Saturday, December 14, 2019

Comments by Nijinsky

Showing 100 of 399 comments. Show all.

  • I find it interesting that in the whole article, there’s hardly a comment about why people resort to drugs, regardless of their status in society.

    From the article:

    “She suggests that by segregating moral subjectivities along racial and class lines, psychiatry itself is one of the social determinants of people’s mental health because it creates certain types of identities while limiting others.”

    Isn’t fussing about…

    I really don’t know what to say, because the most aggressive fixated attempts to make me feel there’s something wrong with me, come from people that should know better given the amount of racial prejudice against them, but then they take on an image as defense, and that image is supposed to replace who they really are, an image created by the people putting them down. The very fears that they might feel trauma themselves, and express it to let go of it, and see it doesn’t rule them. Instead they go for the whole image making schpiel.

    But isn’t fussing about what economic status one is in, or minority group, or oppressed race, or any of that, isn’t that just taking away from what they have that those oppressing them have lost? And that also is in reference to those within their own economic status, minority group or race, even be they the majority again in that next fragmented piece of society in terror that they might find out they are human and not its machinery.

    And who is supposed to maintain this image, this “drug,” this idea as to what a person is supposed to have? Wouldn’t the whole thing ( the image, the schpiel ) fall apart if that wasn’t desirable to begin with, regardless of who has attained it and is the object of what you’re supposed to have…

    “………sometimes am I king;
    Then treasons make me wish myself a beggar,
    And so I am: then crushing penury
    Persuades me I was better when a king;
    Then am I king’d again…”

    http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/richardii_5_5.html

    And the mind does have the ability to deal with life, without being dowsed with whatever economic, or cultural level of power over it is desired, whether it’s image or lethe, both becoming a drug, the one physical , the other even more addictive…

  • Yeah, but your article does actually address that. If peer support people would be allowed to be peer support people rather than filtered through, as you said: “I think it’s ethically problematic to put “peer” staff in positions where their work is implicitly or explicitly involved with coercion.”
    It’s not just that they are involved with that (coercion), they aren’t allowed to openly dissent from that, otherwise they are more likely to have gotten out of the system. And the ones still in it are going to have acquired quite a bit of political acumen.

    Hasn’t the UN actually spoken against forced treatment?

    https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/10/un-to-usa-forced-treatment-prohibited/

    https://mindfreedom.org/front-page/u-n-rapporteur-on-torture-calls-for-ban-on-forced-treatment/

  • To make this discussion completely psychotic, not because that’s a disease, because it involves the imagination; and since psychiatry actually is illegal, would one honor the basic tenets of the law regarding harming another or using force that harms another: and would that be uncontaminated with precepts such as a person being a harm to themselves or others, when the implementation of such precepts really statistically has caused more harm to the people seen as a danger, it becomes clear that psychiatry is operating quite illegally in many ways. And to protect people from supposedly doing harm to themselves or others ends up causing more harm to themselves and others. Very much how gangs also operate.

    How do you stop gang behavior? I think that comes from places for youth to go, centers where they can play sports or perhaps get involved with art, social places where they aren’t judged, it’s said that more trees, and parks, and more green from plants helps, there even was an experiment where people prayed regularly, this in Washington DC and the police at first poo poohed it, but crime actually went down to such a degree they asked for it to be repeated. I think that’s a lot like changing society in a way that people are simply listened to, and have a place to go. That they have a place to go rather than have their need labeled as deviant, or diagnosed as symptoms of a disease, that with all of the social parameters of marginalization overlooked.

    And since we are actually talking about illegal behavior, regarding psychiatry, although this is given the facade of being legal, in practice. Were the letter of the law actually honored it wouldn’t be legal. Then changing the nature of peer support, is actually something quite profound. That a person should be welcome to be able to point out what is illegal transcends simple peer support. And not changing that is a bit like when you want to change the social precept governing gangs (because they are illegal, so what governs them is “social” not legal precepts) and that a gang member who would be allowed to be a gang member should only be allowed if they promote other kinds of gang activity that are less rapacious and more non violent. Are the leaders of the gang going to welcome this with open arms? And this doesn’t seem to necessarily work as well as preventing the forming of gangs to begin with.

    But those are just my thoughts, trying to gain perspective using imagination which is subjunctive and entertains potential.

    But yeah, peer support people should be able promote something other than the whole model that’s coerced and forced on people as a cure they aren’t allowed to dissent from nor are allowed to point out its ineffectiveness.

    And with that I am rather blogged out here.

  • The drug companies act like a drug cartel. There’s a famous book about that whose author I can’t remember, but I was surprised to find that all you have to do is do an internet search for “drug companies act like a drug cartel,” and you get a lot of hits.

    That’s gang activity. And I’ve read many evaluations of psychiatry that parallel their behavior to that of pushers, the way they get people addicted, and how they promote the drugs as a necessary remedy which pushers do the same only calling it an escape. Only it’s from the other side of the ballroom: one legal the other not.

    And now Portugal legalized “illegal” drugs which brought the amount of abuse down, I understand. This makes me wonder whether making psychiatric drugs over the counter (I’m just wondering what that would potentially do), which then would leave people with themselves to talk about regarding its effects, and regarding the side effects, as well as withdrawal. They then wouldn’t have a doctor to have to deal with at all, and neither a psychiatrist. And they wouldn’t have to exhibit behavior that would need approval from the psychiatrist (or social worker, or perhaps even family and friends) in order to make their own decisions regarding the effects of the psychiatric drugs. I wonder whether that would promote a better understanding, as well as discussion at all levels of society, including peer support, as to what those drugs really are doing.

    I don’t know, but the preponderance of people who are supposedly touting “objective” truths about drugs when would they speak negatively about the drugs, they would be met with disapproval and labeled as further diseased: if their experience with the drugs weren’t at such a level, and they truly were free to speak to peers, not having to deal with others called authorities evaluating whether the drugs changed their behavior, whether then things would be different, and to what extent.

    And, regardless of whether the drugs are over the counter or not, people should simply be able to speak about how the drugs effect them, and also have enough informed consent that they can recognize effects the drugs could be having, but then the whole scenario would have to be changed. And the focus wouldn’t be on changing the person or getting them to adapt to a society (or a gang), or eradicating behavior that’s challenging, but listening to them.

  • If one is going to talk about taking things to another level, then you might mention how the death toll from coercive, forced or fraudulently advertised treatment in psychiatry perhaps far exceeds what one is discouraged from comparing it to, as well as the length of its “rein.” That also involves ethical quandaries on all sides, including the people who then are told not to compare it.

  • I was simply proposing what would put an end to coercive psychiatry, and then it wouldn’t need any peer support.

    In regards your remark that it wasn’t clear to me what the article was about, or perhaps (for all I know) that proposing a different perspective is out of line when I introduce what I feel is a larger perspective (whether you feel that way or not), I find such “diagnosing” something to avoid and without it my point isn’t difficult to acknowledge.

    I don’t say that it isn’t a good idea to stop “peer support” from propping up the psychiatric system, I simply state that with a different approach you wouldn’t have the coercive system called “psychiatry” needing to be propped up. To stop propping it up would also help.

    The article very clearly points out how present psychiatry corrupted the idea of peer support, and if there was a completely different approach towards mental health or just human nature in general, which I tried to point out, that woud be people simply listened to each other rather than diagnosing, or drugging or coercing into treatment, then there wouldn’t be the whole present psychiatric industry corrupting peer support and needing to color coercion into treatment as healing although it statistically has caused more of the problem rather than a lessening: all that as game for something called “peer support.” And those people would have something to do that less resembled gang activity. That also would make change regarding “peer support.”

    It might also help if such peer support came from people that simply have found what mental health is by listening to others, gaining understanding of human behavior, and instead of having been consumers of “mental health” services had maintained mental health by not diagnosing, not wanting to coerce anyone into treatment and not promote disabling their natural emotional responses by diagnosing or “treating” such responses, whether it’s coercing into change or pharmaceutical. And I think that’s what Soteria house was about in many ways, because the criteria was that instead of judging the patients as being crazy, “non professional,” workers were hired who were simply interested in listening to the patients and the “weird” things they had to say rather than deciding it was an illness to be treated.

    And there are people that simply found or find answers for their “mental health” issues WITHOUT getting involved with psychiatry. In fact, I think that that in general probably would show to be more effective.

  • No one here is denying the holocaust, but to use that as a measuring stick against other atrocities, I find disingenuous.

    In fact the, adjectives, Mr. Stasny used (facile, inaccurate and polemic) when the comparison was made between the millions of people whose lives are lost and squandered (and remains legal), and the Nazi era, those adjectives approach diagnosis. Facile is right next to non-reality based, as is inaccurate, and polemic is right next to what might be used to determine ODD.

    By this time, psychiatric drugging might easily have statistically shortened the lives of more than 6 million people. That’s also systematic, also uses the idea that those people have something wrong with them, and although it doesn’t outright kill them, it ignores the death toll caused by its treatments, which over the years has fooled even more people, or forced more people to follow its tenets, while its death toll continues, and is still in action, and is worldwide and more widespread than Nazi Germany was. To make the moral statement that “the systematic mass murder of innocent people remains in a category of its own” while such a systematic mass murder is going on, only clouded in medical treatment, and then to say that isn’t in the same category I find lacking. In turn, I what if a person who has lost a family member to psychiatry and its lies said about the holocaust: “the systematic mass murder of innocent people hidden as medical treatment remains in a category of its own, and to compare it to the holocaust of WW2 which was open murder I find unwelcome given that murder in the name of psychiatry is covert and thus more corrupt”?

    To name just one class of drug, neuroleptics, that have been proven to shorten a person’s life by 20 years, how many people over the planet (NOT just in Europe) have been put on such a drug, while evidence shows that in the long run they are ineffective? Despite an interim period where “symptoms” are suppressed, or rather trauma that needs attention, or simply room for cognitive understanding that need legroom are suppressed, in the long run the treatment is not only ineffective but corresponds with more relapsing, more cost, and personal and societal paranoia against symptoms that could have been understood, and loss of life.

    That and then the rest of the disabling agents that are touted as cures for emotions, when would one look closely at what this does in society, it adds to the dumbing down of a population that doesn’t acknowledge global warming, or when acknowledged doesn’t do anything critical enough to stop what could be stopped. THAT along with a whole host of other societal issues that aren’t addressed because it might cause discomfort that a disabling agent suppresses. This isn’t as bad as or worse than the Nazi era, which only lasted as long as it had, and is over with. The biological model of psychiatry (which is or during its tenure has been riddled with concept that can easily be seen as clouded versions of Eugenics, Racism, Misogyny, Homophobia, Classism, ) has been around MUCH LONGER than the Nazi era was. In fact it’s worldwide.

    In fact, given the psychiatric drugs Hitler was on, which was massive doses of “happy pills,” or methamphetimes, and the paranoia they created, along with their widespread use in Nazi Germany, there arguably isn’t even a separation between psychiatric drugging and the Nazi killing machine.

    Do a google search
    I did: “Hitler’s happy pill”
    and got a whole list of hits pointing this out
    You could also do
    Nazi’s and Methamphetamines
    of any other number of combinations

    There’s also the fact that Nazis who were put in jail for atrocities, and got out doing half time, then started Bayer aspirin, one of the leading proponents of the medical establishment’s newer aggressive take over of the market, such as we’ve seen with psychiatric drugging.

  • Of course, institutions meant to help people shouldn’t be riddled with pundits who, although advertised as peer support specialists, only tout what they’ve gotten rewards for repeating or punished for would they not repeat.

    But this is a little bit like saying that gang members shouldn’t do drugs, shouldn’t be robbing stores and should instead be gardening, going hiking etc.

    Give them something else to do. Someplace to go.

    Psychiatry exists only because society doesn’t promote people simply listening to each other, anything out of the norm is met with alarm from the person experiencing it to society’s inability to want to understand it.

    If society didn’t make people alarmed about normal emotional responses that go against the grain of indoctrination or dogmaticism, if society didn’t find fault with mildly extremist behavior in stark contrast to the extremist alarm going on in society finding fault with such behavior, no one would be looking for help from what creates such faulty peer support.

  • One has to be truly careful, when one has the idea that something needs to be done, because you can easily end up in the social bonding that emerges heralding ideology rather than results, and that’s not true thinking, that’s indoctrination. Doing nothing, even when that is called crazy, can be more helpful by far. It still remains that many people could not, would not and haven’t survived such “interventions.”

    To mention only a few thing:

    After your daughter clearly had an extremely bad reaction to medications, when she ends up in an asylum, and is again put on the very medications (an anti-psychotic) although one that was a new one, you state that you in “looking back,” think that was a mistake. Why didn’t you at that time become alarmed that the same process was repeating itself? Could you fill us in so we know how to relate to someone who is like you were at that point. Because many people have to try to relate to such beliefs and have no understanding of how to relate except that they know it isn’t going to help, and like me can become quite frustrated being baffled at how to respond.

    Later on you state that you learned (“above all”) that being in the asylum can be bad because a person can be introduced to street drugs. Why is that? One is at least clearly told about street drugs how addictive they are, and what they do to your system, and they aren’t touted as cures for emotional problems (although people might think that they work that way) while with psychiatric drugs such information is withheld or suppressed. With street drugs there’s informed consent much more and thus they also can CHOOSE to not take them and are never forced on them. A person clearly can find out for themselves how addictive they are and that they don’t enhance a person’s life. And street drugs work the same as psychiatric drugs because they are messing around with neurotransmitters, and many or most of them used to be psychiatric drugs half a century or more ago. I would think that above all it’s the stress on drugs at all in the asylum, and that people forced on “medications” that mess around with neurotransmitters while receiving no help with the emotional problems, the need for cognitive perspective or the spiritual awakening that might be going on: that they then are going to turn towards street drugs. You could say the same thing for going to a University, that someone can get involved with drugs or drinking, while perhaps it’s the lack of true interest in the human mind beyond indoctrinating it that it the true danger there. And I’m not condoning street drugs at all.

    And you also state that you didn’t know that symptoms can re-occur when getting off of “medications.” It’s clear then that you weren’t taught this in social work school, but what were you taught that lead you to not see what was going on? And what are those “symptoms?” That the drugs didn’t work in the first place, that whatever “symptoms,” that were suppressed weren’t understood, and when they re-emerged got the same treatment, because they were seen as symptoms not valid expressions of whatever they were expressing and could be given room to express itself? Those are symptoms of suppression from treatment, that’s not even what would have happened leading a person look towards treatment, which adds another problem, the anxiety a person is taught to have about “symptoms,” that might just be normal human responses when not met with such anxiety that “something” needs to be done. Still we’re talking about “symptoms” (anxiety, paranoia perhaps even and then also “medications” toxicity) that come from believing something needs to be done rather than what was there that brought into being such “beliefs.” And how much of those “symptoms,” become simple normal responses that when a person is in an environment not seeing that as a disease, not becoming alarmed about it, that it ceases to be a problem but something that’s embraced and understood. In one area it simply isn’t really engaged with and thus discriminated against, and in another area it’s resolved.

    And then I read the rest of the article and am amazed and happy to see there is a change, but how much of the problem was that “symptoms,” were seen as such rather than something completely normal given the circumstances, and that doing “nothing,” would have from the beginning been more helpful?

    The one thing Soteria house does, I would think, when working with a whole family is to turn around the whole idea of “symptoms,” because I would think it’s the environment defining them as such NOT the person themselves, because the weren’t born, didn’t wake up from Heaven and suddenly start having issues with stuff that when properly looked at would only remind them that they are human rather than some piece of machinery manufactured by society. Rather than “symptoms,” they could see that there was valid emotional stuff, or cognitive stuff not given room to express itself, or unusual experiences that weren’t acknowledged or shown interest in to give a person the feeling they could be themselves regarding what life brought them, all stuff to remind them they are human and where they came from. Stuff and more going on that when not given room to express themselves became instead “symptoms.”

    And sorry but a major turn towards what would help would simply be do NOT get involved with the mental health system or turn to them when you’re having difficulty.

    I don’t even know why this is supposed to be a “disease” anymore. As if innocence is a disease.

    Recently I encountered an energy healer – and have been to a few, one actually had been put in an asylum as a child, because he would see auras which he described, and he would know things like who was on the phone before it was picked up and what they were going to say, but when clear miracles happened a Catholic priest actually decided that he had been given special gifts by the devil and then a special indoctrinated by the church psychiatric decided if Gene had shock therapy that the devil wouldn’t like the feeling of it and let go of Gene. And so Gene actually repressed all of that till his life fell apart, and then the miracles started happening again, and he traveled all around the world even getting the Russian Cosmonaut medal because his pure nature inspired people to find their own inner healer where miracles happen. And when people from Chernoble found healing, he was honored thus. You can hear his whole story here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9edB02jWP0 and see what he does to promote healing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9edB02jWP0 which continues here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSX-gUmxQ3M. Gene passed away in 2009, but I found another healer and was getting in touch with what she does beyond time and space, and it allowed me to feel what actually gets in the way of the healing energies (but that’s crazy in itself, because it’s not from the physical, it’s from the mind, from thought). I didn’t even go for any “psychiatric” problem but a physical one, which has now healed although it’s not supposed to have that way. And I’ve found that after both healings that occurred with Carol and Gene before that, I felt restrained from being active. Not held back but restrained more, because I simply felt detached, not being able to be active and take part anymore fueled by what IS causing the problem while I’m not supposed to be aware of what would prevent all of that, because it’s “crazy”. Not “objective.” https://caroleverett.com/ And that’s the difficult part, because you then see how much “society” gets in the way, and in how many ways. And how many of your decisions are actually to escape knowing what heals, because society doesn’t accept that. In fact, you can’t even go around in society being active about what truly heals, because that’s seen as nothing: too soft, doesn’t give you that spark of thinking you’re combating something to get somewhere, because what heals actually doesn’t need anything to oppose it, it really only need you to allow it. Detach and don’t do anything for awhile and you’ll feel it. Instead society gets in the way. That being what MOST of its defenses do. But if you really let go, you learn soon enough that there’s a whole other world. And “crazy” really isn’t a disease at all, and it’s seeing it as crazy that’s the real mistake beyond ever getting it right, because even a “disease” can teach you there’s something wrong (change your thoughts, change your habit, what you eat, whether you stress yourself out in whatever way: fighting wars no one can win, or simply find the help you need which wasn’t there before), or it can challenge you to change your life to see what’s right, but you decide that something is crazy and you’ve already decided that it has nothing to say, and will never make any sense. That what could change your life has to be eradicated.

    On Amazon Prime there’s another healer. Charlie Goldsmith, who somehow taps into the same wave pattern of what’s “crazy,” and what heals, because the people whose problems go away after Charlie has been the conduit of that say things like: “You’re not for real,” because it’s so totally unusual and amazing to them, or: “that’s crazy,” I don’t know how many times I heard that. Or one lady says: “I’m just weirded out right now.” After she realized she suddenly could do stuff she hadn’t been able to. And she actually WANTED to do stuff that before would have caused pain or discomfort. They here went and revisited someone he had helped when they were filming a show about him (which he didn’t really get paid for paying his own transportation and housing to be in the area in California I think). He started his own company because he didn’t WANT to charge for his gift. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-gQ6oBDpB4

    It’s all really crazy.

    Years ago, I happened upon a medium and a spirit friend had to put him in a trance when he was doubting her information (he didn’t understand the love between me and her I later was told, sort of like Lord Voldmoort not understanding the power of love) and she called me her son, having been Mozart’s mother. What I found, actually, is that Mozart never composed anything, the way the discipline would say. He only simply honored music as an innate place (using imagination of all things) where a person can find a home for their emotions, and gain perspective on life, he responded to the music, and he went there instead of going somewhere that was supposed to be “sane” or “constructive,” or whatever it’s called, and not even to the music would he do that to, something quite impossible when miracles aren’t at all impossible in contrast. And now I’ve found music (and painting, and writing novels, and poetry, and pottery, and whatever) to be healing for me myself, and I haven’t gone up in flames, exploded into forever, but I’m letting it trickle in.

    But REALLY!

    This idea that you have to CONSCIOUSLY do something, that you have to be RESPONSIBLE and take action, this is too ridiculous to call crazy, because if you were crazy, and didn’t do all of that, and allowed something else to be there that doesn’t need anything opposing it (love, the tao, the Universe: One-Song) then all of the stuff that created all of the breadth of evolution in nature, what’s involuntary, what happens by itself, THAT will do things you never thought were possible and greater than ANYTHING you could come with thinking you need to have.

    And it’s crazy…..

  • I know, it’s difficult, but Mr. “Doc.” and his associates can’t control everything that comes into a person’s life, and if you let the things be there that do heal (in contrast) then that does show what heals, and that’s that.

    Being oblivious for an interim period because the “medications,” have disabled natural brain functions, and call that healing really ceases to be less attractive in contrast. And the whole epidemic that has been following after the initial interim wears out, with more relapsing, disability, although it (the epidemic) also increases people’s paranoia against normal responses to difficulty, trauma, unusual things in life and challenges by making out that it’s supposedly a chemical imbalance when it isn’t; when it’s shown that not “medicating” people and acknowledging and tending to those natural normal responses heals the person and changes society for the better, than that will be that as well.

  • another correction

    And then where this fighting can’t exist, where it escapes all of the perceptions of loss, and guilt and whatever else maintains the need for a fight but still exists (possibly in forever where whatever is there can’t be destroyed), and if such a place exists it again wouldn’t be allowed to, whether it’s called Heaven or love.

    It should read something like this:

    And then where this fighting can’t exist, where it escapes all of the perceptions of loss, and guilt and whatever else maintains the need for a fight, where it escapes all of that but still exists (possibly in forever where whatever is there can’t be destroyed), and if such a place exists it again wouldn’t be allowed to, whether it’s called Heaven or love.

  • correction

    “We haven’t even tried this (not forcing treatment or limiting treatment to our treatment), but if it worked what we call needed forced treatment would be shown to not work.

    should read

    “We haven’t even tried this (not forcing treatment or NOT limiting treatment to our treatment), but if it worked what we call needed forced treatment would be shown to not work.

    In other words, we are so sure that the pills will work we won’t try anything else.

    What did Einstein say about being crazy? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

  • I’ve read this now three times, and I fail to see what the point is.

    To begin with, to site a study studying people being treated for “schizophrenia,” means you are studying people that are “medicated.” It doesn’t at all state that there were any “schizophrenics,” that weren’t medicated. What this is supposed to have to do with Torey’s statement that poor adherence to psychiatric medications brings bad results is beyond me yet, except that then you can ignore whether no medicating them in the first place turns out to be more helpful and preventative. And there’s of course no study listed comparing “schizophrenics,” that aren’t at all medicated to those having poor adherence or good adherence, regarding whether they get violent. In fact, those with “poor adherence,” you can be sure weren’t given the opportunity to be helped to get off of their medications. So it’s really about people not liking the treatment, being forced on it, and then whether they get violent. Siting a study that “schizophrenics,” have a bit more tendency to get violent without also looking at whether “treating” them with medications they aren’t allowed to dislike ups their chance to get violent is pretentious at best. To magically say it’s because of medication non adherence then is quite unscientific.

    And to treat the whole situation in a way (NOT involving “medications”) which promotes recovery, and logically prevents violence, that isn’t even entertained. That would be a treatment (the treatments that have been shown to work like Soteria House, Healing Homes etc.) other than the “treatment” being tested. But it’s not even entertained. The “treatment” entertained is such that when someone doesn’t like it they have – what the author of this article points out – a minor correlation with violence. Mind you, that’s a “treatment that when it forces a person on medications gives them extreme withdrawal symptoms would they not want such “treatment” or the side effects from it. And they for the most part can’t get or have difficulty seeking help for it (coming off the “treatment”), and probably are told that it’s their moral responsibility to endure the side effects that were making them not want to take the medications. On top of that they are most likely being told that the withdrawal symptoms are symptoms of the disease, not of the “treatment.” And then there’s this big statement that some people seem to get violent (although not as bad as five other criteria).

    This is science?

    And the people that aren’t compliant with “treatment,” that aren’t medicated at all, or weened themselves off, there’s enough evidence that they then have way more of a chance of recovery.

    I REALLY wonder though, why in the whole article, it’s not even mentioned about those people, or that poor medication adherence might mean that those are people that feel that the medications don’t work (which has been proven), but they aren’t allowed to have such awareness, and that that by itself is so suppressive and confusing it could make people violent. And that, when they are not allowed to nor their right to express their dislike for treatment is acknowledged, this echoes severe emotional issues that thus are being suppressed echoing the same coercion towards their behavior of expressing dissent or not.

    In fact, that people who aren’t treated with medications have less occurrence of violence isn’t even entertained. That would of course blow the whole argument, and if there’s more recovery, which has been shown to be the case, then there’s more exposing that’s not supposed to happen. Nor is it looked at regarding all of the evidence that psychiatric drugs cause violence, which there is ample evidence of, which was suppressed for years and still is.

    WHY are we supposed to even read this going around in circles completely ignoring the statistics regarding what happens when people AREN’T put on medications!? And why is “treatment” – whether a person is compliant to it or is seen as having poor adherence but still coerced that they should be compliant – that correlates with violence, not at all seen as a possible CAUSE of that violence!?

    That way you could call I don’t know what treatment!

    WHAT are they saying!?

    “We haven’t even tried this (not forcing treatment or limiting treatment to our treatment), but if it worked what we call needed forced treatment would be shown to not work. So here we’re forcing people on our treatment and when they don’t like it and aren’t helped to try something else that has been shown to promote recovery more, they get violent in an extremely marginal way.”

    And then there’s the venues that when there isn’t enough money for treatment, and people at first forced on treatment suddenly don’t get their “treatment,” their “meds,” then they start acting up, so we need more money for treatment. That you could have ever NOT got them addicted to “meds” that only work for a few years before there’s more relapsing, lack of recovery, more cost, more loss of life, more societal paranoia against people not treated by what doesn’t work!? Oh, and when they have withdrawal symptoms and aren’t helped with them and getting off of the highly addictive “treatment” (which would cost less in the long run and promote recovery) then we need more money to “treat” them.

    There was an article in The Onion about the big hole that everyone’s money ends up in, and when it was argued as to whether they would shovel it in or use another manner to dump money in there, someone said:

    “My father works two jobs so you can dump money in the hole, and I want you to use a shovel, not any other method!”

    Why are we even going on about “schizophrenia,” rather than seeing whether the treatment of it is a causing factor: NOT helping a person who wants another method than what they are forced on and they aren’t allowed to say isn’t the kind of treatment they see as working for them, as well as that there’s strong evidence that it doesn’t work, which is suppressed.

    And I’ve again typed in all of the above, checked it over, adjusted it, and only once mentioned how this “treatment” echoes severe emotional issues that already weren’t tended to.

    But I’m supposed to take up the other flag now, and in not tending to them (severe emotional issues) start fighting the cause, which wouldn’t be there if what actually heals was acknowledged rather than fighting about what doesn’t.

    It gets quite something when what truly heals and has no opposition, and so is there when you stop needing to oppose anything, that it’s thus disqualified because it dissolves the whole fight. WHY!? Because it might be called a miracle, and thus be seen as unrealistic? And then where this fighting can’t exist, where it escapes all of the perceptions of loss, and guilt and whatever else maintains the need for a fight but still exists (possibly in forever where whatever is there can’t be destroyed), and if such a place exists it again wouldn’t be allowed to, whether it’s called Heaven or love. That supposedly exists afterwards, if you’re good and judge others… Can’t ever be just now in the moment…..

    Well, I’m done….

  • By the way, I was reminded that there are checks on things like this, and that there’s more than one person involved when any decision about nuclear weaponry, but to me it really is just a point to make as to what’s considered crazy or not.

    I mean, she can say that she had religiosity, and this is acknowledged, but could anyone say that they had been brainwashed to think along the lines of what might be called militariosity (or militarism or whatever the word would be), and that could cause extreme alarm regarding quaking the idea of an enemy (in this case the devil, hell and satanic cults), and that effected their thinking causing paranoia?

  • I’ve listened to the whole two hours of an interview, and I wonder whether anyone else has, and comes away from it quite numb, staring at the walls.

    Marci actually has insight into what went on with her, she even talks about religiosity; and then also very clearly how the “medications” not only took away her ability to see danger, but made her extremely paranoid and out of control.

    I have no idea what The psychologist Kane is going on about, other than, when someone actually has insight, and expresses the consequent emotions in a logical manner, that Kane can’t deal with it, and comes up with this strange diagnosis of borderline. And then to top it off, instead of acknowledging all of the abuse, that Marci very clearly portrayed, she acts as if the danger is in letting her out rather than keeping her in. Kane said: “If Webber were released, she would be at risk “for developing more symptomatology in a community setting,” Kane said, and thus should remain a hospital inpatient.” which sounds like some prefabricated sound byte in order to get points from the system as if it’s working. Look here, we lock these people up, we’re safe. What they’re locking up is the truth from getting out.

    And from this point everything breaks up. Marci actually says that when someone is psychotic and a danger to themselves that they should be hospitalized, but she wasn’t. (!?) In reality, I think she had been hospitalized quite a bit (voluntarily also), and thus she was on a cocktail; and for the present system to function as a place for people to go who are psychotic, because otherwise they are a danger to themselves or others, the whole system would have to change, would the result not be what is HAS BEEN for the past so many years. For this present society to be safe people need to learn how to not get so alarmed that they fall back on the very system causing most of the danger. And she also mentions what kind of clearing she had in the military for nuclear weapons. And so, when someone is involved with a system where would ANY of such weapons be used, it could lead to the end of most of organic life on the planet, and she says this to point out that when they are given special privileges this points out their sanity rather than their insanity. It’s mind boggling. There IS no sanity there to me, and it’s much worse than what psychiatry might do, initially, which isn’t creating weapons of mass destruction that when someone pushes a button most of organic life on the planet can be destroyed. And she’s actually pointing out that someone like her could get clearance, and for all we know could end most life on the planet because otherwise it might go to hell.

    THAT’S how dangerous the present mental health system is, along with the drug company cartel.

    I hope she gets out and points that out, VERY CLEARLY, without trying to make out that she wasn’t crazy, because she was given clearance to be allowed to facilitate most organic life on the planet being destroyed!

    MY GOODNESS!

  • Heh, to say, in regards Marci believing that if her daughter would be killed in a satanic ritual, that her daughter would to go hell: I’m not saying that their aren’t satanic cults or that such killings don’t happen, nor do I know what was going on with that church, but I think I can say safely that when someone is killed in a satanic ritual, that they don’t end up in hell for eternity.
    The idea of hell is something that was conjured up as a mind control method, because when you make people think they are under attack, then you can control them. And saying that there are such fabricated principles governing whether someone gets to Heaven — whether they go to church or not, or even whether they have ever encountered one particular church’s teaching of something that as truth can only be universal and not changed by difference between cultures — this is along the same lines of mind control. Neither does it make sense. And it doesn’t work no matter how good one is being following the guidelines that never could be true would God be of love rather than using fear to control people.
    It all seems quite responsible trying to prevent such a horrible things from happening, but that would have to be truly something that would happen. I don’t think that’s the case. And I think that it’s actually investing in the beliefs that people need to be controlled by fear that quake and nurture the kind of dark fear based ideas and mind control that satanic cults come from.

  • This is what I also have found to help.
    What psychiatry does with its diagnosis is something akin to — although not as accurate as — monitoring the symptoms of someone that has a broken leg, or a sprained ankle, then anesthetizing the problem (the pain). And when along the line there’s more problems because you can’t walk around with an anesthetized broken leg or ankle without doing more damage, they make more of the same calls for treatment. For all I know in the end the leg is amputated and labeled as having genetic faults. Only the symptoms they are diagnosing often don’t really interfere with a person’s life as much as a sprained ankle or broken leg does, but the diagnosis does, and was the person left alone they would do better.

    Places like the Soteria house actually see there’s a broken leg or a sprained ankle, and treat that.

    IMHO

  • I actually had the same impression about high school, although it’s insulting to high school. It really was like her and her immature high school friends making up stories about someone they thought was weird. It really was like a bunch of immature high school girls going on about someone they think is weird and then concocting a bunch of alarmist scenarios they believe are real.

    And what she made out of yoga to me really was not good for one’s health. When you are doing something that’s supposed to relax the mind giving the body the chance to let go of toxicity and negativity, and yet there’s this strange varnish to what’s going on more akin to smiling because one is playing the image game; as well as that she went too fast to allow for true letting go, it makes one anxious in an area that otherwise gives one the space to let go of anxiety.

  • I read the beginning of this article, and I immediately thought, he was drugged, they put something in his drink, which happens ENOUGH in New York apparently, see the following story.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/arts/music/bizarre-court-case-puts-a-violinist-and-leipzig-string-quartet-in-an-unflattering-light.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/arts/music/violinists-attempted-murder-charge-is-dropped.html

  • Rachel777 yes it was extremely shocking. Overloading. Just going over all of that CRUD last night, the whole assault of non reality based pretentious hateful and discriminatory junk, in trying to type what’s above, it gets to be too much, and I have to take a lot of trouble to give myself space to rest afterwards.

    There was another thing I didn’t mention. In the beginning, when that brain washed lady had started to get her discriminatory ideas, it was during rest pose, and I saw the image of a spirit friend of mine, when she was a child. A spirit that I got to know incredibly well, and she had actually opened the channel with spiritualism in a way (although we later had to get away from it) because a medium was doubting the information. She had to put him in a trance. Well, I saw her as a young girl, and it made me cry. I’m talking about Mozart’s Mother Anna. I had some soft tears, and then I heard in the background someone (one of the yoga teacher’s friends) say: “And he starts crying.” I much later found out they thought I was in love with her, although it had NOTHING to do with it. Apparently, if I smiled at her, that was some sign of dangerous infatuation as well. And the girl that says: “and he starts crying,” was the one who said I was in the yoga teacher’s personal space, and then they intrude EXTREMELY into mine actually stalking, harassing, trying to intimidate with extremely non reality based and discriminatory actions. And they also in the process made it clear that if there was anyone that could become violent because of non reality based thoughts it was THEM!

    This whole crud about “it’s mental illness,” regarding mass shootings, when psychiatrists each year KILL with their medications MORE people than all the mass shootings put together; and it might be Kill more people every month, for all I know.

    What was so shocking, sitting there hearing someone say, as if it’s some sort of obvious logic: “She said he could become violent,” is that there is the whole mass of children, that when they simply had difficulty concentrating, had some mild manic behavior, felt sad in a way that bothered them, were rebellious against authority; or because of lack of sleep or lack of a space to express themselves safely, had thoughts they didn’t know how to understand, or children that were sexually abused, or bullied, or encountered physical abuse; these children probably at one point had to listen to reports of what “a social worker,” said about them, because if labeled that way it could become a reason they needed to be seen as having a psychiatric condition to keep the whole system going; and then have the whole array of misconstrued brainwashed crud thrown at them; when they really just didn’t quite know what was going on with them and why they responded in a completely natural and normal way to what was going on. Or even that it WAS a completely normal and natural way to respond to something they couldn’t safely express as being the cause. Instead there’s something wrong with the response…

    And there’s a lot I haven’t mentioned regarding what was supposed to be crazy concerning me. One of the things ended up being something (a time loop) whatever, that made me feel sure that I would get a physical miracle, that I consequently have gotten. But the way such things work is beyond the limitations of those calling it non reality based. And all they have to do is stop judging it. Stop being alarmist about nothing. Stop jumping to conclusions. Stop for ONE MOMENT, and think that maybe they DON’T know what’s going on.

  • I’ve had it myself, that when I couldn’t quite comprehend EXTREME discrimination against me by someone that was supposed to be teaching yoga at a parks and recreation class (it was more a class in the escapist balm of the silly pretentious belief that when you think there’s a danger that isn’t there, you are safe when you make out it’s there when it isn’t); and also happened to be a social worker.

    All she has to say as a social worker is that I might become violent, and they throw out a whole array of misinterpretation of EVERYTHING I did.

    If I walked out the same door as she did, which everyone had to at one point to get out of there, unless one would go all around like an Egyptian maze game, and it happened to be close to when she left, I was stalking her following her to her car, although I never took ONE step in her direction, and always went straight to my bike. Never was INTERESTED in going anywhere near her or her car.

    If I tried to share music of mine — I was gifted an expensive 1000 dollars synthesizer, and wanted to share the music produced, along with other piano music I recorded that I shared with all sorts of people who loved it: bus drivers, one convenience store owner who found out that her sister stole the CD because it was the only thing that helped her go to sleep, people at coffee houses, the prior yoga teacher at Parks and Recreation that said it was good music for yoga — and this turned into I was giving her special gifts, was supposedly dangerously in love with her (I’m gay by the way so it wouldn’t do anything for me if she showed up at my door begging for it, I also found her quite repulsively coy, although I admired her attempt to be committed to yoga).

    If after class, because I rode a bike, and had to put on warmer clothes over my jogging outfit before riding home, and was doing this quietly while she was talking to someone else, I supposedly was closely listening to what she was saying, as if I was obsessed with her. I also apparently was supposed to be deaf, or unable to comprehend English, because when I heard her moan about liking chocolate and having bought some, and mentioned later that I found out you could put a couple spoon fulls of coco in your oatmeal in the morning and get the same resonant buzz from the coco that chocolate gives you (without the sugar in the chocolate); she accused me of being mad at her because of her sugar intake (!?) REALLY! THAT because I was trying to share a way to have coco without the sugar, given her moaning as if she had bought some more of that stuff; and she and a friend of hers then proceeded to supposedly monitor how dangerously angry I got. I couldn’t care less about what she eats, what happened was that I found I had been talking on about stuff, and she mentioned that it was time for the next class to start. She also mentioned that she didn’t remember mentioning the chocolate. I looked a bit severe noticing I had been running my mouth, also could feel she was disingenuous, and this turned into (I can’t even keep it straight hardly)… Oh yeah, because she thought I could get violent, she had to make out I was harassing her, which I wasn’t, and she said that she had told me to back off and I didn’t. She hadn’t said ANYTHING at all, just in a coy way mentioned that the next class was starting, after saying she didn’t remember the comment about the chocolate. And if she HAD said back off, and I had noticed how alarmed, paranoid, or hateful she was, I would have simply completely stayed away from her. She ALSO mentioned later in a report, that she had to watch her sugar, and didn’t know I was paying such close attention to what she said (!?!?!?!?!??!)

    I have to add that I wonder was she on Zyprexa or something (I don’t know, it can make you diabetic so maybe you have to watch your sugar they would say)? Was she on an antidepressant (and or a sedative) allowing her to not question that she was jumping any available conclusions, and not even knowing what really was happening? It was just weird the way she misinterpreted anything. Was she on some sort of psychiatric drug helping her not question she was jumping to conclusions?

    It seemed endless.

    She had music on, relaxing music, this on a ghetto blaster device, but one of the speakers would spit out static, and so I wondered whether she heard that, which I mentioned, and she pooh poohed that, saying it was just “parks and recreation,” and didn’t want to buy a good one. I thought that was that, but that was later corrupted as well.

    She had been QUITE rude to me, when she mentioned that she had to have vaccine shots, and her arm hurt. This WHILE she was having a conversation across me with another person. So, being put in the middle of a conversation, I simply asked: “Do they really help as much as they say they do?” There’s a lot of controversy about vaccines, and she said (moaning again)” I’m not going to have a whole long conversation about it,” I didn’t either, I just was proposing questioning that that was the whole answer (we also have an immune system by the way, that works better when you live a healthy lifestyle), so I simply gently repeated that I think you have to look at both sides. Then she got really jumpy as if she was a mouse trap whose spring had been sprung and snapped out: “Those who aren’t getting vaccines are making the rest of us sick.” I didn’t say anything at all, not even: “Oh does that mean that we can not take care of ourselves and incubate all sorts of viruses our immune system could otherwise take care of, as long as we have vaccines!?” ANYHOW! There also are all sorts of other reasons for the diseases in our society amongst them the domesticated animals that were quaked in Europe that incubated many of the viruses our “civilization,” has that killed most of the indigenous people that were here already and had more respect for nature.
    I found that a bit offensive and thought about what to do, so I gently called the person hiring people for Parks and Recreation, and mentioned this, also stating about the ghetto blaster thing, because, out of kindness, I thought they might want to buy her a good one, which they then actually did; but this got turned into that I didn’t like her music (I hadn’t said ANYTHING about her music, and I actually had liked it, a bit). In reality, I had pointed out that her machine was spitting out static from one speaker rather than music, and she had denigrated Parks and Recreation as an organization not worth buying good equipment for when presenting a class for them.

    And then, after THAT, I hadn’t gone to class a couple of times, although I had TRIED TO get there, But I ride my bike: which I couldn’t do all the way there, because I had at that time bad eczema, which would be horribly exacerbated would my hands sweat inside the glove I’d have to wear because it was cold; and I could ride to a near by bus stop, and put my bike on the rack of the bus, but the rack was full of other bikes BOTH times. So this “social worker” who is supposed to be professional at that, actually maintained that I didn’t go to the next classes because I was resentful that she didn’t agree with me on vaccines, I supposedly also spoke against all vaccines when talking to her boss, which wasn’t the case; I had said I was getting e-mails all the time, and repeated what some of them said, not saying I agreed with it, just pointing out there are different view points, and I didn’t go to the yoga class to be told how to think about vaccines, or that I’m supposed to be a consumer for the drug companies. And apparently, she had a whole list of FALSE interpretation of my behavior, and still more I haven’t shared. When I’m AT CLASS anything she feels free to misinterpret is, but do I NOT show up, then again there’s MORE false interpretations. And WHY would she want me in class, when I supposedly was stalking her, trying to intimidate her and supposedly dangerously in love with her, but when I don’t show up I’m resentful. I couldn’t really do ANYTHING (couldn’t be there, couldn’t not be there) and she felt free to misinterpret ANYTHING. And this is a “professional” social worker.

    I had asked her once about a pose, because I was doing it wrong, I had held my arms incorrectly (probably because of the incorrect way she used her arm muscles, but anyhow), THAT was cleared up, and I simply said: “Oh, I was holding my arms wrong,” but then that got turned into that I supposedly stepped on her yoga mat. I don’t even know what THAT was, because if I had, I didn’t know it, and had she told me I was stepping on it, I would have been happy. Then in trying to “characterize” me which might as well have been a fictional character from some chase scene movie, that I have nothing to do with, she said I had stepped on her yoga mat another time. If I had, which I don’t know if I did, because so much of what she said didn’t add up, and I’m not cognizant of doing that, I would have been happy to know I did something clumsy, so as to not do that. I guess I supposedly was trying to intimidate her by stepping on her yoga mat. (!?!?!?!?)

    And she always mentioned that people could ask her questions the first class , so I had done that. Since I had shared music with the prior teacher there (who also took me to a Hindu Church meeting one day, when he passed me by in the car, and we had gone to a restaurant together), I thought I would share a CD of piano music with her. She wanted to play it in class point to me and say: “That’s HIS.”, which I actually hesitated about doing, not just because I don’t like being made out to be such an object. It was my own piano playing and music, and music seems to come from nowhere, from God, some involuntary place that keeps our heart beating, it’s not mine, and it’s not me in a way, anyhow, I didn’t want to do that. Also, one of the most DIFFICULT things to do composing music is to actually be able to listen to it, and know what kind of changes to make, is it to become what was there beyond time in the beginning. Recently there are pieces where a simple phrase, or the whole method of constructing a phrase has taken years for me to complete. So hearing my own music, and free to have such thoughts, while doing yoga, I didn’t know about that, and mentioned that I wouldn’t be able to concentrate. She then said that, as a teacher for parks and recreation, she couldn’t accept a CD from someone (which I actually had forgot, because I later mistakenly offered her another CD). We had a bit of a conversation, and I tend to run my mouth a bit, I mentioned a video from the library about yoga I had learned, and used for years, and the conversation was soon enough over. Only there was a friend of hers there in the background, who apparently convinced her that I was in her “personal space,” they started to make up erroneous ideas about me, she had friends of hers walk her to her car; and she mentioned that supposedly I was 40 pounds heavier than I was, that I was 2 inches taller, and that in talking with her then, I was trying to intimidate her looming over her. What I remember, which took me a long time to figure out after the whole assault of misconceptions, is that she was standing a bit bent over, her head down bobbling a bit, and my response was to straighten up, because I felt that the chi energy was somehow compromised the way she was standing. If someone wasn’t compromising themselves (and compromising their chi energy) to the whole plethora of compromising oneself to such false stereotyping, like an obsequious bobble head doll, then they are looming over her trying to intimidate her? And it took me a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time to figure out what the flip THAT remark of her’s was about.

    And I couldn’t actually watch what was going on in class, or it was reported that I was gawking at her. I couldn’t follow her vocal instructions because her voice was quite sing song, so I had to look to see what I was supposed to do.

    I don’t wear my glasses while doing yoga, so I had to get close enough to see better what she was doing, and then I was supposedly trying to get too close to her. And I was always in a standard place anyone could have taken.

    I had a bad back the last class of her’s I went to at all, and so I took a break from doing the poses (in fact I couldn’t) but I still did most of them, and for maybe 2 to 5 minutes of a long 55 minute class had my head on my hand, watching what she was doing, then I actually took the child pose for a couple poses, which she remarked upon, that that was something anyone could do when they wanted to rest rather than do a pose, or the pose was too difficult. THAT turned into that supposedly 80 percent of the time I had my head on my hand watching her.

    She also said that I didn’t do “anything” she’d tell me to do. I actually TRIED to do her poses, and afterwards realized that she went WAY to fast for me, and I just couldn’t follow, because it went against what yoga really does. Let alone the whole assault misinterpreting anything she felt free to, and acting like it was really going on. Her “friends” in trying to make me out to be something I wasn’t, and doing things I wasn’t, said that all I did was watch her, which is something she reported, along with making the statement (and this is a professional social worker) that I was “creeping” them out. THAT when I was simply slowly putting on my things to leave class, as I explain above, and having NOTHING to do with them. How much my clothing, my hair style, the fact that I didn’t have a car, and that I actually needed something that was more true to what yoga is had to do with that, you can imagine.

    And the funniest thing (if ANY of this is to be humorous) is that having been in spiritualism, and having experienced the belief that you can hear voices from spirit that give advice (although I found that the people in spiritualism were giving a bit too much advice) I had heard clearly a voice (and I know from whom, I think) telling me to not even ask her questions after class. To just go to class and not talk to her at all, but I found that annoying, because I knew that I was only going to class, and only asking questions, and that there wasn’t anything else going on.

    And so what happens was that I couldn’t process all of it, and one day came upon the idea that there was some sort of something going on akin to a Hollywood Chase scene. Which WAS going on, the way they were stereotyping me, making out I was some crazy person obsessed with her, dangerously in love with her, and could become violent.

    I wish I could go into what I thought was going on for one day, and tried to communicate in completely innocence and honestly, only to realize the next day it wasn’t quite what I thought at all, but it was too late, they thought I was I don’t know what. There was a restraining order, and I was kicked out of Parks and Recreation Classes.

    And I seriously wish I could go into what they would describe as dangerously “crazy,” because it’s fascinating, how it relates to non linear time. Little blips of what happened during the time of Stradivari (who warned me about her, I think) and Guarneri Del Gesu, who experienced people talking about the same kind of strange phobic behavior going on as goes on now, that in a tavern where refuge’s could come (he met his wife there, from Bohemia) as well as people that knew about the abuses of the Catholic Church that was then taking over the remnants of the Roman Empire (the Hapsburg Empire). And all of the power plays, and devious, wicked stuff going on. I’ll go as far right now as to say that there was a lady working at a local Goodwill, that made me think she had (you’d call is a past lifetime if time were linear, but it really shows we’re more than what we perceive physically) been a waitress-bartender in the tavern, and this shook other things loose it’s too much to go into right now. And I was disassociating from all of the EXTREME paranoia about me (thus the idea of a Hollywood Chase scene), because I REALLY just wanted to learn yoga, was NOT in love with this silly woman, and the rest. I HAVE learned yoga, all on my own, being given from somewhere no one can take away from me poses that help me extremely.

    But at one point, this person hiring others for Parks and Recreation, says, while I’m right there, as if I’m some dangerous machinery: “She says that he could get violent.”

    I’M supposed to believe THAT!? And I simply said nothing, because that’s how people respond, and it’s so baffling in a way, and I didn’t know how to respond, given that one can’t even really say a whole list of things. I wouldn’t be to possibly say that I’m not on “medications,” which correlate with making people violent, because that might mean I’m non compliant, and they can just patch on that I could become violent. You know how that goes. And he says that about me, as if it should be obvious that that then means that I shouldn’t be allowed to take their classes. And NO ONE mind you even looked enough at her supposed ridiculous report to see that if I went to class there’s a whole list of stuff, and when I didn’t go to class there was more of it, and there was NO WAY she could know WHY I hadn’t gone to a couple of classes. And I never made ANY advances towards he AT ALL. Told them that I just wanted to take yoga, and that was ALL. But as soon as you say something they can label crazy, how much of what you do that they don’t understand is free bate for what could be listed as seriously discriminatory, and also hate speech.

    I’ve come through this whole period now (this happened 2009 I think), and can understand the unconscious, the subconscious, and now how to work with it, and so the dream state where it’s animated is clearer; and I’ve been QUITE courageous with NOT allowing it to made out to be something that it isn’t, EVEN when it caused me extreme difficulty, and I’ve come through it, but HOW MANY people feel free to be EXTREMELY hostile, and the amount of Hate Speech, acting as if they have to be hostile to me because of THEIR OWN paranoia,

    or hearing:

    “He’s crazy,” or “He has to get out of here,” in EXTREMELY hostile ways, as if I’m some sort of danger I’m quite incapable of, to begin with, as it’s not in my belief system, which they again would say is crazy.

    I think that having a gun or resorting to violence is investing in the believe that it’s necessary and that THOUGHT itself creates the world where you would experience it as real. THAT’S labeled as crazy, as well. Which I’ve pointed out quite a few times. I believe you either transcend the situation, or you repeat it, depending on what you invest in. And such fear causes time to repeat itself, when otherwise you would be free of the cause.

    And what I haven’t mentioned yet about the voice I heard telling me to stay away from her. At another point, in a “hearing,” she actually sat there, and straightened herself up in her chair, took a pose, the same bobble effect again but this time acting sure of herself, game theory as if life depends on it, and states:

    “I know, he doesn’t hear voices, he sees things that aren’t there, it’s not reality based….”

  • Arjan, I don’t know whether you ever heard of Youri Egorov, but he was an acquaintance of mine, a world famous pianist, and I had three piano lessons with him in Amsterdam while I was at the Utrechts Conservatory (the teacher there, Uhlhorn, wasn’t anywhere as good as Youri, and of course acted like he knew better); but Youri got Aids, and decided to euthanize himself. That was four or five years after I had left The Netherlands. I just knew that he had died of Aids, but then someone on a youtube video of his mentioned how. Now it’s more than 30 years later, but the treatment for Aids is miles and miles better than it was then.
    Could you share some of the articles where mainstream media in The Netherlands reports how psychiatry made things worse, and the blackmailing, about antidepressants causing suicidal thoughts, forced electroshock? I’m in the USA, and you pretty much don’t hear hardly anything about such things, the media here is quite tainted, if not corrupt.
    Charlie Rose had a whole bunch of shows acting like they knew that mental illness had a biological origin, and that’s on PBS, the educational channel. And of course Torrey was on there, but Robert Whitaker — whose investigative abilities are accurate — wasn’t.
    And the attitude here echoes a lot the faux Christian attitude you see in the news reports against Euthanasia, and using as target cases like the girl I shared an article about. They don’t mention at all what psychiatric drugging did, I haven’t read one word about it, and then say that treatment could have saved her, in a very corrupt way promoting a brand of cures: as if psychiatric drugs causing suicidal thoughts, hopelessness, mind fog, disability, the whole list of side effect; that this can be cured with more treatment, when a person becomes suicidal, rather than it’s acknowledged that the drugs correlate with the spike in mental illness, the side effects, etc. I hate to say but in a way it’s legalized torture, with the facade of it being Christian kindness to cover up what treatment may be causing, and statistically has. Colonialism. It’s like economically destabilizing a whole culture, and when it’s gone that far, blaming it on the socialist regime that Allende or Mosaddegh were trying to start, ignoring how non violent countries like The Netherlands, Finland, Norway and Denmark are, that are socialist more; also ignoring how the interventions toppling those regimes favored big business interests over the people, and treating them (big business) in a way that the critics of Allendes’ or Mosaddegh’s initiatives say their government would have taken power away from individuals through. Thus behaving in the way they criticize socialist tendencies, while socialist tendencies have shown to create very non violent societies, but they conveniently ignore that. I recently heard a conversation along these lines from a very nice lady, but she made absolutely no sense, a sort of survivalist ignorance adapting to such a system at large. And then free market isn’t free either it’s controlled by the same big businesses. But psychiatry has CAUSED the spike in mental illness, their medications CAUSE chemical imbalance the alleged disease hasn’t been proven to cause; and when people become despondent, the same as such oppression will destabilized a society, there’s more push for the treatment, even when people become suicidal. And helping the people to commit suicide without proper attention to them knowing how the psychiatric medications may be effecting them isn’t exposing what big business is lying to the populace about either.
    And I wouldn’t insult anyone calling that insane, because insanity doesn’t have the ability to hold onto such corrupt constructed ideology. Insanity is a person expressing trauma rather than being controlled by it regarding what they are allowed to see as real or not. Insanity is such mindset breaking down. There’s a difference between the insistent non reality based thinking of someone that’s brain washed, and mental illness. One is more sensitive, flexible and human than the other.
    I’m not pro or con euthanasia, but I think there are a lot of healing modalities that aren’t acknowledged at all, and in the case of mental illness, we aren’t really talking about a healing modality, we’re talking about causing brain damage and addiction to controlled substances, creating a spike in mental illness rather than a decline, and then because of the ideology that destabilizing and disabling a mind is a cure and how you make people docile and impressionable, and when they’ve conformed they are cured…this is seen as a magical way to not have to even question assumptions of what’s called a healing modality or a whole society.
    That only helps the people that think you have to conform or you’re at fault, and that’s fascism pretty much, whether one thinks it’s going to save the world or not. And it’s like the missionaries that went to the colonies spreading “Christianity,’ as if the savages had to be converted or they’d go to Hell. Same mind control, you’re under attack by the Devil or a chemical imbalance, and so that excuses forced treatment, dehumanizing in the name of “science” whose ideology only sounds like science, same as the “religion” those missionaries were spreading around was Christian at all.
    And there’s an awful lot of “Science” that doesn’t add up at all. Go look at what the founders of electricity (and magnetism) said about it (electricity and electrons): Tesla, Heaviside, JC Maxwell & CP Steinmet. It doesn’t even add up to the assumptions being taught, and in the beginning Heaviside showed that what’s called free energy existed, because of the way electromagnetism really flows and resonates. Thomas Bearden has material about this on his website, also. When something is a wave pattern moving at the speed of light where time stops, what is it resonating in that has to be a matrix beyond time? THAT’S not even considered, although many energy healers might tap into what’s going on when they change the outcome in time of someone’s life. Like Jesus did. For-give. Free energy. Not for “Debt.” Or you have to pay your debts because there’s a limit to what one can give; exactly the excuse (debt) they tried to use to convert the savages for their own good (the debt was they’d go to Hell because of original sin, but wouldn’t if Jesus “paid” that debt). As if such debt existed, exists, or ever will exist; and now it’s a chemical imbalance….

  • I just read this, and didn’t know it was going on. I had seen an article advertised about a girl euthanized in The Netherlands, but with the way news feeds go, I never read it. But now having looked at it, this has to be one of the most egregious things I’ve heard of.

    The one story I read seemed to be of a girl that at a young age was pronounced depressed, and then within a short time had a litany of other diagnosis, and of course the article didn’t at all say what drugs she was treated with, or list their side effects. In fact all of the argument against euthanasia fails to mention at all what her treatment was for depression, and I haven’t seen ONE article listing what medications she was on (any antidepressant will have the side effect of suicidal ideation); and ANY “medication” disabling a person’s mind (which they all psychiatric medications do) can cause hopelessness in the end.
    But instead of any report as to exactly what her “treatment” was and any true assessment as to whether such treatment actually correlates with anything but the spike in mental illness we’ve seen since it’s been made out to be biological; there’s actually argument that they killed her rather than treated her, instead of that their treatment is what caused her to give up, to make her suicidal, to see no way out. There’s no real sane discussion about treatment at all, really, that I’ve seen.

    I find this so unconscionable, it’s like you can’t have a sane discussion about it in the media.

    On article is listed on a google search as saying: “Apart from being 29, Aurelia had no physical ailment.” Oh really? If she was on psychiatric medications she most certainly DID have a physical ailment, and that’s the result of the disabling “medications.”

    And NOWHERE does it say that anyone truly informed her that her problem might be the treatment, and nowhere does it say that true informed consent went on; and this then is all treated as being involved with “confidentiality.” That way we can’t really know what “medications” she was on, and it was a major effort to even know the real side effects of ANY psychiatric medication. Since when is lying to a person about the real workings of psychiatric medications something involving “confidentiality.”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-45117163

    “”When I was 12, I suffered from depression. And when I was first diagnosed, they told me I had Borderline Personality Disorder,” she says. “Other diagnoses followed – attachment disorder, chronic depression, I’m chronically suicidal, I have anxiety, psychoses, and I hear voices.””

  • Heh, I don’t mean to sound like I’m chastising you, I know how immeasurably frustrating it is. And you have Parkinson’s symptoms from the “medications,” and tried to get a job, but collapsed, started crying, and had to quit.

    I’d really suggest just watching Gene Egidio’s Videos
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9edB02jWP0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSX-gUmxQ3M
    He withstood a year of shock therapy as a 5 year old boy, and then had to be retaught how to be human, had to be toilet trained again. He was left so frail that he wasn’t supposed to do normal childhood things like play baseball. He could have died twice later on in life, but when his life supposedly fell apart, the stuff started happening again that psychiatry and the Catholic church had tried to suppress. And people just started healing in ways the medical profession wouldn’t say is possible, mostly. I’ve been watching the hands on healing parts of those videos every day, because to me it gives purpose to just being alive, also given I’m supposed to be disabled, dysfunctional. Well, then something that’s not supposed to be legit but changes people beyond what is supposed to be legit does, that starts giving me whole new insight.

    Awhile ago, I had started watching a lot, and started seeing the same energy from a tree he saw when his life supposedly fell apart and healing then could start to happen to replace such “functionality.” And I started seeing auras (something else Gene was found crazy to have seen) to realize that like the double split experiments where it’s stated that something behaves like a particle because it’s observed, and otherwise it behaves like a wave pattern; that because I want to see the healing energy that’s there, it emerges (because I want to see it). And now, after a period of integration psychiatry would again say is crazy, I have shed some serious physical problems; one of them I wasn’t even thinking of getting rid of. I watch those videos every day now, even thought there’s still a weird part of my mind that acts like my life is supposed to be about something else, or that that’s just too weird. And yet every day they relax me, and make me feel at home here, and that’s when the physical problems dissolved as well. And I’m really learning to let go of old gripes, that although entirely logical and justified, were only keeping me bogged down. Part of me is trying to hold onto the old gripes, but when I watch Gene’s videos I feel differently, and see I can let go of them and things will change in a different more efficient way.

    Try it anyhow. See if you like it.

    Here’s other stuff, I looked into. Stuff to not let get to you, anyhow.

    I’m sure that Torrey is also lying, although he thinks that’s necessary to save the world. He’s so intent on capturing someone’s consciousness, so stimulated thinking that he can convince someone of his produced ideology, that any concern they’d have he’d find some means to fill in the blank with more of his production. And there you have the converts he’s looking for. Propped up with adds from the drug companies. I can’t believe he actually was on Charlie Rose, who then purported that they knew that mental illness was a chemical imbalance (something the drug companies selling drugs to treat that ideology can’t conclusively prove, although one can conclusively prove that psychiatric medications cause chemical imbalance). And then it even was presented as truth here: https://charlierose.com/videos/25947
    Someone actually tries to put forth that you can’t treat bipolar without medications. This, despite the evidence that it’s often a RESULT of medications for ADHD, depression, anxiety or who knows what (PTDS, being gay, living in the ghetto, being a victim in a war, being poor, being intelligent enough to see that society isn’t working but not being able to process that quite, being made paranoid about natural responses to trauma, being made discriminatory and thus not understanding the language of the subconscious that would otherwise help you); or the evidence that when NOT medicated people do better.
    It’s just mind boggling how silly it all is, it’s really like a new fashion everyone falls for, except it’s ideology. People think they have to have a constructed mental answer, regardless of its truth.

    And then you have:
    https://charlierose.com/collections/3/clip/18615
    and
    https://charlierose.com/collections/3/clip/14403
    and the whole things:
    https://charlierose.com/collections/3

    I’ve seen a few times when people were involuntarily committed, and I can’t say that it didn’t happen in any of them that there wasn’t a gross misrepresentation of what was going on, and in most of them downright lying.

    Here’s something I found, with an excerpt quoted.

    http://psychrights.org/Articles/SzaszonTorrey.pdf

    The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI), a group with
    which Torrey is closely allied, also endorses “therapeutic prevari-
    cation.” The following is an excerpt from a NAMI Web site:
    Sometime, during the course of your loved one’s illness, you may
    need the police. By preparing now, before you need help, you can
    make the day you need help go much more smoothly. . . . It is often
    difficult to get 911 to respond to your calls if you need someone to
    come & take your [mentally ill] relation to a hospital emergency
    room (ER). They may not believe that you really need help. And if
    they do send the police, the police are often reluctant to take some-424
    Psychiatric Fraud and Force
    one for involuntary commitment. . . . When calling 911, the best way
    to get quick action is to say, “Violent EDP,” or “Suicidal EDP.” EDP
    stands for Emotionally Disturbed Person. This shows the operator
    that you know what you’re talking about. Describe the danger very
    specifically. “He’s a danger to himself” is not as good as “This morn-
    ing my son said he was going to jump off the roof.” . . . Also, give past
    history of violence. This is especially important if the person is not
    acting up. . . . When the police come, they need compelling evidence
    that the person is a danger to self or others before they can involun-
    tarily take him or her to the ER for evaluation. . . . Realize that you &
    the cops are at cross purposes. You want them to take someone to the
    hospital. They don’t want to do it. . . . Say, “Officer, I understand your
    reluctance. Let me spell out for you the problems & the danger. . . .
    While AMI/FAMI [Alliance for the Mentally Ill / Friends and Advo-
    cates of the Mentally Ill] is not suggesting you do this, the fact is that
    some families have learned to “turn over the furniture” before calling
    the police. . . . If the police see furniture disturbed, they will usually
    conclude that the person is imminently dangerous. . . . THANK YOU
    FOR YOUR SUPPORT WHICH MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO
    PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION TO THOSE WHO COULD BEN-
    EFIT FROM IT. (Jaffe, 2000, italics added)

  • Heh, um, must you?
    In order to expose really quite simple truths, that psychiatric medications cause chemical imbalance rather than treat them, that those chemical imbalances cause the spike in mental illness that’s current, along with a spike in violence, and then also loss of life expectancy, severe side effect, severe addiction to the “medications;” in order to expose this it’s really quite simple to share statistics and scientific evidence.

    But Torrey actually believes, and has been brainwashed to, that it’s the lack of medications, and that when things get worse, rather than it’s the medications causing the spike, that it’s the propaganda of the drug companies putting profits before health that’s the truth.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Torrey is on ADHD medications. I don’t know, he to me really does have difficulty concentrating on what’s really put forth, and resorts to programmed data, and ADHD medications would assist that. But I don’t know why he can’t see simple truths, I’m just putting forth a theory, and he looks to me like he has some stimulant going on.

    To say that he’s making himself out to be a deity, to say that all psychiatrists willingly deceive the public, to say that Torrey’s single goal is to create stigma against those whose life he’s damaged, or that he’s knowingly gas lighting them, when he probably simply doesn’t have the syntax, the intelligence, the ability to look past the drug company propoganda; in many ways that’s a gift to the drug companies who than point out: “heh, look, all they can do is mud slinging.” And I don’t think it’s going to inspire Torrey to look closer at what he’s professing.

    The poor man is highly brain washed, he actually believes he’s helping and that he can change the world, and actually believes a whole hoard of doctrines, that I can’t say isn’t normal for most people in society to have a collection of. MANY people believe that mental illness is a chemical imbalance, or genetic, and you aren’t going to convince them otherwise by throwing out remarks about psychiatrists or their instruments trying to make themselves out to be deity’s. As little as going back in history and trying to convince those believing if one doesn’t sacrifice an animal or a virgin or who knows what to the God’s the God’s won’t favor you. Those beliefs were incredibly ingrained, and you don’t change them by using hostile derogatory comparisons.

    Robert Whitaker in his books also clearly points out how diagnosis such as ADHD, such as depression or such as anxiety (and I think all of us get depressed at times, get anxious or have difficulty concentrating on whatever); that those are normal phenomenon (concerning ADHD, the family often don’t really see a difference when a person is medicated, anti-anxiety medications are highly addictive as are anti-depressants, all of those having side effects that can cause psychosis, and other “symptoms” of a mental illness); but when you medicate those people, they are WAY more likely to later on have another diagnosis, and in comes the whole trend towards bipolar the last years, which many of them fell prey to, and which Allen Francis had to admit was highly exaggerated, at least at time he had to; that’s all clear evidence that normal people end up being diagnosed with a SMI, just because the MHS got a hold of them as commodities for their marketing schemes.

    That evidence is there, but if in this site there’s the amount of chummy mud slinging, posts that those trying to cover up anyone finding out the truth can use to point out that we’re here all extremists, then Robert Whitaker’s patient highly articulate work ceases to be the help it could.

  • Let me count the ways, of suffering

    He’s suffering
    They are suffering because he’s naked
    And you’re suffering if there isn’t a court that makes people suffer for being naked.

    Suddenly all of Africa or anywhere else walking around like they were born are all suffering, and need to be civilized for indecency

    I think if he was left alone there would have been less suffering, because then he wouldn’t be disturbed, and there wouldn’t need to be an excuse for it (because others are supposedly suffering), and no one has to qualify their suffering when others aren’t

    This is just amazing what people don’t come up with acting like it’s their responsibility to do something about something (the way we were born without clothes, and then to cry out in order to breath)

    get over yourself

  • My point was that they now use the term “neurodivergent,” (or “not neurotypical”) as catch phrases for disorders that have not conclusively proven to be biological, that do better when NOT treated as biological disorders, and that when they are treated as biological disorders are treated with agents that CAUSE biological disorder, while the belief that the disease itself is biological in order is really only alleged.

    to start making references to neuro-typical, atypical, not typical, divergent isn’t scientific.

    And to make references to neurodivergence, as if it’s promoting diversity, while it’s suppressing societal diversity, emotional diversity, cultural diversity, experiential diversity, along with trauma, and diversity of insight; that’s really quite profoundly misleading, and if not an all out con job, shows clear signs of lack of interest in diversity itself and an inability to look beyond accepted ideology.

    To behave as if one is showing compassion against stigma by mislabeling something in order to promote “treatments” that cause what they say they are treating, this is not scientific at all.

    And to then have caused an epidemic and say there needs to be more treatment, and have such legal processes as Kendra’s law which force treat someone for an alleged disease, while causing the phenomenon that’s alleged, which then isn’t alleged anymore but caused by treatment but denied…….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity

    And that kind of pretentiousness is promoted as kindness.

    Suppressing what’s labeled as symptoms for a period of time to have them re-emerge more than they occur when not suppressed, this is NOT healing.

    Suppressing dissent, when would it be looked at intelligently it becomes clear there’s something very valid going on, this doesn’t magically erase what the initial issue was either. No matter how uncomfortable people might get. And no matter how much they’d have to let go of thinking they are showing kindness in suppression, whether it’s chemical, emotional, political, psychological or what have you.

  • I’m sorry but I have to strongly disagree with the first sentence of this article. There was no question that Andrew was in a disturbed state!?
    Sorry, but to me, all he was doing was being naked, howling at the moon, and when police approached he decided not act intimidated. It later says he was charged with resisting arrest, but all the evidence given that is really reliable is that he was tasered, which easily only means that the police felt he was a danger, and didn’t even try communicating to him with any empathy, interpreting any behavior of his as a danger.
    To start an article with such a statement, already excuses the whole out of balance pretension of the society Andrew was in, and shows it isn’t so much about being human anymore, but not giving the wrong impression to go with an image of being “not disturbed.”
    If someone wants to be naked, and clearly non violent, and howl at the moon, what’s really the problem; and then after being violently assaulted with a taser, respond the way Andrew did, I don’t know where this isn’t quite understandable. I think there’s no question that he was being disturbed. Later on, when he says to a psychiatrist that he’d like to tell someone he’s a werewolf just to see how they would act, that’s seen as a sign of a disease.
    And I find the whole hoard of behaviors NOT seen as a sign of being disturbed that are EVER DAY overlooked without question by just about EVERYONE in society, in comparison to someone howling at the moon, quite profound.
    To begin with that when someone is naked howling at the moon that others IMMEDIATELY respond with the kind of alarm they do, I find that such people are quite disturbed. Most loud music coming from someone’s car, or the kind of riled up banter between people trying to act “cool,” I might also find more “disturbing,” and the decibel level and the intrusion into the sounds of nature that otherwise would be allowed to resonate probably IS more disturbing to the environment.
    I think it’s proof of a disturbed society, with the whole array of behaviors allowed people when they don’t get naked and howl at the moon. The whole decimation of nature, the ruin of lives for no other reason allowed by people coming up with strategies to make it in the economic system that would do more good for the planet IF they got naked and howled at the moon! And the “legal: system enforces that, and someone howling at the moon is seen as such a danger that they get tasered.
    It would really be amazing if society would simply get over itself, the very thought that its member are decent because they don’t behave in the “disturbed” way Andrew did.
    Someone naked howling at the moon gets tasered, then force drugged till he can’t stand it anymore and takes his life. In contrast someone ruining the planet through exploitation of its resources, but maintaining a hoard of $$$$$$$$$$$ in the bank, and maintaining the right to do that, and promoting that as having made it in life, they are given free reign. Or if you’re a bit more into having a different more moral image, like Bette Midler, you can blame all the violence largely illicited by the drugs falsely advertised and quite often forced on people being caused by de-institutionilization rather than the clear result, because then you get into the bandwagon of the other political party, both of them sustaining each other as member of the business party, the better of the two offering perhaps 5 to 10 percent of the change needed while any political party offering more than 50 percent of the change needed is blown away by the coalition.
    Is there something wrong with me finding this disturbing?

  • I do have to commend Andrew’s mother for keeping such good records.

    I also had a friend that told me how the asylum’s psychiatrist had threatened her with more detention unless she took a whole cocktail (or I think more appropriately called arsenal) of drugs; and she displayed how they made her shake. She then ended up committing suicide, shortly after, when she came down from that. And she had told me how down she would get after being committed, and I had warned her mother stating that if she was committed again, I thought they would lose her.

    But for the life of me, to try to get any record of what all happened.

    And no, her mother didn’t start a movement.

    And the girl herself prior to all of that had taken someone in, and then when he got difficult had him involuntarily committed, with help of his NAMI parents, all of this quite before she told me how depressed she got when she herself had been committed.

    She was livid when I criticized her for having someone committed. When she herself was committed, a friend of her’s was livid that she got out too soon, stating that she was still “psychotic,” this after they had her committed with quite a few lies (she supposedly was running around naked, which the police informed me of when I called them to say that her “friends” had trespassed into her house (where they called her case manager). I only did that after wards, because one of them had sarcastically suggested I do that when I told them if they didn’t get out of her house I would (call the police) so I knew they would fill the police with “stories” with lies; So I hadn’t yet to only later hear how they had already lied enough that the police were telling me untruths)) (((sound like the mental health system!?)))

    I mentioned to the moderator here that it would be “interesting” to see brain scans of people in such behavior, and how much that correlates with brain activity involving addiction. But then he pointed out that they would try to make that out to be healthy behavior.

    Anyhow, she was committed twice, and so fixed up that when they let her out at first her mother told me she wouldn’t even know whether she was taking her medications, and then she slid into hanging out with ANYONE probably, out of desperation, that she got raped, and when she was in the asylum again her house was broken into by people she had run into.

    The wonderful “Nun” processing her to get committed had her restrained when she couldn’t hold her urine because of Geodon (which is a side effect of it), which she couldn’t clearly point out (and made it clear such behavior was normal) to the nun. And when she said she was raped the nun said she was being too provocative. And then her sister later had to clear that up, that she had been raped. And in trying to get away from the people that were committing her, she had torn her Achilles tendon, which they didn’t attend to in the medical facility called a psychiatric institution, although they drugged her up so nicely, I’ve already related what happened when she got out to be committed again. Her Achilles tendon was ruined because they never tended to it in time, they told her they couldn’t ever fix it afterwards.

    And this is all very typical history of what goes on in an asylum, and then isn’t reported properly. And considered “normal” because “they tried….” “it was supposed to work….”

    And it becomes more easy to make it out to be a tragedy, because it was supposed to work.

    In the meantime, would anyone actually carefully talk to those going through it, or HAVING gone through it, you would hear these kind of stories over and over again. This one probably being a little bit milder than many of them.

  • You know, I forgot I knew someone, just from around, that also had had a brain injury when he was younger. He told me how he had water on the brain because of a traumatic brain injury. He had himself tried to tell a judge at one point, but that was just dismissed as crazy.

    WELL!

    It gets crazier, fortunately.

    I had befriended this kid because I had seen him just walking around quite a bit, and was at first struck with his ability to see beauty around him, and I actually was concerned, NOT because he saw beauty, but because….

    you know

    “society”

    He was supposed to be all wired up and not notice anything but whether he’s fitting into the mold, the pattern, the round the clock machinery… everything, and he wasn’t, he was completely in his own world seeing gentle innocent beauty.

    As I got to know him… and he had been put in the mental health system by his mother a nurse, who I think was in the habit of “partying,” and such as well.

    But I remember that at one point, I sat with this kid at the soup kitchen, and noticed that he wasn’t there, sort of. I’ve really quite faithfully studied spiritual healing, if that has anything to do with it. But what happened is that I saw what I now can describe as the free energy that comes from time as it resonates with itself. If life is to have any meaning at all, then the understanding of that will allow whatever gives it meaning to repeat itself till it’s understood, till it’s experienced, till the beauty of life has been felt and is there, where it came from beyond linear time. And that means infinite energy, and no resource being depleted. Or you might just call it a miracle, and I knew that perhaps he didn’t have that traumatic brain injury anymore. That part of supposedly linear time had been dissolved. I even mentioned that I thought that injury was gone, and he said: “I know….” in a very meek tone, like usually only a child can have: given that he wasn’t making too much of it, and that it would go with other poetry, with other realities of life’s play that IS truly play and that again usually only a child has the riches to experience…

    I had then actually tried to get him secure housing, and had found that, but then he had found something cheaper trading with someone else, and managed to mess that up, I think because he ended up doing drugs. Which he had gotten used to, and had been raised in. He was homeless for awhile, but then I think went back into the mental health system because he would get housing taken care of, that way. Or he just fell back into it.

    That’s a whole other thing isn’t it AGAIN!

    Don’t challenge their ideas and they’ll give you housing, if you go along and say that you’re ill.

    Up above it’s talked about as well….

    There CERTAINLY are a lot of homeless people that simply don’t have a home, and are too honest to be interested in bankrupting the US government going on the 500 to 1000 dollars of drugs they are supposed to be on, in order to then be seen as disabled, to then get shelter as well. And when that caught on, how many other people go for it, and before you know it half of the US population is zombie.

    Or are they already!?

    Wow what a plan Mr. Torrey. Put homeless people all on psychiatric medications and they’re all functional.

    It’s of course not reality based to simply give them homes, and have an economy (perhaps not so much run by the drug companies and their mob friends) that they (the “homeless” people) could be part of…..

    That’s of course

    um

    SCHIZOPHRENIC!

    Now everybody howl…..

  • This is a wonderful article, and amazingly calmly presented, considering the context, but then:

    It’s quite clear to me that Andrew Rich knew what was going on with him, also in regards what was labeled as “schizophrenia,” but the only way for him to get out of it was to be dishonest, he would have had to act like he believed he had a chemical imbalance, and that he had a disease, which seems given the whole affair not too difficult, since the whole system is more easily fooled into non reality based behavior than a “schizophrenic.” Which brings another thing up before I start listing everything non reality based about the system defining something else besides it’s own behavior as “schizophrenic,” a split brain, a rift from reality.

    Nowhere just about, not even with his mother at first, do I see any rational, grounded or even decent attempt to relate to what Andrew thought was going on with him, in fact when he simply states that he was thinking about telling someone he was a werewolf just to see how they reacted, THAT was seen as a sign of a disease.

    How can this be a disease at all? I’ve had it myself that responses I’ve had to life, which to me in latent respect seemed “psychotic,” or had a riff with reality, I’ve had it myself that I was quite unable to understand the meaning of the symbolic reality my mind created, EXACTLY to point out what might change my life, would I understand it. That’s NOT a disease. With our physical sense we see only ONE point in time, and unless we use our imagination we can’t navigate past that, and yet it’s exactly there that the mind can try to express underlying trauma, inner wounds, reflexes and belief systems we’ve taken on that were forced on us. And here, the latent ability to understand concepts that when understood or not might determine how our life proceeds, this is seen as a disease, and when the need to understand such expression doesn’t go away, it’s seen as a disease, rather than there’s decent, appropriate or responsible attention given to what resolves the situation. Oh, but then it’s not seen as a disease anymore!

    And with Andrew, it was simply that he wasn’t going to have them tell him that what was going on with him was something other than it was.

    Added to this, a society which allows bankers to hoard the money resources of a whole nation, and bankrupt it (while someone with too many cats or a house full of things they ever thought might have some purpose but later see no one engage with, they are called hoarders); a society that also finds the present economic trends more important than whether they are causing global warming, than whether any developing country moving away from exploitation can actually build a stable economy, than whether the voice of minorities or poor people that really suffer is really heard without saying they have a disease while trying to get them on antidepressants. And people are SO defensive about believing that survival is adapting to such a system, that even when they disagree with it, would someone express dissent they don’t understand, they become vigilant as seeing it as a psychiatric disease, strengthening that delusion when things inevitably get worse. Then empathy already is “schizophrenic.” And all of the other things, such as whether you are wearing clothes or not, not being able to say things others don’t understand which they think is harassing while it’s OK to be bombarded with commercials the whole day (online, on the TV, in your mailbox, while driving your car, while reading a periodical, would you have a telephone etc. etc.), would you be paranoid about something for a short time and have it go away it’s a symptom of a disease although if you aren’t so paranoid that you think we need funding for a military that can blow up all human life on the planet more than 20 times to kill the enemy along with us and everyone else, then you’re non reality based again and can be put in jail for not going along with it when there’s a draft; and then there are silly things such as someone out of fashion is seen as lesser although the fashion industry and clothes industry will change the fashion to get you to buy more stuff you don’t need while the stuff you already bought the first time stuff changed is already outdated and you could have spared yourself the cost then already, and we come upon such terms as “consensual reality deportment,” or “statistical based norms,” when would you truly honor statistics or what’s consensual and look at what it usually leads to in regards to what you’re supposed to adapt to, it’s more of the above, and NOT reality based; and not following it without appropriate concern is “schizophrenic, again. “Consensual reality,” in such a case refers to a “reality,” that isn’t reality based, which you have to adapt to as the current fashion, the current economic model, the current ideology or the current institution, “culture,” or mob, or gang, or cult or…..

    That’s reality based?

    When a schizophrenic goes along with that they are healed?

    Oh and yeah, when you give people treatment for “schizophrenia,” and they also are given privileged housing, the ones left underprivileged and without “treatment” are going to get more violent… which means they needs more treatment, rather than housing etc.

    And what’s going on with all of the “mental illnesses,” is that trauma is being expressed, and if trauma was understood for what it is, then the world would have to look differently at what it believes discipline is. Even for people who are criminal, even for tyrants, even for psychiatrists, because if trauma was acknowledged for what it was, rather than a means of mind control doling out rewards or punishments, being used a deterrent or encouragement (one of the rewards or encouragements being you’re one of the good guys and deserve the right to dole out trauma to others when they don’t behave); if trauma was acknowledged for what it was, then the criminal, the tyrants, the sociopaths and all of the rest would have grown up in a different society, and they wouldn’t have ditched their humanity.

    Instead, what would change things is seen as a disease.

    And sorry, but I don’t see it as a loss to not be fit for such a society, WHATEVER you say about me.

    But yeah, now in regarding “schizophrenia,” medications, I can say that they cause dopamine sensitivity, which leads to more relapsing. But I’m talking about something occurring because it needs to be understood, not because it’s a disease. So this isn’t really relapsing either. Is it? You give somebody something that causes a disease doesn’t mean you were ever treating a disease when you administered it, and it certainly doesn’t mean you need more leeway to administer it when it causes disease; but it also doesn’t meant the the “relapsing,” is of a disease that was there to begin with. Those are two quite different things.

    Does anyone see the irony?

    You call something a disease, which it isn’t, and you cause more of it with a “treatment” that in REALITY is more of the trauma that might have been what needed attention to begin with, and like magic, you can talk about relapsing or not, and about diseases or not, and…..

    You’re focusing on what something isn’t, and then determining when what it isn’t goes away; and in the mean time you’ve avoided the whole….

    All to avoid understanding what’s going on to begin with, because it might stretch your conception of reality, might burst the bubble of your comfort zone.

    And I never went asking for “medications,” wasn’t even forced on them, although people would have if they could; so I’m REALLY simply concerned with what was going on in the first place, and what has the whole time. And it’s NOT really a disease, and when you hit someone on the leg, and this causes pain because there’s bruising and damage, that’s a BRUISE, that’s also not a disease. Neither is it a malfunctioning of the body. Emotional wounds are NOT diseases. And the expression of such wounds, rather than having a riff with reality are more objective than what’s labeled as objective reality, because they deal with reflexes, with memory, with trauma, with beliefs, with emotions and in doing such deal with the intangibles that our core part of how we respond, and what we bring to us in life, regarding all of those. What it’s about. Whether a factory is making a certain product or not, when there’s a better design for it, and only the machinery has to be adjusted, this doesn’t make the fact that that product isn’t there yet non reality based, nor when the machinery has to be understood as to how it works. The product comes out of the factory. What comes our way in life is determined with how we respond to it…

    And adjusting that process seems to be grossly ignored, repressed even, would there be some message in “psychosis.”

    Watch a Shakespeare play, Read a Dickens Novel, Go to a Museum, Read Emily Dickinson, Listen to
    Mozart or Josquin

    Or write your own story, Go crazy….

  • Rachel777 I wasn’t even making that up as part of a plot in a movie with an evil psychiatrist, a Catholic psychiatrist actually thought that giving Gene (as a child) shock therapy (which he had for a year one a week as an inmate of an asylum) would loosen the devil’s grip on Gene, because the Devil wouldn’t like the sensation of the shock therapy, and then Gene could have a good life, rather than turning into an evil person. His parents even tried to explain this to him, that he might supposedly become a horrible person otherwise, something Gene didn’t want to become, other than that having no understanding at all of what this was all about, as if he could. He was just a child. And his parents didn’t know exactly what kind of torture he went through in the asylum, because the asylum managed to always make Gene look a bit presentable when they visited him.

    It just goes to show how wrong humans can be when they think that because in their minds they can add up what they believe is a construct of cause and effect, that such a construct is then true, and they’re safe. There HAS to consequently be something else beyond that, beyond such duality.

  • I’m glad you get something out of Gene’s work, because some people still think it’s “crazy,” I never saw Gene but for a phone healing session. And then nothing much happened, to tell you the truth, except he said something, blirted it out actually, that I didn’t understand. A friend of mine had bought his open eye meditation Video, and I had watched that. Theres a lady, Catherine Oxenburg, that comes lilting onto the Video introducing Gene, and she says he’s one of the nicest people she’s ever met, and relays how many people he’s helped in many countries. But there was apparently another “energy” going on, because just before I had my phone session with Gene, I was looking at a painting I made, and there was something interesting camoflaged in the painting, and then I heard Catherine Oxenburg’s voice in my head, quite sing song say: “you’ll miss him,” almost as if if she was advertising something I would doubt (which I didn’t at all) or that it was more her advertising that was important. I relay all of this, because in the interlope it became really important.
    To begin with Gene never said that he healed people, but that he helped them heal themselves. Anyhow, when I had the phone session with Gene, and I had only started to mention that I heard a voice, or something like that, and he immediately blirted out: “that’s not you,” and then went on. I actually didn’t know what he meant, and even wondered whether he was criticizing me painting, which he certainly wasn’t. Well. Years later, I did acquire a physical problem. I got prostatitas, and it can really bog you down when it’s active, and has other unpleasant side effects I won’t get into. So, I felt I should have another phone session with Gene. This was around 2001. I talked to his secretary, I would first have to write out a check, and then they’d let me know when I could call in (he then had one day of the week when he did phone session, I think); I had actually written out the check, and was going to send it in, but then I decided to watch his open eye healing video, and it did help me go to sleep. That is how the healing often happens with Gene, and as I was falling asleep I somehow knew that the physical problem would go away. In retrospect it’s an amazingly curious memory, almost as if you’re falling into an amazing lake of energy, of consciousness, something that can take away all pain and suffering, but then also dissolves the ego which is scary to most people, so you have to be pushed into it a bit because you might hesitate otherwise, or simply be allowed to be a bit out of balance in order to fall into it. In Gene’s meditation CD he tries to get you to see that at night while asleep the higher self is more awake and attends the schools of thought (perhaps where the word University comes from, which comes from Uni Verse, One song). You see, even while I’m typing this, I have in my head what I want to do, and when I’ve done it, then I have a feeling of satisfaction, as well as the drive to do it; in that other realm that’s not quite the same, whether you expand into something beyond that or you gain perspective that something beyond your ego’s ability to take control is creating an amazing harmony that was there the whole time or whether it’s dream time, it’s simply different. When I woke up the problem was gone, I could feel it, and it has stayed away. When I looked inside my soul, or whatever my spirit, my imagination would tell me about where I went to or what happened when the healing occurred, I saw that I went someplace where everything I would think is unforgivable about myself was washed away. I think one could scientifically call that Heaven, because I’ve heard from people with Near Dear experiences that our judgments of others simply don’t hold in Heaven, that they are impossible, and that would begin with how we judge ourselves. You could also go into quantum Physics, things like the uncertainty principle, how there’s entanglement, which might point out that different points of a matrix of time resonate with each other, or what is a photon that it doesn’t age and can’t be destroyed while having no mass; but if there’s any resonance with different points in time, when time becomes multidimensional rather than our belief that it’s linear (something our imagination can fathom while our physical senses only see on point in time ever), and if communication itself depends on photons or other subatomic particles that remain wave patterns, or other wave patterns such as sound, as well as particles; this all might be pointing out that there’s a perfection in what happens in life, and that when we judge people or anything at all with our ego, that we’re interfering, while we could look past our judgments and in seeing the resonance with time that gives meaning to everything allow what we wanted in the first place to emerge, rather than perpetuating what we didn’t thinking we’re fixing it and must be in control or the world will fall apart, which it consequently in the end does. That all might sound quite complicated, but I’m just trying to say something different than that Heaven is guarded by Saint Peter, and there’s an old man with a beard and a gavel waiting to see if you’re worth being allowed to enter, often supposedly depending on whether you subscribed to certain beliefs giving you such rewards rather than the beliefs add up in themselves at all.
    What’s interesting also is that Catherine Oxenburg has had a big problem because she introduced her daughter into a cult in 2011, and her daughter got stuck there. Her daughter is out of it now, though. I just saw that their planning a whole “Lifetime” move about it. And I’m just mentioning it, because when I tried to say something about hearing her sing song voice advertising Gene, he IMMEDIATELY blirted out: “that’s not you,” because he could feel that something was taking away my ability to allow my own quiet inner voice make the right decisions for me. Even when it was advertising him. Catherine Oxenburg is a really caring person, and can only be commended to have been interested in something as amazing as Gene, but that’s more than image or even physical healing or getting something in life. Or advertising what’s “the best,” and the most high quality like a Pepsi commercial or whatever item, commodity or issue used to promote a person’s celebrity, or the other way around. And there’s no comparison between what Gene Egidio did and this cult Catherine Oxenburg introduced her daughter into. I could go on quite awhile about Hollywood people myself, but never mind. And I hadn’t said ANYTHING about what the voice said, who it sounded like, all I had said was that I heard a voice, and he blirted out: “that’s not you,” and then continued. But when I did get the healing, and it was without having first a phone session, that again strengthened that I have it within myself.
    And to go back to the topic up there, the headline, I don’t think that’s pill shaming to somehow get a person to see they have it within themselves. I don’t think it’s pill bullying, it’s not pill stigmatizing, I don’t think it’s having a plot against the drug companies, it’s simply finding out what it is to be human, which has more “crazy” in it than is usually allowed.

  • I have had the same kind of friends, and all I can say is you can actually detach from them, and find that in doing so, you actually are not passing judgment on them, and are practicing that over-used word forgiveness.

    Maybe it’s just a lesson they have to learn in having demands, and believing they need help in their lives, and they have to go through the whole process of seeing how all of their demands are doing the opposite of helping them.

    It’s real easy for anyone to look at their lives and decide what’s wrong with it and start making demands, and then even find people willing to fulfill those demands (especially if they get money for it, or are made out to be charitable good people); but it’s another thing to detach from all of that, and actually see what’s there, or what ends up be allowed to materialize when you stop demanding something you think you need, because something that you never dreamt of could be allowed entrance instead.

    I just reread what you posted, and it sounds like you can’t put it on the line logically with your friend, for example mention that the diabetes and weight come from the “medications.” And then you said he started drinking again, that he smokes, that he’s self harming and has suicidal ideation. Honestly, I get so tired of “society,” and everything I see around me, that I understand someone with suicidal ideation, but how are you ever going to find out what could be there instead, how will you ever find out whether there’s some amazing solution to your problems just around the corner, and that that’s what the Universe does, as soon as you show a little patience, tolerance, and endurance, and trust?

    Some people just are relentless in focusing on what’s supposed to be different in their life, and why they are victims to that. The same thing, is that people that REALLY have if difficult, like those surviving off of 2 dollars or less a day in a developing country, having to work in a sweat shop or worse, living in a highly toxic environment and having none of the luxuries of life we have, THEY often see beauty and value in the simple things we’ve lost as a “society.”

    And being seen as crazy? I was highly involved with spiritualism years ago, and experienced truly amazing things that changed my whole perception of reality, but then you come back to society, and even the mediums themselves, and they have such limitations that their “reality,” is more psychotic than anyone with “schizophrenia,” so I went and studied spiritual healing. Come and find that there was a man named Gene Egidio, and he as a child in the late 30s simply had a gift, and healing would happen, and he would know things the world would say are impossible to; but then the Catholic Church got involved, and thought he was demon possessed; quite a few psychiatrists even thought there was nothing wrong with him when he was brought to them because the Priest had said he needed “help”, but then one who was “Catholic,” enough decided that Gene was “delusional,” because he saw colors around people (now called auras), and also that the Devil had given him special gifts; and with shock therapy the Devil might release his hold on Gene because the Devil would not like those unpleasant feelings shock therapy brought about. Supposed serious “religious” science. Gene was put in an asylum as a young child, and had shock therapy once a week; and then subsequently became normal (and he jokes about being Mr. normal afterwards); until his life supposedly fell apart later on in life, and he lost everything; but then the healing started happening again, you see, although at first when it started happening he thought he had gone crazy. He ended up helping countless people, which he talks about in the video I share a link to below. I had something chronic Gene helped me with, and he still helps me to this day, every day actually, even though he passed away in 2009. But when Gene’s life fell apart, he could have seen himself as a victim, but something else happened, you see.

    You can hear Gene tell his whole story about what he went through as a child, and then what happened later, he starts his story himself 12 minutes into this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9edB02jWP0

    But you see, beyond being a victim, beyond someone’s life falling apart, there’s something else there, beyond all of the fears, beyond all of the despair, beyond all of the hopelessness; and although it’s “crazy,” to believe something invisible beyond the world’s limitations is there, you might find that it is; and the whole “tragedy,” was really just there to show you what’s there beyond it.

    People are full of demands, and relentless about it, and determined in believing others have to see that as what needs attention, and then when they’ve created a whole following to do battle, they think they are happy. Maybe happiness is something else, and doesn’t have such limitations?

  • Sera, to address your original response. Because honestly, I also was “having a hell of a time,” trying to figure out where you were coming from, in this incredibly complex matrix, this labyrinth where knowing the truth can become blame for all sorts of charges. It’s really like being in a communist regime (which isn’t communist, that’s just a label they take on, communism is something else entirely) and when you know the corruption going on you’re seen as trying to destroy well being. And what do you do? And how much have you taken on fears of even seeing what’s going on given the reaction to it?

    I wasn’t trying to educate you, nor was I riffing on my viewpoint. Experience is something else. You have to understand that for someone who never was forced on psychiatric medications, never believed they would help and has always had a clear mind about them; to get into the world of mental health, and see all of the spooky behavior regarding psychiatric drugs, and the disabling, and not be able to say a fresh word about it without being called a pill shamer, or a host of other things (not being able to state true scientific data without being called one sided, not being able to state clear side effects of drugs, not being able to know what the statistics or scientific truths are about psychiatric drugs without being said that you’re interfering with healing) — this does become extremely frustrating and traumatizing.

    And no, I’ve never had to believe that psychiatric pills helped me, or otherwise be in trouble with others who were in control of my life. Over the years, and being put in shock enough in trying to say the simplest thing, I’ve learned not to argue with people about psychiatric drugs although I will quietly and articulately mention the truth about psychiatric drugs. That psychiatric drugs CAUSE chemical imbalance rather than treating one, and that’s how they disable the mind to repress symptoms that after an initial period of suppression end up coming back causing more relapsing, more disability and the spike current in “mental illness.”

    I have noticed quite a few people who are anti-psychiatry, who are anti-drugs, and yet they can’t get off of the medications that they often at first voluntarily started on, and in their war against psychiatry leave themselves no space to do that. And that’s in ways the same stuff that got them to think they needed the drugs to begin with, because otherwise they’d have to simply deal with themselves, and find healing there.

    People get an awful lot of attention from the system when they are compliant. And as such an ego state builds up, it inevitably can break, and they suddenly become rebellious against the system, but have no real help, and are thrown back into it. I had one conversation with a lady, who on her own stated that she wanted to have nothing to do with psychiatry anymore, that she wanted to find a lawyer and sue them; and then within the conversation took an 180 degree shift to saying that the medications kept her in line, and that the system was helping. Then she’d simply drop her idea of rebellion pretty much, wouldn’t engage in any practical talk about it. And in another conversation she stated that she wanted to get off of the medications, and would I agree with her, later on suddenly according to her I had a problem with people on psychiatric drugs, when she had brought it up. In other words I was supposed to be completely contradictory, and just go along with her whim of the moment, supporting either side at her whim.

    Although I’ve helped quite a few get off of their medications,even people trying to get off of their medications I’ve had to step away from trying to help when they would have unreasonable demands backed up by the excuse that they needed help to get off of them, thus having means to decide how I was supposed to be there for them. It’s a whole other responsibility to take getting of your medications beyond a whim, or a political stance, you have to deal with parts of yourself you might not want to, and I don’t believe that drafting other people into avoiding themselves by helping you works either.

    There’s that also, you either have to be someone’s “salvation,” or you’re a pill shamer. People have to find their own answers.

  • Hi JanCarol,

    To empathize with your statement, and I do incredibly, having seen many friends, and then also a whole society, disabled by the allure of believing the way psychiatric drugs disable your mind is some sort of bliss, which it isn’t. To be a social worker, no matter how wise to the truths of psychiatric drugs, and be there to sit and give someone the chance to safely in an office make them feel special to spill out their feelings, this is starkly different than having to deal with that person as a family member or a friend, and see their lives fall apart.

    It’s absolutely harrowing. Regularly, when a friend of mine ended up being institutionalized, this made me “psychotic,” being so in turmoil, I couldn’t hear the little voice inside my own head anymore, that might help me to not get blown out of balance by the whirlwind of ridiculously hard liner behavior encountered at the asylums. But I guess that’s it, that little voice is there, and it only becomes stronger when you finally hear it.

    But it’s absolutely harrowing, because if you have seen a person go out of balance, and really have compassion with that, and then you see that they are stringently bullied into being made to believe that the harsh intrusions into their civil liberties and their own body chemistry is their salvation; that while you had compassion with what was going on with them to begin with, knowing THAT isn’t going to help; and then you get the person eventually possibly as a survival instinct take on such lies; that’s already three different winds blowing in different directions creating a turmoil that would blow anyone out of balance it seems; and two of the winds in stark contrast to the logical movement the first was trying to allow.

    Maybe just detaching and blessing their path is the answer, because any rational discourse becomes bate for more of a feeling they are being attacked. Then maybe they might find their own path, their own inner voice.

    But having to deal with a family member or a friend going through all of this, and seeing with wide open eyes in real time, daily without the safety of it being a “professional” relationship, what that person is going through that’s a bit different than framing your thoughts with the anesthesia of I-don’t-know-so-I’ll-agree-with-them.

    Because it’s not about whether they are on drugs or not, and if they mimic such jargon, that’s what they are doing, repeating what they were told and equating a disabled state with happiness.

    Because the bliss isn’t in taking the drugs, it’s in going one step further and letting into the light whatever they were hiding from to take such disabling agents, because THEN they would see that it’s OK, somehow.

    Why people hold onto such guilt in order to create a whole society which banks on it, as if it’s some holy commodity, some pot of gold at the end of a rainbow of ideology that gives them the means to buy entrance into VAST illusions of being part of the gang and the glories thus offered!?

    It’s just a shadow, the real glory would be letting go.

    I think…

  • Sera, I reread what I said, and I can see it might be confusing. I actually agree with you about knowing that at a certain point people can be so accustomed, addicted and thus reliant on their medications that you simply can’t bring out what’s the statistical and/or scientific truth about psychiatry drugs anymore. Or at least not with any persistence. It just doesn’t work.
    It’s the same with a whole list of other logical things that involve fundamentalism or addiction.
    And it’s an incredible trap, because so often when someone wants to get off of their pills, and they haven’t reached equilibrium with their emotion wounds, or simply found an environment where they can safely get in touch with them, and are are going to be judged for it, their behavior can be again harshly misunderstood. When a more healthy environment would have allowed them to have a healthy brain that can express what otherwise would be seen as inappropriate, when it’s really what they need to express in order to heal.
    What I couldn’t stop myself from going on about was how confusing, overloading and traumatizing it was, that when I simply in a positive manner, with no intention but to improve people’s lives, not only found out that they responded with alarm, paranoia, and in the process tried to make me out to be disruptive or even crazy; but that there were all sorts of disruptive behaviors THEY had because of their “medicated” state. Even someone who had tried to get off of his lithium but couldn’t.
    I simply had to get away from the situation. It was shocking and traumatizing. It wasn’t even about trying to convince them of anything regarding whether psychiatric drugs helped them, it was because they were inarticulate, disorganized, and unwilling to see it. And I don’t think that I’m wrong in stating that their psychiatric drug use was a factor in how their “professional” behavior came out. And I don’t think that I was pill shaming when I simply stepped away from having to deal with them.
    All I had done was that I was positive about the truth, in the beginning.

  • Peace Sara, I agree with you.
    It’s just so incredibly sad. Like you said: ““We’re not pill shaming you. We’re just sick of watching people fucking die.” — Sera Davidow”

    One friend, who committed suicide, would be against NAMI and their pro drugging. And last time she got out of the asylum, having been forced committed and forced drugged, she showed me how she couldn’t stop her hands from vibrating after a psychiatrist had aggressively intimidated her with you either take this cocktail of drugs or you’re staying here. But then, at other times, she regularly had found a drug she thought was helping her (I didn’t argue with her about it), but she’d regularly get “manic” again and end up re-institutionalized. She had quietly told me, before her last affair with the asylums, in rationally explaining why she had tried to commit suicide (but failed), how extremely depressed you get when you get out. And so that’s what happened, even though I had warned her mother that I thought that if they had her committed again that they would lose her. And I had argued with her friends having her committed (who lied quite profusely exaggerating her behavior when having her committed) not to do it.
    this same girl that talked about how depressed she’d get after getting out of the asylum, had before this taken someone in to then have them committed when he was just being difficult at worst, and she could have just kicked him out, instead. But then, with his NAMI dearest parents had him committed. That I couldn’t argue with her about at that time either. In fact she got really mad that I did.
    If I’d try to be rational, she’d come back with: “You don’t know what it’s like.” And during one manic fling, in visiting her father out of state, she regularly went up to anyone stating she was mentally ill and needed help, asking for donations or expecting to work her way into their life. And when she started acting up, before she got admitted, or when she was in the asylum and still “mad,” she would make more sense about the dangers of being committed, and what the drugs could do to you, but then she’d get depressed, become more compliant, have given up after awhile.

    And after her suicide, her “friends” would regularly come up to me, ignoring that I had warned them EXACTLY about what happened, and act like I was part of their social cult. In fact, a notice about her death had been hung around the area she lived, and a lady who had given examples of trance medium ship at a local college saw them and had “channeled” a message from Lilly, stating of all things that committing suicide didn’t help her depression, along with going on prosaically about being together with them in reincarnation, with some personal messages. I only heard the message, because a friend of the channel just happened to put her hand on it during a phone conversation, having for who knows what reason it in her possession (she didn’t know Lilly at all). But when I told one of Lilly’s friends that the message said that committing suicide hadn’t helped her depression, and that it was a dead set, this “friend” that had had her committed said she hoped that wasn’t case.

    (!?)

    Is that another miracle cure? Will various scientific experiments promoting suicide, with certain trance mediums make that out to be a cure for depression?

    Sorry about my extreme sarcasm up to this point, but this is what happens when you simply say something rational about cures. Or rather recover from “cures.”

    Lilly’s mother, in a conversation with me on the phone, had stated that, along with extreme negative depictions about how negative Lilly’s behavior was and why she should be in an asylum, she actually agreed with me about the “medications,” but then stated that she had looked into rehab centers to get her daughter off of psychiatric drugs, and they were way too expensive.

    That takes “pill shaming” to a whole other level. Taken into account that to try to help someone by telling them the truth about psychiatric medications might put them in such a situation that there’s no help for them to actually get off of them. From “pill shaming” to being so irrational that its like believing that when you’re starving, dying of proper nutrition, or simply sick from it, you should be able to walk into a grocery store and ask for food without being seen as disruptive and then get kicked out or arrested.

    Peace Sara. I’m on your side.

  • And Sera, before you go back to portending that people haven’t read your article, or that we’re trying to educate you; I actually agree with you to not argue with people that say that psychiatric drugs are helping them; because that’s not the issue, if they are comfortable disabling their minds to that extent there’s something else going on that needs attention, and that’s why they feel comfortable disabling their mind. But I’m not going to renege on being articulate about what psychiatric drugs really do, would they come to themselves enough to see what they are doing to themselves.

    Neither am I going to allow them to muddy up my life when I could detach and do something that shows that there’s another way, which might be what the whole issue is. And they’re not going to see that either, would I continue to “not argue” with them rather than just stepping away from it.

  • Hi,
    I was just simply going over how shocking it was to have studied the real science about psychiatric drugs, and thinking that one could talk about that openly.

    It IS disturbing when you see someone’s behavior influenced by psychiatric drugs, but you can’t say anything about it without being called a pill shamer. When someone is drunk, you can say that.

    And when a social worker is jumping to conclusions making very bigoted diagnosis of people feeling free to misinterpret anything they do thanks to her suspicions and the DSM, and she’s on anti-depressants and also a tranquilizer, one can’t say anything about that either.

    Most people in an asylum can’t say anything either.

    Many people ward of the state, the same.

    Many people with the wrong family, or part of the wrong church, or institution, or what have you, the same.

    I’ve learned one can’t argue with someone on psychiatric drugs, just like you can’t argue with a hardened alcoholic, and that maybe you can engage with them in a conversation where the deep emotional wounds are let out, and they might then be able to see themselves what they are doing; but that doesn’t mean I’m not aware how the drugs are influencing them, and disabling their reactions and ability to relate to their own behavior, or history, or inner world. At a certain level of articulateness, psychiatric drugs just disable the mind too much. And that’s scientific. That doesn’t mean I judge those people and try to argue with them about something that they aren’t going to be able to deal with. That I’ve learned.

    It’s quite interesting that most of the historical figures called a genius have been labeled with one or other disorder that’s supposed to be drugged, rather than that “disorder,’ was their mind actually being able to relate to reality one step beyond society’s approval and accepted norms and truths.

    It’s quite mind boggling that these psychiatrists with help of the DSM are going to improve people who have tended to the well being of the human mind for centuries, that while causing a never before seen epidemic with the treatments prevalent (and not prevalent then).

    I’ve really just learned how to detach myself. And it’s not like I completely avoid people on psychiatric drugs. Someone who’s a hard liner for some ideology can be way more disabled in their thinking, and hopelessly so; but that’s what’s so sad about people on psychiatric drugs. With a different approach (which statistics has shown and science backs up), they could have found the strength to really break free of such programming completely, rather than disabling their mind when their dissent becomes uncomfortable and they don’t understand it, nor are given any help in understanding it, just those pills that disable their mind.

    And it’s a real shame. Because they are amazing people.

    And I’m not going to make an object out of some fill in the blank “symptom” that the psychiatric drugs supposedly tend to, all qualified by a diagnosis that’s not scientific, that while those drugs are causing a chemical imbalance. I might try to help a person see that they aren’t a victim, and what they think is a symptom is really just their mind trying to point something out, and when looked at closer unlocks reflexes in the subconscious that were getting in the way of their personal growth.

    If they have difficulty with that, they might like the psychiatric drugs disabling the mind, just like others self medicate, or the other indulgences. I won’t judge that, I won’t argue with them about that as if it’s the main issue, and I certainly won’t try to shame them about it (or any of a number of other behavior I’m supposed to shame them about), because it’s completely understandable, but I’m not going to say it’s a treatment that in the end is helpful to them aided by all of the false premises of diagnosis, chemical imbalance, genetics and social norms. I’ll make the space for them to go deeper and more logically into what’s going on. And if they don’t like it, God Bless it. It’s their life.

  • I have to say that this was one of the most shocking things to encounter, once I ventured forth into what goes on in places that seem to at an institutional level be there to support someone who is marginalized.

    My mind reels just thinking where to start.

    Having to deal with people in charge that are on medications, and thus apologetic to not only the system that put them on it, but keep their inability to be articulate maintained by the pills, which modulates into their administrative powers, and having to deal with them for the most basic things such as that money goes to mundane situations already there that will help rather than grandiose schemes towards something that hasn’t even been really started yet but has this glorious sheen to it.

    Can you feel my mind reeling with that loooooooooooooooong sentence I just wrote, trying to say something?

    And that I, thanks to mindfreedom, actually knew the truth about psychiatric drugs, and could state that as fact; the same as you might say that alcohol makes you drunk, that adapting to the fashion around you won’t magically make you a good human being nor that that’s pride, and all the rest of it, and wanted to share that to find out I can’t say the truth about psychiatric drugs in any positive vital way, which I was doing in order to help people, but that it’s then pill shaming.

    I was totally shocked. I heard then that the head of the organization – a different one from the one that needed a gleaming glory before money was considered to help – had children on antidepressants, and she was on them, and this was because her husband had committed suicide; and all of a sudden the truth about anti-depressants had become something that insults a family with grief when their father/husband had committed suicide. I didn’t say anything about perhaps being able to deal with sadness or hopelessness rather than dousing it with ant-depressants might have prevented suicide. Real statistics again have another story about anti-depressants. And then she said someone at the drop in center was just crying all the time when she was off of her anti-depressants so she had seen bad results, I was so horribly naive as to suggest they have a get together to help people get off of their psychiatric medications, No she couldn’t approve that. Later I found out who this other person was, someone that was really nice (energetic, positive), but more like the celebrities in Hollywood that can’t tell the difference between playing social games and real issues, and so go bouncing around in the spotlight. I can imagine she would start crying would her bubble burst, not that I really know what was going on with her.

    It’s still shocking and overwhelming to remember the kind of response I got, just to report the truth about psychiatric drugs. And the extreme resentments. Simply stating the truth or wanting there to be a facility to help people would they want to come off their medications (I had suggested a get together to help people get off of their medications, I hadn’t said forced, or coerced); that was turned into sarcastic statements like:
    “I’m not going around saying no one should take psychiatric medications.”

    And that’s what gets me:

    Psychiatric drugs correlate with an extreme spike in what they say they are healing.
    There’s no conclusive proof they are treating a chemical imbalance but there is that they are creating one.
    They are consistently forced on people without real informed consent, while being made out to be treating a chemical imbalance rather than honestly reported to be causing one.
    They correlate with suicides, violence, causing car accidents (that’s hardly reported), homicide, loss of life expectancy, an enormous list of side effect, etc. etc.

    But when in total they according to statistics based on whether someone has adapted to a society which doesn’t care to honestly report all of that above: when they “help” even then really only a minority of the people on such drugs; one has to start there, or you’re “pill shaming.”

    And it continued when I got involved with the anti-psychiatry stuff. I had never had facebook, but mindfreedom had a shield action, so I signed up for facebook, to get more involved. Right away someone else from that action started private messaging me, then she wanted to talk on the phone, and I thought I could help someone struggling against the mental health barriers. She’s call me all the time, and wanted to get me involved with other stuff she was busy with. Again I couldn’t express the truth, which again becomes almost too much to get into dealing with someone who seems to be a victim of the fact that she could heal, because of what she’d have to give up that’s lacking when she’s not a victim anymore. And they have it all regulated, they need their pills as maintenance because they were a victim to ever being put on them, and if you actually step into the amazing labyrinth of possibility beyond all of that, would they give their mind the freedom to do what it does without such disabling….

  • that was supposed to be:

    And I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced that the authorities that be are able to measure what empathy really would be.”

    I typed water rather than what. Somehow my brain new there was a “w” an “a” and a “t” and concocted that really quickly into water, without me knowing it, and being convinced I typed something (I think my mind knows water is a word), it was convinced that was enough. Task accomplished. It’s weird, because I sometimes find myself, in thinking about words, how to define or react to something, that in thinking of the word I’m typing it out in my imagination. Without keyboard or computer.

  • Heh Mik, I’m glad you made it, and didn’t commit suicide. Hang in there.
    I had a friend tell me how coming out of an involuntary commitment left her so depressed, and she said this in a really calm logical way to explain why she had ever tried it before.
    Then she got committed again, I warned her mother stating that if you have her committed you’ll lose her, and that’s what happened. Then I had to tell her “friends” that also involved having her committed to stop bothering me, who would come up to me like it was some tragedy, while I had warned ALL OF THEM about what they were doing when they had her committed. They were extremely hostile towards me when I was trying to warn them, and then they’d come up to me afterwards, after she had died, like I was going to feel sorry for them as if it was still some tragedy they were trying to prevent, rather than being instrumental in causing it. And their behavior was WAY more inappropriate than anyone labeled as “psychotic” could even be. How non reality based it was: just the way you describe the psychiatrist diagnosing because you politely stated that you were vegetarian but would still get meat with your meals after checking that you wanted meat free meals.

    I imagine that there probably were a whole list of things that they had already put down, other things that you in the same quiet respectful way told them you felt could be different. They have real problems with anyone that articulate, I think. And from what I’ve seen feel free to make up whole alarmist scenarios based on false interpretations of just about anything they can use for such purposes.

    It’s a really scary situation. If you’re not appeasing their paranoia about alarmist ideas, they feel free to make out there’s some danger.

    I’m glad you learned how not to even try to respond to them.

  • I think that people that are giving each other the freedom to do something that’s not by the book are going to be more empathic, regardless of whether the “medications,” cause that.

    And I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced that the authorities that be are able to measure water empathy really would be.

    I don’t think you create healthy emotional states by fooling around with natural brain functions.

    Am I allowed to think this, or is it going against someone’s rules?

  • What about someone that’s labeled as “schizophrenic,” that has behavior they don’t understand, behavior that’s completely non violent, who then has to deal with the mental health system, and NEEDS help? And yet when they are in their own innocent imaginative world, they are going to be called non reality based, something they can’t argue with the mental health system about without getting into trouble, if their mind is still looking for connections it hasn’t made yet, and might seem incoherent of psychotic. And then the whole “anti-psychiatry” legion doesn’t care to take that very phenomenon in enough to allow that same person to work out the very subconscious feelings that the mental health system discriminates against as if it’s a disease?

    What does that have to do with diagnosis or not!?

    Just fussing about diagnosis, could mean you’re still not taking that person in enough to help them not be abused by psychiatry, and you’re not showing that there’s another way. Just saying psychiatry is wrong, doesn’t show what works.

    Someone can get disability with a diagnosis, and then not have to deal with the society, the work situation, where they would be called crazy. They might eventually figure out what’s going on with them that way when anti-psychiatry taking over civilization might never have given them such freedom. I think there are quite a lot of people that have done that, but they would fall out of the radar and not be detected as having recovered or not anymore. And yet, whether someone has a job is seen as a sign of recovery or not?

    What if someone with such a diagnosis, goes through the whole process in order to witness what it is and turns it around, and if you witness “schizophrenia” in such a manner you show what it is for others who might be scared of it being a disease, which it isn’t. To just say there’s nothing going on with you, go chum up to the system and get a job, is also how homeless people then end up being treated. A “schizophrenic” might show how the whole system isn’t working, but not by criticizing, hating and judging the perpetrators of a non working society, but by showing how emotional wounds effect behavior, and if that’s understood they could be creating a society where the emotional wounds of the perpetrators of what would otherwise be a non working society ALSO are dealt with to change society or create a new one.

    Peter Breggin says that “schizophrenics” have spiritual experiences; well emotions are spiritual, they determine what comes your way or not in life, and that’s more objective than physical reality, unless you think that the future is a tangible physical reality already complete and warehoused somewhere. Emotions also determine healing. It’s also how people meld together to create a society or not.

    Just saying I’m not schizophrenic is not enough for me.

    Is a person that’s labeled as “depressed,” allowed to say that it gives them empathy towards the suffering of others, and that they then find they can be there to hear their story?

    And the rest of it.

  • No, that’s not completely what I meant. Because you again insert degrees of difficulty. If you would simply allow yourself to feel your emotions rather than using that word to describe reactionary behavior, then your emotions would be allowed to work for why they are there. I was addressing how you defined “emotional.” And you define the other side as responding with emotions, when in reality they are responding by being brainwashed, and it’s a lack of emotions rather than being emotional. They can’t feel that what they are going on about isn’t right.

    Do you see you are actually diagnosing emotions?

    Can you not do that?

  • It’s of course WAY too simple for the authorities given the power (or should I say privilege to wield power) to have someone committed. And it’s they are just too comfortable with all of their excuses that it’s this special case where someone INDEED is in danger, that not only do the amount of people end up being committed that add up to the statistics shared, but the whole system stays in place to accommodate all these “special” cases where someone is in danger, to add up to it being that before they were committed, they WEREN’T! In danger that is.

    And all of the lying.

    And the gross amount of aspersions put on anyone saying there’s no danger, as well as what would happen would it simply be shown where the danger lies, to in the end it being turned around by AGAIN a choice few, full of exceptions and special vezzi bugiardi of viewpoints, insuring everyone that the suicides are a lack of treatment in general, rather than a result of it.

    And thus it continues.

  • WOAH! Upon looking at this again (from my last post), I had to do something more with it, lest it’s not understood for the running of it:

    “I said today to a friend that I think that “Schizophrenia,” means that you have better mental health than most people. It means that you can’t suppress the trauma that other people use as excuse to find anyone crazy (or a bother, or disruptive, or violent) that doesn’t suppress it [trauma]; and in not being able to suppress it, it comes out, and won’t be used to be suppressed as if such suppression makes trauma necessary and the corner stone of what creates a foundation for a society. As if there’s something wrong with someone that can’t uphold such mental nonsense, someone who instead flits lambent from on thing to the other (annoying, inconsistent, incoherent, disruptive); or when someone is sad, or the rest of those nice tight little labels, in that nice tight little wound-up society that blames it on others whenever the spring gets loosened and they have to deal with their phobias against being human,”
    It seems that most of what goes on in “mental illness,” when someone is seen as crazy, is that they behave in a way that goes beyond the game theory prevalent in society. When someone isn’t constantly wagering their behavior upon whether or not they get rewards for it, when they can’t be controlled by arbitrary societal norms, then they are seen as crazy. And by arbitrary societal norms, I mean all the behavior that’s considered unacceptable or crazy, just to keep people controlled by fear, because when you are scared to do those things, you’ll follow all the rest of the rules. And so someone walking around naked, not hurting anyone, is seen as crazy. Someone not making any sense to others, but being completely non violent is seen as crazy. That really only functions to keep people controlled by fear, and they actually think they are being moral. And so anyone not happy with their compromises in life that are causing unnecessary distress, but believing they need to follow them, they don’t understand their sadness and it’s an illness rather than their subconscious trying to point out that things aren’t working out and a change would help. And the whole matrix of fear frames that and sustains it, and judges anyone that can’t suppress their trauma. And society is pretty much built on that, and people think that their place in society and their sanity depends on that.
    Someone with a “diagnosis,” is not going along with all of that. They should be proud they’ve broken free of brainwashing. And they should be helped to see that they are waking up rather than they have a disease.

  • Rachel777, there’s no place to respond directly to your response, so I’m responding here (while responding about where one can respond, which I hope ends up in the right place of the pond and doesn’t sink out of context).

    But could you expand on what you mean by “emotional,” because responding in a gentle way doesn’t make it less emotional. I find that there’s more emotion there, and it’s more flexible.

    It’s can be overwhelming to try to respond to the propaganda, the assumed ingrained beliefs, the whole framework of constructed method where when there’s more of a problem it’s decided that you need more action to stop it, regardless of whether that action to stop it is causing the increase. After awhile you can’t keep all of the corrupt logic straight, don’t know where to start responding, and are so overwhelmed that you HAVE TO have extreme patience, and can’t respond anymore but with the gentle emotions that allow for the flexibility to have anything cogent to say. But that isn’t unemotional, that’s actually allowing emotions the space to really be free.

  • “Psychiatry is not about helping people”
    THAT makes pointing out what helps people irrelevant here!?

    That’s exactly my point again, that what helps people is pushed to the side to fight some war.

    That’s also exactly how psychiatry cons people into their grasp, someone who has been traumatized doesn’t need such irrate demands that “if you’re not fighting my war you’re irrelevant, not helping etc.”

    Someone who’s traumatized has had enough war in their life, and then they’re conned by the drug company commercials with their soft music and portrayals of “happy” people.

    I have better things to do than having what I say turned around and warped because I’m not taking up your banner and fighting a war, and then have to try to straighten out what I said in the first place to have it warped out of context again with the addendum that I must be fighting a war or it’s not what it’s about, irrelevant or not constructive.

    When someone shows that there is healing, and that it works, that makes change because it opens up a real solution.

    Wars will never do that.

    And with all the hostility towards anyone not playing pin the label on psychiatry there’s a lot of hostile, self righteous activity on this site that gives the drug companies and psychiatry exactly what they need to keep fooling people who have been so traumatized that they can’t deal with more demands that they fight some war.

    And you’re not helping get rid of psychiatry is the response when people aren’t fighting this war that is giving the drug companies exactly what they need to con people in with their deceiving commercials, and that’s what maintaining psychiatry. Which you demand more of saying it’s necessary to get rid of it.

    I heard a talk Peter Breggin gave about ECT for example, and he says things like: “THAT’S RIDICULOUS,” stressing how bad he thinks it is, and then gives really cogent information, which by then falls short because of his tone.

    Then the psychiatrist giving ECT in a very careful, even scared, neutral tone relates what really doesn’t add up when you take perspective on it, but it might make people think it sounds like it works given her tone and lack of hostility.

  • Someone that’s sad and has no ability to relate to why, and simply needs someone to make them feel it’s OK to talk about their feelings, so that in the process they gain insight, rather than hating the “sadness,” that person isn’t going to find that support with someone stating it’s not a chemical imbalance or a disease, or anything genetic, and then insists that it’s then their task to take part in a war against psychiatry.

    If someone is looking for an orange, and then has been convinced it’s an apple, for them to be told: “NO, IT’S AN APPLE, AND CAN YOU BELIEVE THOSE EVIL PEOPLE TELLING YOU THAT. IF YOU DON’T FIGHT OUR WAR AGAINST THEM, THEN YOU’RE NOT A GOOD PERSON.”

    Well, they still haven’t found an orange. And they can’t tell all of their friends that were also deceived where the oranges are.

    In fact

    That’s avoiding what’s really going on. And yes, when a person has been “medicated” into a state where they can’t feel anymore, then bringing back natural brain functions by helping them get off of medications would help, as would for them to realize that it’s not a disease, and it’s not genetic etc, which is actually what the post of our wonderful Paula is about.

    BUT

    When a person has already been misled (re-traumatized, confused, brainwashed) by the mental health system having been given treatment that doesn’t help, and they then find that ONCE AGAIN, they are supposed to push their feelings to the side, and it’s made out that it’s their task to fight a war against psychiatry, that’s re-traumatization for the SECOND time. In fact, they may not be able to navigate through their whole history enough to engage with understanding that getting off of their meds would help or even deal with such a process of withdrawal symptoms; but then would anyone simply listen to them, make them feel they can express their feelings, give them a space to not be judged, be interested in their story, see them as human and see what could be spelled and spilled out giving it the room to be the enlightenment that’s then already there but lacked the reflexes to be seen, then they could logically also get off of their medications, let go of the diagnosis, and move on.

    And what’s going to happen when their feelings are pushed to the side for the fourth or fifth time, because they just weren’t good (driven, smart) enough to be part of the anti-psychiatry society, or whatever followed?

    The same goes for someone who’s lambent from one thing to the next, not being able to understand the connections they are making (and then dismissed to ever find the connection, although simply Dadaism knew better already after WW1 and before WW2 came along).

    The same for so many other “diagnosis,” whether it’s “Schizophrenia,” or “Depression,” or….

    And it’s not what it’s about.
    People should be proud that they have a diagnosis, because the only thing it says is that they aren’t normal, they aren’t part of the vicious circle making the state of being human something other than it is, as if it’s something produced by their “society.” The same people labeling them would say that the miracles of harmony that created life are signs of insanity. Because they’d have to just allow them as well, the same as just listening to someone’s story.

    I said today to a friend that I think that “Schizophrenia,” means that you have better mental health than most people. It means that you can’t suppress the trauma that other people use as excuse to find anyone crazy (or a bother, or disruptive, or violent) that doesn’t suppress it [trauma]; and in not being able to suppress it, it comes out, and won’t be used to be suppressed as if such suppression makes trauma necessary and the corner stone of what creates a foundation for a society. As if there’s something wrong with someone that can’t uphold such mental nonsense, someone who instead flits lambent from on thing to the other (annoying, inconsistent, incoherent, disruptive); or when someone is sad, or the rest of those nice tight little labels, in that nice tight little wound-up society that blames it on others whenever the spring gets loosened and they have to deal with their phobias against being human,

    PshUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuueeeeeeeeeeeeeew

  • EXCUSE ME, but this is EXACTLY what I was pointing out!

    Only critiquing “psychiatry,” does not magically make you able to understand someone in true distress that needs another to listen to them, in fact it can be exactly the opposite.

    Perhaps even the “psychiatrists” needed someone to listen to, somewhere back in their youth before they started making alliances with whatever gave them a false sense of power in trying to compensate for losing themselves in such, to begin with. The same for criminals. The same for every fascist leader people think they need the very materials used against them in order to eradicate, as if it’s not believing you need such “materials,” to maintain “justice,” with the excuse to control others with intimidation and violence (and jails and militaries).

    I also did not make any “generalized” statements. That’s you, as if I was saying something I wasn’t and didn’t. What I said was: “Those saying it isn’t a disease also can be unwilling to go further into what’s out of their comfort zone to be there to understand, or even listen to.”

    If that’s not true than everyone against diagnosis magically knows how to relate to someone in trauma, understanding what they otherwise would dismiss as what they can just dismiss. That’s simply not true, neither is it what it’s about.

    What’s probably most certainly true is that someone who stands up against diagnosis is much more likely to be able to help, but that isn’t at all always the case, and might be EXACTLY what’s missing. And it doesn’t have to do with numbers either, because just ONE person believing that everything anti-psychiatry can help them, and then finding themselves in the lurch is enough; NEITHER am I saying that psychiatry is then magically going to help them, it’s something beyond EITHER “label.”

    Perhaps you need to get over labels.

  • Having been on the receiving end from both sides of the “argument”…. it doesn’t work either way.
    A lot of people simply want to call you crazy, meaning it in a derogatory way, and then a lot of people act like they are performing some great act of charity when they see you as crazy and needing help.

    That said, it’s one thing to state the obvious (it’s not a disease, those labels aren’t scientific), but it’s another thing to actually be there for people that otherwise have no one willing to simply hear their story, when you can just dismiss it, or find it intrusive, that WHILE you’re making a political correct statement saying it’s not a disease.

    AGAIN it could be that both sides of the “debate” don’t work. Those saying it isn’t a disease also can be unwilling to go further into what’s out of their comfort zone to be there to understand, or even listen to. Or even really be interested in something that escapes their ability to understand beyond dismissing it.

  • “Although genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have found statistically significant associations between large gene sets and the schizophrenia diagnosis, the researchers write that existing studies do not clarify how much the statistically significant findings matter. “These analyses do not estimate the contribution of these gene sets to the amount of variance explained,” according to Nicodemus and Mitchell.”

    Excuse me but believing you’ve found “statistically significant associations,” and than still believing that [you’ve found statistically significant associations] after realizing that you can’t clarify that what you’ve found matters at all…well, that certainly is too far along the line of incoherent logic to be seen as simple schizophrenia.

    You see if you keep on going on that it MUST be something physical (biological, genetic), and when you find something, but don’t know what it has to do with anything, BUT it’s “physical” then you’re on the right track.

    And all “schizophrenics” are supposed to admit that they just aren’t brainwashed enough if they don’t believe it, or are they supposed to turn the table and start wasting their time and good will looking for genetic flaws in people looking for genetic flaws!?

  • “Their exploration of risk level determinations highlights the often-murky nature of designations. Risk factors for suicide have been well established in research, but precision in prediction remains weak. Thus, distinctions between risk categories (e.g., high, medium, or low) may not provide the insight regulatory bodies imply. Differentiation between risk categories may be less clear cut than often assumed.”

    Risks factors for suicide are well established but there’s no precision in making predictions. In other words those factors don’t really apply and have more to do with something else, and you can be sure that whether or not someone is in the grasp of the mental health system is not listed as a factor, although I think that if you checked data that it increases the risk and is a major risk factor.

    Which seems to be a consistent story.

    Lets make a whole lot of people sick, and if something we’re doing helps some of them then we can ignore the basic truth that initially we made more people sick than we’re helping.

    Psychiatric drugs correlate with an epidemic, and they also cause extreme paranoia about the brain itself, as if it’s malfunctioning when expressing dissent, or sadness, or the kind of dream state called psychosis which is about as vital to society as dreaming, fiction, myth and why we would even have the ability to conceive of interactions in time.

    And psychiatric diagnosis allows a whole array of intelligence beyond the norm to be suppressed. From people dismissing another person because they are “crazy,” and what they are expressing are “symptoms.” to understandably insecure people being lied to about what’s going on with them and ending up being disabled for life. And all one has to do is instead of thinking someone is “crazy,” instead of going on about “mental health,” actually looking at what’s going on and really trying to understand it beyond the fear that it might expose something that takes you out of the comfort zone.

  • I’m sorry, but you can’t say truthfully to people: “don’t tell me I don’t have a physical disease,” when one would have to completely change the way of defining what physical disease is. Added to that psychiatric medications when tested conclusively prove to be causing chemical imbalance and addiction, to be causing physical disease, and that they are treating one has not been conclusively proven. Because disabling natural brain functions with psychiatric medications can push symptoms to the side for a period of time does not mean you have treated a physical disease, it means you have disabled the brain. And the worsening of relapsing that occurs after the initial period when symptoms were suppressed which isn’t occurring when people weren’t medicated shows that those that weren’t medicated have a healthier brain. This also points out statistically that psychiatric medications cause physical disease.

    And does someone who is made sick by psychiatric medications forced on them, do they have the right to say that because of the psychiatric medications that they have a disease!? Despite conclusive evidence that such medications CAUSE disease, they statistically aren’t allowed to acknowledge the simple truth there.

    That’s your business if you are convinced that psychiatric drugs help you, but that’s not scientific proof that they treat a physical disease you have. And the implementation of psychiatric drugs historically correlate with an immense spike in the occurrence of those diseases, along with a spike in disability. Psychiatric drugs also, after an initial period of lessoning symptoms by disabling natural brain functions, correlate with more relapsing, loss of life expectancy and brain damage.

    Other people are convinced that they need chocolate, dessert, or the latest fashion everyone else has, or to be a member of a church, or potato chips with their hot dog, or whatever it is that they don’t feel happy or as part of society or functional without, but that doesn’t equivocate their conviction with the fact that when they have such needs fulfilled a physical disease is being treated.

    And with your definition of physical disease, anyone addicted to a substance proven to cause chemical imbalance, and thus end up having withdrawal symptoms would they try to get off of the substance, the withdrawal symptoms aren’t acknowledged as such. Anyone coming down from a sugar buzz can say that they have a chemical imbalance that needs to be treated with sugar. Anyone losing their inebriation from alcohol can make the same claim. Street drugs the same. Shopping sprees also could be included. And if you take it to the extreme the adrenaline rush of fighting wars or assaulting someone.

    It also allows anyone that can promote a substance that would disable the mind enough to turn off its ability to have concern in areas that were causing distress, treating a chemical imbalance, regardless of whether attention needed to be given to what was causing that distress. It’s called treating a chemical imbalance instead of what it scientifically has been proven to be, and that’s a controlled substance that disables the mind from natural functions, is addictive, can cause extreme withdrawal symptoms, can cause loss of life and disability.

    Further more, Neither Insulin medications nor HIV medications (which you mention) correlate statistically with causing a spike in the occurrence of what they are purported to treat, which then is used to demand more treatment with them.

  • I don’t know what to say.
    This has been going on for quite awhile that psychiatry in the name of mental health has been diagnosing just about anyone that throughout history has actually helped maintain mental well being. Every artist, poet, musician, actor, composer, painter, novelist, impelling historical figure, everyone and anyone that showed enough flexibility in their behavior to give perspective on emotions beyond “you’re not supposed to feel that,” “that’s a symptom of non well being, you might compromise your status in society,” “that might cause too much controversy” “that’s just to different,” “no one will understand that,” “that’s really compelling but it might get people to not go to church every Sunday,” “I just find that too interesting and that scares me, so I’m going to have to discriminate against it otherwise I might fall into this dark hole of fear I’ve created for myself and am blaming on you,” or the more obvious: “that’s too gay,” “that’s just psychotic,” “that’s not reality based.”

    And for them with the diagnosis tablet art is supposedly a luxury, rather than what truly maintains mental well being.

    Anyone with an open heart about the human condition, and I mean being human not being appropriately indoctrinated, they are going to be a target for such nonsense as we see hear again, which is about as practical and realistic as getting funding to make a time machine to put Leonardo on Ritalin.

    Do these people really think they are going to fix up Leonardo Da Vinci?

    In the meantime we’re all waiting for the Hallelujah Chorus on Lithium, Tchaikovsky’s sixth symphony on antidepressants, Hamlet on mood stabilizers, the story of Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter on anti-anxiety drugs: Why not go for the Mona Lisa on Ritalin, along with the invention of helicopters and what else?

  • Heh, why is there right away emphasis put on what you would call a “symptoms” and then you yourself start catastrophizing!?

    “Take fear for example. In many ways it’s a great emotion to have, it can save our lives, push us to avoid danger. But people can get in huge trouble with it, when fear is overgrown people can become afraid to leave their home, afraid to interact with other people, their lives can be ruined.”

    Is a society where someone who starts behaving in the manner of staying at home, and it’s NOT seen as some disease to be alarmed at, is this alright!?

    Do you know what it does to someone who simply stays at home because of [what YOU say] fear [which you then catastrophize about], to then have people respond in such a fashion, when perhaps they don’t even know why they stay at home? If they could ever simply understand why their subconscious, their unconscious had such imperative to stay at home and what it expressed so that they could understand it, to have someone make it out to be some dangerous thing that could ruin their life IS NOT going to help them to understand their unconscious, to be able to move on if the like. And nit picking at something that is supposed to ruin their lives, while they don’t take part in a society that is based on what it’s based on, and that isn’t even mentioned but irrational “fear” is!? Excuse me while I don’t take up a weapon (along with an arsenal of mass destruction capabilities) because I’m the good guy to kill the enemy, or lock people up in jail, or be part of an economy that’s causing global warming, or a religion that says everyone else will go to hell, or part of a for profit health system that suppresses what maintains health but doesn’t sell in the economy already mentioned (including “mental” health which I supposedly lacking)…

    And the unconscious IS NOT society, and was there before “society” ever formed itself, it’s not about limitations, it’s about potential and creativity. It isn’t at all balancing out one thing with another to label something as a danger, something that could become a motif for personal development that might change a person’s life to grow where their potential lies. In fact it’s labeling it a danger what creates illusion and brings things out of balance.

    Emily Dickinson in this day would be called agoraphobic. The reason she stayed at home? She had fallen in love with someone that wasn’t available, perhaps; and I’m sure a load of other things and “society” had just become too much to deal with (perhaps the whole schpiel, the limitations, the lack of being able to express herself in a way that she felt engaged with etc.)? But Emily then kept with her poetry, and had that instead, and that by some miracles was found and has CHANGED “society,”and shown what art can do for someone. Even whether anyone understands that consciously only seeing it as clever words, it still expresses what it does in the source that it came from. Having perhaps no one she could really talk to, she talked to that source that everyone came from, and still was and remains and is, instead. And that’s a “symptom” of “fear” that’s supposed to possibly be dangerous!?

    Leave her alone!

  • Excuse me, but: “Participants completed measures assessing wellbeing, psychological distress, depressive symptomology, teacher-student relationships, teacher presenteeism, and confounding factors.”

    Other than what kind of a “science” is “symptomology” and what is “presenteeism?”

    What exactly “confounding factors” ? I don’t think I’m presumptuous in saying that what ISN’T looked at is if there’s a teacher who is HONEST enough to admit that they are depressed, and in doing so actually teaches or expresses such truths, whether there’s am improvement in students also daring to express and be honest about emotions. And then this isn’t seen as a disease but looked into further, and what kind of engagement with others and society that engenders. Someone who is allowed to be honest about their emotions is going to tap into a whole other awareness, and won’t be bouncing around sailing on the exploitation of consumer oriented resources that “happiness” is associated with and judged by. A teacher that shows an honest relationship with their emotions, is this going to be valued? A teacher that maintains an image of happiness and then actually is going along with an image rather than the flux of emotions that might be true happiness when it emerges, I think that the school system is going to see that as happiness, domesticated and tamed, the backup needed as seduction would someone dare to allow more freedom. Someone that is embracing a natural response, and sharing that, and being human, and then also exhibiting how such honesty towards simply allowing himself or herself to be human: to feel depression, to be open about it, and then engage with the solutions they find through such honesty; is that accepted in formal education? Or do you end up with teachers and students that exhibit a sterilized form of compliance not causing problems with the system, and thus are seen as “happy”?

    Simply not looking at or valuing what truly happens when a person is ALLOWED to not behave in a manner that’s considered mentally healthy, and how that might embrace the human condition more, enhancing individuality rather than conformity, isn’t that already quite confounding? Certainly by a system that has shown that it values disabling the mind from expressing dissent, and does this through a pharmaceutically induced chemical imbalance fraudulently advertised as treating an alleged chemical imbalance not proven to have been there, while the treatment has conclusively proven to cause chemical imbalance.

    Yeah, I understand, the link you get when you press on “mental health” says, for example: “Results reflect moderate to strong evidence in support of the non-pharmacological school-based interventions reviewed in the study, all of which been shown to have a meaningful, positive impact on mental health and often academic outcomes.” But why is that even mentioned? What that says is that criteria for judging mental heath based on an alleged biological disease, when not involved with advocating or forcing individuals on treatment that has been proven to cause biological disease that’s known rather than alleged, that this doesn’t cause what such treatment has been proven to cause rather than treating an alleged disease that hasn’t been proven to exist. You still haven’t dealt with cause and effect other than not quite being so much the cause. Is someone not being able to adapt to judgments of being mentally healthy or not going to be allowed to express the truths he or she found that he otherwise wouldn’t have did he or she maintain what because of prior judgement be perceived as a “healthy” state? And being seen as “healthy” could have meant having natural brain functions disabled with “mental health” pharmaceuticals causing true biological disease, so that he or she couldn’t understand the dissent his or her brain was expressing.

    I get simply just incredibly DIZZY trying to say anything about this, because someone that expresses confusion, dissent, unhappiness, inability to adapt to an environment that doesn’t acknowledge their experience or WHAT HAVE YOU that’s found disturbing to accepted comfort, and expresses that with a NATURAL brain function they DO NOT have a disease as little as the effects of global warming, or pollution, or poverty, or discrimination or ANY OF THAT are symptoms of a disease the planet or the human condition has. And yet you’re talking about symptoms of “mental illness” rather than a sensitivity that has experienced or is aware of things that need to be acknowledged for truth to come out.

    Even the depth of psychosis. “Oh ha ha ha, so and so dared to take their clothes off in public,” as if the sight of a naked person is some sort of poison. This still expresses something beyond a “disease.” Go do it. Take your clothes off in public, get arrested an put in an asylum, and see how paranoid and alarmed people respond to something totally non violent, and see how you’re not allowed and certainly not encouraged to express or acknowledge that. In fact I wouldn’t even call paranoia towards psychosis crazy, because being psychotic has more sensitivity than such “normal” paranoia.

    And the rest of the links lead to articles all talking about symptoms and prevention. But where is there talk turning around this need to go on labeling normal human responses as symptoms rather than concrete effects.

    Someone who lives in a toxic environment and is effected by that (whether it’s emotional, physical or discriminatory toxicity), their expression of the results is NOT a symptom, it’s an effect. There’s no “disease” going on. They don’t need to be told as introduction to how to respond to what’s going on that the effect means there’s something wrong with them rather than their environment. That they can learn to deal with it is another thing, but that doesn’t mean it’s not going on. Learning to deal with oppression and over come it is not recovering from a disease. It’s not an alleviating of symptoms, and it’s not an intervention accomplished by people treating a “disease.”

    Sorry, but this approaches saying that all of the women who could be seen as expressing symptoms of “mental illness” during the times when they were subjugated to being a possession of their husband — and it wasn’t acknowledged in collective consciousness that this was oppressive — that it’s more important to judge them as not showing “symptoms” than to acknowledge it’s abusive to turn a woman into a possession. And I really don’t see judging of symptoms or not as making the changes that have occurred, and are still highly needed.

  • Avolition is a term used to describe the severe lack of initiative to accomplish purposeful tasks

    Trying to convince a whole race of beings that something which is quite understandable in a human sense (the race we’re talking about: humans), that this is a disease, this would seem to be avolition, except that it’s more the initiative to introduce discriminatory fears. Exactly the “purpose” that schizophrenics just can’t see. They are supposed to see their “delusions” as a disease to fear rather than something they could learn to understand as having meaning. And they aren’t allowed to see the meaning that would emerge beyond fear. And it’s really so incredibly simple.

  • I don’t believe for one second that Marci is fighting everyone, and unable to get people on her side. Then there would be no one on her side, which clearly isn’t the case at all.

    Further more, if she is incredibly stressed out, and anyone that knows the truth has no problem seeing why, telling her or stating that she’s fighting everyone when she’s simply not compromising the truth, what is this going to serve? She of course gets anyone that keeps filling in the blank in their life with not wanting to see the truth up in arms in an arena where they are free to interpret just about anything she does that’s not to their model of compliance as some symptom of who knows what.

    She can’t say that anti-depressant withdrawal IS a chemical imbalance that causes mental illness, I would imagine, let alone that it leaves someone open for what a lack society has for giving guidance, which we see here again. Putting forth drastic measures that there is something wrong with her when she simply tells the truth is the same kind of matrix that makes someone look for drastic measures, such as what the anti-depressant withdrawal left her open for. And she’s just trying to reason with them. Maybe would she realize that they are more confused (or not open enough to experience confusion for what it is) than she ever was having withdrawal symptoms, and that it’s perhaps futile to reason with them, or to respond more gently by not responding or just listening without having to disagree.

    They of course think that would she get out she’d do who knows what, if she doesn’t agree that she’s mentally ill (which she has clearly stated as to what the cause was, and prevented it from re-curring). But then mental illness isn’t acknowledged as brain washing, because then the majority of the system would have to acknowledge that they are, which is what she’s confronting them with. But those people are showing the same kind of desperation she found to be so confusing, misleading and destructive. Maybe if she considered what kind of thoughts, or logic about how one deals with danger, what kind of thoughts in that area lead her to think that there was something so drastic that her daughter needed to be killed to avoid that; if she could access what logic in her mind was open to such corruption, rather than it was just the anti-depressants, than she might be able to respond in a different way to others who are more confused. And she might find that when she thought there was no other outlet than to get that desperate, that there was (even when on anti-depressants) another way of looking at it, when a person believes in things others say are impossible. And I’m not condoning anti-depressants.

    I hope this helps.

  • Can one “assume” that the prevalent fixation in other tendernessing given market preternities causes the electromagnetism of the machinery’s scans to give way to more locked up values?

    Or is it more an inclusive barrier within the field?

    And when such a field expands to the size of prior tragedies, is it’s intake of sufficient priorities to be oblique or of appropriate distance from where it would have been, given need of testing, when there’s no need of it?

  • “Do you want to see my wig gull?” “Sea”
    It’s like the story’f your friend little mischief
    How many ways it goes off.
    No her father never planned to attack the invaders
    Yes he also was Leopold
    Yes she died just like Shakespeare after going out drinking one night
    Yes that’s suspicious

    This was before the Russians and aids
    Maybe all sides should get over themselves

  • A family member once, he did joke, only that long haired people like me are selfish, while I, I did also only joke, about his screeching, which extended beyond the normal volume of sea gull screeching, given their dynamic range, which is not usually that grand. And so, while we wait for Hollywood to do their magic with Jonathan Livingston Hippy and its ability to flap out higher levels of amazing superior, yet to be outdone by all those attempts at being new and improved, inspiration, there no doubt has already been many grass roots inclusions aiming at supporting what’s yet to come from it.

    (sorry, rather than seagull, it was actually perhaps wig-gull that was meant, which certainly leads towards it’s spire)

  • How awful to stand, on your own refusal, and sink in the snow from dead weight, and see it happening all the time, the medical profession, the ssssSSSSSilence, the words on this screen, Anything EVERYTHING!

    Totally what everyone completely knows and says nothing about..

    Yeah no disconnection from a prism of anything noticed, from all of their accomplished prophecies.

    Tried the fresh fruit myself and ended up leaving the P’lace with S’our cream.

    Ahem

    The potatoes might be ready by now!

  • What are they going to call it?
    Someone put an orange in their pocket and came to us very disturbed and needed to come back to us was determined, but he had such a reaction to our terminology that with or without us changing the definition we will rename it as something else, although it still stays the same:

    1) It’s still a disease, but considering that it’s not believed to be so, we’re blaming it on the old name.
    2) When in doubt try another Anthem
    3) If this doesn’t stick, we’ll try for a third

  • I loved this podcast, and it made me cry.
    WHY?
    To hear you two advocate just listening and not judging a person, not getting alarmed, giving someone the safe place to talk about stuff that otherwise they are scared to talk about, given the alarmist response most people have…
    And how a person can be betrayed by therapists that act like they are there to help but then again end up making you feel that there’s something wrong with you by dismissing you (or even worse): to hear this quietly talked about helped me let go of a lot. I have a relatively good therapist now, but there were feelings that still had been forced into a corner, feelings where I would judge (shudder at, want to run away from) my own behavior when there was no need for that.

    It’s amazing what kind of a cage, what kind of a maze of phobic game theory compromises “sanity” becomes fussing about modes of behavior that are more non reality based that psychosis itself is. As long as a person is scared, and alarmed, and hostile towards behavior not controlled by a set of rules that really do nothing but try to make themselves valid when a person is scared to not follow them, then that is considered sanity.

    For a person to go beyond such disabling limitations they have to pretty much do something “crazy.”

    I also love the archetypal symbolism in stopping something as big as a bus (because it’s a big problem) , and then seeing that the little person running it can’t help.

    I think that to solve the problem you need to engage with what connects people in society, the machinery that brings them from one place to another (big buses and other vehicles that transport groups of people is very symbolic of this I think); but then when you see how “little” people have made themselves being controlled by such machinery being used to create whole society’s controlled by fear….

    Now, that’s what I get out of it, it doesn’t have to be how you see it yourself; but like art, perhaps it’s something human everyone can have their own interpretation.

  • Well, all I know is that sometimes when you really want something that’s not there, the simply inordinate inability to let go of wanting it is torture in itself. Sort of like wanting to flip an egg and attach it to the floppy drive as attachment (for E-mail of course), and finding you need a translator……

    I’ll read the whole article later, it’s rather conspect (conspicuous and circumspect) here. Lots of…

  • When an emotional wound expresses itself, simply for what it is, that trauma doesn’t work as a disciplinarian method, but that it’s trauma, when this expresses itself it’s seen as a disease. But when someone actively engages in deceit and the kind of conn job that goes with maintaining the ideology that it’s something else….
    This isn’t seen as non reality based?
    To bury a wound with the rewards of game theory you get in such a conn job is considered functional.
    Everything is thrown to the wind then, when you consider that someone receiving a paycheck from the whole system whose economy is maintained by such, someone it is assumed who then maintains such ideology, that they are then considered functional, also because they have a paycheck.
    I wonder how much more of what’s considered functional (productive?) because it’s rewarded with a paycheck would then be considered as a sign of recovery.
    To WHAT EXTENT in this amazing logic would it say more about sanity would it be that someone not taking part (or not even being able to take part but instead lives in a fantasy world), that they being homeless, or delusional, that they are sane, consequently?
    The whole spirit world seems to be mostly invisible, and every society fas fiction, myths, stories and even a history that’s not physically so tangible anymore. All this seems to be necessary, as well as art which you can’t explain, as little as you can scientifically dole out how to create emotions that mirror human experience with musical chords. Who is to say that consequently someone that exists in a non-reality-based mode is more sane.
    I notice I’ve given two meaning to non reality based, already. Maybe if the other side keeps working at it…

  • So,
    You ignore who leaves the trial because of bad side effects from medications
    You withdraw people from antipsychotics and make sure they were good responders to begin with, so that they would have withdrawal problems, and then as soon as you have gotten them back on antipsychotics because of the withdrawal problems, you still include them with the group that supposedly wasn’t on them.

    Then you change the criteria for evaluation again, it’s not about functionality but whether someone decides someone has symptoms, symptoms that arguably weren’t understood to begin with

    Then you add a fancy sounding term like predicted outcomes for people that you in reality have no data for…

    And what Robert so articulately points out at the end, and I actually missed, was that they never really compared those truly off medications with those on them in the long term.

    And 11% isn’t representative. That only 11 percent were good responder speaks for itself, also.

    The discontinuation for those on the new drug was actually greater than those getting off of one, also.

    Who is doing all of this diagnosing. If someone simply needs another who helps him to understand an emotional response, those that have such ability (to help) aren’t going to just label this as a “positive symptom,” but will see that there’s underlying emotional, cognitive even maybe even health issues that could be addressed. There’s already a big difference here with those that just see it as a chemical imbalance, and thus promote this whole logic that what correlates with the spike in mental illness is going to solve it. Or those that negate that their treatment might be causing the problem in order to make out that the greater occurrence of the problem means more treatment is needed. That’s quite non reality based. That only 11% of everyone in the system could be seen as a good responder to treatment should already be a warning signal.

    that’s one study

    It’s interesting that I sort of have gone through the basal exposure therapy, because of drug withdrawal, but it wasn’t psychiatric, it was coffee withdrawal. And I have a good therapist that gave me the space to express what I needed to express so that I felt free to have emotions and responses rather than to be alarmed by them.

    It doesn’t even have to be coffee, it simply was that when you are put in an environment where you can express emotions you haven’t expressed before, that instead of repressing those feelings, those memories, those responses, you are going to allow yourself to open that door, and find you can deal with them, even thought the environment you were in before tried to make you think that there was something wrong.

    Anyhow,

    it seems that extreme misrepresentation of scientific data is not seen as non reality based, but positive symptoms that don’t even really effect someone’s functionality, this is then deemed non reality based.

    Lying is OK, apparently. Or zealous game playing as if it’s about marketing.

    Are they scared that if others learned to heal their emotional wounds that this might uncover that they have their own, and that what they have been tauting wasn’t based on sane cognition?

    Because really I think that that fear is there, and that in dealing with your own emotional trauma you have to see that those labeling it as something else are scared to even see what’s going on.

    It’s like Jesus said, forgive them they don’t know what they’re doing. And you have to let go of expecting a reasonable response.

    I really think that thought is thought, it comes from the source, what was there before the whole Universe came out of what science calls the big bang. Not judging those people, as brain washed as they are, but letting go of anger not not only might help you to know how to respond, but they might feel that, whether it’s expressed physically or not according to accepted rules of science that we are separate from each other, something which science actually has proved not to be the case in quantum Physics.

  • I’m sorry if I sound insensitive.
    Of course you want your father to have reached the point where he could be inspired to heal and change his life.
    But this doesn’t mean that what you’re being offered as a means to change is what would work, you only have to look at the real results: the spike in mental illness that has reached epidemic portions rather than the stories and the certain cases advertised by the very people making so much money they prevent needed contradictory stories from appearing in corporate media.

  • lizadeeza
    I understand you being at a loss to understand what went on in your youth, and am in no way negating that.
    But quite a few of the people here are very clear.
    I don’t see them projecting their personal trauma, although that isn’t negated, it’s about what the practice of diagnosing people has done in general, and how that isn’t reported. And how people have been re-traumatized by the mental health system AFTER they have had an abusive parent.
    And there are MANY people who have experienced what you have, and instead of this subjunctive hope you have that your father would have been helped with diagnosis, it’s that after they experienced abuse from their parents, which could have been extreme sexual abuse as well. Instead of the emotional help they needed, they were put on a whole array of psychiatric drugs while being diagnosed THEMSELVES. This, instead of helping, disabled their ability to work through the trauma, replacing that with something akin to turning off a warning signal that’s annoying. And this unraveled THEIR life. It’s also extremely rare that an abusive parents gets diagnosed, it’s almost always the child that’s suffered the trauma ending up in the mental health system with the diagnosis.

    You say that had your father been diagnosed with any of those things, he might have healed himself, but you keyed in the components yourself. HIMSELF. The system doesn’t really correlate statistically with healing “wholesale”, it’s more the people that move away from the system and find their own way or alternative methods that are healed. That’s the statistics. And you say it’s certain cases. And the people who are “certain” cases are picked up by the guild interests of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical companies paying for the commercial advertisements and thus preventing corporate media from reporting anything but “certain” cases, although they statistically are in the minority. Just because the majority of people are treated a certain way doesn’t correlate with that being healing, certainly not when the occurrence of such conditions hasn’t decline at all but spiked tremendously.

    It’s truly sad when someone is so hurt that they are desperate, and then are conned into investing into something that doesn’t really help, just because it seems to. But this is a known method of economics and psychology. When someone is desperate offer them an idea of what could help, and it might be the people making someone desperate that also are offering the help.

    Fund both sides of a war and when the country is destabilized regardless of who wins, and the banks can start making more demands given the resultant destabilization and the need for loans.

    The DSM judges behavior, behavior that can be quite annoying or disabling already, but then it offers treatments which in the end correlate with more problems statistically. Oh, and who gets the money when more and more people end up having the problem to be treated rather than there’s a decline in the problem? And the profits of the drug companies have spiked as much as the occurrences of the problem they say they are treating. That’s all clearly highlighted in the books this website is about. But people don’t want to see the result because they feel so much something has to be done leaving themselves open to being conned. It’s very sad.

    And Trump isn’t going to end up receiving the diagnosis you talk about as much as it it would more likely be someone who is so insecure and traumatized from sexual or other abuse, and so marginalized, and so in need of needed emotional support they aren’t getting that they indulge in what’s diagnosed as narcissistic PD, Bipolar and then Personality Disorder. That’s much more likely to be the victim of an abusive parent than an abusive parent.

    It’s not fair to speak of what could have happened, and then ignore what HAS happened.

  • The psychiatric authorities say that one in five experience mental illness in a given year. If Trump isn’t fit to be President with a mental illness, then those people (one in five PLUS) could without too much difficulty be seen as not fit to vote. And you have it seems what the people who put Trump in office are looking for to disqualify votes that might NOT go for him.

    Or is it that mentally ill people (NOT traumatized but mentally ill) all voted for Trump. *hint* I might be getting sarcastic by now…

  • That someone couldn’t relate to what was going on with their spouse until she had a diagnosis, this is no way at all suddenly validates psychiatric diagnosis, or validates that they then know what’s going on maintaining that the “diagnosis” explains it. Such diagnosis would have to have a history of solving the problems they pertain to, and instead we have an epidemic. And with the whole rise in problems incurred – people drugged for a chemical imbalance that the treatment causes rather than it’s ever been found to truly occur in the “disease” that’s being treating, we have more reason to consider this isn’t bringing the problem to light. And when we look at how diagnosis is correlating with false information given out based on guild interests and drug company profits, one isn’t “crazy” nor does one have a break from reality when one determines how the quite profound evidence pointing to that what ISN’T solving the problem actually doesn’t solve it nor does it clarify it.

    If taking a look at someone’s behavior actually corresponded with statistically solving the problem, then this would be a different case. But I don’t see the DSM actually doing that, and I don’t see it as a necessary ingredient.

    There are other ways of looking at what’s going on, and they aren’t invalid when not using DSM terminology.

  • Ah yes, zippy321, others telling someone how they have to communicate and speak, as in this quote here:

    “If you don’t understand that Donald Trump is mentally ill, and that this illness informs and shapes his actions – actions that now effect all of us as citizens in the United States, you lack a huge piece of crucial information about what is going on here. You can’t understand what he is doing unless you understand the genesis of those actions. You are denying the truth because you apparently are not comfortable with doing anything that could be seen as inflicting a “stigma.” Well, when a person who suffers from a mental illness behaves in a way that is doing harm to others, the truth is more important than such concerns or political correctness.”

    What that quote clearly says is that you need psychiatric diagnosis to be able to break through to the “genesis” of the problem. And if one doesn’t chose to delineate Trumps behavior with DSM terminology then this denies the truth.

    Also. In reality, the use of the DSM when looked at in a larger perspective correlates with abundant evidence that it has caused more harm to others rather than a lessening, whether it’s the person who has to deal with someone diagnosed or the person diagnosed.

    I also think that trying to get Trump out of office in such a manner is ineffective.

    To be president, Trump is required to have dropped all his business interests, but that hasn’t been the case. Here’s just one example:

    “During the presidential campaign, Trump’s proposal for a Muslim ban led Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to call in June for the businessman’s name to be removed from the towers—in essence, threatening the revenue source Trump gets from licensing his name there.
    But Trump defended Erdogan a month later, saying the U.S. shouldn’t criticize the Turkish strongman for his crackdown after a failed coup—and there has been no mention of taking Trump’s name off the tower since.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/08/donald-trump-s-huge-conflict-of-interest-in-turkey.html

  • If you’re referring to me being “offtrack” you missed my point. Fussing about whether Trump is sane — which Sera isn’t doing, nor did I say she was: it’s the topic that OTHER people are — is avoiding looking at how the whole system is corrupt that makes such erroneous decisions about diseases that are only alleged rather than proven biological phenomenon, this while the “treatment” DOES correlate with real biological diseases. All to judge someone’s behavior.

    Fussing about whether Trump is sane is more of the mental indulgence people give themselves to defer from what’s really going on, whether it’s an epidemic of mental illness of alleged diseases not proven to be organic while the “treatment” DOES cause organic disease, or whether it’s that there wasn’t due attention to whether there were truly fair elections.

    https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/13/greg_palast_by_rejecting_recount_is

    Fussing about, or using the idea that Trump is Mentally ill as a focus point is nothing but an ad hominem attack (there are a lot of people with a “diagnosis” that might make a more functional leader than any we’ve had in a long time or ever had). Trump trying to make out that a bunch of illegal aliens prevented him from having a majority is more ad hominem activity, this time by him.

    https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/27/will_trumps_claims_of_election_fraud

    If you weren’t referring to me as being “off topic” then I misunderstood. But I find it quite typical that I try to point out where investigation of what might be wrong might be directed to make change, rather than towards someone’s “sanity,” and if what I say points too much to what people think they can just assume is working or objective but isn’t, then it could be called crazy or off topic.

    Trump’s stance on having a task force regarding vaccines is quite progressive, actually, in stark contrast to most of the rest of his platform. Many people would say that’s “crazy” as well, that he sees there might be a correlation between the epidemic of autism and the MRI vaccine.

    !!

  • You know, this might be an old story

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/1970

    http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-exit-polls-did-hillaty-clinton-win-presidential-election-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/

    Instead of fussing whether Trump is sane (whatever that it supposed to mean, as if “sanity” isn’t dysfunctional by merit of the word), I wonder whether what might fix things is NOT thinking someone is crazy who points out that the whole system has a few screws loose and isn’t in working condition.

    And this isn’t a statement for or against ANY candidate, it’s simply pointing out what needs looking into, and hasn’t happened. Since Bill Clinton’s second term the exit polls have been off, and would this have happened in any other country, the USA might very likely have been hailing that as undemocratic (that the exit polls didn’t match).

    Or blaming it on fake news… you know like weapons of mass destruction somewhere that were never there?

    Fortunately there are things that transcend all of that (this), but that again might be considered as crazy would someone invest in that instead.

  • I’m sorry but I’m a bit amused by the statement “uncertain outcomes” that it’s said that people have to endure, which I read at least twice in the article.

    What is this uncertainty, that when not following mainstream treatment you don’t have the spike in mental illness? Is it that when you don’t implement psychiatric drugs, which turn off symptoms but don’t address cause and thus correlate with in the long run what we have seen occurring, you have to look at actual long term outcomes (and this involves cost in the end as well, because more treatment means more cost, but a treatment which doesn’t require more treatment might be too expensive)!?

    This is “tolerating uncertainty,” when it isn’t overlooked that it’s certain that there’s more cost and less healing when more “certain” outcomes are preferred?

    And then it says that unlike the Finnish approach they did not provide inpatient care.

    The article also mentions that they

  • Truly, I don’t think there’s one great artist that you can’t find some inane analysis of, by people whose institution correlates with the spike in mental illness that we’re experiencing, rather than the art that all of the “mentally ill” great artists have given. And then you can do a search for many scientific geniuses (or philosophers, or inventors, or religious leaders), as well as as who knows who else who actually had enough personality to have something to say, rather than fit into “consensual reality deportment” or “statistical based norms,” as if society magically creates reality by voting on it with their belief in how every one should fit into their indoctrinations, which apparently then by psychiatry is considered “consensual,” despite the abundance of objections they call diseases.

    One wonders what would be left of the human condition could they delete all “sick” genes from the pool.

    I really don’t know what to say about this: is evolution then a psychiatric disorder, because to evolve this requires moving away from “consensual” reality based norms that are considered statistical? Don’t get sad that society is going round in circles, don’t show any signs that it’s confusing you, or making you have emotional challenges of any kind. Just sit there and act like it’s working…..

    And what does this have to do with thought?

    (!?!?!?!?!?)

  • This sentence I have to correct: “The media has people all up in arms about dangers that are caused by the non-treatment of the yet to be proven chemical imbalance while the treatment (that needs to be implemented to stop the violence that the alleged chemical imbalance might cause) causes the chemical imbalance that actually DOES correlate with causing violence, but this is erroneously listed as a symptom of the disease, instead. “

    I reads better this way: The media has people all up in arms about dangers that are caused by the non-treatment of the yet to be proven chemical imbalance while the treatment they say needs to be implemented to stop the violence that the alleged yet to be proven chemical imbalance might cause causes a chemical imbalance that actually DOES correlate with causing violence, but this is erroneously or conveniently listed as a symptom of the disease, instead.

    If one would consider what kind of oppression goes on against anyone with a diagnosis, it’s not replacing fact with agenda to point out that with the lack of violent response, it shows that “mentally ill” people are perhaps less likely to resort to violence than others.

    This brings another thing up. Or rather a logic. And I have to first put forth the fact that most institutions such as Educational (you get good or bad grades), Judicial (penal system), Religious (you go to heaven or nirvana or a place of bliss) or not, Economic (you get money or you don’t) and others (social systems etc.) are based on trauma based discipline. I think that “mental health” is something different, this isn’t controlled by trauma, but exposes what trauma does.

    If a society would actually look at what happened when someone became a criminal, and see that as a result of trauma, rather than something that hasn’t been controlled by trauma, then there would be a cause and effect that tends to the human condition, rather than to….

    Somehow, that the “good guy” has the right to maintain weaponry that when put into effect could exterminate all human life on the planet 20 times over, this also points to the fact, that for human life to continue there HAS to be another way than who can control another person the most with fear.

    And then you have the people controlling the system, and are given the privileges of deciding who gets traumatized and who doesn’t, or simply the people playing the gamut of self serving materialism (in the name of the corporate politics of investors and a populace of workers, although the workers doing the work seem to always be second in line to the investors); this also involves fear, I think. Because when we think we need a penal system along with a military industrial complex that uses violent force, this inevitably suppresses dissent, and gets in to the hands of people into such controls, as well as quaking a whole society (a fellowship) of people that are trained to traumatize others, while putting forth that this is necessary. I might even put forth that this kind of logic creates the kind of bizarre mesmerized state with trauma that one finds in serial killers, and other forms of socio-path behavior.

    Someone who, for example, has severe trauma from an overbearing parent, an authority figure they felt kept them imprisoned from expressing themselves, they might project this on the world around them, and seek expansionist control (tyranny) to try to fight against the feeling of being imprisoned; but it’s the logic of trauma based controls that says that controlling people with fear is how you attain “harmony,” and this prevents the initial trauma from being discovered and let go of.

    You also get the kind of mind games that John Nash was trying to point out with his game theory.

  • It is to flagrantly true that someone who doesn’t have a psychiatric diagnosis can make a decision or express something that seemed to others odd, while someone with a diagnosis immediately gets discriminated against that it’s their “disease”.

    I have a whole list of such incident, so bizarre, I don’t know where to begin. I might add that when you have a psychiatric diagnosis, they feel free to change the facts because they “know” you are a danger. So, if you are simply going out the same door everyone else goes through while leaving a class, you are stalking them; when they thought you shouldn’t ask them a question or try to make social contact they say they told you to back off, when they never said anything but acted totally differently; I found that any conversation you might have with them can be totally corrupted and warped to misinterpret anything you’ve said to mean something it never did but that suites their paranoia, and they feel free to change facts.

    I sat in a court case for a friend that was trying to get her guardianship back from her father, so she could make her own choices. If she simply had a male friend visit her, the case workers felt free to add that they were suspicious she was selling herself although there was no proof of this at all, and because she wanted to get out of the city and start a new life someplace else, this also was seen as a bad sign of a supposed “disease.” Another friend was in an asylum, and she has a religious belief like you find in First Nation’s cultures, that her ancestors can speak to her through nature. She writes beautiful stories about this. She was in the asylum, and it was her mother’s birthday; a bird happened to sit on the fence surrounding the small weed infested courtyard that the “inmates” were allowed to go into. Let’s forget that there were acres of grounds with rolling grasses, a pond with swans and ample trees to inspire one to peace of mind, the inmates were allowed a small weed infested courtyard. And so my friend sat there trying to relate to nature, and a bird sat on the fence, her response was to tell another inmate that that was her mother (it was her mother’s birthday, and she believed that her ancestors could communicate to her through nature). They were going to keep her for another week (thousand dollars a day) because this was overheard. But then I called in to complain about religious freedoms, and explained that this was a belief that native cultures had, and they let her out the next day.

    If you have a diagnosis, or have ever showed signs of having one, people will feel free to spout all their paranoia on you, whether it’s gossip, to the side remarks or not responding to you in a normal way might their be a disagreement or criticism, but they channel it all into the diagnosis, and it becomes “this-person” is unreasonable, you can’t talk to them, and other means must be utilized besides simple decent human interaction.

    And then comes the most difficult part. You have to respond to them with a patience and understanding of their fears that’s totally alien to them. And if you show them any annoyance as to how you are treated, it’s a supposed sign of your illness.

    I’ve had it in places where someone sat there all smiles and coy, clearly thinking I was going to convince everyone I was unstable and needed to be committed, and then noticed that their smile dropped, and they got a worried angry look on their face as I proceeded to be quite coherent. They still executed territorial limitations, because or all of the paranoia, but they couldn’t get me committed.

    It’s all extremely scary, and you have to exert extreme caution, and forgiveness in the sense that they don’t know what they are doing at all. When anyone questions their method, they become distressed, because what they promote doesn’t rest on calm logic; and anyone not taking action can be seen as a preventing treatments (despite whether treatments really work, it’s just you have to do “something”); or someone questioning what they promote can be seen as a dangerous person that prevents them from having the numbers they need in their campaign. The media has people all up in arms about dangers that are caused by the non-treatment of the yet to be proven chemical imbalance that causes the chemical imbalance that actually DOES correlate with causing violence, but this is erroneously listed as a symptom of the disease, instead. The psychiatrists have committed their life’s work (and all the cost in their education) to mostly treating what hasn’t been proven to be a biological disease with methods that have been proven to cause biological disease. To try to reason why this is going on leads one into many different directions: is it because this excuses looking deeper at the human condition, what thought is, what trauma is, and whether or not trauma based discipline really works? Is this because it makes money fooling people into believing that a disabled mind is an emotionally healthy one, that it’s a good marketing ploy to sell a pill you can swallow as solving irritation, distress or deep seated emotional trauma? Is it because people believe they need a chase scene, and the idea of a broken brain to fix is convincing, even when the treatment has been proven to brake the brain, not the “disease?”

    And thus we have moved on from the notion of human sacrifice being necessary to appease the Gods (to simply deny this is necessary was seen as non-compliant and thus dangerous), or have we?

  • I’m sorry if I’m over working this, and I hope that the last phrase of a statement in this article: “that we consider biological (medical, pathological), but that he may have considered an eternal part of the human condition.” points out where healing takes place.

    I do have to mention that it’s fine and well to theoreticize about a story, but this is not,
    sigh,
    I don’t know what to say about this. It’s not a case history, something which in regarding psychiatry might be a great plus; because then you CAN theoretize rather than one is coerced into thinking one needs to follow a mode of treatment, although this correlates in the majority of cases with perpetuating the problem not healing it. But people who truly are suffering trauma need a bit more cogent and intimate help than such fictional speculation, which might go along with the same lines of creating a theory just to make it sound plausible as already goes on with the methods in collusion with the whole spike in “mental illness.”

    If one were going to make a statement about “schizophrenia” I think you have to include the stories of people who have been through it, and have recovered, and don’t see it as a biological disease.

    That ISN’T something the people maintaining the DSM or the NIHM might even allow, let alone are truly interested in.

    To list criteria of what one could term propaganda from organizations dismissing the stories of people who have actually themselves been through “schizophrenia” and recovered, in order to maintain that a fictionalized story shows there was “schizophrenia” two millenii ago…

    And yeah, I think there was trauma two millenii ago, but using the term “Schizophrenia” seems to be about denying how trauma effects people and calling it a disease rather than trauma.

    If one is to speak of narrators who are unreliable, you might want to start with those writing the DSM or maintaining the NIHM. Advertised treatment correlating with an epidemic of a disease rather than healing, isn’t a very reliable source of information.

    Being institutionalized against your will and forced on treatments that don’t correlate with healing, damage your body while you lose your civil liberties, all for a disease that hasn’t been proven to truly exist as defined but is a great source of wealth for the drug companies when fraudulently made out to be, this isn’t so far off from being kidnapped and tormented by sadistic robbers (robbers who recently have had to pay billion of dollars of fines for false advertising)…

  • I read this whole article, and….

    1) Since when is “schizophrenia” a legitimate disease? And none of the statements about it support this when as logic it is comparable to stating that when a person has a physical wound which shows signs of trauma (black and blue marks, a scab, pain etc.) that this proves that there is something wrong with the body, and that there’s a disease going on. Emotional trauma is emotional. The behavior expressing this is also emotional. When the healing modalities such as Healing Homes of Finland, Soteria project and other such disciplines heal these conditions this shows it’s emotional. When the supposed healing modalities calling it a fictional physical disease cause a spike in said occurrence, this shows they aren’t healing it, and that to hold onto the idea that it is physical in the way they define it doesn’t. Unless you want to talk about healing fictional diseases (in comes old story), and when you can cause more of this fictional disease by suppressing emotions and cognitive insight (problem has to be fictional to exist for example) you can add numbers to how much healing is going on of what is fictional (so when there’s more of the fictional disease, you can have more fictional healing, and in a fictional sense it’s all working, like so and so with his magic wand). That when it’s seen for what it is when there’s healing is suppressed can be overlooked (in comes fictional character with disease).

    2) This redundant repetition of “signs” of schizophrenia when they are behavior oriented, all conveniently placed to cover up trauma as having a physical fictional source rather than emotional, and make that out to be a disease when there are signs of healing, of a loosening of the parameters of control that are in collusion with trauma based control tactics. Trauma based control tactics responsible for the riff in society which caused the trauma: what this is purported to have to do with fiction, except we’re back to that instead of actually understanding the story, is quite disturbing. All the supposed symptoms are seen as symptoms of an alleged disease, rather than tools to gain perspective on emotional trauma being exposed and thus let go of. Why have this list of symptoms when being seen in such a fashion are in collusion with causing disease rather than healing?

    3) AGAIN, statements about the change in the shape of the brain. If one goes to such websites supporting these supposed proofs, you see that they say the people who are and aren’t medicated show reported signs of these reported changes in shapes of the organ called the brain. It does NOT say how much the correlation is with those who aren’t medicated, how marginal this might be. It ALSO does not say (conveniently leaves out) that the change in those medicated has long been proven to correspond with medication, something which at first was reported as a symptom of the disease but had to be corrected. Once AGAIN: It was known the whole time the “medications” cause the change in brain structure, this was suppressed, and even attributed to a yet to be proven disease caused by a yet to be proven chemical imbalance – all while the medications have been proven to cause, a chemical imbalance which resulted in the change in brain structure. And yet again, when there is supposed proof that a disease is caused by changes in brain structure (which has been proven to be caused by the medications) to include those who aren’t medicated, and have NO proof that the medications correct this change in brain structure (rather than cause it which there is proof of) with any logic would point out that the “medications” are a cause not a remedy. It would be AMAZING if the drug companies said that people with a proven identifiable heart condition (which has to be determined by analyses of behavior rather than any physical sign) when on their medications or not have said identifiable heart abnormality, and completely skip that the medications are supposed to fix this abnormality, not correlate with causing it. If you are or aren’t on these medications that fix this problem you have said problem does not correlate with fixing said problem! And how many of the psychiatric medications actually end up causing heart problems?

    4) Back to supposedly identifying behavior symptoms of a fictional disease whose diagnosis is in collusion with creating a major spike in occurrence of said fictional disease (and whose treatment has been proven to cause an “epidemic” of biological disease caused by “medications”), all to validate said disease as being reported in a fictional story ages ago, because historically the fictional disease was said to exist after the fictional story was written.

    5) So we are asked to entertain that (this, those, them) fictional disease(s) existed (exist) in fiction before fictional disease was named a disease (alleged but guilty until proven innocent), the evidence being that a fictional character might have been making up fiction (which is seen as a symptom of said fictional disease, but not by those making out the fiction to be a disease fictionally identified after fiction) because said character made up possible fiction about being hijacked by a group of fictional robbers.

    And where’s the “brilliant” article that “Shakespeare” coined the most number of neologisms, and being mostly (that we know of) taken into the English language, this shows that the whole population of the English speaking world has possible symptoms of (see list) in article…

    Or what list of inconvenient truths are then marginalized as “fictional?”

  • Thank you for this well articulated response.

    I have to say that from personal experience, I know the kind of games that occur with the media (marketing) and who gets to have “attention.” It’s awfully nice of you not to mention what might happen to Mr. Fry’s show, or what might even happen to his career would he give explicit notice about what you’ve articulated.

    It’s a big issue (“mental illness”), gets all sorts of media attention, and I have to say that in my little life I’ve been hit on by actors that not only have done roles of “schizophrenics” or other “mentally ill” characters, but also homosexual roles, roles that a “schizophrenic” actor or a homosexual actor couldn’t do given the media attention that these group of actors interested in “nijinsky” are active in. A gay or a “mentally ill” actor wouldn’t work for the marketing agencies that represent these actors I’m loath to mention by name right now. Yes they all have done at least one of such roles, and so and so announces he wants to do a gay role (while ‘happily” married for the second time, the world having heard nothing of his real gay desires and or experiences).

    This kind of environment already being quite unhealthy for someone needing the freedom of expression that an emotional challenge elicits. And a “schizophrenic” who has recovered because he actually did follow the protocol that truly works, and this involves not being medicated, that certainly wouldn’t be something the marketing agencies seem to encourage right now!

    In striving to be someone on screen, they seem to miss that it’s about actual people, and not just the issues that come up creating media attention! And when it’s exciting because of the controversy, to what extent is exploiting the pull of the vacuum in collusion with keeping the vacuum going rather than seeing something is missing?

  • I’m going to say something truly radical.

    I really think that the one element of psychiatry that makes any sense is the idea that people are not in their right mind when they behave in a criminal fashion. In fact, it goes against the whole idea of happiness could it be that anyone who behaves in such a fashion is in their right mind: any one who is deemed to be a criminal. And so, I welcome all the statements you make painting the picture of a very broken soul, someone who has lost what it is to express his own humanity.

    I don’t believe there are chemical imbalances, except for what the “medications” cause or other forms of physical trauma. And I don’t believe that disabling a mind with psychiatric medications creates mental well being. I don’t believe there’s any such thing as an organic illness that causes psychiatric conditions the way it’s defined by psychiatry and I know their treatment, their medications cause organic illness rather than to treat it, and I think that if there is physical trauma causing symptoms of distress or confusion it’s most likely going to be overlooked by psychiatry and added to with their “medications.” However, although I don’t believe in chemical imbalance, or magic pills that make a person in themselves behave in a civil fashion, I do believe that a person who has suffered the kind of trauma you highlight in your article is the product of a broken society, a society that fails to see where it leaves people; and in that sense they truly don’t know what they’re doing, and have no ability to relate to the trauma creating the guilt and lack of self worth they are trying to escape from.
    When you look at what Jesus taught about forgiveness or what Buddha taught about compassion, this to me goes long with the idea that those people don’t know what they are doing. Because you don’t solve the problem by adding to what caused it. It’s easy to judge someone when you haven’t been in their shoes, and that you judge them really only means that were you in their shoes not only would you not know how to deal with the situation, but you deny what it leads to. Compassion and forgiveness are something different, it allows you to give them the space to find the humanity they lost, what you would also lose would you judge them. And it actually works, it creates a different society, despite all the fears that everything will fall apart would you stop punishing people as if traumatizing them creates obedience. What it creates is an extremely dark pocket in society with people given such privilege to traumatize others that what people do who are called criminals pales in comparison, and yet that’s what it creates when people with their “saintly” virtues believe in using trauma as a means of mind control.

  • Unfortunately, you can’t really measure the economic toll.

    A society that’s consumer based, thrives on keeping people addicted to buffer their emotional wounds rather than find self worth; the economic toll clearly goes farther than 39 billion. I wouldn’t put trillions as being past the mark.

    Many people who keep the whole system running are on psychiatric drugs, and the money that goes into the drug company profits is perhaps only a fraction of the toll: Wallstreet bankers have “designer” psychiatrists (along with cocaine habits and high class hookers) while running the system corrupt and ragged lest their unconscious mind dissent from such dehumanizing activities; many people doing all of the busy work keeping track of everything get ADHD medications by going to a psychiatrist and listing the symptoms they’re supposed to have whether they have them or not, which wouldn’t solve it anyhow but it gets them to do robotic meaningless tasks; people in a dead end job, dead end family, institutional or social situation go on antidepressants to disable their mind from challenging the situation; people all over the place (one in five in the US) are on psychiatric medications to keep their mind disabled from seeing what they’re doing or getting into.

    And people think such sterility, such inability to think, such lack of creativity is functional…..

    But you see, all those people have emotional wounds also. Somewhere they lost their own self worth, and can’t deal with true emotions anymore. Filling the world with more guilt that’s bankrupting everyone from seeing what they could give to life isn’t going to solve the situation. When you look at what does solve it, the kind of empathy that occurs in Healing Homes of Finland, Open Dialogue, Soteria House or what used to occur in the Quaker asylums where people were given a place to be with nature and rest, this leads back to the human condition for everyone, not a population of ghosts trying to hold onto material possessions that had no spiritual value to begin with.

  • Sorry, but I still want to mention that Lieberman’s whole language points out that the proof isn’t there.

    “If you do a controlled study”
    “the outcomes will be”

    That’s not scientific, scientific would be we have done controlled studies and the outcome was…. You can’t use predetermined bias or ideology to prove a point.

    And this is all in the same line as things like: “Look at their behavior, their has to be something wrong with their brain.”

    Beyond that, proof of a chemical imbalance still wouldn’t mean that cure isn’t more effective when the body is encouraged to re-balance its own chemistry rather than to become new territory for the drug companies to take over a chemical process the body could do itself when looked at holistically, emotionally or spiritually. There’s so much hype for this proof, if there was proof there was a chemical imbalance and drugs helped, that would knock out the clinical trials or simple knowledge that where the body was helped to re-balance itself.

    In ways, when you don’t even point out that Liebermann isn’t addressing the issue in a scientific way but listing presumed outcomes, you’re playing into his game. He’ll come up with more convoluted stuff and many people out of desperation will believe that, because mainstream is supposed to be what works.

    Perhaps you need to go completely out of the box.
    And there are more and more people needing help, rather than to be used as numbers.

    And sorry I find this thread full of other remarks that are like a free gift for Lieberman and followers to start using to disqualify anything Whitaker has said. I did an experiment recently with such responses, although not from this post, and you can take such comments, easily copy them, and then replace the proponents on one side with the names of those on the other, change a few other references and you have a pre-fabricated post from the other side. I did a find search for the word menace (which since has increased), and it turns up 26 times in the post listing. Is it really necessary to go on about this one remark that perhaps didn’t deserve a response to begin with, and act like this is creating the counterpoint needed?

    There’s of course a point there:
    “menace to society”
    “schizophrenic, has a chemical imbalance, could become violent.”

    Beyond that, this whole fuss about chemical imbalances or proof of medications being effective has really nothing to do with what’s going on. There is no proof its biological, and the healing that happens happens because of something else. There is of course proof that the treatment of the alleged biological disease makes things worse, but this still isn’t manifesting the kind of emotional help, when needed, that can bring someone out of a first term psychosis. And where someone heals from an emotional wound is not happening or greatly facilitated where you join sides and dwell on the word “menace” in regards what really has nothing to do with it, to begin with. I thought that’s what the programs that actually show what has efficacy in healing schizophrenia, for example, do. They simply tend to the person, not the gang, or whichever side…

    If the emphasis would be simply on what helps – on what cures – society would be different and then perhaps even Liebermann’s emotional wounds and his grievous cognitive errors might have been tended to leaving him out as an object for scorn here, because he wouldn’t be dwelling on chemical imbalance to thwart some idea of guilt he needs to project on others to escape from, because society seems to be based on bankrupting everyone with it, guilt that is.

  • There’s more description of this here:

    (I’m not promoting this book which in it’s description purports to report the genetic components in the method of action of lithium and other such presumptions, but it does have a description of the experiments, and when non volunteers were used it simply says that inpatients were utilized and leaves it at that. No statement is made that any kind of consent was given informed or otherwise, and it doesn’t say whether they had been involuntarily committed and then given agents which were known to make their symptoms worse)

    https://books.google.com/books?id=-NXWAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA490&lpg=PA490&dq=methylphenidate+used+in+experiments+to+increase+psychosis&source=bl&ots=77NzCRWkC9&sig=FTnCElCrBh5IoV7p0p_9VLCpOYU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oT4_VcD9A-2HsQTW-YDgBg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=methylphenidate%20used%20in%20experiments%20to%20increase%20psychosis&f=false

  • It’s interesting that he says the other group would get some sort of innocuous non medical “whatever” therapy, when in reality, many of those people might actually need medical help to get off of the “medications” they were on, were they not getting any medications and were supposed to go off cold turkey when they’d already been made addicted and acquired a chemical imbalance from the medications NOT the “disease.”

    I mean, along with already distorting the meaning of the word medical,

    And this concerns me when you push the issue of needing proof, you end up with highly contorted misleading deceptive stuff. And there’s no need to ask for proof, when someone already predicts an outcome beforehand, that points out the lack of proof. Otherwise he’d actually have it to offer.

    I’ve seen this kind of scary stuff, where they have images of a “schizophrenic” brain stating that these were taken from people who were on and who weren’t on medications. Meaning that there’s some marginal correspondence as there always can be with someone not on “medications”, but with the “medications” there’s all sorts of drastic changes that show up as abnormalities, and that’s what they have pictures of as if it’s a verifiable disease, exactly what the drugs have been shown to create. And the whole fear tactic only points out the supposed occurrence of abnormalities from an alleged disease (which actually come from the treatment that would be administered for abnormalities that clearly come from the treatment) that saying nothing about whether the treatment that’s said to be needed actually works or treats any chemical imbalance. And the finagling with data continues from there. I’m sure that the people they use in trials aren’t given the kind of support that actually correlates with recovery. I would doubt highly that people that have helped numerous people come out of first term psychosis are consulted as to how to help…. Still then there are clinical trials where people are simply left alone, and get better after so many years, but these aren’t the trials you would hear about. It would be people that are vulnerable enough to get thrown into mainstream treatment and get no understanding, and those put on medications and allowed to just go off of them unsupervised without any medical (and here’s an appropriate use of that word) help.

    I really wonder when all of this is going to stop, while we’re dealing with people that just need to be heard rather than to be numbers in whatever someone else needs to prove.

  • Sadly, it’s not surprising that when you try to help the asylum, a place where people are put because they are just to “unusual” too be understood, you’re told you’re too unusual to help. But it doesn’t matter. It’s about thought, and thought is spiritual, it remains that way. You can still help those people by simply acknowledging there’s a different way. They’ll still somehow feel that, even though that would seem “too unusual” and for you to actually help there would have to be some “tangible” contact, according to the norm.

    My music is here, by the way http://www.youtube.com/oelte

    I’ve of course also been through a whole “spiritual awakening” or enlightenment. Considered to unusual or crazy.

    A Course in Miracles and various spiritual healers have helped me a lot. Gene Egidio and some filipino healers. That’s where I turned after my adventure with “spiritualism.”

  • Since you mentioned Tchaikovsky in your post.

    I actually talked with Tchaikovsky through a medium, and that a couple of times.
    Actually played a bit of his first piano concerto with him there.
    But I had had contact with him years before this, in a way.
    I was listening to vinyl discs from the library of his Ballet Sleeping Beauty.
    I actually at that time was smoking (haven’t for years anymore) and had counted how many cigarettes there were per record side. When it came out how it should have, there were two extra cigarettes. I knew instinctively that this was to show me that the music was stronger than the surgeon general’s warning, that there’s something that goes on that transcends physical laws. You can look at many things by now that point this out (phonons are a form of quantum entanglement with sound that goes beyond time, and the accumulation of harmonics also does this, and I think is used on fiber-optic cables). Music basically prism emotions and is actually more objective than physical reality, because it goes directly to how you manifest things in you own life, depending on your emotions. Music lets you know it’s OK.

    Tchaikovsky actually told me about his suicide, how he had been discovered as a homosexual, and in that time it was against the law. The person who discovered him made a sarcastic remark that he should kill himself. Peter told me that this was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and that the last two years of his life were very difficult. But he was very good about this, rather than indulging in the melodramatics, he went to pointing something out in my life. He asked me whether the medium wasn’t like everyone else, and I had to reply that this was and wasn’t the case. He told me that I’d make it, and then the medium woke up wondering why he had tears all over his face. But later I realized that everyone is a medium. And to tell you the truth, spiritualism isn’t necessarily some wonderful thing to get into, because the medium’s can truly be trying to exploit the spiritual energies. And this can cause extreme confusion and can be quite abusive to someone who is creative rather than exploitive. I have never in my life heard so much negative gossip and phobias as I have around the few spiritualist churches in this area, gossip about this or that person and their supposedly negative energies, or negative entities around them. The first spirit that came through the medium Tchaikovsky asked me about was Mozart’s mother. He had been going to a spiritualist church for years, hadn’t gone into a trance till he was around me. She put him in a trance because she said he was doubting the information he had been relaying before that. So there was an opening for a year. But already in the beginning the medium had said and I was told that he was blown away by the love between Mozart’s mother and me. And I have to say in the end he started acting a bit like Lord Voldemoort, as if there was something stronger than love. He had to chose himself whether he accepted something he couldn’t control, something that didn’t need an opposite, needed no struggle to validate it, that simply was, that was love. And he didn’t. At least not consciously.

    Tchaikovsky was amazing though, as were many other of the spirits that are still around me. With this particular medium, it came to an end after about a year.

    You have to understand that music is an innate part of the human condition, and it goes way beyond the physical. It’s part of the arts giving a home to your emotions as they embrace creativity, and where you can let go of the ego. Music has done more than anyone will know, because it needs no validation. You’ll never know what imperceptible change has taken place in anyone’s life after listening to music, how it took an emotion and gave it direction from the respite it gives. That goes even beyond a whole list of tangible miracles someone has performed whose actions are known. Music in “primitive” cultures was part of healing and the matrix that their mythology, their stories were woven into.

    Tchaikovsky also simply said that God loved me…..

  • If you read carefully (I’m assuming that’s a direct quote from the book), it’s only stated that someone heard from other people, who said they knew another. And what kind of people are this, being friends of Torrey who wanted to deliver the goods about Laing to him?

    And you can imagine what making it “pretty clear” means.

    Again, they simply make it clear how they make assumptions, what their sources are, and it’s about what they or others think about another, not about finding out what’s going on, or even respecting truth and how you find out what is the truth.

    So and so said that so and so said to me..

    Or

    To say someone “made it pretty clear” is a statement about what another thought was being said, it says nothing other than that.

    And beyond that, where’s the evidence, for those statements or that it’s a brain disease?