Reflections on a Psychiatric Indoctrination, or, How I Began to Free Myself from the Cult of Psychiatry

I don’t think so. I was at the receiving end of such a policy. I am not disclosing in which country this happened, whether it was in the UK or elsewhere for anonymity reasons, but I can tell you that that pretext is regularly used in all of the European Union for committing anybody a psychiatrist considers it to be necessary: http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/01/ny-times-invites-readers-to-a-dialogue-on-forced-treatment/#comment-19770 . Nobody has won a medical malpractice lawsuit against a psychiatrist in the European Union for abusing that privilege. As you say, it’s only the lack of capacity that might discourage these psychiatrists from abusing more people, not their lack of desire to abuse whomever they want.

[Edited by site admin: Please refrain from making personal attacks]

[[Edited by site admin: Please refrain from making personal attacks]]

Layla,

Watch the time.
You’re gonna miss your NAMI meeting.

Duane
discoverandrecover.wordpress.com

To begin with, the only true evidence of structural changes in the brain of someone with “schizophrenia” comes from the changes the “medications,” cause. And that’s what ALL psychiatric medications do, cause the same damage to the brain that street drugs (most of them having been “psychiatric” drugs 50 years or so ago) do. And this is REAL proof, in contrast to the yet to be found proof of the genetic or biological basis for “mental illness.” Psychiatric drugs are PROVEN to cause biological illness. It’s this disabling of the mind that psychiatry then believes is healing, although it clearly correlates with more and more mental illness, NOT less of it.

Along with the scientific proof they cause chemical imbalance, brain damage, extreme dependency (and all the symptoms of mental illness would you read the side effects); psychiatric medications also statistically correlate with an epidemic of mental illness and disability rather than a lessening.

All this, in answer to you own question: “What do you think causes these changes, if not changes in the brain?”

To damage a brain saying you are treating damage there is no proof of; and in the mean time, while this damage adds up, to have this treatment correlate with an epidemic; one might again point out: “What do you think causes these changes, if not changes in the brain?”

In the mean time, the people whose brains weren’t treated with this treatment proven to cause what it says it’s healing (a chemical imbalance and brain damage) their lives correlate the most with healing. But this is for the most part discredited by “biological” psychiatry.

This is a far stretch from the definition of medical treatment to conclude that scientifically causing disease, which statistically has caused an epidemic is a branch of healing, but that’s the facts. And this whole affair depends on a judgment of a person’s behaviors and then believing you’ve done something, regardless of the total outcome; while NOT JUDGING their behaviors as coming from a biological disease correlates MORE with healing.

Thus again, one may ask:

“What do you think causes these changes, if not changes in the brain?”

Layla, your post is also riddled with attempts to terrify people of emotional reactions, or cognitive confusion; which not only magnify fear (which does exactly that, magnify fear and promote paranoia) but which also quakes fears that a person has something innately wrong with them. You also try to completely disqualify the illusions as expressing anything but calling them unpleasant and hindering people from functioning. One only has to look at how disabling the whole personality with mind numbing psychiatric drugs (which cause chemical imbalance rather than heal it: and NO disabling the mind from expressing itself is NOT treating a chemical imbalance it’s causing a chemical imbalance, a biological disease, brain damage) that this then is seen as functional, one does gain perspective on what you exactly mean when you refer to something that hinders someone from “functioning.”

The brain does and believes exactly what you program it with. You make it terrified and it’s going to be terrified. Your whole attempt to prove this otherwise is so riddled with false logic that you basically prove your thoughts CAN’T come from a simple chemical reaction. That could never cause the false logic in fundamentalism. A chemical reaction in itself isn’t going to try to prove that it was caused by a chemical reaction; and that believing it’s a chemical reaction is the only way you can see it for what it is (as if what you are thinking the whole time isn’t a choice, but a chemical reaction, which proves that it’s a chemical reaction, because you have no choice but to chose what it can’t all by itself say it is, but it IS).

And this is supposed to help heal, to maintain that cognitive confusion is healed by assaulting it with fixated fundamentalist rigidity? Healing a chemical imbalance is causing one; and caring about the brain is damaging it, and not seeing yourself as broken is blaming everything on what you are breaking (which is the biological brain)….

And if you are to care about the human brain rather than discarding it as the seat for human existence, you have to start by NOT damaging it! And then you can move on to see that a functional society doesn’t depend on chemically disabled brains.

Layla, you wrote, “There most certainly is evidence of structural and functional changes in the brains of people with schizophrenia.” They are small studies, and therefore of limited use, often in people who have been on medication for years and we know the medication destroys grey matter in the brain, also we know that brain structural changes happen all the time in all brains for a variety of reasons. There are some studies which have shown that the same changes seen in the brains of people diagnsosed with schizophrenia are also found in those who have suffered extreme child abuse.

So overall the evidence of brain scans is mixed and confused and certainly is not something that any treatment decisions could or should be based on.

A good source here is Joanna Moncrieff, a UK critical psyhciatrist who has published on this issue. Here is an article about some of her work: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mad-in-america/201008/charlie-rose-and-the-mentally-ill-brain

Granted, there are some good psychiatrists out there; I was very lucky enough ot have had one on my case but he was young and not entrenched in the quackery that psychiatry in general has descended into. The only “broken brains” are those which have been created by the drugs that Big Pharma and Biopsychiatry peddle. So much of what psychiatry does to people today is nothing but snake oil peddling and flim flam quackery.

The so called “computer analogy” explains beautifully the lie behind psychiatry.

Computers, despite all technological advances are still less complex than the average human brain but still provide a good, if imperfect, way of understanding why psychiatry is a lie. Computers have both hardware and software. It is an indisputable fact that if you take a computer you don’t see the software anywhere, all you see is that the software is encoded in the computer’s hardware in the form of abstract zeros and ones (these zeros and ones are to software what the neurons are to brain activity). Software malfunctions take all forms and shapes. One of the most insidious, and difficult to fix, are the so called memory leaks, by which software takes increasingly more memory in spite of doing nothing useful -the cause is that dynamic memory is not deallocated when it is not useful anymore. You can see that your machine slows down, that your Windows/MacOSX/Linux is slower than normal. You can temporarily fix the problem by adding more memory to the machine (more neurons so to speak). You could even put your X rays to work and pretend that you see “patterns” in the machine’s memory when the slowness appears. You might even be lucky and submit the RAM of the machine to some ECT sessions and by some random chance, the software problem gets fixed. However, as any software engineer will tell you, the right way to address a memory leak is not to do random hardware interventions in the computer in hopes that things get fixed but investigating the source code of the program, find the problem and recompile. In other words, the right solution is to reprogram the computer/brain.

So this analogy is perfect to describe the situation we are faced when talking about biopsychiatrists. Biopsychiatrists are hardware engineers who think can fix software problems (in fact, who have the hubris to tell us which software is better despite knowing nothing about software) through hardware interventions. Such hardware engineers would be fired in the computer industry in a second. In the medical industry, they are called psychiatrists and given all sorts of unjustified powers to force their quackery onto innocent victims.

Hope you understand now.

“Psychosis is a different story. I don’t see how one can expect to help someone in the grips of psychosis by talking them through it or any other technique. Here again, I have a question: if psychosis can be chemically-induced (e.g., LSD), why should we think it cannot be countered with chemicals? “

This deserves some response. It doesn’t matter whether you can “See” how one can expect to help someone in the grips of psychosis; that only means you DON’T see. The truth REMAINS, and has been that way since the biological model for mental illness was put into effect: people who do the best with “psychosis” have NOT received “medical” help with it. People in developing countries where there’s no money for these “medications” have less relapses and more recovery. People in countries where they do have the money for these “medications” do better when they aren’t medicated; and in fact usually recover after 20 to 25 years (or less). And there are amazing programs like the Soteria House, Open Dialogue, the asylums the Quakers used to have; all of these had recovery at rates many times above the “biological model.” In fact, to state that one can’t see how someone can “talk” another out of psychosis, while this has been PROVEN to be more effective, simply points out a cognitive block. It points out a RIFF with reality, and science and statistics. And UNFORTUNATELY most of the treatment for this “disease” is inflicted on people by exactly those who “ don’t see how one can expect to help someone in the grips of psychosis by talking them through it or any other technique” although it is EXACTLY those techniques that correlate with the most recovery and healing.

It’s just plain convoluted to propose that because LSD can (according to you) induce psychosis and that thus you can counter it with chemicals. People come out of a (what you call) psychosis induced by LSD all by themselves. I don’t know “WHY” people should all decide it should be different except for this mental construct that pills “heal” psychosis (and the “psychosis” is equivocated” with a drug trip), added to this, the pills that are said to “heal” psychosis cause more relapses, take off years from a person’s life, are highly addictive, numb the whole personality making the person more docile rather than able to express themselves (and what they need to express to get in touch with what’s going on); and aren’t countering a “LSD” trip. And they add to the same toxicity that LSD causes. Something you have tried to equate with genetic reprogramming (something which AGAIN doesn’t correlate with the healing that occurs in the areas you summarily dismiss). Psychosis also is something different than an LSD trip. ALL the people who have been through psychosis, who have been through extreme trauma, who have gotten in touch with what the human condition really is, who have transcended their fear based societal programming, discovered their own innocence instead, recognized that in the human condition in general and moved on, learned not to feed in stress; ALL those people know it’s something VERY different than an LSD trip. And this amazing group of people, all having completely valid stories, all honoring what it is to be human; they aren’t even acknowledged, aren’t studied, aren’t looked to as actually having experienced anything by most of the “biological” model of mental illness which beforehand has to decide “I don’t see how one can expect to help someone in the grips of psychosis by talking them through it or any other technique.”

The EVIDENCE to the contrary is there, and quite conclusive. And it doesn’t depend on deciding beforehand that what has happened, and has been happening the whole time, is impossible.

“I am a person who suffers from mental illness; I am not the illness.” People suffer from real, somatic illness, and they are not this illness. Unfortunately, there’s a problem with this when it comes to so-called “mental illness”. In one of your comments above you state that our behavior, our emotions, our thoughts, the sum of which is who we are in the world, is shaped by our brains. If this is so, a diseased brain inevitably will shape who you are in this world as a manifestation of the supposed disease: you are the disease. And of course the staff at the hospital and elsewhere told you so; by labeling you. Nobody needs to say literally to another person, “You are your mental illness”. It’s perfectly implicit in the labels themselves that you are your label.

And sorry, but I’m really not terrified of “psychosis.” I don’t feel the need to conjure up conspiracy theories about what it might do if untreated. I don’t need to invest in the belief I’m eradicating it by causing chemical imbalance, brain damage and loss of life; and say this is treating a chemical and enhancing life. I don’t need to invest in disabling myself by harming my brain would it start catching on to what’s going on and dissent. And I don’t need to invest in a method that correlates with creating more of what it purports to heal. I actually dare to respond to life…

What I find hilarious is that Layla begins her comments on MiA with a stern warning to Laura against indicting psychiatry by using anecdotal evidence based on Laura’s own personal experience. Bad Laura! Then Layla proceeds to try to defend the validity of the psychiatric industry by using – wait for it – anecdotal evidence based on Layla’s own personal experience! What a riot. And then Layla peppers her “arguments” with silly claims about brain pathologies and even “evidence” of depression in non-humans and anxiety in rodents! LMAO! How could we ever measure the “mental” states of non-humans? Have them “describe how they feel and what sorts of thoughts they are having” to use Layla’s description of the diagnostic process.

I can’t wait to hear more of her insights on the “science of human experience”(?) and the “science of psychology.” I can always use a good laugh – most therapeutic. Thank you, Layla.

So to reply to your reply: your philosophy drives your beliefs, and makes you more willing to believe in the psychiatrists’ story about what makes “mental illness” happen. I’m not criticizing you for this, merely pointing out that this discussions stopped being about science the moment you chose to put that philosophical assumption into place. We all do this, of course, to some extent. But to be fully scientific, we have to be aware of these biases and recognize they are biases and not facts. Doesn’t make them WRONG, only, as you admit, unprovable.

So we move to the world of psychiatry. The writers of the DSM operate on a similar and maybe even more reductionistic model, truly eliminating any possibility of spiritual influence on the body. So they’re left with brain chemicals, and all of their experiments and treatments have to do with brain chemicals and all of their conclusions are about brain chemicals. These people make sense to you because you have the same assumptions as them. But their beliefs (like yours) are NOT scientifically verifiable. There is no scientific basis for ANY of these so-called mental illnesses, not one. They are literally decided and voted on by COMMITTEE. There is not one test for any mental disorder – there can’t be, because they’re not defined by pathology. They’re defined by committee and then the assumed “cause” is sought after the fact. Surely, you can see that this is not a scientific process.

More significantly, the treatments used by psychiatry HAVE been shown scientifically to cause damage. These supposed scientists know all about Open Dialog and Soteria House and other non-drug interventions, none of which has any risk of physiological harm. If they are so enlightened and scientific, why do they avoid even talking about these treatments, and why do they find them so threatening? It’s because they know on some level that their philosophy and treatment approach is deeply flawed, but admitting it means admitting they are doing harm, and also giving up on a lot of income.

You were fortunate. You had rational providers who did pretty much what Bob Whitaker recommends – used drugs judiciously, on a temporary basis, while adding psychosocial interventions to obviate the need for ongoing symptom relief. Believe me, after working for 20+ years in the field, I can tell you, this is not how most people do it. In fact, it’s a rare exception.

My last comment. You say that we can rewire our brains. If we’re all chemicals, who is doing the rewiring? Someone’s WRITING the program, folks. That someone is who we really are, and it appears to be that we USE the brain to run the body. But who WE are remains a very large mystery, one that the reductionistic model used by psychiatry avoids, because they have no explanation for it.

— Steve

Layla, How can you be sure you wouldn’t be alive today if you hadn’t been involuntarily treated? Is that what the psychiatrists told you?

You are one of the very lucky ones. You are not the typical. It seems like you feel the need to believe in this construct known as “mental illness.” Could you share why you accept this? Have you ever read any of the writings of John W. Perry? He was a great psychologist. Have you read anything by Jung? There is no scientific proof of the existence of anything called “mental illness.” It might help to begin expanding your reading into wider areas.

Seth,

I deeply appreciate what you say here in all ways, except one. You decry, “faith in the modern snake oil salesmen–as David Healy calls them– who work for the PPIC and wrap themselves in the mantle of Science.”

You wind up deferring to David Healy, as an effect of *limiting* your criticisms to the PPIC (“psychiatric-pharmaceutical industrial complex”); thus, you do great disservice to those who have been harmed – and those who will be harmed, henceforward – by shock therapy (a.k.a., ‘electroconvulsive therapy’/ ECT).

In my view (and not mine alone), David Healy is *himself* a snake oil salesman wrapping himself in the mantle of Science, no less than any devotee of the PPIC.

Read Healy’s own book (co-authored with Edward Shorter), which explains:

“Our research convinces us that ECT is an important, responsible, and reliable therapy that deserves to be more widely used…” and, “…there should be little controversy over whether it is safe or effective. Somatic therapies like ECT easily trump anything in the psychopharmaceutical medicine chest as the most effective treatment for such severe illnesses as melancholic depression, catatonia, or manic excitement; it also has a place in the treatment of schizophrenia,” and, “Why today, seventy years after its discovery, is ECT highly stigmatized, both among patients and many physicians? ECT is, in a sense, the penicillin of psychiatry. We would be baffled if the benefits of penicillin were not widely touted in the patients’ world, lauded by the press, and accepted as a matter of fact by medical doctors. Why has this not happened with ECT? The question is especially important because there are a great many people with depression who do not respond to antidepressant drugs.” (pages 3 and 4)

Their “research convinces” them of conclusions that are roundly disputed by *real* researchers.

(Just Google and study, “The effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy: A literature review,” a paper by John Read and Richard Bentall, which concludes: “Continued use of ECT [is] a failure to introduce ideals of evidence-based medicine into psychiatry…”)

Please, follow the next link I provide here, at last; read at least this one review, of that Healy/Shorter 2007 book (“Shock Therapy: A History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness”); it is quite telling: http://www.ect.org/book-review-shock-therapy-by-david-healy-edward-shorter-and-max-fink/

Yes, David Healy does some good by critiquing the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industrial complex, but the quality of his research is highly questionable, and he should not be held up, as an example of psychiatric virtuosity, in my humble opinion.

Respectfully,

~Jonah

“The most important step in any reform must be the abolition of involuntary psychiatric treatment or hospitalization.” ~ Peter Breggin, M.D. (Electroshock, its brain-disabling effects, 1979)

It’s the same line used to defend homeopathy, anecdotal evidence that patient X was helped.

When it comes to show the actual evidence, it turns out that psychiatry is no better than placebos (see Irving Kirsch’s work on the efficacy of anti depressants). And I agree, psychiatry should have the same legal status as homeopathy. It should have no business in committing people or providing “insanity” defenses to criminals.

What is particular to psychiatry however it’s people like us. I have never heard of a “homeopathy survivor group” or an “astrology survivor group”. Yet, There are plenty of psychiatry survivor groups. I bet that we in the psychiatric survivor movement are more numerous than those who claim to have been helped by psychiatry. We are disorganized and we don’t have any support whatsoever from institutionalized psychiatry, and that plays against us, but I am sure that we are higher in number.

Layla,

You have written (above), to Laura: “if you educated yourself more about the science of psychology (again, the broader definition of psychology, not just clinical psychology), then you could work toward an end that isn’t so futile.” And, you say, “There most certainly is evidence of structural and functional changes in the brains of people with schizophrenia.”

Great, you refer to, “the science of psychology…” – and that you’re studying it – because, what you get, on this MIA page, is much response from critics of psychiatry. Basically, here, on this page, many would ask: ‘Why should *psychiatrists* – of all people – have *anything* to do with these sufferings?’

I do not begrudge anyone the choice to consult with a psychiatrist; what I object to is the fact that Psychiatry *imposes* itself, on people – forcibly intruding upon the workings of their brains.

Psychiatrists are physicians – medical doctors; and, plainly, “schizophrenia” is *not* a scientifically valid *medical* diagnosis. “Schizophrenia” is, to the contrary, a very vaguely defined umbrella term. (Note: According to Wikipedia, “The rate of schizophrenia varies up to threefold depending on how it is defined.”) It is a label referring to *countless* individual cases of seemingly protracted ‘psychosis,’ worldwide. (And, “psychosis” itself is an umbrella term, vaguely defined; so, to officially observe, that a supposed ‘psychosis’ exists and is persisting, is a matter of *subjective* professional perception.)

There are no physical tests to establish, that ‘it’ (“schizophrenia”) even exists, physically. None.

Perhaps, the vast majority of cases, of presumed “schizophrenia” go *unexplained* psychologically, because the majority of psychiatrists, who give that diagnosis, choose to believe there is no psychological explanation; they are focused on the notion that ‘it’ is a “brain disorder” – despite the fact, there’s *no* biological marker, which either defines any case of presumed “schizophrenia,” as such – let alone, which ties all presumed “schizophrenia” cases together.

My saying all this is not to diminish any *sufferings* that people self-report; simply, I believe good *psychological* explanations could rather easily be offered for much or most of what is called, “schizophrenia”; only, they are not offered – typically – because psychiatrists (being medical doctors) are not trained to look for them. (In fact, they’re generally trained to *deny* them.) Also, I believe certain food sensitivities, addictions and malnutrition can trigger such sufferings, in many instances (and/or, such may become the proverbial straw, which breaks the camel’s back); such causes are, of course, highly biological.

Indeed, certain drugs which effect the brain adversely can cause effects associated with ‘psychosis’ (as can *withdrawal* effects from certain drugs); but, *psychological* and *social* factors are key to any situation, in which one is being officially deemed ‘psychotic’; and, to presume the brain is at fault is nonsensical. The following link is to an article titled, “It’s all done with smoke and mirrors. Or, how to create the illusion of a schizophrenic brain disease” – by clinical psychologist, Mary Boyle, of University of East London (who explains, “An impression of meaningful association between “schizophrenia” and biological variables is created […] by failing to specify the degree of overlap between “schizophrenic” and comparison groups and by misleadingly presenting group differences in a particular factor…”): http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/Boyle.htm

One can watch Professor Boyle speaking in conference, in 2004, on Youtube, via the following link (The uploader comment explains, that Professor Boyle, “carves through the bad science, lack of balanced reporting, and sheer lies that provide the so called ‘scientific’ evidence for a genetic link to ‘schizophrenia’.”): http://www.pccs-books.co.uk/products/madness-contested-1/#.USruL3lAOSp

[NOTE: As opposed to offering the Youtube link, I provided the link to that web page, where I found the Youtube…; for, there’s a new book being advertised there – looks interesting: “Madness Contested,” by three clinical psychologists, who are *not* hesitant to criticize psychiatry: Steven Coles, who is questioning, “how power is used and misused within mental health services and society,”.Sarah Keenan, whose focused upon, “how social context influences distress, and how and why these influences and expressions of distress are often medicalised or minimised within mental health services,” and Bob Diamond, who, “sought to establish a psychological presence whilst questioning the oppressive dominance of psychiatry.” (I believe all three are based in the U.K..]

I wish you good luck in your studies (especially, your studies of mindfulness).

Respectfully,

~Jonah

Well-said, Richard.

Seth,

I nod in complete agreement, with nearly everything I read of yours, on this site. (And, though I’ve not yet picked up a copy of your book, I shall, soon enough; and, with all but the perfect certainty, already I know I’ll greatly enjoy reading it – based on what I know of you, from your writing here, on this site.)

So, you explain to me, “I don’t need to be convinced ECT is barbaric. I decided that a long time ago,” and I can honestly say the same – except, I admit (and, you may, too), that: of course, some people who undergo ECT consider it a *boon*.

Some do seem to benefit from ECT (apparently); but, to *countless* others, it is clearly crippling, in various ways. And, frankly, my heart aches from encountering those (many) firsthand accounts, of effects, of ECT, which prove it to be somewhat like Russian Roulette (a more or less, deadly gamble).

Of course, KOL’s (“key opinion leaders”) in the ECT Industry routinely *deny* the existence of any significant, negative outcomes, from ECT – just *exactly* as the foremost leaders in the pharmaceutical industry routinely deny the worst negative effects of neuroleptics. In fact, David Healy becomes the quintessential ‘pot-calling-the-kettle-black’ as he rails against what you refer to, so aptly, as, “the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industrial complex” (PPIC); for, he is famous (amongst many survivors of ECT) for denying the worst effects of shock therapy (a.k.a., ‘electroconvulsive therapy’ / ECT).

Now, in the interest of (A) keeping my reply, to you, on topic – and (B) refraining from making this a personal attack, against David Healy, I refer back to Laura’s post, wherein she asks: “Just what does it mean to say that I was indoctrinated into Psychiatry?”

Laura goes on to list a litany of ways in which she was indoctrinated… Based on my own experiences, I can verify: they are all fine examples of the *harmful* ways that one tends to perceive oneself, upon having been indoctrinated into Psychiatry. In so many ways, one may ‘surrender’ to Psychiatry, by agreeing (more or less unconsciously) to be its witless subject; and, because of the vast hubris of some psychiatrists, there is – not infrequently – a most *complete* form of surrender created – i.e., the kind that can only be assured by ‘heavy meds’ and/or by ECT. In fact, ECT creates a virtually unsurpassable, instantaneous surrender. (In the not too distant past, there was also much psychosurgery, in psychiatry, to affect such ends.)

But, you say, “I have not read Healy’s defense of ECT. It is baffling.” And, you add, “There were other books by him that I thought were pretentious academic tomes and I stopped reading. But Pharmageddon is an essential book. And Let them Eat Prozac is worth quoting.”

I pray you will be un-baffled by these simple facts: David Healy is an ECT Industry KOL – running a clinic in Wales. That’s how he makes his living. You are already aware that he can be pretentious, in his writings (you have said so); thus, you can probably well imagine his characteristic *insensitivity* to those who insist they’ve been harmed by ECT. Here I recommend you to a blog post of mine, on this subject:

http://beyondlabeling.posterous.com/dr-david-healy-in-tweet-conversation-re-effec

You will see, if you study that post, of mine: Healy tends to blame neuroleptic drugs and excuse ECT – as a hard and fast rule. (It is a “principle” he follows – despite any and all objections from those who know they’ve been harmed by ECT.)

And, finally, here are two paragraphs from a Huffington Post article, by Dr. Peter Breggin, titled, “The Stealth ECT Psychiatrist in Psychiatric Reform”:

“David Healy is a psychiatrist working in Wales who first became well-known in 1997 — three years after my wife and I published the bestseller, Talking Back to Prozac — as a newbie critic of antidepressants. It was refreshing at that time to have a dyed-in-wool biological psychiatrist take on Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, and he made a contribution to research and to informing the public and the professions of the dangers. But he presented himself as something new and unique without drawing on the work already published and his books were critical of those of us in the reform movement.

“Even after Healy was critical of me in his books, we invited him to speak in 2004 at the annual conference of the reform organization I founded, and I specifically asked one attendee not to embarrass him in public when he was speaking. I wanted a ‘big tent’ for psychiatric reform. Healy took the opportunity to interview me for a ‘historical’ book he was writing about ECT and I explained some of the critical scientific literature that he would later leave out or dismiss in his ECT book. At the time, I had no idea that Healy’s real underlying commitment was to shock treatment — so much so that it explained why the biological psychiatrist was criticizing antidepressants. David Healy wanted to justify the need for shock treatment.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/electroshock-treatment_b_1273359.html

Look forward to reading your book…

Thanks for your reply…

Respectfully,

~Jonah

I have to say, it is mostly the psychiatrists themselves who have carved out the “us vs. them” terrain. Read up on what happened to Loren Mosher when he challenged the establishment to recognize that his Soteria House non-medical approach was as or more effective than drugs with none of the side effects. Believe me, he quickly became an enemy and was summarily removed from any position of power. You are deluding yourself if you think psychiatry as a profession is interested in a middle ground. That’s why I agree with Laura that “cult” describes the overall experience quite well. Not that every member is blind, but the leadership expects blind adherence to a dogmatic and inflexible doctrine and shuns anyone who challenges it. There is no “middle ground” with such an institution. It’s either fight or be oppressed. They have the power and won’t give it up, and no rational discussion or scientific discourse is going to change that. Otherwise, we’d have Soteria Houses and Open Dialog centers in every major city in the country. But we don’t, do we?

—- Steve

Glad you are interested in Mosher – it’s a thread that leads to quite a big ball of yarn. Unfortunately for all of our ideals, politics reigns supreme, even in the medical fields, and perhaps especially in psychiatry. I appreciate your willingness to explore the potential ugliness, and encourage you to continue your journey.

— Steve

Layla,

Earlier in the thread, you asked for research that indicated poor response to psychiatric treatment.

I left some links for you, but received no response.

See Feb 25th at 8:27.

Duane

I find it very funny your reference to “brain processing going awry”. Who decides what “going awry” means? It’s especially ironic coming from a gay person. That alone would have been considered “a brain gone awry” 40 years ago by the DSM (and it’s still considered “a brain gone awry” by the WHO under the ego dystonic assumption).

Do you know that during the XX-th century there was a branch of science, now considered pseudoscience, that was all about “evolution gone awry”? It was called eugenics. It is estimated that 65000 Americans were forcibly sterilized with the advise and consent of these self-appointed gatekeepers of “evolution gone awry”. The stated objective of eugenic policy was to get rid of “mentally retarded and the mentally ill”.

And again, it is 100% preposterous to suggest that perturbing your brain with psychotropic drugs will make your brain go from an “awry” state – whatever that means- to a “normal” state – whatever that means too. The brain, and human though in fact, is too complex to pretend that a little pill that will perturb your neurotransmitters is the answer to problems of living.

Layla,

Now, about your “brain processing gone awry” theory, you are explaining to me, that you think about it, in these terms: ‘brain processing gone “awry” is largely determined by the individual.’

Frankly, I wonder what that means.

At first glance, I thought maybe it meant you believe “brain processing gone awry” is the sort of ‘diagnosis’ that can only be made by the person who believes it to be true, in respect to his/her *own* brain; however, I quickly discovered, you don’t meant that; for, I came upon your line, which explains,

\\…The other people qualified to judge whether someone is suffering from processing gone “awry” would be close friends, family members, etc….//

(Oh, …if you could only see me now! How I chuckle, smiling… having quoted that particular line, of yours!)

I laugh quietly and shake my head each time I re-read that line!! …What a beauty!

(Woops… Now, I am coughing… in response to my own, momentarily dark sense of humor… because I know: there is really *nothing* funny about this… Only, one laughs, at times, when one hasn’t the ability to cry.)

It is long ago, yet I can’t help but recall, more than a quarter of a century back, my life was all but totally *devastated* by way of well-meaning family and friends coming to that conclusion, about my brain (of course, they spoke in terms of a, “chemical imbalance” in it) – thanks to confirmations they received from psychiatrists, who, of course, *never* examined my brain. (Why didn’t they? …because, generally speaking, that’s *not* what clinical psychiatrists do; most do nothing of the sort; but, they do claim the existence of brain problems…)

Layla, you are smart enough to know better, I think; for, you’re brilliant in ways (your writing reveals this); but, you are young – and still forming your views, about the profession you are entering.

And, quite obviously, to me, you’re all too easily persuaded to believe in this completely unsubstantiated notion – that “mental illness” (as defined by yourself and/or by psychiatry) is due to something being wrong with the brain.

That is the standard view, of psychiatry – and has been, increasingly, for generations; thus, by this point, though you are studying to be a psychologist, yet you are essentially geared to be a psychiatrist. (Yes, in one comment of yours, you say you find a certain affinity with psychoanalysts; perfect! That makes you a most classic psychiatrist – which is not to say that the psychoanalysts were all wrong. But, the psychiatrist/psychoanalyst could do it all! Wondrous! …just like the Wizard of Oz.)

Layla, LISTEN UP (you’ve got a great opportunity here): This painfully simplistic “brain processing gone awry” theory of yours is the perfect propaganda vehicle to replace that old, tired “chemical-imbalance-in-the-brain” theory, which is, at long last (*finally*) losing favor with many conventional thinkers, in psychiatry. You could write a good book on it (that is, *if* you are not already doing so). Surely, Big Pharma is looking for a good replacement theory. Yours could be catchy – because (as I’ve seen in one of your comments, above), it’s possible to argue, that an “awry” brain is *not* chemically imbalanced. (I.e, forget that old “chemically imbalanced” saw!)

Oh, how I begin to amuse myself suddenly; but, I shouldn’t go on, this way; so, forgive me my brief moment of sarcasm (that one paragraph, directly above); in all earnestness: truly, I cannot thank you enough for the gift of this exchange…

You have offered such wonderful material to consider. (I am absolutely *not* being sarcastic when I say that.) You are really smart and thoughtful; I’ve read all of your comments, to everyone; much of what you say makes sense; that you are impressed by Loren Mosher’s letter of resignation is a very good sign; but, you are, apparently, still fundamentally confused by your own self-propagandizing theory, which is – let’s face it – little more or less than a way to ‘justify’ medicalizing various unwanted psychological and/or emotional sufferings. (Yes, we can safely presume, those sufferings have biological correlates; but, quite as you indicate, in one comment, above: “Correlation is not causation.”)

At last, I think: *maybe* by saying that, “awry” … “is largely determined by the individual,” you mean to indicate, that: one may experience psychological and/or emotional sufferings, which are largely the result of his/her own *chosen* thoughts and behaviors?

That might seem to contradict your confessing – in one comment, above – that you don’t believe in free will. Nonetheless, in another comment, you confirm that: we can make choices. So, I figure: *maybe* you believe we have *limited* free will? If so, I agree with you… And, if so, indeed, you may well be suggesting that we all exert a great deal of influence over our own internal experiences, including our own psychological and emotional sufferings. If that’s what you mean, then wonderful; we’re in agreement. (Probably, that is what you mean – as it’s the kind of observation that commonly comes from deliberately practicing mindfulness.)

About your saying,

\\ …I am hesitant to wade into the waters of forced treatment, as it is such an impossibly complicated question. I would easily say “no forced treatment” except that I view myself as one who has benefitted – in a profound way – from having been involuntarily committed once before. Tricky stuff. My therapist told me back then that everyone he’d ever worked with (he follows up with all his patients when they move on) who was extremely suicidal at one point has later told him that they were glad they lived. I remember thinking “ok, maybe that’s true for everyone else, but not me. I’m the exception.” Was he wrong to commit me? I don’t know, but I’m glad I’m alive. Like I said, tricky territory and I’m not going to try to work through the enormously fraught intricacies here… //

…First of all, please understand: I’m *very* glad that you were kept alive – even if by ‘commitment’; for, it’s perfectly clear to me, you do have *much* to offer the world (that’s plainly true). E.g., of your interest in mindfulness studies and in Buddhism: There’s much good to share, in such practices; and, they can be incorporated into almost any ‘mental health care’ modality, that you might choose to engage in, professionally.

Next, realize: I do not begrudge you your experience, of benefitting from psychopharmacological interventions; but, I think such interventions should be your choice. I do not believe anyone should be forcibly medicalized. A life-saving ‘commitment’ could be *socially* oriented entirely; it need never become a mater of *medicalization* – I believe. (Indeed, I’d not recommend *forcing* any sort of ‘therapy’ upon anyone – but, especially, not any ‘therapy’ of the ‘medicalized’ kind. Ones own brain should be considered inviolable, in my view.)

In conclusion…

Layla, you are drawn to the ‘mental health’ field. Fine. But, to the extent that you seemingly approve of *forced* treatments, I will view you as siding with the oppressor; for, I am one (amongst many drawn to this site) who has *zero* desire to consult with psychiatrists and *zero* desire to use psychopharmacology, and I do not ever want ‘medical treatment’ forced upon me or on anyone else – as I recall the experiences, of having had it forced upon me, repeatedly, by psychiatrists, in the now distant past, and I know: the results were fairly disastrous (traumatic and isolating).

Gratefully, now, I am almost 24 continuous years *free* of psychopharmacology; yet, it is still difficult to put this following thought into words (but, I do so, in the hope of coming to peace, with the trauma of past psychiatric ‘treatment’): I was made ‘psychotic’ by psychiatry.

You explain that you know how it feels being forced to take a bunch of ‘meds’ simultaneously; unfortunately, such was the ‘medical treatment’ I received, as soon as Psychiatry made me its captive – and the effect was entirely maddening.

The effect was not long-lasting, thankfully – but it was severe and did lead to my being tagged with psychiatric labels that can readily destroy bonds of trust, wherever they’re revealed.

My experiences with psychiatry were, thus, quite different from yours – but, especially, in this sense, that, I had never wanted kill myself, yet ‘medical treatment’ was forced upon me, as a result of my being *falsely* accused of being a danger to myself; that happened repeatedly; and, my experience of being forced to take meds was 100% bad, each time – such that, after a couple of years, on those ‘meds,’ I was, indeed, beginning to contemplate suicide. (Surely, such totally negative experiences, with psychiatry, are not mine alone.)

Psychiatry is a cult – a *dangerous* cult – especially, because, wherever it goes, it systematically co-opts the power of the State; but, of course, like all dangerous cults, it actually does do some good for some people, and it has many well-meaning practitioners.

You are surely bright enough to be a great leader, in the field of mental health; if that’s what you choose for yourself, many shall look up to – and, probably, sooner than you think; I just pray you’ll come to realize and denounce the violence (and renounce the lies) of Psychiatry…

Respectfully,

~Jonah

Good analogy, Mary, thanks.

It is easy to confuse a refusal to accept “mental illness” as a concept and the idea that suffering is not real or can’t be caused by an illness. My objection is not against the idea that illnesses can cause mental system. It’s against clumping all people with a set of behaviors, thoughts or feelings together and ASSUMING they have an “illness” based on their “symptoms,” which are mostly a list of annoying or disturbing behaviors that we don’t like.

There could be many things your son is struggling with, some psychological, some spiritual, and some physiological. There are definitely diseases (like syphillis, for instance) that cause psychotic symptoms. They can also be caused by lack of sleep, drug side effects, or exposure to traumatic events. Wouldn’t it make sense to figure out which of these things were involved before the doctors “diagnosed” you with a “disease” just based on the outward appearance? As an analogy, if you had a rash, would you want the doctor to treat the rash without looking for the cause of the rash, whether it was allergies, measles, poison ivy, or syphilis?

If your son says the drugs aren’t helping, it’s probably because they aren’t helping. Perhaps someone needs to sit with him and help him come up with his own ideas of what he is seeking and why these events are happening, and what he thinks might be helpful? I know it’s painful to watch this happen and feel helpless to change it, but whatever’s happening, he has to be the one to figure it out. You can’t do it for him, and as you can see, the drug solution doesn’t really solve the underlying problem, even if it may temporarily arrest the “symptoms.”

As for Laura, it sounds to me like she was going through some intense but fairly normal teenage stuff, and was re-routed to a very crazy pathway that did a lot of emotional damage. I see this happen all the time. Nobody seemed to sit down and ask her what was going on – instead, they tried to snuff our her feelings and experience and used labels and drugs to try to force her to be “normal” rather than helping her find her way. I see this happen all the time.

To live is to experience distress. Distress is real, but it doesn’t work to label forms of distress as “diseases.” Sure, people recover from states of distress, but that’s the process of life. Helping people find ways to make their lives meaningful and productive in ways they care about is much more effective than drugging them into submission when they don’t fit into the status quo.

Again, I feel for your challenges with your son. Don’t give up, but see if you can focus on seeing things from his point of view. You might want to look into the Open Dialog and Soteria House approaches to get a different view on what psychosis may represent and other ways to think about helping.

Good luck!

— Steve

Or maybe you are just resorting to the “you’ve misunderstood me” position to escape the burden of accepting responsibility for what you’ve said and the implications of what you said, so you displace responsibility on to your critics? Just thought I’d add that, because we all do it some time.

You claim what some of us say is belittling, insulting etc., and for some reason feel the need to capitalize the YOUR. Well, this is equally applicable to some of your more patronising comments, the gist of which is that we shouldn’t be interloping on the territory of the educated elite. Of course, because you haven’t used exactly those words, you’ll be able to deny it, but this is what you imply in a number of your comments about certain individuals lack of education etc.

At one point you said “behaviour is a manifestation of brain function” and one of the threads running throughout your commentary is that the brain is the problem and the real causal agent, so I disagreed with that, availing myself of the demystifying, elucidative power of analogy, in this case “accent”, which like behaviour is picked up by a kind of process of cultural osmosis or through conscious training. This analogy was merely made in response to the foregoing comment and others of a similar essence.

My point about behaviour was that, if we perform a semantic autopsy on the word, if behaviour is merely the manifestation of brain function, then it is not behaviour, but merely a neurological reflex, like the spasms consequent to iatrogenic extrapyramidal perturbation, merely, as you said of all behaviour, a manifestation of brain function, though I will make an allowance for the possibility that the language you have used in this regard perhaps doesn’t accurately convey what you are trying to say, which is of course one of the great limitations of language.

Coming back to my other point about behaviour, my point is is that it is not merely a manifestation of brain function, but, like accent, something we inherit from the immediate environmental and wider cultural context, something we learn, which is expressed through the medium of the brain. It seems we are in agreement about this, and the confusion arises from the different ways in which we would articulate this truth.

I would appreciate it if you would be more specific when claiming we are being unconscionable in our responses. Just in case this accusation is aimed at me (obviously, ignore it if this isn’t the case), all I have done is express my opinion, and would protest if you were to consider my conduct on this particular forum to be any more reprehensible than yours, which for the most part, I would agree, has been exemplary, as is the case with everyone else.

You subsume us all to the noun “anti-psychiatry”, yet there are hardly any people on here who are “anti-psychiatry”, just anti-coercion, anti-insitutional psychiatry in its most pervasive historical and contemporary usage as an institituion of gratuitous social control. Practically the rest of it I, like I believe most on here, am not opposed to. Maybe on this issue, when you talk of the “anti-psychiatry club”, it is your thinking that lacks nuance.

Nevertheless, I am sceptical that institutional psychiatry can be reformed, that the profession can ever be exorcised of the demons of coercion and fraud. Both are two of the threads out of which the vast historical tapestry of psychiatry has been woven.

You also say that many of us believe we are the spokespeople for all who are “mentally ill”. In the year or so I have been reading and commenting on here, I feel confident that I have never once encountered anyone whose remarks would warrant such an accusation. On this and many other issues, I think it is you who have misunderstood the commenters on this site. I think everyone is quite aware that it is likely that a very large portion of patients have internalized the desires and narratives of their psychiatrists and family members, and that even many others who are more discontent go along with the current system on sufferance, for numerous reasons.

“It’s a social movement to take down psychiatry”

This reminds me of Martin Luther King speech “I HAVE A DREAM”. Yes, that would be wonderful. And if I can add to my wish list, in addition to taking down psychiatry, I would love to have a class action lawsuit that would take away every penny from any psychiatrist or company that has ever made money out of forced “treatment” and ruining lives. I even would send the most prominent of these abusers (psychiatrists and Big Pharma executives) to jail. I know it’s a dream unlikely to happen, but that’s my dream!

It’s only logical that when someone resorts to “medications” which correlate with interfering with organic brain functions that there is fear of the brain actually responding to life. And fear of the emotions that are expressed through the brain. And anyone pointing out that they prefer to condone methods that correlate more with healing, don’t damage the brain, don’t correlate with loss of life, and that nurture an understanding of life and how a persons responds to it rather than disabling the brain; this is in no way hostile or insulting to anyone. It’s honoring life as an experience not something that needs to be disabled.

As has been listed many times; and also carefully and thoughtfully shared (although this is met with accusations of contempt) the methods which do not disable the mind with medications have the best results. And the proponents of these methods aren’t scared of the emotions expressed through a mind which hasn’t been disabled; in contrast they understand what’s going on internally with a person and know how to promote healing; which statistics prove they have. And they aren’t scared because they willing to understand these emotions, these symptoms of distress, and know how to deal with them rather than disabling the mind. That isn’t the case with bio-psychiatry. In fact it’s the opposite. If a behavior is not understood, it’s suppressed. And bio-psychiatry is causing chemical imbalance and brain disease with their treatment, not healing it.

Seeing something as having a “physical” cause is fine in theory; but this has become destructive rather than healing when the treatment for this alleged physical cause involves actually causing physical damage, loss of life, more disability, more paranoia against emotions and symptoms of distress which there are answers for; a suppression of the damage these “medications” cause (see recent court cases involving such as Zyprexa), a suppression and/or withholding of the statistics (again see recent court cases, along with the rest of the material already shared in this post) and the active suppression of methods which do correlate with healing, reduction of disability and enhancement of the human condition. Were one actually showing integrity to science, it would be seen that the drugs themselves are a physical cause of disease.

People with emotional responses to life that seem out of the ordinary to others, that seem disruptive, that go against the grain; when there’s a willingness to experience and learn to relate to these emotions, these symptoms, understanding can occur; this doesn’t occur when the mind is disabled from experiencing said symptoms through disabling drugs. Understanding also is hampered when there is so much fear promoted that all such responses are sectioned, labeled as coming from an unproven organic disease (while being “treated” with disabling medications that cause organic disease), suppressed with fear based mind control. And methods that correlate with healing which do not promote disabling medications or fear of the symptoms are suppressed.

Bio-psychiatry has only caused more disability, more occurrences of what it itself labels as a disease (including proof that they are causing chemical imbalance rather than treating it). This certainly doesn’t warrant that they would have the amount of control they h ave over treatment, except that money is involved. And the suppression of the human condition to mind control, through promoting fear as well as disabling the brain.

And really. I’m not even saying these substances should be illegal. But a person should have the choice to not be forced on these substances, and the whole truth should be told about them. That they haven’t been proven to treat a chemical imbalance but themselves cause chemical imbalance; that they disable the mind interfering with natural organic functions; that they are highly addictive; that ALL the side effects are listed as well as the loss of life expectancy and that the alternative treatments are offered which correlate higher with healing, which are more cost effective and which promote an understanding of the symptoms rather than a suppression. There are enough people that resort to all sorts of drugs (street drugs which I also think shouldn’t be illegal, alcohol, cigarettes, chocolate, sugar, junk food what have you) and say this enhances their life. Even cocaine, which used to be a magic psychiatric substance years ago, isn’t advertised as treating any chemical imbalance to alleviate distress by the pharmaceutical industry. Regardless how many people enamored of or addicted to cocaine might promote such advertising.

Science itself (if one is going to say that they are scientific) also in Quantum physics sees no separation between the observer and the object. That we influence what we observe. And the healing modalities that do NOT promote brain damage as a magical disabling device that eradicates unwanted thought (along with such things as dreaming, personal initiative, creativity) these modalities actually relate to thought itself. That a person can actually learn to understand, to think, to relate to how their own thoughts themselves effect their life. This frees them of the burden of believing they have to damage – which is all psychiatric drugs really do scientifically – the vehicle which allows them to think, in order to get rid of unwanted thoughts. What before this was a completely unwanted, misunderstood, scary reaction which they had no cognitive relationship with becomes a vehicle to understand how their mind works. And this brings understanding of the human condition. Even of those people who caused the trauma which caused the distress which caused the symptoms, to begin with.

I have been unsure how to enter this conversation, and now I feel a little silly wanting to enter as you exit, Layla. I just wanted to say I appreciate your involvement in this discussion. You are willing to bring your own quirks into your writings, and know you work hard to be engaging and kind.

I will also speak for myself in saying I don’t feel so free from psychiatry. I think I will always somehow be trapped by psychiatry as I have a record that follows me now and a lot of missing time in my life caused by treatment.

I’m gay too, and I now live with a lot of fear and anger about my lack of ability to adopt children (something already more difficult for gay folk and something that I had previously hoped to one day do), as I am fairly confident that how I was labelled after I began to raise concerns in my treatment makes me pretty much ineligible. This may be able to change if I can engage with more psychiatrists and somehow prove I am not what my notes say, but even doing that would be ammo for relabelling me.

For me, and I think you get at some of it in your response to Jonah, that the ability to predict good and bad outcomes in engaging with mental health treatment is so poor, but as a patient, you have to submit yourself to that risk. I did not know what risks awaited me in treatment, and wish I had a better sense of what it could be before I engaged. I sought treatment because I wanted to stay engaged with my life, and found that treatment derailed me from it, and then stripped me of a lot of hope/interest for even trying to reengage with again. Being hurt by treatment is trapping in that it makes talking about what happened to you so difficult. For me, I’ve lost trust in mental health professionals, regret even intending to be one (I was planning on being a clinician before I engaged with treatment), and I fear further alienation from talking to others about the experience.

For me, I no longer feel ethical seeking to become a clinician, knowing the poor outcome data, pseudo-diagnostics, and the real harm that treatment can engender. I do wish you care and luck in your path.

I meant to post this comment earlier in the day, but oh well.

Layla,
My advice to you would be to take your own advice. After reading your very copious commentary here, I have wanted to respond to you many times that if you could *stop talking (& immediately reacting & responding) for a moment* – * just a moment * – and *listen* and think about what people are saying a bit more, and investigate some of the links and leads that have been given to you, you might learn something. You might not. Often it takes a profound and very personal experience to wake us up. That evidently has not happened to you yet, and who knows if it will. Biopsychiatry has a very powerful hold on our society currently. Yes, there is a lot of anger and upset from posters here – that’s normal for people who have been mistreated by an established power structure and have few opportunities to be heard & affirmed. You are coming onto a site to defend a power structure that has abused, traumatized, and angered many here. Sorry, but what do you expect? You are going to have to realize that this is part of the playing field if you choose to come here & tell us that we are wrong. I may be mistaken but I think your tone was a bit confrontational to begin with, so you should expect confrontational responses, especially since you are defending an oppressor to an oppressed & angry party. I am thankful for the people who can calmly respond (from a place of safety) to some of the points/objections you (& others such as madincanada) have brought up, but we are not all so safe & healed to be able to respond so calmly. Being a psychiatric survivor in a world that constantly tells us we are wrong and defective – knowing there is nothing wrong with us but having society constantly and without any proof or evidence tell us there is – is an extremely tough & frustrating – sometimes maddening – place to be. If you choose to believe that there is something defective or physically wrong with you with no proof or evidence of such, fine, believe whatever you want to believe. But other people shouldn’t have to, and that’s why we are making the arguments we’re making and doing what we’re doing.

I don’t think anyone here is interested in standing up for you much as a mental patient, because you seem to be okay with that identity. Since you are so busy defending psychiatry, then by all means, deal with it yourself. You be in charge of standing up for yourself in the face of anything that comes down the pike as a result of your “mental illness” identity/label. If you do come to be harmed in the future by this profession and its fallout, then maybe at that point you will remember some of what we’ve said. In the meantime, there are many people who are actually open to the message of hope, justice, the message that they are *fine* the way they are and the way they were created, and just need support, understanding, affirmation and love. Since you reject this message and think you know better, then please, look out for yourself and don’t expect us to. No sense in forcing help on those who don’t want it. “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” Harriet Tubman. If you like your identity as a mental patient/mentally ill person then knock yourself out, but do not inflict it on others who don’t want and don’t deserve it, which is what support of biopsychiatry in the absence of any evidence does.

Anyway, to circle back, I think talking less & listening more might help, but I know it can be very tough to break the hold of the indoctrinated psychiatric mindset. Our whole culture is under its spell. Well, our whole culture once accepted slavery and many other wrongs as commonplace too, and I’m confident this mistreatment and misunderstanding of people’s emotional and social problems will also go the same way. When Galileo said the earth was round, he was intensely ridiculed, censured, and disbelieved by almost everyone. The scientists of the day “knew” the earth was flat. Today we all know Galileo was right. Many of us on MiA believe we have seen the light – I know I do – and will do all we can to help change the conversation around what we are calling “mental illness” for the sake of justice for the oppressed & misunderstood, and REAL healing & societal health. Protestations like yours’ – and we have heard them a thousand times – will not deter our movement and goals, because we have all been where you are – having the same doubts and raising the same questions – and have moved beyond that place. Before reacting so much, you may want to investigate more – just a thought. Loren Mosher, Ty Colbert, who else – who are some good people to read who really explain the problem with biopsychiatry, its lack of evidence and science, its wrongful rejection of other healing modalities, its fundamental barking up the wrong tree… Personally I like psychologist Ty Colbert, not sure how you would respond to him, but I recommend Broken Brains or Wounded Hearts: What Causes Mental Illness, and Rape of the Soul: How the Chemical Imbalance Theory of Modern Psychiatry Has Failed Its Patients, along with his other books. Those are the ones that I have personally responded the best to, but that was after my mindset was already predisposed to believing in the emotional-pain model due to the experiences I had.

Anyway, one last thought, the reason there is a lot of anger and upset here is because people who defend the chemical imbalance/”mental illness”/biopsychiatric model are not just talking about themselves, they’re talking about all of us. If it was just yourself you were affecting with your beliefs, we wouldn’t care so much, because if that’s what you want to believe & how you want to live it’s your own choice. It’s that the rest of us are implicated in whatever theory our society is currently going with as the cause and best approaches to emotional/mental suffering, so we have a high stake in this. And we are not going to let some misguided and misleading power structure pass down judgment on us that they have no factual reason to believe, when we ourselves are dying to tell our own version of the story, to which they will not listen. We basically feel like freedom fighters for ourselves and those in the same boat – we *are* freedom and dignity fighters – and the fact that you may not see or understand it that way, yet, does not change anything.

Peace

Just to point a couple of things out in context of this outpouring of comments we are all supposed to understand or it “might seem” that we are having bizarre assumptions.

Two quotes:

“How could I possibly think that the way I experience vision is by thinking about chemicals? How, as someone who has identified herself as having a trauma history, could I possibly think trauma is irrelevant to treatment?).”

And a quote prior to this:

“Also, human thought is no different from anything else in the universe – it comes down to electrical activity, just like the rest of it. Thinking there’s no way that chemical reactions could cause thoughts about themselves is like thinking there’s no way evolution could produce something as complex as sight.”

As to the discussion about trauma. Suppressing a reaction to trauma, not only suppresses the experience of the individual; it also suppresses the understanding of trauma, something that applies to the perpetrator of trauma as well, who is acting out what he has experienced him or herself. In bio-psychiatry, the way it is practiced and forced on people, the perpetrator of trauma via enforced medicating is made out to be a healer. And dissent against this is violently suppressed, despite the preponderance of evidence that these medications correlate with an increase in disability, brain damage, an increase in violence, a loss of life, a suppression of creativity, personal initiative as well as a suppression of all parts of the personality. All this only bring out the importance of understanding trauma more, when the person said to be healing it is causing is. This of course is pretty standard in a fear based society. You see it in the penal system and the military industrial complex.

And no one ANYWHERE on this thread has accused those dependent on psychiatry of not having self will, of not pulling themselves up by their boot-straps, who knows what else…. What people have done is patiently and thoughtfully brought forth the disciplines, the philosophies, the scientific evidence and the statistical evidence as to what correlates with healing rather than what makes money for the drug companies: to say that this is a “young science,” “the brain is a complex organ and difficult to understand,” “we have compelling evidence that there’s a chemical imbalance,” and other such catch phrases which excuse that while their enforced method is causing more and more disability, loss of life, paranoia against responses that would otherwise be understood rather than feared; they keep saying that somewhere in the future they will have the result they are looking for as long as they can keep on “medicating” people and disabling the brain. And the TRUE POINT isn’t that the people who don’t want to go along with the biological approach to psychiatry (which makes me wonder why we call something which only correlates with damaging the brain biological) that they are accusing others of not being healed; Those pointing out what biological psychiatry actually does DON”T have the right to be healed when they aren’t on medications; would they be institutionalized, or according to other methods of control. They don’t even have the right to have valid emotional responses to trauma; this is only seen as being “healed” when the responses have been chemically suppressed, or suppressed through fear based mind control (which is what threatening a person with brain damaging medications also is)

So what is all of this complaining about? We all got it. And we all have complete empathy with it. Put someone in an asylum and tell them you won’t get out till you go along with our way of doing things, and you’ve made them believe that their oppressors are their healers. Giving someone a chemical imbalance is seen as treating one; using methods that correlate with more disability, loss of life, extreme addiction, brain damage, the works; this is seen as enhancing life.

And I can’t stress more that when anyone actually takes time for themselves to simply find some peace, to let go of the stress that says you have to change things through some active force which is still in collusion with the same fear based methods that caused the trauma that caused the perpetrators to be the way they are who caused the trauma; when you dare to do this you are changing all of reality. You’re breaking the cycle and going someplace that’s actually creative not reactive. This doesn’t mean that someone on psychiatric medications can’t find this place of peace; but if you allow yourself the joy of who you are, of finding peace rather than avoiding it through guilt (guilt others are supposed to have would they simply find peace instead); then you won’t need these “medications” or many other controlling factors that give you a false sense of safety. I’ve seen enough people who are anti-psychiatry, anti-drugs, highly outspoken, have a whole movement behind them, are extremely articulate and can haul through miles of evidence supporting their claims; and yet with their own anger they can be causing the very symptoms, caused by the drugs, their body (or the body of another) might be able to alleviate, would they give themselves and others the right to not be so stressed and believe in something else beyond the control tactics they are investing in. Those people also have difficulty getting off of the drugs, or are still disabled by them.

My parting comment:

I’m not “hostile,” I’m “snarky.”

\\…because I am anti-Biological Psychiaty does not mean I don’t believe biology or brain chemistry is involved in thoughts, feelings and behavior. It’s just that their biological and/or genetic determinist and reductionist theories are dead wrong. Biological Psychiatry is defined as the wedding of genetic theories of “mental illness” with Big Pharma, the major training institutions for modern psychiatry, and the current leadership of the American Psychiatric Association. This is a destructive and historically reactionary institution. It cannot be and should not be reformed. It belongs in the same museum with slavery, Nazism, racism, sexism, homophobia etc. …//

Richard,

Excellent comment. It caught my eye when you first posted it, last night. Since then, I’ve reread it a number of times. It is *quite* educational.

You do *great* justice to this view, that: campaigning against something called “biological psychiatry” may now be integral to containing the historical evils of Psychiatry (evils, at last, infecting the entire ‘mental health field’).

Never, previously, have I seen such a good explanation of what “biological psychiatry” implies, to critics of psychiatry; and, I’ve long been uncomfortable with the “Down with Biological Psychiatry” banner – because it does seem to knock something inherently beneficial (that being *biology*).

According to Dictionary.com’s first definition of ‘biology’ (derived from the Random House Dictionary):

“[Biology is] the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.”

From that point of view, what could be wrong with any form of biology?

I am a big fan of biology – thus, often, wonder: Is “biological psychiatry” really the problem?

You’ve done a wonderful job of explaining what “biological psychiatry” means to yourself and to others who raise the banner, “Down with Biological Psychiatry”; simply, never before had it been explained to me, so well.

May I simply add, that, *still* (even after reading and rereading, to carefully consider your words), I’m inclined to side with those who prefer another way of identifying and condemning the evils of psychiatry; I say, “Down with Medical-Coercive Psychiatry!”

Hopefully, it is obvious, this means, that: when it comes to psychiatry, above all else, I oppose the uninvited *imposition* of its ‘medical treatments’ upon people. Psychiatry is a belief system – quite like any religion – and, thus, should *not* be afforded permissions, by the State, to impose its will and its ‘treatments’ on anyone.

In fact, it is a pseudo-scientific belief system; but, because its clothes itself in a white medical frock, it appears as though a legitimate authority, on life, to the masses.

From this point of view, I do like, “Take Down Psychiatry!” as a rallying cry, because, to my mind, that does not mean ‘abolish psychiatry’ – but, rather, ‘take it DOWN’ …as one might *take-down* any system (or institution) that society has *mistakenly* placed on a pedestal, above the law.

Again, I say, excellent comment…

Respectfully,

~Jonah

Layla, that comment is an analogy, not a personal attack on you. It was meant, I believe, to explain to you how people here feel about biological psychiatry, what it has done to them, and what, because of what it has done to them, a defense of it does to them. It is meant to explain to you why you see the reactions to your comments here that you do see. Here’s a friend of mine, Olga Runciman, chair of the Danish Hearing Voices Network, and soon-to-be psychologist, explaining why it actually is a very to-the-point analogy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnsCyR59Hd8

Layla, I also cringed when I read sarcastic comments asking you whether you needed to go to your NAMI next meeting. Don’t let such remarks get you stressed out. And I’m sorry I stopped reading all the comments because it was too much; but I understand you are against anyone being drugged against their will.

I’ll try to explain the comparison to rape. When a person is forced drugged (which you are against, so that’s not a valid comparison) then they feel this is like rape, because it’s an intrusion, a physical intrusion into their body, often injected. And many people have had just plain horrible experiences with this, with the effects of the medications, which they weren’t allowed to even see as being horrible or refuse. In fact I have a friend who I couldn’t even ask about her experiences in an asylum without her feeling attacked to just talk about it. It becomes that much of a trigger. So, when one is heralding all these ideas that the drugs could be helpful (and promoting ideology which is fine, but overlooks all of the damage done), people respond the way they do. What’s truly sad is that… well for example, I don’t believe you stop rapists by locking them up, traumatizing them more than they already were to become the way they were and acting like this alleviates all of the overlooked aspects and machinery of society which actually caused the trauma which caused their lack of respect for themselves and for the human condition. That’s more how you produce them.

I also find it quite misplaced (whoever it was) to quote Martin Luther King in the same post where one is ameliorating the penal system as a means to change things, when this is also pro trauma as much as or maybe even worse than the pro-drugging movement. Sorry.

And Layla, your brain must be tired now. Don’t blame it (which you weren’t anyhow) for your (whatever you were joking about); let it rest….

Layla,

I apologize for the NAMI meeting comment earlier in the thread. It was uncalled for.

Duane

Re: the “it’s like a rapist” comment… To me it makes more sense to compare someone in your position not to a rapist, but more like to someone who’s been abused, perhaps, who then begins to identify with the abuser & start adopting their state of mind/rationalizations/explanations for why things are the way they are etc., like a Stockholm Syndrome-type situation. Not that you intended to do any of that. But maybe that’s more what (commenter?) was getting at. This is probably a common occurrence in psychiatry & really quite understandable, given how thoroughly we all are indoctrinated into the biopsyhiatric worldview (& quite frankly abused with/by it). It is incredibly shocking when one starts realizing that our trust has been totally misplaced, and we are being systematically lied to or misinformed by people and institutions that are supposed to be credible, trustworthy, the supposed authorities & experts, sources to whom we are told we can go for real ‘help.’ It can seem preposterous at first and that’s probably part of why more people don’t get beyond this point, don’t come to see the trauma-informed angle that we here at MiA and in the critical- or anti-psych movement (or whatever you want to call it) have mostly come to know & understand. If it hadn’t happened to me, and I hadn’t had a contrarian nature like yours as well as a very fortunate experience which showed me that with the right environmental ingredients *I could be totally fine*, who knows what party line I would be towing right now :p So, I don’t think it makes sense to say that you’re like a rapist at all, but obviously, you can see how indeed triggering this is for a lot of us & there’s a really good reason for that! I’m so glad to see that you have really taken all this in & have come to understand what some of us were trying to get across. It can be tough to explain this position especially when we know how little likely we are to be heard & taken seriously by many in the mainstream, when all this has been really frustrating, isolating, & traumatizing (& frankly just hard to believe), and when people are apt to respond negatively to our expressions of emotion & passion around this, valid though they may be.

Sorry my writing is not the most articulate, but hoping you get the point :p

I seconded the NAMI reference and I do not apologize for it. I think it’s about time we are unashamedly defenders of our rights as victims of an institution, psychiatry, whose only objective is social control.

Psychiatry has damaged me in many ways. As most here, I was totally indifferent towards it (just “assumed” that it was right) until I was viciously attacked by it.

In addition to the humiliating experience of being detained and tied up for almost one day (think about it, ALMOST ONE DAY tied up as if I was a very dangerous criminal, and then several months committed with limited exits) in spite of having committed no crimes, I lost my parents/siblings, my marriage fell apart and I had to “pretend” I was happy with “the help” provided if I wanted to get out of there. I was forced to tell total strangers details about my life and my own personal thoughts that only people very close to me, like my ex wife, knew if I wanted to get out of the incarceration.

You said you are gay. I happen to not support gay marriage neither a lot of the gay agenda (though I am fine with civil unions without adoption rights). What business is that of a psychiatrist telling me that I have a problem because I hold these views? Just as it was wrong to have psychiatry label gays as “mentally ill” for being gay, it is equally wrong for some random psychiatrist telling me that I will not be “cured” until I adopt the pro gay rights agenda. I could go on.

I do not have a chemical imbalance and I am not “mentally ill”. I happen to have different thought processes, and that’s fine. Just as highly creative people are not the norm, and that’s fine too. As long as I comply with the law, what business is it of a psychiatrist of what I think about certain matters? Well, as the psychiatrist that committed me said “it is my business and I am going to detain you because I want to”. I have nothing but contempt for psychiatry, and the defenders of coercive psychiatry. I am an absolutist on that matter, with no room for compromise. Just as there should be no room for compromise when it comes to slavery, segregation or that a rapist should go to jail to pay for his crimes.

Layla,

Personally, I think you’ve really redeemed yourself with these comments. You showed that you really do have an open mind and are willing to consider criticism & grow from it. That takes maturity & integrity. By the way, I think that “stubborn, contrarian streak” is something that, if put to good use, can really be a strength and help to accomplish a lot 🙂 I hope you are stimulated to continue exploring these questions here at MiA +/or elsewhere. We need people thinking critically about the status quo & always looking to improve a situation/system which, by all accounts, needs a lot of work. Thank you for taking the time to reflect on all the feedback your posts have gotten & for showing a real willingness to engage with us here. I think you’ve shown a lot of integrity & I commend you for that.

Peace & all the best.

Layla, what you call long windedness actually had some interesting tangents for me. Electricity for example, how you can actually (and this has been known for more than 50 years, I think) make an electrical generator that gets energy from the potential field in Quantum physics, and with simple magnets, copper wires and other materials actually produces 4 times more energy than the energy it takes from it’s own production to run on. People won’t believe it works and production has been suppressed for years, or they think there’s no explanation so wouldn’t believe it (same as miracles or Quantum Physics principles). Although it may appear we’re coming from two different sides of a debate; I’ve only been able to materialize my perspective beyond having to defend it at all, because it helped me to see my viewpoint.

And it’s wonderful to have these ideologies that one could change one’s emotions chemically, but try a placebo. Something that has no side effects; that doesn’t interfere with any organic functions in the brain, that doesn’t create chemical dependency, where there’s no loss of life expectancy, where you aren’t told that the medications are treating a chemical imbalance while actually creating one. Try a placebo. Find out how much thought itself is emotions. Believe in Santa. Read books. People are so focused on finding pills for solutions, then when you give a placebo the effect of creating a dry mouth or another such side effect, people’s belief that it’s doing something increases and there’s more of the placebo effect. What’s really healing would be fiction, but this should stay as fiction. As art. I don’t think emotions are that tangible to the physical, because then they wouldn’t be e-motions. They are more creative than that; not the result of what’s there. They are maybe more the cause of what’s there than a result. Music brings this out, as do all the arts with their relationship with emotions which actually bring perspective to the whole human experience. This isn’t something you can get a pill for, I don’t think. Listen to music that awakens your emotions and you can gain perspective on the emotions inside you, the memories, the dreams… ALL the emotions. Or go to a museum, or a play, a movie, the ballet, go dance; make a painting yourself or a poem or….. You gain understanding rather than thinking your emotions are too much, or that you have to control them. You dare to experience the joy that’s there to experience all of life; and see that it makes all of it beautiful, you don’t have to try to control any of it. Somehow. I don’t believe that a society which would actually honor what the arts are (rather than being consumer oriented); I don’t think they would be having “mental illness.” And most of the great artists whose art have already nurtured the human soul for generations or more have been given some sort of diagnosis. That’s a different world, a different perspective; and it’s more real than any fear based society. And it’s not crazy, or it is crazy; but it’s not a disease.

I have the same kind of “memories” that come into my mind and make me shutter. It’s quite difficult to actually process how much, what kind of a nodule of fear gets compacted into these reactions to another saying you’re crazy. And when I simply take a few moment to calm down and not over-react, not wager with the fear based mind control of loss (don’t do blah blah blah because then they’ll think you’re crazy, or Oh CRIPES they’ll all think that’s crazy, WHY didn’t I realize that) and why I should care at all, as if there’s some kind of loss, except that I lose having to believe that a self defeating system is my salvation. And when I take a perspective on what trauma caused my behavior I realize that I’m breaking the cycle of trauma, even though experiencing it for what it is, that it’s an illusion, is deemed crazy.

Layla, I was still thinking about what you described as starting to contact on the inside with what happened when committed. How you shudder and then block it off. And when you talk about it you say it’s like you’re talking about a scene in a movie that happened to someone else.

I’m glad you brought it up because I have the same sort of shuddering and then emotional convulsions. That helped me to think about and process it. This isn’t because I was institutionalized (which I haven’t been this incarnation) but because of the stress of trying to deal with people’s idea of what sanity is. Their very responses. To me it’s like time is shattered. That any idea of what it was supposed to lead to is shattered. The whole linear matrix. The whole belief system as to how things work. So I guess it’s not a bad idea to simply let go of it; any idea that there is any sense to it according to how I’m trying to define how it should work in connection with my belief system. And time isn’t linear, it does come apart so that the drama can unfold itself (like art, like a movie). So that we’re connected with it rather than disconnected. It’s just I suspend my whole belief system, otherwise I go crazy trying to make sense out of it. All sides of it. The injustice, how it was supposed to work, what happiness would have been or is, what should have been how things work. I guess it’s a good idea to just let go of it, and then it can come together without me getting in the way trying to make sense out of it. Then it’s crazy and it’s OK….

OK, I’m still thinking about having flashbacks of being institutionalized, or simply what it feels like to have people make you think you’re crazy, or to have to worry about what they think at all.

Someone told me, when she studied sociology, she had an assignment where in they had been given permission to go up and down an elevator the whole day in a mall so that they could study the behavior of other people. The mall knew it was an experiment in sociology, and if people complained about it then the security had been instructed to get into the elevator as if they were going to do something about it, but then simply get off at the next floor and walk back. Her stories about people’s behaviors was quite funny; but it accented how upset people get about someone just doing something out of line, a bit unusual: something that’s really of no concern and doesn’t interfere with anything, although it’s targeted to be seen as out of line. There weren’t enough of them to stop anyone else from getting in the elevator etc..Laughing at those people’s response is how one could let go of how disturbing people’s responses really are.

I was thinking about this today, and would like to do the same kind of experiment. I’ve had this so often in my life that when “psychotic,” and completely non-violent, just a bit odd; it’s already a whole exercise in sociology when you remember people’s reactions. When “psychotic,” I’m pretty much numb to whether I should care or not about certain things. The problem often comes when I’m back to “normal,” because then I start judging people’s responses (which often were quite abusive in their hostility to really petty things or nothing, and based on fear based programming rather than reality based). And it can cause a lot of heart break. When “normal” I really had to learn to forgive, to not invest in judgment, and to not believe I have to get stressed out about it to make change. Because when not getting stressed out my mind does become balanced and finds the peace to detach from it; to simply be myself, and then discover that this is the best way to make change.

It does seem like there’s no way out and the only way to survive would be to adapt to this fear based (rather than reality based) system that’s less reality based then your “psychosis,” but that in the end really isn’t the case. Evolution has more perspective… And when you let go of thinking you need to adapt to what you’ve been intimidated to think is necessary, probably since before you can consciously remember: when you stop thinking this fear based idea that you need to be part of a fear based system or you can’t survive, then you actually start to understand the “psychosis.” It doesn’t happen in a jiffy, remote control, press the button, turn the key, pop a pill. But it does happen. And because it’s so subtle, the small awakenings have more connections and are more linked from just one moment (from any moment) than all the stuff that seems to fix it “just like that…”

“Both Laing and John Weir Perry contended that the suffering seemingly caused by schizophrenia is largely caused by the way it is treated by the “mind-police,” as Laing called them.”

Exactly. And it doesn’t start with how extreme states, or the people who experience them, are treated, but already with how these states are commonly perceived and defined — namely as an illness, something that shouldn’t be — in our society. Much of the fear I myself initially experienced during altered states wasn’t caused by the altered states themselves, but by the idea that is our society’s that I shouldn’t be having the experience, that it was a sign of something being profoundly wrong with me. Once I’d come to the conclusion — after reading Laing among other things — that nothing was wrong with me, which enabled me to say “yes” to the experience, even the fear wasn’t frightening me anymore. Sadly, the vast majority of people I meet in my work were indoctrinated to fear their experience — themselves — more than death. Their suffering is indeed immeasurable, and only endurable while under the constant influence of more or less heavy sedation.

Mary,

I, too, was familiar with Jung’s work, by that point, at which I had my ‘breakdown/breakthrough’; and, that basic knowledge was a life-saver; surely, I would have suffered a far *worse* fate, at that point, had I not known of Jung’s work.

But, no one warned me against ‘acting crazy’ – such as you were (quite fortunately) warned, by your old high school friend, the psychiatrist.

Such a warning would have done me great good.

In my family, I had been the ‘good kid’ – the “easy kid” (my mom always called me) – literally *never* ‘acting out’ (i.e., rebelling against my parents) as my siblings often did.

Beginning a few years prior to that ‘breakdown/breakthrough’ (personal/interpersonal crisis) of mine, I’d become very intrigued by Jung’s work – *and* also, by the prospect of ‘acting crazy’ – and that had much (and, perhaps, everything) to do with why I wound up choosing to act out, as I did, at age 21.5 – throwing plates, at my parents’ garage door…

That *choice* of mine (which was essentially a ‘delayed’ rebellion) was the reflection of a *conscious* decision, ultimately; I was deciding, at last, to deliberately ‘act crazy’ – in a way that would disrupt the ‘same old, same old’ patterns of life, in my parents’ home (where I’d grown up and where I’d returned to, after my having taken a break from college, to travel, alone, across country).

I did sense, in advance, that there was a significant risk in what I was choosing to do, that way – knew I could be viewed as ‘crazy’; however, it was my feeling, then, that, such was was the ‘right’ time, to go ahead and take that risk.

By the way, here’s a link to a very good National Geographic article, by David Dobbs, titled, “Teenage Brains”:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text

It’s about the inherent, risk-taking nature, of teens.

(And, note: I was 21.5 – so, technically, not a teenager, when I decided to take that risk, smashing those dishes…; but, of course, to be just one-and-a-half- years past ones teens is hardly being free of ones teenage tendencies.)

In retrospect, it’s perfectly clear, to me, that I had no idea (not even a clue) as to the *full* implications, of what could become, of taking such a risk; I was being naive…

So, subsequently, I did learn a great deal (about human nature – and about the incredibly corrupt nature of Psychiatry); as a result of taking that risk – and then allowing myself to be pressured in an Emergency Room, to be ‘assessed’ by a psychiatrist (and, indeed, it was the resident who took over for him, who finally got me to say “Yes” to a question designed to make me appear as though suicidal), my life would be unalterably driven to realizing just how deeply inhumane – and dishonest – are the machinations of the ‘mental health’ system, due to Psychiatry’s dominance of it.

Though my family meant well, the effects of pressuring me into the ‘care’ of Psychiatry were extremely punishing.

I can view those experiences of Psychiatry, as learning experiences…

But, no amount of learning can make up for all the *traumatizing* and *stigmatizing* and *isolating* effects created in the course of such an education.

Psychiatry offered me nothing but an education in what systematized corruption looks like; it affected me poorly – and only poorly; ‘acting crazy’ and, then, agreeing to be seen by a psychiatrist formed (together) one *huge* mistake (purely regrettable) – the full extent of which, is negative, beyond words (indescribable).

Naturally, I am grateful to have ‘escaped’ Psychiatry’s grip – and grateful that Psychiatry didn’t kill me – as it has killed many…

Thank you very much for the link to your own story; I highly recommend it to MIA readers…

Respectfully,

~Jonah

Stephen,

Looks like you had a very ugly and shocking experience with an unusually insensitive psychiatrist. I’m glad you had the good sense and composure to walk out of his office. If I were in your shoes, I might have just fallen apart and got myself a really damaging diagnosis from the guy.

But tell me this — how is it you could work in a state hospital, especially as a chaplain, and be so surprised when you were treated like you were when you came before a psychiatrist as a patient? Had you never before seen or heard about this kind of treatment meted out to patients by psychiatrists?

Just curious.

Mary Newton

Primal Fear Response is not an indisputable fact. If it was, it would be accepted by all. It is YOUR belief, and nothing else, and does as much harm to people as psychaitry does. Pscyhologists are great at making out that they are the good guys, because they do not dish out toxic medications. My experience and that of most people I know was the psychologists were the most evil and hurtful group. You name the therapy I have experienced it. At least the drugs psychiatrists prescribed, just numbed me to oblivion, they could not cause irrepreable psychological damage. My body can and is recovering from the brain damaging touture of the drugs dished out to me as medications. But I for one do not believe I will ever recover from the decades of torture dished out to me by psychologists, in any of their flash theories. Everyone of them, claimed that the therapies I had used in the past were harmful, but there’s was good and would cure me. You name it I experienced it, and dispute your wish to claim they are helpful for everyone, fact is they are not.

Your pet theory MIGHT help SOME people, but to claim as you do that you can cure every single bit of emotional distress in a matter of weeks, with your pet therapy, shows just how niave you are. Humans are complex are we are allowed to be complex. Some of us are quite happy being complex and quite happy having periods of sadness. But of course you have money to make on telling people that feeling sad ever is bad and you can CURE us in a few short weeks. Someone dies, don’t worry, you can cure them. Someone diagnosed with incurrable cancer, don’t worry you can cure them. Someone raped and tortured to ways you cannot even comprehend, don’t worry you can cure them. Someone has their whole family murdered in front of them, don’t worry you can cure tham. And you can do so in a matter of weeks and with the exact same treatment for all of them. But of course it is my primal fear that causes me not to believe what you say. I’ll live quite happily with my primal fear and face reality about lifes difficulties.