The term âprotracted withdrawal symptomsâ or âdiscontinuation syndromeâ should be accurately designated as chronic brain impairment rather than “central nervous system fatigue.” Research indicates that individuals will develop significant cognitive deficits after only one month of using neurotoxic psychiatric pharmaceuticals, exhibiting symptoms comparable to those found in traumatic brain injury patients. Over an extended period, this cognitive impairment will become chronic. Such impairments are frequently misdiagnosed as âmental illnessâ or classified as âProtracted Withdrawal Syndrome.â Those who have been prescribed these drugs will demonstrate a restricted capacity for cognitive and emotional responses due to the cognitive dysfunctions induced by these substances (Breggin, P. 2012). Reintroducing neurotoxic agents will not mitigate this condition; on the contrary, it exacerbates the existing brain damage since the injury has already occurred.
It is crucial not to allow negative narratives, such as Laura’s, to deter progress. Numerous individuals have successfully withdrawn and rehabilitated their lives following the inappropriate prescription of psychiatric neurotoxins, often with little to no support from their prescribing âprofessionalsâ. After a twenty-two-year regimen of fluoxetine, lamotrigine, and quetiapine, I undertook a six-month withdrawal process supported by microdoses of CBD and THC oils. This experience underscores not only the feasibility of such withdrawal but also its desirability, especially when weighed against the ongoing brain and central nervous system damage linked to these inadequately researched pharmacological toxins.
Human physiology includes an endocannabinoid system, which plays a crucial role in maintaining homeostasis, rather than relying on pharmacological interventions typical of psychiatric âtherapiesâ. Multiple studies have confirmed the analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective effects of cannabis (Al-Khazaleh, Zhou et Al, 2024). Instead of considering the reintroduction of neurotoxins, you might explore a tapering strategy while utilizing CBD or CBD/THC oil for support. The U.S government does not hold patent number 6,630,507 for no reason.
I appreciate your insights, Someone Else. The psychiatric cult not only opposes international human rights but also exhibits a lack of rudimentary science in its practices.
Given the manipulative and coercive practices prevalent in psychiatry, coupled with the lack of definitive evidence for any deities, I feel a strong urge to contest your perspective.
Have you ever truly felt the impact of being drugged by psychiatrists? Did you genuinely give ‘consent’ to take neurotoxic substances, or were you subtly pressured through deceit and reassurances of safety? Have you ever been confined, drugged, and mistreated in a psychiatric facility? I know I have. Itâs astonishing that my refrigerator includes a warning label, while my prescriber and the hospital did not. The philosophy of âbuyer bewareâ is particularly brutal, especially in a world devoid of divine intervention to protect us from the horrors of psychiatry.
âBuyer bewareâ places responsibility on unsuspecting individuals, a suggestion that is both immoral and ignorant in the context of psychiatry. Even minor material purchases come with cautions, change-of-mind policies and a warranty. Without critical discourse and demands for viable alternatives, significant reform is unlikely.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that the DSM defines ‘disorders’ primarily through observable behaviours instead of biological tests or brain imagingâmethods that currently cannot validate any of the 297 recognized ‘disorders’ (Ross, C., Szasz, T, et al). With this in mind, how can you assert with confidence that you âhaveâ âAutism tendenciesâ and âADHD,â given the absence of a biological basis for these conditions?
I am curious as to how your âdiagnosisâ of âbipolar disorderâ is substantiated. What are you referring to when you state that âit runs in my familyâ?
Are you aware that there are no known biological causes for any of the psychiatric âdisordersâ, nor are there any tests to provide independent objective data in support of any psychiatric diagnosis (Council for Evidence Based Psychiatry, http://www.cepuk.org)? Each âdiagnosisâ is merely a description of behaviour voted into existence by psychiatrists (Greenberg, G.).
I agree that there is a âclear full scale attack on genderâ. For centuries, women have been victims of horrific abuse directly caused by men. Psychiatry is a continuation of this misogyny.
I am curious to understand how you can provide âproofâ of having âADHDâ âevery single monthâ when no objective tests can confirm its existence (Council For Evidence Based Psychiatry, 2024, http://www.cepuk.org, Breggin, 1991; Woolfolk, 2001; & Szasz, 1987). This is not a question of âinvalidation.â The DSM and the field of psychiatry reflect inherent misogyny, unscientific principles, and discrimination.
You may find it enlightening to read works such as Gary Greenbergâs âThe Book of Woeâ, Thomas Szaszâs âThe Myth of Mental Illnessâ or Bonnie Burstowâs âPsychiatry and the Business of Madness.â
I am presenting an analysis based on a twelve-point checklist developed by Cult Recovery 101, specifically focusing on the psychiatric field. Below are my responses to the relevant criteria:
1. **Leadership and Commitment**: Psychiatry exhibits a strong allegiance to established dogma, with practitioners and institutions demonstrating unwavering commitment to its doctrines, often equating to excessive zeal towards specific figures or theories within the discipline.
2. **Recruitment Practices**: There is a notable emphasis on expanding the membership base within psychiatry. This is facilitated by multiple entitiesâincluding families, educational institutions, healthcare services, legal frameworks, and governmental bodiesâactively promoting or even coercing individuals into psychiatric treatment.
3. **Financial Motivation**: The field demonstrates a significant focus on financial gain. Psychiatrists receive funding from diverse sources such as private individuals, governmental allocations, institutional backing, and substantial investments from pharmaceutical companies, creating potential conflicts of interest.
4. **Suppression of Dissent**: The environment within psychiatric treatment often discourages, or outright penalizes, questioning and dissent. This is evident through practices such as involuntary confinement, physical restraints, forced drugging, and social isolation.
5. **Use of Mind-Numbing Techniques**: Various interventions, including neurotoxic drugs and electroconvulsive âtherapyâ (ECT), are employed frequently, contributing to cognitive impairment and serving to suppress doubts regarding the legitimacy of the treatment.
6. **Behavioral Control**: Psychiatrists exert significant influence over patients, dictating their thoughts, emotions, and actions through diagnostic labels, pharmacological interventions, and the threat of involuntary hospitalisation.
7. **Elitism and Special Status**: The psychiatric profession often positions itself as a saviour group, asserting that their medical interventionsâdiagnosis and pharmacotherapyâare critical for societal salvation, rather than endorsing holistic approaches that include housing, nutrition, education, and relational well-being.
8. **Us-versus-Them Mentality**: There’s a pronounced dichotomy fostered by psychiatry, promoting an âus versus themâ mindset. Individuals or groups who critique or oppose psychiatric practices are frequently marginalized or ridiculed.
9. **Accountability**: Accountability within the field is limited. Psychiatrists often operate with minimal oversight for actions that involve the misuse of scientific evidence, leading to harmful treatment practices.
10. **Ethical Justification of Means**: Psychiatry often promotes the idea that the endsâtypically the management of âmental healthââjustify the means, which include practices many would generally deem ethically dubious before engaging with the field.
11. **Induction of Guilt**: The practice frequently instils feelings of guilt in individuals, a mechanism employed to maintain control over patients through stigmatization and the imposition of diagnostic labels.
12. **Isolation from Personal Networks**: Membership within psychiatric treatment often results in individuals severing ties with family and friends. Neurotoxic medications create barriers to sustaining relationships, while involuntary hospitalisation forcibly isolates individuals, exacerbating the disconnection.
Additionally, members are often encouraged to interact solely with other individuals within the psychiatric framework, particularly during hospitalisation or as a result of societal stigma directed at them.
Upon evaluating these criteria, psychiatry scores 12 out of 12, qualifying it as a cult. As Peter Breggin aptly states, âThe worst thing a person can do is see a psychiatrist.â
The question remains: how do we effectively dismantle a system that is intricately intertwined with every facet of our society? One powerful strategy is to launch counter-educational campaigns that challenge the status quo. We must actively promote and support non-invasive alternatives. Furthermore, the focus should not be on the myth of mental health but on providing affordable housing and organic nutrition. We can take inspiration from successful models like Soteria House and advocate for the implementation of universal basic income.
So, how do we fund these transformative initiatives? By redirecting financial resources from psychiatry towards these innovative alternatives, we can invest in a more compassionate and effective system that truly supports individuals in need.
In light of the lack of objective evidence to substantiate the existence of âAutismâ as a distinct biological entity, how should we interpret the researchersâ assertion that individuals diagnosed with clinician-confirmed âASDâ exhibit a diminished capacity to influence others? This brings to light a significant concern: those labelled with a questionable disorder do not pursue dominance over their peers. Instead, it suggests they may possess a greater sense of humanity than the researchers who regard them merely as subjects for experimentation rooted in a quasi-scientific theory.
Your claim that âthere are people who do better when taking medicationsâ raises concerns, particularly in light of the substantial research demonstrating the harm caused by psychiatric drugs (Breggin, P., Burstow, B., Whittaker, R., et al.). All psychiatric drugs are neurotoxins that lead to brain atrophy, resulting in a range of emotional, physical, and behavioural symptoms, while also accelerating cognitive and neurobehavioral decline (Jackson, G., 2008, Psychrights.org).
How do you justify the prescription of neurotoxins for conditions that lack a biological basis?
The notion of âagreeing to disagreeâ may be applicable in trivial matters, such as a preference for chocolate versus strawberry ice cream. However, it is decidedly inappropriate in discussions regarding the consumption of neurotoxins or an individual’s right to discontinue prescribed drugs known to be harmful.
You state, âWhen someone is so desperate to tough out the withdrawal that they lose their ability to think rationally, then medical intervention is necessary.â This raises a critical question: who, in this context, can accurately assess what constitutes rational thinking? Are you positioned as the definitive judge of logical reasoning? Additionally, it is pertinent to question the trustworthiness of medical interventions, particularly when those same professionals prescribe pharmaceuticals for nebulous disorders and employ methods such as psychiatric incarceration that lead to further emotional and physical distress and increased suicide risk. The risk of suicide is inflated for people who use or withdraw from psychiatric neurotoxins but is infinitely higher for those who are and have been hospitalised in psychiatric facilities (Chammas, F., Januel, D., & Bouaziz, N., 2022, & Chung, D. T., Ryan, C. J., et al. 2017). Consequently, your assertion that employing “medical intervention” in these cases is problematic as it contributes to increased suicide rates, particularly regarding an individual’s right to choose death, which you oppose for some unknown reason.
You argue that âany medical expert who is advising a patient on how to withdraw needs to spend significant time assessing risk and explaining to the patient and family that their mental state might rapidly decline and that they must raise their hand if suicidal thoughts emerge.â However, this perspective neglects the autonomy of the individual in question and persists in the belief that one can adequately gauge anotherâs mental state. Moreover, your stance seemingly endows medical professionals with an unrealistic level of expertise, implying they inherently prioritise the best interests of their patients above all else, which is inaccurate (see Ivan Illichâs 1975 work âMedical Nemesisâ).
Psychiatric drugs cause physical, emotional and cognitive side effects, chronic illness, irreversible brain damage, akathisia, tardive dyskinesia, homicide and suicide, and premature death (Whitaker, R., Gotzsche, P., Breggin, P., Burstow, B., Jackson, G., et al). Withdrawal and abstinence will prevent further impairment, not cause it.
Have you been prescribed neurotoxins and attempted cessation? Have you experienced suicidal ideation and âraise(ed your) handâ only to result in arrest, drugging and torture at a psychiatric facility?
Kind regards,
While I fully concur with your assessment that these pharmacological agents function as neurotoxins and should not be prescribed, I must contest your position on withdrawal. When an individual reduces or fully ceases consumption of a substance to which their neurophysiology has become habituated, withdrawal symptoms inevitably ensue. This phenomenon arises because the brain has adapted to the drug’s presence (Horowitz, M., Moncrieff, J. & Wallis, K. 2023). Consequently, withdrawal symptoms reflect the brain and bodyâs struggle to recalibrate to a diminished dosage or complete discontinuation of the substance in question.
I would appreciate your evidence that contradicts this understanding, as you state you are ânot trying to be mean. Just correct.â
Mental health nurse Timothy Wand argues that diagnoses are socially constructed tools that are used to inappropriately prescribe drugs to individuals. Therefore, psychiatric medications are dispensed primarily to sustain the profits of pharmaceutical companies and prescribers. Given this perspective, one might wonder why he doesn’t advocate for the abolition of psychiatry altogether instead of recommending a more conservative approach to prescribing psychiatric drugs.
I am truly sorry to hear about your husband’s decision to end his life. However, I believe your argument is fundamentally flawed.
Firstly, why would you insist that your husband should have reinstated the drugs he chose to withdraw from and assert that âlife on medication is a far better option than years of impairment trying to get offâ? Psychiatric drug use increases suicidal thoughts and behaviour and causes chronic brain impairment and central nervous system damage (Whitaker, R.; Gotzsche, P.; Jackson, G., & FDA, 2004, https://industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/drug/docs/#id=znbn0225). It is clearly âa far better optionâ to withdraw and abstain from these toxic drugs rather than continue.
Secondly, why would you demand that he go to the hospital against his will? Research shows that âthe risk of suicide in psychiatric hospitals is 50 times higher than in the general populationâ (Chammas, F.; Januel, D.; & Bouaziz, N., 2022), and âprevious psychiatric inpatients have suicide rates that are approximately 30 times higher than typical global ratesâ (Chung, D. T., Ryan, C. J., et al. 2017). Forcing an individual to be hospitalised increases the chance that they will suicide, rather than discouraging it.
Finally, suicide is a personal right rather than a behaviour that must be policed and prevented. It does not require public campaigns and âsuicide awarenessâ. Suicidal thoughts and attempts do not warrant unsolicited interventions, incarceration, mistreatment, or unnecessary drugging. In the majority of countries, suicide is not illegal. People can die whenever and however they choose to with the option of assisted dying facilities being readily available. Whilst we mourn the loss of people who died by suicide, we must respect their preferences regardless of whether we believe they were not in their âright mindâ. Who are you to determine what is right?
I realise that you are grieving for your husband, however, millions of individuals, including myself (I was prescribed multiple psychiatric drugs for twenty-two years and have been abstinent for three years), have successfully withdrawn from years of neurotoxic psychiatric drugging. Your assertion is wrong, life without these drugs is far more fulfilling than succumbing to further decline and disablement at the hands of psychiatry, pharmaceutical companies, and uneducated institutions and governments.
There are people we can classify as ar$e-clowns. This doesn’t make it scientific, or explain their behaviour regardless of their attainment of medical degrees or zero clowning credentials.
A theory will not explain the unique circumstances a person has tolerated throughout their life. This is the problem with psychiatry. They fail to consider that a person does not exist in a vacuum and continue to victimise people for their distinct personalities, whilst ignoring their professionâs incognizance.
Peter Breggin contends that âGoing to a psychiatrist has become one of the most dangerous things a person can do.â Psychiatry, an international criminal organisation that falsely diagnoses, prescribes neurotoxic drugs, tortures, electrifies and incarcerates individuals, should be forced to appear before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
When will psychiatrists be held accountable for the disability and death that they have created? When will its victims and their families be vindicated and compensated?
Your doctor was medically negligent in prescribing you numerous neurotoxins. You were very fortunate to have survived your car accident whilst under their brain-disabling mechanisms. The doctor should have apologised to you, not your mother. His/her apology is an admission of guilt. Yet, the âprofessionalsâ are immune to repercussions.
I am really sorry that you were born into a family of depravity where you were drugged, falsely diagnosed, physically, verbally and sexually abused and manipulated by cruel individuals. Sibling sexual abuse tends to occur in families similar to yours and mine.
Accountability and justice are rare, especially if you do not have the financial resources for uncharitable lawyers. Given that your mother is a lawyer, you would have had even greater difficulty.
Like you, my brothers sexually abused me. It has been impossible to attain justice because the perpetrators and my âfamilyâ deny that it occurred. Perhaps, there is a Victims of Crime program where you live. Based on my experience, you could be minimally compensated for the horrific crimes following years of privacy invasion and a lengthy interrogation process by a sceptical lawyer. At the very least it could force your perpetrators to be financially inconvenienced for their offences.
It is great that you have found an empathetic human who is not associated with the psychiatric propaganda machine.
I genuinely hope that you are able to rebuild and experience a decent life despite your tragedies.
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: âAnd 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.â
I, too, have personally communicated with Horowitz, viewed his website and videos, and read many of his articles, including his co-authored paper regarding the serotonin theory that has been disproven for decades (Greenburg, G., Burstow, B., Szasz, T. et al). I also own and have read his co-authored book on âdeprescribingâ. I am familiar with Bregginâs work, but do not belong to the private discussion group, unlike yourself. What was your purpose in sharing this information?
I agree that Horowitz and Taylorâs work, âThe Maudsley Deprescribing Guidelinesâ (2024) does provide a superior tapering guide to withdrawing from psychiatric drugs compared to Bregginâs 2012 book: âPsychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients, and Their Familiesâ. In my opinion, Bregginâs work is superior because it is written for everyone and elucidates the corruption of psychiatry.
I comprehend that the intention of Horowitz and Taylorâs work was ânot to lambaste the psychiatric industry and psychiatric medicationsâ. However, contributing to the collective academic knowledge that reinforces an argument against recklessly prescribed psychiatric neurotoxins and fictional diagnosing is crucial- not a form of duplication as you asserted. I continue to contend that because the authors intentionally chose to ignore this fundamental debate, they are psychiatric empathisers.
Taylor and Horowitz also failed to consider that their work was produced exclusively for âprofessionalsâ. The majority of âprofessionalsâ promote the use of neurotoxins for mythical disorders and obey the psychiatric paradigm. Why would these people, the bulk of those who could not be trusted to care for a goldfish, want to withdraw their âpatientsâ from drugs if they believe that they are âmentally illâ and require âmedicineâ for their âpermanent conditionâ?
Power and knowledge need to be given to the people. Especially those who have been abused, or are unaware that they are being harmed by psychiatric dogma. By depriving psychiatric consumers and âprofessionalsâ of imperative knowledge, Taylor and Horowitzâs work further robs autonomy from psychiatric survivors by ensuring that âprofessionalsâ continue to dominate the lives of consumers through using false paradigms.
Out of curiosity, are you a psychiatric survivor? Have you ever been poly-drugged for decades, taken from your home, imprisoned, assaulted and drugged at various psychiatric wards for being raped or asking for help, forced to withdraw from your recklessly prescribed psychiatric neurotoxins independently because your psychiatrist and doctor thought that your decades of sexual abuse, akathisia and chronic brain impairment was âmental illnessâ, that you were too âfragileâ to withdraw, and did not know the correct method? I have. The marginalised lived experience of survivors is at the crux of the argument. They are the people who know what should have been available during their experience of medical negligence and should be consulted when producing withdrawal guidelines for the people who will actually use them.
What is required is an uncomplicated self-help guide for people that illustrates the fallacies of diagnoses in the DSM V and the ICD, concedes that psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, damage the central nervous system, cause suicide and result in chronic brain impairment (falsely named protracted withdrawal syndrome), provides a variety of tapering mechanisms for every prescribed psychiatric drug, describes and offers solutions to withdrawal symptoms, and shares the lived experience of those who have successfully and unsuccessfully withdrawn from a variety of these drugs. Essentially, a free, rudimentary online and hard-copy psychiatric drug withdrawal guide available in all languages. Perhaps, a mobile phone application?
âMental illnessesâ 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 âmental illnessâ, these manifestations are due to the personâs 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 âmental illnessâ; they are causing brain damage through chemical lobotomy and wrongly labelling it as a quasi-diagnosis/es.
Dr Mark Horowitz is a psychiatric empathiser. Through titling his work a âdeprescribingâ guide, he fails to discuss how noxious and unnecessary these drugs are and acquiesces to the psychiatric paradigm. At no point in his publication does he explain the quasi-science behind diagnoses. Journal articles authored by him and displayed publicly on his website refer to âschizophreniaâ, âdepressionâ, âsevere mental illnessâ, and other fictional character assassination terms.
I recommend Dr Peter Bregginâs 2012 book: âPsychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients, and Their Familiesâ. Breggin truly understands the depravity of the âprofessionâ.
David Buschâs website SE-REM.com is endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association. The APA is a criminal organisation of âprofessionalsâ who invent psychiatric âdiagnosesâ, promote and prescribe neurotoxic drugs (Breggin, P., Whittaker, R., Szasz, T. et al), endorse and utilise incarceration, restraint and electrification (Burstow, B., Breggin, P. & CCHR), accept finances from drug companies, skew and conceal scientific âdataâ (Goetsche, P.) and lie to the entire world about their barbaric and faulty practices (Breggin, P., Szasz, T, et al ).
David Buschâs website provides no scientific confirmation of the efficacy of his EMDR SE-REM method. Yet he claims, without verification, that he has âused this therapy session with thousands of clients and (has) had miraculous results.â Without evidence, Busch asserts that he has âhelped clients who previously would have had little chance of change or reducing their pain or their problem behaviorâ and that his program is so effective that it âhas helped individuals and even marital couples make changes that at other times would have been impossible.â Yet, he also mentions on his testimonial page that âindividual results will vary.â
Promoting snake oil practices that could make healing from trauma easier, offers nothing more than false hope and disinformation to people who have already been robbed of their autonomy through trauma. âIn my opinion, the SE-REM program wishes to impose their definition of reality upon others. They say that because of their greater knowledge, wisdom, training, and experience, they know what is best. People who believe that they know what is best for other people are denying other peopleâs truths. This is an act of aggression (Masson, J. 2021).
I have used the SE-REM program. It does not work. As a childhood incest survivor, I can assure you that people do not âresolveâ or âhealâ from trauma, nor should they be forced to confront it by individuals who use âtherapiesâ endorsed by the quasi-scientific and drug company-financed American Psychiatric Association. People with trauma continue to live with their experiences for the rest of their lives. As the Buddha stated, âLife is suffering.â Ergo, the end to suffering is death. The APA knows this, but the only âlegalâ method is to slowly kill people with their neurotoxic Kool-Aid.
âPTSDâ does not exist. There are no known biological causes for any of the psychiatric âdisordersâ. Nor are there any tests to provide independent objective data in support of any psychiatric diagnosis (Council for Evidence Based Psychiatry, http://www.cepuk.org).
Psychiatric drugs are neurotoxins. They lead to progressive shrinkage and loss of brain tissue, resulting in brain atrophy that is consistent with dementia. This process can both induce and exacerbate various emotional, cognitive and physical symptoms and accelerate cognitive and neurobehavioral decline (Jackson, G., 2008, Psychrights.org).
Additionally, numerous studies have demonstrated that âProzac (fluoxetine) was most commonly linked to aggression, increasing violent behavior 10.9 times. Paxil (paroxetine), Luvox (fluvoxamine), Effexor (venlafaxine) and Pristiq (desvenlafaxine) were 10.3, 8.4, 8.3 and 7.9 times, respectively, more likely to be linked with violenceâ (https://www.livescience.com/32934-do-antidepressants-increase-violent-behavior-111102html.html#). In 2004, the FDA issued a warning regarding the increase in depression, hostility and suicide in people using âantidepressantsâ (https://industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/drug/docs/#id=znbn0225).
Please cease promoting disability and death for your fellow humans.
Where exactly are you obtaining your âfactsâ? Prozac, fluoxetine, is a neurotoxin. By âworks wellâ, are you insinuating that causing brain and central nervous system damage (Breggin, P., 1991) in dogs is preferable to altering their environment to address the cause of their âanxiety?â
I propose that we stop using the term “medication” when referring to psychiatric prescriptions. It has been evident since their inception that these substances function as neurotoxins. I believe we should adopt the more accurate term “recklessly prescribed psychiatric neurotoxins.” This change not only more accurately conveys the serious impact these substances have on both neurological and physical health but also holds prescribersâwho are cruel or uninformedâaccountable for their actions.
I am deeply saddened to hear about the toxic relationships and decades of trauma caused by your family. Unfortunately, both violent men and women target individuals who have already been traumatised, leading to further victimisation. It is concerning that society rarely discusses the abuse of women by other women. I will definitely read Chester’s book on this topic.
I share your belief that the Mental Health Act is used as a tool to further harm victims. The psy-disciplines should be held accountable for their ineptitude and acts of violence.
Thank you for sharing your difficult experiences and for taking the time to read my story.
You are right in asserting that all psychiatric âtreatmentsâ are harmful. Each drug and âtherapyâ has been intentionally selected for its mechanism to impair brain and central nervous system function in individuals (Breggin, P.). Psychiatry, psychiatric drugs, electro-convulsive âtherapyâ, and psychiatric incarceration and torture must be outlawed.
Given that there are no known biological causes for any personâs cognition with the exception of nutritional deficiencies, dementia and rare chromosomal conditions (cepuk.org), I’m curious to know what you mean by ânatural psychological problems.â
Some people seem to thrive on being cruel to others. Iâm sorry to hear that your family is worse than the “mafia.” I can relate, as I have parents and siblings who have ruined my childhood and denied their actions.
I appreciate you taking the time to read and engage with my story.
The events surrounding Elijahâs fate are heartbreaking and senseless. It feels as though we are trapped in an endless cycle of tragedy, where individuals suffer, yet no one is held accountable for their actions.
You are correct. My perpetrator is still free to continue the cycle of abuse.
I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to engage with my story.
Suicide is a personal right rather than a “behaviour” that must be âreducedâ. Suicidal thoughts and attempts do not warrant unsolicited interventions, incarceration, mistreatment, or unnecessary drugging.
Moreover, research has consistently demonstrated that psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic. They lead to brain atrophy, which induces various emotional, physical, and behavioural symptoms while accelerating cognitive and neurobehavioral decline (Jackson, G., 2008, Psychrights.org). As Dr Gotzsche clearly articulated, âdepression drugs double the risk of suicide, both in children and adultsâ.
Please cease the dishonesty, psychiatric drugs are never âappropriateâ.
If a drug is necessary for you to âget out of bed,â then you are addicted. There is no âmiddle groundâ when it comes to psychiatric drugs. All psychiatric âtreatmentsâ primarily affect the brain by disabling its normal function (Breggin, P., 1991). These substances are neurotoxins and have long-lasting negative effects on the brain and central nervous system. This can lead to addiction, suicidal thoughts and suicide, and various physical, emotional, and cognitive complications (cepuk.org).
Focusing solely on suicide prevention and the language surrounding the pursuit of an elusive “mental health” allows institutions and those in positions of privilege to avoid addressing the urgent need to rectify significant social inequalities. This narrow approach also strips individuals of their autonomy, denying them the fundamental right to make choices about their own lives, including when and how to die.
We must recognise that suicide is a personal right, not an “illness” that must be eradicated at any cost. Suicidal thoughts and attempts do not merit unsolicited interventions, incarceration, mistreatment, or unnecessary drugging. This perspective emphasizes the urgent need to reevaluate how financial resources are currently misallocated to ineffective suicide prevention efforts and research.
Structural modifications, such as participatory research, inclusion in service delivery, and staff training, will not sufficiently address the issue of epistemic oppression within the field of psychiatry. The only genuinely effective approach to this challenge is through abolition.
Dear Birdsong,
I would like to seek clarification on whether you are suggesting that I have a diminished capacity for reasoning (âshould be obvious to anyone with half a brainâ) by questioning the rationale behind the examination of prescriptions for neurotoxins, instead of advocating for their outright prohibition, along with that of psychiatry. It seems to me that prioritizing complete bans would be a more logical approach than pursuing regulation.
As a practicing therapist, TheRealJody, it is quite troubling that you find humour in any criticism of your profession, rather than taking the time to consider the potential harms caused by practitioners like yourself. Psychological distress can arise from various sources that render it resistant to therapeutic intervention, and extensive research has highlighted the ineffectiveness of therapy (Smail, D, 1987). Furthermore, psychoanalytic interpretation is an act of aggression and domination (Masson, J, 2012). Consequently, it seems that your occupation bears âmore resemblance to politically motivated Instagram reels than to actual science.â
Thank you, Joel. Psychiatry undeniably serves as capitalismâs âvenal handmaiden and compliant enforcer of social control.â
The statistic that “41% of adults diagnosed with ‘serious mental illness’ experience food insecurity (limited or uncertain access to safe and nutritious food)” prompts an essential question: could the underlying issue reside not in âmental illness,â as suggested, but rather in a lack of vital resources necessary for survival?
This data underscores the need for a deeper examination of why privileged and uneducated âexpertsâ often attribute social inequality primarily to individual âmental healthâ issues. It may be more accurate to perceive this situation as a result of insufficient essential resourcesârooted in the greed inherent in capitalismâcombined with the consequences of prescribed neurotoxic drugs, the stigma associated with dubious diagnoses, and the prevalence of chemically processed foods. Rather than hastily categorizing this issue as specific to âserious mental illness,â adopting a broader perspective might lead to a more comprehensive understanding.
I appreciate you sharing your experience with prolonged and unnecessary psychiatric drugging. Incredibly, you had supportive individuals who respected your decision and assisted you in accessing tapering strips to manage withdrawal symptoms.
I disagree with your âdiagnosisâ of âObsessive Compulsive Disorderâ and your belief that âmental disorders and distress are more common in (y)our family than the normâ. As discussed by Marcia Angell in 2011, there are no objective signs, tests or MRI findings to prove that âmental illnessâ exists, and the line between ânormalâ and âabnormalâ is unclear.
When it comes to Mark Horowitz, I do not think he can be called a “trailblazer” considering the facts. Peter Breggin’s works, “Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the New Psychiatry” and “Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families,” were published 33 and 22 years before Horowitz and Taylor’s “Deprescribing Guidelines.” While Horowitz does challenge psychiatric drug practices, he doesn’t advocate for their abolition or promote the dissolution of psychiatryâs continued appalling negligence and torture, unlike true trailblazers like Peter Breggin, Bonnie Burstow, Robert Whitaker, and Peter Gotzsche.
The accumulation of fifteen psychiatric diagnoses is a series of errors that could be considered comical. However, it seems that psychiatry lacks remorse for the pain and disability it inflicts. I believe that your characterization could serve as their defining label: Psychiatry – “professionally irresponsible.”
I’m so sorry to hear about the difficult situation you’re facing with psychiatric abuse. It’s heartbreaking to know that you’re going through this, especially when you have every right to be treated with dignity and respect. The fact that psychiatry, pharmaceutical companies, and governments don’t recognize your human rights is truly disturbing. Have you thought about reaching out to organizations like Mind Freedom International or others in your country that advocate for people in involuntary psychiatric situations? I truly hope you find a way to break free from this complex position.
I was truly heartbroken to learn about your son’s passing. I can’t begin to imagine the pain and sorrow you must be experiencing. It’s clear that your son was dealing with an immense amount of stress, which is a completely understandable reaction to such overwhelming circumstances. Please always remember that you are not at fault for what occurred. The responsibility lies with Pfizer and your sonâs prescriber.
âIn a new study, a psychiatric diagnosis was found to be incorrect for more thanâ one hundred per cent of people. Their symptoms were âmisdiagnosed as DSM-5 psychiatric disorders like panic disorder and major depressive disorderâ by ignorant individuals who continue to foolishly believe that the DSM is a scientifically valid diagnostic instrument, despite negligible evidence.
I often ponder about how my medical appointment might have transpired twenty-four years ago. Here is the utopian version:
Date: Mid-February, 2000
Location: Sterile, boring, powder blue medical centre, Katherine, Northern Territory, Australia
Weather: hot, humid and dramatically stormy
Dr. King (the nice one): “Hello, Catherine, how are you today?”
Cat: “I’m good, thank you (I always lie in response to this question because I do not want to offend or upset anyone). However, I’m concerned that I’ve been crying regularly. I’m scared that something is wrong with me.”
Dr. King (the nice one): “I’m sorry that you’ve been feeling upset. It’s typical to feel sad. Life can be very challenging. There’s nothing wrong with you for crying. Would you feel comfortable talking to me about what might be causing you to cry? You don’t have to answer right now if it’s awkward for you.”
Cat: *bursts into tears (maybe literally)*
Dr. King (the nice one): *passes a box of Blinky Bill tissues to Cat* “I’m going to order a full blood test for you. I’ll also provide you with the contact details of a counsellor and a psychologist. You don’t have to contact them if you don’t want to. I also have the number for emergency accommodation and financial support if you feel unsafe in your relationships or where you are currently staying.”
Cat: *desecrates Blinky Bill tissues with tears and mucus, and continues to sob* “Thank you, Dr. King.”
Dr. King (the nice one): “You can contact reception anytime if you want to see me again. I’ll also give you the details of a female doctor because you may feel more comfortable speaking with her. I can see that you are hurting, and I would like to help you. I’m going to cover the cost of this appointment, and we can schedule another meeting in a week. You don’t have to attend. Be kind to yourself, Catherine. Remember that crying is an ordinary human emotion. Please take care.” *passes Cat a pathology form, contact details for a variety of social support services and a female doctor, along with an anthropomorphic and overwhelmingly cute platypus scratch and sniff sticker because he realises that small gestures matter*
Cat: *still crying* “Thank you, Dr. King. Please call me Cat. Goodbye.”
Dr King (the nice one): âI am so sorry, Cat. Please forgive me. Goodbye.â
*Twenty-two years of psychiatric abuse, and iatrogenesis are prevented through empathy.*
Fin.
Thank you for reading my story, and for your suggestion.
The most isolating aspect of my experience is the continued iatrogenic harm which I continue to suffer from. If I were to disclose it to a ‘medical professional’, I fear that I may be psychiatrically incarcerated and lobotomized like the unfortunate Frances Farmer.
Thank you for reading my story, and for your flattering comment.
I agree that âmental health professionalsâ would rather utilise a book of lies (The DSM) and neurotoxic drugs than provide people with time, relevant support and compassionate understanding. It is imperative that others can empathise and bear witness to our suffering.
The âmental healthâ industry is akin to an untreatable venereal disease- it has no geographical or political boundaries, and its victims will suffer the consequences for the term of their natural lives.
No, my doctor never checked my vitamin D levels prior to, during or after prescribing me an âantidepressantâ drug. When I was first prescribed neurotoxins, they failed to undertake a full blood count, determine nutritional deficiencies, or bother to examine my basic health.
I have known âillegalâ drug dealers who have demonstrated more consideration for my well-being than legal drug dealers/medical âprofessionalsâ.
I am so sorry about your mother. I would really like to hear your story. Perhaps you could give the MIA staff permission to share your email with me so I may contact you.
Unfortunately, Australia and the rest of the world are paedophile empires, too. The Australian police did not even bother to interview my abusers. Psychiatry and psychology continue to conceal sexual abuse crimes through quasi-diagnosis and victim-blaming. The only solution is the abolition of the psy-disciplines, and sexual abuse and consent education for all children and adults.
Alfonso Troisi incorrectly assumes that an âevolutionary approach to psychiatryâone that prioritises behaviour and functional capacities over symptom-based diagnosesâcould revolutionise the fieldâ. It is essential to recognise that enacting substantial change necessitates the complete dismantling of the psychiatric system, which encompasses the removal of the role of psychiatrists like Troisi.
Dear Mark,
In light of the animal studies you mentioned, it appears that a 42-year-old human who has been exposed to ‘antidepressant’ drugs for 22 years may face the risk of enduring permanent biological injury. The study you referenced indicated that animals subjected to a few weeks of drug exposure displayed noticeable biological changes for up to a year afterwards. Extrapolating this to humans, it suggests that someone drugged for 1144 weeks (equivalent to 190.6 6-week exposures, resulting in 190.6 years of biological changes) could potentially experience biological alterations for up to 190 years, exceeding the human lifespan. This raises the possibility that ‘antidepressant’ withdrawal symptoms may not be mere withdrawal, but rather permanent and irreversible biological damage caused directly by the drugs. I would value your input and opinion on this matter.
Kind regards,
Cat
It is important to note that there is an absence of scientific evidence supporting the biological existence of the 297 ‘disorders’ listed in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness (Whitaker, R, 2010, Burstow, B,2015, and Szasz, T, 1987). The foundational approach to psychiatric âtreatmentâ involves brain-disabling interventions such as neuroleptics, antidepressants, lithium, electroshock, and psychosurgery (Breggin, P, 1991). Mark Horowitz raised concerns about the challenges of stopping these drugs once started, as well as the limited research into the causes of protracted withdrawal, including the absence of brain imaging or hormone studies. Despite these apprehensions, psychiatrists, like Taylor and Horowitz, and general practitioners continue to promote and prescribe these drugs, fully aware of their potential for addiction and serious side effects, and acknowledging the lack of research into withdrawal and long-term effects. Furthermore, labelling a drug withdrawal guide as âDeprescribingâ is a misnomer, as Peter Breggin has already discussed in his 2012 work âPsychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Familiesâ.
The ânew studyâ is not actually new. Sigmund Freud published “The Aetiology of Hysteria” in 1896, where he argued that childhood sexual abuse was the cause of âhysteriaâ. His research sparked outrage in academic and public spheres, and led to him being personally ostracized. He renounced this theory a year later. Both before and after this time, the field of psychiatry has continued to re-victimise, diagnose, medicate, torture, and incarcerate survivors of adversity, both children and adults. When will psychiatrists acknowledge that, for over a century, they have understood that suffering causes emotional, psychological, physical, social, and financial consequences, and that their fabricated âdisordersâ only serve to silence victims, absolve perpetrators, neglect adversity, and sell drugs?
Dear Inquisitive89,
I believe you misinterpreted my comment. I was not suggesting that governments should have âany right or responsibility to influence someoneâs mortalityâ. However, most governments already have the legal power âto influence someoneâs mortalityâ through incarcerating, diagnosing, drugging and torturing individuals in psychiatric facilities for physically attempting to and/or verbally insinuating that they might/will end their lives. Additionally, the right to die is not necessarily âinfluenced by wealthy interests who would rather us plebs kill ourselvesâ. Indeed, I am a disability pension-receiving plebeian who believes in the right to self-inflicted death. If âhealthyâ or âunhealthyâ people wish to end their lives, it is their individual choice. I am proposing that physically attempting to end oneâs life and/or verbalising the intention of self-inflicted death be considered a legal human right and removed from âmental healthâ law to prevent psychiatry, medicine, government, law enforcement, and insurance companies from abusing individuals. As Isabel Eckes stated in her article, âThe official methods of âSuicide Preventionâ are not science-based and more importantly, they go against the preservation of dignity and self-determination.â
Kind regards,
Cat
Thank you, Peter, for your continued efforts to expose the capitalist-driven dishonesty and negligence of psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies.
Carole, Bill and nonBeliever, I am so sorry for your suffering. We are the forgotten victims of psychiatry, governments, and society.
Whilst prescribed fluoxetine, I once attempted suicide with a firearm (the weapon did not fire), experienced passive suicidal ideation numerous times, committed aggravated assault, and self-harmed regularly (see https://www.littlecattrauma.com.au/miserable). Two years since withdrawing, and despite protracted withdrawal syndrome, I no longer exhibit violent or active suicidal behaviour. Coincidence? I think not. Eli Lilly has blood on their hands (https://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/prozac/lawsuits/#:~:text=Lilly%20Settles%2030%20Suits%20for, violent%2C%20aggressive%20and%20suicidal%20behavior)!
Thank you for your honest account of âpreventative suicideâ, psychiatric abuse, and independent recovery. I, too, have toyed with my mortality since adolescence, and believe that everybody should have the legal right to die. As humans do not choose their own birth (Benatar, D, 2017, The Human Predicament: A Candid Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions, Oxford University Press), a free society owes individuals the right to live and to end their lives on their own terms (Appel, J, 2019, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/assisted-suicide-for-heal_b_236664.html).
The DSM is a book of deceits. According to Daniel Regier, psychiatrist and co-author of the DSM-5, diagnostic criteria âare intended to be scientific hypotheses, rather than inerrant Biblical Scriptureâ (Greenberg, G. 2013, The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry, Scribe, New York, p. 125). Additionally, âthere are no biological tests or brain scans that can be used to provide independent objective data in support of any psychiatric diagnosisâ (Council For Evidence Based Psychiatry, 2024, http://www.cepuk.org). It is an abomination that psychiatry, an institute based on fiction, eugenics, torture, deprivation of liberty, and drug dealing, continues to exist when its methods are less valid than astrology, and it is responsible for the murder of half a million people every year (Gotzsche, P).
Psychotherapy is inherently authoritarian and victim-blaming. âMany people who wish to impose their definition of reality would deny that they are involved in gaining power. They would say that because of their greater knowledge, wisdom, training and experience they know what is best. The most dangerous people in the world are those who believe that they know what is best for othersâ (Maisson, J, 2012, Against Therapy, Untreed Reads, p.23).
Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states: âNo one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishmentâ (United Nations, 1984, CRPD). It is incredulous that the majority of countries have ratified the United Nations CRPD agreement yet continue to allow barbaric psychiatrists and âhealth careâ staff to torture and drug their citizens in a âceremony of degradationâ (Mosher, L.). Involuntary detainment, restraint, drugging and seclusion increase the risk of suicide (https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/06/risk-suicide-hospitalization-even-higher-previously-estimated/) and must be abolished to honour the human rights of everyone.
I was a machine-cog in the psychiatric quasi-medicine machine for twenty-two years. Two years after withdrawing from prescribed neurotoxins, I am still suffering from iatrogenic illness: protracted withdrawal syndrome. Thank you, Bruce, for your pertinent article elucidating Illichâs philosophy on the current medical system that continues to antagonize people.
I agree that psychiatry and psychology are both quasi-sciences. However, the endorsement of the âmental health/mental illnessâ paradigm and the assertion of knowledge regarding what constitutes âhealthyâ human emotions is concerning. âMental illnessâ is merely another example of how society labels and controls those who donât âbehaveâ (Goffman, 1961, & Scheff, 1966). Furthermore, classifying an individualâs perspective as âdownright wrongâ is objectionable. Reality is subjective. âWhat is normal for the spider is chaos for the flyâ (Addams, C).
âThe one thing that derails us into âmental healthâ issuesâ, Chana Studley, is psychiatric dogma, not âan innocent misunderstanding of the role of thoughtâ. The most dangerous political movement in the world is the âmental healthâ movement (Dr Keith Hoeller). You have transitioned from prey to predator.
Liam alleges in his personal statement that he is âespecially interested in using feminist and queer theory to unpack current systemic issues that affect otherized, marginalized groupsâ, but then proceeds to employ Steven Hollonâs research to advocate the use of cognitive psychotherapy for âdepressionâ. Why would a person require paternalistic âtherapyâ if, as Liam quotes Hollon, the âconditionâ is âan integral part of human survival mechanismsâ? How is this article protecting the interests, autonomy, and human rights of marginalised groups using Feminist and Queer theories? âYou are depressed, therefore you need thought-police therapyâ, is a reductionistic victim-blaming theory that fails to address the gross inequalities and trauma produced by our patriarchal capitalist society. âPsychological distress occurs for reasons which make it incurable by therapyâ (Smail, D, 1987, Taking Care: An Alternative To Therapy, Routledge). Please stop promoting psy-discipline Kool-Aid cocktails under the guise of advocacy and science.
There are no known biological causes for any of the psychiatric disorders, nor are there any tests to provide independent objective data in support of any psychiatric diagnosis (Council for Evidence Based Psychiatry, http://www.cepuk.org). How is it possible that individuals with a history of trauma are diagnosed with âpsychosisâ and âschizophreniaâ? How can people be treated if their alleged diagnoses are not biological, and the typical âtreatmentâ for âpsychosisâ and âschizophreniaâ is with neuroleptic medication (wrongly named antipsychotics) which causes severe physical, emotional, and cognitive side effects, chronic illness, irreversible brain damage, homicide, suicide, and early death (Whitaker, R, Gotzsche, P, Jackson, G)? How is this considered treatment?
The term âprotracted withdrawal symptomsâ or âdiscontinuation syndromeâ should be accurately designated as chronic brain impairment rather than “central nervous system fatigue.” Research indicates that individuals will develop significant cognitive deficits after only one month of using neurotoxic psychiatric pharmaceuticals, exhibiting symptoms comparable to those found in traumatic brain injury patients. Over an extended period, this cognitive impairment will become chronic. Such impairments are frequently misdiagnosed as âmental illnessâ or classified as âProtracted Withdrawal Syndrome.â Those who have been prescribed these drugs will demonstrate a restricted capacity for cognitive and emotional responses due to the cognitive dysfunctions induced by these substances (Breggin, P. 2012). Reintroducing neurotoxic agents will not mitigate this condition; on the contrary, it exacerbates the existing brain damage since the injury has already occurred.
It is crucial not to allow negative narratives, such as Laura’s, to deter progress. Numerous individuals have successfully withdrawn and rehabilitated their lives following the inappropriate prescription of psychiatric neurotoxins, often with little to no support from their prescribing âprofessionalsâ. After a twenty-two-year regimen of fluoxetine, lamotrigine, and quetiapine, I undertook a six-month withdrawal process supported by microdoses of CBD and THC oils. This experience underscores not only the feasibility of such withdrawal but also its desirability, especially when weighed against the ongoing brain and central nervous system damage linked to these inadequately researched pharmacological toxins.
Human physiology includes an endocannabinoid system, which plays a crucial role in maintaining homeostasis, rather than relying on pharmacological interventions typical of psychiatric âtherapiesâ. Multiple studies have confirmed the analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective effects of cannabis (Al-Khazaleh, Zhou et Al, 2024). Instead of considering the reintroduction of neurotoxins, you might explore a tapering strategy while utilizing CBD or CBD/THC oil for support. The U.S government does not hold patent number 6,630,507 for no reason.
Report comment
I appreciate your insights, Someone Else. The psychiatric cult not only opposes international human rights but also exhibits a lack of rudimentary science in its practices.
Report comment
Dear Birdsong,
Given the manipulative and coercive practices prevalent in psychiatry, coupled with the lack of definitive evidence for any deities, I feel a strong urge to contest your perspective.
Have you ever truly felt the impact of being drugged by psychiatrists? Did you genuinely give ‘consent’ to take neurotoxic substances, or were you subtly pressured through deceit and reassurances of safety? Have you ever been confined, drugged, and mistreated in a psychiatric facility? I know I have. Itâs astonishing that my refrigerator includes a warning label, while my prescriber and the hospital did not. The philosophy of âbuyer bewareâ is particularly brutal, especially in a world devoid of divine intervention to protect us from the horrors of psychiatry.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
âBuyer bewareâ places responsibility on unsuspecting individuals, a suggestion that is both immoral and ignorant in the context of psychiatry. Even minor material purchases come with cautions, change-of-mind policies and a warranty. Without critical discourse and demands for viable alternatives, significant reform is unlikely.
Report comment
Dear Liz,
It’s crucial to acknowledge that the DSM defines ‘disorders’ primarily through observable behaviours instead of biological tests or brain imagingâmethods that currently cannot validate any of the 297 recognized ‘disorders’ (Ross, C., Szasz, T, et al). With this in mind, how can you assert with confidence that you âhaveâ âAutism tendenciesâ and âADHD,â given the absence of a biological basis for these conditions?
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Tim,
I am curious as to how your âdiagnosisâ of âbipolar disorderâ is substantiated. What are you referring to when you state that âit runs in my familyâ?
Are you aware that there are no known biological causes for any of the psychiatric âdisordersâ, nor are there any tests to provide independent objective data in support of any psychiatric diagnosis (Council for Evidence Based Psychiatry, http://www.cepuk.org)? Each âdiagnosisâ is merely a description of behaviour voted into existence by psychiatrists (Greenberg, G.).
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Dear JMP,
I agree that there is a âclear full scale attack on genderâ. For centuries, women have been victims of horrific abuse directly caused by men. Psychiatry is a continuation of this misogyny.
I am curious to understand how you can provide âproofâ of having âADHDâ âevery single monthâ when no objective tests can confirm its existence (Council For Evidence Based Psychiatry, 2024, http://www.cepuk.org, Breggin, 1991; Woolfolk, 2001; & Szasz, 1987). This is not a question of âinvalidation.â The DSM and the field of psychiatry reflect inherent misogyny, unscientific principles, and discrimination.
You may find it enlightening to read works such as Gary Greenbergâs âThe Book of Woeâ, Thomas Szaszâs âThe Myth of Mental Illnessâ or Bonnie Burstowâs âPsychiatry and the Business of Madness.â
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Ryan and Birsong,
I am presenting an analysis based on a twelve-point checklist developed by Cult Recovery 101, specifically focusing on the psychiatric field. Below are my responses to the relevant criteria:
1. **Leadership and Commitment**: Psychiatry exhibits a strong allegiance to established dogma, with practitioners and institutions demonstrating unwavering commitment to its doctrines, often equating to excessive zeal towards specific figures or theories within the discipline.
2. **Recruitment Practices**: There is a notable emphasis on expanding the membership base within psychiatry. This is facilitated by multiple entitiesâincluding families, educational institutions, healthcare services, legal frameworks, and governmental bodiesâactively promoting or even coercing individuals into psychiatric treatment.
3. **Financial Motivation**: The field demonstrates a significant focus on financial gain. Psychiatrists receive funding from diverse sources such as private individuals, governmental allocations, institutional backing, and substantial investments from pharmaceutical companies, creating potential conflicts of interest.
4. **Suppression of Dissent**: The environment within psychiatric treatment often discourages, or outright penalizes, questioning and dissent. This is evident through practices such as involuntary confinement, physical restraints, forced drugging, and social isolation.
5. **Use of Mind-Numbing Techniques**: Various interventions, including neurotoxic drugs and electroconvulsive âtherapyâ (ECT), are employed frequently, contributing to cognitive impairment and serving to suppress doubts regarding the legitimacy of the treatment.
6. **Behavioral Control**: Psychiatrists exert significant influence over patients, dictating their thoughts, emotions, and actions through diagnostic labels, pharmacological interventions, and the threat of involuntary hospitalisation.
7. **Elitism and Special Status**: The psychiatric profession often positions itself as a saviour group, asserting that their medical interventionsâdiagnosis and pharmacotherapyâare critical for societal salvation, rather than endorsing holistic approaches that include housing, nutrition, education, and relational well-being.
8. **Us-versus-Them Mentality**: There’s a pronounced dichotomy fostered by psychiatry, promoting an âus versus themâ mindset. Individuals or groups who critique or oppose psychiatric practices are frequently marginalized or ridiculed.
9. **Accountability**: Accountability within the field is limited. Psychiatrists often operate with minimal oversight for actions that involve the misuse of scientific evidence, leading to harmful treatment practices.
10. **Ethical Justification of Means**: Psychiatry often promotes the idea that the endsâtypically the management of âmental healthââjustify the means, which include practices many would generally deem ethically dubious before engaging with the field.
11. **Induction of Guilt**: The practice frequently instils feelings of guilt in individuals, a mechanism employed to maintain control over patients through stigmatization and the imposition of diagnostic labels.
12. **Isolation from Personal Networks**: Membership within psychiatric treatment often results in individuals severing ties with family and friends. Neurotoxic medications create barriers to sustaining relationships, while involuntary hospitalisation forcibly isolates individuals, exacerbating the disconnection.
Additionally, members are often encouraged to interact solely with other individuals within the psychiatric framework, particularly during hospitalisation or as a result of societal stigma directed at them.
Upon evaluating these criteria, psychiatry scores 12 out of 12, qualifying it as a cult. As Peter Breggin aptly states, âThe worst thing a person can do is see a psychiatrist.â
The question remains: how do we effectively dismantle a system that is intricately intertwined with every facet of our society? One powerful strategy is to launch counter-educational campaigns that challenge the status quo. We must actively promote and support non-invasive alternatives. Furthermore, the focus should not be on the myth of mental health but on providing affordable housing and organic nutrition. We can take inspiration from successful models like Soteria House and advocate for the implementation of universal basic income.
So, how do we fund these transformative initiatives? By redirecting financial resources from psychiatry towards these innovative alternatives, we can invest in a more compassionate and effective system that truly supports individuals in need.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Dear John,
I fully agree with your insightful observation.
In light of the lack of objective evidence to substantiate the existence of âAutismâ as a distinct biological entity, how should we interpret the researchersâ assertion that individuals diagnosed with clinician-confirmed âASDâ exhibit a diminished capacity to influence others? This brings to light a significant concern: those labelled with a questionable disorder do not pursue dominance over their peers. Instead, it suggests they may possess a greater sense of humanity than the researchers who regard them merely as subjects for experimentation rooted in a quasi-scientific theory.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Your claim that âthere are people who do better when taking medicationsâ raises concerns, particularly in light of the substantial research demonstrating the harm caused by psychiatric drugs (Breggin, P., Burstow, B., Whittaker, R., et al.). All psychiatric drugs are neurotoxins that lead to brain atrophy, resulting in a range of emotional, physical, and behavioural symptoms, while also accelerating cognitive and neurobehavioral decline (Jackson, G., 2008, Psychrights.org).
How do you justify the prescription of neurotoxins for conditions that lack a biological basis?
Report comment
Dear Sarah,
The notion of âagreeing to disagreeâ may be applicable in trivial matters, such as a preference for chocolate versus strawberry ice cream. However, it is decidedly inappropriate in discussions regarding the consumption of neurotoxins or an individual’s right to discontinue prescribed drugs known to be harmful.
You state, âWhen someone is so desperate to tough out the withdrawal that they lose their ability to think rationally, then medical intervention is necessary.â This raises a critical question: who, in this context, can accurately assess what constitutes rational thinking? Are you positioned as the definitive judge of logical reasoning? Additionally, it is pertinent to question the trustworthiness of medical interventions, particularly when those same professionals prescribe pharmaceuticals for nebulous disorders and employ methods such as psychiatric incarceration that lead to further emotional and physical distress and increased suicide risk. The risk of suicide is inflated for people who use or withdraw from psychiatric neurotoxins but is infinitely higher for those who are and have been hospitalised in psychiatric facilities (Chammas, F., Januel, D., & Bouaziz, N., 2022, & Chung, D. T., Ryan, C. J., et al. 2017). Consequently, your assertion that employing “medical intervention” in these cases is problematic as it contributes to increased suicide rates, particularly regarding an individual’s right to choose death, which you oppose for some unknown reason.
You argue that âany medical expert who is advising a patient on how to withdraw needs to spend significant time assessing risk and explaining to the patient and family that their mental state might rapidly decline and that they must raise their hand if suicidal thoughts emerge.â However, this perspective neglects the autonomy of the individual in question and persists in the belief that one can adequately gauge anotherâs mental state. Moreover, your stance seemingly endows medical professionals with an unrealistic level of expertise, implying they inherently prioritise the best interests of their patients above all else, which is inaccurate (see Ivan Illichâs 1975 work âMedical Nemesisâ).
Psychiatric drugs cause physical, emotional and cognitive side effects, chronic illness, irreversible brain damage, akathisia, tardive dyskinesia, homicide and suicide, and premature death (Whitaker, R., Gotzsche, P., Breggin, P., Burstow, B., Jackson, G., et al). Withdrawal and abstinence will prevent further impairment, not cause it.
Have you been prescribed neurotoxins and attempted cessation? Have you experienced suicidal ideation and âraise(ed your) handâ only to result in arrest, drugging and torture at a psychiatric facility?
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Robb,
While I fully concur with your assessment that these pharmacological agents function as neurotoxins and should not be prescribed, I must contest your position on withdrawal. When an individual reduces or fully ceases consumption of a substance to which their neurophysiology has become habituated, withdrawal symptoms inevitably ensue. This phenomenon arises because the brain has adapted to the drug’s presence (Horowitz, M., Moncrieff, J. & Wallis, K. 2023). Consequently, withdrawal symptoms reflect the brain and bodyâs struggle to recalibrate to a diminished dosage or complete discontinuation of the substance in question.
I would appreciate your evidence that contradicts this understanding, as you state you are ânot trying to be mean. Just correct.â
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Mental health nurse Timothy Wand argues that diagnoses are socially constructed tools that are used to inappropriately prescribe drugs to individuals. Therefore, psychiatric medications are dispensed primarily to sustain the profits of pharmaceutical companies and prescribers. Given this perspective, one might wonder why he doesn’t advocate for the abolition of psychiatry altogether instead of recommending a more conservative approach to prescribing psychiatric drugs.
Report comment
Dear Sarah,
I am truly sorry to hear about your husband’s decision to end his life. However, I believe your argument is fundamentally flawed.
Firstly, why would you insist that your husband should have reinstated the drugs he chose to withdraw from and assert that âlife on medication is a far better option than years of impairment trying to get offâ? Psychiatric drug use increases suicidal thoughts and behaviour and causes chronic brain impairment and central nervous system damage (Whitaker, R.; Gotzsche, P.; Jackson, G., & FDA, 2004, https://industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/drug/docs/#id=znbn0225). It is clearly âa far better optionâ to withdraw and abstain from these toxic drugs rather than continue.
Secondly, why would you demand that he go to the hospital against his will? Research shows that âthe risk of suicide in psychiatric hospitals is 50 times higher than in the general populationâ (Chammas, F.; Januel, D.; & Bouaziz, N., 2022), and âprevious psychiatric inpatients have suicide rates that are approximately 30 times higher than typical global ratesâ (Chung, D. T., Ryan, C. J., et al. 2017). Forcing an individual to be hospitalised increases the chance that they will suicide, rather than discouraging it.
Finally, suicide is a personal right rather than a behaviour that must be policed and prevented. It does not require public campaigns and âsuicide awarenessâ. Suicidal thoughts and attempts do not warrant unsolicited interventions, incarceration, mistreatment, or unnecessary drugging. In the majority of countries, suicide is not illegal. People can die whenever and however they choose to with the option of assisted dying facilities being readily available. Whilst we mourn the loss of people who died by suicide, we must respect their preferences regardless of whether we believe they were not in their âright mindâ. Who are you to determine what is right?
I realise that you are grieving for your husband, however, millions of individuals, including myself (I was prescribed multiple psychiatric drugs for twenty-two years and have been abstinent for three years), have successfully withdrawn from years of neurotoxic psychiatric drugging. Your assertion is wrong, life without these drugs is far more fulfilling than succumbing to further decline and disablement at the hands of psychiatry, pharmaceutical companies, and uneducated institutions and governments.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Purrrrr.
Report comment
There are people we can classify as ar$e-clowns. This doesn’t make it scientific, or explain their behaviour regardless of their attainment of medical degrees or zero clowning credentials.
A theory will not explain the unique circumstances a person has tolerated throughout their life. This is the problem with psychiatry. They fail to consider that a person does not exist in a vacuum and continue to victimise people for their distinct personalities, whilst ignoring their professionâs incognizance.
Report comment
Peter Breggin contends that âGoing to a psychiatrist has become one of the most dangerous things a person can do.â Psychiatry, an international criminal organisation that falsely diagnoses, prescribes neurotoxic drugs, tortures, electrifies and incarcerates individuals, should be forced to appear before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
When will psychiatrists be held accountable for the disability and death that they have created? When will its victims and their families be vindicated and compensated?
Report comment
Dear Ryan,
Your doctor was medically negligent in prescribing you numerous neurotoxins. You were very fortunate to have survived your car accident whilst under their brain-disabling mechanisms. The doctor should have apologised to you, not your mother. His/her apology is an admission of guilt. Yet, the âprofessionalsâ are immune to repercussions.
I am really sorry that you were born into a family of depravity where you were drugged, falsely diagnosed, physically, verbally and sexually abused and manipulated by cruel individuals. Sibling sexual abuse tends to occur in families similar to yours and mine.
Accountability and justice are rare, especially if you do not have the financial resources for uncharitable lawyers. Given that your mother is a lawyer, you would have had even greater difficulty.
Like you, my brothers sexually abused me. It has been impossible to attain justice because the perpetrators and my âfamilyâ deny that it occurred. Perhaps, there is a Victims of Crime program where you live. Based on my experience, you could be minimally compensated for the horrific crimes following years of privacy invasion and a lengthy interrogation process by a sceptical lawyer. At the very least it could force your perpetrators to be financially inconvenienced for their offences.
It is great that you have found an empathetic human who is not associated with the psychiatric propaganda machine.
I genuinely hope that you are able to rebuild and experience a decent life despite your tragedies.
Kind regards,
Cat
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: âAnd 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.â
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Dear K.D,
I, too, have personally communicated with Horowitz, viewed his website and videos, and read many of his articles, including his co-authored paper regarding the serotonin theory that has been disproven for decades (Greenburg, G., Burstow, B., Szasz, T. et al). I also own and have read his co-authored book on âdeprescribingâ. I am familiar with Bregginâs work, but do not belong to the private discussion group, unlike yourself. What was your purpose in sharing this information?
I agree that Horowitz and Taylorâs work, âThe Maudsley Deprescribing Guidelinesâ (2024) does provide a superior tapering guide to withdrawing from psychiatric drugs compared to Bregginâs 2012 book: âPsychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients, and Their Familiesâ. In my opinion, Bregginâs work is superior because it is written for everyone and elucidates the corruption of psychiatry.
I comprehend that the intention of Horowitz and Taylorâs work was ânot to lambaste the psychiatric industry and psychiatric medicationsâ. However, contributing to the collective academic knowledge that reinforces an argument against recklessly prescribed psychiatric neurotoxins and fictional diagnosing is crucial- not a form of duplication as you asserted. I continue to contend that because the authors intentionally chose to ignore this fundamental debate, they are psychiatric empathisers.
Taylor and Horowitz also failed to consider that their work was produced exclusively for âprofessionalsâ. The majority of âprofessionalsâ promote the use of neurotoxins for mythical disorders and obey the psychiatric paradigm. Why would these people, the bulk of those who could not be trusted to care for a goldfish, want to withdraw their âpatientsâ from drugs if they believe that they are âmentally illâ and require âmedicineâ for their âpermanent conditionâ?
Power and knowledge need to be given to the people. Especially those who have been abused, or are unaware that they are being harmed by psychiatric dogma. By depriving psychiatric consumers and âprofessionalsâ of imperative knowledge, Taylor and Horowitzâs work further robs autonomy from psychiatric survivors by ensuring that âprofessionalsâ continue to dominate the lives of consumers through using false paradigms.
Out of curiosity, are you a psychiatric survivor? Have you ever been poly-drugged for decades, taken from your home, imprisoned, assaulted and drugged at various psychiatric wards for being raped or asking for help, forced to withdraw from your recklessly prescribed psychiatric neurotoxins independently because your psychiatrist and doctor thought that your decades of sexual abuse, akathisia and chronic brain impairment was âmental illnessâ, that you were too âfragileâ to withdraw, and did not know the correct method? I have. The marginalised lived experience of survivors is at the crux of the argument. They are the people who know what should have been available during their experience of medical negligence and should be consulted when producing withdrawal guidelines for the people who will actually use them.
What is required is an uncomplicated self-help guide for people that illustrates the fallacies of diagnoses in the DSM V and the ICD, concedes that psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, damage the central nervous system, cause suicide and result in chronic brain impairment (falsely named protracted withdrawal syndrome), provides a variety of tapering mechanisms for every prescribed psychiatric drug, describes and offers solutions to withdrawal symptoms, and shares the lived experience of those who have successfully and unsuccessfully withdrawn from a variety of these drugs. Essentially, a free, rudimentary online and hard-copy psychiatric drug withdrawal guide available in all languages. Perhaps, a mobile phone application?
What are your thoughts?
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
âMental illnessesâ 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 âmental illnessâ, these manifestations are due to the personâs 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 âmental illnessâ; they are causing brain damage through chemical lobotomy and wrongly labelling it as a quasi-diagnosis/es.
Report comment
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
K.D,
Dr Mark Horowitz is a psychiatric empathiser. Through titling his work a âdeprescribingâ guide, he fails to discuss how noxious and unnecessary these drugs are and acquiesces to the psychiatric paradigm. At no point in his publication does he explain the quasi-science behind diagnoses. Journal articles authored by him and displayed publicly on his website refer to âschizophreniaâ, âdepressionâ, âsevere mental illnessâ, and other fictional character assassination terms.
I recommend Dr Peter Bregginâs 2012 book: âPsychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients, and Their Familiesâ. Breggin truly understands the depravity of the âprofessionâ.
Report comment
Addiction and the brain-disabling effects?
Report comment
David Buschâs website SE-REM.com is endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association. The APA is a criminal organisation of âprofessionalsâ who invent psychiatric âdiagnosesâ, promote and prescribe neurotoxic drugs (Breggin, P., Whittaker, R., Szasz, T. et al), endorse and utilise incarceration, restraint and electrification (Burstow, B., Breggin, P. & CCHR), accept finances from drug companies, skew and conceal scientific âdataâ (Goetsche, P.) and lie to the entire world about their barbaric and faulty practices (Breggin, P., Szasz, T, et al ).
David Buschâs website provides no scientific confirmation of the efficacy of his EMDR SE-REM method. Yet he claims, without verification, that he has âused this therapy session with thousands of clients and (has) had miraculous results.â Without evidence, Busch asserts that he has âhelped clients who previously would have had little chance of change or reducing their pain or their problem behaviorâ and that his program is so effective that it âhas helped individuals and even marital couples make changes that at other times would have been impossible.â Yet, he also mentions on his testimonial page that âindividual results will vary.â
Promoting snake oil practices that could make healing from trauma easier, offers nothing more than false hope and disinformation to people who have already been robbed of their autonomy through trauma. âIn my opinion, the SE-REM program wishes to impose their definition of reality upon others. They say that because of their greater knowledge, wisdom, training, and experience, they know what is best. People who believe that they know what is best for other people are denying other peopleâs truths. This is an act of aggression (Masson, J. 2021).
I have used the SE-REM program. It does not work. As a childhood incest survivor, I can assure you that people do not âresolveâ or âhealâ from trauma, nor should they be forced to confront it by individuals who use âtherapiesâ endorsed by the quasi-scientific and drug company-financed American Psychiatric Association. People with trauma continue to live with their experiences for the rest of their lives. As the Buddha stated, âLife is suffering.â Ergo, the end to suffering is death. The APA knows this, but the only âlegalâ method is to slowly kill people with their neurotoxic Kool-Aid.
Report comment
Corey,
âPTSDâ does not exist. There are no known biological causes for any of the psychiatric âdisordersâ. Nor are there any tests to provide independent objective data in support of any psychiatric diagnosis (Council for Evidence Based Psychiatry, http://www.cepuk.org).
Psychiatric drugs are neurotoxins. They lead to progressive shrinkage and loss of brain tissue, resulting in brain atrophy that is consistent with dementia. This process can both induce and exacerbate various emotional, cognitive and physical symptoms and accelerate cognitive and neurobehavioral decline (Jackson, G., 2008, Psychrights.org).
Additionally, numerous studies have demonstrated that âProzac (fluoxetine) was most commonly linked to aggression, increasing violent behavior 10.9 times. Paxil (paroxetine), Luvox (fluvoxamine), Effexor (venlafaxine) and Pristiq (desvenlafaxine) were 10.3, 8.4, 8.3 and 7.9 times, respectively, more likely to be linked with violenceâ (https://www.livescience.com/32934-do-antidepressants-increase-violent-behavior-111102html.html#). In 2004, the FDA issued a warning regarding the increase in depression, hostility and suicide in people using âantidepressantsâ (https://industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/drug/docs/#id=znbn0225).
Please cease promoting disability and death for your fellow humans.
Report comment
âPsychiatrists are nothing but legal drug dealers, and they’re dealing drugs that don’t work and actually kill people.” -Dr. Bart Billings.
Report comment
Corey,
Where exactly are you obtaining your âfactsâ? Prozac, fluoxetine, is a neurotoxin. By âworks wellâ, are you insinuating that causing brain and central nervous system damage (Breggin, P., 1991) in dogs is preferable to altering their environment to address the cause of their âanxiety?â
Report comment
I propose that we stop using the term “medication” when referring to psychiatric prescriptions. It has been evident since their inception that these substances function as neurotoxins. I believe we should adopt the more accurate term “recklessly prescribed psychiatric neurotoxins.” This change not only more accurately conveys the serious impact these substances have on both neurological and physical health but also holds prescribersâwho are cruel or uninformedâaccountable for their actions.
Report comment
Dear Rebecca,
I am deeply saddened to hear about the toxic relationships and decades of trauma caused by your family. Unfortunately, both violent men and women target individuals who have already been traumatised, leading to further victimisation. It is concerning that society rarely discusses the abuse of women by other women. I will definitely read Chester’s book on this topic.
I share your belief that the Mental Health Act is used as a tool to further harm victims. The psy-disciplines should be held accountable for their ineptitude and acts of violence.
Thank you for sharing your difficult experiences and for taking the time to read my story.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Yildirim,
You are right in asserting that all psychiatric âtreatmentsâ are harmful. Each drug and âtherapyâ has been intentionally selected for its mechanism to impair brain and central nervous system function in individuals (Breggin, P.). Psychiatry, psychiatric drugs, electro-convulsive âtherapyâ, and psychiatric incarceration and torture must be outlawed.
Given that there are no known biological causes for any personâs cognition with the exception of nutritional deficiencies, dementia and rare chromosomal conditions (cepuk.org), I’m curious to know what you mean by ânatural psychological problems.â
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Thank you, Nijinsky.
Report comment
Dear JR,
I am so sorry that you have also experienced horrific abuse and ostracism.
You are correct, the authorities tend to side with perpetrators leaving the victim abandoned by everyone.
Thank you for your empathy.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Anonymous for my safety,
Some people seem to thrive on being cruel to others. Iâm sorry to hear that your family is worse than the “mafia.” I can relate, as I have parents and siblings who have ruined my childhood and denied their actions.
I appreciate you taking the time to read and engage with my story.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
No, âAutismâ cannot be âcuredâ because it does not exist.
Report comment
Dear Dan,
The events surrounding Elijahâs fate are heartbreaking and senseless. It feels as though we are trapped in an endless cycle of tragedy, where individuals suffer, yet no one is held accountable for their actions.
You are correct. My perpetrator is still free to continue the cycle of abuse.
I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to engage with my story.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Dr Adam Coles,
Suicide is a personal right rather than a “behaviour” that must be âreducedâ. Suicidal thoughts and attempts do not warrant unsolicited interventions, incarceration, mistreatment, or unnecessary drugging.
Moreover, research has consistently demonstrated that psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic. They lead to brain atrophy, which induces various emotional, physical, and behavioural symptoms while accelerating cognitive and neurobehavioral decline (Jackson, G., 2008, Psychrights.org). As Dr Gotzsche clearly articulated, âdepression drugs double the risk of suicide, both in children and adultsâ.
Please cease the dishonesty, psychiatric drugs are never âappropriateâ.
Report comment
If a drug is necessary for you to âget out of bed,â then you are addicted. There is no âmiddle groundâ when it comes to psychiatric drugs. All psychiatric âtreatmentsâ primarily affect the brain by disabling its normal function (Breggin, P., 1991). These substances are neurotoxins and have long-lasting negative effects on the brain and central nervous system. This can lead to addiction, suicidal thoughts and suicide, and various physical, emotional, and cognitive complications (cepuk.org).
Report comment
This piece of writing is truly beautiful, No-One/Zero.
Report comment
Thank you, Dan
Report comment
Focusing solely on suicide prevention and the language surrounding the pursuit of an elusive “mental health” allows institutions and those in positions of privilege to avoid addressing the urgent need to rectify significant social inequalities. This narrow approach also strips individuals of their autonomy, denying them the fundamental right to make choices about their own lives, including when and how to die.
We must recognise that suicide is a personal right, not an “illness” that must be eradicated at any cost. Suicidal thoughts and attempts do not merit unsolicited interventions, incarceration, mistreatment, or unnecessary drugging. This perspective emphasizes the urgent need to reevaluate how financial resources are currently misallocated to ineffective suicide prevention efforts and research.
Report comment
Structural modifications, such as participatory research, inclusion in service delivery, and staff training, will not sufficiently address the issue of epistemic oppression within the field of psychiatry. The only genuinely effective approach to this challenge is through abolition.
Report comment
Dear Birdsong,
I would like to seek clarification on whether you are suggesting that I have a diminished capacity for reasoning (âshould be obvious to anyone with half a brainâ) by questioning the rationale behind the examination of prescriptions for neurotoxins, instead of advocating for their outright prohibition, along with that of psychiatry. It seems to me that prioritizing complete bans would be a more logical approach than pursuing regulation.
Report comment
As a practicing therapist, TheRealJody, it is quite troubling that you find humour in any criticism of your profession, rather than taking the time to consider the potential harms caused by practitioners like yourself. Psychological distress can arise from various sources that render it resistant to therapeutic intervention, and extensive research has highlighted the ineffectiveness of therapy (Smail, D, 1987). Furthermore, psychoanalytic interpretation is an act of aggression and domination (Masson, J, 2012). Consequently, it seems that your occupation bears âmore resemblance to politically motivated Instagram reels than to actual science.â
Report comment
Thank you, Joel. Psychiatry undeniably serves as capitalismâs âvenal handmaiden and compliant enforcer of social control.â
The statistic that “41% of adults diagnosed with ‘serious mental illness’ experience food insecurity (limited or uncertain access to safe and nutritious food)” prompts an essential question: could the underlying issue reside not in âmental illness,â as suggested, but rather in a lack of vital resources necessary for survival?
This data underscores the need for a deeper examination of why privileged and uneducated âexpertsâ often attribute social inequality primarily to individual âmental healthâ issues. It may be more accurate to perceive this situation as a result of insufficient essential resourcesârooted in the greed inherent in capitalismâcombined with the consequences of prescribed neurotoxic drugs, the stigma associated with dubious diagnoses, and the prevalence of chemically processed foods. Rather than hastily categorizing this issue as specific to âserious mental illness,â adopting a broader perspective might lead to a more comprehensive understanding.
Report comment
Dear Pamela,
I appreciate you sharing your experience with prolonged and unnecessary psychiatric drugging. Incredibly, you had supportive individuals who respected your decision and assisted you in accessing tapering strips to manage withdrawal symptoms.
I disagree with your âdiagnosisâ of âObsessive Compulsive Disorderâ and your belief that âmental disorders and distress are more common in (y)our family than the normâ. As discussed by Marcia Angell in 2011, there are no objective signs, tests or MRI findings to prove that âmental illnessâ exists, and the line between ânormalâ and âabnormalâ is unclear.
When it comes to Mark Horowitz, I do not think he can be called a “trailblazer” considering the facts. Peter Breggin’s works, “Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the New Psychiatry” and “Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families,” were published 33 and 22 years before Horowitz and Taylor’s “Deprescribing Guidelines.” While Horowitz does challenge psychiatric drug practices, he doesn’t advocate for their abolition or promote the dissolution of psychiatryâs continued appalling negligence and torture, unlike true trailblazers like Peter Breggin, Bonnie Burstow, Robert Whitaker, and Peter Gotzsche.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Kevin,
The accumulation of fifteen psychiatric diagnoses is a series of errors that could be considered comical. However, it seems that psychiatry lacks remorse for the pain and disability it inflicts. I believe that your characterization could serve as their defining label: Psychiatry – “professionally irresponsible.”
Love,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Cas,
I’m so sorry to hear about the difficult situation you’re facing with psychiatric abuse. It’s heartbreaking to know that you’re going through this, especially when you have every right to be treated with dignity and respect. The fact that psychiatry, pharmaceutical companies, and governments don’t recognize your human rights is truly disturbing. Have you thought about reaching out to organizations like Mind Freedom International or others in your country that advocate for people in involuntary psychiatric situations? I truly hope you find a way to break free from this complex position.
With love,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Birdsong,
If only this fact was common knowledge.
Thank you for reading my story, and for your insightful comments on numerous articles on MIA.
Love,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Silvia,
I was truly heartbroken to learn about your son’s passing. I can’t begin to imagine the pain and sorrow you must be experiencing. It’s clear that your son was dealing with an immense amount of stress, which is a completely understandable reaction to such overwhelming circumstances. Please always remember that you are not at fault for what occurred. The responsibility lies with Pfizer and your sonâs prescriber.
Wishing you love and strength,
Cat
Report comment
Thank you, Someone Else.
âIn a new study, a psychiatric diagnosis was found to be incorrect for more thanâ one hundred per cent of people. Their symptoms were âmisdiagnosed as DSM-5 psychiatric disorders like panic disorder and major depressive disorderâ by ignorant individuals who continue to foolishly believe that the DSM is a scientifically valid diagnostic instrument, despite negligible evidence.
Report comment
Dear Tom,
I often ponder about how my medical appointment might have transpired twenty-four years ago. Here is the utopian version:
Date: Mid-February, 2000
Location: Sterile, boring, powder blue medical centre, Katherine, Northern Territory, Australia
Weather: hot, humid and dramatically stormy
Dr. King (the nice one): “Hello, Catherine, how are you today?”
Cat: “I’m good, thank you (I always lie in response to this question because I do not want to offend or upset anyone). However, I’m concerned that I’ve been crying regularly. I’m scared that something is wrong with me.”
Dr. King (the nice one): “I’m sorry that you’ve been feeling upset. It’s typical to feel sad. Life can be very challenging. There’s nothing wrong with you for crying. Would you feel comfortable talking to me about what might be causing you to cry? You don’t have to answer right now if it’s awkward for you.”
Cat: *bursts into tears (maybe literally)*
Dr. King (the nice one): *passes a box of Blinky Bill tissues to Cat* “I’m going to order a full blood test for you. I’ll also provide you with the contact details of a counsellor and a psychologist. You don’t have to contact them if you don’t want to. I also have the number for emergency accommodation and financial support if you feel unsafe in your relationships or where you are currently staying.”
Cat: *desecrates Blinky Bill tissues with tears and mucus, and continues to sob* “Thank you, Dr. King.”
Dr. King (the nice one): “You can contact reception anytime if you want to see me again. I’ll also give you the details of a female doctor because you may feel more comfortable speaking with her. I can see that you are hurting, and I would like to help you. I’m going to cover the cost of this appointment, and we can schedule another meeting in a week. You don’t have to attend. Be kind to yourself, Catherine. Remember that crying is an ordinary human emotion. Please take care.” *passes Cat a pathology form, contact details for a variety of social support services and a female doctor, along with an anthropomorphic and overwhelmingly cute platypus scratch and sniff sticker because he realises that small gestures matter*
Cat: *still crying* “Thank you, Dr. King. Please call me Cat. Goodbye.”
Dr King (the nice one): âI am so sorry, Cat. Please forgive me. Goodbye.â
*Twenty-two years of psychiatric abuse, and iatrogenesis are prevented through empathy.*
Fin.
Thank you for reading my story, and for your suggestion.
Love,
Cat
Report comment
Dear GPM,
The most isolating aspect of my experience is the continued iatrogenic harm which I continue to suffer from. If I were to disclose it to a ‘medical professional’, I fear that I may be psychiatrically incarcerated and lobotomized like the unfortunate Frances Farmer.
Thank you for reading my story, and for your flattering comment.
Love,
Cat
Report comment
Dear James,
Thank you for your positive critique, and for reading my story.
Love,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Bernadette,
I agree that âmental health professionalsâ would rather utilise a book of lies (The DSM) and neurotoxic drugs than provide people with time, relevant support and compassionate understanding. It is imperative that others can empathise and bear witness to our suffering.
I appreciate your kindness and warm wishes.
Love,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Joel,
The âmental healthâ industry is akin to an untreatable venereal disease- it has no geographical or political boundaries, and its victims will suffer the consequences for the term of their natural lives.
Thank you for reading my story.
Love,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Silvia,
No, my doctor never checked my vitamin D levels prior to, during or after prescribing me an âantidepressantâ drug. When I was first prescribed neurotoxins, they failed to undertake a full blood count, determine nutritional deficiencies, or bother to examine my basic health.
I have known âillegalâ drug dealers who have demonstrated more consideration for my well-being than legal drug dealers/medical âprofessionalsâ.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Dear K,
Australia’s government, police, and âhealthâ systems are corrupt and severely flawed. Thank you for validating my experience.
Love,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Shane,
I am so sorry about your mother. I would really like to hear your story. Perhaps you could give the MIA staff permission to share your email with me so I may contact you.
Love,
Cat
Report comment
Dear Someone Else,
Unfortunately, Australia and the rest of the world are paedophile empires, too. The Australian police did not even bother to interview my abusers. Psychiatry and psychology continue to conceal sexual abuse crimes through quasi-diagnosis and victim-blaming. The only solution is the abolition of the psy-disciplines, and sexual abuse and consent education for all children and adults.
Thank you for reading my story.
Love,
Cat
Report comment
Alfonso Troisi incorrectly assumes that an âevolutionary approach to psychiatryâone that prioritises behaviour and functional capacities over symptom-based diagnosesâcould revolutionise the fieldâ. It is essential to recognise that enacting substantial change necessitates the complete dismantling of the psychiatric system, which encompasses the removal of the role of psychiatrists like Troisi.
Report comment
Dear Mark,
In light of the animal studies you mentioned, it appears that a 42-year-old human who has been exposed to ‘antidepressant’ drugs for 22 years may face the risk of enduring permanent biological injury. The study you referenced indicated that animals subjected to a few weeks of drug exposure displayed noticeable biological changes for up to a year afterwards. Extrapolating this to humans, it suggests that someone drugged for 1144 weeks (equivalent to 190.6 6-week exposures, resulting in 190.6 years of biological changes) could potentially experience biological alterations for up to 190 years, exceeding the human lifespan. This raises the possibility that ‘antidepressant’ withdrawal symptoms may not be mere withdrawal, but rather permanent and irreversible biological damage caused directly by the drugs. I would value your input and opinion on this matter.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
It is important to note that there is an absence of scientific evidence supporting the biological existence of the 297 ‘disorders’ listed in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness (Whitaker, R, 2010, Burstow, B,2015, and Szasz, T, 1987). The foundational approach to psychiatric âtreatmentâ involves brain-disabling interventions such as neuroleptics, antidepressants, lithium, electroshock, and psychosurgery (Breggin, P, 1991). Mark Horowitz raised concerns about the challenges of stopping these drugs once started, as well as the limited research into the causes of protracted withdrawal, including the absence of brain imaging or hormone studies. Despite these apprehensions, psychiatrists, like Taylor and Horowitz, and general practitioners continue to promote and prescribe these drugs, fully aware of their potential for addiction and serious side effects, and acknowledging the lack of research into withdrawal and long-term effects. Furthermore, labelling a drug withdrawal guide as âDeprescribingâ is a misnomer, as Peter Breggin has already discussed in his 2012 work âPsychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Familiesâ.
Report comment
The ânew studyâ is not actually new. Sigmund Freud published “The Aetiology of Hysteria” in 1896, where he argued that childhood sexual abuse was the cause of âhysteriaâ. His research sparked outrage in academic and public spheres, and led to him being personally ostracized. He renounced this theory a year later. Both before and after this time, the field of psychiatry has continued to re-victimise, diagnose, medicate, torture, and incarcerate survivors of adversity, both children and adults. When will psychiatrists acknowledge that, for over a century, they have understood that suffering causes emotional, psychological, physical, social, and financial consequences, and that their fabricated âdisordersâ only serve to silence victims, absolve perpetrators, neglect adversity, and sell drugs?
Report comment
The final element in Pandoraâs Box was hope. Unfortunately, this aspect is usually absent during the phenomenon of akathisia.
Report comment
KateL, your comments gave me the courage to commence sharing my experience through MIA. Please donât leave.
Report comment
Dear Inquisitive89,
I believe you misinterpreted my comment. I was not suggesting that governments should have âany right or responsibility to influence someoneâs mortalityâ. However, most governments already have the legal power âto influence someoneâs mortalityâ through incarcerating, diagnosing, drugging and torturing individuals in psychiatric facilities for physically attempting to and/or verbally insinuating that they might/will end their lives. Additionally, the right to die is not necessarily âinfluenced by wealthy interests who would rather us plebs kill ourselvesâ. Indeed, I am a disability pension-receiving plebeian who believes in the right to self-inflicted death. If âhealthyâ or âunhealthyâ people wish to end their lives, it is their individual choice. I am proposing that physically attempting to end oneâs life and/or verbalising the intention of self-inflicted death be considered a legal human right and removed from âmental healthâ law to prevent psychiatry, medicine, government, law enforcement, and insurance companies from abusing individuals. As Isabel Eckes stated in her article, âThe official methods of âSuicide Preventionâ are not science-based and more importantly, they go against the preservation of dignity and self-determination.â
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment
Thank you, Peter, for your continued efforts to expose the capitalist-driven dishonesty and negligence of psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies.
Carole, Bill and nonBeliever, I am so sorry for your suffering. We are the forgotten victims of psychiatry, governments, and society.
Whilst prescribed fluoxetine, I once attempted suicide with a firearm (the weapon did not fire), experienced passive suicidal ideation numerous times, committed aggravated assault, and self-harmed regularly (see https://www.littlecattrauma.com.au/miserable). Two years since withdrawing, and despite protracted withdrawal syndrome, I no longer exhibit violent or active suicidal behaviour. Coincidence? I think not. Eli Lilly has blood on their hands (https://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/prozac/lawsuits/#:~:text=Lilly%20Settles%2030%20Suits%20for, violent%2C%20aggressive%20and%20suicidal%20behavior)!
Report comment
Thank you for your honest account of âpreventative suicideâ, psychiatric abuse, and independent recovery. I, too, have toyed with my mortality since adolescence, and believe that everybody should have the legal right to die. As humans do not choose their own birth (Benatar, D, 2017, The Human Predicament: A Candid Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions, Oxford University Press), a free society owes individuals the right to live and to end their lives on their own terms (Appel, J, 2019, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/assisted-suicide-for-heal_b_236664.html).
Report comment
The DSM is a book of deceits. According to Daniel Regier, psychiatrist and co-author of the DSM-5, diagnostic criteria âare intended to be scientific hypotheses, rather than inerrant Biblical Scriptureâ (Greenberg, G. 2013, The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry, Scribe, New York, p. 125). Additionally, âthere are no biological tests or brain scans that can be used to provide independent objective data in support of any psychiatric diagnosisâ (Council For Evidence Based Psychiatry, 2024, http://www.cepuk.org). It is an abomination that psychiatry, an institute based on fiction, eugenics, torture, deprivation of liberty, and drug dealing, continues to exist when its methods are less valid than astrology, and it is responsible for the murder of half a million people every year (Gotzsche, P).
Report comment
Psychotherapy is inherently authoritarian and victim-blaming. âMany people who wish to impose their definition of reality would deny that they are involved in gaining power. They would say that because of their greater knowledge, wisdom, training and experience they know what is best. The most dangerous people in the world are those who believe that they know what is best for othersâ (Maisson, J, 2012, Against Therapy, Untreed Reads, p.23).
Report comment
Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states: âNo one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishmentâ (United Nations, 1984, CRPD). It is incredulous that the majority of countries have ratified the United Nations CRPD agreement yet continue to allow barbaric psychiatrists and âhealth careâ staff to torture and drug their citizens in a âceremony of degradationâ (Mosher, L.). Involuntary detainment, restraint, drugging and seclusion increase the risk of suicide (https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/06/risk-suicide-hospitalization-even-higher-previously-estimated/) and must be abolished to honour the human rights of everyone.
Report comment
I was a machine-cog in the psychiatric quasi-medicine machine for twenty-two years. Two years after withdrawing from prescribed neurotoxins, I am still suffering from iatrogenic illness: protracted withdrawal syndrome. Thank you, Bruce, for your pertinent article elucidating Illichâs philosophy on the current medical system that continues to antagonize people.
Report comment
I agree that psychiatry and psychology are both quasi-sciences. However, the endorsement of the âmental health/mental illnessâ paradigm and the assertion of knowledge regarding what constitutes âhealthyâ human emotions is concerning. âMental illnessâ is merely another example of how society labels and controls those who donât âbehaveâ (Goffman, 1961, & Scheff, 1966). Furthermore, classifying an individualâs perspective as âdownright wrongâ is objectionable. Reality is subjective. âWhat is normal for the spider is chaos for the flyâ (Addams, C).
Report comment
âThe one thing that derails us into âmental healthâ issuesâ, Chana Studley, is psychiatric dogma, not âan innocent misunderstanding of the role of thoughtâ. The most dangerous political movement in the world is the âmental healthâ movement (Dr Keith Hoeller). You have transitioned from prey to predator.
Report comment
Liam alleges in his personal statement that he is âespecially interested in using feminist and queer theory to unpack current systemic issues that affect otherized, marginalized groupsâ, but then proceeds to employ Steven Hollonâs research to advocate the use of cognitive psychotherapy for âdepressionâ. Why would a person require paternalistic âtherapyâ if, as Liam quotes Hollon, the âconditionâ is âan integral part of human survival mechanismsâ? How is this article protecting the interests, autonomy, and human rights of marginalised groups using Feminist and Queer theories? âYou are depressed, therefore you need thought-police therapyâ, is a reductionistic victim-blaming theory that fails to address the gross inequalities and trauma produced by our patriarchal capitalist society. âPsychological distress occurs for reasons which make it incurable by therapyâ (Smail, D, 1987, Taking Care: An Alternative To Therapy, Routledge). Please stop promoting psy-discipline Kool-Aid cocktails under the guise of advocacy and science.
Report comment
There are no known biological causes for any of the psychiatric disorders, nor are there any tests to provide independent objective data in support of any psychiatric diagnosis (Council for Evidence Based Psychiatry, http://www.cepuk.org). How is it possible that individuals with a history of trauma are diagnosed with âpsychosisâ and âschizophreniaâ? How can people be treated if their alleged diagnoses are not biological, and the typical âtreatmentâ for âpsychosisâ and âschizophreniaâ is with neuroleptic medication (wrongly named antipsychotics) which causes severe physical, emotional, and cognitive side effects, chronic illness, irreversible brain damage, homicide, suicide, and early death (Whitaker, R, Gotzsche, P, Jackson, G)? How is this considered treatment?
Report comment