In a new study, researchers used a machine learning model to predict which psychiatric patients would go on to get a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The only problem—it failed. The model was wrong about 90% of the time when it gave a positive result.
Moreover, the best prediction data came when integrating clinical notes into the model. That means that even this dismal failure was dependent on the notes already taken by a skilled clinician who already observed the specific signs of oncoming schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Some of the text that was most predictive: “voices” and “admission,” indicating that the clinician already observed that the person experienced hearing voices, and already recommended that they be hospitalized.
The most relevant statistics: The PPV (positive predictive value) for schizophrenia was 10.8%. This means that a positive result would be wrong for 9 out of every 10 patients in an actual clinic. The AUC (area under the curve) on the test dataset was 0.64, which tells that the model did little better than chance. According to researchers, an AUC of 0.80 or higher is required to be clinically useful.
Oddly, the researchers don’t seem to realize that their model failed. They write that their study shows that it’s “feasible” to use machine learning to predict schizophrenia. In fact, they recommend that the positive test result be shown to clinicians to alert them to the risk!
“The model’s positive predictions should be automatically presented to the staff through the EHR system, enabling intervention at the level of the individual patient,” they write.
Again, remember that this positive prediction is wrong 90% of the time.
The researchers, all at Aarhus University, Denmark, were led by Lasse Hansen. The study was published in JAMA Psychiatry.
Some researchers have suggested that machine learning—using artificial intelligence to investigate a complex phenomenon—might be better at identifying which neurobiological measures are important and how to use them to predict psychiatric diagnoses. So far, these attempts have landed with an accuracy equivalent to pure chance.
In one recent study, researchers created a machine learning algorithm to combine every conceivable neurobiological measure in order to predict depression. They trained and tested 2.4 million machine learning models, and found accuracies no better than chance, ranging from 48.1% to 62.0%.
For comparison, they note that the social/environmental variables of social support and childhood maltreatment each predict depression with greater than 70% accuracy. Combining social/environmental variables, and including more than just those two, might bring accuracy even higher.
In the current study, Hansen and the other researchers used data from the electronic health record (EHR) from all patients (15-60 years old) who had visited psychiatric services in central Denmark at least twice from 2013 to 2016. In total, they had data from 24,449 patients.
The researchers created a dataset to train their machine learning model using data from all but two hospitals. These two sites were reserved to test the model to see how well it performed once trained. The goal was to see if the model could predict which patients—already being seen for mental health problems—would go on to get a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
One of the most important statistics to keep in mind when evaluating a clinical prediction model is PPV (positive predictive value). When the algorithm spits out a positive result—in the real world—how often is it correct?
In the current study, the PPV for schizophrenia was 10.8%. This means that if the test comes back positive—meaning that a person is supposedly going to have worsening mental health developing into schizophrenia—it is wrong about 90% of the time.
The PPV for bipolar disorder was even worse, at 8.4%. That is, 92 out of every 100 positive results would be wrong.
When used to predict worsening mental health in general (including both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder), the model had a PPV of 13.0%, meaning that 87 out of every 100 positive results would be wrong.
Another statistic that proved an abject failure: once they took the algorithm out of the dataset it had been trained on and tried it on other data, it had an AUC (area under the curve) of 0.64 (random chance is 0.50, while a perfect prediction is 1). Researchers have suggested that an AUC of at least 0.80 is required to be clinically useful.
All of the patients were already being seen at specialty psychiatric clinics, so even this dismal predictive power might be an overestimation. How well would this model predict for those being seen in primary care for other reasons, for instance?
The researchers also did not compare the predictive utility of the model to that of actual clinicians. There is no recognition that perhaps the clinicians already recognized that the patients were at risk of severe mental health problems and were taking action to try to help.
Remember that the most predictive part of the model was when it identified words such as “voices” and “admission” in the clinical notes, which indicate that a clinician has already taken notice of these symptoms and is already recommending the highest level of treatment.
Other predictive data included the medications being taken—that is, someone who is already being prescribed antipsychotics might be at higher risk of being labeled with schizophrenia, according to the model.
Is it “prediction” to guess that someone who has already been identified as hearing voices and is being hospitalized and medicated for it might end up with a diagnosis of schizophrenia? And when that model is also wrong 90% of the time, is that helpful?
According to the researchers, yes.
“These findings suggest that detecting progression to schizophrenia through machine learning based on routine clinical data is feasible, which may reduce diagnostic delay and duration of untreated illness,” they write.
****
Hansen, L., Bernstorff, M., Enevoldsen, K., Kolding, S., Damgaard, J. G., Perfalk, E., . . . & Østergaard, S. D. (2025). Predicting diagnostic progression to schizophrenia or bipolar disorder via machine learning. JAMA Psychiatry. Published online February 19, 2025. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.4702 [Full text]
How could a machine possibly discern a fictional diagnosis? Such a task would necessitate the expertise of a pseudo-scientist, such as a psychiatrist.
Report comment
Might as well try to predict Santa’s arrival with the toys. Makes exactly that much sense to me.
Report comment
I predict the toys will arrive from Santa on 25th December! Don’t worry Steve – he hasn’t forgotten your Legoland or your ballerina outfit (let MIA readers be the first to see you in it!) Only joking. If there is a Mrs Steve McCrea we’ll let her be the first to see it.
Report comment
I’m not surprised. Artificial Intelligence as it stands today is a “Large Language Model”. Both A.I. and psychiatrist diagnosis’s are a “narrative” … based on language, not facts.
Whoever did that study did not know what they were interacting with.
Can A.I. produce wondrous results if it was trained on biological facts (rather than social narrative)? I assume so (it is said to be true). What I wonder is how do we keep these A.I’s up to date on biological facts? I.e. for instance “Watson from IBM”, now many years past. Are they continuously feeding that A.I. the latest scientific research?
Which leads to the startling – there are many A.I.’s. As far as I know, the only way to know how current these A.I.’s are, is to ask them. I have installed half a dozen “small” LLM’s on my computer (from IBM, Microsoft, Meta to name a few) – I asked them. None are any more current than 2023 (they are free). Nevertheless, 10 years from now … they will still be doing as they are doing right now (the nature of computers) and be even further out of date.
So which A.I. was that study done on? What version?
Of course, human bias will declare disease, with no biological proof.
Be careful out there!
Thank you for addressing this topic. Our world is changing in a hurry. I used online A.I. (hopefully most current) to answer my tax filing questions. TurboTax was offering LiveHelp (not optional in cost). I didn’t use it, but Betcha – behind that LiveHelp was A.I. Consider what this means to all the good folks that have been answering the public’s questions for decades?
Sincerely, a retired Software Engineer, accused of Bipolar Disorder (in perimenopause, with a hormonal headache, living with domestic violence, experiencing side effects from anti seizure meds prescribed to prevent migraines … “They didn’t know”).
Always, always, always trust yourself.
Report comment
But as long as AI is fed “data” from corrupt sources, it will turn out corrupt answers. It will never be in a position to say, “Wait, this asshole is lying to me for his own profit!”
Report comment
I wrote some python code to have an AI read psychiatric literature and create word vectors from it.
Result:
Most psychiatric diagnoses are basically the same word. There are some outliers (drug addictions, trauma).
Report comment
I wonder if it’s too much to explain this, because I’m interested. How does it turn out that all these different psychiatric diagnosis which clearly are supposed to be separate distinct diseases, how do they turn out to be the same word? I mean, we all sort of know this that they aren’t really based on concrete science, and there’s no consensus between different psychiatrists that they end up diagnosing the same symptoms with the same disease, but how does that turn into them all being the same word?. If it’s too much to explain don’t worry about it I’m just curious.
Report comment
I’ll try to explain.
Word vectors assign points in a n-dimensional space to words, so that words closer in meaning are closer together. “Meaning” here means the other words it is used in context with.
The advantage of this is that you can perform basic algebra with these words, and it turns out to work quite well. The most famous examples are something along the lines of man+crown=king or king-man+woman=queen. This tells us, that the vectors actually capture relative meaning between words.
Now if you look at the cosine of the difference between two words, you can use that as a measure of their similarity. It gives numbers between 0 and 1, so you can kinda interpret it as an overlap in meaning. For synonyms like BPD and “borderline personality order” this was pretty close to 1. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but something like 0.995 or so.
But looking at different diagnoses the overlap is also very close to one. Iirc, BPD, schizophrenia, schizoaffective and bipolar all meant basically the same thing, as in cos(bpd-schizophrenia)=0.98 or something.
So even in research literature these words are basically synonyms.
Report comment
THANKS! I’ll refresh myself on sine and cosine and all of the geometry stuff. Because as I RECALL all they did was teach us this stuff, and make graphs, and never for any purpose….. That really helps, it makes it multidimensional, and I could look for other ways — what was hammered into my head in highschool one hour a day for a whole year — that it has purpose.
Just to be facetious, but hate speech, the different words to insult people from different cultures, races, sexual identities, ages, what’s called “intelligence,” ideas of beauty do those all boil down to the same, or it would be that psychiatric diagnosis have less insight than what’s already lack of insight?
I mean it’s standard knowledge that hate speech doesn’t define anything. Psychiatric diagnosis supposedly does. Does that make such labels worse than being wrong, being that it defines something as being considered right, but it’s wrong. I mean in general when people are treated with such there’s less recovery than when they are “treated.” But then, I might not be using the right way to point this out, whether they come out as the same “word,” as you explained, that might be that they all come out as being “a disease,” when hate speech comes out as being wrong insight.
Report comment
I find that fascinating! Good for you!
Words, language is not reality! Thinking that an A.I. can predict psychiatric diagnosis (notice, I didn’t say mental illness – which does not exist in reality – just in words) is no more relevant than predicting future criminality based on one’s address, family structure, or whatever behaviors one’s relatives have engaged in. “I am not my brother”. But surely, that will come to pass, also.
I have python loaded, but have only gotten that far – so far. It’s a great hobby, for me. Good job, beokay!
Whenever the psychobabble people would accuse me of psychosis … I would look at those so-called experts and straight faced respond “Just because you don’t understand what I am saying, doesn’t mean I am psychotic”.
In case, that line is of use to others. Go ahead and use it!
Report comment
I don’t even know what to say about this. Treatment for schizophrenia statistically in the long run makes things worse. Now they find it feasible to listen to some machine that is 90% of the time wrong so what is this going to do the whole epidemic they’ve been making, and thus more schizophrenics because of more treatment and then they’re going to get more drastic trying to prevent all of this by causing more of it? And then when they bleep in hearing voices this more accurate but does that say about society? Aren’t hearing voices something that goes on inside yourself or you’re trying to process something ,God forbid. No you can’t process anything you have to be told what stuff is for example one is supposed to believe all this and not look at how ridiculous this is all going on about 90% accuracy on a machine for a disease that basically is fictitional in ways, where the treatment causes more of the problem… Just add concepts such as drugs artificial intelligence and voila…… Oh this is feasible…. !? We’re making headway. There’s compelling evidence that……
Report comment
“Voices,” “voices,” “voices” … oh my former child abuse covering up psychologist was obsessed with “voices.” I had no idea what she was talking about, but due to her obsession, I finally confessed there may have been an unknown “voice” I’d heard in Nordstrom’s parking lot.
And such a confession of not knowing who was yelling in a parking lot is what the psychological industry apparently believes is “psychosis” … that, and / or one’s dreams. My former psychologist was crazy, and /or a mentally abusive gaslighter.
Let’s hope and pray AI some day garners insight into the reality that schizophrenia is an iatrogenic illness, created with the schizophrenia “treatments.” The antipsychotics / neuroleptics can create the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, via anticholinergic toxidrome. And the neuroleptics can also create the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, via neuroleptic induced deficit syndrome.
Report comment
What we call ‘machine’ or ‘machine learning’ is nothing more than the ‘artificial intelligence algorithm’ used today. The diagnosis of ‘mental illness’ made by machines will not be different from the diagnosis made by psychiatrists. After all, the diagnoses made by psychiatrists are also imaginary. Licensed psychopathic psychiatrists who prepared ‘diagnostic criteria for mental illness’ such as DSM and ICD prepared these criteria based solely on their own experiences and observations.
None of these have the characteristics that can be detected with ‘medical testing tools’. No medical testing tool can detect mental illness. (You can’t detect something that isn’t in the brain.) However, you make many assumptions and produce theories. Mental illness diagnostic criteria such as DSM and ICD are empty criteria produced with these assumptions and theories.
Even among the ‘mental illness’ diagnoses that psychiatrists around the world make to their own patients, there are ‘imaginary’ diagnoses. Interestingly enough, the vast majority (perhaps all) of the diagnoses made by psychiatrists are very different from the DSM and ICD criteria for mental illness. In other words… The diagnostic criteria in the DSM and ICD are ‘imaginary’, but the ‘diagnoses’ made by psychiatrists are other ‘imaginary’ diagnoses that do not match them.
HERE IS WHERE THE SCARY THING STARTS; Probably… Psychiatrists, in order to VERIFY and make the ‘imaginary misdiagnoses’ they give to their patients COMPLY with the DSM and ICD diagnostic criteria… They use psychiatric medications used in the ‘mental illness’ that they have diagnosed. So probably… (Psychiatrists prescribe psychiatric medications to their patients and ensure that they use these medications. When the patient uses the psychiatric drugs prescribed to him, it suffers from the mental illness diagnosed by the psychiatrist.)
So, where do we get this theory? ; It is not unknown that psychiatric medications do not cure mental illness but rather create it. If you think that the psychiatry (and pharmaceutical) industries and psychiatrists know this fact… Psychiatrists, in order to produce ‘mental illness’ in their patients… We can think that they may be using psychiatric drugs (almost like weapons) to MANUFACTURE (create) the ‘imaginary’ mental illness diagnosis they have given to their patients. These may seem like ‘PARANOIAC THOUGHTS’. But they are not impossible things.
The psychiatry and pharmaceutical industries can use psychiatric drugs as weapons. This is possible. Psychiatric drugs can damage healthy brains and produce ‘permanent mental illness’ in people. More precisely… Psychiatric drugs can be used to produce (create) the ‘mental illness’ they are designed to treat. And they are being used… Emerging evidence is that psychiatric medications do not cure ‘mental illness’, they produce (create) it.
So… It is also very possible that the psychiatry and pharmaceutical industries could use psychiatric drugs as weapons to produce (create) mental illnesses that do not exist (in people). Why shouldn’t it be? The psychiatric (and pharmaceutical) industries are not innocent. Unfortunately, so are psychiatrists…
They know that psychiatric medications produce (create) the mental illnesses they are supposed to treat. And they may be using this as a weapon to increase the number of ‘mentally ill (illness)’ and ‘mentally patients’ people in the world. These are things that are possible. Why is there an increase in mental illnesses and the number of patients? Haven’t Robert Whitaker and others produced ample evidence to show that the numbers of ‘mental patients’ and ‘mentally ill (illness)’ are increasing? So… We can also say that it is possible that psychiatric drugs are being used as weapons to increase the number of ‘mental ill (illnesses)’ and ‘mentally patients’ people. Anyway, these are serious issues that need to be ‘discussed separately’.
———–
When we look at these facts… Mental illness diagnoses made by machine learning will be no different from these. It may even lead to a further increase in mental illness and the number of patients. In my opinion, machine learning (i.e. artificial intelligence) driven mental health system can be used not to detect mental patients but for ‘nature-based machine therapies’ for the current conditions of mental patients. It could be something like a psychologist or a therapist doing ‘behavior, nature etc. therapies’ with their patient. Of course, you still need to be cautious. Artificial intelligence could increase the number of mental illnesses and patients more than we ever imagined. What’s the worst that could happen? 🙁
With my best wishes.. 🙂 Y.E. (Researcher blog writer (Blogger))
Report comment
‘Mental illnesses’ are social fabrications (Greenberg, G., Szasz, T., Burstow, B., et al.). Therefore, they cannot be created through the consumption of psychiatrically prescribed neurotoxic drugs. An individual develops brain impairment and exhibits symptoms similar to those of someone with a traumatic brain injury after one month on these drugs. After a few months, individuals will exhibit a limited repertoire of verbal, emotional and behavioural responses. Frequently misdiagnosed as ‘mental illness’, these manifestations are due to the person’s drug-induced cognitive disability: a chronic brain impairment directly attributed to their psychiatric prescription (Breggin, P. (2012).
You are correct, Yildirim, the psychiatry and pharmaceutical industries can and do utilise psychiatric drugs as weapons, specifically biological weapons. However, they are not creating ‘mental illness’; they are causing brain damage through chemical lobotomy and wrongly labelling it as a quasi-diagnosis/es.
Report comment
Yes, you’re right, Cat… In fact, I’m saying the same thing Peter Breggin said.Psychiatric medications cause brain damage. And they exhibit the soul (spiritual) symptoms caused by this brain damage. This, it’s like you said.. They exhibit limited verbal, emotional, and behavioral responses. And this too is misdiagnosed as ‘mental illness.’ So it’s not different, I’m saying the same things… If this ‘chemical brain damage’ becomes permanent, the the soul (spiritual) problems in question will also become permanent. That’s what I mean..
With my best wishes.. : )
Report comment
If the symptoms of mental illness are warning signs, or beyond that the beginning of how you transcend trauma, what “psychiatric” medications do is actually cause trauma, to the body, and also to the emotions, and so again these social fabrications that everything is wonderful, and if you show signs of making society loose it’s grip on its fantasies that it’s all ship shape (as long as you get the rewards for being brainwashed), then, then you supposedly have a mental illness when not supporting said fantasy, and then you get further traumatized by treatment. And then we can go back to whether trauma creates mental illness, but then you have to see it as a mental illness rather than what it is.
“Sadness” “not being able to concentrate” “supposedly non reality based thoughts” thoughts which in reality are more thoughts than the programming that’s supposed to be attached to the physical (or it’s non reality based supposedly again), or just programming in general (thoughts which aren’t thoughts) which is how often is it NOT even attached to the physical it uses to be objective but just more social constructs such as take a pill and it will heal you, kill the enemy (isn’t he then also supposed to want to kill you and see you as such) etc. etc. “do what the boss says, he’s the authority, or the school or the church…..” Even grief for example, in ways I wonder what is going on, even myself, whether it’s we’ve lost part of ourselves and miss it in others who have gone back to the source, and thus we’re reminded of the love there….. or it’s just a remembering of the value in life, but it’s all transcending to another level, not something to turn off, as if it can be turned off, and that’s what the drugs are doing…. we’re meant to see the value in life, all of it, no matter how we would have wanted it different when it’s completed safe in forever to grow there without interference….. But even something completely labeled as “delusions” or “non reality based” or psychotic” etc. can have more of a poetry or resonance or when looked at can be more reasonable than what’s considered sane, because it relates to thought not to programming, and the craziest thing could have a symbolism that when understood changes a person’s inner ingrained reflexes (because it’s relating to the inside, but as soon as it’s not understood by others they get alarmist and it’s a mental illness, as if we have no insides), change your reflexes by looking at the inside and it changes the future and so is more objective than anything tangible to what’s called reality, while that “reality doesn’t have such a relationship with the meaning of life, time, certainly not the future other than what’s made out to be safety will cause the problem to repeat itself…… Or even just symptoms that these medications aren’t helping, they don’t treat a chemical imbalance, then programming would say that’s anogsognosia, when in reality the anosognosia is not being aware of what the drugs do, or not being ALLOWED to be aware. That’s oppression. Does someone get “psychotic” because of antidepressants that’s a WARNING signal what the trauma is they aren’t supposed to see is from the antidepressants, and the antidepressants could be because someone got on ADHD meds and started having repetitive behaviors which was labeled as yet another “symptom” of a mental illness rather than AGAIN a sign the medications were traumatizing….. All sets of behaviors that really are annoying for society, like the one organism of a group that starts to evolve from the rest (and is in touch with the future needs), that gets targeted for not being part of the program. Not part of the complacent mob. Or when a simple warning light or signal goes on. A smoke alarm, and people turn it off and act like everything is fine, when a fire could be on the loose; or in a car, when you need oil or brake fluid (I don’t drive don’t really know so I’m improvising), but then turn it off and you don’t have that annoying flashing light but the car starts breaking down after awhile. What warning signal are you going to turn off then? The car can’t function anymore. But with “psychiatry” there could be a whole matrix of warning signals all turned off till the next one emerges until the body breaks down. And the real warning signals are made out to be something to turn off while society enabled by psychiatry creates these fake warning signals involving “symptoms,” making society quite paranoid and alarmist. That’s ignoring what the medications are doing, or in the beginning why a person was having “symptoms” which were an attempt the brain and the soul have of warning there’s something going on. Then you have the vehicle damaged in another way when the warning signals weren’t attended to, the response trying to again warn what’s REALLY going on.
And what are these “symptoms” that start the whole domino effect until the vehicle is destroyed. It could be trauma, something they can’t express yet and get no help with understanding the symptoms (can a wound have symptoms also, and not be a disease? If you know what’s hurting you, what’s causing the wound, then you know rather than be unaware to get away from it or make it stop or take other measures) or it could just be someone knows something that’s considered out of bounds. Even at a precognitive level, or what is supposedly impossible to know although it pans out like psychic senses. People tend to turn off, that’s also too much for their “safety” to fit into the norm. And so it can be traumatizing even knowing such things and wanting to find where you can express them, or something on the inside emerging that tries to point out what needs the space to emerge. What needs to be understood at a cognitive level where the “symptoms” are pointing out something’s going on. Whatever is going on, the “psychiatric symptoms” could be what the soul and brain do to transcend trauma, which is hardly a disease, but then you add psychiatric drugs and more trauma, yeah, you’re going to have the brain disabled, all of the symptoms, and these ARE symptoms (symptoms of a disease, not a wound, a wound isn’t a disease) as you quoted from Breggin: “symptoms similar to those of someone with a traumatic brain injury after one month on these drugs. After a few months, individuals will exhibit a limited repertoire of verbal, emotional and behavioural responses. Frequently misdiagnosed as ‘mental illness’, these manifestations are due to the person’s drug-induced cognitive disability: a chronic brain impairment directly attributed to their psychiatric prescription (Breggin, P. (2012).” and then you have the stuff labeled as symptoms (of a disease rather than trauma needing attention or a wound) which are the warning signals, the brain and the soul trying to get away from, transcend the trauma, to warn the self something is going on, and that’s then labeled as the disease, rather than………
And the most insane thing is how they try to make out they are tending to emotional wounds, or such trauma, and then in reality traumatize the brain (and the emotions themselves whose expression is made out to be a disease), all while saying they are treating trauma……
Like creating a chemical imbalance saying they are treating one, and then like you said, the disabling of the brain can be seen as negative symptoms of say “schizophrenia” or any of the “diseases” that a person can’t take care of themselves anymore ( I wonder what the rising costs are, someone on usually 1000 dollars of medications, and then the extra money from the state to be warehoused in foster care like labrats, is that like $4000 a month? 3000? 5000? 2000? along with their advertising, the everything of people maintaining this on all sides, which often makes out it’s charitable and Hollywood chimes in with their “celebrities”… how many people have ended up shuffling around such?)……. and then what is any dissent from that? ODD, OCD, anogsognosia (which I already mentioned), non compliance, being “weird”, being ridiculed, being shunned, bizarre alarmist ideas others have along with totally unreality based conclusions gossip and propaganda……… and you’re supposed to want to be part of such a “society” in order to be “functional” safe” and “sane”!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
While the edit function is still on, as I was doing dishes thinking about how much this all costs. If there’s just 1,000,000 people that cost the government 1,000 dollars (often the “meds” alone are that much, I don’t know how much the “gov” pays for that but…..) that’s one billion. Add everything else, then estimate the loss of intelligence, functionality, ingenuity, evolutionary value with the disabling of natural functions of the brain, and added to that the phobia in society against anything that’s not part of the programmed norm adding to this loss with the amount of people who aren’t even taking disabling controlled substances called psychiatric drugs but still turn off part of their brain, their self….are controlled by fear (and social norms and lobbying) and ignore the warning signals………… are we at a Trillion yet?
Report comment
Dear Nijinsky,
Your quote on the international psychiatric and pharmaceutical swindle involving the re-traumatising and disabling of the traumatised, vulnerable, poor or socially isolated is flawless: “And the most insane thing is how they try to make out they are tending to emotional wounds, or such trauma, and then in reality traumatize the brain.”
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Thanks Kat, I try. You brought it up how even the symptoms that emerge from the “medications” are something else than what was there in the first place before such disabling of natural functions. And then the psychiatrists don’t even see what’s coming from the “medications,” and tally that up as more of the original “disease” emerging.
One tries to use a word like “disease” or “symptom,” and….. the symptoms of the real disease (drugs disabling natural functions) are made out to be symptoms of what was made out to be a disease but was trauma expressing itself (so it can be known, so one can heal knowing), or the “symptom” was simply someone that had perspective beyond what’s considered possible is a supposed symptoms…..
Thanks for pointing that out, because I would say that too, that the drugs cause mental illness (longterm, side effects, withdrawal symptoms, etc.), but then I wasn’t always separating the two. Because of what the drugs do to people, and THEY [the psychiatrists] call it mental illness, and even THEY would they have their eyes open or were they interested in reality could SEE what’s happening, which expresses itself scientifically and statistically, and so one would think you could say to them: “EXCUSE ME your treatment is causing what you say you started treatment for…….” But even beyond that the disease the drugs cause can be proven to exist, the other can’t really. So, it’s even the psychiatrists listing yet again something else, what THEY caused in their treatment, as yet again needing treatment… as if it’s the same thing, and they don’t even see they are causing it, something else, and label it as what one couldn’t really call a disease to begin with. But what the drugs cause IS a disease. So what is “mental illness” the epidemic of psychiatric drug use? THAT would perhaps be accurate. Get rid of the medications, and there wouldn’t be what’s verified to be a chemical imbalance in “mental illness.” There are verifiable chemical imbalances coming from the
medications,” if you want to get rid of that, and treat chemical imbalance in “mental illnesses” get rid of the medications. THAT would be taking what they say they are doing, and being rational with it. Being sane with it. Being reality based with it. You can’t even express the truth, can’t disagree with them (one has to say not all of them, but there you go, it already isn’t about science) without them calling you non compliant, or having anosognosia, ODD. A danger to yourself and others etc… because of what THEY have caused, and you’re not going along with that, for them to see if you end up in the nice cubby hole of complacent compliance, the minority they cherry pick ( I wish I could find a better way to describe this, as I love cherries ) to force it on others, while the majority is consistent with the spike, the epidemic…. Despite that we do have insides, there is an anatomy there…..
I haven’t even been psychiatrically drugged, by the way. I only remained with said “symptoms” and was put on disability. I was just disturbed, at first when diagnosed, like anyone, but then given the situation my brain had to start making up whole figurative arrangements of inner experiences that were so beyond societal norms it scared me, unfortunately, and then one needs a health brain to figure it out. And by some magic of chance I managed to somehow avoid forced treatment, just by a hair’s breadth sometimes, it seems. And it takes a healthy brain to figure out what’s going on, or just to allow the brain itself to find answers, with all the amazing abilities the brain has, what we are given as a gift….. And it’s worth figuring out, it’s amazing and awe-inspiring how what’s made out to be something crazy to turn off is something completely different: perspective that’s liberating, florid, an expression of who we really are, what happens by itself…..
Report comment
Um, someone goes to a psychiatrist because they have something going on in their life, or others think there’s something going on. Whether they feel they are traumatized, or people in their environment think they are crazy (or even stuff that happened they can’t talk about, with others, and think the psychiatrist will help); and then would the psychiatrist come along with: “oh,we’ll fix this, we’ll traumatize your brain too, then you’ll have a traumatized brain and an environment that’s……”
My first therapist I had (after years and years of staying away from any of them I heard of a place that was reasonably alternative), who was a real piece of work. She was so impressed with me, she wanted to use me as a peer, was going to start her own company, and has since. But after telling her all I knew regarding antidepressants, she said she wanted to start the company so that supposedly vulnerable indigenous people could get antidepressants earlier (!?!?!?!?!?!?). She saw some kind of profit from such, and wanted to see whether I would be for that, she KNEW what I said, I had clearly explained the science of it. No, I didn’t become one of her workers. But we had talked quite a bit, and I had told her stuff regarding what’s going on in secret government programs, or something to that extent (I don’t even really remember what I said, I think mind control), and she ended up in a plane going back from applying for some position in California, and the guy next to her was a psychiatrist, she found out, and started telling him about what I had told her. He told her that that stuff really goes on, apparently he had people coming to him regarding such…….
How is HE going to help them traumatizing their brain even further, with meds” not that I know whether he did that but……. Go to a psychiatrist because something is going on in your life you can’t talk about and you stand the chance of…….
I was just brushing my teeth, by the way, and then remembered this also, after realizing, one goes to a psychiatrist and…. and then this story. I know that stuff goes on regarding such programs also…….. But you just touch in with this prevalence of hidden stuff regarding psychiatry, words warped to be used to do the opposite of what they mean, a labyrinth of of crazy assumptions, or outright deceptions, people doing things detached from the outcome calling others non reality based…. I just touch in with it, and there I go with a whole cascade or memories and then yet again another realization of how “crazy” it is….
Still, from all of above and how you honored me with a quote, but I still think that we’re not dealing with physical disease, and even, for those that have got stuck in the system and have said damage, to focus too much on the physical part, might be getting away from what can heal. Because the real “symptoms” of “mental illness” can be stuff that leads back to what’s beyond the physical, and EVEN with the horrible damage psychiatric drugs can cause, and the trauma of treatment, when that stuff that was originally there is allowed FINALLY the space to express itself, it can possibly balance all of that out in a way that wouldn’t be happening if the focus remain on the damage the psychiatric drugs caused…. There’s still something beyond all of that, I think IMHO… a lot of people have recovered, perhaps more than even physical science should say was possible given the damage the drugs do, not that I’m EXCUSING such damage it’s just……. Maybe what was going on was never a disease to begin with, and didn’t need…… there is that element also
Report comment
Just to be clear, although I’ve already responded quite floridly, what I was referring to regarding that there’s too much focus on the physical, I was not saying that one should disregard what psychiatric medications do, and herald how they suppress “symptoms.” One CERTAINLY should not discount that statistically everything gets worse in the long run. What I was saying that if someone actually allows some legroom for whatever was initially going on to look for treatment, and instead want to understand why they just aren’t fitting into what’s called consensual reality deportment, statistical based norms, or the status quo, or even their idea of how life was supposed to play out, that perhaps allowing that, and not wanting to fit in will do more for them than they could have conceived of in thinking it was disrupting their life.
Report comment