In my opinon The scientific proof Cathal Grant is a fraud, and nothing but a legalized drug pusher for the drug companies who pay him to push their drugs


  •  Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, is still accepting money from the drug companies which brings his total to $151,474.00 since 2010, our experience to push the drugs if you need them or not.

In our experience the facts below prove Cathal Grant is doing what he paid for by the drug companies

 A Glance: this Prescriber Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, in 2010
2,092 Medicare Part D Prescriptions Filled $280K Total Retail Price $135 Average Prescription Price 204 Medicare Part D Patients Receiving at Least One Drug

Source: Pro Publica


It is our experience that Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, has prescribed medication without proper evaluation , in he 2 to 5 minute diagnostics sessions for years, people are given drugs which has been proven to do no better than placebo or sugar pill in a Harvard medical School study, Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, has only one way of doing business prescribing drugs, where you need them or not, you then are hooked on these drugs , and you must come back to him for refills as his patients have said:

“ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY! RUN AWAY! They avoid proper diagnosis so they can keep you coming back and put you on the wrong meds for your actual condition, even sometimes prescribing meds that make you worse. This guy is a MILLIONAIRE. Wonder why?”

“DO NOT go to Grant. He is a legal drug pusher who prescribes drugs notorious for their toxic side effects, including SUICIDE. If you were desperate when you went to Grant, you may be DEAD afterwards”

“The only way Grant could depersonalize his practice more than it is already, is to post a two minute video on the Internet telling you about how qualified he is and then emailing a prescription for Cymbalta. As an ex-patient of Grant’s, I saw him for 4 – 5 minutes while he glance at notes his staff had taken of my medical history, and then prescribed Cymbalta. This drug is notorious for its brutal side effects, including suicide. Thank you, Dr. Grant!”

Biological psychiatry’s false paradigm—

still no proof mental illness is a biological disease

The latest version of the DSM continues the profession’s error of assuming biological roots of all mental illness—“We were hoping and imagining that research would advance at a pace that laboratory tests would have come out. And here we are 20 years later and we still unfortunately rely primarily on symptoms to make our diagnoses..”—Michael B. First, professor of psychiatry at Columbia

“No one now — not clinicians, not patients, and certainly not managed care organizations and pharmaceutical companies — wants to hear this…”

Source: Baltimore Sun

By René J. Muller

June 18, 2013

psychiatric labels are not medically/biologically based conditions. They are simply clusters of symptoms repackaged as disease. Click image to find out more

Days before the official May 22 publication date of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM-5), a number of psychiatrists who were closely associated with the project scrambled to do some preemptory damage control, mostly by lowering the expectations for what was to come.

Diagnostic & Statistical Manual

Michael B. First, professor of psychiatry at Columbia, acknowledged on NPR that there was still no empirical method to confirm or rule out any mental illness. “We were hoping and imagining that research would advance at a pace that laboratory tests would have come out. And here we are 20 years later and we still unfortunately rely primarily on symptoms to make our diagnoses.” Speaking to The New York Times, Thomas R. Insel, director of the National Institutes of Mental Health, insisted that this failure had not been for lack of effort.

In the same Times article, David J. Kupfer, chairman of the DSM-5 Task Force, admitted “a failure of our neuroscience and biology to give us the level of diagnostic criteria, a level of sensitivity and specificity that we would be able to introduce into the diagnostic manual.” Drs. Kupfer, Insel and First agree that the new paradigm envisioned for psychiatry — the reason the new edition was undertaken — remains elusive.

By 1980, the creators of the DSM believed implicitly that neuroscience would reveal the biological roots of every mental illness. This advance, they claimed, would obviate the need to determine the meaning of symptoms, a process they considered subjective and unreliable. The new paradigm would have put the diagnosis of mental illness on the same empirical footing as medical illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer — a major goal of biological psychiatry, which seeks parity of esteem and funding with other medical specialties.

The DSM-III, the DSM-IV and now the DSM-5 made no provision for the clinician to consider the origin or meaning of symptoms that comprised the checklists given for diagnosing a mental illness. The justification offered for this omission, in addition to the certainty that markers for a biological substrate would identify each illness, was that diagnosing with symptoms of unspecified meaning would promote better agreement among clinicians (reliability) in diagnosis and research. This, in fact, did not happen.

Ultimately, the DSM has failed because its creators, focusing mostly on the brain, did not understand that a human being is, in essence, freedom, and may under pressure deny or misuse that freedom in ways that incline emotion, thought and behavior to fall outside the boundaries set by the arbiters of mental normalcy.

As if to sound the death knell for the role of freedom in the development of mental illness, the DSM-5 eliminated the Axis-1/Axis-2 distinction introduced in the DSM-III (1980), which at least acknowledged that some illnesses were of psychological origin. In the DSM-5, all mental illnesses are taken to be brain diseases.

Adolf Meyer, chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins from 1910 to 1941, believed that most mental illnesses, including some schizophrenias, are not brain diseases but the consequence of defensive psychological reactions to difficult or traumatic life events that people fail to handle adaptively, often by denying their freedom to do so.

Meyer named his approach psychobiology — a radically different concept of mental illness than biological psychiatry — intending to acknowledge both mind and brain in the development of these illnesses. Though he felt that biology is not the cause of most pathological disturbances of mental life, he reasoned that the brain neural substrate is altered in the psychobiological reaction from which such an illness emerges. Meyer believed that what we experience in the world, with others, can change our brains, and not always for the better.

During the last century and a half, convincing psychological explanations have been tendered for many mental illnesses, Meyer’s psychobiology providing some of the most substantial. Nonetheless, it would be anathema to suggest that what we now know about these illnesses is all we will ever know.

No one now — not clinicians, not patients, and certainly not managed care organizations and pharmaceutical companies — wants to hear this. But if, in 10 or 20 years, no biological explanation for the major mental illnesses is in sight, the search for what remains unexplained after a satisfactory psychological understanding is in hand may come to be seen as having been a phantom all along.

Meanwhile, the efforts to explain mental illness at the molecular level, whatever this might entail, will continue. And, no doubt, so will the habit of using past failures to justify and fund the pursuit of future failures.


1. Studies in numerous countries reveal that between 10% and 25% of psychiatrists and psychologists admit to sexually abusing their patients.

2. Germany reported that 50% of registered psychologists and psychotherapists are unacceptable as practitioners because they have more problems than their patients.

3. The so-called ethics system used by psychiatrists has been universally attacked as soft and inadequate.

4. A 1997 Canadian study of psychiatrists revealed that 10% admitted to sexually abusing theirs patients; 80% of those are repeat offenders.

The real truth about the money paid to Cathal Grant by the drug Companies


Notice Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas is paid by Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Cephalon, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer to push their drug in our opinion it is clear what Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas is doing, prescribing drug if you need them or not.


Doctors Paid Big By Drug Companies?

One patient statement about Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas:

“We found out that he gets paid to speak for almost every drug company out there, even if the drugs are competitors. He is out to make the money and it is apparent the way patients are herded through the practice with no regard for the patient’s needs. Beware if he tries to prescribe you a “new” drug on the market, it probably means they are paying him now. “


In our experience Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, does not tell you one big fact that you the patient has and that is Informed Consent, Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, does not discuss this or wants you to know about this, in our experience so he can get you hooked on psychotropic medications so you can do nothing but feed you greed for money, and you do not care at all what you do to the patient’s life.

This video proves what we are saying in our opinion about Cathal Grant’s medical practice, it also shows how Cathal Grant does not want you to have informed consent in your visit with him, and he does not tell you the truth, as the video below shows:





Did you like this? Share it:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *