Do Psychiatrists Create the Very Mental Problems They Claim to Treat?

Do Psychiatrists Create the Very Mental Problems They Claim to Treat? | Alternet.

Alternet

Pacific Standard / By Ethan Watters

June 4, 2013

It’s easy to blame Big Pharma and the DSM for creating trendy mental illnesses, but the real problem is psychiatry’s blindness to culture.

Hysterical woman screaming. Albert Londe, c. 1890. / Courtesy of Wellcome Library, London.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia

Imagine for a moment that the American Psychiatric Association was about to compile a new edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. But instead of 2013, imagine, just for fun, that the year is 1880.

Transported to the world of the late 19th century, the psychiatric body would have virtually no choice but to include hysteria in the pages of its new volume. Women by the tens of thousands, after all, displayed the distinctive signs: convulsive fits, facial tics, spinal irritation, sensitivity to touch, and leg paralysis. Not a doctor in the Western world at the time would have failed to recognize the presentation. “The illness of our age is hysteria,” a French journalist wrote. “Everywhere one rubs elbows with it.”

Hysteria would have had to be included in our hypothetical 1880 DSM for the exact same reasons that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is included in the just-released DSM-5. The disorder clearly existed in a population and could be reliably distinguished, by experts and clinicians, from other constellations of symptoms. There were no reliable medical tests to distinguish hysteria from other illnesses then; the same is true of the disorders listed in the DSM-5 today. Practically speaking, the criteria by which something is declared a mental illness are virtually the same now as they were over a hundred years ago.

The DSM determines which mental disorders are worthy of insurance reimbursement, legal standing, and serious discussion in American life. That its diagnoses are not more scientific is, according to several prominent critics, a scandal. In a major blow to the APA’s dominance over mental-health diagnoses, Thomas R. Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, recently declared that his organization would no longer rely on the DSM as a guide to funding research. “The weakness is its lack of validity,” he wrote. “Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever.” As an alternative, Insel called for the creation of a new, rival classification system based on genetics, brain imaging, and cognitive science.

This idea—that we might be able to strip away all subjectivity from the diagnosis of mental illness and render psychiatry truly scientific—is intuitively appealing. But there are a couple of problems with it. The first is that the science simply isn’t there yet. A functional neuroscientific understanding of mental suffering is years, perhaps generations, away from our grasp. What are clinicians and patients to do until then? But the second, more telling problem with Insel’s approach lies in its assumption that it is even possible to strip culture from the study of mental illness. Indeed, from where I sit, the trouble with the DSM— both this one and previous editions—is not so much that it is insufficiently grounded in biology, but that it ignores the inescapable relationship between social cues and the shifting manifestations of mental illness.

Full article:

Do Psychiatrists Create the Very Mental Problems They Claim to Treat? | Alternet.

Related articles

• Are you ready for the new DSM-V? (bldust.wordpress.com)

New US manual DSM 5 for diagnosing mental disorders published

New US manual for diagnosing mental disorders published | Society | guardian.co.uk.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-5, has divided medical opinion

• Ian Sample, science correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Saturday 18 May
  

In the manual, grief is newly medicalised as major depressive disorder (MDD). Photograph: Adam G. Gregor /Alamy

The field of mental health will face its greatest upset in years on Saturday with the publication of the long-awaited and deeply-controversial US manual for diagnosing mental disorders.

Early drafts of the book, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-5, have divided medical opinion so firmly that authors of previous editions are among the most prominent critics.

Known informally as the psychiatrists’ bible, the $199 tome from the American Psychiatric Association is the guidebook that US doctors will use to diagnose mental disorders. The latest edition is the first major update in 20 years.

Though not used in the UK, where doctors turn to the World Health Organisation’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD), the US manual has global influence. It defines groups of patients, and introduces new names for disorders. Those names can spread, and become the norm elsewhere. More importantly, the categories redefine the populations that are targeted by drugs companies.

Criticisms have come from almost every corner. There are claims of expansionism, with common experiences and behaviours becoming newly medicalised. Temper tantrums become disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD); grief becomes major depressive disorder (MDD), according to Allen Frances, an American psychiatrist who chaired the task force behind the fourth edition of the manual. Other behaviours get their own labels: overeating becomes binge eating disorder; keeping too much junk, a hoarding disorder; a bit forgetful could be mild neurocognitive disorder.

David Clark, professor of experimental psychology at Oxford University, said mental health disorders are often hard to divide into clear categories, because too little is known about them, and there can be major overlaps. But the definitions are often valuable. For example, greater distinctions between various types of anxiety have led to more specific and effective treatments, he said.

Nick Craddock, professor of psychiatry at Cardiff University, and director of the National Centre for Mental Health in Wales, said some of the stranger aspects of the US manual will have no impact in Britain. But he said DSM-5 was flawed because definitions of disorders were sometimes changed on the basis of too little fresh scientific evidence.

“I don’t believe the science has advanced sufficiently in 20 years since DSM-4 to warrant making a new system,” he said. “That essentially is just a group of people agreeing on tweaking things and making them a little bit different. That to me is not a very helpful stage in the develop of psychiatric diagnosis. This is the wrong time in history to change the diagnostic system. “

Changing the definitions of disorders alters who has them. That affects who gets drugs and other support, and who interventions are trialled on. If the criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are broadened, then more people are likely to be diagnosed with the condition.

The arrival of DSM-5 will mark the end of Asperger’s syndrome in the US.

Along with some other autism-related conditions, Asperger’s will now be consumed by the new category of “autism spectrum disorder”.

Some people diagnosed with Asperger’s are unhappy about the coming change. Carol Povey, director of the National Autistic Society‘s Centre for Autism, said: “The term Asperger Syndrome is a core part of their identity for many people and they understandably feel anxious about moves to remove the term. The changes won’t prevent people from continuing to use it to define themselves and nor should it,” she said.

Debbie Tucker, chair of the Asperger’s Syndrome Foundation, said the label can be useful in treating people, but that some did not want to be labelled. “Labels only become unhelpful and sometimes dangerous if used to discriminate. People with Aspergers are vulnerable to this,” she said.

Last month, Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, declared that the organisation would not use DSM-5 definitions to set its research priorities. Writing about DSM-5 on his blog, he said: “The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischaemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure.” Instead, he said the NIHM would lay the foundations for a new classification system, based on brain imaging, genetics, cognitive science and other research.

“We need to begin collecting the genetic, imaging, physiologic, and cognitive data to see how all the data – not just the symptoms – cluster and how these clusters relate to treatment response,” he said.

Jump to comments (101)

• Medicine’s big new battleground: does mental illness really exist? New edition of psychiatry’s dictionary of disorders sparks transatlantic row about alleged role of big pharma in diagnoses
• Psychiatrists under fire in mental health battle
• Do we need to change the way we are thinking about mental illness?
• Minds traumatised by disaster heal themselves without therapy
• Middle-age obesity ‘will lead to a surge in dementia cases’
• Carers should be monitored for mental health problems, warn doctors
• Poll Is it unhelpful to see mental health issues as illnesses with biological causes?

UK: Psychiatrists under fire in mental health battle

Psychiatrists under fire in mental health battle | Society | The Observer.

British Psychological Society to launch attack on rival profession, casting doubt on biomedical model of mental illness

• Jamie Doward
• The Observer,
• Sunday 12 May 2013

British psychologists are to say that current psychiatric diagnoses such as bipolar disorder are useless. Photograph: Justin Paget/Fuse/Getty

There is no scientific evidence that psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are valid or useful, according to the leading body representing Britain’s clinical psychologists.

In a groundbreaking move that has already prompted a fierce backlash from psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society’s division of clinical psychology (DCP) will on Monday issue a statement declaring that, given the lack of evidence, it is time for a “paradigm shift” in how the issues of mental health are understood. The statement effectively casts doubt on psychiatry’s predominantly biomedical model of mental distress – the idea that people are suffering from illnesses that are treatable by doctors using drugs. The DCP said its decision to speak out “reflects fundamental concerns about the development, personal impact and core assumptions of the (diagnosis) systems”, used by psychiatry.

Dr Lucy Johnstone, a consultant clinical psychologist who helped draw up the DCP’s statement, said it was unhelpful to see mental health issues as illnesses with biological causes.

“On the contrary, there is now overwhelming evidence that people break down as a result of a complex mix of social and psychological circumstances – bereavement and loss, poverty and discrimination, trauma and abuse,” Johnstone said. The provocative statement by the DCP has been timed to come out shortly before the release of DSM-5, the fifth edition of the American Psychiatry Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

The manual has been attacked for expanding the range of mental health issues that are classified as disorders. For example, the fifth edition of the book, the first for two decades, will classify manifestations of grief, temper tantrums and worrying about physical ill-health as the mental illnesses of major depressive disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder and somatic symptom disorder, respectively.

Some of the manual’s omissions are just as controversial as the manual’s inclusions. The term “Asperger’s disorder” will not appear in the new manual, and instead its symptoms will come under the newly added “autism spectrum disorder”.

The DSM is used in a number of countries to varying degrees. Britain uses an alternative manual, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) published by the World Health Organisation, but the DSM is still hugely influential – and controversial.

The writer Oliver James, who trained as a clinical psychologist, welcomed the DCP’s decision to speak out against psychiatric diagnosis and stressed the need to move away from a biomedical model of mental distress to one that examined societal and personal factors.

Writing in today’s Observer, James declares: “We need fundamental changes in how our society is organised to give parents the best chance of meeting the needs of children and to prevent the amount of adult adversity.”

But Professor Sir Simon Wessely, a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and chair of psychological medicine at King’s College London, said it was wrong to suggest psychiatry was focused only on the biological causes of mental distress. And in an accompanying Observer article he defends the need to create classification systems for mental disorder.

“A classification system is like a map,” Wessely explains. “And just as any map is only provisional, ready to be changed as the landscape changes, so does classification.”

Related articles

• You: Psychiatrists under fire in mental health battle (guardian.co.uk)
• National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to ditch the DSM (dxrevisionwatch.com)
• Psychiatry divided as mental health ‘bible’ denounced (federaljack.com)
• The Real Problems With Psychiatry – Hope Reese – The Atlantic http://t.co/aFK6DnuSZF (theatlantic.com)

Brilliant! The Label Bible, The DSM, is Disintegrating

Psychiatry divided as mental health ‘bible’ denounced – health – 03 May 2013 – New Scientist.

It’s about time that someone takes on psychiatry and its symptom based phony medicine.  Go straight to the article, the above link, it’s a one third-permission copy rule.  Lou

newscientist.com

•  May 2013
• by Andy Coghlan and Sara Reardon

The world’s biggest mental health research institute is abandoning the new version of psychiatry’s “bible” – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, questioning its validity and stating that “patients with mental disorders deserve better”. This bombshell comes just weeks before the publication of the fifth revision of the manual, called DSM-5.

On 29 April, Thomas Insel, director of the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), advocated a major shift away from categorising diseases such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia according to a person’s symptoms. Instead, Insel wants mental disorders to be diagnosed more objectively using genetics, brain scans that show abnormal patterns of activity and cognitive testing.

This would mean abandoning the manual published by the American Psychiatric Association that has been the mainstay of psychiatric research for 60 years.

The DSM has been embroiled in controversy for a number of years. Critics have said that it has outlasted its usefulness, has turned complaints that are not truly illnesses into medical conditions, and has been unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies looking for new markets for their drugs.

There have also been complaints that widened definitions of several disorder have led to over-diagnosis of conditions such as bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Now, Insel has said in a blog post published by the NIMH that he wants a complete shift to diagnoses based on science not symptoms.

Full article:

Psychiatry divided as mental health ‘bible’ denounced – health – 03 May 2013 – New Scientist.

 

Related articles

• Federal Mental Health Agency to Drop DSM Use (livescience.com)

Study: Massive bias toward pharmaceuticals at American Psychiatric Association conferences

Study: Massive bias toward pharmaceuticals at American Psychiatric Association conferences.

Published by the American Psychiatric Association, the DSM-IV-TR provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

NaturalNews

Mike Bundrant

May 29,2012

Like most professional groups, psychiatrists attend conferences to network and catch up on the latest trends in the industry. A couple of young researchers have recently shown, however, that conferences for psychiatrists are not so different than conferences for multi-level marketers – full of bias toward target products.

Hold on a sec… Given they are an industry of professionals, we really should give them the benefit of the doubt. Okay here goes: At least the MLMers are up front about their promotional agenda.

The American Psychiatric Association doesn’t appear so straightforward.

The level of bias is mind-blowing

The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology by two young psychiatrists from the University of Michigan and Yale University, analyzes the presentations given at two recent meetings of the American Psychiatric Association.

The vast majority of research presented at conferences was funded by pharmaceutical companies. Of the industry-supported studies, 97.4 percent reported results that were positive toward the medicine that the study was designed to test, and 2.6 percent reported mixed results. No industry-sponsored studies with negative results were found!

97.4% positive news for big pharma! No negative results! Its a miracle!

Yessiree! Step right up, friends! This wondrous little elixir will soothe the nerves, tone the inward organs and lighten your heavy burden in life. And for you, ma’am, you’ll never worry about that philandering husband again. He’ll find you irresistible and that’s a proven fact! Just make the $5 co-pay and your problems are solved!

The bias in APA conference presentations matches the bias in research journals. It amounts to nothing more than marketing hype. APA conferences appear to be little more than industry funded pow-wows to pump up the team. These snake-oily tactics are shrouded in an aura of medical professionalism and scientific research.

What are doctors thinking? These are supposed to be smart people – people that we are told to trust with our health. Are they so easily bamboozled? Like one industry insider recently told me on Mental Health Exposed: Doctors are either naive to the tactics used by big pharma, or complicit. Either way, should you trust them when they whip out the prescription pad and tell you it is perfectly safe and effective?

As if this news weren’t bad enough, APA conference presenters are going so far as to make pitches for drugs that are still “on patent” – still in development! As if they were engaged in some sort of pre-sales cycle to warm up the market before drugs are even approved and ready for sale.

The worst news yet

For practitioners like me who help people improve their lives without fancy diagnoses or drugs, the worst news of all is that non-drug treatments like cognitive behavioral therapy are ignored at APA conferences. There is a huge body of research and evidence that cognitive approaches work as effectively as drugs (supposedly) work for mental health, yet this evidence is rarely presented.

The APA does not support psychiatric health that is not endorsed by pharmaceutical companies.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120522115030.htm

via Study: Massive bias toward pharmaceuticals at American Psychiatric Association conferences.

Protestors Say Psychiatrists Over-Label and Over-Medicate

Protestors Say Psychiatrists Over-Label and Over-Medicate – Waking Times : Waking Times.

May 7, 2012 | 

Maiken Scott
Newsworks

Several thousand psychiatrists are in Philadelphia for their annual convention – and some mental health advocates are expressing their opposition to what they see as overdiagnosing and over-medicating of people with mental illnesses.

About 200 protesters gathered in Center City yesterday, May 5th, and marched to the convention center. Their signs read “label jars, not people” and “don’t medicalize emotions.” Participants voiced their concerns with the next edition of the influential diagnostic and statistical manual, the DSM – often referred to as the bible of psychiatry. The DSM plays a big role in this year’s American Psychiatric Association conference.

Joseph Rogers of the Mental Health Association of South-Eastern Pennsylvania says he has participated in work groups for the next edition of the DSM – due out next year – but didn’t feel like his opinion was heard: “The fundamental nature of psychiatry is such that’s so eager to label, so eager to see people as diseased brains, that I don’t know that we have made much progress.”His colleague Debbie Plotnick said psychiatric labels can have a life-long impact: “Sometimes when people are handed a label when they are young, like schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder, they are told they will never be able to work, they will never have a life, they will never be able to go to school, this kind of label is very detrimental.”

Read Full Article

Related articles

• On Recovering from Psychiatric Labels and Psychotropic Medications: An ‘Occupy APA’ Manifesto (madinamerica.com)
• Make Yourself Heard! says DSM-5′s Kupfer – but are they listening? (dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com)
• Occupy the APA event in Philly today (examiner.com)

Health News: Anxiety Disorders Appear to Precede the Onset of Diabetes in Latinos

Image via Wikipedia

In a new study authored by University of California and being presented this week to the American Psychiatric Association, found that diabetes and mood disorders appear together in high rates amongst the Latino population.

Latinos have a higher rates of diabetes than any other ethnic group and it also appears that they have a higher rate of both a mood disorder and diabetes.  A mood order typically refers to anxiety or depression.

45 percent of Latino men develop a mood disorder first and then get diabetes.  For women 39 percent develop a mood disorder followed by diabetes.  In both male and females there is a very high rate of having both medical ailments at the same time.

Why?

“Poor motivation, poor eating habits, and lack of impulse control in patients with mood and anxiety symptoms could be considered as contributing factors for the development of metabolic syndrome and diabetes,” wrote the study authors.

HSN Health News, Hispanic Health – Hispanically Speaking News.

Related articles

• Are memory loss and mood disorders actually diabetes of the brain? (kevinmd.com)
• How Diabetes Became an Epidemic (xblivingnaturally.wordpress.com)

Labeling theory: Wannabe experts claim healthy eating is a mental disorder

(NaturalNews)

Do you avoid foods that contain artificial colors and sweeteners, and stick to whole, unprocessed foods instead? If so, you just might have orthorexia, an imaginary “disease” created in 1997 by Dr. Steven Bratman that appears to be gaining more attention in recent days. According to a recent report in Yahoo! News, restricting one’s diet to healthy, pure foods is a compulsive disorder that requires cognitive behavior therapy in order to cure.

Written about in so-called respected health journals like the Journal of the American Medical Association and Psychology Today, “orthorexia nervosa,” which means “nervous about correct eating” in Latin, allegedly causes malnourishment, anxiety, and social disorders. Its creators claim it stems from a type of obsessive compulsive disorder, and that it can lead to anorexia.

As bizarre as it all sounds, there are actually individuals out there that have fallen for the crazy tale that eating healthy is a disease, and some actually take these claims seriously. In other words, eating processed foods filled with artificial chemicals, pesticides, and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) is considered normal behavior, while eating raw, organic broccoli could potentially land you in a psychiatric hospital filled with pharmaceutical drugs designed specifically to treat your “illness.”

NaturalNews covered the issue of orthorexia last summer (http://www.naturalnews.com/029098_o…), but the fictitious disease is once again making the rounds in the mainstream media. According to reports, orthorexics “may start by eliminating processed foods, anything with artificial colorings or flavorings as well as foods that have come into contact with pesticides, and eventually shun other things like caffeine and alcohol.”

This ridiculous criteria, of course, includes millions of health-conscious Americans that choose to eat healthy and avoid chemicals. Currently, however, this fake disease has not yet been officially added to the American Psychiatric Association’s ridiculous Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). So any supposed “treatments” that are sure to be developed by drug companies will not qualify for insurance reimbursement.

Wannabe experts claim healthy eating is a mental disorder.

Related Articles

• Rare Disorders: Orthorexia (socyberty.com)

CONFIRMED: Psychiatric Manual DSM-IV-TR Labels free Thinkers, non conformers as Mentally Ill

Image via Wikipedia

Author: Brian D. Hill

It is now confirmed by USWGO News that the DSM-IV-TR Manual labels free thinkers, non conformers, civil disobedient advocates, those that question authority, and people considered hostile toward the government (aka Oath keepers and local militias) as mentally ill with the illness titled “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD.

It was reported on October 8 2010 from OffTheGrid News that anybody who is disobedient, defiant,  a free thinker, or even considered hostile toward authority was to be labeled by psychiatrists as ‘Mentally Ill’.

Now I have got my hands on a ebook version of the year 2000 version of the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental  Disorders DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition (Text Revision) By the American Psychiatric Association version DSM-TV-TR (The non TR Version was said to be older and so I got the newer one which had the information that Off The Grid News warned about).

Now as I search up the keywords “oppositional defiant disorder” on adobe reader I found exactly what Off The Grid News was talking about. So it is now Confirmed basically that anyone who disobeys authority or even questions authority is now considered mentally ill and can be thrown in a prison-like mental institution under tax payers dollars.

So lets just get to the basics of what this is talking about for those that don’t exactly understand what this is saying:

So now according to the ebook it states that:

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 6 months

So in other words if a student gives out 9/11 truth fliers and a teacher says “You don’t have a Constitutional right to give out fliers good buddy” then non compliance is considered hostile or disobedient. Also if I am with the Oath Keepers that refuse to obey unlawful orders from authorities then that also fits them and me as disruptive and hostile towards authority. If the psychiatrists use the ODD illness on regular adults then I am sure many disgruntled tax paying Americans and those that no longer consent to be governed would be forcefully medicated, forced to accept being a slave to society, or stay in a mental prison institution complex for the rest of their days. That seems to be where this manual is getting at according to the fact I was able to obtain the full copy of the psychiatric manual.

Negativistic and defiant behaviors are expressed by persistent Stubbornness, resis·
tance to directions, and unwillingness to compromise, give in, or negotiate with
adults or peers. Defiance may also include deliberate or persistent testing of limits,
usually by ignoring orders, arguing, and failing to accept blame for misdeeds. Hostility
can be directed at adults or peers and is shown by deliberately annoying others
or by verbal aggression (usually without the more serious physical aggression seen
in Conduct Disorder).

So in other words it is okay to compromise with those that commit treason to this country and those that disobey their Oath to the Constitution. The day we start accepting and compromising with those that wish to take away our freedoms then that is the path to start losing all of our freedoms and rights for good. Also this manual speaks against any anti-social behavior so that means that if your not in a organized religion, not being social enough in society, and may have viewpoints that are unpopular then you will also be labeled as having ODD.

Defiance may also include deliberate or persistent testing of limits,
usually by ignoring orders, arguing, and failing to accept blame for misdeeds

So if I was a active duty soldier and was told to confiscate peoples guns, assassinate American citizens, and start silencing dissent and I refuse those orders plus argue with the commander in chief regarding the illegal orders then that makes me mentally ill and the Unconstitutional treasonous monsters the hero.

So it is now confirmed that psychiatrists will start targeting brave people like George Washington, anti Federal Reserve activists, activists, and even those against tyranny with mental illnesses such as “oppositional defiant disorder” as we head into more of a Military Dictatorship where freedom does not exist and all functions of society must function like a cold hard machine and any who feel the need to be away from this machine society will not be tolerated by the Police State minions and will either be killed or pumped up with so much drugs that the person will feel like a zombie.

Also what are free thinkers anyways, Free thinkers are those that feel they should have the right to live the way they choose freely as long as they don’t harm anybody, don’t harm the persons property, and don’t harm other peoples rights. A free thinker is a person that believes they should have the rights to think freely without any risk of persecution.

These are the full list of who all will be targeted by this new disorder created by the American Psychiatric Association:

1. Free Thinkers – Because they get in the way of the police state and become a obstacle to authority
2. Non conformers – Because they will cause civil disobedience which will make things harder on authorities
3. Oath Keepers – Because they will actively refuse any orders from higher ups to shoot American citizens, confiscate Americans guns when this action conflicts with the 2nd amendment, follow illegal orders aka orders that conflict with the Constitution and the laws legally passed. Oath keepers teach people to be disobedient to any authority that breaks the Constitution.
4. Highly creative artists – Because they are wasting time in the police state society and so they must also work like clockwork to be a good slave in society or risk being thrown in a mental institution.
5. Anyone that questions authority – Because the authority is god and anybody that questions authority must be a troublemaker that wishes to destabilize a society and commit acts of terrorism.

So there we have it the American Psychiatric Association is putting in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental  Disorders DSM-IV series that free thinkers, civil disobedient advocates, and Oath keepers are all mentally ill that are anti-social and may cause behavior problems in our modern society.

The Constitution is at risk again as the fascists keep finding ways to indoctrinate the youth and finding new ways to make people conform to the new Unconstitutional ways of society. We are being incrementally prepared to accept the new treasonous Unconstitutional takeover.

CONFIRMED: Psychiatric Manual DSM-IV-TR Labels free Thinkers, non conformers as Mentally Ill – USWGO Alternative News.

Link to DSM 4: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39441533/3-Pages-of-the-eBook-of-Diagnostic-and-Statistical-Manual-of-Mental-Disorders-DSM-IV-TR-Fourth-Edition

Related Articles

• The McDonaldization of the Mind (mindhacks.com)
• Depression Breakthrough (lewrockwell.com)