Blog posts

Big Pharma Bottom Feeders’ Gold Rush Greed      By Robert Carter/January 31, 2026      Big Pharma remains one of the most profitable industries on the planet with an annual net income profit of almost 14 percent. That’s almost twice the profit margin in other major industries. Pharmaceutical companies have more than enough money to spread around, even for their funding of 75 percent of the FDA’s pharmaceutical division.      You ask, isn’t there an ethical conflict of interest there for the FDA? Probably…but when there’s that much money spilling over the top of those high profit margins, it’s easy for a kind of gold rush mentality to take over from any ethical considerations.      A recent court case has brought to light a small pocket of some bottom feeders for Big Pharma wealth which have appeared in the Miami area. Dubbed “contract research organizations,” these carpetbagger clinical trial conductors are hired by pharmaceutical companies and private investors to do the research for prospective drugs so they can be approved by the FDA and introduced to the market.      In July, 2025, drug developer T3D Therapeutics filed a legal complaint against the contract research organization they had hired to do research on a prospective drug that stimulates the brain’s ability to process sugar and thereby reduce cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s patients.      Of course, that T3D idea was based on the chemical imbalance theory that has been so thoroughly debunked since Big Pharma began marketing it back in the 1980s.      In any case, when T3D began examining the results from the $35 million trial, underwritten by private and government funding, they discovered a “medically impossible” collection of unusable data that was virtually all fraudulent. Clinilabs had been hired to manage the five Miami area clinics doing the research, but these for-profit firms had been using unqualified trial participants as well as using questionable clinical trial protocol. Some of their reported positive results were simply outright lies.      Trial sites like these in Miami have been involved in more than 11,000 trials. South Florida has become a lucrative area for the $85 billion contract research business because of the high average age of its residents, which appeals to drug manufacturers. Older trial participants are apparently more easily recruited with the high fees paid, the lavish food provided them, and the “cognitive difficulties” they might claim which are so easy to fake.      In fact, a small community of “professional patients” has sprung up in Miami and elsewhere to reap the financial rewards available. Many of them have been found to just covertly dump the experimental pills they are supposed to take rather than risk any potentially dangerous side effects from them.      Gold rush ethics beget gold rush ethics all the way down the line. So, how trustworthy are the results of any of the thousands and thousands of these new drug trials that are being done?      The only thing trustworthy is the accuracy of the ledger entries for the millions being invested and then being pocketed by these gold rush, bottom feeder, contracted research organizations.

Psychiatrists: Not “Good People with Positive Intentions” By Robert Carter/January 27, 2026 Psychiatrist Richard Moldawsky’s blog that was published today on the Mad in America website offers a horrifying peek into the mind of a psychiatrist. It also shows why psychiatry is unable to take any responsibility for its damage to humanity. Entitled “Groupthink in Mainstream and Critical Psychiatry,” Moldawsky’s article contains two sentences that reveal far more than the author ever intended about the underpinnings of psychiatric thought. After acknowledging the presence of “groupthink” in today’s psychiatric community, the author goes on to say that “groupthink” is also present in the critical psychiatry movement. It therefore clouds the objective clarity of each group. Possibly so. Then he writes “Groupthink just happens…” It “just happens”? Where is the scientific mind in that pronouncement? You know, the inquiring, objective analysis of facts that seeks to isolate true cause and effect in order to put a solution into effect. Although Moldawsky seems aware that the term groupthink was made popular by social psychologist Irving Janis in 1972, he seems unaware that the term was coined by William H. Whyte in 1952 and was based on the “doublethink” and “crimethink” of George Orwell’s novel 1984. Both terms describe the force a totalitarian party uses to make citizens accept contradictory beliefs as truth (for instance, “War is peace”). Not unlike, ironically, Moldawsky’s attempt to have his readers see the identity between the pro- and anti-psychiatry groups because of their mutual “groupthink.” The other sentence, which is even more horrifying , is this: “Ethics is not the sole purview of medicine.” Really? What about the Hippocratic Oath? Isn’t “doing no harm and acting in a patient’s best interest” the cornerstone of Western medicine and the “sole purview” upon which any medical practice should be based? At a recent Inner Compass seminar, therapist Dr. Roger McFillin said about conventional therapy (including psychiatry) harming people: “I don’t think it’s an accident. I don’t think it’s good people with positive intentions. If you follow the “rules,” your clients will get worse.” If groupthink “just happens” – as psychiatrist Moldawsky proclaims – and if ethical practice is not the first order of business in therapy, then psychiatrists do not have to be responsible for the damage they do. Thank you, Dr. Moldawsky, for clarifying that today. You provide a perfect example of Dr. McFillin’s condemnation of those men and women who are not “good people with positive intentions.”

What Do Psychiatrists Consider an Ideal Personality?      By Robert Carter/January 17, 2026      In 2022 psychiatrists added “Prolonged Grief Disorder” to their questionable list of mental disorders in the DSM. This new disorder is separate from all your run of the mill DSM depressions, and it can be diagnosed twelve months after someone has lost a loved one. Of course, the remedy to it is a prescription for one of Big Pharma’s emotion-deadening antidepressants.      Prolonged Grief Disorder is hardly the first normal human reaction to life’s ups and downs to be transmogrified into a mental disorder so a prescription can be written for it. Consider “Somatic Symptom Disorder,” which is the mental illness of worrying too much if you’ve been diagnosed with cancer, or “Binge Eating Disorder,” which labels even occasional gluttony as a clinical psychiatric pathology, or “Post-Menstrual Dysphoric Disorder,” which makes a woman’s monthly mood swings a mental disease.      These labels would just seem hysterically asinine if they weren’t used by psychiatry to numb its diagnosed prey with Big Pharma’s dangerous medications. More than 43,000,000 Americans are currently prescribed antidepressants every year.      There’s a flip side to this mania of dark labeling, though. If these normal human responses to life are considered disorders, what picture does that paint of the personality a psychiatrist then must view as ideal. What’s their poster image of an ideal human being?      Someone who does not feel any of the normal ups and downs of life. That’s what they’re shooting for.      Now, here’s what’s really a scream: that describes exactly the personality someone ends up with after they’ve been taking prescribed antidepressants or anti-anxiety pills. That is the psychiatrists’ goal, their “ideal” human being. A numbed, unfeeling robot.      That zombie “ideal” human personality, of course, is the one a psychiatrist already has…with or without medication. Otherwise, how could a psychiatrist destroy so many real human lives with unnecessary medication and not even bat an eye?

I Am an On-line Mental Health Counselor. I Am a Robot.      By Robert Carter/December 1, 2025      A recently published cross-sectional study surveyed a thousand youths and young adults about using on-line AI sites for their mental health issues. 13 percent of all the participants had asked AI chatbots for mental health advice, but a full 22 percent of the 18-21 year old participants had consulted AI about their mental health concerns.      92 percent of them felt that they had received helpful advice from the AI chatbot. 65 percent of them sought AI advice at least once a month, and 10 percent of the 18-12 year olds contacted AI for that purpose almost daily.      That percentage of youth using AI for consultation about their own mental health translates into 5.4 million young Americans.      The survey was conducted by RAND, Harvard, Brown, Mass General Brigham, and Boston Children’s Hospital and the results were published in the JAMA Network Open. The surveyors initially contacted just over two thousand young people and half responded, almost exactly half of them female and half male.        The researchers only speculate on some of the various cultural anomalies revealed by the study – such as the low percentage of Blacks who seek online mental health advice – and Peter Simons, who reported on the study at Mad in America, noted the dangers from artificially created advice paradigms that can encourage delusional thinking about mental health and can even encourage suicidal thinking in their on-line clients.      Those are not the largest red flags from the study, however.      How is that one out of every five 18-21 year olds in this country has taken it into his or her young head that they have a mental health issue of such magnitude that they feel compelled to seek advice so often from an AI chatbot?      Either there really are that many mentally ill youth in the country, or there are that many youth in the country who have been brainwashed into believing that they might be mentally ill.      Psychiatry and Big Pharma continue to publicly promote a high number of mentally unhealthy Americans. Forty percent is their most popular PR figure. That number, however, is a compilation of the results of the ubiquitous mental health questionnaires they have introduced into schools, doctors’ offices, and hospitals for people to innocently take.      Those initial mental health screening tools like the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) are proven to result in a high number of “false positive” responses because of the low specificity of their questions as wells as their cultural, demographic and gender inconsistencies.      Both are perfect examples of what can be achieved with “leading questions.” From them, a person with a temporary upset over a deceased pet or an argument with a parent can be claimed by psychiatry to have a mental health issue.      Does that mean that forty percent of all Americans might have had a recent upset in life? Probably. Does that also mean that forty percent of all Americans have a mental health issue requiring some form of treatment…preferably pharmacological, of course, to help fill Big Pharma’s coffers? Probably not.      Big Pharma uses its forty percent number to lobby for large increases in  government funded mental health treatment in this country for those without private insurance. As many as 35 percent of foster children are on at least one psychotropic medication, and in residential treatment centers or group homes half of those foster children are on psychiatric medication, paid for by the government (aka, by us taxpayers).      It’s bad enough that our government has been convinced to increase funding for mental health treatment because of these falsely inflated numbers of Americans with mental health problems. It’s far worse that Big Pharma’s insidious marketing of what constitutes “mental illness” has now apparently successfully brainwashed one out of every five of our 18-21 year olds.      These unfortunate, now robotic thinking youth are today consulting with on-line robots to form a new, perfectly thoughtless and perfectly automatic money making machine for Big Pharma.

Psychiatry “Disappears” Anti-drug Advocate, Loren Mosher      By Robert Carter/November 20, 2025      American Psychiatrist Loren Mosher followed a prestigious route for his training in mental health, receiving degrees from both Stanford and Harvard, and he began working at the National Institute of Mental Health in 1964. He soon developed an interest in alternative treatments for schizophrenia.      In 1968 he was promoted to the role of Director for the NIMH Center for Schizophrenia Studies. He soon formed the view that the controlling atmosphere of a psychiatric hospital and the over-medication of schizophrenic patients actually hindered their recovery.      Mosher then started the Soteria Research Project in San Jose, California, in 1971. He selected unmarried patients between the ages of 18 and 30 who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, per the DSM-II label. The staff were trained to treat the residents as equals in a calm, non-institutional environment and the residents participated equally with staff in running the house. Medication was kept to a minimum.      At the end of the first two years , 42 percent of the residents had never been exposed to antipsychotics. 39 percent had used medication for a shorter period of time. Only 19 percent had taken them continually. The Soteria patients had lower psychopathology scores, had fewer hospital readmissions, and had better global adjustment compared to conventionally institutionalized patients treated with antipsychotic medication.      The San Jose Soteria project ran for ten years until 1983, when its funding was denied by an increasingly Big Pharma controlled psychiatric community.      In 1980 Loren Mosher himself was fired from his position as head of the Schizophrenia Center at the NIMH. Big Pharma’s psychiatric establishment could no longer tolerate his views on what constituted successful treatment for schizophrenia. In 1988 he resigned publicly from the American Psychiatric Association by writing that his true belief was that he was “actually resigning from the American Psychopharmacological Association. Luckily, the organization’s true identity requires no change in the acronym.”      Today in America, psychiatry remains under Big Pharma’s stranglehold philosophy of overmedication and controlled institutionalization.      Overseas, successful Soteria-based treatment facilities still operate today in Sweden, Finland, Germany, Switzerland, and Hungary. There is only one Soteria-based treatment facility in America, in South Burlington, Vermont.      Mosher held various teaching positions after being ostracized by the officialdom of psychiatry, and he worked closely until his death in 2024 with patient advocacy groups such as Mind Freedom International to protect the rights of people who have been labeled with psychiatric disorders .

Informed Consent Laws Can Protect You, but They Can’t Keep Shrinks Honest      By Robert Carter/November 8, 2025      Keeping shrinks honest is probably not possible, of course. Psychiatry is a practice based on lies, so even a well-intentioned psychiatrist is not capable of delivering a truthful informed consent interview.      Zapping patients with 460 volts of electricity, removing parts of their brain, drugging them into zombie-dom are all standard psychiatric practice for using force to “cure” abnormal people. How can shrinks honestly convey the dangers of their “therapy” without losing all their patients?      Even the first step of standard informed consent is not one that can be carried out truthfully. “Explain fully to a patient the criteria used for the diagnosis of his condition.”      With most medical procedures the diagnosis is based on physical evidence from blood tests, RIs, CAT scans, or other fact gathering procedures. A psychiatric diagnosis comes from the DSM, the several hundred page tome of collected thoughts from panels of psychiatrists about what constitutes – in their opinion only – a mental disorder. Not one of their 297 labels for mental conditions is based on any concrete physical evidence.      Step two of the informed consent procedure is to inform the patient of the risks or dangers associated with the recommended treatment. With ECT or with psychotropic drugs, that would mean revealing the results of the studies that show permanent memory loss and cardiac problems from ECT and increased suicidal and homicidal tendencies from psychotropic drugs, per their FDA Black Box warnings.      Some states use what they call a “reasonable patient” standard to judge what’s required to be disclosed by a medical practitioner to the patient. In other words, what would a reasonable person would want to know about his or her proposed treatment? Most reasonable patients would probably reject many psychiatric procedures or medications if they knew how serious the risks were from them.      Other states use a “reasonable physician” standard for their informed consent laws. In other  words, what would a reasonable doctor disclose to his patient? The question is, would any “reasonable physician” choose to be a psychiatrist?      Bureau of Labor Statistics reported about 27,100 psychiatrists practicing in America in 2025. There are approximately 1,082,187 licensed physicians practicing in this country as of August, 2025.      Only 2.5% of all American doctors are shrinks. That’s still a lot of unreasonable doctors. 1/3 of American psychiatrists are immigrants. It’s much easier to become a psychiatrist in many other countries because the training is faster and it’s much less competitive being accepted in those med schools.      Could therefore be a much stronger motivation for those shrinks to “make good money” in America than to “do no harm.”       Depends on your definition of what’s “reasonable.” Two BMW’s or a happy, healthy patient.

Scare ‘Em about How Bad the World Is… Then Prescribe Antidepressants to Calm Their Poor Frazzled Nerves      By Robert Carter/October 30, 2025      Yesterday the Associated Press published an article titled “Anxiety over global warming is leading some young Americans to say they don’t want children.”      Pretty scary, right?      The article starts off quoting a 27 year old woman who says “I just don’t think I need to bring more people into (the world) when there’s so much here currently that we need to fix.”      AP notes she is the average age of an American mother, per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…adding a little “authority” to the first anecdotal paragraph.      The next paragraph piles on more authority with “In a 2024 Lancet study of people 16 to 25 years old, the majority of respondents were “very” or “extremely” worried about climate change. The study also found that 52% said they were hesitant to have children because of climate change.”      That makes the 27 year old woman is now fully representative of half the 16 to 25 year old population. The “authority” of the Lancet – one of the worlds two most influential medical journals – confirms her identity with every other young person on the street. They’re all scared.      Maybe you should be, too, eh?      That study itself begins “Climate change has adverse effects on youth mental health and wellbeing,” as quoted by the Lancet. “85% of respondents endorsed being at least moderately worried, and 57.9% very or extremely worried, about climate change and its impacts on people and the planet.”      That makes it scarier yet to find out that eighty percent of our youth are that anxious about the world we all live in.      That’s a pretty good reason for them to be prescribed an antidepressant or anti-anxiety medication…at least so they can feel better about having children. Otherwise, the human race is quickly going to run out of future generations.      The author of this fear mongering study is Eric Lewandowski, PhD , clinical assistant professor in the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at NYU Langone and a member of its Child Study Center .      Langone is heavily funded by Big Pharma. They will receive $130 million from just one of their donors, Amethyst Innovations, through Langone’s partnership with Deerfield Management. Biotech Incubator, Aethon Therapeutics, and Therapeutics Alliances are some of the other Big Pharma entities funding NYU Lancone.      In 2024 the Associated Press had nearly 2.6 billion page views and over 54 million monthly users on its news website. That’s a huge audience for R. Eric Lewandowski, a simple PHD working in a back office at NYU Lancone, pounding out the pro Big Pharma “studies” he designs and writes up.      The Lancet’s readership is less, of course, but its online content still receives 41 million visitors annually. Better yet, its audience is prime for pro-Big Pharma influencers. 88% of its audience are medically qualified individuals, and 82% are practicing clinicians who trust the journal for medical updates, on subjects like how may youth are scared to have babies because of global climate change…      …and who will therefore need some form of anti-anxiety medication prescribed for them to calm all those adolescent nerves that have, apparently, been so frazzled by constantly worrying about climate change.

Lobotomies: Still the Psychiatric Model for Improving Mental Health      By Robert Carter/September 11, 2025      You’d think we were making this up, but we aren’t.      Psychiatric destruction in the name of help is essentially what a lobotomy is. An instrument like an ice pick is placed under the eyelid and against the top of the eye socket and a mallet then drives the instrument through a thin layer of bone and into the brain.      American physician Walter Freeman streamlined the earlier leucotomy procedure of Nobel Prize winning Doctor Egas Moniz – can you believe it…for leukotomies? — to “treat” mental illness so that it could be performed by an untrained psychiatrist as an office procedure that did not require hospitalization. Freeman performed the lobotomy without anesthesia because he used a portable electroshock machine to trigger a seizure that distracted the patient, apparently, from feeling the ice pick enter the pre-frontal cortex of the brain.      Freeman traveled around the country in what some wag dubbed his “lobotomobile” and performed at least 2500 of his ice pick procedures. Most were delivered as free demonstrations for mental institution staff on their incarcerated patients. He lobotomized nineteen minors, one of whom was a four year old child.      About 15 percent of his patients died from the procedure. Why was he doing this? Lobotomies reduced the symptoms of mental disorders.      No kidding. If you destroy a brain, any disorder it has is also going to be destroyed.      After a lobotomy, patients were left in a stupor. Many developed ravenous appetites and gained unhealthy amounts of weight. Some began having seizures. Freeman described his lobotomized patents as people with “infantile” personalities.      In that sense, of course, they were free of their troubles. One 29 year old woman Freeman lobotomized could not remember Feeman’s name afterward and obsessively poured coffee from an empty pot. He described her as a “smiling, lazy and satisfactory patient with the personality of an oyster” …“satisfactory” being the key criterion.      Great bedside manner, eh?      The reduction of any mental disorder was done at the expense of the patient’s intellect and personality. That was psychiatry’s rationale and their justification for performing these unspeakably gruesome procedures. The same rationale is used for electroshock therapy. Memory loss of parts of one’s life and decreased cognitive ability are acceptable trade offs for no longer feeling unhappy.      Today 43,000,000 Americans take antidepressants. And what do these drugs do? They perform a chemical lobotomy. They subtract out part of your life force so you don’t feel whatever emotional pain you might have been suffering from.       Of course, you won’t feel much of anything else anymore either.      Kind of like a happy oyster.