TED Betrays Its Own Brand By Flagging Nutrition Talk

MIA Editors
39
4222

In 2014, Julia Rucklidge—who together with Bonnie Kaplan has blogged on Mad in America about their research on micronutrients—gave a talk at a TEDx event in Christchurch, New Zealand. Her presentation, which was titled “The Surprisingly Dramatic Role of Nutrition in Mental Health,” discussed the scientific evidence regarding micronutrients as a factor in mental health and their possible use as a treatment for ADHD and other psychiatric conditions.

As her MIA bio notes, Rucklidge is a Professor of Clinical Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Originally from Toronto, she did her training in neurobiology (McGill) and clinical psychology (University of Calgary). All told, Rucklidge and her team at Canterbury University have published over 20 papers in medical journals related to the efficacy of nutrients for mental health problems.

Her TED talk proved to be quite popular. It has been viewed over 900,000 times, received more than 14,000 likes, and over 1,100 comments.

However—and this came out of the blue—TED recently flagged Dr. Rucklidge’s talk with the following message:

NOTE FROM TED: We’ve flagged this talk, which was filmed at a TEDx event, because it appears to fall outside TEDx’s curatorial guidelines. There is limited evidence to support the claims made by this speaker. Please do not look to this talk for medical advice.”

The curatorial guideline that seems to be at issue here is Guideline 4, Only Good Science, which states:

Science is a big part of the TED universe, and it’s important that TEDx organizers sustain our reputation as a credible forum for sharing ideas that matter. It’s not always easy to distinguish between real science and pseudoscience, and purveyors of false wisdom typically share their theories with as much sincerity and earnestness as legitimate researchers. Indeed, the more willing a speaker is to abandon scientific underpinning, the easier it is for them to make attention-grabbing claims. So beware being seduced by “wow.” We want talks to be interesting. But before that, they must be credible. Here are some things to look for — and to avoid.

Claims made using scientific language should:

Be testable experimentally.

Have been published in a peer-reviewed journal (beware… there are some dodgy journals out there that seem credible, but aren’t. For further reading, here’s an article on the topic.)

Be based on theories that are also considered credible by experts in the field.

Be backed up by experiments that have generated enough data to convince other experts of its legitimacy.

Have proponents who are secure enough to acknowledge areas of doubt and need for further investigation.

Not fly in the face of the broad existing body of scientific knowledge.

Be presented by a speaker who works for a university and/or has a PhD or other bona fide high level scientific qualification.

Show clear respect for the scientific method and scientific thinking generally.

During her talk, Rucklidge references many studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, that have led to her conclusions about the importance of nutrition in mental health. She also told of her own randomized, placebo-controlled trial on micronutrients as a treatment for ADHD in adults, which was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, April 2014.

So why did TED suddenly decide, four years after Rucklidge gave her talk, to flag it as falling “outside TEDx’s curatorial guidelines?” And why did it do so when her talk—a review of published science, by a researcher who has conducted placebo-controlled studies on this topic—obviously met TED guidelines?

While we don’t know the answer, our guess is that there must have been a complaint made to TED by some powerful group or institution that doesn’t like the idea that micronutrients are proving, in clinical studies, to be useful as a treatment for ADHD and other psychiatric disorders. Perhaps by Pharma, but more likely, in our opinion, by psychiatric researchers who like to tout the wonders of stimulants for ADHD.

What is so shameful about this incident for TED is that their talks are supposed to be about innovation and investigating new ways to solve problems and difficulties in our lives. Rucklidge’s presentation was such a talk, and yet TED apparently caved into some sort of outside pressure to flag it. That is what hurts. TED betrayed its own values, and we write this as admirers of TED talks. We are fans of their usual presentations of ideas, politics, and scientific discoveries.

Readers of this editorial can watch Rucklidge’s talk here, and judge for themselves its merits, and whether it met TEDx’s guidelines for a scientific presentation.

As a final postscript, we would like to point to this TED talk by Nikki Webber Allen, in which she says the following about depression:

Now, my way of dealing with adversity is to face it head on, so I spent the next two years researching depression and anxiety, and what I found was mind-blowing. The World Health Organization reports that depression is the leading cause of sickness and disability in the world. While the exact cause of depression isn’t clear, research suggests that most mental disorders develop, at least in part, because of a chemical imbalance in the brain, and/or an underlying genetic predisposition. So you can’t just shake it off.

The low-serotonin theory of depression is a hypothesis that has long been put to rest in scientific circles. The hypothesis didn’t pan out. So why is TED allowing this myth to be presented here as scientific fact?

39 COMMENTS

  1. One of TED’s talks that needs to be flagged or better yet, completely removed, is Sherwin Nuland’s talk on ECT that has very likely influenced thousands of ppl to sign up for brain damage as treatment. i wrote to TED about this issue- they refused to add any kind of warnings or cautions to the talk.

  2. Panning nutritional advice while promoting shock treatment (brain trauma) once again the ugly drug cartel within the mental health movement rears it’s head. I wouldn’t expect anything more (or less) from academia and the ascendant professional caste it caters to, really. The science is biased, and the researchers are puppets of capital. Soma, SSRI antidepressant, use is above 10 % overall and climbing. Melancholia itself is expected to distance heart disease as the number one “cause” of government disability payments in the world. Apparently folly is as popular as it ever was, sometimes flagged as “mental illness”, and sometimes doing the flagging.

  3. In its guidelines, TED blithely mixes authority arguments and scientific arguments. However, those two types of arguments are incompatible, if the argument of authority can have any value.

    Personally, I find that TED conferences are shows. I prefer to read, which allows me to think in peace, and to check the sources. There is so much bullshit in “science” that the work of criticism is a thousand times more important than the work of “discovery”.

  4. There is limited evidence to support the claims made by this speaker. Please do not look to this talk for medical advice

    I find it weird that MIA editors as a group would a) be talking about “mental disorders” at all, especially without quotation marks; and b) taking a position that the above statement by TED is wrong.

    Not questioning that the TED guidelines for what is to be considered legitimate science may be inconsistent in general. But these authors’ beliefs have been repeatedly challenged on MIA as well, so again I’m wondering why MIA seems to be taking an official stand as to the validity of their statements. I may be mistaken, but I can’t remember MIA taking a group position on anything before, not even on opposing the Murphy bill.

  5. What is so troubling about this, is that symptoms caused by vitamin deficiencies are being fraudulently positioned as if they CAUSE, and/or ARE ‘mental illness/mental health” problems.
    The lies never end, they simply shape-shift to avoid losing money, power and control of how people -misunderstand- what is ailing them and agree to hand the power of their lives over to people in white coats to run.
    Anyone with a lick of logic should be able to discern that a vitamin deficiency, is simply a vitamin deficiency and the normal, expected, well documented symptoms of which, are eliminated by replacing missing vital nutrients.

    THE NEW & IMPROVED ‘CHEMICAL IMBALANCE MYTH’ – VITAMIN DEFICIENCIES CAUSE & ARE ‘MENTAL ILLNESS’S
    As more people become aware that the ‘CI’ myth is a scam, stop using drugs and start to self care with nutrition the “mental health” whores jumped on board the nutritional bandwagon and are controlling the changing discourse with the re-emergence/development of Nutritional Psychiatry. 
    The new fraud is that vitamin deficiencies not only cause, but in fact ARE “mental illness’s.”
    Part of the fall out of the misuse of the biological medical model, is the false severing of symptoms that are erroneously categorized as being “mental/emotional” vrs physical. Yet the normal, predicable, well documented sequalea of countless diseases includes symptoms of depression, anxiety, sleeplessness etc. Symptoms are not diseases in and of themselves, but part and parcel of how a disease, such as thyroid for example, is expressed in the human organism.

    ‘Mental illness” and its evil twin, “mental health” are merely social constructs. There are not 2 kinds of health’s functioning independently in the same body. There is only one health, human health.
    Vitamin deficiencies are not now and never were and never will be, brain diseases called “mental illness.” As such, if the speaker was telling the truth, she would state that the symptoms currently labeled and misdiagnosed as “MI” are vitamin deficiencies, eliminated by replacing critical missing nutrients.
    “Nutritional Psychiatry”
    1) is replacing the tarnished “chemical imbalance myth” with the new and improved “micro-nutrient deficiency” myth
    2) is fighting to remain in control of the public attempts to protect their health using diet and lifestyle changes
    The fraud is con-vincing the public, that lack of nutrients, are in fact “mental illness’s” and they need to pay a shrink to manage their nutritional intake, so they don’t relapse.
    Over the 2 years I have been following this tragedy, almost every single person unwittingly agreed to have their vitamin deficiency be misdiagnosed as a “mental illness” curable with vitamins.
    3) How are people so gullible that they are willing to believe anything- even something this ridiculous- just because someone wearing a white coat said it? ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM: Argument from authority (or appeal to authority) – where something is purported to be true, simply because a knowledgeable and well-reputed person has said it.
    4) By simply twisting the symptoms of malnutrition into “mental illness” the industry continues laughing all the way to the bank having gained new customers for life, using vitamins to address their imaginary brain diseases instead of neurotoxic drugs.
    Evil- yes, but enormously rich and still in total control of the masses.
    ©JMGayton 6/10/2018 MH, AB, CA.

    • By simply twisting the symptoms of malnutrition into “mental illness” the industry continues laughing all the way to the bank having gained new customers for life, using vitamins to address their imaginary brain diseases instead of neurotoxic drugs.

      Interesting twist, the idea of nutritional deficiencies replacing hypotheses of “chemical imbalances,” never really thought of it that way. Obviously you’ve been thinking about it for awhile. (Though I don’t know if Pharma would just roll over and accept this unless they could exponentially raise vitamin prices and secure exclusive production rights.)

    • judi – There is one vitamin which is vital in the synthesis of gamma-Aminobutyric acid, acting as a cofactor to glutamate decarboxylase thereby converting glutamate to GABA and clearly stated in the biology literature. This is the active form of B6 pyridoxal 5 phosphate. (P5P) My view is that Long Term Potentiation is actually key because it is widely thought to be the biological basis for learning and memory (memory of abuse in this area) and specifically the NMDA and AMPA receptor functioning (both are glutamate receptors) and also multi-tasking for the transmission of the major excitatory neurotransmitter (glutamate) and pain. The importance of magnesium (mineral) to regulate – block the NMDA dependent on voltage by the AMPA receptor – it seems has yet to be fully acknowledged in this area. And yes, before I’m reminded zinc is also involved in this.

      • To put it more simply glutamate and GABA are not independent of each other, one is synthesized from the other with a vitamin (B6 active form) required. Therefore without that vitamin you will have a ‘chemical imbalance’ because glutamate will not be converted to GABA.

        I’m running for cover now.

    • Anemia makes me tend toward depression. Vitamin deficiencies can screw up our thinking. So ruling those out is a good idea. Doctors prefer selling Prozac or Zoloft to checking your thyroid or iron levels. And the crap depletes our bodies of good stuff even more.

      No, I’m not saying all bizarre mental states, uhappiness or social problems stem from vitamin/mineral deficiencies. But we do need stuff like iron, vitamin B12, and magnesium. These occur naturally in our bodies, unlike lithium, haldol, or ritallin. And taking a kid off refined sugar won’t kill him/her.

  6. The fact that four years went by before the flagging is telling. This is what happened to me regarding a speaking engagement I had already booked. I was accepted to speak at the NEDA/BEDA conference. This is a ritzy conference that was held in New York last November. I was accepted and told to sign up. I bought train tix to New York and booked a room. Months passed. One day, out of the blue, the BEDA chair wrote to me and said they were canceling me because they’d “heard about me.” They claimed I “wasn’t recovered” and that I would “trigger people at the conference.”

    Not exactly. I might inspire people at the conference to avoid ED treatment centers, to start up their own self-help groups, to trust their own body intuition, to end doctor dependence, and to do sensible drug tapers…but of course NEDA/BEDA is sponsored by treatment centers and drug companies. Again, I was thoroughly approved. I had a great idea for the presentation and I have presented before. They didn’t tell me the source of the flagging.

    I was hoping to apply to do a TED Talk. They can’t argue against real personal experience and real achievement. I want to do a TED Talk because I do well in front of audiences, because I tell an entertaining and engaging story, and because I know I can reach more people that way. I looked into motivational speaking but I find it’s very hard to get speaking engagements ordinarily. I have tried contacting my alma maters, where I paid tuition and did amazing academic work, and they have stated they don’t want me speaking there, given lame excuses, or they just don’t write back. I am thinking of starting in the high schools instead.

    BTW, would appreciate support from anyone out there. If you have connections, can you get me a speaking engagement? Willing to travel.

    • TV also plays a role. I have taught a number of Amish kids as a sub. (The Amish are a religious group in America that reject most technology that wasn’t around before the 20th century.) These kids have better attention spans than many adults. Limiting kids’ TV intake would “cure” short attention spans. Read The Plug-In Drug.

      • Brill. And you have to add: devices.

        The attention span has gotten shorter because the devices interrupt every facet of daily life, and a thought can’t get to the end before “bing!” someone likes your post on Facebook or some such rot.

        It’s the Economy of Attention, and in breaking up attention with devices, the Powers that Be can easily prevent a revolution.

        • Please do not confuse generalize over “devices.” Not all devices are evil. There are devices that help quadriplegics get in and out of bed. Reading devices help people read books (such as Anatomy of an Epidemic, which might save them from psych drugs!). As for “screen time,” not all screen time is evil and horrible as the media now insists. “Social media” is not the same as just looking at a screen. Before my cataract surgery, the only way I could read and write, which was how I educated myself and learned about the history of our movement and read about world and local news, was by using the screen and reading off of it. I do not own a TV, microwave, stove, nor dishwasher nor clothes washer nor dryer. I am not on Facebook, and I feel that reading and writing via computer, the only way I can access text, is very different from gossip and bulling others via Facebook-like applications. I hate watching videos via YouTube and I do not listen to audiobooks as I don’t have the patience for them. Text reading is much faster. Text reading is a great way to actively use your brain, as is writing.

          Because I am computer savvy I was FINALLY able to secure a job after being jobless for decades. I had been putting in up to ten applications a week for a couple of years, and had almost given up hope.

          • Agreed – and while yes, technology is vital in our society – the algorithms are designed to interrupt – if you let them (and they are sneaky that way, and children have no protection against them).

          • Oh yes, you have to say, “No notifications.” Once you figure that out your phone conversations aren’t constantly interrupted. I do have a cell phone and the main reason is bus prediction. I am car-free, and have been for 30 years. Oddly, people have criticized me for this decision, saying that it is limiting and causes dependency, but actually, it frees me up. I refuse all rides from people and insist on taking the bus. I’ve had “dates” who were insulted by my self-sufficiency! Honestly, my idea of “date” does not include “You depend on your man for every little thing.” That sounds like the road to abuse or manipulation or just plain bad relationship as far as I am concerned. So I take the bus and get by on my own.

  7. This is in reply to Oldhead and others questioning why we wrote this MIA Editors post.

    We were originally going to simply put up an Around the Web about this flagging of Julia’s talk. But then I thought it deserved more attention for this reason: It is yet another example of how challenges to the conventional narrative in psychiatry are shut down, or at least flagged as suspicious, in more general media forums.

    That is a theme that I have often written about, and in some ways is central to what I have written about in Mad in America, Anatomy of an Epidemic, and in Psychiatry Under the Influence (the last book co-authored with Lisa Cosgrove.) The powers that be-pharma, and psychiatry as an institution-have sold a false narrative to the public for at least the last 35 years, and one of the key ways they have defended that narrative is to delegitimize critics in the eyes of the conventional media (and TED talks is part of that conventional media.) The powers that be wrap themselves in the cloak of science, and they present those who would criticize their narrative, or challenge it in some way, as “flat-earthers,” and so forth.

    Given that enduring interest of mine, in how the media is manipulated, I thought it would be good, in the manner of news, to feature this flagging of Julia’s TED talk. It was news of a form of censorship.

    I decided that it would be best to have the “author” of this blog be MIA editors for two reasons.

    First, it was James Moore, who runs our MIA Radio Podcasts and is now contributing to our editorial content in various ways, who first noticed this and prepared an Around the Web. I then just added a bit of content to turn it into a blog post. So it was in fact a collaborative “authorship.”

    Second, TED’s flagging of Julia’s talk also represents an arrow that could be said to be directed at MIA too. Julia writes for us within a very particular context: She writes as a researcher who has done studies on the use of micronutrients as treatments for diagnoses that exist within the DSM, and on nutrition in general as it may contribute to mental wellness. And our point, in writing this post, is that Julia’s presentations — whether it be for a TED talk or for us — follow good scientific protocols. She tells of her study designs, and she accurately reports what other studies have found. And since her blogs are posted by MIA editors, the most appropriate authorship for this post was in fact MIA editors. We were defending the way Julia Rucklidge writes about these matters for MIA as well.

    Now, this post by MIA editors is different than writing an “editorial,” which would express an organizational opinion on some matter or another. We didn’t run an MIA editorial regarding the Murphy bill for the simple reason there was no need for us to do so, and in fact, in my opinion, doing so would have just served as a bit of a distraction. We have numerous very able writers, who are active in the trenches of advocacy work and peer-centered work, who wrote on MIA about their objections to the Murphy bill. Our proper role in that political effort was to provide a forum for their voices and for their arguments. Their voices needed to be front and center (and heard), and not ours as an editorial team.

    Two more points in response to the comments here.

    First, as an organization, we do not embrace any alternative therapies — such as micronutrient therapy — as a preferred form of care. We want to provide a forum for scientific reports about such therapies, and a forum for researchers and others to write about alternative therapies in blogs. But our editorial position — and this comes first and foremost from me — is very simple: While I am quite sure that our current paradigm of psychiatric care has failed, the task of creating a new narrative of mental health is one that must be taken up collectively. Our job is to help foster that collective discussion, but we, as an organization, do not have the “answers” that tell of what should be done.

    Second, regarding the use of quotations around psychiatric diagnoses, we have run plenty of blogs questioning the validity of DSM diagnoses. Lisa Cosgrove and I wrote about this at some length in Psychiatry Under the Influence. And when bloggers for MIA write posts about questioning those diagnoses, they may put quotations around the particular diagnosis.

    However, in blogs that are talking about research related to a particular diagnosis that exists in the DSM, it would be a self-serving distraction to put the diagnosis in quotes. Doing so would suddenly direct the readers’ attention to the questioning of the diagnosis, as opposed to keeping it focused on what can we learn about a therapy for people so diagnosed. I want MIA to have a voice, or an impact, within that larger societal discussion, and if we decide that we can’t even enter the world of that conventional narrative, with its DSM constructs, without always putting quotes around such words to remind readers that they are indeed constructs, as opposed to validated diseases, then we might as well shut down, for it would be signaling that only people with a certain belief are welcome here.

    • “one of the key ways they have defended that narrative is to delegitimize critics in the eyes of the conventional media…”

      This is exactly what was done to Karl Kraus, and later, to Thomas Szasz. Kraus called the technique Totschweigetaktik, the “silent treatment.” And it is exactly what is done to psychiatric survivors and opponents of psychiatry today, even in forums that are ostensibly “critical” of psychiatry.

      https://psychiatricsurvivors.wordpress.com/2018/01/04/anti-freud-karl-krauss-criticism-of-psychoanalysis-and-psychiatry/

    • Bob — I think many of your arguments could be equally applied to many other viewpoints expressed on MIA which are equally justifiable scientifically to the authors’ articles on nutrition. (Though any research on “mental illness” is inherently unscientific and invalid due to the starting assumption that such a thing does or can exist.) Much of what appears on MIA would be suppressed by the corporate media, why treat the hypotheses of these particular authors as where MIA draws the line? Again, the issue is not the accuracy of the correlations made between health and nutrition, but framing this within the illusionary context of “mental health.” But back to my point — most deconstructions of psychiatric mythology are never even given the sort of initial publicity that TED gave these authors, and never even make it to the point of being rescinded. So in that light they are privileged compared to many others. TED did, after all, spell their names right.

      I’m not losing any sleep over this, I was just pointing out what struck me as an inconsistency, or at least a precedent. Still I think the overall message, at least to those who don’t thoroughly read the discussion and examine it for nuance, is that MIA endorses these particular authors and is taking a united stand in their support.

      Your “two more points” actually are of more concern to me, both logically and “tactically” speaking:

      While I am quite sure that our current paradigm of psychiatric care has failed, the task of creating a new narrative of mental health is one that must be taken up collectively.

      I’m sure I’m not the only one to see the inherent contradiction here. I would never even question your sincerity or the positive spirit of what you’re saying. But many people who value MIA don’t want to “create a new narrative of mental health,” simply because they wish to expose, oppose, abolish and/or transcend the “narrative of mental health.” Others simply want to be left alone or supported in their efforts to physically recover from psychiatric assault. Are these people still considered part of the MIA collective or coalition?

      if we decide that we can’t even enter the world of that conventional narrative, with its DSM constructs, without always putting quotes around such words to remind readers that they are indeed constructs, as opposed to validated diseases, then we might as well shut down, for it would be signaling that only people with a certain belief are welcome here.

      This is an example of why, with all due affection, I consider you a far better researcher than strategist. 🙂

      First I think you underestimate your organizational gravitas, which is based not on numbers but on authenticity. This will no doubt grow as, although this will hopefully be changing, there are currently few alternatives to the sorts of functions you serve here, combined with a growing need and growing public consciousness.

      Are there seriously forums that MIA values which would literally toss you out for always using quotes? If so you could use that as a “teaching moment” on the invalidity of the “medical model” and also educate people as to existing critiques of medicalization in general (even if you ended up using the quotes to avoid expulsion). But that seems extreme. More likely MIA’s use of quotes as a matter of policy would not be challenged, and would help people internalize the rejection of psychiatric terminology by making it implicit in the way such discussions are framed. That is, assuming that MIA does not consider it extreme to point out the logical, scientific or linguistic bankruptcy of psychiatric terminology.

      Keep in mind that the flat earth theory also once reigned, and the ones remembered by history are those “extremists” who challenged the “beliefs” of the mob. Thanks for responding.

      • Good points oldhead. MIA has the opportunity to be or to become the Copernicus, so to speak, or the Semmelweis, of the current era. When future generations look back toward the time in which we now live, they will wonder what was done to expose the truth about psychiatry, and to liberate the captives from psychiatric slavery. They will wonder why it took so long for psychiatry to be abolished, just like we now wonder why it took so long, and why it took a Civil War, for chattel slavery to be abolished. They will also wonder why so few had the courage to stand up against the therapeutic state. The choice is ours.

    • R Whitaker, if you read my comment, and perhaps you did not, I was also targeted as a speaker. I was removed as a speaker from a high-powered conference after I’d been accepted to that conference. I qualified, yet someone “flagged” me. Their excuse for removing me as a speaker was that I was “not recovered” and that I’d “trigger” the attendees, assumedly due to my supposed stick thinness, which I am no longer, thank goodness. I am sure it was total bullshit. They didn’t want the likes of someone there who was going to question the psych slavery narrative.

      BTW, my blog, which I have kept 13 years now (and blog daily, anti-psych all the way), has been flagged numerous times, toolbar put on (basically hacked), and I have also had online bully commentary, including bullies that appeared to knock down my self-esteem, accuse me of being “severe borderline,” narcissist, and psychopath. Swear words used, etc. Links to porn sites even. I believe the bullies are hired and I can only guess who hired them. I sent some of the commentary to other activists who agreed the bullies were hired, and said that since I’m an adult, little can be done, and it’s barely possible to trace them.

  8. oldhead wrote: “Others simply want to be left alone or supported in their efforts to physically recover from psychiatric assault.”

    I love this sentence so much and I think I’ve figured out why. It affirms a person’s right to be left alone if that’s what they want. Also, I do feel tremendously supported by this site. That being said, I AM interested in “creating a new narrative of mental health,” although I’d say it more like “I want to keep others from having to go through the same b*llsh*t I did for too many years.” Uh, yeah, I guess Robert phrased it better.

    I am wondering how many MIA contributors have had the opportunity to do a TED talk. I look forward to the day when Robert Whitaker presents his science-based results at such a talk (forgive me if you already did – I couldn’t find it), if he desires to do so.

    Oh, and quotes truly are my friend now that I understand the true nature of “psychiatry” to be something utterly different than I used to believe.

    • The point I was making is that the needed changes include adopting a “narrative” or analysis that redefines what is currently known as “mental health” in other terms, as the “mind” is not an organ and can be neither healthy nor ill. “Mental health” is regarded by some as a figure of speech and no more, but too many others interpret it literally — and this confusion is deliberately exploited. So we need to get beyond that paradigm and stop treating people’s reactions to objective social and economic conditions as health issues. Before any problem can be solved it needs to be accurately identified.

  9. Mad In America does have numbers and readers from all over the globe.

    One as mental health recovery movement big issue in modern world.

    Secondly this website is actually a real media outlet. There aren’t many of those now so some people read just for the realistic debate of issues.

    On the other side of token the commenters do not run the gambit amongst individuals impacted by mental health issues, but they do read.

    I figured since people across all walks of life do read I’d be one of the few recovery commenters with alternate perspective. I think of myself as a different and more equipped counter culture.

  10. TED is like other human institutions. No matter how or why founded, if reasonably successful its chief aim comes to be maintaining its existence and status, including the positions and perks of its staff. When matters of knowledge or science are concerned, the staff is rarely competent to judge.