Ken Kramer Answers Journalist’s Questions
By Cindy Bevington
November 11, 2013
As a journalist my job is to question everything. That means digging below the surface of the obvious and exposing the truth for what it is whether people agree with me or not, whether they like what I’m doing or not, and regardless of whether other journalists are doing what I’m doing.
Ken Kramer, Private Investigator
That’s why, when I had a chance to interview Ken Kramer about his website, PsychSearch.net
, I made it clear that my questions would not be canned journalism. I wanted to know up-front, no-holds barred, why he’d conducted a background search for public records on every psychiatrist in America. I also wanted to know what motivated him to publish what he’d found.
Kramer met the challenge and answered every single question in detail. I wish I could say the same for the numerous health professionals and public figures whom I contacted for this article, and who declined to comment. But I did get two people, one who supports Kramer’s efforts, and one who doesn’t believe what he’s done is all that purposeful, to respond.
You can go to the website PsychSearch.net, to find all the gruesome, disgusting, horrendous examples of psychiatry at its worst that you can stomach reading, all courtesy of Ken Kramer.
You can read below to learn what these two individuals had to say about the website, and to read Kramer’s answers verbatim.
Two Different Opinions
Florida Psychiatric Society, 521 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida
(a branch of the American Psychiatric Society)Margo Adams, executive director of the Florida Psychiatric Society said she was only “marginally” knowledgeable of Kramer’s website. But she wouldn’t use it anyway, she said. “Rather, when I’m looking for background information, I go to the Florida Board of Medicine,” she said. She admitted that PsychSearch.net might have some redeeming value in some people’s background searches, but not her own. “I personally would just go to a different site, like the boards of medicine,” she said.
In contrast, a former investigator in the Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General, Allen Jones, approves of Kramer’s site. “It provides a very, very valuable public service,” Jones said. “It exposes the wrong-doing by many people whose credentials alone prevent (laypersons) from discovering their atrocities and egregious deeds.”
People like Adams will naturally have access to public and private documents that can inform them of the offenses committed by some psychiatrists, Jones said. “But the average person won’t be able to get that information. This site (of Kramer’s) makes it easy to put your fingers on this important resource. It sure would have helped me when I was in the inspector’s office, and I would have used it if it had been available then.” Jones was responsible for blowing the whistle on a widespread pharmaceutical campaign of bribery and off-label marketing of the psych drug Risperdal.
1. What is the purpose of doing background searches on every psychiatrist in America?
The purpose is to provide documentation so that the public is informed about psychiatrists. It’s all about providing documented evidence as opposed to arguing or debating. You can discuss issues on psychiatrists until the cows come home but when the documents are plopped on the table―the discussion is over. PsychSearch.net is striving to become the Better Business Bureau or the Angie’s list of psychiatrists. The difference is we won’t recommend a single psychiatrist.
2. You seem to have an almost relentless pursuit of exposing psychiatry as a fraud. Some people would say that, as a Scientologist, you’re simply extending your religion in covert ways to undermine conventional medicine. Explain why everyone should be concerned about the backgrounds and history of people practicing as psychiatrists.
I wouldn’t classify it as “almost relentless”. It is absolutely relentless. The harm being done by psychiatrists need to be shouted from rooftops. There is no question the public needs to be informed about the dangerous consequences of visiting a psychiatrist. Generally, psychiatrists do no biological testing. No blood, urine, saliva or lab tests of any kind. Psychiatrists themselves admit that. There is no argument on that point. Yet, based only upon opinion, which varies from psychiatrist to psychiatrist, they use biological methods (harmful drugs or shock treatment) on unsuspecting patients. How’s that for a blatant unscience? We shouldn’t classify psychiatry as a “branch of medicine” because it is unlike any other discipline. Every valid branch of medicine has scientific tests to validate a proper diagnosis. Psychiatry does not. Physically damaging psychiatric drugs and shock treatment are bad enough. But on top of all that, there is still a need to document fraud, rampant sexual misconduct and generally bizarre behavior.
Just the fact that they tell patients what to think about themselves (when patients know themselves better than anyone) is fraudulent and harmful. Interestingly, the word “psychiatry” comes from the Latin word “psychiatria” which means “a healing of the soul”, yet psychiatrists are fixated on drugging the body or jolting the brain with electricity. The term alienists as they were called until the middle of the 20th century, is more fitting.
3. Have you taken on, or do you plan to take on any other aspects of health besides psychiatry?
We have no plans on investigating other branches of medicine. Generally, “real doctors” (as opposed to psychiatrists) are competent and actually help people. The entire field of psychiatry is full of phonies, with those few exceptions who are exposing it. Using biological means (drugs and shock) without biological testing is proof that psychiatry itself is a grand lie. Some psychiatrists may enter the field with the notion of helping others, but then sticking with it for financial or other reasons, after seeing its unworkability, demonstrates dishonesty.
4. As a follow-up to that question, what we’re talking about here is the admitted “conspiracy of silence” that medicine uses to surround and protect its own―whether it’s psychiatry or general medicine, right now it’s impossible to find out if a physician you’re seeing has been sued for malpractice, and what kinds of alleged mistakes they’ve made. Therefore, do you see any possibility in the future of taking on doctors as a whole?
Cases of malpractice can be found searching through civil lawsuits, but we’re only concerned with psychiatrists. There are plenty of sources of records that demonstrate their incompetence and the harm that they cause. That’s why we are only focused on psychiatrists, not real doctors who as a whole provide life-saving expertise and help people.
5. Explain the work behind what you’re doing here, and what you go through to get these background checks done. I mean― you don’t just send a request and get an answer back, because it’s been a few years since you and I first discussed this. Are freedom of information requests involved, or is there another process involved?
Each state has their own public records laws and requests to agencies in each state is permitted. Sometimes these are called FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests, but the term FOIA is mainly used by the federal government. Each state’s laws, although all different, do allow citizens to request public records on psychiatrists. But some laws (or state’s interpretations of the law) are quirky. Rhode Island, for instance, has a law which says that correspondence to and from legislators is not public record. People from outside the states of Arkansas, Tennessee and Virginia are not allowed to request their public records which is easily remedied by getting someone from those states to request the records. Vermont says providing the names of their top psych drug prescribers would violate their privacy. South Dakota says that the names of their top prescribers are exempt from public records laws because these are medical records. The Feds don’t release mug shots.
Most public officials are pleasant and efficient and willing to help. Once in a while you run into a government bureaucrat who withholds public records, but there are ways to deal with these. States usually have a means to appeal a denial of public records. Some offer a mediation process you can do via fax or email. The press can also be contacted to complain about government officials refusing to provide public records. Public records are the backbone of many newspaper stories, so reporters really don’t like it when an agency official withholds public records unlawfully.
6. What are some of the roadblocks you’ve run into as you pursue this list, and has anyone threatened you in any way―either as a physical threat, or something like lawsuits― as you’ve compiled your lists?
PsychSearch.net provides public records. We don’t allege anything so there are no lawsuits, nor have there been any overt threats. The biggest roadblocks are sorting through the bureaucracy that sometimes presents itself when dealing with governments and the occasional less than helpful government employee. Earlier, the biggest roadblock was separating out psychiatrists from other branches of medicine because all have “M.D.” after their names. To further confuse things, psychiatrists managed to get jumbled up with neurologists. Both are certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. The Neurologists should seriously consider severing ties with the psychiatrists as this would give them more credibility. But this year we had a major breakthrough. We identified every psychiatrist in the country. They have now been separated out from the rest, which makes it a lot easier to find records.
7. Mainstream media is beginning to pick up some of your “big” stories―of sleazy psychs who are having sex with their patients, and greedy people who are prescribing mountains of drugs in such quantities that in some cases they would have had to be working 35 hours a day, seeing patients every minute to actually have that many real claims. What do you consider your biggest scoop, and along that line, what would you consider your biggest media success?
We’ve worked on providing records to reporters across the nation resulting in a large number of stories. Examples include stories on top psychiatric drug prescribers, antipsychotic drugs on children, state lawsuits against psych drug companies, sexual misconduct cases, fraud, TeenScreen and just plain bizarre conduct. Without calculating the numbers, suffice it to say you’ve probably read some of them! This action mainly involves finding public records involving controversy, sex, big money or big names. They are simply e-mailed to reporters. Usually they will pick up the more egregious stories and the ones that clearly show patient harm. Emails to reporters are very brief and very simple. Example: “Psych Sex Case. See attached record.”
8. Is the website a success―meaning, are you getting positive feedback from it, and are people beginning to feed you information to add to it?
Yes, we get lots of positive feedback and people send us records of psychiatrists they want exposed. We keep track of hits and visits in order to increase our statistics. We are in the initial stages of developing social media and search engine optimization. PsychSearch.net is now mobile compatible, so you can get the Psychs in Hot Water news on your Smartphones and iPads.
9. How do you vet the information you get, to make sure that you’re not being fed erroneous information, and that what you publish is true and accurate?
We simply ensure that the records we obtain are from a reliable source. Mainly governments. If a relatively unknown person sends records, we would obtain a copy of the record ourselves direct from the source to ensure a proper “chain of custody” so that the records are not altered or perverted in some way.
10. Why do you suppose no one’s taken on this job before?
We can’t speak for others, but because of our familiarity with researching and obtaining public records, it was just a natural progression to start compiling actual copies of psych-type documents. It is just our way of contributing. But there is an international effort from all walks of life to expose psychiatrists and psychiatry. There are many approaches and angles of attack; some document cases by speaking with victims, some picket, some make websites, some write books, do radio shows, lobby legislators, etc.
11. The new DSM-V is out. Do you have any plans to take that monstrosity on, and if you do, how?
No. We’ve got our hands full compiling records on individual psychiatrists. The DSM has already been proven to be an unscientific 900+page doorstop and judging by the bad press, there are many out there working on this. There are now experts galore coming out of the woodwork exposing psychiatry. There are at least 6 books published this year with titles such as: Mad Science: Psychiatric Coercion, Diagnosis, and Drugs.
12. Is there anything I haven’t asked you that you’d like to add?
Reports of shortages of psychiatrists in parts of the USA are not an accident. There is a cultural change afoot. Medical students in India and Pakistan (who have inundated the field of psychiatry in America) need to know that there is no financial future in Psychiatry. Psychiatry is not a smart career path. It is not scientific. It is going out of business. Psychiatrists are drug pushers only. Stick with Psychiatry and you will lose. Financially, you will lose. And your patients (victims) will lose. Study any other medical specialty and you will help your patients, become rich, have a nice big house and live the American dream! Your choice.
13. Is the Church of Scientology funding the psych research you do, or is this a project of your own? Gotta ask it because people will wonder about it if I don’t ask.
No. This is a public service informational project of DataSearch, Inc. We are backed up by good people who understand the importance of our work and contribute in their area of expertise or pay for public records – when the need arises. This couldn’t be accomplished without them.