Psychiatry has historically promoted dogma—not science—and dogma tends to be boring for freethinkers who can smell its odor even before they can deconstruct it.
The challenge then is this: How can psychiatry be examined in a novel way that might intrigue freethinkers and critical thinkers of science, philosophy, politics, and history who would not ordinarily read a book about psychiatry because they are turned off by dogma? A fresh approach to examining psychiatry’s crisis of failure that I thought might interest them is utilizing the philosopher Baruch de Spinoza along with historian Jonathan Israel’s distinction between moderate and radical Enlightenment thinkers.
Today, even some key members of establishment psychiatry acknowledge three areas of failure of their profession: (1) worsening treatment outcomes despite increased treatment; (2) the invalidity of its DSM diagnostic system; and (3) the invalidity of psychiatry’s chemical imbalance theory of mental illness.
Unacknowledged by establishment psychiatry but reported even in the mainstream media is Big Pharma’s corruption of psychiatric research and treatment, and how this creates widespread conflicts of interest.
Unacknowledged by both psychiatry and the mainstream media is how virtually all of psychiatry’s policies and practices —not simply its treatments, diagnoses, and illness theories—are doing more harm than good on both an individual and societal level. In A Profession Without Reason (2022), I discuss several of psychiatry’s harmful policies and practices—including its “disease like any other” anti-stigma campaign which actually increases stigma; its “caring coercion” forced treatments which result in resentment and rage; and its individual-defect theories of mental illness that serve as diversions from socio-economic-political sources of suffering.
Among psychiatrists, there are those who are completely clueless, in denial, or dishonest about psychiatry’s record of failure. They repeatedly tell us that psychiatry is a young science that has made great progress. Promulgating the myth of progress is the historic role of the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the guild of American psychiatrists. One of many examples is psychiatrist Paul Summergrad, who during his APA presidency (2014-2015) began a talk with the following: “We have made great improvements in many areas of psychiatric care in recent years, but there is still a lot of room for improvement in our country’s mental health system,” and he then tells us that the problem is not enough access to psychiatric treatment.
Not all psychiatrists are completely clueless, in denial, or dishonest. Among those who are not completely unenlightened there are two groups: the moderately enlightened, and the far smaller radically enlightened. The moderately enlightened acknowledge some of psychiatry’s failures but, in common with the unenlightened, desperately attempt to preserve the institution of psychiatry. In contrast, the radically enlightened care only about the truth, and have no attachment to institution preservation.
The Moderately and Radically Enlightened in the Enlightenment
In Spinoza’s era, 350 years ago, ruling religious and state institutions fought against science, freedom, and other human rights, and this resulted in a rebellion that we now term the Enlightenment. What intrigued me—and I hoped would interest others—is that among Enlightenment thinkers, there was a clash between the moderately and the radically enlightened, and today this same clash exists with respect to psychiatry.
In Radical Enlightenment (2001), historian Jonathan Israel explains this distinction between moderate versus radical Enlightenment thinkers. While the term radical can be used in many ways, for both Israel and myself, radical means a complete break with past tradition, including the dissolution of control by powerful societal institutions; and moderate refers to criticism and reform but no complete break from past traditions.
While all of the original Enlightenment thinkers embraced reason and science, and strove for greater tolerance, freedom and an improved society, moderate Enlightenment thinkers aimed to accomplish this, Israel observes, “in such a way as to preserve and safeguard what were judged essential elements of the older structures.” In contrast, radical Enlightenment thinkers such as Spinoza, Israel tell us, “rejected all compromises with the past,” denying the Judeo-Christian view of God, miracles, afterlife rewards or punishments; and they scorned theologians’ God-ordained hierarchies that sanctioned monarchies.
During Spinoza’s seventeenth century, much of society—including virtually all ecclesiastic authorities, most civil authorities, and much of the public—was unenlightened; they sought to maintain the status quo of faith in traditional authorities, and they rejected freethinking, religious tolerance, and democracy. Moderately enlightened thinkers saw value in science and tolerance, but they sought to limit the Enlightenment so as not to pose a threat to ecclesiastic and state institutions. The radical Enlightenment was an underground movement that included Spinoza and his friends—and which threatened institutions holding power.
This contrast between moderate and radical has persisted throughout history. In the 1850s in the United States, with regard to the institution of slavery, if one was moderately enlightened, one was troubled by slavery and opposed its spread to new states but did not call for the abolition of slavery. In contrast, if one was radically enlightened, one fought for the immediate abolition of slavery—this advocated by the “Radical Republicans.”
Today, we see a moderate-radical contrast with regard to psychiatry.
Psychiatry’s Moderately Enlightened
Many psychiatrists, including some key members of establishment psychiatry, are not completely clueless, in denial, or dishonest about psychiatry’s record of failure with respect to (1) worsening treatment outcomes despite increased treatment; (2) the invalidity of its DSM diagnostic system; and (3) the invalidity of psychiatry’s chemical imbalance theory of mental illness.
In A Profession Without Reason, an example of a moderately enlightened psychiatrist I offer is Thomas Insel, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) director from 2002-2015. Disappointingly, in his recently published book Healing (2022), Insel omits some of his previous acknowledgments of psychiatry’s failures that I had given him credit for, and he offers illogical rationalizations for other failures.
While Insel remains consistent in his acknowledgement of psychiatry’s record of “abysmal” treatment outcomes, his rationalizations for it in Healing are illogical, unscientific, and thus pre-Enlightenment thinking. As I detail in my review of Healing (“Former NIMH Director’s New Book: Why, With More Treatment, Have Suicides and Mental Distress Increased?“), while Insel continues to acknowledge that treatment outcomes are worsening despite increasing numbers of people in treatment, at the same time, he proclaims that modern psychiatric treatments are very effective.
The invalidity of psychiatry’s chemical imbalance theory of mental illness has increasingly been acknowledged by the moderately enlightened members of Establishment psychiatry—including Insel. In 2011, establishment psychiatrist Ronald Pies, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, stated: “In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend—never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.” In Healing, Insel acknowledged the jettisoning of the chemical imbalance theory, stating: “The idea of mental illness as a ‘chemical imbalance’ has now given way to mental illnesses as ‘connectional’ or brain circuit disorders.”
With respect to this “brain circuit disorder” theory, there is as little evidence for this new biological-defect theory as there was for the now discarded chemical imbalance theory. However, crucial to psychiatry’s usefulness for the ruling class—which values any explanation for emotional suffering that does not include an increasingly alienating and dehumanizing society—is some kind of “individual-defect theory of mental illness.” Thus, moderate institutional preservationists such as Insel know that if they cannot provide such an individual-defect theory—be it chemical-imbalance defects, brain-circuit defects, or some kind of genetic defects—the ruling class will turn to some other profession who will provide a diversion from the socio-economic-political causes, perhaps providing more power to clergy.
With respect to the invalidity of the DSM, Insel (unlike the APA) evidenced enlightenment when, as NIMH director in 2013, he stated that the DSM’s diagnostic categories lack validity and announced that “NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.” In his 2022 Healing, Insel states: “The DSM had created a common language, but much of that language had not been validated by science.” In plain language, Insel is calling it bullshit.
As NIMH director, Insel pushed for replacing the DSM with something called RDoC, upsetting the APA who publishes the DSM (which is the major money maker for the APA). Even though Insel has declared the DSM to be invalid and unscientific, the DSM continues to be used by psychiatry for patient diagnosis and treatment.
Thus, even though high-ranking moderately enlightened psychiatrists know that the DSM is scientifically invalid bullshit, they wish not to offend the APA and derail the institution of psychiatry. And so, the moderately enlightened engage in what philosophers call “reconciliatory theism,” compromising between the truth and acceptable dogma, and they caution us, as psychiatrist Jim Phelps did in a recent post on Mad in America, not to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.”
In contrast, for Spinoza and contemporary radically enlightened thinkers, if reason and science make clear that any conceptualization is invalid—or what Spinoza called an inadequate idea that results in models and paradigms based on confused and false concepts—radically enlightened thinkers would not compromise their position for the sake of maintaining an institution.
Perhaps Insel’s most disappointing deterioration is his omission from Healing of his previous assertion as NIMH director about the treatment of individuals whom psychiatrists label with “serious mental illness” (SMI). Absent from Insel’s 2022 Healing is any reference to his 2013 NIMH commentary “Antipsychotics: Taking the Long View” (that has recently been removed from the NIMH website but remains republished on other sites), in which Insel surprised establishment psychiatry by agreeing, in large measure, with psychiatry critics such as journalist Robert Whitaker that standard psychiatric medication treatments for some individuals diagnosed with SMI are counterproductive.
Insel actually acknowledged in 2013: “It appears that what we currently call ‘schizophrenia’ [which Insel puts within quotation marks] may comprise disorders with quite different trajectories. For some people, remaining on medication long-term might impede a full return to wellness. For others, discontinuing medication can be disastrous.”
This assertion was part of why I had considered Insel to be an example of a moderately enlightened psychiatrist. However, sadly, nowhere in his new book (which extensively discusses this so-called SMI population) does Insel repeat it and reference the Harrow-Jobe and Wunderink research—which Whitaker had brought attention to—that Insel had referenced in 2013 to back up his assertion: “For some people, remaining on medication long-term might impede a full return to wellness.”
While in A Profession Without Reason I gave Insel credit for being moderately enlightened, with his recent omissions and rationalizations in Healing, I can understand why some might now diagnose him with diminishing enlightenment, a milder form of the unenlightenment that routinely characterizes APA presidents.
The Radically Enlightened
While the moderately enlightened acknowledge some of psychiatry’s failures, they—no different than those APA leaders who are completely unenlightened—do everything possible to preserve the institution of psychiatry.
In contrast, the radically enlightened care only about scientific truths, not institutional preservation.
The radically enlightened look at the evidence for the “medical model of mental illness,” and seeing no justification for it, they advocate discarding it, unbothered by the consequences for psychiatry as an institution within medicine. Similarly, seeing no evidence that professional credentials are associated with superior outcomes, the radically enlightened proclaim this reality, unbothered by the fact that this costs prestige, power, and money to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.
While the moderately enlightened are critical of psychiatry’s poor performance, the DSM, and psychiatry’s chemical imbalance theory of mental illness, and they may even believe in moderate reforms—for example, seeing value in peer-to-peer support as long as this doesn’t reduce professional authority—they do not challenge the legitimacy of psychiatry as a societal institution, and they do not challenge the current mental illness industry hierarchy with psychiatrists at the top of it.
In contrast, if science and reason dictate so, the radically enlightened are open to a complete break with past tradition and its institutions. With respect to psychiatry, this includes: eliminating the power that the APA has over civil society through its mental illness declarations; abolishing institutional hierarchies in which individuals with extensive experience in recovery but lacking professional degrees have little or no power; and prioritizing societal variables and social policies that affect emotional well-being.
For those who think radical means something “too extreme” and “bad,” it is important to keep in mind that as radical a thinker as Spinoza was in his day, there is nothing in what he said that is today considered by progressive thinkers to be too politically radical; and in fact, modern progressive thinkers actually view Spinoza as not progressive enough in some matters. Similarly, in the 1850s, as radical as the Radical Republicans were in their views of African Americans and the abolition of slavery, there is nothing about their views that today would be considered too radical by most Americans; and in fact many progressives would today view the Radical Republicans as not progressive enough.
This should provoke psychiatry’s critics to consider the possibility that as radical as their views about contemporary psychiatry are considered today, in the future, these views may well be seen as not progressive enough.
What keeps psychiatry going though is psychotherapy.
Joshua
Report comment
As one who knows, from deciphering and researching into my medical records, that psychology and psychiatry are BS used to cover up child abuse for my former religion, and easily recognized iatrogenesis for the incompetent doctors … two illegal – but not remotely uncommon – functions of the “mental health” industries.
I’d say, giving psychiatry absolute power has resulted in psychiatry corrupting itself absolutely.
I think the best thing is for further psychiatric drugging to be abolished, by all doctors. The psychiatrists can train in other areas of medicine, as they work to wean people off the psych drugs, if they so choose.
And the psychologists should be completely separated from the medical industry, get out of the child abuse covering up business for the religions, and actually start functioning as the non-medically trained “helpers,” that they claim to be.
Report comment
I agree completely with Someone Else.
Joshua
Report comment
This is my hand held scoop of water from a river.
I tend to agree with your sentiment about absolute power. I think nothing should have absolute power but the individual when they wish to make their own harmless free choices. That may be a choice to utilize traditional medical care or alternative care. The choice must be their own.
But whilst here, with respect, I must say I get worried at the word “enlightened”.
It is like the word “unite”. It is a word that is often misused in being used to define the opposite, possibly an illogical unenlightened idiot who did not get the memo. It is a word all too easily coopted by “consensus opinion” groups to judge those deemed unenlightened, those who are usually just individuals with their own right to hold their own unique or different opinion. I know the article writer is using the word in its airy genuine intention and that is all to the good but in other writers it can be a word that is borrowed to mock those of difference. In a previous epoch the word preferred might have been “saved” or “intelligent” or “scientific” or “modern” or “sinless”. These sorts of ennobling words tend to point an accusatorial finger at who is “not” that way inclined. Noble words tend to spur on colonialist appetites for infiltrating and converting, in their questing.
I say this…
If….
ALL ARE EQUAL
then none are “enlightened”.
All the animals are EQUAL.
No animal is enlightened.
No animal causes wars.
All animals squabble but animals forgive each other soon enough because they prefer to conserve energy for surviving the demands of the ever changing elements.
Humans are animals who have been taught and lectured to, to think they are not animals. This is why they treat each other with cold intellectual barbaric slaughter.
Far better to become a docile illogical gentle cave woman or cave man. Creatures of feeling.
It may be tempting to fight icy logic in psychiatry with icy logic…but this can shore up the revering of the very pontificating you might want to abolish.
So, tis better to leave the icy logic where it is and just focus on building something alternative that is so much better that people will flock to it in droves.
Report comment
Thank you, Dr. Levine,
Your new book sounds very interesting. I’ve also noticed a rather large cohort of what I like to call apologists for psychiatry: People who excuse the harm done as the honest, unavoidable mistakes of a young field; people who claim that ANY attempt to “do something with” the people known as mental patients is valiant and noble…even if it results in harm to those patients. It seems that many moderate thinkers have a list at the ready to explain away poor outcomes or argue that what we really need is more treatment. Unfortunately, society listens to these people.
Mayor Adams of NYC just established a student loan debt forgiveness program specifically for “behavioral health professionals” (psychiatrist, psychiatric nurses etc) working in NYC due to a stated shortage.
Dr. Insel was recently interviewed for a NY Times podcast with Ezra Klein. I’ve pasted the synopsis below, since there’s so much wrong with it, from a radical or even a logical point of view, starting with the headline. There’s also the stark contradiction between the situation described in the first paragraph versus the second paragraph, which the writer calls a “paradox”. I call it, the entire first paragraph being wrong:
“A Top Mental Health Expert on Where America Went Wrong
The psychiatrist and public-health expert Thomas Insel discusses how mental illness is a medical problem that requires social solutions.
July 22, 2022
Produced by ‘The Ezra Klein Show’
There’s a paradox that sits at the center of our mental health conversation in America. On the one hand, our treatments for mental illness have gotten better and better in recent decades. Psychopharmaceuticals have improved considerably; new, more effective methods of psychotherapy have been developed; and we’ve reached a better understanding of what kinds of social support are most helpful for those experiencing mental health crises.
But at the same time, mental health outcomes have moved in exactly the wrong direction. In the United States, there is a death by suicide about every 11 minutes, and about half of those who die by that method have not received mental health care. Rates of anxiety, depression and eating disorders have skyrocketed among young people in recent years. From 2009 to 2015, rates of emergency room visits for self-harm more than doubled for girls ages 10 to 14.
Report comment
How does a rational person believe that “treatments have gotten better and better” at the same time as outcomes have gotten worse and worse? How can better “treatments” lead to worse outcomes??? Why is this contradiction not totally obvious to readers of his commentary?
Report comment
I had the same questions. I copied and pasted the whole spiel because it was such a perfect example of the logical fallacies, rationalizations, and just overall dumbness that Bruce refers to.
Even the headline makes no sense:
“Mental illness is a medical problem that requires a social solution”… Huh? If it were a medical problem, I’m pretty sure it would need a medical solution. And of course we haven’t yet defined/found consensus on the “problem” (I think even Insel has admitted that the DSM is meaningless and should be tossed away). We haven’t established the basics.
The part I don’t understand is that the people, when they hear this stuff, don’t stop and think: that doesn’t make any sense. It’s like people are brainwashed by psychiatry. Even smart people.
Report comment
Exactly! How can you hear, “Our treatments have improved, but people are getting worse” and not be stopped by the irrationality of it all? How CAN a medical problem require a social solution? Makes zero sense, but people just not their heads and “agree” to something they can’t possibly understand, because it literally makes no logical sense.
Report comment
To be fair that could be possible if outside conditions had worsened a lot.
Imagine building tons of coal power plants so air poluttion worsens, which leads to respiratory diseases. Even if treatment for respiratory diseases improves, the overall situation could worsen.
This could also be classified as medical problems that need social social sollutions (less coal power plants).
Report comment
I’d more refer to that as “social problems that have medical consequences.” Defining the problem as “medical” is the first mistake. Feeling bad is not a medical problem. It could be the result of a medical problem in some cases, but emotions themselves are not medical problems. If it’s a social problem, no amount of “medical treatment” will solve it, and their pretense to the contrary is making things worse.
On the other hand, it’s also possible (and I think likely) that the “treatments” that have “improved so much” are actually making the situation worse, above and beyond any social problems that do exist. At least treatment for resperatory conditions improves those who are treated. In psychiatry, it may mean you die 25 years sooner with “successful” treatment.
I know you’re not arguing with me about these things, I’m just responding to the “Devil’s advocate” position you put out there.
Maybe I’m just not feeling too inclined to be “fair” to the psychiatric profession today!
Report comment
His explanation is that better treatments are available, but better psychiatrists and psychologists are not. In other words, practitioners are not keeping up with research showing what protocols are most effective for what conditions and their diagnostic capabilities are lacking, to name some of the barriers to getting the effective treatments to the right people.
Report comment
What are these better treatments that he is referring to? Where is the research showing these better treatments are more effective? Are they being kept secret? I don’t understand.
Report comment
Any person, once trained to do a job, will tend to resist doing the job different than how they were trained.
That said, the “better treatments” narrative being put out by some psychiatrists is mostly just feel good marketing. You can see coverage of such things in the PBS series “Mysteries of Mental Illness.” It includes “better” shock therapy machines and techniques that produce “much less” brain damage than they used to. They are whitewashing an awful situation.
From the point of view of the average mental health worker, the really better treatments are a secret, because they aren’t allowed to study or use them. Psychiatry wants an endless stream of patients; it doesn’t want everyone to actually get better.
Report comment
Wow, LESS brain damage when electrocuted! THAT’S what I call progress!
Report comment
You’d have to read the interview: it’s long. I can’t remember what treatments he was talking about…
Report comment
Because psychiatry is a cult.
Report comment
Doctors with years of experience opine from their book-lined studies about what’s wrong with the system they helped to develop.
As with so many things, much of the problem lies in the inability of those tasked with providing care to suffering people to see past the ends of their own noses.
I’ll never forget being told, after being prescribed Prozac in the late 80s, that I would have to be on anti-depressants for the rest of my life, because I had a problem with my brain chemistry and only anti-depressants could fix it. This was from a greatly-respected psychiatrist at a major hospital.
They worked, kind of like mild speed, and then after a couple of years I began forgetting to take them, and slowly, naturally weaned off. When I began to get depressed again after a couple of years, I went back on. And so it went. They were effective each time, disproving my psychiatrist’s alarmist and dire warnings that if I kept going off them they would stop working and then I’d be doomed. He didn’t use the word “doomed” but that’s what he was getting at. I stopped seeing him at that point.
I have been completely off anti-depressants for the last ten years.
Report comment
What really helped me was viewing my mood disorder through an unemotional lense of evolution. It is stunning how different it is in the context of thousands of years evolving in an agrarian society where times of extreme activity to collect resources intermixed with periods of low activity to preserve resources. It also explains how an evolutionary advantage can to turn into a disadvantage due to stark societal changes like the industrial revolution.
Report comment
Most psychiatrists refuse to either shit or get off the pot because they can’t produce truth and they know it.
Report comment
I think “radically enlightened” would probably include Szasz. And yet…Szasz waited until after getting tenure to debunk psychiatry, so I suppose he was only “radically enlightened” after damaging scores of people/patients and their families, communities…
and then he embarked on a career as a “radical,” while maintaining a private practice and teaching up and coming psychiatrists. ugh. reality, bites.
I think…especially for those of us here at MIA…”radically enlightened” would mean trying to find a way out and doing whatever possible to stay out of mental health, inc. The road out will probably vary considerably, from person to person; my own observation — and this has been pointed out by others, too — is that many current “recovered” people/”patients” are essentially post-psychiatry in terms of self-identification and such, but…
again: reality, bites. Especially now that “mental illness” is declared to be a never ending struggle and such (this vs the “nervous breakdown” mentality of the 50s), escaping the labels and social damage caused by psychiatry and friends seems — to me, someone too young to have actually experienced the witch doctoring of yesteryear — more difficult, not less difficult.
so…yeah. interesting concept. I think the idea of being “radically enlightened” is probably more appealing to the younger set and also to those who have not been so thoroughly psychiatrized that a more practical, “ok, now what?” – approach is probably…if not more appealing, then at least more realistic.
Having said that, I do hope that those who have never been directly affected by the system and/or have only had minimal, less damaging experiences will become “radically enlightened.” 🙂
Report comment
The pills are a symbol of what the psychiatrist gets across to the patient. If it’s a genuine interest and care, then the pills will be successful.
Report comment
What you’re talking about is a religion or a cult.
Psychiatry is trying to pass off their treatment — pills, ECT, etc.– as medicine. Symbolism has no place in medicine. And even with that, for the faithful who choose to bow down in front of psychiatrists believing that their pills hold the cure, they are still being poisoned. These aren’t sugar pills. They are very damaging toxins.
Report comment
(Duplicate comment).
Report comment
KateL says, “What you’re talking about is a religion or a cult. Psychiatry is trying to pass off their treatment….as medicine.”
Yup. Established psychiatry’s a pill-popping cult masquerading as medicine. And that’s the unvarnished truth.
Report comment
And what does established psychiatry resemble?
People making a wish while trying to blow out candles that never go out on their birthday cake, year after year after year…..
Report comment
But established psychiatrists have proven one thing: they’ll keep blowing and blowing and blowing till the cows come home with next to nothing to show for it – but they make whatever they’re doing into a horse’s prayer so it sounds like they’re actually getting somewhere.
Report comment
I am not happy with this discussion. If you want to “open up” the topic of mental health for those who consider themselves “free” thinkers, why not start with Dianetics, written in 1950?
Of course the various human institutions, particularly the “healing” or charity institutions, have secondary and less haughty reasons for existing and seeking to perpetuate themselves.
So even if science or technology totally destroy the premises on which some institution was founded, you will still find people trying to preserve it. Such is certainly the case with psychiatry.
PBS has recently been airing a set of shows on mental health, “Mysteries of Mental Illness.” The series raises many of the same criticisms raised here or by other anti-psychiatry groups. But brain function remains the holy grail of the subject. And so they only cover “innovations” in the field like deep brain stimulation, ECT using “modern” equipment, and psychedelic drugs.
Though I personally totally disapprove of such techniques in the field of mental health, my point here is that another whole world of thinking and practice concerning healing, and mental healing in particular, remained totally unexplored by PBS. And in fact many of those other innovations are not much discussed on this website, either. So, how “radically enlightened” are we? I’m still waiting for a hopeful sign that someone in this field actually is.
Report comment
removed for moderation
Report comment
I read the entire interview. At no point does he say anything specific about the new treatments leading to better outcomes. He’s a genius at saying two opposite things at once and finally saying absolutely nothing. “Things are so much better and so much worse.” Wonderful. He is just another bullshit artist with a book deal.
Report comment
Life is messy and full of contradictions. Paradox and mysteries abound. Life in free-market capitalism is really messy. Trying to create a mental health system in a fundamentally unhealthy system is really, really messy. So, expect the convos about it to be really, really, really messy. I give both Klein and Insler credit for taking as deep a dive as they did. Complexity and seeming contradiction are not necessarily indicators of bullshit.
Report comment
Psychiatry destroyed my life with its lies dressed up as “paradox.” Or whatever else. They’re nothing but snake oil salesman. I refuse to give these people credit that they never extended to me.
Report comment
Established psychiatry is the Church of Mediocrity, meaning it refuses to seriously reconsider its methods (medical model) and question its motives ($$$). And this is because enlightened thinking threatens its status, meaning no more pharmaceutical bribes and pricey book deals.
Report comment
…and no more funds for their scientific flights of fancy (brain chemistry/“circuitry”), meaning no more pushing their “blue pills”.
Report comment
Disclaimer: this is most likely a rant everything is the truth however, it wasn’t intentional written as a rant, it is just I get humor from writing as such, and I do not know how to write comedy otherwise, besides my writing is that well; It works, but it’s not right.
My hypothesis: Are psychiatrists trained to put psychiatric symptoms on people or are they trained to see people in psychiatric symptoms? e.g., drapetomania.
Because first then second centered psychiatrist both have put things on me, while in no way seeing these things in me. Is that the way they all work? Make believe, because its easier to lie than do the actual work, right.
(a) Mr. S. D. ran away from the Centre a few times. After caught last time, he had a hearing right away his lawyer argued; he was not monitored X amounts of time and nothing bad happened is evidence the Centre is no longer needed in his life. He won an absolute. I got inspired and to “run away” from Centre check ins (I failed reporting, but I did report no less than twice a month so no breaches). I Reduced Centre’s involvement in my life by 80% over the previous year, and nothing bad happened. We can use this to my advantage in Aug 2022 to win an absolute, and escape a corrupt centre.
(b) I was misdiagnosed with a degenerative brain disease in November 1999. You can be sure after 30 years brain wastage shows up on neuroimages by now. We are not talking about diagnosis; we are wondering why schizophrenia is not there in the brain. His family Doc L. told me, that my Dec 2021 neuroimaging showed, “Everything looks healthy and normal.” Lack of insight; or is it a lack of mental illness ?
(c) I have been writing emails since 1995 and now supposedly emails from the public to public officials are now signs of “instability.” I categorically deny any stability in me now and in my entire life. There is no psychiatric illness is writing my emails, I am doing that centre cases.
(d) In regards to the psychiatric drug dose, Haldol. Dr. G, third centre psychiatrist on my case remarked, “I can’t believe how calm you are” to Mr. Sunstrum at an in-person appointment in June. Or is it a lack of mental illness? Or is it lack “severe” schizophrenia. In any case, however, he switched me to Invega oral form, that I have not taken it months, so I like him as I am drug free with no crazy, no things going on because I never had mental concerns, healthy and normal brain, and nothing bad has happened.
(e) I knows I am not perfect, however, I disagrees with and know with certainty I have experienced nothing resembling the labels put on me. I nonetheless am committed to malingering psychiatric drug compliance because it takes the edge off while and facilitates my transcendental experiences while living forwards, always forwards. I just tell them the truth about the human brain saying, “Whatever it is, it’s something and, it is what it is” so call it “spirituality”, “a gift” or “spaghettis.” But that, I identify as a “Privileged Transcendental” and respectfully asks that you respect my spiritual identity just as you would for someones gender identity, such as, non-binary, agender or pangender, etc. But absolutely, do not refer to me as having a “problem”, condition, issue, disease, disorder, illness, sickness, defect, delusional, grandiose, cognitive deficit, decompensated, decompensation, perceptual abnormalities, psychosis, or any psychiatric labelling, nor coin it sleep paralysis, night terrors, lucid dreaming, sleep psychosis, or sleep deprivation because it would be tasteless, discriminatory, insulting, and offensive.
(g) I emphatically insists have never heard, thought, known or seen anything that was not real, and is an ardent anti-believer, he doesn’t even believe himself as he knows believing is delusional thoughts. So, it is totally impossible for him to have delusional thoughts. Furthermore, since thinking is a disease that leads one to delude themselves, I do not think, or try hard not to think at least.
(h) Tell them, the prosecution is involved in these psychiatric pseudocourt inquisition, its worse In the US than here in Canada I hear, anyways crown prosecutors and the psych-centre in engage in fear mongering to manipulate the board members in making a decision to clouded by their fear. And is prosecuting me with speculation, email pseudoscience, hearsay and conjecture, and doublespeak.
(i) I categorically deniy ever stating a belief that I have a gift from God giving me God powers, however I do have a gift. I did never say I viewed serious mental concerns as a gift. I said I do not have any severe mental concerns. I categorically deny I have schizophrenia whatsoever, specifically in Nov 199 to May 2015. I clearly stated I received a Dr. B’s valid second opinion in 2019, he told me; “You are not crazy. Fear is where the schizophrenia comes from.” That is backed up by my Dec 2021 neuroimages. And by the fact I went from Jan 2001 to January 2014 essentially unmedicated and experienced no psychiatric ailments and nothing bad happened. I would like them to issue special funding so I can go to the Amen clinic in Chicago which specializes in SPECT imaging, second opinions and, whose psychiatrists actually look at the brain instead of guessing like most psychiatrists.
(j) I vehemently deny I have a cognitive deficit: I have an IQ between 108 and 114. I have had two IQ tests in the past and was told, by psychologist 1. “you’re smart ” and 2. ” you are bright. ” A psychiatrist is not the one to determine this unless he is the one who administered the IQ test. Dr. A never gave me an IQ test he just put it on me like a liar.
(k) I absolutely deny Dr. A. and Dr. M. misdiagnosis, misconstrues, mistakes, and lies, the board must hear about these things. I do not want to burden the board with my prehearing submissions and got 10 pages distributed behind my lawyers back, so I have annoyed them, and will keep chirping at the hearing, but in no mean does 10 pages cover the corruption problem at the royal Ottawa centre completely. Not all discrepancies were reported. I just want the truth to come to the public attention and have these abusers brought to justice and justice for the abused. Not to be lied about and labelled with these things that are not in me. Above all else, I want to be himself, and so I am.
“Be careful of discursiveness and desultoriness… to be everywhere is to be nowhere.”
~ Seneca
(l) I neither was nor ever have been a disassociated thought. I know what that is. I have seen it three times in person, you never ever see someone distressed like that, to then, collect their thoughts, calm themselves to sit down and write an eight-page email attachment. No! Not possible whatsoever.
(m) Let alone would someone having a bipolar episode going from one extreme polar opposite to the other actually have the capacity or functionality, to sit down and capture it in a document. But the centre brain cop, a case manager Rich claims he saw me going from one extreme polar opposite to the other when he read one of my emails like a week after I wrote it. He disrespected my artistic license. And made himself look like a fool, like 14 years experience in the field and they don’t know the nature of these things. I have researched online numerous hours looking for studies on email diagnosing and found nothing, nada, nothing except how much of a burden reading patient emails is to a busy case load of a psychiatrist. So, their accusation is total bullshot. It is pure pseudoscience. Tantamount to claiming you have cured pedophilia with gender reassignment therapy. You just can’t do those things. I sure wish the board would see the light I cast on their wickedness. They lied. Digressing…
With regards to the first psychiatrist, who misdiagnosed or lied; “you have disassociated thoughts” and the rest just followed her of the cliff. I simply told her the facts; “No, I could have proofread it and edited it to put it all in order if I wanted to.” She barked a retort with the stupid childish logic that; “But! You didn’t!” So, that’s corrupt. Liars. They lie. They lied.
(o) They are telling me my emails are instability. Well, then anything could be (i.e. forgetting to wash your hands, having a bad or hard day, posting on social media, etc.); it is all arbitrary; if emails and such are “an affect of psychiatric illness” then anything can be? It is only their opinion, and just that, an opinion, without evidence. In fact, it is unprovable so just speculating. The Nazi’s argued better logic, convincingly enough to influence their way to become the government. I have my opinion on the matter, as have you, so I shall say there is no answer.
What evidence do you have for instability in me from emails? Diddly squat, 0 evidence, I was instability.
The board can know the things they say are not diagnosing or assessing me in person to see and hear in me my thoughts and behaviours rather they are looking at my written words, diagnosing emails, the email is the patient. They aren’t being psychiatrists they are being English teachers. And it’s based on what they assume I mean or believe I mean, and not what I actually mean, and they never question their assumptions or beliefs that are actually delusional thoughts, yet they have the nerve to preach to me about assuming their all atheists and accusing me of believing what I write, why just because I wrote it doesn’t mean I believe it, I don’t think, thinking leads to deluding oneself. I know, and I write what I know about, and nothing else, and I never claimed I view schizophrenia as a gift, or said I have a gift giving me God powers, those are lies.
(p) I have a spiritual emergence and strong powerful spiritual insights, that I am privileged, yet, there are a lot of others like me. Privileged. The only abnormal freaks is a former centre shrink, she was thoroughly corrupt and can, “get centered” as fad as I a concerned. I have never had a problem with a locum or a private practice. This place created a enemy of psychiatry. I have no faith whatsoever left in it. I digress… anyways
(In writing there is tons of misunderstandings the meaning is lost because you lack vocal intonation, inflection, tone, nuance, etc., you would get from a voice. Plus English is a flat emotionless, unexpressive language so you truly have to be careful about what you assume the writer means (definitely can’t see mood disorders in people from reading an email; pseudoscience). And don’t forget my sloppy writing skills and word understanding, I am not sure what besotted actually implies; but, what do I mean; “I want to show you love…?”) I digress… anyways:
(q) They imagine things. They lied. They are corrupted. Excluding Dr. Gojer whom I like best so far, but he is a director, and I remain skeptical, I will tell you if he passes after listening to his verbal presentation. I digress… anyways:
The fact is, I do not know anything about grammar, I know nothing, I do not know what an adverb, noun, adjective means, or how they differ or how to use them, I don’t even understand what they mean or how to use them even after reading their definitions, I don’t even understand the definitions, I am in the dark. I don’t know squat about what constitutes a paragraph or a proper sentence or correct punctuation? I just guess. My writing: it works, but it’s not right.
However, I have learned a few more things along this journey, but I am only creating the illusion that I know what I am doing by my writing skill. Yes, it is working better now since I have been at it non stop, practicing, beginning for the first time, basically in Nov 2019, with 1000s of documents under my belt, is why Dr. A. told last years board; “there’s still a little bit of disassociated thoughts” but there never was any it is just I am better at mimicking a good writer. Keep in mind he has only seen this behaviour in me by reading my emails he has never actually diagnosed this correctly the only way you can see these things in people within person observation. Their email diagnosing is like “remote viewing” y’know? Email diagnosing is perfectly full of shit, pseudoscience. I digress… anyways:
According to my father, a teacher and principal, my writing has gotten better, and is still “a little bit a rant shanty rant-e”. But all that sloppy, no proof reading, thus, no spell checking, rewording or editing still happens sometimes it is just better rough draft creative writing now.
Early in my writing career I emailed nothing but rough drafts (I didn’t care about proofreading then), that, made me look stupid and crazy, I know that. But that and, digressing (whether noted or not) is not disassociated thoughts, delusional or anything psychiatric related, in person, has never been verified in me because these things do not exist in me, maybe you could claim that, but you wouldn’t, if you watched me write. They lied.
(r) Sometimes I purposely make gibberish, word salad emails just to laugh at them, saying things like “45,000 aliens are living in my head” or “the ghost that lives in my anus is trying to kill me”, I sure hope bug the shit out of them. I want to leave brain droppings all over the place and watch them go ape shit! Bananas! Right nuts! It is not instability. It is frustration which begs to be released and as they believe their own shit, “there’s still a little bit of disassociated thoughts” is only because I have improved my writing skills and, I proofread now, sometimes mostly not always do I have too though.
“Public safety is the alibi of tyrants….
Doctors don’t lie? Actually, everybody does and they do more frequently than the average allegedly. Intelligent people commit a lot of injustices as they can more easily think up ways to justify their actions, making it seem acceptable, and get away with abuse.
(s) The truth is my life and times are being boiled down to an artifact of defect they call “an affect of psychiatric illness,” since this centre has been involved in my life, I went from remission to “severe” with a lie, now and knowing it is stupid. That. They lied. Makes me homicidal. J/K.
My poetry, prose, creative writing and Shits ‘N’ Giggles in emails be characterized as instability? No but they are supposed to be dada inspired absurdity, for laughs. But to scare the board into punishing me holding me back is purely politically motivation by the crown prosecutions office. But seriously someone with mental instability would not be able to write, the crown knows that. But the crowns treat me like I am a child molesting murdering monster.
Where’s the instability in a member of the public, me, writing a public official who supposedly represents the public, and, who has their email broadcast over the internet for all to see, to discuss business and give accolades, using respectful language. I do talk to my family doctor the same way. Plus, what did I say that was instability, my poems based on dada art movement are meant to be an absurdity. There’s nothing there, because there really isn’t anything to this instability nonsense; just email pseudoscience.
Digressing… They call me mentally ill, by saying this they hope to invalidate anything that I might say. Since it is a favorite tactic of abusers, it should only make them more suspicious when coupled with the premise behind their slander and defamation against me during these hearings, I am thrown under the bus. Dr. Gojer being a slight exception, he does have more tact in his attack.
I digress… digressing: Schizophrenia is not responsible for this or that or anything about me or anything I say, think or do, and it does not write emails and did not write this document, I did.
(t) I rule my mind, my mind does not rule me. So…, the crown will prosecute me anytime it is recommended I am living forwards and it’s not based on actual facts, because ten years from now, God forbid, if I am living forwards then, the crown will still prosecute and default into persecuting me, this is political, I am a political prisoner. A public member with no public safety. I digress… anyways:
(u) According to a centered psychiatrist, who wanted you to agree and believe, I started wearing black clothes (everyday there’s a funeral) and an eye patch (due to pink eye), was “an affect of psychiatric illness.” That’s a lie, because with purposeful intention, I decide to do what I do, not psychiatric illness making choices for me. There isn’t even evidence I have a psychiatric illness. Mental stability is behind what I do or do not do.
Know or do not know, I am not a significant risk, nor ever was. I rule my mind, my mind does not rule me. And that comes from the only expert on my body functioning; me.
I digress (my digressing, whether I tell you or not, is not disassociated thoughts) … “good” hygiene and eating habits are not “an affect of psychiatric illness” or worth mentioning and are intentionally omitted because they are good (good isn’t scary). In my opinion my habits are good in the way I think good is. They are poor in the way they think poor is opinionated assholes. They manipulate using fear; scare tactics. Let us never be swayed by fear mongers into making decisions.
In dehumanizing me, making me a defect, not living, my life, but suffering “an affect of psychiatric illness” that is neither true nor provable. I shall neither agree/believe with the diagnosis nor should I. Moreover, I shall neither recant nor should I.
(v) I am not instability. I am not a threat to the public. Racist, liars, and fear mongers are significant risks to public safety, since I am the public. And I suffer their abuse. Thus, if their “goal is to enhance public safety through recovery” there was no need to recovery me and they did no such thing, it has been devoid recovery, thank God, as they did more harm using recovery against me inside the secure prison ward which they call “the trenches.” FYI, they call my community designate “Boots on the ground.” And they call my emails, “Ammunition to the board.” They are twisted. Doubtful they have my best interests, or others, in mind. Because they play “brain police” always questioning you at reports, so one other reason, I malinger drapetomania and ditch reports, because they use the Reid technique on us, all the time, I am sick of it, someone give me an absolute or MAID service. The asinine jerks. They lied.
I somehow persevered through emails abuses. They have had an enormous number of therapeutic benefits, they felt liberating, spiritual cleansing the centre’s negative workings. Somehow in writing 1000s documents, sending 300 or so of them to ORB@******.ca (I told the case manage that he blew a gasket snapping, “They’re not!, just!, going to take!, your word!, for it!”) (I whistle-blower on them, and I did, I do, and I will at every juncture) (The board does, did and will take my word for it). For God sakes, I am human, I have a value, the board values me. The board is there for me, for my protection and they help me. I have absolute and total faith and trust in them and have no reason to betray them or to lie to them. Never have, never will. They are good people. They have gone above and beyond and out of their way to accommodate me. The board must hear about this, Flattery will get you everywhere.
I know they exist on servers forever and hopefully will come to the attention of the public one day. But I never complained about the board much, but scarcely. I wish the board to publish it all for academic study.Whom protects me under the ORB? Those who take my word for it, like my hero’s, the board member’s. Thus, I would like to thank them for condition “(f) On his consent, take prescribed med…” as it protected me at least once from clozapine which would have made my heart explode.
(x) “Woof! Woof! Barking dogs seldom bite, my bark is worse than my bite.
Report comment
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/ssri-right-wing-attack-joanna-moncrieff-1388067/
This Rolling Stone article attacking Dr Moncrieff’s study debunking the chemical imbalance theory of antidepressants is a perfect example why I never give benefit of the doubt to people who support psychiatry. They argue in bad faith and engage in one logical fallacy after another, I guess hoping that no one will notice.
This article is ridiculous. The fact that Tucker Carlson has picked up on this study and is using it for his own purposes does not negate the results of the study. I can’t believe Rolling Stone published this article. It’s just as bad as the Vice article about Mad in America. Just as one-sided.
Below, a quote from the article (with a perfect straw man argument):
Within the medical community, the paper’s conclusions were nothing new. David Hellerstein, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center and director of Columbia’s Depression Evaluation Service, explains that the serotonin hypothesis — i.e., the idea that depression is caused by low serotonin levels — is a “quaint and oversimplified shorthand that has been superseded by other explanations in clinical practice for a decade or more.” He says that the review was largely met with yawns from the psychiatric community. “In reading it, I was kinda thinking, ‘Wow, next she’ll tackle the discrediting of the black bile theory of depression,” he tells Rolling Stone
Report comment
If this is such ‘old news,’ why is it that so many clients are being told that they have a ‘chemical imbalance’ – I’m not surprised but I am disappointed. It didn’t take long for the propaganda machine to get started, did it.
Report comment
No, it didn’t. This article is a perfect example of that. The author spends most of it making “connections” between Dr Moncrieff and Scientology, Dr Moncrieff and the far right.
The “liberal media” (Rolling Stone, the New York Times) is so blindly devoted to psychiatry, it’s infuriating. Human rights are for everyone, according to these outlets, except for the ones psychiatry deems “mentally ill”.
Report comment
The ‘conservative media’ is honestly not much better. Both ‘sides’ are owned by their big corporate supporters, and greed and graft knows no political affiliation. I know of no nationally recognized leader who has a clue or gives a crap about the plight of the ‘mentally ill,’ on either side of the aisle, beyond the idea of giving more money to the ‘mental health’ authorities or refusing to do so.
Report comment
Agreed. I guess it just stings more to hear these views that come from the left because I have considered myself a liberal, but honestly now I don’t even see the point in voting. As you said there is no politician who speaks on behalf of people who were damaged or destroyed by psychiatry and who live in fear of more forced interventions. I’m sure big pharma funds campaigns across the political spectrum, and it seems like both sides of the political spectrum like to scapegoat and fear monger equally. The following is another quote from the Rolling Stone article:
“(Dr Moncrieff’s work) has focused on the question of preserving personal bodily autonomy over the health and welfare of the general populace, as evidenced by one 2014 paper she wrote on the work of the late Thomas Szasz, a controversial psychiatrist who questioned the institution of psychiatry and eventually co-founded the CCHR.”
Report comment
‘Black propaganda,’ as I think it’s called. No interest in actually conveying information, just trying to make a particular person look bad. It’s appalling, yet surprisingly effective, as critical thinking seems to be fading into the land of never-never as a commonly held skill in the world.
Report comment
Your Worships,
This evidence is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Gods.
The board must hear about the following: Centre employees are so used to others being indirect and phony that clear direct communication appears aggressive to them; Hence, arbitrarily changing foul language to aggressive language was a weaponized unauthorized redefining for the sole purpose of allowing her to write a convincing lie based on pseudoscience to move against me at the rights and restrictions hearing (Apr 2020) to levy a false conviction upon me lying that I going around being aggressive with the public. I categorically deny that. I cannot believe the board fell for that cunning manipulative narcissists’ lies, mathias projected her narcissism on me.
I govern my thoughts. I govern my emotions. I govern my senses. I govern my behavior. I govern my body. Therefore, I govern my life. As such, I will never do anything bad again.
Whom protects me under the ORB? Those who take my word for it, like my hero’s, the board member’s. Thus, I would like to thank them for condition “(f) On his consent,” as it protected me at least once from clozapine makes my heart explode. So, Thank you.
Know or do not know, I am not a significant risk nor ever was. I rule my mind, my mind does not rule me. And that comes from the only expert on my body functioning; me.
This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections. I agree and know my imperfections are agitatable, irritable, fear, anger and resentment build, and that some of it could or could not be schizophrenia. But how would we know for certain without a test schizophrenia is unprovable.
(a) Mr. Dale Southwind ran away from the Centre a few times. After caught last time, he had a hearing right away his lawyer argued; he was not monitored and nothing bad happened is evidence Centre is no longer needed in his life. He won an absolute. I got inspired and “run away” from Centre check ins (I failed reporting, but I did report no less than twice a month so no breaches). I Reduced Centre’s involvement in my life, monitoring from 25-27hrs to about 5-6hrs a year and nothing bad happened. We can use this advantageously, I think. And add if the board finds my solution to create, bring my own evidence to the board, and should they decide another conditional and want him to be cooperative with the centre in future please write in a condition “(k) pull up his socks” so that he knows as he does not read the reasons for decision, but keep in mind he has no other means to prove the centre is no longer needed in his life… etc.
(b) Mr. Sunstrum was diagnosed with a degenerative brain disease in November 1999. You can be sure after 20 years the brain wastage would show up on my neuroimages by now. But there is no sign of schizophrenia in my brain. We’re not talking diagnosis; we are wondering why schizophrenia is not there in my brain. His family doctor, Lynsay Lane told him, “Everything looks healthy and normal.” Lack of insight; or is it a lack of mental illness?
(c) Mr. Sunstrum has been writing emails since 1995 and now its supposedly “instability.” Mr. Sunstrum categorically denies any instability now and in his entire life. Schizophrenia is not writing my emails. I am and they are very therapeutic that has alleviated angry affect in totality.
(d) In regard to the psychiatric drug dose, Dr. Gojer remarked that, “I can’t believe how calm you are” to Mr. Sunstrum at an in-person appointment in June. Or is it a lack of mental illness? Or is it a lack of “severe” schizophrenia.
(e) Sunstrum knows he is not perfect has (1) mental concerns, however, disagrees with and does not know with certainty he has that in him, and has experienced nothing documented about him whatsoever. He nonetheless is committed to psychiatric drug because “it takes the edge off” while awake and facilitates his (2) transcendent experiences while asleep. Both 1 and 2 he insists that, “It’s something, and whatever it is, it is what it is” so call it “spirituality”, “a gift” or “spaghettis.”
(f) He identifies as a “Privileged Transcendental” and respectfully asks that you respect his spiritual identity referring to his “human” condition only with this term just as you would for someone with alternative gender identities, such as, non-binary, agender, transgender or pangender. Do not refer to it as a “problem”, disease, disorder, illness, sickness, defect, delusional, grandiose, cognitive deficit, decompensated, decompensation, perceptual abnormalities, psychosis, or any psychiatric labelling, nor coin it sleep paralysis, night terrors, lucid dreaming, sleep psychosis, dreams or sleep deprivation because it would be tasteless, discriminatory, insulting, and offensive to him and the public.
(g) Mr. Sunstrum emphatically insists he has never heard, thought, know or seen anything that was not real, and does not believe, believing is delusional thoughts, he is an anti-believer, he doesn’t even believe himself. he tries not to think. thinking makes you delude yourself. He is a critical thinker, and questions everything. He is a philosopher, anthropologist, scientist, father, son, brother, uncle and cousin.
(h) Telling you then, the prosecution is engaged in fear mongering to manipulate the board. And is prosecuting me with speculation, email pseudoscience, hearsay and conjecture using doublespeak. Mr. Sunstrum never views anything disturbing on the internet especially the links sent to teach Marie Dufort what the meaning of vile, ferocious, and vicious constitute because he does not know J. J. Clark’s index offence “criminal harassment” can be termed as such.
(i) Mr. Sunstrum categorically denies ever stating a belief that he has a gift from god giving him god powers nor did he ever say he viewed serious mental concerns as a gift. He categorically denies he had schizophrenia between 1992 and 2001. He clearly states that he received a doctor’s valid second opinion in 2019 that concluded; “You are not crazy. Fear is where the schizophrenia comes from.” Which is backed up by his Dec 2021 neuroimages and by his life from Jan 2001 to January 2014 essentially unmedicated and experienced no psychiatric symptoms and nothing bad happened. He would like the board to issue special funding to go to the Amen clinic in Chicago who specialize in SPECT imaging, second opinions and have psychiatrists who look at the brain before making a recommendation; unlike most psychiatrists who guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esPRsT-lmw8
(j) He vehemently denies he has a cognitive deficit: Mr. Sunstrum has an IQ score between 108 and 114. He has had two IQ tests in the past and was told, by first psychologist. “you’re smart ” and second one, ” you are bright. ” A psychiatrist is not the one to determine cognitive deficits unless he is the one who administered the IQ test. Ahmed never gave him an IQ test. He is tired of the Centre’s make believe and childish game of “play pretend.”
(k) Mr. Sunstrum categorically denies Ahmed and Mathias’s misdiagnosis, misconstrues, mistakes, and lies, the board must hear about these things. So, he had 3-5 small documents submitted and distributed prehearing as he did not want to burden the board during a hearing, but by no means covered all the abuse from centre. Not all discrepancies were reported, such as, email diagnosing pseudoscience; that the centre believes it can see things in him through reading emails and not in person is delusional thoughts. Mr. Sunstrum is thorough if not anything. And he just simply wants to be himself, and wants the truth known to the public, not the lies, about him, and false labelling of him. Above all else he wants to be himself.
(l) His hypothesis: Are psychiatrist trained to see these things in people or are they trained to put people in these things?
“Be careful of discursiveness and desultoriness… to be everywhere is to be nowhere.” ~ Seneca
Switching to first person:
(m) I neither was nor ever have been a disassociated thought. I know what that is. I have seen it three times in person, you never ever see someone distressed like that, able to collect their thoughts, calm themselves, shut up, sit down, and write let alone email evidence. No! never whatsoever.
(n) Let alone would someone having a bipolar episode going from one extreme polar opposite to the other have the capacity or functionality, to sit down and capture it in a document. I was misdiagnosed a mood disorder. But Richard Robins claims he saw me going from one extreme polar opposite to the other when he read one of my emails. This is email pseudoscience. He disrespected my artistic license. And made himself look like a fool, like 14 years’ experience in the field and they don’t know the nature of mental illnesses?
I have researched online numerous hours looking for studies on email diagnosing and found nothing, nada, zilch. So, their accusations are total bullshot. It is pure pseudoscience. Tantamount to claiming you have cured pedophilia with gender reassignment therapy. You just can’t humanly do these things. They imagine things. I sure wish the board would see the light I cast on this darkness. I do not want them to be duped again by the centre, people are getting hurt. Centre: They lied.
With regards to the first psychiatrist, who misdiagnosed or lied; “you have disassociated thoughts,” the rest just followed her over the cliff. I simply told her the fact; “No, I could have proofread it and edited it to put it all in order if I wanted to.” her logic was barked as such; “but! You didn’t!” So, that’s corrupt. They lied.
(o) With all due respect board If emails are instability, then anything could be (i.e., losing your keys, fear, waking up on the wrong side of the bed, having a bad or hard day); it is all arbitrary; if emails and such are “an affect of psychiatric illness” then anything can be? It is only their opinion, and just that, an opinion, without evidence. In fact, it is unprovable so just speculating. The Nazi’s argued with the same pseudoscience and logic to gain power. What evidence do you have for instability crown attorney? The board can know the things they say are not diagnosing or assessing me in person to see and hear in me my thoughts and behaviours rather they are looking at my written words, diagnosing emails, the email is the patient. They aren’t being psychiatrists they are being English teachers. And it’s based on what they assume I mean, and not what I actually mean, they take me to literally. They never question their opinion, assumptions or beliefs to see if it matches what I say. Believing in their abilities are delusional thoughts. Yet they have the nerve to preach to me about assuming their all atheists and accusing me of believing what I write, why just because I wrote it doesn’t mean I believe it, I don’t think, thinking leads to deluding oneself. I know, and I write what I know about, and nothing else, and I never claimed I view schizophrenia as a gift, or said I have a gift giving me God powers, those are lies.
(p) I have a spiritual emergence and strong powerful spiritual insights, transcendent experiences, that I am privileged to have, yet there are a lot of others like me that are privileged. The only abnormal people the centre cases, she was thoroughly corrupt and can, “get centered” as far as I am concerned. I have never had a problem with a locum or a private practice. This place created an enemy of psychiatry. I have no faith whatsoever left in psychiatry or psychiatrist. I digress… anyways:
(A reader can easily misunderstand because you lack vocal intonation, inflection, tone, nuance, etc., you would get from writer verbally. English is emotionless, unexpressive language so you truly must be careful about what you assume. You definitely can’t see mood disorders, thought processes in people from reading an email; that’s pseudoscience and don’t forget my sloppy writing skills and wordage am not sure what besotted implies; what does “I want to show you love…” mean?) I digress… anyways:
(q) The centre imagines things. They lied. There is corruption. Abusers. Perhaps not Dr. Gojer, but he is a director, and I remain skeptical, I will tell you if he passes after Aug 24th hearing, if he throws me under the bus I won’t be surprized. I digress… anyways I only wrote once in grade 5, I plagiarized, then 3 times in 1997, and never wrote again until Nov 2019. I suck. I do not have the language to mark my thoughts accurately enough to do my intelligence the justice it deserves. They are not seeing things in me; However, they are seeing things… perceptual and thought abnormalities. I do not know anything about grammar, nothing, I do not know what adverb, noun, adjective means, or how they differ or how to use them even after reading their definitions. I am in the dark. I don’t know squat about what constitutes a paragraph or correct punctuation? I just guess. I don’t know. However, I have adapted. I have evolved. To mimic and only create the illusion of well written evidence. About my writing, it works, but it is not right. It is looking better now that I have been at it nonstop, practicing, since Nov 2019, with 1000s of evidentiary documents completed. Is all the reason why Ahmed said, “there’s still a little bit of disassociated thoughts” and keep in mind he has only seen this behaviour in me by reading my emails he has never actually diagnosed this correctly the only way you can see these things in people; is in person; lol email diagnosing is like “remote viewing”, y’know what that is? Email diagnosing is perfectly full of shit, pseudoscience. According to my father, an educator, my writing is better, but still “a little bit of rant”. But all that sloppy, no proof reading, thus, no spell checking, rewording or editing is still happening. I see the bit of rant in this document… Early in my writing mission I emailed them all rough drafts that made me look stupid and crazy, I know. But that and, digressing (whether noted or not) is not disassociated thoughts, delusional or anything psychiatric related. Nothing has ever been verified in person regarding their charts. These things do not exist in me, maybe you could claim that, but you wouldn’t, if you watched me write. They lied.
(r) Sometimes I purposely make gibberish, word salad, outrageous, scandalous emails for shits and giggles, and to laugh at them. But with stability. Its frustration relief that makes emails therapeutic. I have improved. Digressing…, “[Enhance public safety] is the alibi of tyrants…. I have my opinion on the matter, as have you, so I shall say there is no answer. Doctors don’t lie? Everybody lies, so… there’s that!
(s) The truth is my life and times are being boiled down to an artifact of symptomology, they call, “an affect of psychiatric illness.” This centre has been involved in my life and said in a second that I went from remission to severe with a lie and combining all their bull roar makes it very stupid. If you’re very, very stupid, how can you tell possibly realize that you’re very, very stupid. The centre believing in their own shit and abilities is delusional thoughts. But they are fear mongers using scare tactics to manipulate the board into doing their bidding? The crown is politically motivated. I am not a child molester. I have never been aggressive with anyone except evil mathias. I go around making people laugh. I’m a joker. Having a mocking or cynical sense of humour. The Scots have a word for it; pawky. Digressing… Where’s the instability in a member of the public, me, writing a public official who represents the public, and discussing his concerns about my own public safety. I gave Dufort accolades, using respectful language. I talk to my family doctor the same way. Plus, what did I say that was instability, my poems based on dada art movement are meant to be an absurdity. There’s nothing there because there really isn’t anything to this instability nonsense; just email pseudoscience. I digress…
(t) Schizophrenia is not responsible for this or that or anything about me, and it did not write emails, I did. I rule my mind, my mind does not rule me. I am the public with no public safety. I digress… anyways: According to a centered psychiatrist, who wanted you to agree and believe, I started wearing black clothes (because everyday 150 species go extinct; funeral) and an eye patch (due to pink eye), was “an affect of psychiatric illness.” That’s a lie, because I do things with purposeful intent. I decide to do what I do, not psychiatric illness making choices for me. There isn’t even evidence I have a psychiatric illness. Mental stability is behind what I do or do not do.
(u) Know or do not know, I am not a significant risk nor ever was. Take it from the only expert on my body; me. I digress (my digressing, whether I tell you or not, is not disassociated thoughts) … How come “Good” hygiene and eating habits are not “an affect of psychiatric illness”? does psychiatric illness turn on and off and only cause poor or bad things? It is worth mentioning. These things are omitted because they make psychiatry pseudoscience. (good isn’t scary either) – a lie of omission is still a lie. In my opinion my habits are good in the way I think good is. They are poor in the way a judgemental opinionated liar thinks poor is. Let us never be swayed by fear mongers into making rash decisions. In dehumanizing me, making me a defect, not living, my life, but suffering “an effect of psychiatric illness” that is neither true nor provable. I shall neither agree/believe with the misdiagnosis nor should I. Moreover, on that, I shall neither recant nor should I. They are the problem not me. They lied.
(v) I am not instability. I am not a threat to the public. Liars, tyrants and fear mongers are significant risks to public safety since I am the public and they have abused me. And I suffered. They did more harm than good. Why credit them with my successes. I somehow persevered through therapeutic emails. Somehow in writing 1000s document evidence to [email protected] (upon hearing that, Richard Robins blew a gasket snapping, “They’re not! Just! Going to take! Your word! For it!) was believed by the board. The board has consistently been there for me, protecting me and they went out of their way to help me. I have absolute and total faith and trust in them and have no reason to betray them or to lie to them. Never have, never will. Digressing… They call secure prison unit “the trenches,” and ACTT, “boots on the ground” and emails, “ammunition to the board,” and NCRs, “Asse’s” and probably “enemy combatants.” In any case, the environment the centre fosters is not conducive for flourishing and is detrimental to people’s health. I digress… I never complained about the board, but scarcely was saddened when they were duped with speculation and lies by cunning manipulative two so called doctors, I wish the board were to never be duped again, I have seen dupers delight from the first “two” persons in charge at their hearings. I wish the board to publish file #7400 for the public to see. The centre: “are all going to hell for the way they treat people. If the public knew what they were doing, the public wouldn’t stand for it.”
(w) Profanity is (fucking) therapeutic. All my emails sent to the centre were cries for help that all went unanswered and sloughed off as being “Oh… he’s crazy, just acting out again.” They make claims of mental illness, by saying this they hope to invalidate anything that I might say. Since it is a favorite tactic of abusers, it should only make them more suspicious when coupled with their ranting slander and defamation against me at every hearing throwing me under the bus. Whenever I complain about their bad behaviour, they play the victim and engage in covert intimidation and coercive manipulation, (Gojer the exception) serving to make me more vulnerable to continuing victimization. For example, Ahmed said at last hearing, “Oh… we got and email… something about a threat… pff.” Well, yes, I cried for help about death threats made against me and my son, but they did not, nor ever, help me. Know this the perpetrator, monster behind threats is now facing manslaughter charges and lives in OCDC. So, I am not crazy, fear is where the schizophrenia comes from. For fuck sakes, I am human, I have a value.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/some-assembly-required/201801/profanity-can-be-therapeutic-af
(x) I agree I have “nice guy syndrome” and know I have it. nice guys like me feel that by being selfless that somehow magically their needs will be met, which leads to resentments that build up, and when I finally do get around to speaking up it erupts into an over-the-top rant called a “victim puke.” I am teaching myself to be more assertive am getting results and having some of my needs met:
http://www.thedistilledman.com/be-more-assertive/
(y) But barking dogs seldom bite. My bark is worse than my bite.
(z) I wish for an absolute so I can put this behind, live it down, not have my past rubbed in my face by the act of report no less and continue living forwards. I want to live forever, so far so good.
Report comment
I am neither moderately or radically enlightened about anything, much less psychiatry.
I could try to utilize profanity to will them away. I could do some sort of magical spell to make them go away. But, at the present time, it would not do any good, as all it would do is cause psychiatry to return in a different form, which could be better or could be worse. I have no ability to decipher the future. A lot of times, people repeaty the same things over and over again about psychiatry, but like much of medicine there is no “cure.” How come there is no mention of insurane and how’s its major influence and needing quantifiable results, they affect the treatment, outcome for the patient. Not only is there influence from Big Pharma on the psychiatrists and the mental health industry, but all the healthcare industry. Many times, a person, only concerned with numbers and the bottom line and knows little to nothing about anything related to health care makes decisions about a person’s healthcare. We need more research, articles and discussion about how health insurance, including Medicare, Medicaid and “ObamaCare” affect the decisions made in mental health, et
Report comment