by Jon Rappoport


MARCH 23, 2012. The current issue of Psychiatric Times reports that the new bible of mental disorders, the DSM-V, will make grief a mental disorder.


Specifically, a parent who deeply mourns the loss of a child for more than TWO WEEKS will rate a diagnosis of clinical depression (and of course, drugging with one of the toxic SSRI antidepressants.)


This absurdity is even too much for some doctors, and they’re rebelling. For example, see Dr. Joanne Cacciatore’s blog post here.


But the “experts” who are assembling the upcoming DSM-V don’t care. They’re shrugging off the criticism so far.


Well, of course they would. There is a lot of money to be made by prescribing more drugs, in this case, to grieving parents.


The Psychiatric Times’ editorial attacking this lunatic classification of grief-as-disease is written by none other than Dr. Allen Frances.


Dr. Allen Frances has summed up position on the lunatic classification of grief-as-disease in this post on the Huffington Post Blog published on Mar 23, 2012.


Readers will remember my recent article about the good doctor. He is the man who was in charge of assembling the previous DSM-IV. His team expanded the definitions of ADHD and Bipolar, so that many more people would be dosed with toxic and destructive drugs like Valproate, Lithium, and Ritalin.


In fact, Dr. Frances, in a December 2010 Wired interview by Gary Greenberg (entitled Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness), stated: “There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.” [Emphasis added]


I’m not kidding. He actually said it. Here is the opening opening paragraph of the article:


“Every so often Al Frances says something that seems to surprise even him. Just now, for instance, in the predawn darkness of his comfortable, rambling home in Carmel, California, he has broken off his exercise routine to declare that ‘there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.’ Then an odd, reflective look crosses his face, as if he’s taking in the strangeness of this scene: Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV), the guy who wrote the book on mental illness, confessing that ‘these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.’ For the first time in two days, the conversation comes to an awkward halt.” [Emphasis added]


The complete article can be found at here.


Which would be like the chairman of Exxon asserting, “We need to explore for more oil. Of course, cars don’t really work. They don’t go anywhere. They’re fictions. Delusions.”


The committees who put together these DSMs would be better off posting a list of a few hundred human behaviors on a wall and, blindfolded, throwing darts at them.


What lies below this latest psychiatric nonsense about grief is an entire industrial complex. It’s dedicated to brainwashing the public into accepting the notion of discrete and real mental disorders.


People have problems, they become frustrated and confused, they suffer, but the act of carving up behavior and thought into diseases is a way of a) expanding business and b) extending the Matrix.


More and more, as a result of relentless PR, the public believes there are a whole host of mental disorders that not only intrude on their lives but require pharmaceutical treatment.


The public believes they are victimized by these diseases and can alleviate them only through drugs.


The public believes it is “humane” to accept the existence of these diseases, and we must all join together to “remove the stigma of diagnosis.”


The public believes they are at the mercy of arbitrary shifts of brain chemistry that bring on these diseases.


The public believes, therefore, that life itself is limited by the potential onset of “psychiatric illness.”


The public believes we’re all, to one degree or another, disabled.


The public believes what they’re told to believe. Therefore, the fictitious existence of discrete mental disorders becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


The Matrix op called psychiatry provides a focal point, around which are woven many strands of propaganda. The overall objective? A future world that resembles, to a remarkable degree, a Universal Hospital, in which the population, granted “free” care, lives through dozens of diagnoses of diseases and disorders, with (toxic) treatments—from cradle to grave. The eternal patient.


Further propaganda strives to label such a life the hallmark of What Humans Are.


That is the high-level objective of the medical/psychiatric cartel.


What makes psychiatry different is that it seeks to gain control and domination over the entire area of human behavior, through classification by labels and bogus claims of diagnosis.


As I mentioned in the article on Dr. Frances, there are no definitive chemical or biological tests for any so-called mental disorder. This fact is stunning to people. They automatically assume psychiatry is a science. It isn’t. It’s a shell game.


I refer now to the PBS FRONTLINE presentation, Does ADHD Exist? A quite revealing (and side-splitting) exchange occurs between the interviewer and Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center. Barkley is also the author of books about ADHD.


INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.


BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]


Live long and prosper, Dr. Barkley. And you might want to re-check the definition of science. Just a thought.


Here is a final prediction for you:


Author/psychologist Paul Babiak recently stated that a psychopath is someone with “a psychopathic personality.”


Quite informative.


My prediction?


We’re going to see an accelerated push to label many career criminals—on the street and in corporate boardrooms—as ill with the disease of psychopathy. Now, I’m old-fashioned. I believe you prosecute people like that to the fullest extent of the law.


The point is, though, the definition of psychopathy is going to be extended to those people who, in the view of mental health professionals, show a lack of empathy, who aren’t happy to live in the Global Village, where Share and Care are actually, at a high level, fronts for advancing the cause of Globalism.


Schoolchildren who don’t want to play the usual games, who don’t want to join the group are going to be examined for signs of incipient psychopathy.


The agenda will be to weed out people who are free and independent. Label them. Treat them. Drug them. Isolate them from the rest of us.


Your son is what some people would call an outsider. But actually, he’s case of psychopathy in progress. We have to act now. I’m not saying he’s a Lee Oswald or a Jack the Ripper or a Bernie Madoff, but you never know. If we catch this early, we have a chance. He doesn’t feel sympathy for others. He doesn’t recognize his inclusion in the human community. When he looks at people, he doesn’t smile. He just looks. We have promising treatments. Let’s move quickly…”


Of course, Doctor. Perhaps you could melt a few of his brain connections and banish his unsympathetic aura.


Jon Rappoport

An investigative reporter for the past 30 years, Jon is the author of a new wide-ranging collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED.