had an
enduring effect upon Christianity and upon culture: There is an unbridgeable ontological
abyss between God and humanity. God is totally Other: Human beings have no right to seek
to understand Him or to judge Him by human standards. Whatever He does is right merely
because He does it.
5. A preoccupation with sin, guilt and unworthiness.
6. an individualistic vision of salvation antithetical to the Christian vision of a new social
and cosmic order where the estrangement between human beings, and between human beings
and God, is overcome. The Christian vision is eclipsed, and the individual becomes
preoccupied with recovering his sense of self-esteem and seeking reassurance that he will be
spared the punishment of eternal torment in Hell. (p.65-66)

Some of these Augustinian ideas are clearly derived from the Jewish scriptures subsequently
included in the Christian Bible as the Old Testament. These include the story of Adams temptation
by Eve in the Garden of Eden who had been invited to eat of the forbidden fruit (of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil) by the Serpent. This original sin was punished by God by banishment
from the idyllic Garden of Eden and the fall from grace (Divine Grace). This story can be
interpreted metaphorically or can be accepted literally. It can also be viewed as one of many creation
myths that made those who developed the myth the centre of creation and the most important part of
it. If the Old Testament (Jewish) creation myth is to be accepted literally it means that humans did not
evolve from other hominids in Africa (or anywhere else): they were created out of dust by a
miraculous act of God, who only two days earlier had created the sun, moon and stars. According to the
account of Genesis, Adam lived to the age of 930 years, and was 130 years old when his third son, Seth
was born. Noah, the only righteous man on the face of the Earth when God decided to destroy most of
the life He had created, was, according to Genesis, a direct descendant of Seth (and thus Adam). The


Old Testament also specifies the Israelites as Gods Chosen People: but then, they created this
particular concept of God.

The translation of the Bible that is venerated by Christians throughout the English-speaking world,
and the official Bible of the Anglican Church, is the King James Version, translated from the original
Hebrew and Greek scriptures in 1611AD. This is commonly held as the Absolute Word of God, and/or
divinely inspired. It is also regarded as a fascinating and enlightening historical and philosophical
text, and this it certainly is. Due to its influence on the legal, political and socio-cultural beliefs in
Australia and other nations that were once part of the British Empire, the King James Version of the
Bible casts light also on the development of psychiatry. It turns out that (not surprisingly) idiosyncratic
beliefs based on different interpretations of the Bible than the officially accepted ones can be diagnosed
as schizophrenia, as well as iconoclastic views (heresies). To understand how this came to be one
must look at the relationship between Church and State in the Roman Empire and subsequently, in the
British Empire.

The King James Version of the Bible, the product of 7 years work by scholars from Oxford, Cambridge
and Westminister, was commissioned by James I, who is addressed in the Epistle Dedicatory as,
The Most High and Mighty Prince, James, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France and
Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc. The title Defender of the Faith had been granted to Henry VIII
by Pope Julius II prior to the notorious kings excommunication by the Catholic Church. Henry VIIIs
armies had been part of a Holy Alliance between Rome, Spain, Venice and England against France,
spearheaded by the warlike Pope Julius. Henry, the second English regent of the house of Tudor came
into conflict with the Catholic Church when Pope Clement VII refused to annul his marriage to
Catherine so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. In 1533AD, assisted by his First Minister, Thomas
Cromwell, Henry persuaded the English parliament to make him the head of the Church in England,
and give the authority previously vested in the papacy to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He then
appointed Anne Boleyns friend Thomas Cranmer to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury, who
dutifully declared Henrys marriage to Catherine invalid and blessed his marriage to Anne Boleyn. As


it turned out, the blessing turned out to be a curse: Boleyn was one of the two wives Henry had
executed during his long reign (during which time he married six times).

The treatment of Catherine may explain the behaviour of her daughter Mary Tudor who, during her
five-year reign as Queen Mary (Englands first female regent) tried to restore papal authority in
England. Mary had hundreds of men and women burnt at the stake for their Protestant faith during this
time (Burne, 1991, p.513). This included several bishops. Mary, who was officially illegitimate
because of the annulment of her father Henrys marriage to her mother Catherine, had, of course, much
to gain by an assertion of papal authority on the matter of the sanctity of marriage. Mary married her
cousin Philip, King of Spain, and together they went to war against Englands continental neighbour,
France. Previously, Marys father Henry VIII had squandered the wealth of the royal treasury in futile
wars against the French, and turned to expropriating the wealth of Catholic monasteries around the
country. This was done by his First Minister, Thomas Cromwell, who was eventually executed by
Henry as well, along with Sir Thomas More, the author of Utopia, who was killed for refusing to
accept Henrys takeover of the Church.

Elizabeth, the daughter of Anne Boleyn, became Queen Elizabeth I of England when Queen Mary died
in 1558. As a woman, she could not be the supreme head of the Church, so the English Privy
Council gave her the title Supreme Governor (of the Church) instead. She made her mothers
chaplain, Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury.

When Elizabeth I became Queen of England, the European Church was split into four main warring
factions: the newly formed Church of England, the Lutherans, the Calvinists and the Roman Catholics.
The political power base of the Church of England was London, that of the Catholic Church in Italy
and Spain, that of the Lutherans was in Germany and that of the Calvinists in Switzerland and
Scotland. In 1559, shortly after her coronation, Elizabeth and the English Church finally repudiated


papal authority, and the next year Calvinism (the sect named after the Genevese reformer Calvin) was
adopted as the official religion of Scotland by the Scottish Parliament. Jean (John) Calvin, who was
born in France, was the son of a clerical lawyer, and the theology he developed, drawing on Luthers
work, emphasised the Augustinian doctrine of predestination, giving it a new rigidity and a terrifying
visage. Paul Johnson writes, in A History of Christianity:
he pounced on Luthers rediscovery of Augustinian predestination, and drove it to its
ultimate conclusion. He began by doubling it: men were not only predestined to be saved, but
to be damned. Satan and the devils acted on the command of God: They can neither conceive
any evil nor, when they have conceived it, contrive to do it, not having contrived it lift even a
little finger to execute it, save in so far as God commands them. God forewills all the tiniest
events or actions from all eternity, whether good or evil, according to his plan; some he plans
to save, by grace (for all men are evil and worthy of damnation), some he plans to damn. If we
ask why God takes pity on some, and why he lets go of the others, there is no answer other than
it pleases him to do so. (p.287)

The Chronicle of the World provides another perspective of Calvins frightening theory of salvation or
damnation at birth:
Calvins worshippers must adore God; they must also show Him fear. As for sin, Calvin puts
forward the doctrine of predestination. God has already chosen the elect: those who will go to
heaven. No-one, however devout, can alter the divine decree. What determines whether one is
chosen or damned cannot be explained. It is beyond human intelligence, but only the immoral
would dare question it. (p.490)

Calvin did not leave the judging to God. As the religious and political ruler of Geneva, in 1553 he
ordered the execution of the Spanish physician Micheal Servetus, who had fled from the Inquisition to
Geneva. Servetus, who is credited with discovering cardio-pulmonary (heart-lung) circulation, had


criticised the doctrine of the Trinity. With Calvin as ruler of Geneva, Church and State were
indistinguishable. His laws demanded strict moral order and social conformity. Respect for God was
synonymous with respect for the state and its laws. Dancing was forbidden and pastors appointed
doctors to deal with both secular and spiritual education (Burne, 1991, p.507). The moral behaviour of
members of society was policed by a hierarchical system of priests headed by Calvin himself.

King James I, who commissioned the King James Version of the Bible, ascended the throne in 1603,
when Elizabeth I died. He was the Scottish son of the Catholic martyr Mary, queen of Scots, whom
Queen Elizabeth had executed in 1587. Previously James VI of Scotland, James declared himself
James I of Great Britain and is described in his fulsome dedicatory as King of Great Britain,
France and Ireland. James believed in the divine right of kings but also hoped to be a European
peacemaker in growing war between the Protestant and Catholic Kingdoms. Consequently, he arranged
for his son Charles to marry the 16-year-old Catholic French Princess Henrietta Maria, daughter of
Henry IV of France. James also suspended Englands laws against Catholics. Caught in the middle of
the war between Protestants (Lutherans and Calvinists) and Catholics, he sought to have his authority
supported, as did many others, by religious scriptures. In this case, the scriptures had to be officially
Christian, but without the seditious elements he saw in the competing Geneva translation. It could
not support the rebellion of slaves, a growing source of wealth for the British Empire. It could not
invalidate his rule or the right of his offspring to inherit the throne of England on the basis of bloodlines rather than merit. And it did not.

By all accounts, Jesus of Nazareth challenged the authority of the priestly caste that ruled the Jewish
people of his homeland (the Pharisees), but less clearly that of the Roman Empire which dominated the
entire Jewish political system: Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, but give unto God the
things that are Gods. In the King James Version of the Bible, the Jewish Books of Moses precede the
New Testament which is a collection of accounts and letters by the early Christian disciples, notably
those of St Paul whose mission was to preach the Christian Gospels to the gentiles (non-Jews). Paul,
who was himself a Pharisee who persecuted Christians before his conversion, was from the Greek city


of Tarsus, and literate in Greek as well as Hebrew, and played a central role in the early development
of Christian theology, and its Hellenization, through which it became palatable to the Roman Empire.
Paul Johnson summarises the core precepts of St Pauls theology as follows:
Jesus of Nazareth came from the line of David. He was born of a woman, but was established
as Son of God, with full power, through his resurrection from the dead. He lived a short life in
Palestine, embracing earthly poverty, and for our sins humbled himself in his death on the
cross. God raised the crucified and buried one and exalted him to the highest throne at his right
hand; For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become
the righteousness of God. The atoning death of Jesus the Messiah, sacrificed for our sins,
served as our expiation and ransomed humanity. His dying affects the redemption of the
cosmos and humanity as a whole, for in his death the world has been crucified and has begun to
pass away; Christ will shortly come again from heaven as the Son of Man. Here we have, in all
essentials, the central doctrines of Christianity: the view of history, the salvation mechanism,
the role and status of Jesus Christ. Everything in it had been implicit in the teachings of Christ.
Paul made it explicit, clear and complete. It is a theological system, capable of infinite
elaboration, no doubt, but complete in all essentials. It is cosmic and universalist; it is, in fact,
Hellenized Paul, the Jew, whose natural tongue was Aramaic and whose Greek was singular,
had supplied the part of the Hellenized processing machine, and thus made Judaic monotheism
accessible to the entire Roman world. (p.37)

In truth, the religion Paul helped create could not be strictly described as Monotheism there were,
according to his theology, two gods: Jesus at the right hand of God the father. If he was at the right
hand of God the Father, he obviously could not be God the Father Himself. This has been a central
theological problem in Christianity since the first decades after Jesus death. How could Jesus be
deified while maintaining the central Jewish tenet that there is only one God. This problem was
compounded by the fact that, by all accounts, Jesus himself did not claim to be God himself only the
son of God, a title not necessarily exclusive to himself. Indeed the Jewish religion described all
righteous Jews as the sons and daughters of God. Broadening Monotheism to include gentiles, as was
Pauls mission, might define all good people as sons and daughters of God. This is, in fact, how many


people nowadays regard themselves if they maintain a belief in God as a parental figure or being. Many
do not consider God to be something that one can be the son or daughter of. Some believe that
God is everything including that which we regard as both good and evil. Others believe that God
includes only what is good, or that God is nature, or life, or truth.

The King James Version of the Christian Bible, while it may be read from an allegorical and
metaphorical perspective, and can be interpreted while keeping in mind the biases of translators and
repeaters, makes explicit claims about God and Jesus Christ in the English language which if taken
literally are completely inconsistent with known (and not just widely believed) fact. It claims that
events have occurred which are, according to commonsense, and scientific evidence, impossible. This
impossibility is acknowledged by the term miracle and the Bible tells of many miracles.

Miracles, as the term is used in the Bible, are explanations of causality. The cause is direct
intervention by God. They are, at best, improbable, at worst, impossible, but it is their very
improbability (or impossibility) that makes them miracles. Thus the resurrection of Christ, a central
belief of Pauline theology, is a miraculous event which proves both Jesus divinity and Gods ability
to bring back to life one who was dead. In fact, according to the accounts of Jesus disciples, he too
was able to raise the dead, an ability which was, according to the Gospels, conferred on Christs
disciple Peter who is said to have brought a dead man back to life by evoking Jesus name.

There are many examples of miracles in the Christian Bible. The parting of the Red Sea and the
extraction of water from a stone by Moses in the Old Testament, and Jesus walking on water, calming
the weather and healing the sick and lame through touch being only a few. Moses, however, is not
regarded as a god in the Christian, Moslem or Jewish religions. He is regarded as a prophet, and
the miracles he performed were actually acts of God performed through Moses. Moses is thus an
instrument, or servant, of God. Likewise, the miracles attributed to Jesus disciples (and subsequently


other followers), actually, according to Christian doctrine, occur only through divine intervention
direct action by God, via the Holy Spirit. God, however, is equated with Jesus, and many people pray
not to God, but to Jesus. God and Jesus have become rival gods in a way that God and Moses have
not. Of course, a rationalist view, and an objective scientific view necessitate scepticism regarding the
Biblical miracles or any other records or reports of miracles. An objective approach necessitates
consistent scepticism regarding any claim or explanation, but also the weighing up of different
probabilities according to their merit whilst keeping an open mind. A closed mind cannot learn, cannot
expand and cannot correct its false assumptions and delusions. A mind that is too open in the sense
that it accepts things as true without due consideration and doubt becomes gullible and prone to being
misled. Minds can, of course, be both closed and gullible at the same time, believing with
unwarranted readiness (and/or confidence) things which suit their assumptions.

There are many books that have been written about miracles, some disputing their existence and others
claiming their veracity and adding new ones to the list. Some, regarding the Biblical miracles, suggest
that the fundamental philosophical messages of Christianity are sound (and maybe even sounder)
without belief in miracles. They form, however, one of the edifices on which Church authority, and
Catholic Church authority, in particular, is based. While the early Christians regarded all believers as
saints, and the word is used to describe especially virtuous people who are not Christian, the
Catholic Church created a hierarchy of Christian Saints which rivalled the Hindu pantheon in
number. Beginning with all Jesus disciples except Judas the Roman Church has systematically added
to the official book of saints, predictably including several popes and other Catholic clerics, all of
whom are said to have performed at least one miracle. It might cynically be said that St Paul created
three ruling gods and placed Mt Olympus under the rule of the Father god, Yahweh, god of the Jews,
and that Constantine made the Roman Empire rulers of Yahweh. The Roman Church added to the
pantheon of subordinate deities (saints and angels) in Heaven and added the horrors of Hell. Having
deified Jesus, critic of the Jewish political and religious leaders (the Pharisees), the Roman Church
persecuted Jews as the killers of God, or turned a blind eye while they were persecuted.


The persecution and mass-murder of people today, as in the past, can be studied in terms of causality.
What are the causes of persecution? What are the causes of humans killing other humans? To approach
these important questions sensibly we must first define the terms persecution and mass-murder. In
both cases the definition is compounded by questions of degree, The Oxford School Dictionary defines
persecute as treat cruelly, oppress, esp. because of religious beliefs; harass, worry. How cruel (or
oppressive) must treatment be to qualify as persecution? The Heinemann School Dictionary adds that
the ill-treatment or harrassment must, to qualify as persecution be persistent, in line with the Latin
persequi (to pursue), from which the English word persecute is derived. By either definition the
forced treatment of law-abiding citizens through CAT teams and CTOs would have to be considered as
a modern example of persecution in Australia a type a persecution with plenty of precedents. It is
clear, from the first-hand accounts of survivors of forced psychiatric treatment in the UK, Canada, New
Zealand and the USA that persecution through coercive psychiatry occurs throughout the Englishspeaking world, and victims of this persecution often come from non-English-speaking backgrounds,
financially and educationally impoverished backgrounds, immigrant populations and racial minority
groups. Unorthodox (heretical) religious, philosophical, scientific and political beliefs are persecuted
along with adherence to traditionally proscribed political and religious beliefs, such as Communism
and Polytheism. The political persecution extends to people with anarchic views and radical views
regarding the State, National or World governments.

Before this is dismissed as an exaggeration, it is worth considering the many reasons people are given
diagnoses of schizophrenia and manic-depression and the consequence of their not accepting the labels
they are given. According to psychiatric texts, only 2 out every hundred people are given a diagnosis of
schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in the USA, and not all of them refuse the label. The same is
the case with mania and hypomania many people accept that they have been mentally ill and that
this illness is a biological one, like diabetes, as they are told in the plethora of patient education
literature available in public hospitals and clinics. Some of those who resist the label of illness/madness
resist it strongly, especially if they adhere to their beliefs strongly. The stronger they resist it, however,
the more assertive is the treatment. If they quietly accept their tablets and admit that they are (or
were) ill, they are treated with patronization and pity in the guise of sympathy but can avoid physical


violence. If they physically resist drugging the force used more than matches their resistance, and they
are always outnumbered.

It should be stressed that most of the people who resist a diagnosis of schizophrenia are not being
troubled by hallucinatory voices. Neither are hallucinatory voices necessarily harmful or dangerous,
although they can be. Belief that one is God or the Messiah is also not necessarily harmful or
dangerous, although, again, it can be. It depends on what the words god and messiah are taken to
mean, and how the belief affects behaviour. Such beliefs are not, however, normal, in that most
people do not hold these beliefs, and, by the same token, hearing disembodied voices is also not
normal. According to current psychiatric theory and practice people hearing disembodied voices and
those who believe themselves to be the Messiah are unequivocal candidates for forced psychiatric
treatment with dopamine-blocking drugs if they refuse to take them voluntarily (or are suspected of not
taking them). This forced treatment is supported by an elaborate system of laws, and policed by teams
of psychiatric workers who are authorised to call on State Police to remove people from their homes for
assessment and treatment in locked wards within public hospitals.
The word psychiatry is derived from the Greek psyche (mind/soul) and iatros (treatment). It refers,
literally, to treatment of the mind. This treatment can be cruel or it can be kind. If it is cruel, it can be
expected to compound existing problems (and can, moreover, be defined as torture). If it is kind, it can
lead to relief of suffering and distress. Despite the popular idiom that one must sometimes be cruel to
be kind, cruelty and kindness are opposites: it is not possible to treat someone cruelly and kindly at the
same time. Neither is it necessary to be cruel to achieve therapeutic success, unless therapeutic success
is defined as compliance with the orders of the therapists. If successful therapy is so defined, and, in
the area of psychiatry it often is, then cruelty becomes a powerful tool for forcing upon the patient the
opinions and views of the therapist. In the case of schizophrenia and mania the gaining of
compliance is routinely ensured by incarceration, usually for several weeks, during which time the
person is bombarded with brainwashing propaganda. This includes repeated accusations by nurses,
psychologists and social workers that they are very ill and need to take their medication and
do what their doctor tells them. But what their doctors tell them cannot be relied upon they are
rarely told in advance of the toxic effects of dopamine blockers (tardive dyskinesia, akathisia,


parkinsonism etc); they are rarely, if ever, told the truth about the history of the label they are
compelled to accept as their illness, be it schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, manicdepression or personality disorder. This omission is not surprising, since if the truth were to be
revealed the patients (and their families) would undoubtedly refuse both the diagnoses and the longterm ingestion of dopamine-blockers (and drugs, generally).

Returning to the question of informed consent, how much historical detail about particular diagnoses
and treatments is necessary to be truly informed? Modern society and modern medicine is infatuated
with new and current ideas, and in the rush to get (or prescribe) the newest treatment caution is
frequently thrown to the wind. This infatuation with the new is ruthlessly exploited by the
pharmaceutical industry, which is not above claiming old (and discredited) drugs as new ones,
merely by marketing them under new names. Propaganda falsely exhorting the benefits of psychiatric
drugs litters the wards and waiting rooms of the public hospital system in Australia, some indirectly
provided by the pharmaceutical industry via stakeholder-organizations such as the Mental Health
Foundation, some actually provided by the Commonwealth Government as part of the multi-billiondollar Mental Health Strategy, possibly the most disastrous public health strategy thus far inflicted on
the Australian people.

The roots of the word schizophrenia are found in the Greek language and that of dementia praecox,
the previous term given to the condition by Kraepelin, in Latin. Many words in the medical and
scientific vocabulary, including schizophrenia originate in Greek and Latin roots, reflecting the
cultural origins of the Western medical education system. The phrase Western medical education
can be misleading and the polarisation between Eastern and Western models is dualistic (and
simplistic), however it is a distinct system with a definite and uninterrupted history and hierarchy. It is
not, however, the only medical education system in the world, although it is the one that has trained all
the medical practitioners in Australia, including myself. It trains all the medical specialists, the
medical researchers, the registered nurses the laboratory technicians and physiotherapists. It trains, or
contributes significantly to the training of the occupational therapists, the social workers and the


psychologists, and is a massive global system. It is commonly referred to as orthodox medicine, and
has been called the allopathic disease model and is the dominant paradigm of the medical
profession, a profession controlled and partly in control of the medical establishment. The medical
establishment is, of course, not one establishment, but a complex and intricate system of
establishments, intimately connected with the universities of nations around the world. These smaller
establishments (subsets of the global medical establishment) are each comprised of one or more
institutions, sometimes formally referred to as institutes, at others, centres, departments,
faculties etc.

Each of these institutions teaches particular disciplines and subjects within these disciplines which
contain certain assumptions. These confront the pre-existing belief system of the student to various
degrees depending on what their pre-existing beliefs are, and how firmly they are held. Looked at in
terms of delusions, the training a person is given in secondary and tertiary education can create them or
destroy them. Inevitably it does both: destroys some delusions and creates others. This is the case if the
beliefs acquired by the student are untrue, given a definition that delusions are false beliefs
alternatively expressed as beliefs contrary to reality. A definition of delusions as false, fixed,
beliefs makes little sense and is therapeutically harmful, since firstly, many potentially disastrous
delusions may go unrecognised and secondly, less effort may be made to correct the delusion through
discussion and debate because the task is thought to be hopeless.



Claiming to have a cure for schizophrenia is admitting to a medical heresy. Every psychiatry text
insists that schizophrenia is incurable. But if schizophrenia is a misnomer it can be cured by rejection
of the label by patients and by therapists.
For those who hope for a magic bullet or vaccination against madness, my cure will be
disappointing; some may not regard it as a cure at all because it does not come in chemical form. It is a
cure based on logic and words and though it is a cure for schizophrenia it is not a cure for auditory
hallucinations (one of the common reasons for the diagnosis). I believe, in fact, that dopamineblockers, because of their effect on slowing down imagination and other creative mental processes, can
be effective (in much smaller doses than are commonly used) in the successful treatment of auditory
(and olfactory, and to a lesser degree, visual) hallucinations. Many people who periodically suffer from
such hallucinations, if they find them disturbing, are more than happy to take medication (even
medication with long term risks and dangers) to rid them of the problem. If they do not want their
hallucinations treated it makes no more sense to force treatment on them than it does to forcibly inject a
person with penicillin because they refuse to take antibiotics for tonsillitis or to forcibly operate on a
person for appendicitis against resistance.
If talk therapies do not work, I believe doctors should look at the limits of their own skills of
explanation, persuasion and suggestion. They should not allow themselves to become inquisitors or
drug-dispensing automatons, and neither should nurses and other health workers. Health is the
opposite of illness and all efforts by health workers should be directed towards the health and
wellbeing of their clients supporting them and nourishing them, reinforcing healthy ideas and
giving them ideas about how to become more healthy. If they become guards, drug-dispensers or
torturers they preclude the right to respect from society (and from their prisoners, regardless of whether
they are called patients or clients), and the right to regard themselves as health workers. They
must instead recognise themselves as part of the cause of schizophrenia, a recognition which will only
occur with deep personal and professional insight. Unfortunately, deep analysis may reveal that they
have been the unknowing accomplices of a system that is implementing systematic torture, and even


mass-murder (or mass-manslaughter at the least), leading to a strong disincentive to such inquiry.
Critical inward-looking is, however, essential for personal development, including moral
advancement. This is the case for individuals, as much as for organisations and institutions.

The first step, and the most important step, for the cure of schizophrenia is rejection of the label.
This assertion is likely to be greeted with fury by the psychiatric profession, amidst cries of
irresponsibility surely I am not saying schizophrenia does not exist? Wont this make all those
people who need their medication stop taking it?

Schizophrenia is a label, first and foremost. It is a word, first coined by Eugen Bleuler, a Swiss
psychiatrist (and medical doctor), in the early 1900s. While most psychiatrists agree that
schizophrenia is a misnomer, and that people given this label do not actually have a split mind they
continue to claim that schizophrenia is a distinct and definite biological illness. They are, in other
words, claiming that, although schizophrenia presents differently in different people they all have the
same underlying disease. A close examination of the criteria for the diagnosis of delusions and other
symptoms of schizophrenia reveal this as highly improbable, to say the least. There is no good
scientific reason to regard a person who has auditory hallucinations as having the same illness as a
person who believes that they are the reincarnation of Descartes (or Mary Magdalene, or Jesus). It
makes no sense to describe a person with unreasonable views regarding reincarnation as having the
same mental illness as a person with unreasonable views regarding telepathy. The fact that young
people with bizarre views regarding reincarnation may have a tendency to develop bizarre views
regarding telepathy can be far better explained by the learning experiences young people are subjected
to, as demonstrated in the earlier analysis of New Age ideas (remembering that these New Age ideas
regarding reincarnation and telepathy are derived from ancient Eastern religious and philosophical


A major problem immediately confronts the person who wishes to reject a label of schizophrenia: the
circular argument that refusal of label indicates lack of insight, indicating relapse. The rejection
of the label, and especially the refusal to take drugs can be, and frequently is, punished by extended
incarceration and change from voluntary ingestion to involuntary injection. This itself provides further
evidence that schizophrenia is an iatrogenic illness.

Removing the label of schizophrenia is not an easy task, and a huge difference exists between that
which must be achieved by patients and that which must be achieved by doctors for a lasting cure for
schizophrenia. The task for patients is the easier of the two, but it is still not easy it depends on how
attached one is to the concept of schizophrenia, and how harshly the label-rejection is punished. In the
case of doctors, including psychiatrists, (who can prevent the previous problem by not punishing their
patients for rejecting a label of schizophrenia), depending on how many people they have injected with
dopamine-blockers, and under what circumstances, they (and other health-care workers) can be
predicted to resist the dismantling and dismissal of the concept of schizophrenia. Hospitals,
universities, and, of course, drug companies can be expected to do the same. This, in itself is not a good
reason for those who have been labelled with schizophrenia to accept the label since the abovementioned can also be recognised to have a vested interest in the maintenance of the discredited

The acknowledged misuse of the term schizophrenia by Soviet and Nazi psychiatry casts light, and
doubt, on the scientific validity of the term, presenting clear evidence that, at least by these regimes, it
has been corruptly used as an instrument for political control in the case of Nazi Germany, for Stateimplemented mass-murder. The direct involvement of the Nazi psychiatrist Kurt Schneider in the
development of post-WWII criteria for the diagnosis of schizophrenia (the first-rank symptoms)
makes it difficult to respect the concept except with considerable selective blindness. Such selective
blindness is, however, extremely common, and is worsened by the fact that the connections between
the Nazi holocaust, Soviet repression and psychiatric practices in the West have been studiously
ignored by psychiatric texts, even those claiming to present a or the history of psychiatry. A close


look at psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia in the West and in Australia reveals this group of
seriously mental ill (psychotic) people (who happen to present a convenient captive population for
experimentation) to have been subjected to a series of extremely cruel treatments, the forced injection
of neurotoxins and chemical restraints being only the most recent and widespread. They have been
given electric shocks (without anaesthetic) which can make people talk (hence remedy catatonia);
they have been injected with potentially fatal infectious agents (notably malaria and typhoid); they
have been made comatose for days or weeks at a time (with insulin, barbiturates, or other drugs); they
have had parts of their brain destroyed with surgical knives, electrical cauterization, or, at worst, icepicks. Each treatment has been accompanied by false claims of their effectiveness by those who
performed the treatments (psychiatrists), who have always been able to find a few compliant patients to
vouch for how wonderful the respective treatment was.

Some people who have been diagnosed as having schizophrenia react angrily to debate about the
validity of the term, and this is not surprising. After several years of treatment, schizophrenia often
becomes both a crutch and an excuse. Removing the label of schizophrenia means that the disease
can no longer be blamed for whatever problems they have. It means that to become sane and cure their
mental problems they need to use their own brains there is no drug or immunization panacea, and
none is likely in the future. It also means that the treatment they were given has been, at best,
inadequate, and at worst, disastrous. The latter is not an uncommon view among diagnosed
schizophrenics, even among those unwilling to challenge the label itself. Unfortunately, those gullible
patients who fervently believe in the biological basis of the disease, and that the cure will come in the
form of a new drug become prime candidates for experimentation and further abuse. I must accept
that my views may offend these people.

Another group who object strongly to the challenging of schizophrenia are the families and carers of
diagnosed schizophrenics. Forming the backbone of the Schizophrenia Fellowship and other such
support organizations, the families of schizophrenics also have a deep vested interest in perpetuation
of the schizophrenia myth. The label has inevitably provided an inanimate entity to blame for various


problems in the past avoiding the need to blame people, including themselves. The schizophrenia
myth does, however, actively create scapegoats, and the development of genetic theories regarding its
aetiology, the diagnosis of schizophrenia in one family member places other members (including
those yet unborn) at risk of stigma and inheriting the family curse. This inheritance need not be
because of any genetic tendency the fact that doctors (and others) see what they look for means that
the diagnosis of serious mental illness in one family member significantly increases the risk of their
relatives acquiring a similar label.

In the case of doctors who have made diagnoses of schizophrenia, or concurred with them and injected
people with dopamine-blockers in the conviction that these were necessary, an honest appraisal of the
term is difficult, since it brings into question their medical competence and their understanding of the
Hippocratic Oath. Many doctors have insisted on compliance with psychiatrically prescribed drug
regimes even when they have recognised symptoms of brain damage from the drugs they were
administering (notably tardive dyskinesia). Many have failed to defy specialist psychiatrists, even when
they suspected (or knew) them to be over-prescribing potentially neurotoxic drugs, and many have
failed to notice early (or even late) signs of neurological damage. This is unfortunate, but hardly a good
reason to continue applying a label which can so clearly be demonstrated as psychologically, socially
and physically (because of the drugs used) damaging.

The psychiatric profession itself has the power to invalidate the label of schizophrenia, but shows no
signs of doing so. This branch of the medical profession, which can be compared with the highpriesthood of the Inquisition, defines what is regarded as acceptable and what is not in the area of
mental health not just in the case of people who voluntarily seek their help as physicians, but for
society at large. The profession is highly intolerant of criticism from within or without (as was the
Inquisition). Psychiatrists preside over informal courts with the power to inflict painful punishments
(incarceration and injections), to strip people of their legal and financial rights and freedoms, and
extract forced confessions (of mental illness) again as did the inquisitors. The psychiatric profession
is an elite and secretive organization, entered only through acquiescence to the College of


Psychiatrists system of rules, regulations and doctrines and punishes those psychiatrists (and other
doctors, as they are able) who subsequently turn against the system that trained them (bringing to mind,
again, the Inquisition).

This work is likely to be greeted with a similar response to my previous criticisms of psychiatric
diagnosis and practice stony silence, or accusations that I am anti-psychiatry. Also, I am not a
qualified psychiatrist. I am not a member of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of
Psychiatry. I do not even have a special diploma in psychiatry. In fact, the only formal medical
qualification I have is that of my basic medical degree an MBBS obtained from the University of
Queensland in 1983. Why listen to me?

While it is true that I have no specialist qualification in psychiatry, over the past five years I have
researched the neurosciences extensively through cross-disciplinary reading and extensive discussions
with hundreds of people, dozens of whom have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Prior to that I spent
8 years in general practice which inevitably involves a considerable amount of psychiatry. It was
through working as a family doctor that I recognised the importance of maintaining a holistic approach
towards the diagnosis and treatment of health problems, and the limitations of the reductionist approach
I was taught in medical school and the three years I worked in the public hospital system. During the 8
years I worked as a general practitioner I wrote thousands of scripts for psychoactive drugs mainly
antidepressants, benzodiazepine tranquillisers and sleeping tablets. I also wrote a few scripts for
dopamine-blockers, always on request, and always to continue treatment instituted by other doctors
usually psychiatrists. On a few occasions I have personally injected people with depot preparations of
dopamine-blockers, although never against a persons will. This I did with some, but not full,
knowledge of the risk of tardive dyskinesia etc: I believed that the benefits outweighed the risks. As I
have learned more about the risks, my views have progressively changed.


The second step for the cure of schizophrenia is to stop ingesting, injecting or prescribing
dopamine-blockers, unless newer atypical antipsychotics fail to control disturbing auditory (or
other) hallucinations. In the past few years there have been some significant advances in drug therapy
for auditory hallucinations which make the older dopamine-blockers largely redundant. These are
currently being marketed as atypical antipsychotics and are thought to cause significantly less sideeffects than the older drugs. They are, however, still dangerous drugs and are already being overprescribed; and they are also considerably more expensive than the older dopamine-blockers. These
drugs, risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole and clozapine, are significantly different from the older
agents, and are reported to cause fewer and milder adverse effects than haloperidol, chlorpromazine,
and the other old antipsychotics. Importantly, they are expected to cause less tardive dyskinesia than
their older rivals. Unfortunately, the politics of the pharmaceutical industry and its track record make
considerable scepticism appropriate when evaluating such claims. New drugs are routinely promoted as
the newest and therefore the best, always with the claim that they cause less problems than those they
are to compete with and these claims are frequently unjustified. Tardive dyskinesia can take years to
appear, and other serious problems may not become evident until several decades have passed
(increased risk of cancer, for example).

It is a fundamental and general principle of good medical practice to prescribe drugs in the smallest
effective dose and for the minimum necessary period to achieve a cure. This is not a principle that
should be deviated from too readily yet in the area of psychiatry it routinely is. While few doubt the
value of antibiotics in the treatment of serious bacterial infections, no sensible and ethical doctor would
suggest that people take antibiotics for years after suffering from an infection so as to prevent further
infections. If he or she did, it would soon become evident that this firstly does not achieve the desired
protection (from infection) and secondly, that it causes health problems from the antibiotics
themselves. This is equally true in the case of psychoactive drugs, and as in the case of antibiotics, why
this should be so is clear from the pharmaco-physiology of psychoactive drugs.


All psychoactive drugs affect brain chemistry this is obviously what they are supposed to do. They
specifically affect neurotransmitters, chemical messengers in the brain which enable communication
between neurones (brain cells) at synapses (junctions between neuronal processes known as axons and
dendrons). There are several known neurotransmitters, and much is known about their biochemistry
and activity on a cellular level, especially the catecholamines dopamine, noradrenaline and
adrenaline. We know that neurones (and other cells) have specific protein receptors on their cell
membranes, and that by binding with these receptors, neurotransmitters affect the activity of nerve cells
and ultimately of the whole brain. While it is nonsense to claim that humans are just a mass of
chemicals, or that complex behavior can be explained just on the basis of chemicals (or chemical
imbalances), it cannot be denied that chemicals, both those produced naturally by the body and those
introduced into, it can profoundly affect mental and physical health. If it is accepted that thought is
produced by the brain (and it may not be), neurotransmitters are necessary for any thought, because
brains cannot work without neurotransmitters crossing synapses and binding to receptors.

Neurotransmitters have formed a central focus of psychiatric and pharmacological research (which is
often combined) since the first isolated neurotransmitter, acetyl choline, was identified by Otto Loewi
in 1926. Professor Loewi was professor of pharmacology at the University of Graz, in Austria. He
began his work in 1921, only a few years after the end of the first World War and the collapse of the
rule of the Austrian Hapsburg Empire, which for hundreds of years was known as the Holy Roman
Empire. In 1938 Austria became, temporarily, part of the German Nazi Empire. Austria was, of
course, home to the most famous (or infamous) of psychiatrists Sigmund Freud. Freud was one of
many Jewish psychiatrists who fled Nazi persecution and escaped the eugenics monster which the
psychiatric profession had played such a central role in creating. Another Jewish psychiatrist who
escaped persecution by the Nazis was Heinz Lehmann, who fled to Canada, where he was employed in
Montreals Verdun Protestant Hospital. Edward Shorter, in A History of Psychiatry (1997) describes
some of the treatments Lehman tried out when he arrived in Canada. These give some indication of
what was going on in European psychiatric hospitals before and during the Second World War, and
show that similar activities were occurring in Commonwealth nations too:


In 1937, Heinz Lehmann, a refugee psychiatrist from Berlin, had just arrived at Montreals
Verdun Protestant Hospital, where he was one of a few physicians for some 1,600 psychiatric
patients. It was pretty horrible to work under those conditions, Lehman said. So I did all
kinds of things, always convinced that psychotic conditions and the major affective
disordershad some sort of a biological substrate. I kept experimenting with all kinds of
drugs, for instance, large doses, very large doses of caffeine, I remember, in one or two
stuporose catatonic schizophrenics of course, with no results. He injected sulfur suspended
in oil into his patients, which was painful and caused a fever. He injected typhoid antitoxin to
produce a fever analogous to the malaria therapy. Nothing helped; I even injected turpentine
into the abdominal muscles which produced and was supposed to produce a huge sterile
abscess and marked leucocytosis [raised white blood cell count]. Of course, that abscess had to
be opened in the operating room under sterile conditions. None of this had any effect, but all of
this had been proposed in, mostly, European work as being of help in schizophrenia. (p.247)
Professor Shorter, professor of medical history at the University of Toronto, in Canada, is loath to
condemn Dr Lehmann and his horrible experiments (in Canada). He argues that:
The point is not that researchers such as Lehmann behaved inhumanely with their patients:
They were searching in the best of faith for something better to offer them. It is rather that, by
the time in 1951 that Henri Laborit, a surgeon in the French navy, began experimenting with a
curious new potentiator of anaesthetics, the ground had already been well prepared for the
reception of new antipsychotic drugs. Laborit himself was directly responsible for a drug that
changed the face of psychiatry: chlorpromazine. (p.248)

Far from criticising the bizarre treatments of Dr Lehmann, Shorter presents them as being done in the
best of faith and in the interests of his patients. He credits Lehmanns work as helping prepare the
ground for new anti-psychotic drugs, and describes chlorpromazine as a drug that changed the face of
psychiatry. Chlorpromazine, currently marketed as Largactil in Australia and Thorazine in the USA,
was the first dopamine-blocker and became the benchmark for subsequent anti-psychotics to be
compared with. Most patients who have been given chlorpromazine would agree that it is a terrible


drug, and many doctors would agree as well. Some might add, though, that it is better than whips and
chains, assuming these to be the treatments given to psychotic people before the advent of dopamineblockers.

Before discussing the neurotransmitters and drugs which affect them we might pause to reflect on the
experimental treatments for schizophrenia conducted by Dr Lehmann, who went on to become the
Chair of McGill Universitys department of psychiatry and receive many honours including the Order
of Canada. What can Lehmanns experiments teach us about modern psychiatry and the professions
view of itself? Is it true that Dr Lehmann acted in the best of faith? If so, what other cruel treatments
might be justified by the same argument? Knocking out the front teeth to let madness out through the
mouth; causing sores to allow harmful humours to leave through the skin; removing the uterus to cure
hysteria? In fact the assertion that Lehmann acted in the best of faith is made questionable by his
own claim that (assuming he has not been misquoted), It was pretty horrible to work under those
conditions so I did all kinds of things Working in a crowded asylum is surely no worse than being
forced to live in one. Lehmann admits that he was always convinced that psychotic conditions had
some sort of biological substrate, despite repeated failures in effecting cures through the various
experimental treatments he had learned were being tried out in Europe. It is difficult to imagine why
injecting turpentine to cause a sterile abscess could be expected to cause improvement in mental health,
and yet he says this was the specific intent of the experiment. It was supposed to cause an abscess.
Shorter shows little interest in the ethics or the logic of Dr Lehmann, but gives the impression he
regards both as reasonable. He accepts the term stuporose catatonic schizophrenics. He quotes,
without questioning the assertion, Dr Lehmanns claim that none of this had any effect. It is
doubtless true that none of these experimental treatments had any healing (genuinely therapeutic)
effect, but definitely untrue that they had no effect. They caused suffering and illness for a painful
abscess cannot be regarded otherwise. Dr Lehmanns insistence on continuing these abusive
experiments suggests a delusional conviction in the biological substrate, by which he really means a
chemical substrate, he believed lay at the root of psychosis.


Professor Shorter describes the experiments of Heinz Lehmann in an introduction to the first drug that
worked (chlorpromazine, in