The Holocaust, Biological Psychiatry and a Shift Toward a More Humane Psychiatry Today

Understanding the legacy of Nazi murders of psychiatric patients is essential when building more humane services today.

11
3018

Nazi Germany’s killing of the “unfit” began with the systematic murder of psychiatric patients, who were deemed to suffer from defective genes. In an in-depth examination of this history published in Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, John Read and Jeffrey Masson make a case that acknowledging this past—and seeing a connection to elements of biological psychiatry today—should hasten a shift toward a humane, trauma-informed paradigm of care.

They write:

“The mental health field seems to have been nudging, for decades, closer and closer to a paradigm shift, from a simplistic, pessimistic, bio-genetic ‘medical model’ of human distress to a more nuanced and evidence-based, psycho-social, trauma-informed approach. But to the present authors, who have, like thousands of other people, been advocating for greater focus on abuse, adversity and trauma for many years, it seems that progress towards that paradigm shift has been excruciatingly slow . . . . Some might argue that what happened in Germany 80 years ago has little to do with how psychiatry operates, internationally, today. We document and discuss these tragic, awful events, again, however, precisely because they so clearly illustrate themes present throughout the history of the treatment of people considered mad and which remain operative today: Social control in the interests of the powerful; damaging and sometimes even violent ‘treatments;’ and the capability of experts’ theories to camouflage what is really happening as being in the best interests of the treatments’ recipients.”

 

Nursing staff at Hadamar Euthanasia Centre, a psychiatric hospital in Germany

As Read and Masson note, it was the science of “eugenics” that gave rise to the Holocaust. Claims that schizophrenia and other major mental disorders were due to bad genes led first to sterilization programs in the United States, Scandinavian countries, and Germany, and then to the “mentally ill” being the first group targeted for extinction in the Holocaust.

Psychiatrists remembered today as founders of biological psychiatry, including Emil Kraepelin and Eugen Bleuler, helped promote eugenic ideas. Bleuler, who introduced the term schizophrenia in 1908, wrote in 1911 that while castration “is of no benefit to the patients themselves . . . it is to be hoped that sterilization will soon be employed on a larger scale . . . for eugenic reasons.”

The United States was the first to turn eugenic ideas into social policy. In 1907, Indiana became the first state to authorize compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill, and in 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such state laws constitutional.

A primary author of such legislation in Germany was Ernst Rudin, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Munich and Basel. Germany enacted its sterilization law in 1933; six years later, 350,000 Germans had been sterilized, with about one-third of this group diagnosed with schizophrenia.

At least a few psychiatrists spoke of killing the mentally ill prior to Adolph Hitler’s rise to power. In 1920, German psychiatrist Alfred Hoche wrote that psychiatric institutions were filled with “empty human husks . . . Theirs is not a life worth living; hence their destruction is not only tolerable, but humane.”

In 1939, a group of prominent psychiatrists at Germany’s most prestigious medical schools helped develop a plan to kill the mentally ill. Six psychiatric hospitals were equipped with killing chambers, with carbon monoxide the gas of choice. By the end of the war, an estimated 250,000 mental patients in Germany had been murdered, and an unknown number of patients in French, Polish and Austrian mental hospitals were also starved to death during this period.

Having reviewed this history, Read and Masson conclude: “Thus, the mass murder of mental patients by psychiatrists provided the ‘scientific’ rationale, the staff, and the equipment, for the Holocaust.”

While officers of the Third Reich faced criminal prosecution at the Nuremberg trials, most of the psychiatrists who promoted the killing of asylum patients “escaped censure or punishment.” Indeed, many returned to practice and rose to prominence in the field, the authors note. Three of the first 12 presidents of the German Society for Psychiatry and Neurology had been organizers of the “euthanasia” program. One German professor of psychiatry involved in the killing of children, Werner Villinger, was invited to a White House conference on children.

For decades, this history was nowhere to be found in psychiatric textbooks or histories of psychiatry, and for the most part, such texts continue to avoid it today. At times, texts have even cited Rudin and other German psychiatrists from this era for their “pioneering work” in the “genetics of psychiatric disorders.” Twin studies dating back to the Nazi era are still cited for providing evidence that there is a strong genetic component to “schizophrenia.”

Genetic theories about schizophrenia and other major mental disorders, Read and Masson write, remain “a cornerstone of biological psychiatry” today. After the war, such notions were promoted in American psychiatry and abroad. From 1947 to 1956, the American Journal of Psychiatry published annual updates of “psychiatric progress” on the issue of “Heredity and Eugenics,” which were written by Franz Kallmann, who had argued in the 1930s, while living in Germany, that not only “schizophrenics” but also their relatives should be sterilized.

In the 1950s, Kallmann began advocating “genetic counseling” as a method for removing defective schizophrenia genes from the gene pool. That practice remains alive and well. Schizophrenia is still touted today as having a strong genetic basis, despite a failure to identify specific genes for the disorder and findings that genetics, in fact, account for only a very small percentage of risk factors. Yet, a 2008 survey reported that U.S. psychiatrists “expressed a strongly positive view of genetic testing,” with a leading U.S. website, schizophrenia.com, stating that “genetic counseling for psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia is becoming more widespread and its use is being successfully demonstrated.”

Read and Masson write: “This practice, of informing people diagnosed with ‘schizophrenia’ and their relatives that their offspring might inherit the supposed illness, thereby discouraging reproduction, is still with us.”

In addition, they note, today there is forced treatment of mental patients with “drugs that shorten life span, and cause stupor and sexual dysfunction” and the promotion of “electric shocks that often cause memory loss and brain damage.” These are practices that, at least to some, echo the abuses of the eugenic era.

This is a connection of past to present that is not welcomed in psychiatry today. Read and Masson first submitted their article to the journal History of Psychiatry, which rejected it because it was “not suitable for the current objectives and thematic balance of the Journal.”

Read and Masson have explored this dark chapter with the hope of reforming care today. Knowing this past, they write, can help produce a paradigm shift toward a more humane, trauma-informed model of care.

“It is incumbent on all mental health workers, on all of us in fact, to be constantly on the lookout for our own failures to perceive the myriad ways in which humans are harmed by other humans, including—perhaps the hardest of all to acknowledge—by mental health staff themselves.”

 

****

Read, J., Masson J. (2022). Biological psychiatry and the mass murder of “schizophrenics”: From denial to inspirational alternative. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry 24(2). https://doi.org/10.1891/EHPP-2021-0006. Link

11 COMMENTS

  1. Great article. I hope it ushers in an even better paradigm of care, that of allowing every unique individual to have the FREE CHOICE to dream up their OWN paradigm of care for their own self. Wouldn’t that be far better, given that EVERYONE is DIFFERENT?

    Eugenics is a bit of a buzz word these days what with feminists claiming their word for woman is being nullified and what with trans people claiming their wish to have medical help is being refused by eugenical doctors. It is a word that is slung at everyone so I think the path of tolerance lies not with that word but with the word forgiveness.

    • My genes are mine. Not anyone else’s. I own my genetic inheritance. Some of which is gypsy, and some of which is Jewish, and some of which is Scottish, and some of which is the beautiful mysterious Schizophrenia quirk.

      The Gypsies did not hide the word “Gypsy” under a tree after the holocaust, not that there ever has been an “after”, and the Jews did not bury the word “Jew” because of what nazism made of that innocuous genetic word, rather they sang out that word all the louder. Are we for telling Anne Frank she should have editted out her word for her beautiful physical heritage, rip pages out of her diary lest someone read those “J” words and suddenly become a brute, a bully? Bullies do not need “a word” to justify to themselves why they bully, it is not in the words, or clinical logical theories, a bully will bully regardless!

      It seems to me that what each of us are fighting to protect are virtually the very same human rights. The right to call ourselves whatever we please. We are squabbling over the same moral patch of territory. We are sisters and brothers who do not recognize each other as love expressing itself in a cry for freedom.

      It gets like the squabble most siblings have over whether to replace the lid on the toothpaste tube or leave it undone. It is such a simple consideration, put on the lid, leave off the lid, that what eventually occurs is that just because the request is SO easy to do and yet the lid is still not on or off a WAR occurs because the other sibling said “no” to such an easy adaptation. How could they refuse to be the love needed? How could they refuse to go along with seeing their illness in alignment with the other sibling’s idea about illness? It is the refusal of the simplest request that unleashes a row. But it is also the agreeing to make space for the different way of replacing the toothpaste tube lid that arrives at a negotiated forgiving tolerant HEAVEN.

      The toothpaste tube lid is seeming to need a “consensus opinion” about it since there is only one shared toothpaste tube. But the choice to call yourself schizophrenic or a trauma sufferer is not needing a tight “consensus opinion” because the WORLD is MUCH bigger than a toothpaste tube to be bickered endlessly over. What begins as arguing over terms in a book starts to lose just being about the lids or terms and start to be a WAR kindled by the very thought that one’s opponent will not budge from their held opinion even though it would be simple for them to do so. This then makes their freedom chant look measly and mean spirited and excluding and coercive simply because the whole thing could be sorted out agreeably. The frustration is in how simple a request it would be for a schizophrenic to say they got their hallucinations from being traumatized. Their own story only needs that sibling adjustment to be editted in so that they can join the consensus
      story by tearing up their very different insollent uppity teenage Anne Frank diary.

      • https://youtu.be/yaM9J2VHLf8
        I refuse to stop calling what I greatly suffer from. What I suffer from is schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is my simple definition of me that is non negotiable. My schizophrenia is as harmless to me as the word gypsy or the word Jew or the word guru or the word gay. My schizophrenia is my difference. It is my free choice to keep my word for what ails me. My schizophrenia is my way of saying…

        “it’s wraynin!”.
        The world is huge enough for every twenty people on it to have their own words for things without it becoming anything but beautiful diversity of free choices.

  2. Bob,
    This article reminds me of a thought I’ve repeatedly had while reading some of the articles on this website: I’ve often wondered if the prevailing philosophical materialism which undergirds most of modern science plays any part in so many of the maladies we see affecting not only psychiatry and Big Pharma, but other branches of science as well. It’s a straight jacket that too many scientists seem unable to break free of..but I’m not enough of a philosophy expert to know if it’s a hunch that is correct or not…I think it would be interesting, if you feel I am correct, to find a true expert on the subject and have him/her do an article for Mad in America sometime.
    Sam

  3. I was diagnosed “Manic Depressive” at age 25, told I had a “genetically inherited mental illness with no known cause and no cure, a chemical imbalance in the brain which would have to be treated with drugs for the rest of my life”. I had already been medicated with antidepressants and tranquilizers since age 15 having been told I was suffering from “clinical depression” with “no known cause”. At age 30 after five years of every antidepressant under the sun plus lithium, my system exploded in a terrifying psychotic breakdown. I was hospitalized between several hospitals for about six months, anaesthetised to unconsciousness many times and made two suicide attempts and was subjected to the horrific and barbaric ECT. I still suffer the long-term physical and mental effects of the ECT and am in no doubt it destroyed both my short term and long-term memory. I was shouted at and manhandled by a male and female nurses who held me down for asking questions and trying to understand the terrifying splitting of my psyche in a severe dissociated state – although at that time I had never heard of dissociation and had no memory of what, after eight years and five further hospitalized breakdowns later – began to emerge in my consciousness as the result of the shock of a traffic accident, revealed itself as horrendous sexual abuse, torture and rapes by my father, uncles, a priest and my father’s business partner from the age of two until eight years old. Then again at age 17-18. This began to show itself through my art – I had been studying for a BA in Fine Art when I broke down. By the time of my traffic accident I had begun in psychotherapy with the kindest most humble doctor who was also a Jungian analyst. Once I had begun to remember the sexual abuse I was able to get through another three breakdowns by drawing and drawing from the unconscious and although tortuous information it saved me from going over the edge into psychosis ever again. I came off all medication and worked intensely with dreams and the unconscious and my art, talking and being deeply, kindly and intelligently heard and listened to. My therapist who had been in charge of the hospital I was admitted to in 1988 left the NHS after my first two years with him which because he was in the NHS he had been able to treat me for free, and I left the NHS psychiatric system with him, paying him a fraction of his normal charge. Although for the first time in my life I was finding deep meaning and purpose as the result of being able to access the truth of this buried trauma information, I was too raw and fragile to be able to work and earn therefore I lived in severe hardship. But that was nothing in the face of the fact that this doctor save my life. And that my life was for the first time beginning to feel worthwhile being alive for. I was with him for 19 years, later moving to work with his colleague, whom I still see. I have recently achieved an MA which was the culmination of all this inner work and combining scores of documented drawings of flashbacks with my thesis which embodied my decades-long conviction that there had been nothing wrong with me in the first place. I recently needed to have a formal NHS mainstream psychiatric assessment to support a disability benefits appeal. The examining psychiatrist both understood disassociation and knew and had worked with the original psychiatrist who had misdiagnosed me at age 25 – and told me what had happened to me was about compliance and to silence me. I am now formally diagnosed as Complex PTSD.

    In 2000 I went to a large mental health conference. It was attended by both “service users” and “professionals”. After the main keynote speeches we broke up into groups to explore different themes. I had gone along because I wanted to see where and how I could be of help in learning about suicide prevention. I sat in a group of about 20 people. One young man shared that he had tried to commit suicide six times. Others spoke of repeated suicide attempts and their medications and other experiences. No-one seemed to have any ideas what to do about it. I found that I was sitting next to a consultant psychiatrist. As the group closed I turned to him and said that I had been able to heal from repeated psychotic breakdowns as I had discovered both the cause (not only the original abuse but crucially not having been believed by mother, doctors etc – and had been lucky enough to have brilliant help. I thought he would be delighted and interested to hear that someone who had been been very ill had found a way to heal. Instead, to my shock he stood up saying “well, so much for all my life’s study, then” – and stalked off.

    Having, at that point, had the benefit of twelve years of life-saving, kind and respectful therapeutic help it was a huge shock to be met with such callous indifference to the idea of an alternative and successful route to healing and wholeness and to the challenging of DSM traditional beliefs of mainstream biological model genetically inherited mental illness and psychiatric diagnoses. Your article confirms that is does not seem much has changed.

  4. The division between mental health and mental illness is based on “Ten stages of genocide” by Gregory Stanton. It is based on false empiricism with pretensions to medicine. It is useless model made by barbarians. Monotheistic materialism is not faith, it has also nothing in common with psyche. It is satanism (materialism) which hates God and psyche. Marxism is when your psyche is a worthless fault of the brain and when God is dead. Human = meat. This is wulgar materialism without psychological and spiritual meaning, this is marxism. This is death. This is the end. Medical empiricism works beyond the idea of the psyche since The Enlightenment Era. This is hidden totalitarism, because no one knows about it. Egoic materialistic people are thoughtless biological machines, the property of elite. No one knows that our life is based on pathology not on medical helath. And pathology is not something evil or bad, because psyche is not theology. Medical empiricism or theological condemnation is easier than seeing the image of the psyche. Medical empiricism is convenient, still there’s no truth in this lame kind of thinking. Without the image of the psyche, there is image of the beast instead. And this is the fault of monism. They served the beast. And the beast is empty brutal materialism without overriding importance of the psyche and the spirit. This is when human becomes useless meat (technocracy) for the use of (medical, scientific) satanism.

  5. If ‘schizophrenia’ is caused by genetics, and the National Socialist’s ‘eradicated’ many of the faulty gene pool, how come there were more people suffering from what is labelled schizophrenia after the war?

    I must say, it was interesting seeing how the State government where I live was attempting to introduce forced sterilisations without parental consent. And it couldn’t be done on the basis of race, that needed to be the outcome, not the justification. Simple math tells us that aboriginals are the people who have kids with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Syndrome, so it’s a pure coincidence it’s their kids we’re going to steralise. The idea of an epidemiologist (looking at the cost to the public purse) and NOT a psychiatrist.

    Also, the very clever use of the work of Solomon Asch on conformity when having the media tell us that 87% of the population agrees with euthanasia…… never presenting the data. leaving people thinking that they were in the minority when it came to the issue. You do support the National Socialists don’t you? The motto of “Safe and Strong” a rally cry from the ‘Party’ during the election.

    The problem being that such ‘joint enterprise’ (I think in the US the term is RICO) in the euthanasing of ‘life unworthy of living’ created the very same problem faced by the National Socialist’s when Josef Hartinger did a report into the early deaths at Dachau. The United Nations stating that the State IS responsible for crimes committed by it’s public officers a real issue if they are turning a blind eye, and covering up human rights abuses. (one police officer telling me “it might be best I don’t know about that” when I explained the attempt to ‘outcome’ me in an E.D. to conceal misconduct by his fellow officers)

    All it would take would be one doctor to ‘confess’ and ….. thanks Dr Lancee. Now look at the problems you’ve caused. Hence the need to bulldoze through the legislation, and provide a ‘Nuremburg defense’ (it’s the law) for our politicians, and make it look like the public had got something for free (like the “added protections” of the Mental Hygiene Act. Just don’t tell them who it is that is being protected…… ie the Shock Docs).

    I assume that in the US the hospital administrators don’t act like Mafia Godfathers, threatening peoples families and arranging little accidents for the good of the community (need to define this in such a way as to make it a small group of people, as opposed to the whole electorate). Concealing police and public sector misconduct with the use of the mental health system. Police doing arbitrary referrals of any inconvenient truths with ‘verbals’ (Come stick a needle in this one for us, he’s “hallucinating” thinking were going to report our colleagues to the corruption watchdog….. thanks. He’s what?………… “who else has seen the documents?”. We’re going to need a scapegoat.)

  6. MAYBE WE DON’T NEED PSYCHIATRY

    If a ‘Severely Diagnosed Person’ can come off the (below) drugs Independently – and Cost Nothing and make Full Recovery:-

    THE IMPACT OF FLUPHENAZINE DECANOATE DISCONTINUATION –A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
    [For Recent STUDY – copy and google above heading]

    And if as Reported:-
    “…Over 40% of Irish adults have mental health disorder, study finds…”
    Irish Times Mon Jun 27 2022 – 19:21

    “…The study, which was carried out by academics from Maynooth University, National College of Ireland and Trinity College Dublin…”

    BRIEF EXPLANATION
    I was placed on Disabling and Suicidally inductive Fluphenazine Decanoate in 1980.

    Following complaint, I was given permission in 1983, to abruptly withdraw from these drugs – and ended up in Galway University Hospial.

    By 1984 I was considered hopeless.

    I then decided to taper very carefully from these drugs. I also learned how to cope (through trial and error), with my drug withdrawal anxiety.

    I regained my ability to function and was no longer Suicidal as a result of successfully coming off these drugs; and have remained well since (1984 -2022).

    The original “diagnosis” had been “Schizophrenia”

  7. Psychiatry is dangerous quackery – a pseudoscience: i.e., a non-science that purports to be a science (by definition).

    Definition: The natural sciences are sets of methodologies that reliably lead to the acquisition of empirical knowledge (a-posteriori) about some phenomenon of nature.

    A field of science (per se) is a set of methodologies that reliably lead to the acquisition of empirical knowledge (a-posteriori). Not only is psychiatry not a natural science, but it is no science at all.

    Psychiatry has no scientific theory, only mere hypotheses that have consistently failed to be confirmed. With no science to back up their empty claims their profession’s own scientific pretensions, it has only force, no legitimate authority on medicine, health of any kind – be it mental or otherwise, and bears no relationship to science, or its practice, or its method: a non-science which purports to be a science (i.e., the definition of a pseudoscience).

    Psychiatrists engage in introducing dysgenics into society. Psychiatry as a profession indoctrinates & brainwashes the public, family members of their targets, as well as media, politicians, schools & universities. Long-term, maintenance, and/or preventative use of neuroleptics is contraindicated by the best available scientific evidence: = knowledgebase that is secure: from reliable sources and from trustworthy people. Drugging a person with a neuroleptic for treating a psychiatric disorder is pseudoscientific experimentation whether done with the consent of the person or without (particularly against the will of he so treated).

    Psychiatry is a fraudulent profession of charlatans, who pretend to be doctors and fancy themselves being engaged in a medical science, whose job description is to systematically violate the rights of their victims. Psychiatry’s neurotransmitter hypotheses of mental illness are hoaxes. Psychiatrists routinely commit fraud and perpetrate injustice towards their clients, torture them, cause intentional infliction of emotional distress (pain and suffering), engage in gross scientific misconduct, unethical & immoral conduct, unfortunately consistent with the mainstream practice of the psychiatric profession

    I do not buy into psychiatry’s scientific pretensions. I reject the medical model of mental illness in favour of the bio-psycho-social model, disease model of antipsychotic drug action (dishonest even if true, no evidence that it is true, yet psychiatrists are permitted to lobotomize people supposedly in the name of the public good. The public has been sold a false narrative of the science of psychiatric drugs, psychiatrists are not required to justify their decisions and actions, there is no oversight whatsoever on how psychiatrists destroy the mental and bodily health of their targets: what harm they cause, how inefficacious (i.e., ineffective) they treatments are, psychiatry is a pseudoscientific profession of pretend mind doctors who have deluded themselves into thinking that they can cure schizophrenia (inconsistently, intentionally vaguely and overbroadly defined as to cast the widest net possible to target people for treatment), engage in systematically depriving people of their constitutionally protected human and civil rights, engage in libel, slander, defamation of character just by virtue of labeling people with that stigmatizing pseudo-medical jargon “schizophrenia”, diagnosis is stigmatization by virtue of which a person becomes subject to psychiatric slavery, kidnapping, and human trafficking, not to mention brain disabling neurotoxic treatments, ineffective and counterproductive for their very indication, psychiatric interventions in the name of treatment and under the guise of a scientifically valid and medically sound medical specialty of science, psychiatric treatment practices are contraindicated by the best available scientific evidence in the appropriate scientific research literature, psychiatry is not a scientific authority brain health – neurology is. Psychiatry does not possess any legitimate expertise in the area of mental or physical health, psychiatrists are not scientific authorities on brain diseases. They are not even legitimate authorities of their own unsubstantiated neurotransmitter hypotheses of mental illness.

    Science & ethics are on my side, only the law & force are on theirs. The best-available scientific evidence supports my positions over theirs; moreover, they do not even have any credible evidence at all for theirs, let alone clear and convincing evidence (which is what would be required in medicine, as it is in medicine in general).

    Mental illnesses are not demonstrable, real brain diseases but metaphorical ones. Psychiatric disorders (i.e., “mental illnesses”) are not real medical diseases but rather sociological constructions. No mental illness has been demonstrated to be identical to be caused by a brain disease process (pathology), lesion, or abnormality of any kind whatsoever (ex., bio-chemical imbalance). Mental illness is neither testable (in principle) nor falsifiable (in practice) and thus does not fall under the purview of science and thereby excludes itself from scientific discourse altogether.

    The diagnostic process of psychiatry is highly subjective, frivolous, arbitrary, and contingent on interpretation, which makes it necessarily subjective, because it depends on the psychiatrist’s opinions. The psychiatric definitions of mental illness, as defined by the DSM, are vague and overbroad so much so as to cast the widest possible net to target people for psychiatric enslavement.

    Their hypotheses of mental illness are unsubstantiated: have consistently failed to be confirmed. The theoretic entities of psychiatry are bogus, their conceptualizations of mental illness and what makes people “mentally ill” are ill-formed, fallacious, cognitively biased, and are not supported by scientific evidence. Their research findings suffer from systematic error: ex., confirmation bias and refusing to publish studies with unfavourable outcomes: counting only the hits and disregarding the misses.

    Psychiatry is a fraudulent profession of conscious liars and charlatans, delusional pretend doctors that have the hubris to have identified the very molecule that causes mental illness (dopamine in the case of schizophrenia and serotonin in the case of depression): yet science does not support either case. Psychiatry is not something worth reforming, it is something rotten to its core that needs to be abolished, overcome, and surpassed by civilized societies.

    Every single mental illness or disorder presented in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM) is invented, not discovered, and voted into existence by a show of hands (by the APA, American Psychiatric Association). Psychiatric DSM labels, known as “mental illnesses/disorders” are not real, demonstrable brain diseases; they are illnesses only in a metaphorical sense. Mental illness cannot be tested in a medically sound or scientifically valid manner: Catch my drift?

    The dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia has consistently failed to be confirmed despite decades of research and is not supported by the best available scientific evidence in literature. The dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia carries no credibility in the modern psychiatric research establishment; moreover, there exists negative evidence indicating the contrary (i.e., that it is false).

    Nietzsche says there were once witch-trials in which the prosecutors thought the defendants were guilty. Sometimes, the defendants thought they were guilty too. But none of them ever were. It’s the same with all guilt; Psychiatric-trials.

  8. The comments here give me strength and hope. Currently successfully helping my daughter taper from forced medications after she was involuntary patient after suicide attempt. Without MIA and the brilliant info from the community I would not have come across amazing stories of survival and the brilliant Western Lapland Study that shows psychosis can be healed, can be temporary, and does not need life long medication. Thank you all.

LEAVE A REPLY