Thank you for telling the story and history of the White Cut.

Please go on and tell the story of the Chemical White Cut
done with neuroleptics which are even more efficient than
surgery because the whole brain and the whole body is
affected in way, that reduces every aspect of living life
- except for becoming overwighted !

Neuroleptics are not yet history !!

Sincerely Lars Jensen.

My name is David Vallaire. I have written a book entitled, “Psychiatry is not a Science.” Upon review you will see falls into an easily understood form, however, the complexity of sorting through all the data I looked at, was anything but easy. The origin of this book comes from an article I read in the Washington Post Health Section about a year ago called “Shock Value” written by Shirley Wang. Ms. Wang was completing an internship at the Western Psychiatric Institute at the time “Shock Value” was published in the Washington Post.
Unbeknownst to me, an editorial assistant to the editor of the Health Section, Kat Hom, sent what I had written to the author of the piece. I received an email from the author Shirley Wang who, as a response to my questions and observations, merely repeated what she had said in her article and did not have any rebuttals to what I had written. I have an interest in the field of psychology, like many people, and her response indicated to me there was more to be revealed if, I, with my B.A. in English Literature, could raise questions that stumped a clinical psychologist.
You will find the email to and response from the Washington Post on that article included in this correspondence as well as the link to the article in question. Also included is Ms. Wang’s response.
After receiving Ms. Wang’s response, I started researching and digging. I was totally flabbergasted at what I started to see in a number of areas of psychology that people take for granted. You will discover that within 14 pages, I demonstrate, except to those who refuse to look at the evidence, that so-called Multiple Personality cannot exist. I was even able to trace back in history to exactly where Multiple Personality originated and you will be very surprised as I was as to its origins. Shocked is more the word.
I looked even further into such things as lobotomy. Lobotomy has already been discredited, but I was able to find the historical background for how it came to become a common procedure when it should never have been used in the first place. One of the many interesting things I found is that lobotomy violated the Nuremburg Code of Medical Ethics of 1947 yet lobotomies continued, even after 1947 into the late 1960’s and beyond.
There are several themes of this book. One is that, many, perhaps most psychiatric and psychological “conditions” have no scientific basis if you use the scientific method as a yardstick. I don’t know of any other yardstick that could be used. There are no objective tests, of any kind, as are necessary in anatomical medicine to determine pathology, like blood tests, MRI’s, or biological cultures to determine many, if not most, of these psychiatric and psychological diagnosis and treatments.
Another theme is that many procedures like multiple personality and lobotomy were more a result of the public being fed information through the news media and books and movies like Sybil than scientific discovery. Not science put public relations, convinced people that these conditions and treatments (multiple personality and lobotomy) were legitimate; this includes Electric Shock Therapy today. The underlying purpose for many psychiatric conditions and treatments, as the evidence I collected shows, was for attention getting on the part of psychiatrists and psychologists, in addition to, the money garnered from the many books and movies that were made over the years, not to mention the money generated from treatments, such as, the famous ice pick lobotomy which took about 10 minutes to perform and could be done in a hotel room or office. At 10 minutes a lobotomy and up to $2500 for the “surgery”, this was easy money. I will let the draft tell you the rest with one exception. Since the scientific method was and is, not the basis for multiple personality, lobotomy and other psychiatric diagnosis and therapies, what psychiatry and psychology is asking people to do is, to take what they say on faith. If there is no scientific evidence, then this is what physicians are asking the public to do: believe me because I am a doctor. This is eerily similar to what religious leaders ask people to do as religion is not based on science, but faith.
Although Dr. Benjamin Rush, considered the Father of American Psychiatry, who’s picture is on the American Psychiatric seal, believed religion was essential in determining a person’s mental health, psychiatry today does not get involved in religion; partly because they have to some extent replaced religion since they are asking people to take many of the conclusions of psychiatry and psychology not on science, but on faith. My concern is not with religion but the misuse of psychiatry and psychology.

Thank You,
David Vallaire

ARTICLE: SHOCK VALUE
by Shirley Wang
link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002098.html
Dear Mr. Vallaire,

Thanks for your note to the Washington Post Health section. We enjoy
hearing from our readers and think your letter is very insightful, so may
we have your permission to consider running it in Your Views (the Health
section’s letters to the editor)? If so, we need to verify that you wrote
the letter and did not acquire any portion of it from other sources, we
need to know that you are using your real name, and did you send or post
this letter or a similar item to any other media or internet forum
[including a blog]? We reserve the right to edit all letters for space.
And if we decide to run it, we’d need to know your city of residence and
we’d like to have your phone number (not for publication) in case any
last-minute questions arise.

p.s. We usually limit each letter to 250 words, so you’re welcomed to edit
your letter if interested.

Thank you,
Kat Hom
Editorial Assistant
Washington Post Health section

—– Original Message —-
From: david vallaire
To: Health Internet DropBox
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:13:39 PM
Subject: ATT: Kat Hom -353 wrds- if u nd it shrtr i cn try
Dear Shirley Wang,
In your article, Shock Value”, you refer to the fact that, “no one understands why ECT works….psychiatrist’s believe… (and to paraphrase- that a human being is like a computer)…(and that psychiatrists) can “reboot” the brain.
Now, psychiatrist “believe” that this procedure works. Proving it works is something very different. Some people “believed” lobotomies worked and it was the “miracle cure” for mental illness. Sending high electrical voltage through the human body, causing memory loss is clearly unsafe. Memory loss may be brain damage. By the way, frying a few brain cells will change someone’s behavior, nothing new about that.
When “doctors” start talking about people like they are machines(in other word objects) I start to get worried. People can’t be”rebooted”. Nor do they have “wiring” that is messed up. This terminology shows the primitive view even trained professionals
have of the ultra sophisticated human being. They are dehumanizing
people with this kind of language. Dehumanizing people is the first step
to mistreat people socially. What you have now, is the same as you had with lobotomy: people calling themselves doctors, using treatments they have no scientific evidence to substantiate are safe and effective, and using public relations to push the
procedure.
Physicians want to use anecdotal evidence to justify ECT? Doctors laugh at
anecdotal evidence unless it’s their anecdotal evidence that “proves”
they’re right. I thought that’s what experiments were for? Boy, I don’t
know my science do I?
Without actual scientific evidence of how ECT works, if it really works, and how much
damage does it do, the “health professionals” have no idea of what the
effect will really be on their poor “patient”. How can you give people
treatments if you don’t have the scientific evidence to back it up? Why do
they get away with it in psychiatry? They don’t get away with it in any
other branch of medicine.
I’m looking to write a book on what I have come to see in the world of
psychiatry, but I have to take this computer course first so I can
understand all the language.

David Vallaire

Below is Ms. Wang’s response. Notice she provides no counter arguments to ANY
of my arguments.

Dear Mr. Vallaire,

Your comments were forwarded to me from The Washington Post. Thank you for
your feedback on the ECT story. I understand that you disagree with some
aspects of the story I wrote based on my reporting. ECT certainly has a
long, controversial history, and remains contentious today. From my
reporting, it appears that there are many drawbacks to ECT, but there is
also much scientific research about its effectiveness, which distinguishes
it from treatments like lobotomies, which you point out as a frightening
and ineffectual treatment.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts.

Best,
Shirley Wang

Notice Ms. Wang claims ECT has a “controversial” history and a “long” history. Well, if it has such a long history why don”t they have the scientific data to prove its safety and effectiveness. Also notice she does not say ECT is a safe procedure which is one of the points of my email and one of the most important aspects of any medical procedure. I started researching and am amazed at what I found and forwarded some of that information to the Washington Post:

David Vallaire

In summation:
My book will help many, many people and also help psychiatrists and psychologists better understand their own field. The geographer who presented the theory of continental drift was laughed at by geologists. Plate tectonics is completely proven today.
I was able to give this information, a fresh eye, since I was not indoctrinated to believe things that aren’t true. Freud, himself, thought that analysis should be separate from medicine. So even Freud acknowledged that a person didn’t need to be a physician to do analysis.
Thank You,
David Vallaire
447 S. Berendo St. Apt. 106
Los Angeles, Ca. 90020
213 388 2998
Email: amercrutio100@yahoo.com
Below is the beginning of the book:
PSYCHIATRY IS NOT A SCIENCE
You’re in a courtroom. The prosecution calls a psychiatrist, a scientific expert in human psychological pathology, who testifies that the defendant has aggressive and brutal tendencies, prone to rages of temper and coolly calculating, characteristics, this individual can conceal for insidious purposes The defense then calls their psychiatric expert of choice who tells you the defendant is really an intelligent mild but very animated person who is almost never provokable except in the kind of circumstances in which we would all be provoked ;as we all aware even the most docile animal, if mistreated enough, will react aggressively. What can be interpreted as skillfully concealing may very well be the lack of any real evidence, which is why you have to call a psychological specialist to the witness stand in the first place; there is no real evidence, if there was we would not need to seek guidance from an expert. But an expert in what? Exactly what “evidence” can a psychologist provide? Can the psychologist or psychiatrist read minds? At least they don’t claim that, well then what are they claiming?. So what we have is, in a mental health experts opinion is that the defendant is prone to certain behavior, in essence, guilty or innocent based their psychological interpretations, that the psychiatrist or psychologist have no objective evidence to support.. How is this providing evidence? What does evidence involve? It involves a specific pattern. It involves a trail of evidence. If the jury has to go eenie, meenie, miney, moe to come to a conclusion between two psychiatrists pr psychologists there is no real evidence. Yet, this is exactly what jurors are asked to do in courtrooms with dueling psychological experts where no objective standards exist to determine man , possible most, psychological medical conditions, such as exist, for instance, in medical conditions like influenza or leukemia. The jury might as well flip a coin to determine which expert is correct; and the jury would have as much chance of being right, as they would in trying to ascertain which of the two experts, to believe, who have no objective evidence to present. Belief, not evidence is the determinate here.
copyright David Michael Vallaire

Thanks for your time and I hope you will ansawer my enquiry

Greetings Jeanet Cardél