DSM-5 defines delusions as “…fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in the light of conflicting evidence.”  (p 87).  The manual lists six kinds of delusions:  persecutory; referential; grandiose; erotomanic; nihilistic; and somatic.  The APA provides another definition of delusions on p 819.  It’s substantially the same as the one above, but offers the additional varieties:  bizarre; delusional jealousy; mixed type; mood-congruent; mood-incongruent; of being controlled; thought broadcasting; and thought insertion.  Interestingly, nihilistic delusions are omitted from the second list.  These, we are told on page 87,  “…involve the conviction that a major catastrophe will occur.”

A person who groundlessly believes that his neighbors are plotting to kill him, for instance, is considered to be manifesting a persecutory delusion.  A person who groundlessly believes that he/she is the object of another person’s love and devotion, is considered to be manifesting an erotomanic delusion. And so on.  It is clear that the APA’s definition of a delusion is not specific enough for consistent application.  For instance, 26% of American adults believe that the Sun goes around the Earth every day, despite abundant, and readily available, information to the contrary. But this is not a psychiatric delusion, even though it clearly meets the requirements of the definition.

In general, beliefs that are  “…ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture…” are specifically excluded from the APA’s definition (p 819).  The ramifications of this exclusion are particularly interesting.  Suppose, for example, that I develop the patently false notion that I am a descendant of the great French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, and that as such, I am the rightful emperor of Europe, psychiatry would describe me as delusional, and if my speech were a little incoherent, and my manner aloof (as befitting an emperor!), I might easily attract a “diagnosis of schizophrenia”, especially if I started making a nuisance of myself.

Now schizophrenia, as any psychiatrist can tell you, is a brain illness.  The brain is broken, and this causes the symptoms.  So my grandiose delusions are caused by brain pathology.  But now let’s thicken the plot, so to speak, and imagine that I begin to attract enormous numbers of adherents to my cause.  The disenchanted masses of the Old World rush to my standard, overthrow their venal and rapacious leaders, and propel me to my rightful and long-deserved status.  Now, my belief, because of the culture/subculture exclusion, is no longer a delusion.  So the brain pathology, that had previously afflicted me so grievously, is cured by popular acclaim!  This is a strange illness!

Obviously this last example is a little tongue-in-cheek.  But the underlying reality is entirely valid:  a patently false, even bizarre, belief is a product of brain damage.  But it is not a product of brain damage if enough people believe it.  The APA doesn’t specify how many believers are required to effect this miraculous cure, but the use of the term “sub-culture” suggests that it doesn’t have to be all that many.

Up till about 1960, many, perhaps most, psychiatrists believed that unusual beliefs of this kind had some meaning or significance within the context of the person’s history and needs.  A person who had been particularly disempowered, for instance, might express the delusion that he was the Emperor of Russia.  Or a person who needed to be cared for might express somatic delusions.  And so on.  Psychiatric treatment often consisted of talking to the person to explore these kinds of interpretations, and to look for alternative perspectives.  But this kind of approach is now almost entirely defunct within psychiatric circles.  Today, false beliefs of the kind mentioned above are almost invariably seen as symptoms of a brain disease, to be eradicated by neurotoxic chemicals and/or electric shocks.  In passing, it is worth noting that psychiatrists believe that these drugs and shocks constitute medical treatment of an illness – a belief that is generally not amenable to change, despite abundant contrary evidence.  But that’s a long tangent.

Brains, of course, can and do malfunction, and it is certainly conceivable that on some rare occasions, false beliefs might be a function of brain damage.  But in the vast majority of psychiatric clients who have been “diagnosed” with a delusional disorder, there is no established history of brain pathology.  So the question arises, why do people with perfectly ordinary and well-functioning brains  sometimes cling to false beliefs despite abundant contrary evidence?

Our Brains are in the Service of Our Needs

Relative to our size, we human beings have big brains, and they enable us to do some extraordinary things.  For instance, they enable us to remember things.  The electronic storage of data is a commonplace matter today, and many people imagine that the human brain functions something like a hard drive.  In fact, the brain is infinitely more subtle.  The computer stores whatever you put into it.  The brain does not.  The human brain is not an elaborate tape recorder.  At any given instant, our brains are presented with literally millions of individual stimuli to choose from.  From its earliest moment, the brain learns to select.  This is critical, because selection inevitably involves distortion.

We learn to select on the basis of our needs.  Our cognitive apparatus, like the rest of our physical equipment, is in the service of our needs.  As children, we learned to pay attention to the things we needed to pay attention to.  We learned which parts of our world were important in terms of getting our needs fulfilled.  Children learn very quickly what they have to do in order to get fed, or cuddled, or approved of, or read to, or whatever.  But – and this is a critical point – what works for one child in one family doesn’t work for another.  Most children seek the approval of their parents. A child growing up in a rabidly racist home learns to say the n….. word.  He also learns to think the n….. word.  He learns to focus on pieces of information which portray black people in a bad light, and to screen out information complimentary to black people.  Children raised in blue collar families are often taught to distrust establishment figures.  Children raised in wealthy homes learn to distrust labor associations.  And so on.

We all were taught how to think, by our parents, educators, and circumstances.  Some people learned to think in a very open, accepting way.  Others learned to be narrow and suspicious.  Some people were taught that wisdom lies in dogmatic pronouncements; others were taught that wisdom requires questioning and exploration.  Some learned that the world is a beautiful place.  Others learned that it is a vale of tears.  Some learned that it is an opportunity for rapacious exploitation.  Others learned that it is a minefield to be traversed with infinite caution.

Thought styles change over time.  People who grew up during the depression learned to value money and thrift.  This is because they frequently went hungry.  If you had a dime you could get a loaf of bread.  If you didn’t have a dime, you didn’t eat.  People raised in the fifties enjoyed greater affluence, and frequently are exasperated by what they perceive as the neurotic penny-pinching concerns of their parents.  The important point is that both groups are right.  Both groups learned to think in a manner appropriate to the environment in which they were raised.

Extreme Conditions Breed Extreme Thought Patterns

A child who is beaten savagely day after day comes to think of the world as a hostile place.  He screens out the positive attributes of parental figures, and of authority figures generally, and focuses on their potential to hurt.  He conceptualizes the adult world as an obstacle course.  His basic need is to navigate as painless a path as possible.  On the other hand, the child on whom every attention is lavished conceptualizes the adult world as if it were a huge cherry orchard.  His primary need is identifying the biggest cherries, and getting an adult figure to hoist him up to pick them, or, better still, pick them for him.  Both children are conceptualizing the world correctly.

The human cognitive apparatus is not a disembodied logic machine.  It is an integral part of the person, and is in the service of his or her needs.  This is not to say that we are permanently enslaved by the attitudes of our childhood.  People obviously can and do develop their own thought patterns.  But equally, it is probably overly optimistic to imagine that we can ever completely transcend the basic concepts and mindsets that we developed early in life.

Most of the “delusional thinking” that is diagnosed in mental health practice is in fact nothing more than the perfectly normal outcome of a painful (or otherwise extreme) childhood.  But in order to recognize this, one has to spend a great deal of time listening to the individual, validating his concerns, empathizing honestly and sincerely – and most of all – recognizing that he/she is fundamentally understandable: a human being with all the potential, positive and negative, that this implies.  Psychiatry, however, with its 15-minute med-checks, and its catalog of spurious illnesses, sees the “delusional thinking” as a neuro-pathological condition.  Consequently, no attempt is made to explore these kinds of origins.  In fact, the content of the unusual thinking is almost always completely ignored.

Failures: Great and Small

Another key concept in understanding “delusional thinking” is the notion of failure.  At the risk of stating the obvious, we all fail at something from time to time.  Some of our failures are minor – like spilling a glass of water.  Others are major – like  crashing the car, or getting fired from a job.  When confronted with a failure, however, we always have two conceptual options.  We can acknowledge that we messed up, and take corrective action; or we can distort our perception of the situation to such an extent that it no longer seems to be a failure.

For example, if I try to install a pane of glass in a window frame, and in the process the pane breaks, I have two broad options.  I can identify what I did wrong, and resolve to be more careful with the replacement.  Or I can scream and yell at my wife for distracting me at a critical point in the operation.  Or I can assert that the glass had a flaw in it; the glass cutter was dull, etc..  I can, if I work at it a little, persuade myself that the breakage was not really my fault.

Similarly, if I am fired for incompetence in my job, I can conceptualize this as a failure on my part, and take some appropriate action.  Or I can conceptualize it in a way which exonerates me from blame.  (The vice-president wanted my job for his son-in-law, etc…)

The issue here is not which explanation is the true one.  Truth isn’t always that cut and dried.  The issue is that there are always multiple ways to conceptualize our errors.  Most of us don’t experience an inordinate amount of failure, but when we do, we can always resort to the second option to salve our wounded egos.  Our friends and loved ones intuitively recognize the process, and no great harm is done.

When a person experiences massive amounts of serious failure, however, the situation is very different.  In such cases, the need to distort reality becomes progressively stronger with each new incident, and eventually the person can reach a state where his thought patterns are quite bizarre.  What needs to be recognized is that these thought patterns provide him with the comfort that he cannot achieve through normal successful interaction with his environment.

The reasons for this kind of persistent failure are highly individualized, but generally involve unrealistic expectations, coupled with inadequate training and preparation.  In many cases, there is also a history of abuse.  Transition from adolescence into adulthood is one of the most difficult things any of us ever have to do. Unfortunately, at that age, most of us were reluctant to admit that we were experiencing any difficulty, or to ask for help.  The three major tasks at that period are:  selecting and launching a career, partner selection, and emancipation from parents.  Many people fail disastrously in one or more of these areas.  Some pick themselves up and try again (Option One).  Others withdraw from the field, and subconsciously rationalize this withdrawal by developing an increasingly negative view of the mainstream world.

There is really nothing startling or new in this way of conceptualizing thought distortion.  Most people can recognize this, and can even recount incidents when they themselves responded to a failure in this way.  What is startling, however, is that modern psychiatry never attempts to explore this aspect of distorted thinking.  According to psychiatry, the client thinks in this odd, bizarre fashion because he/she has a brain disease.  Nothing more needs to be explored.  All he/she needs to do is eat some major tranquilizers every day and return to the clinic once a month to be checked for adverse effects.  And psychiatry clings to this notion despite the fact that decades of generously funded and highly motivated research have failed to identify the brain pathology in question.

Some Unusual Beliefs are True

Another explanation for odd beliefs is that they may be true.  At one period in my life I lived in central Appalachia.  One of our neighbors was an elderly farmer.  We shared about a quarter mile of fence at the ridge-line, and often found ourselves working together setting posts and stringing wire.  During these encounters, he would explain to me the difficulties involved in farming in such hilly country.  But the special bane of his existence was a noxious weed called Multiflora Rose.  This is a rather delightful-looking green bush which develops a profusion of soft white flowers in springtime.  Unfortunately – for the farmers – it spreads like fury, and is virtually indestructible.  It is not unusual in parts of Appalachia to see whole pastures taken over by this resilient intruder.  The elderly farmer informed me with a great deal of bitterness that the government was responsible for this plague.  “They brought it here and planted it in our fence lines,” he explained.  At the time, this seemed a little implausible to me, but I later found out that Multiflora Rose was in fact introduced by state governments in Appalachia during World War II.  At that time, steel for barbed wire was scarce, and the agricultural experts hit on the idea of using the resilient plant as a living fence.  Programs were established, and farmers were encouraged financially to plant the rose in their fence lines.  Unfortunately, the experts had grossly underestimated the plant’s ability to spread, and today there are government-funded programs to eradicate the troublesome rose.

What’s interesting about this matter is that had the farmer expressed his belief, that the bushes had been planted by the government, in a mental health clinic, this might well have been considered delusional, and might even have attracted a “diagnosis of schizophrenia”.  Mental health practitioners almost never try to check the truth of bizarre stories they hear from their clients.  And once a psychiatrist hears what appears to be a bizarre or odd belief, his radar goes to full sensitivity, and, primed by the DSM’s simplistic formulas, he begins to “see” other symptoms of the “diagnosis” in question.

In addition, it should be recognized that the validity or otherwise of an unusual belief is not just a matter of factual accuracy.  In my experience, people who express delusions of grandeur are often individuals who have been massively disempowered, first by their families, schools, and peer groups, and subsequently by psychiatry.  Their insistence that they have special powers can, I think, be accurately interpreted as a functional, though awkwardly voiced, refusal to accept this disempowerment.  Similarly, people who express persecutory delusions often have a long history of being victimized, though not necessarily in the ways that they assert.

These individuals may be factually incorrect in many of their specific assertions, but they are not wrong in their general experience and contentions, that the “normal” world can be extremely dehumanizing, exploitative, indifferent, and intolerant.  Very often their delusions, though incoherent and false to the casual listener, constitute a formidable indictment of a society that not only throws away things, but also throws away people.  And they are often people who have experienced the callousness and disregard of others at first hand.


The essential point here is that the thinking which mental health practitioners call delusional is simply an extreme case of a completely normal phenomenon – namely, the ability of human beings to construct thought patterns which serve our needs, and to consistently screen out information which threatens these patterns.

The psychiatric explanation is invalid, but it is also extremely destructive.  Consider the case of a young man who experiences a series of disastrous experiences throughout late adolescence and early adulthood:  acne; ridicule from peers; ethnic discrimination; social gaffes; obesity; not being “cool”; chronic embarrassment; no sexual contacts; academic inadequacies; inability to find a job on leaving school, etc…  Option One (facing the difficulties and doing something about them) becomes extremely difficult – perhaps even impossible.  The tendency to distort reality – to construct a delusional world of his own – is strong.  And that’s what many such young people do.  The delusional system is simply his way of protecting himself from the reality.  His delusional system is not essentially different from the individual cognitive constructs that the rest of us use.  His is only more highly developed.  And it is more highly developed because he had a greater need to screen out the conventional world.  We are all driven inexorably to find joy.  And if we can’t find it in mainstream thoughts and activities, we look for it somewhere else.

If our deluded young man becomes sufficiently disturbing to his family or friends, or to the community at large, he may attract the attention of mental health practitioners.  He will be questioned by psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers, all of whom subscribe to the psychiatric dogma, and he will probably be diagnosed as “schizophrenic”.  The destructive aspect of this process is that he now has an “incurable illness” that purports to explain, not only his present situation, but also his previous experiences, and encourages him to give up any attempt to find a fulfilling and satisfying life-role.  So he can remain an outcast for the rest of his life.  The real problems, his series of painful experiences, failures, emotional distress, and lack of coping skills, are ignored.  No attempt is made to teach him the skills that he lacks, or even allow him to vent about his previous misfortune.  Within the mental health system, he will be given neuroleptic drugs, and assigned a “sick” role.  He will be diligently trained in this role, and will be punished in various ways if he deviates from this role.  The chances that a practitioner will ever set foot inside his home are extremely slim.  No attempt will be made to help him achieve functional independence and fulfillment.  In fact, the accepted wisdom in psychiatric circles is that “schizophrenics” should not be pushed, and expectations should be kept to an absolute minimum.  Not surprisingly, the results are pretty dismal.

* * * * *


Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.


Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.


  1. Thanks for this article, Phil. The astonishing thing is that most psychiatrists are unable to see any relation between the content of people’s delusions and what they have been through. If a brain disease were operating, delusions would be arbitrary, random and meaningless – someone might belief that a bridge had transformed into a cow, or that Pluto were a black hole, or that Barack Obama were born in Kenya.

    But delusions frequently involve replayings of situations in which one is in danger, terrified, and threatened – i.e. being pursued by the FBI, being abducted by aliens, being spoken about negatively by other people. This is a not a brain disease but complex delusional replayings of neglect and trauma. But psychiatrists cannot see that.

    For an alternate view, here is Neville Symington, Australian therapist, talking about how to understand psychotic clients in psychotherapy:

    Also I would refer the reader wanting to learn how to transform or “cure” schizophrenia to these books below, which are accessible to the general reader and worth getting used on Amazon:

    Ira Steinman – Treating the Untreatable, Healing in the Realms of Madness
    Paris Williams – Rethinking Madness
    Murray Jackson – Weathering the Storms
    Vamik Volkan – The Infantile Psychotic Self and Its Fates

    As I’ve noted in earlier comments, about 40-50 long qualitative stories of full recovery or great improvement from severe psychosis are in these books. Meaningful healing of “schizophrenia” is possible; formerly psychotic people can become essentially normal, but it takes a lot of resources and time. This is something that a lot of people have trouble believing. It reminds me of Macchiavelli’s quote, “Mankind do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.”

    Report comment

    • A very good book on delusions is “Suspicious Minds (How Culture Shapes Madness” by Joel Gold and Ian Gold.” Highly readable and engaging, it does an effective job of deconstructing the purely biological “blame the brain” theory of psychosis by detailing the environmental influences on mental illness (child abuse, immigrant status, city dwelling, social victimization such as bullying, discrimination). At the same time, the authors do not ignore evidence that biology plays a role, perhaps through predisposition. Most refreshingly (to me) is their admission of what we do not know —” we still don’t have anything like a theory of mental illness that is good enough even to be wrong.”

      Report comment

  2. The irony here is that psychiatry functions under it’s own delusions. First being that they can make people better by giving them medications that have little or no positive effect on what is being “treated”. They believe they are a legitimate branch of medicine and with the help of pharmaceutical companies most people believe this. They operate on a basis of subjective “diagnosis” that wouldn’t suffice in any other area of medicine and when the issues arise they create another diagnosis or spin the language from “mental health” to “behavioral health”. Over time and certainly currently, their delusions of legitimacy has effected millions of people and become a systemic delusion. The average person convinced that every tear, ever angry feeling, every off colored thought, grief that doesn’t follow a timeline, a child’s tantrum or inability to sit still is certainly a form of pathology.
    It is incredible that this subject is covered in the DSM while those diagnosing it and writing the prescriptions suffer so severely from their own and are blinded to it and not able to be confronted about it.

    Report comment

  3. DSM-5 defines delusions as “…fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in the light of conflicting evidence.”

    So if I am suffering from depression and cognitive based therapy doesn’t work does that mean I am delusional?

    Report comment

  4. Yes, psychiatric claims of delusions are a subjective topic. According to my former psychiatrist I had “odd delusions” that I’d been medically unnecessarily shipped a long distance to VR Kuchipudi, then was massively drugged. According to my medical records, apparently in the hopes VR Kuchipudi and his psychiatric partner in crime Humaira Saiyed could create a “chronic airway obstruction,” so they could perform an unneeded tracheotomy for profit. Funny thing is, VR Kuchipudi was arrested by the FBI seven years later for doing this exact same thing to lots of other patients. Who’s “delusional,” Dr. Teas?

    Thanks as alway, Phillip, for pointing out the spurious nature of the psychiatric belief system.

    Report comment

  5. Yes, people in my have thought my complaints and observations are delusional. Really they are being completely intellectually dishonest, dismissive,denialist and callous minimizers of the impact and nature of many problems that I experience. This life is difficult and if you do not have the hand of cards dealt, the right characteristics,capitol,environment,circumstances etc.., then you are not going to have the sufficient energy and capacity to cope or recover or triumph over different obstacles, at least not at the pace that society finds appropriate. In addition you may have other difficulties that others do not have such as more inefficiency communicating and interacting with others. In my observation these problem compound and incur an ever growing debt on the mind and emotions and burden a person mentally ,emotionally,psychologically and socially in a way that one may not be likely to be able to recover, although some do. For me I see this life as hopeless, unless I were to win the lottery and then go live a secluded life I see no possibility of happiness and feel my whole life has been unfair and a continuous cruel humiliation and it causes me real pain mentally and physically. Though I’d say I agree mostly with this article I might disagree to some extent about the “failure” section, in that many failures that are attributed to people are actually things that the people had little to no control over yet they are still held as failures on the part of the person. The second thing that I disagree with is the notion that it is a failure for a person to live at home. People have been living in extended families for a million years, Only recently in the past 200 years and mostly in the past 100 years due to the Industrial revolution and changes in how society functioned has it become more of a norm for people to leave parents and strike out on their own. For this reason I do not see a person who stays with a parent or parents as something negative.

    Report comment

    • corey,

      I agree. Victimization, exploitation, and sheer rotten luck are all realities of this world, and they all take their toll.

      And I’m not particularly promoting emancipation from parents as a life goal, but merely pointing out that most young people in Western societies adopt this life goal, and feel very disempowered if they don’t make it “on their own”. Obviously remaining with parents is a perfectly viable and time-honored alternative, though it can sometimes be fraught with problems.

      Best wishes.

      Report comment

    • “For this reason I do not see a person who stays with a parent or parents as something negative.”

      Corey, you make a very good point (lots of good points, actually. You are smart, insightful and articulate. Please do not give up. All the best to you.

      Report comment

  6. Dr. Hickey, may I ask you a question?

    You wrote:

    “And it is more highly developed because he had a greater need to screen out the conventional world. We are all driven inexorably to find joy. And if we can’t find it in mainstream thoughts and activities, we look for it somewhere else.”

    Do you think that any “conventional” or “mainstream” opinion is always true and valid? And alternative explanatory frameworks are always false and invalid? I suppose you do not, since you definitely understand that “consensus” views have a tendency to change over time – change because challenged by (non-delusional) non-conformists?

    And you surely understand that your own position, expressed in this blog, are definitely not a “mainstream” one – in fact, in may be described as a “fringe” one, which does not make it automatically wrong or delusional! Unfortunately, it is an orthodox biological psychiatry which is now dominant and in a position to define what is “conventional”…

    Report comment

    • Vortex,

      Thanks for coming in. In writing an article like this one, it is sometimes very difficult to find the right words. Strictly speaking, words like “mainstream” and “conventional” are value-neutral, implying only that the activity in question is widespread. But these words inevitably attract value connotations: conventional is good; unconventional is bad. This is a pity, because often the reverse is true, but it’s probably inevitable, in that values are often defined by a kind of unspoken majority consensus. Of course, conventional views are often not only false, but destructive.

      Report comment

      • I agree, psychiatrists dictating what is ‘delusional,’ merely because one’s concerns are outside the “mainstream” at a particular point in time, is also quite problematic. I was initially declared delusional because I was disgusted by 9.11.2001, and was having frightening dreams it may be the start of a potential WWIII. Now the Internet is filled with 9.11.2001 truthers who theorize 9.11 may have been a false flag operation. Also, it’s filled with people discussing the Bush family’s historic and current war profiteering. And best selling books are now being written about the “harbingers” of 9.11.

        Another initial ‘delusion’ of mine was concern of the abuse of my child. The medical evidence of the abuse was eventually handed over, as well as evidence I was misdiagnosed based upon lies from the alleged child molesters. I was also had handed over the medical evidence my PCP had put me on a bad drug cocktail to cover up her husband’s “bad fix” on a broken bone of mine, and the misdiagnosis of these ADRs was the etiology of my so called “life long, incurable, genetic mental illness.” And books have now been written about the “psychopathic” child abuse cover ups of the formerly Germatic religion that is still covering up the abuse of my child. The Internet conspiracy theorists are writing about the known child abuse / sacrifice habits of the Bohemium Grove friends of the man who allegedly abused my child. Even the Bush family and our local politician, Dennis Hasert’s, potential and apparently actual child abuse hobbies are now being discussed online and are coming to light. It’s now looking like my family was living in an area, and country, controlled by psychopathic child abusers. This is a societal problem, not a “disease” in one person’s brain.

        Another ‘delusion’ of mine was when I internally yelled at Greenspan for spanning the green until it was irrelevant to reality. And there are now millions of people from around the world pointing out our current Federal Reserves’ illogical, and completely fiscally irresponsible, money management tactics during the past several decades.

        It sure does strike me as odd that many of my ‘delusions’ are now concerns of others, that are being talked, and written, about all over the Internet and in the published literature. Just because a person recognizes the potential long run ramifications of current events, prior to the psychiatrists recognizing these problems, should not result in them being declared ‘delusions.’

        And I think it should be pointed out that today’s US psychiatric industry has been given undue power and credibility by the same banking families that financed WWII, and for the same reason. And these powers that be are replaying the financial destruction of Germany, including the defamation and destruction of millions of people with scientifically invalid “mental illnesses,” in the U.S. today. Truly, it seems my initial ‘delusions’ of an improperly controlled and run society, seem to now be the concerns of many.

        Should the uninsightful psychiatrists truly be in charge of declaring all the “insightful” people’s concerns “delusions”? I hope the psychiatric industry wakes up to the true reason their invalid “science” has been given undue credibility and power. At least it strikes me as obvious that having our entire world controlled by the psychopathic bankers and corporations Thomas Jefferson forewarned us of long ago is quite unwise.

        The mere existence of unprovable “mental illnesses” will always be misused and abused by unethical people, thus should be eradicated.

        Report comment

  7. I agree with squash August 20, 2015 at 12:25 pm
    The most dangerous thing about delusional psychiatry is that the psychiatric treatment of drugs and torture can create the diagnosis they first gave the patient. A “positive” feedback loop coming from the fear of madness (in the psychiatrist). The end result is a lobotomized patient.

    Psychiatry is a tool of the machine, the machine of mankind that is consuming the planets fossil resources.
    People enjoy the simple answer of “brain chemical imbalance” that psychiatry supplies ( to the question of “What is mental illness?”).

    “Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.”John Lennon

    Report comment

  8. Hi Philip
    When I’m very taken up with an idea I know I might be off target. It’s only when I can get a distance from it that I can see it clearly. That’s how I vet my ‘thinking’.

    If I didn’t have a strict policy I could have gotten sucked into my own head when I withdrew from “medications” (the fear was overwhelming). The fact that my technique works for me tells me that the ‘problems’ are nothing to do with a chemical imbalance.

    Report comment

  9. DSM-5 defines delusions as “…fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in the light of conflicting evidence.”
    By that every single person on the planet is delusional. With psychiatrists being one of the most delusional people there are.

    Report comment

  10. “So the question arises, why do people with perfectly ordinary and well-functioning brains sometimes cling to false beliefs despite abundant contrary evidence?”

    The phrase ‘cling to’ is what stands out to me in this question. Indeed, we develop thought patterns and beliefs based on our early environments and from the examples and influences around us; but at the same time, change and growth is natural, our brains can be mercurial if we allow them to be, and new thought patterns and beliefs can evolve over time, more aligned with a kind and compassionate truth, rather than as a reaction to childhood trauma. The effects of trauma and can heal, causing a full-on transformation in thought patterns and beliefs.

    But when we are FIXED in our beliefs with no malleability or the ability to listen to reason and allow our thoughts to move forward, then we put ourselves at risk of falling into a delusional state, simply from not being reasonable and digging in one’s heals. It’s the lack of reasonability and flexibility in thinking that would get my attention. That only serves to create further mental and physical stress while embedding internal conflicts and delusional thinking.

    Report comment

  11. …”Transition from adolescence into adulthood is one of the most difficult things any of us ever have to do. Unfortunately, at that age, most of us were reluctant to admit that we were experiencing any difficulty, or to ask for help. The three major tasks at that period are: selecting and launching a career, partner selection, and emancipation from parents. Many people fail disastrously in one or more of these areas.”…
    …”Consider the case of a young man who experiences a series of disastrous experiences throughout late adolescence and early adulthood: acne; ridicule from peers; ethnic discrimination; social gaffes; obesity; not being “cool”; chronic embarrassment; no sexual contacts; academic inadequacies; inability to find a job on leaving school, etc…”

    Yes, I think in addition to what you further, superbly stated regarding the above, these failed tasks and experiences may well lead to an existential crisis, a “nervous breakdown,” and/or symptoms of “schizophrenia.”

    Report comment

    This is a communication I sent into the NHS on Friday. The complaints lady was quite pleasant. There’s nothing very personal here – but the Cost Saving is realistic.

    Dear Ms xxx

    Please find attached my signed consent form (I hope it’s okay).

    Thanks for talking to me earlier. I’m sorry if I was a bit technical.


    My name was placed on this register without my consent or knowledge and physical tests were carried out with me without my informed consent.

    My main work is in construction.
    I think there’s a big difference between a longterm mentally disabled person and someone that can work consistently on building sites. Today, if I was to have an accident in the workplace I mightn’t be insured.

    I’ve been told my name has been removed from the ‘Register’ (but problems remain).

    I stopped strong drugs in 1984 in Ireland. My recovery was due to careful drug tapering and psychotherapy.

    I did attend a Day Facility for 2 weeks psychotherapy about 25 years ago; and theres a repeat prescription of 25mg/day Quietiapine in place (Quietiapine is non therapeutic at this level).

    I have suffered from psychotropic withdrawal syndrome – but it didn’t disable me. I’ve been functioning for my period of time in the uk.

    I would like to record my 29 year Recovery in the UK with my own Professionals and enter this account onto my records. I would ask for funding from the NHS for this.

    If I had been Severely mentally Ill for 29 years in the UK I might have cost millions. I’m a net UK taxpayer.

    I asked Dr xxx at xxxxx Medical on June xx, 2015 about funding for this purpose (and I have attempted to contact him since) but I haven’t heard anything back.

    I hope I’ve got the main points in here.

    Please acknowledge this email.

    Yours Sincerely


    Report comment

  13. Thanks for writing this. Delusions are hard to discuss because they create fear. There are has been such a great disconnect with survivors of delusional thinking, those trapped in the system, and the professionals. No one is talking to each other.
    There are in reality two types of delusions safe ones and not safe ones. Both create fear for those not aware of all the reasons for nonrational thinking this includes the docs and especially those working on psych units. I had no idea when I was a professional what to do, what to say.
    Now I know.
    The hard part of nonrational thinking is that it is circumspect and floats in your mind like islands. One is aware but one is afraid, and literally there is no safe place to talk and figure out what is going on. Meds, hospitalization, and seeing the abject fear in supposedly professional people are trauma in and of itself.
    I have come to the belief that the only and the best way to handle nonrational thinking that is b othersome to one or others around you is peer services. That is the only way. Nothing else except being drugged out of your sense of self.
    A peer respite center with access to meds for short term use would be so helpful.
    I think sharing stories is also the important though for me it is still scary. Coming out is still bothersome in society. Still a catch 22 literally and figuratively!

    Report comment

  14. Philip Hickey writes very good articles, insightful and Always easily understood analogies.
    And it’s comforting, to some degree, for me to make my own ‘analogy’.

    “I have eaten Paxil for 15 years or more, it has produced some certain behaviours not seen earlier in my Life. GSK invented and produces Paxil. GSK has also informed the World of what behaviours can be associated with taking Paxil. Since GSK knows alot about Paxil, the general consencus is whatever GSK says is true.


    My delusion that there is a causal link between Paxil and my behaviour can therefor be used by my psychiatrist to put yet Another diagnose on me, wich would be true, until enough people start to question GSK.
    That is not likely to happen.”

    I guess I better laugh at my own predicament.

    Report comment