Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Comments by Nijinsky

Showing 100 of 323 comments. Show all.

  • 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?

  • The whole part of the article called Structural Brain Findings in Schizophrenia contradicts itself. And the language is truly misleading, and tries to lead people into making conclusions that aren’t there.
    ” Increases in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) volumes, together with deficits in both gray matter and white matter volumes, have been reported in patients with chronic schizophrenia and are present to a lesser degree in individuals studied at the time of their first episode of psychosis”

    and

    “The increases observed in the magnitude of structural brain findings over the course of schizophrenia may be better explained by medication effects, together with differences in exposure to alcohol, drugs of abuse, smoking and levels of activity”

    One can only wonder what “lesser” means, this could also mean there’s no real correlation unless they tweet the findings. “Lesser” says nothing. And then, when there’s clear evidence completely what neuroleptics do to the brain, they use the words “may be” because this would otherwise over ride their ideology. When they thought that too much grey matter had something to do with ADHD, and upon giving children with what they thought was too much grey matter ADHD medications and this didn’t increase growth of white cells, it was widely reported (and evidently believed) that giving them ADHD medications at an earlier stage would help white cells grow. And this is the industry talking about cognitive problems.

    One can only wonder how many people that truly have recovered they don’t care to find out about. And why they have the bleak results they report, with those who try to get off of the medications (clearly with NO help, no informed consent, coercion to take the medications, intimidation that they need them, all extremely frustrating for someone who can feel how the medications dull their emotions and responses) and thus the results. I’m sure they didn’t give the people who were trying to get off of the medications the choice to go to places where there was understanding of how to get off of the medications (which trying to get off of in themselves can cause psychosis) or the choice to go to those who can work with first time psychosis and achieve the results that Open Dialogue, Healing Homes of Finland and Soteria Project does, without coercion to take medications.

    I have to add that being around this kind of environment (and “community”) clearly doesn’t promote recovery, they list their own bleak results. Other methods do have recovery.

  • In many ways this is quite helpful, pointing out how drugs correlate with an increase in mental illness. And how this correlates with what’s called disability. In ways quite valid points. Ground breaking, even.

    But let’s take a different viewpoint. It also points out that when a person is on disability they are considered a non-working entity, regardless of their contribution. They’re considered unhealed. Women ALSO used to not be allowed to work for a living, did this make them all permanently disabled or was there some kind of general stereotyping involved discriminating against part of the human condition?

    I mean, I understand what’s being pointed out, and how drugs are involved, but what about the “few” people who “continue” to be schizophrenic because they are on disability, even though they aren’t or have never been on medications, are these then the ones severe enough to try the “medications” on, because we still have to keep them in reserve?

    I mean to judge whether someone is in the workforce as denoting whether they are healed or not, this is another “diagnosis,” fit for the DSM, in many ways, and goes with it’s politicized agenda, which really doesn’t address what’s actually going on with the humans they are judging. If you’re not adding to a capitalistic society, which keeps the drug companies running as well, then you’re disabled is the criterion used here to point out what’s wrong with the drug companies.

    It’s even quite debatable, given what’s being done to the planet by people all earning a living doing it which side of the “crazy,” “not crazy” spectrum might be considered crazy or disabled. And I’m not saying this to call “those” people crazy either, it just points out the lack of attention to emotional problems, that perhaps the severest ones end up being given the money to run things lest the dysfunction of the whole system come to light.

  • That’s alright Corrine, it’s just that some people have such a bend, and are radical, and then the one’s on the other side try to go along with such maneuvers, trying to be making outreach or connection for warmth, because of how they are (who knows what they are on)….

    But it’s jumping from sides against each other that makes for bad poetry, perhaps.

  • I noticed you responded to my post, however, I’ve not read it, am not going to, as I said I wouldn’t; and I don’t feel people should have to respond to someone who has had others force medicated. You make it clear that, although there are several people on this site who can, who I’m not going to name, you do NOT have the ability to relate to a person in psychosis, and relate to the necessary symbolism, the world more true than objective reality, because it involves how we create our own life beyond anything “objective” and thus we can become compassionate and understanding of what it is to be human, an innate condition that is in in everyone. And yet you have the privilege to force them onto treatment, without the ability to relate to them. This is what I see. I think you need to learn how to relate to a person in psychosis, because it ends up that most people in psychosis have to deal with those who do NOT understand, can confuse them even further or even worse can even force them to incur brain damage thanks to “treatment”. All this while there are a whole group of people who DO have the ability to relate, which statistics and clinical trials demonstrate.

    Fine, there are people who are happy with “medications” and as judged by society whether they are productive or happy are seen to do fine with them. There also are people who are happy being superficial, and who do not want to take the trouble to deal with their own trauma or inner mind and its to them uncomfortable reaction to the challenge of taking a look at life beyond “consensual reality”. Statistics show that those people are in the minority of those on psychiatric medications. That, those people seem to do well on psychiatric medications does not give anyone (or you) the right to force such medications on people. Neither does it make those substances medications. If you are so interested in promoting these “medications,” for people who say they need them, you would do better to become part of political activism which wants to make marijuana legal (which actually DOES have medicinal qualities that aren’t acknowledged although it is seen as a controlled substance) or Cocaine and other street drugs, the hallucinogenics (which certain people ALSO say they need in their life) – this has shown to create a safer society, actually cut down on drug use, and stop a lot of violence ( as is seen in Portugal). But to continue to erroneously list such controlled substances (psychiatric drugs) as medications (when marijuana which is listed as a controlled substance DOES have medicinal qualities) this is convoluted, indoctrinated and one can add that these “medications” are represented by drug companies that behave like syndicated crime cartels the way the drugs have been promoted (or forced on people) in criminal ways which involves billions of dollars of fines, which is just a small fraction of the illegal activity involving psychiatric medications or other medications sold by these companies.

  • edited from earlier post (same post edited):

    To begin with, reality isn’t “consensual” illusions are. Such as the illusion that these “drugs” are at all treating a chemical imbalance that’s been proven to exist. In fact it’s ONLY illusions that need “consensus” in order to be believed, reality simply exists for what it is needing no consensus. That’s EXACTLY how people with a “mental illness” who are minorities, who suffer poverty, who suffer wars, how they are dismissed. And what a person expresses comes from who they are as a human beings not a “consensual” idea of how they should be according to set fashions and discrimination they might have to deal with would they not conform. If this weren’t the case then virgin sacrifices would actually be a means to appease the God’s and/or create bonding with an idea that some great act of commitment had been expressed. By some miracle that has ceased to be the fashion, although people still are expected to “sacrifice” their humanity to a whole list of things that can only be deemed “consensual reality.”

    Beyond that, you continue this idea that there is a need to see that the drugs might help someone, as if there isn’t still in the majority and everywhere a person is likely to turn, this drone, and those overtures that they need the drugs, and anyone wanting such “medications” can get them umpteen times easier than to find what would help them with a mind that’s NOT disabled by a chemical imbalance said to treat one, and which didn’t exist before “treatment,” all to “confirm” this “consensual reality” that there must be something wrong with someone’s mind and that is the cause, although science proves that damage is being inflected on the mind rather than it’s healed and there are MORE occurrences of this “consensual reality” idea of mental illness when implemented.

    Being that you’re trying to promote the idea that all methods should be accepted, I think you need to look at which methods (having the highest rate of recovery) are highly suppressed, methods a person isn’t even likely to hear exist, while being inundated with “consensual reality” statements that are associated with causing an epidemic rather than recovery. The difference also being, the methods that DO correlate with recovery allow for such open dialogue and simply state scientific facts so a person can make an educated choice, along with being able to relate to themselves and gain understanding of their emotional responses and what their brain in a healthy state (rather than a disabled state) is allowed to express, giving them the resources to relate to themselves (in reality without needing “consensus”) rather than how they are supposed to adhere – whether it’s their fears or society’s – to “consensual reality” in order to feel they are OK.

    It’s only logical that maintaining such fears of who a person really is, beyond how they might be coerced into behaving to fit into current fashions, this is facilitated with mind numbing, disabling controlled substances called “medications.”

    And again, informed choice needs to be there. This ISN’T going on when conversation involves an addicted retour to the same old “consensual reality” idea about “medications,” when the amazing results of the alternative methods aren’t at all known enough to be apparent to anyone who follows your idea of “consensual reality.” The results aren’t known, aren’t shared, aren’t acknowledged and are supported of methods that DO NOT involve giving a person a chemical imbalance while telling them it’s being treated, and pointing to the scary epidemic that’s going on as proof there needs to be more “treatment.” And thus saying you are supporting a variety of methods you suppress variety instead.

    Because this works some of the time (and corporate media makes it out to work all of the time, while it’s causing an epidemic, which is a drive for more of what works “some” of the time but in the majority makes thing worse) you can’t actually be articulate about what DOES work because it contradicts this “method” that’s already widely available, and might help a few people, although it’s already shown to make things worse for most of them. The result is that the variety of methods that do correlate with recovery are suppressed. If they were offered, not only in general, but YOUR results would be different, according to logic, rather than “consensual reality.”

    WHY you go on and and on about what’s already highly available and forced on people (which you yourself have admitted you HAVE forced on others, taking away their free choice to have a chemical imbalance or not, while what truly has shown to correlate with recovery is only known to those who have for some reason become accustomed to look for alternative healing methods!?

    Other people who post on this site offer true incisive information about methods that work, that help others (that don’t prescribe highly addictive medications and circular logic), that are true to what a human being is without needing their mind disabled for fear of what they might see or experience beyond “consensual reality.”. I’ll no longer be reading your posts here or looking to see whether you respond. It’s too time CONSUMING to go round in circles.

    It’s also quite easy to be as contradictory as you are, infuriate people, as it would anyone who knows beyond such “consensual reality” or fears, and then decide “those people aren’t looking at the whole picture, they are angry, they are shutting down conversation.”

    As I have already stated Sandra, YOU have forced people on medications, and THAT is where conversation is shut down. That you can’t relate to them in a way that they can relate to their own thoughts without their brain being disabled because otherwise YOU have to deal with things YOU don’t know how to deal with is worse than shutting down conversation; that’s preventing that it ever was allowed to begin.

  • edited:
    The other term/phrase, MO of diagnosis I’ve come across akin to “consensual reality deportment” is “adherence to statistical based norms.”
    Both are sociological terms, having no forbearance on an illness. They would refer to conditions such as poverty, war status, minority status and discrimination; not to symptoms of an illness.
    Other terms that might be used as a means to diagnose in other institutional setting are: adherence to a holy lifestyle, social skills, attractiveness and work ethic, but these terms apply as little to symptoms of a disease as “consensual reality deportment.”

    It points out to discrimination based on bias.

  • The other term/phrase, MO of diagnosis I’ve come across akin to “consensual reality deportment” is “adherence to statistical based norms.”

    Bother are of course sociological terms, having no bearance on an illness. They would refer to things like as poverty, war status, minority status and discrimination; not to symptoms of an illness.

    Other terms that might be used in other institutional setting are: adherence to a holy lifestyle, social skills, attractiveness and work ethic, but none of these terms apply as little to symptoms of a disease as “consensual reality deportment.”

  • This is in reply to Fiachra,
    HEH! Don’t feel you need to apologize for stating what the drugs did to you, and what they did to you, and that you’re recovered without them. Say that as much as you want to. Don’t feel you have to hold back telling about it when you hear the mythology/theology/ marketing scheme about the evil chemical imbalance they are said to fight (while causing chemical imbalance).
    Not that you have to always tell your story, but don’t feel you’re boring anyone. It’s ridiculous how many times you have to set straight what we’re told to believe, that may seem boring (and redundant and stupid) but that’s because it’s so hard to believe one would have to repeat it so often to contradict obsessive compulsive repetitive presumptions, ideology and the wish for a magic pill.

  • “When you are a doctor who believes that psychosis is the external manifestation of an altered brain state that best responds to a drug, you do everything you can to persuade a person who is psychotic to take the drug. ”

    That is indeed “consensual reality.”

    When you are a doctor who believes….

    SCIENCE on the other hand points out you are CAUSING a chemical imbalance (and brain damage), statistics point out there is more than compelling evidence you are CONTRIBUTING to a spike in mental illness, economics points out you are causing rising costs, which go to the profits of the drug companies that are promoting this “consensual reality,” which correlates with the increase in what those who are making profits say they are healing, and thus make more money when there’s more rather than less of it…

    THAT then is the “consensual reality” a person is supposed to be concerned about with the The Problems of Non-Consensual Reality.

    Perhaps “consensual reality” is a covert name for peer pressure!?

    Consensual reality also used to be that the world was flat.

    What pray tell, is it when you don’t find said movie star attractive, because you can actually see how artificial their lifestyle is but can’t quite put it into words yet??

    What is it when you do think they are attractive, but you think you aren’t?? Are there really scientifical sounding names for these things too?

    “Consensual reality deportment”

    “Non consensual reality perceptions”

    “Inability to emulate consensual reality desires”

    Of course we’ve moved into plastic surgery, here, and other such social games.

    “Zyprexa, a nose job, and rose colored contact lenses saved my life!”

    What “mental illness” has come to when a grown person can get a degree and go on about clouded terms for peer pressure!? And advertise as some kind of cruelty not to help people maintain such fears!

  • One only has to get out a (any) history book to see the plethora of “consensual reality” beliefs that have existed. Whether it’s about what a woman, a child, diet, medical practice or what have you, you can easily see how contaminated with beliefs history has been that have nothing to do with reality except that they are “consensual,” and anyone going against them is punished, rather than the beliefs themselves can be supported with logic. That, in this day, such “beliefs” are “supported” with “medications” that say they treat a chemical imbalance, while scientifically causing one, and are associated with a spike in “mental illness” rather than a decline (but supporting the fact that anyone having dissident thoughts that cause difficulty with “consensual reality” has a “mental illness” and disabling their mind from thinking which involves unconscious questioning as uncomfortable as that is to consensual reality), is only a new fashion or method of trying to maintain “consensual reality.”

    This all is supposed to be excused because of well meaning intentions, ideology, etc… as if this excuses results.

    One might actually ask people to vote to determine how they would want a chemical reaction to turn out, but the results would probably be as disparate as the “consensus” psychiatrists have when diagnosing the same patient, who is supposed to have an identifiable illness, but they all come up with different diagnosis.

  • To begin with, reality isn’t “consensual” illusions are. Such as the illusion that these “drugs” are at all treating a chemical imbalance that’s been proven to exist. In fact it’s ONLY illusions that need “consensus” in order to be believed, reality simply exists for what it is needing no consensus. That’s EXACTLY how people with a “mental illness” who are minorities, who suffer poverty, who suffer wars, how they are dismissed. And what a person expresses comes from who they are as a human beings not a “consensual” idea of how they should be according to set fashions and discrimination they might have to deal with would they not conform. If this weren’t the case then virgin sacrifices would actually be a means to appease the God’s and/or create bonding with an idea that some great act of commitment had been expressed. By some miracle that has ceased to be the fashion, although people still are expected to “sacrifice” their humanity to a whole list of things that can only be deemed “consensual reality.”

    Beyond that, you continue this idea that there is a need to see that the drugs might help someone, as if there isn’t still in the majority and everywhere a person is likely to turn, this drone, and those overtures that they need the drugs, and anyone wanting such “medications” can get them umpteen times easier than to find what would help them with a mind that’s NOT disabled by a chemical imbalance said to treat one, and which didn’t exist before “treatment,” all to “confirm” this “consensual reality” that there must be something wrong with someone’s mind and that is the cause, although science proves that damage is being inflected on the mind rather than it’s healed and there are MORE occurrences of this “consensual reality” idea of mental illness when implimented.

    Being that you’re trying to promote the idea that all methods should be accepted, I think you need to look at which methods (having the highest rate of recovery) are highly suppressed, methods a person isn’t even likely to hear exist, while being inundated with “consensual reality” statements that are associated with causing an epidemic rather than recovery. The difference also being, the methods that DO correlate with recovery allow for such open dialogue and simply state scientific facts so a person can make an educated choice, along with being able to relate to themselves and gain understanding of their emotional responses and what their brain in a healthy state (rather than a disabled state) is allowed to express, giving them the resources to relate to themselves (in reality without needing “consensus”) rather than how they are supposed to adhere – whether it’s their fears or society’s – to “consensual reality” in order to feel they are OK.

    It’s only logical that maintaining such fears of who a person really is, beyond how they might be coerced into behaving to fit into current fashions, this is facilitated with mind numbing, disabling controlled substances called “medications.”

    And again, informed choice needs to be there. This ISN’T going on when conversation involves an addicted retour to the same old “consensual reality” idea about “medications,” when the amazing results aren’t at all known enough to be apparent to anyone who follows your idea of “consensual reality.” The results aren’t known, are shared, aren’t acknowledged and are supported of methods that DO NOT involve giving a person a chemical imbalance while telling them it’s being treated, and pointing to the scary epidemic that’s going on as proof there needs to be more “treatment.” And thus saying you are supporting a variety of methods you suppress variety instead.

    Because this works some of the time (and corporate media makes it out to work all of the time, while it’s causing an epidemic, which is a drive for more of what works “some” of the time but in the majority makes thing worse) you can’t actually be articulate about what DOES work because it contradicts this “method” that’s already widely available, and might help a few people, although it’s already shown to make things worse for most of them. The result is that the variety of methods that do correlate with recovery are suppressed. If they were offered, not only in general, but YOUR results would be different, according to logic, rather than “consensual reality.”

    WHY you go on and and on about what’s already highly available and forced on people (which you yourself have admitted you HAVE forced on others, taking away their free choice to have a chemical imbalance or not, while what truly has shown to correlate with recovery is only known to those who have for some reason become accustomed to look for alternative healing methods!?

    Other people who post on this site offer true incisive information about methods that work, that help others (that don’t prescribe highly addictive medications and circular logic), that are true to what a human being is without needing their mind disabled for fear of what they might see or experience beyond “consensual reality.”. I’ll no longer be reading your posts here or looking to see whether you respond. It’s too time CONSUMING to go round in circles.

    It’s also quite easy to be as contradictory as you are, infuriate people, as it would anyone who knows beyond such “consensual reality” or fears, and then decide “those people aren’t looking at the whole picture, they are angry, they are shutting down conversation.”

    As I have already stated Sandra, YOU have forced people on medications, and THAT is where conversation is shut down. That you can’t relate to them in a way that they can relate to their own thoughts without their brain being disabled because otherwise YOU have to deal with things YOU don’t know how to deal with is worse than shutting down conversation; that’s preventing that it ever was allowed to begin.

  • That such a “question” even has to be asked.
    What does that in itself already say.
    Primates have been shown to have as much an experience, and memory, of life as we do. They can be taught sign language and communicate much as we do, same memory, same emotions. Whales and dolphins also have shown the same abilities, and have been deemed non human persons by India.

    What’s also apparent is that I can’t write what I just did without being considered “crazy” by many people.

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/09/17/india-declares-dolphins-whales-as-non-human-persons/

  • Sorry, I mistyped: “The article also is about bi-polar, which isn’t usually “treated” with anti-depressants, but with second wave narcoleptics. ” I meant to write: The article also is about bi-polar, which isn’t usually “treated” with anti-depressants, but with second generation neuroleptics.

    In fact second generation neuroleptics were aggresively marketed for “bi-polar” and the drug companies have had to pay billions of dollars in fines for criminal behavior regarding this.

    Narcolepsy is something else

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcolepsy

  • The article very clearly states that there were seven people that weren’t taking any medications [at follow up], but there was no data on them: “Seven people at follow-up were not taking any psychiatric medications of any kind, but the researchers did not provide any distinct analysis on how those people had fared. “

    Although it’s convenient, to tag on the idea that anyone still having emotional problems isn’t taking their medications, there is no real correlation here, in the study. In fact, what correlates is that people who never were on medications, or that weened off of them recover at far higher levels. In other words if you believe people need to take medications for emotional problems, this causes more emotional problems and thus more need for the “medications” and thus an epidemic. That correlates with addiction, a fear of normal emotional responses given the environment, which then is excused and not dealt with when it causes depression, and with more profit and control for the drug companies.

    People on anti-depressants also have more relapses; the “medications” called anti-depressants were marketed under highly questionable trials, In order to believe they actually correlate with helping depression you have to believe that it’s kosher to dismiss everyone who gets sick from the anti-depressants and has to leave the clinical trials as not being part of it, not counted, and then taking anyone who gets better in the placebo group the first couple of weeks out, again rigging the odds; and then still not having the “results” needed taking people who are already on a psychiatric drug (and used to it) in the trial (sort of like offering addicts a new street drug, or jet setters a new restaurant and/or resort to prove its wonders); and at first not reporting the last 7 weeks of the trial because so many people had serious withdrawal symptoms; and then not telling anyone about all the violence the drug creates once it’s approved, although this is known, as well as that people committed suicide in the trials because of the effects of the anti-depressants. And with EVERYTHING they did to get good results (which isn’t truly scientific, if you truly look at how the results were obtained), the “anti-depressants” only have a marginal or no correlation with alleviating depression.

    The article also is about bi-polar, which isn’t usually “treated” with anti-depressants, but with second wave narcoleptics.

    If a person is forced on a medication which they have no choice to take, and they have to say that they are getting better or be forced on more treatment, it is not unlikely that they will say the medications are helping (saved their life even) just to avoid more of the same. There is no real definitive correlation with anti-depressants preventing suicides, in fact they have black box warnings which say that they can cause suicide, and homocidal thoughts.

    See: www,ssristories.com

  • What I see in society, is that when a person forgives, I mean really forgives, that that is seen as crazy. In fact, it’s those people who are singled out as not being worthy of being part of society would they not take part in a consensus that the kind of violent forced is necessary, which they don’t believe in, although they are hurting no one.

  • *tisk* *tisk*

    If Jesus was making alliances with such politically correct ruses, he would have gotten along fine with the Pharisees and the Money Changers, But the thing is, you see, he didn’t.

    And it doesn’t even make any sense, because psychiatric drugs aren’t medications, they are controlled substances that disable natural brain functions, that doesn’t really qualify as a medication. And further more, Jesus healed a whole different way than to make someone dependent on the drug companies and their limitations, even were they true medications, I think, IMHO.

    There are quite a few war mongers, homophobes, misogynists and others who don’t stop to list Jesus as a source for the insecurities they express as bigotry, as well.

  • Thanks for sharing that ssenerch. If other’s haven’t clicked on the link, it’s part of a petition to protest the abuse of baby monkeys and their mother’s in unthinkable experiments, where the baby’s are taken away from their mothers, and then maliciously tortured to see how they will act. Experiments that even the experimenters themselves say do no good in an understanding of humans. EVERY ONE SIGN IT!

    “Suomi has long acknowledged the irrelevance of his torturous experiments. In 1977, he wrote the following:

    [W]hether actual data obtained from nonhuman primates have added measurably to our understanding of human development is another matter. … [S]uch cases are relatively rare. Most monkey data that readily generalize to humans have not uncovered new facts about human behavior; rather, they have only verified principles that have already been formulated from previous human data.

    After four more decades of these experiments, nothing has changed. In a recent paper, Suomi and his colleagues drew this conclusion:

    [M]any findings from behavioral and biochemical studies in monkeys and other animals are not replicated in humans. Accordingly, this study cannot directly address the safety and efficacy of [anti-depressant drugs] in children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders. … [T]his animal model of maternal separation has never been validated as a measure of drug efficacy in humans. … The only way to know definitively whether [anti-depressant drugs work] in humans would be to study our species.”

    “Extensive experiments proving the damaging effects of maternal deprivation and isolation were carried out on rhesus monkeys by Harry Harlow and his students in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. And even after proof had been obtained, Harlow continued to devise ever more stressful situations… These experiments, getting more and more extreme, were unbelievably cruel. Nevertheless researchers continued working in this field after Harlow’s death, and continue to do so today. ….It is my understanding that monkeys are being subjected to what I consider inhumane experiments at a laboratory in Maryland that is, to some extent, funded by public money. I was shown a video in which infant monkeys were taking part in experiments which I considered extremely cruel and unacceptable…..I am shocked and saddened that this is so.”

    Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE
    Founder, The Jane Goodall Institute
    U.N. Messenger of Peace

    And I don’t understand this, and I can’t stop crying. To treat primates in such a manner, primates who have been proven to have the same experience of life as we do (see Koko the Gorilla).

  • For those actually trying to follow what this thread has become about:

    To begin with, the chemical imbalance theory of mental illness remains that, a theory. However, psychiatric drugs which are said to treat this alleged chemical imbalance all under scientific scrutiny are determined to cause chemical imbalance.

    And so you get something which I think is comparable to Hitler and his Reichstag incident, or what the Romans did to Christianity when they inserted the idea of original sin. You make people think they are under attack, and then you can get them to do what you say will prevent this. There remains to this day no conclusive proof that mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance. But when you “medicate” a person there is proof that they have a chemical imbalance from the medications, from the “treatment.” If they have emotional difficulties that weren’t attended to and suppressed by this chemical imbalance, by this turning off of natural brain functions, would a person try to get off of the medications and not have learned how to deal with the emotional difficulties that might emerge, the problem could be magnified. And a person that really had no emotional difficulties could STILL have difficulty trying to get off of the psychiatric medications. This problem doesn’t come from what was labeled as a disease, this comes from the treatment. This of course affords the drug companies the ability to start saying that the problems come from not taking your medications, rather than that there was a different way to help a person, in the beginning. These alternative methods (Soteria House, Healing Homes of Finland, Open Dialogue, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) all correlate with better outcomes. In fact, people that aren’t medicated at all have in general better outcomes, this occurs in various studies investigating the difference between schizophrenics which are medicated and those which aren’t or withdraw from their medications; and this also is shown in countries where psychiatric medications aren’t implemented. There is more recovery. That’s the plain and simple truth.

    No one is being un-supportive to tell another person the simple truth. That there is no proof that what they are going through is based on a chemical imbalance which psychiatric drugs treat. Certainly when the methods they share which aren’t based on the chemical imbalance theory have statistically better outcomes is this not un-supportive of the person looking for healing, but empowering. There’s also no proof that many things people resort to in search of respite from their thoughts treat a chemical imbalance, and this should remain their choice, but it needs to be given to them in accordance with the truth that’s known about those drugs or other substances.

    It isn’t true that a person who supports alternative methods such as Soteria House Healing Homes of Finland, Open Dialogue or other methods is endangering the person looking for healing, just because he shares a method which may be considered alternative rather than mainstream. In fact, there’s more proof that the chemical imbalance theory is endangering the person. Since the implementation of the chemical imbalance theory there is a spike in mental illness, and also in violence related to mental illness. This is only logical when the healing method causes what it says it is healing (a chemical imbalance). And it’s misrepresentation of what a chemical imbalance is to cause one when one is told that an alleged, yet to be proven chemical imbalance is being treated. It’s also a misrepresentation of such terms as brain disease or other clinical terms meant to represent a physical origin for the problem. It also isn’t true that anyone promoting an alternative method is paranoid against mainstream methods, or that they are conspiracy theories; and when they can back up their claims, this doesn’t mean that they are ranting. And when they share information that might make a person question the healing modality they are following to seek better outcomes, this doesn’t mean they are preventing peer support. Neither does it mean that there’s stigma created. There would have to be concrete proof that mental illness comes from a chemical imbalance in order for someone contradicting this to be promoting stigma. In fact, calling anyone promoting an alternative method paranoid, or full of conspiracy theories or ranting when they present concrete evidence and allow for free choice, THAT is creating stigma against anyone that thinks differently from the method that is being questioned. And people who promote alternative methods aren’t forcing people into asylums against their will and then forcing them to have to take treatment methods which statistically correlate with more of the disease they are said to cure, along with the actual phenomenon which is said to be cured (a chemical imbalance).

  • The spike in violence relating to people with a mental illness diagnosis DOES correspond with psychiatric drugs. That’s also why there is a black box warning label on anti-depressants. In many cases it’s known that these people were on anti-depressants or other psychiatric drugs, but quite often that information is withheld, which could point to the fact that they were, otherwise there’d be no reason to with hold that information. There’s also quite a bit of drug company pay-offs to withold that information.

    And this is quite a fabricated statement to make that most of the people claimed to be on psychiatric medications when they committed the violent act were not. Where’s your proof of this (or that psychiatric medications address a chemical imbalance)? Further more, it makes no difference how many people claim that they were on a psychiatric medications and then weren’t; there’s CLEARLY enough that the drug companies were FORCED against their will to put black warning labels on anti-depressants.

    And if it were the case that the black box warning labels are in place because of fraudulent claims where’s your proof of this? And why did this happen with the FDA, who you say adhere’s to evidence based proof when alternative medicine doesn’t?

    And further more Vegwellian, you’re not making any consistent sense with what you believe is a debate. You talk about brain diseases, and skip over where there’s actually concrete proof of a brain disease (psychiatric medications). People get what they believe is relief from all sorts of things (alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, sugar) that doesn’t mean that any of these things are treating a brain disease, and it’s dishonest to make such claims, no matter how much you’d like to believe it. And you try to belittle alternative medications as being completely not evidence based: “You are apparently into Alt Med, so you live in a world where nothing really ever has to be proven, and if it can’t be proven is someone else’s fault, and the damn FDA is just persecuting this saintly scam artist.” It’s not even worth it to respond to such a ridiculous statement. There are tons of scientific studies done that point out the efficacy of herbal substances to help disease (and other alternative methods) despite the lack of funding in comparison to drug company money, in fact Nestles wants to have a copyright on the fennel flower http://www.globalresearch.ca/nestle-is-trying-to-patent-the-fennel-flower/5332329 THAT’S how little alternative medications aren’t based on evidence based proof.

    And I have better things to do that play catch with your “brain disease/diseases,” theology/fixation and inability to think through things, and all the loose ends splayed out all over the place you find it convenient to ignore (only the FDA is evidence based, but not in regards black warning labels for anti-depressants, and it’s a brain disease we’re talking about, which is OK even if this can’t be proven, but to actually have evidence the “treatment” causes a verifiable brain disease can be skipped over: this is only some of the inconsistencies in your “logic”). Don’t expect me to show interest in reading any more of your remarks.

    And then: “This entire outlook you are propagating is built on the notion that brain disorders don’t exist, therefore, people who continue to have symptoms are choosing to do so.” No, I’ve never said brain disorders don’t exist, it’s been proven the “treatment” for those who have alleged brain disorders that HAVEN’T been proven to exist CAUSES brain disorders. That the “medications” DO correlate with causing brain disorders in SCIENTIFIC investigation. And nowhere have I or anyone else contradicting you stated that people who have symptoms (whether they are caused from personal trauma or psychiatric abuse) come from people choosing to do so, as if they the ability to just stop it . We ALL here advocate alternative methods that correlate with higher rates of recovery than psychiatric drugs (psychiatric drugs correlate with more disability, and less recovery than when not prescribed, see Anatomy of an Epidemic).

    If you want to take psychiatric drugs that’s your choice. This doesn’t give you the freedom to change facts and scientific evidence. In fact, the way you go on about things, and can’t hold an evidence based argument expecting all the untenable and contradictory points you make to be excused (which I’m sorry to say might be aided by disabling “medications), you make a great advertisement to NOT get involved with what you maintain is a cure. No need for me to make ANY statement about what you say, I truly speaks for itself. If you would gain perspective and think about getting off of your “medications” you do need to do this carefully, doctors supervision is suggested, and there is material from others who have accomplished this difficult task available.

    https://archive.org/details/TheRoleOfSsriAnti-depressantsInTheColumbineShooting

    http://www.ssristories.org/

    Or you can simply to a search for anti-depressants and violence (or school shootings, or suicides) or psychiatric drugs and violence etc…

  • And supporting a bill which forces more of the treatment which correlates with the spike in mental illness related violence won’t magically turn up evidence of a chemical imbalance which has yet to be proven to exist. Nor would it erase all the conclusive proof that the “medications,” correlates with the rise in violence and with a verifiable chemical imbalance, which DOES correlate with the symptoms of mental illness.

    Again, taking the “medications” to disable your mind won’t facilitate erasing such false logic either, you just won’t see it, and go on and on and on not seeing it.

  • AGAIN, to go on and on and on stating that people’s brains can get sick, and then skip over the fact that where there’s a PROVEN chemical imbalance is when it’s caused by psychiatric medications, and where there’s a spike in the occurrence of mental illness (and violence, and disability) this is where these “medications” are prescribed and/or forced on people (and more relapses, loss of life the whole works which has been repeated numerous times: severe disabling withdrawal symptoms).
    THAT’S the statistical and scientific evidence from the very people trying to find this “disease” this chemical imbalance they have yet to prove exists (although their treatments HAVE BEEN SHOWN to cause chemical imbalance). Skipping all of that and going on about disabling symptoms caused by brain diseases (but skip the science and the statistics pointing out its caused by medications where it’s been proven, go on about unproven diseases and ignore the speak in occurrence of the “disease” caused by the treatment) this isn’t going to magically make sense by taking the “medications” to disable your mind and that nasty restlessness which points out there might be something deeper to look into.

    And to go on and on about those who point out this discrepancy not using evidence based methods because they aren’t maintaining this facade, this illusion, this fraud; this isn’t magically science either, nor is it evidence based. Not even when you take your meds or use hallucinogenics (which work the same as psychiatry medications by messing around with neurotransmitters). It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about FDA approved chemical imbalance caused by medications said to be treating them (“chemical imbalance”) or any other disease suppression of free choice correlates with (and thus you can blame on the alternative methods and continue to try to suppress free choice).

    Neither is this creating stigma to GIVE people free choice. This also isn’t lack of peer support when people have their own community to support each other rather than some propped up get together promoted by the drug companies causing the chemical imbalance they say comes from a source yet to be proven or found, and support people to believe what can’t be proven and discount what has.

  • I don’t think you’re crazy for believing in the Holy Spirit and God. I certainly don’t believe you needed to be drugged for it. I don’t think such beliefs are a pseudo science, either. And I think this is a valid point that’s made in the study.

    The study certainly says nothing about forcing anything on anyone, and says: “The researchers suggested that teaching forgiveness may be a valuable mental health early intervention strategy. ”

    and

    “To the extent that forgiveness training can promote a more forgiving coping style, then these interventions may help reduce stress-related disease and improve human health. Such interventions may be particularly beneficial when delivered as a prevention strategy in early life, before individuals are exposed to major adulthood life stressors,” the researchers wrote.”

    Always using the word may.

    I can relate to my own life what the difference is when I’m “forgiving.”

    I do think there’s a correlation with miracles and forgiving. and I believe miracles exist, that they are natural, and they happen all the time. Even Quantum Physics has strongly determined that we effect what we observe, that we aren’t separate from what we observe, and the rules that would say miracles are impossible, that the laws of separation we’ve taken on between ourself, our thoughts, and the environment start to dissolve. It’s only completely logical that what quality thoughts you have relate to your environment. I think forgive is an ancient concept from the beginning of human language, and comes from two words: for and give. Quantum physics also says that the Universe comes from a singularity that expands into itself (not outside of itself). ONE singularity that created the whole Universe, and had that miraculous ability to give (and give without waging loss to give, without judging, without holding back without inhibiting love). I really don’t think our belief that we need to judge each other, and that we need to wager loss when we cease to hate another, as if that would control them; that this has the same power as for-give, which created the whole Universe. I also think each child born has that power in them, but it’s not recognized. I think people are actually scared of it, because it would replace all of their control tactics with something they can’t control or even teach. It’s just there, it expands into itself.

    Anyhow, no, I don’t think you’re crazy or practicing pseudo science when you say you believe in God and the Holy Spirit.

    .

  • When a whole “branch” of medicine calls something schizophrenia, says it comes from a chemical imbalance, proceeds to treat this chemical imbalance by causing a chemical imbalance that wasn’t there before; and then continues to say that they are treating a chemical imbalance without acknowledging that they are causing one, all the time having no real conclusive proof that there ever was any chemical imbalance to treat; then YES someone can say this disease, this alleged chemical imbalance doesn’t exist, and there’s no such thing as schizophrenia. On the other hand, since the treatment actually causes the phenomenon that the alleged disease is based on, and since the “treatment” also correlates with rising numbers, you could say “schizophrenia” exists, but it’s caused by the treatment, if one would look at the actual scientific evidence coming from said “branch” of medicine. I think the term is iatrogenic disease.

    People of course do suffer trauma, they do suffer malnutrition, they do suffer oppression because of war, minority status, abuse, poverty and many other things; this can result in the symptoms of schizophrenia, but the “treatment” of those defining the disease also correlates with more relapses, more disability, loss of life, loss of freedom, damage to their physical brain. To define a disease in way that can’t be proven, and cause how you defined the disease with the treatment is corrupt. That doesn’t mean what you were defining was ever there. And the people who do have the symptoms of “schizophrenia” whether it’s from iatrogenic disease or other causes do heal and recover when given alternative treatments.

  • There is as little evidence that schizophrenia is genetic as there is that poverty is.

    The twin studies have been largely exposed as relying on corrupt methods of counting. If a pair of twins contain two that are schizophrenic, the pair is counted as two pairs, if only one is schizophrenic there’s then only one pair; and this is with concordance. This is corrupt. Either pair in a pair where only one is schizophrenic still are BOTH non-concordant in having a twin with the same condition. The same as when there is concordance, to count the concordant pair twice is corrupt. Pure and simple. And if there really were true evidence that schizophrenia is genetic, we would have heard about it all over the place. But on the contrary, even the most pro-drugging, biological model sites still all say the same thing, that it “seems” to be both genetic and environment related. And that it “seems” to come from a group of genes, which could be said of any perceived condition.

    Further more, to dismiss Doctor Mercola, or anyone else’s contribution, simply because the FDA has a problem with him, or that he speaks against vaccinations, ignores how many corrupt drugs were approved the the FDA, their suppression (sometimes violent) of many treatments which HAVE been shown to work in scientific studies, while allowing those that haven’t (psychiatric drugs for example) but are promoted by big drug companies (see 5 billion dollars of fines paid by drug companies for bi-polar drugs that were FDA approved). Or you can look at the recent whistle blower that evidence vaccines cause autism was suppressed for ten years, and a host of other evidence. Or you can look at how many countries have made GMOs illegal, which the FDA approved. Simply calling someone a conspiracy theorist in order to dismiss the evidence they present is name calling rather than science. Although tagging someone as a conspiracy theorist excuses you from actually looking at the evidence, this doesn’t change the evidence.

    The supplement industry does NOT peddle medications proven to cause a chemical imbalance, while stating that they are addressing one. Even if they are doing nothing, even if they are placebo, they would be causing less scientifically attributable cause towards mental illness (a chemical imbalance, which psychiatric drugs HAVE BEEN proven to cause, while the diseases they are said to address have NOT BEEN). Neither do they have black warning labels that state they can cause suicidal and/or homicidal thoughts, neither do they correlate with causing violence, nor are their numerous court cases where it was determined they changed a person’s personality and behavior so dramatically that it was attributed to the drugs, and when the person stopped taking the drugs became themselves again. And yet you say someone simply promoting them causes suicide because they would need treatment from methods that HAVE been shown to correlate with causing suicide. And this is statistically, in regards what kind of treatment someone gets, regardless of whether they live in an environment of a time where there’s an increase in mental illness.

    That psychiatric medications help certain people is wonderful for them. This does NOT change the statistics that their implementation in general correlates with more relapsing, less recovery, more disability, loss of life and more violence. Waving the Stigma flag doesn’t change any of that either, nor does force drugging anyone who isn’t taking their “meds” magically change the statistics either.

  • If you simply read the material this site is representing (Anatomy of an Epidemic, the book), you would see that there’s more evidence that the problems with ALL of the people you list as needing treatment to prevent violence correlates highly with the fact that they were ever forced on medications, or put on highly addictive medications which are the pharmaceuticals which to the HIGHEST degree correlate with causing violence.

    These “medications” correlate with more relapses, with causing violence, with more disability, with loss of life, with severe addictions; and ALSO with people not getting the kind of help that has been shown to correlate with recovery ( a recovery which basically doesn’t exist when medicated) and yet you repeat the same doctrines that correlate with the spike in violent crimes from people diagnosed as mentally ill. And that spike correlates EXACTLY with when mental illness was seen as something biological and treated with the “medications” you condone. Before that the level of violence occuring now simply DIDN’T exist. ALL of the time mental illness has been seen as coming from a chemical imbalance there hasn’t been ANY conclusive evidence that these diseases are biological, the treatment has spiked the occurrence of the disease, those treated with medications have far less or no recovery in comparison to those who aren’t treated with medications; and there is conclusive proof that the medications cause chemical imbalance while there is no conclusive that the disease they treat does. And the chemical imbalance the medications cause DOES correlate with causing mental illness.

    And that IS what’s going on, whether you keep on repeating the same propaganda or not. Keep on treating or force treating people in such a manner and this will only cause more mental illness, and more violence; the cause correlating with the treatment, rather than the treatment correlating with a decline or with recovery. No matter HOW MUCH profit the drug companies make.

    You say:
    “I see an attitude that, surprisingly enough, reminds me of the bad old days before mental illness was determined to be a biological condition. Then, the idea was that people could get better if they only wanted to. They needed to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and do any number of things that were thought to be restorative. Those who did not make the efforts others thought necessary were just considered lazy malingerers who wanted to be sick. The recognition of mental illness as a disease freed people of that stigma.”

    To tell people they have a chemical imbalance when this hasn’t been proven scientifically, and then promote the idea of this being against stigma, still doesn’t make your statement true, that they have a chemical imbalance, not matter how attractive it would be. There’s also not more recovery since the advent of the biological model, as you imply. And you’re creating stigma in itself, anyone who would say they don’t have a chemical imbalance (and can site the fact that there’s isn’t real scientific proof of a chemical imbalance) is stigmatized: anyone who would say that instead of a chemical imbalance they have an emotional wound, and that they need the help which correlates with recovery rather than disability, that they don’t want to suffer loss of life, that they don’t want to be made addictive to medications that cause a chemical imbalance rather than treating a proven, that they don’t want to be forced on medications which correlate with causing violence and more mental illness that’s also blamed on the disease rather than the treatment, these are all stigmatized and suppressed.

    To create more disability, and chemical imbalance which wasn’t there before treatment and blame it on an alleged disease which hasn’t been proven to be caused by a chemical imbalance, and then say it’s stigma to say what hasn’t been proven to exist hasn’t been proven to exist, this is truly corrupt. And to say that this is showing compassion for those suffering is even more corrupt.

    And it’s people’s choice if they want to take these medications, and believe it makes them feel better; but that should be done with free choice. That means the truth be told about whether there’s evidence based proof that the alleged disease is coming from a chemical imbalance, and that all the methods not forcing medications and which do correlate with recovery (healing homes of Finland, Open Dialogue, The Soteria Project, simple psychotherapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and many others) that these are presented as part of free choice, when it is said treatment is needed or should be sought.

  • Sorry, I was writing the prior post trying to catch the bus, I should have waited to post it, perhaps.

    Here’s an edited version, which might bet easier to understand (or not). But I’m going to stop poking at it now.

    If one studies what the penal system does, which is perhaps the opposite of forgiveness, or the military industrial complex; you have the same correlations. A country which has the most people in jail per capita is the most violent, and has the biggest military industrial complex, and is the most involved in wars. Now people will excuse why said country needs all of the military weapons, but if you really study it, the result isn’t a lessoning of military aggression on the planet.

    Forgiveness also doesn’t mean one overlooks a person whose behavior is abusive, it simply means that there’s cause and effect there. A person loses track of their humanity in a system which sells that humanity to whoever can control them with fear and intimidation the best, and make it look like that’s harmony; along with all of the “consensual reality deportment,” fashions everyone is accord with in one nation but discordant with in another, cultural phobias (whether one can walk around naked outside for example) and other agreed upon norms. A system which is trauma based, and based on traumatizing and thus gaining control over other people through intimidation, violence and the mind control of trauma; this causes IMHO the breaking down of the human condition which ends up causing the kind of psychopaths who behave the way they do (all again using trauma to control others, but without the overtures that it is necessary for the good of the all). I think the countries with the least harsh penal system also have the least crime. And the same, a country that is constantly making strategical alliances against another country by giving yet a different country weapons, one only has to look at recent history to see where this ends up, and what the result is. You give the power to people who want to control others with trauma, and you end up with people who want to control others with trauma, no matter how Utopian your ideas are or how much you believe it’s necessary for harmony to stop criminal behavior and for a safe society.

    To say that people who have done a statistical analyses of forgiveness, and presented this for whoever it might help and this means they are trying to force it on people or that this is the next step; this is the same logic that the pro-drugging people use would anyone say there’s a different way than drugging. EXACTLY the same response, and that chaos will ensue. You can tag the idea of “forgiveness” with force, just because someone dares say perhaps intimidation doesn’t work, but this clearly WOULDN’T be forgiveness (as little as forcing someone to have therapy to control their thoughts ends up being therapy rather than mind control). That doesn’t change what forgiveness truly is. Nor does what Jesus true teaching means for those who it has brought solace to make those who preach how everyone has to do it their way or burn in hell those that represent forgiveness while again they use trauma based controls wielding fear rather than forgiveness, compassion and love . That also doesn’t make no child left behind what it says it is, nor the clean air act or the war against terrorism something that has alleviated terrorism. Or said fast food place good nutrition or said movie company the purveyor of decency. Etc. etc. etc.

    To say a person is making things worse to be forgiving is like saying that they aren’t allowed to enjoy a poem, or a piece of music, or a walk in the park or have an intimate relationship with someone that makes them feel whole again: that they are supposed to maintain and hold onto an anger and believe that the whole world will fall apart would they let go of it. If they don’t use it to maintain control of others everything will fall apart. And yet it’s that same anger that breeds the kind of lack of the human condition which caused the trauma in those who are the abusers, I think. The only difference is that it’s not enmeshed with overtures of it being for the good of the all (see psychiatry and it’s belief that it’s saving the world from mental anguish). Would someone say this openly, so often the immediate knee jerk reaction is that whoever dared propose this is the cause for the abuse (when they’re not taking part in righteous abuse of the abuser), and thus someone is supposed to be scared to simply mention forgiveness, there’s such a hostile response. All because they don’t take part in someone else’s war of guilt or try to propose something different than that they have the right to control other people’s lives with trauma (the penal system, guilt, hatred, righteous use of violent force).

    And it’s not as if forgiveness is easy. To actually dare to look at life and see what difference it makes when you stop seeing yourself as a victim, when you don’t make alliances with all the ideas of justice that you would be entitled to would you see yourself as a victim but instead see the non-violent beauty everyone thinks they can discard as soon as there’s a problem they believe needs their attack thoughts and trauma based controls: this isn’t easy at all. As soon as you do this, or as soon as you’re not walking around with the same up-tightness built on trauma based controls, people react extremely phobic towards you, discriminatory; you become an object for any insecurities they might have coming from their belief that anyone not controlled by fear is undermining their system. It’s really not as if forgiveness is just some easy way to discard responsibility. Otherwise it’s again making alliances with those you would profit from. Forgive your boss because he pays you. Forgive those who you can use to intimidate others (or don’t forgive them, but say you still need them), but don’t forgive those who snap and can’t be controlled by this whole matrix and show what the result is without actually becoming part of the grind. I think those you are having to say are unforgivable are the collateral damage of the system you can’t let go of while you refuse to see it is causing you to lose your own humanity, your own ability to see the same spark of life you were given in everyone else.

    I don’t want to tell anyone they have to think the way I do, but I believe that we were all given the same spark. What you see as criminal behavior in anyone else is the result of conditions in their life that could have happened to anyone. Neglect and the very precept that you have to have an enemy, you have to have “evil” to combat; that you have to have control over another and see the abuse that this results in as collateral damage: this might be the cause. If you can’t forgive them, perhaps you’re in denial what they went through, or you just don’t know, or you aren’t interested. You’re not being interested facilitates you passing judgment instead, and then you won’t find out what went on: you’ll never find the cause (only try to control the effect with what caused the effect, actually imploding the situation), and it’s self perpetuating. When you can see the same spark of life you were given in them, the same spark that could never die, despite your fears of your own death; maybe this would make a difference. Here the “Christians” talk about hell, where you would go would you not follow their teachings which are supposed to be about forgiveness, and then the people against “forgiveness” say that hell (suffering pain, whatever you call it, abuse, criminals etc.) is created when you do forgive. Well. WOW! That’s quite a circus. Maybe there actually is something called forgiveness. Maybe we actually do have a spark from forever in us that doesn’t exist in linear time, that can’t be destroyed, a reality where there’s no loss when you give from love rather than fear. Something that’s for give, something that just gives and there’s no loss, no debt, no guilt. Something that restores humanity. Maybe Jesus WAS trying to show something about our true nature when he DIDN’T see himself as a victim and knew he would be resurrected, instead. And maybe that’s even an old story. Maybe all you really have to do is look at life and what happens when you stop investing in ways to control others through fear, trauma and the rest. Maybe even Jesus wanted to escape from all of it rather than have to deal with everyone’s need to control each other and separate into different groups, different “countries” into definitions of what’s good and what’s bad that mainly relies on defining what’s bad to traumatize it, thus producing it by what you do to prevent it (same as what the drug companies do preventing “mental illness:” the same sort of epidemic) – and then say that forgiveness or lack of drugging is the cause in order to force people to take part in YOUR WAR and see things YOUR WAY as both or all sides are fighting for “mental health” and preventing it to maintain the privilege of saying it’s the other’s fault.

    And I don’t need to continue with this rant.

    Just try forgiveness, if you feel inclined. You’re not causing mayhem. It might REALLY make a difference, and you might find you actually do have the ability inside you to make change that your anger and your rational mind thought was impossible, and that it doesn’t matter when everyone says you’re crazy, would you actually witness that things change without you having to have evidence of anything that forced this change on others.

  • If one studies what the penal system does, which is perhaps the opposite of forgiveness, or the military industrial complex; you have the same correlations. A country which has the most people in jail per capita is the most violent, and has the biggest military industrial complex, and is the most involved in wars. Now people will excuse why said country needs all of the military weapons, but if you really study it, the result isn’t a lessoning of military aggression on the planet.

    Forgiveness also doesn’t mean one overlooks a person whose behavior is abusive, it simply means that there’s cause and effect there. A person loses track of their humanity in a system which sells that humanity to whoever can control them with fear and intimidation the best, and make it look like that’s harmony; along with all of the “consensual reality deportment,” fashions everyone is accord with in one nation but discordant with in another, cultural phobias (whether one can walk around naked outside for example) and other agreed upon norms. A system which is trauma based, and based on traumatizing and thus gaining control over other people through intimidation, violence and the mind control of trauma; this causes IMHO the breaking down of the human condition which ends up causing the kind of psychopaths (all again using trauma to control others, but without the overtures that it is necessary for the good of the all) who behave the way they do. I think the countries with the least harsh penal system also have the least crime. And the same, a country that is constantly making strategical alliances against another country by giving yet a different country weapons, one only has to look at recent history to see where this ends up, and what the result is. You give the power to people who want to control others with trauma, and you end up with people who want to control others with trauma, no matter how Utopian your ideas are or how much you believe it’s necessary for harmony, to stop criminal behavior and for a safe society.

    To say that because people who have done a statistical analyses of forgiveness, and presented this for whoever it might help, this shows they are trying to force it on people, and that this is the next step; this is the same logic that the pro-drugging people use would anyone say there’s a different way than drugging. EXACTLY the same response, and that chaos will ensue. And this is just because whoever choses not to believe in forgiveness, it’s immediately stereotyped and discriminated against. Does someone mention forgiveness, immediately they are stereotyped in such a way. You can tag the idea that someone is going to force “forgiveness” which clearly WOULDN’T be forgiveness (as little as forcing someone to have therapy to control their thoughts ends up being therapy rather than mind control), but that doesn’t change what forgiveness truly is. Nor does what Jesus true teaching means for those who it has brought solace to make those who preach that everyone has to do it their way or burn in hell (and again use trauma based controls wielding fear rather than forgiveness, compassion and love) those that represent forgiveness. That also doesn’t make no child left behind what it says it is, nor the clean air act or the war against terrorism something that has alleviated terrorism.

    To say a person is making things worse to be forgiving is like saying that they aren’t allowed to enjoy a poem, or a piece of music, or a walk in the park or have an intimate relationship with someone that makes them feel whole again; that they are supposed to maintain and hold onto an anger and believe that the whole world will fall apart would they let go of it. If they don’t use it to maintain control of others everything will fall apart. And yet it’s that same anger that breeds the kind of lack of the human condition which caused the trauma in those who are the abusers, I think. The only difference is that it’s not enmeshed with overtures of it being for the good for the all (see psychiatry and it’s belief that it’s saving the world from mental anguish). Would someone say this openly, I don’t know how many times the immediate knee jerk reaction is that whoever dared to do this is accused of being the cause for the abuse (simply because you’re not taking part in righteous abuse of the abuser), and someone is supposed to be scared to simply mention forgiveness, there’s such a hostile response, because you don’t take part in someone else’s war of guilt or try to propose something different than that they have the right to control other people’s lives with trauma (the penal system, guilt, hatred, righteous use of violent force).

    And it’s not as if forgiveness is easy. To actually dare to look at life and see what difference it makes when you stop seeing yourself as a victim, and don’t make alliances with all the ideas of justice that you would be entitled to would you; and actually see the non-violent beauty everyone thinks they can discard as soon as there’s a problem they believe needs their attack thoughts and trauma based controls. This isn’t easy at all, because as soon as you do this, or as soon as you’re not walking around with the same up-tightness built on trauma based controls, people react extremely phobic towards you, discriminatory; you become an object for any insecurities they might have coming from their belief that anyone not controlled by fear is undermining their system. It’s really not as if forgiveness is just some easy way to discard responsibility. Otherwise it’s again making alliances with those you would profit from. Forgive your boss because he pays you. Forgive those who you can use to intimidate others (or don’t forgive them, but say you still need them), but don’t forgive those who snap and can’t be controlled by this whole matrix and show what the result is without actually becoming part of the grind. I think those you are having to say are unforgivable are the collateral damage of the system you can’t let go of while you refuse to see it is causing you to lose your own humanity, your own ability to see the same spark of life you were given in everyone else.

    I don’t want to tell anyone they have to think the way I do, but I believe that we were all given the same spark. What you see as criminal behavior in anyone else is the result of conditions in their life that could have happened to anyone. Neglect and the very precept that you have to have an enemy, you have to have “evil” to combat, that you have to have control over another and the abuse that this results in; this might be the cause. If you can’t forgive them, perhaps you’re in denial what they went through, or you just don’t know, or you aren’t interested. You’re not being interested to bypass judgment and find out what went on, you’ll never find the cause, and it’s self perpetuating. When you can see the same spark of life you were given in them, the same spark that could never die, despite your fears of your own death; maybe this would make a difference. Here the “Christians” talk about hell, where you would go would you not follow their teachings which are supposed to be about forgiveness, and then the people against “forgiveness” say that hell (suffering pain, whatever you call it, abuse, criminals etc.) is created when you do forgive. Well. WOW! That’s quite a circus. Maybe there actually is something called forgiveness. Maybe we actually do have a spark from forever in us that doesn’t exist in linear time, that can’t be destroyed, a reality where there’s no loss when you give from love rather than fear. Something that’s for give, something that just gives and there’s no loss, no debt, no guilt. Something that restores humanity. Maybe Jesus WAS trying to show something about our true nature when he DIDN’T see himself as a victim and knew he would be resurrected, instead. And maybe that’s even an old story. Maybe all you really have to do is look at life and what happens when you stop investing in ways to control others through fear, trauma and the rest. Maybe even Jesus wanted to escape from all of it rather than have to deal with everyone’s need to control each other and separate into different groups, different “countries” into definitions of what’s good and what’s bad that mainly relies on defining what’s bad and producing it by what you do to prevent it (same as what the drug companies do preventing “mental illness:” the same epidemic) – and then say that forgiveness or lack of drugging is the cause in order to force people to take part in YOUR WAR and see things YOUR WAY as both or all sides are fighting for “mental health” and preventing it to maintain the privilege of saying it’s the other’s fault.

    And I don’t need to continue with this rant.

    Just try forgiveness, if you feel inclined. You’re not causing mayhem. It might REALLY make a difference, and you might find you actually do have the ability inside you to make change that your anger and your rational mind thought was impossible, and that it doesn’t matter when everyone says you’re crazy, would you actually witness that things change without you having to have evidence of anything that forced this change on others.

  • Let’s see if I got this all right:

    The presumption is that “depression” comes from lack or seratonin, thus the inhibiting of re-uptake, of recycling of re-metabolizing, what anti-depressant do.

    That’s wrong to begin with, because anti-depressants in the end actually cause lack of seratonin, because the brain re-compensates when there’s seratonin around because of the inhibiting of the re-uptake, and it makes less seratonin.

    That’s then if you believe at all that anti-depressants correlate with alleviating depression, because of the corrupt clinical trials. To believe that you have to believe that it’s kosher to dismiss everyone who gets sick from the anti-depressants and has to leave the clinical trials as not being part of it, not counted, and then taking anyone who gets better in the placebo group the first couple of weeks out, again rigging the odds; and then still not having the “results” needed taking people who are already on a psychiatric drug (and used to it) in the trial (sort of like offering addicts a new street drug, or jet setters a new restaurant and/or resort to prove its wonders); and at first not reporting the last 7 weeks of the trial because so many people had serious withdrawal symptoms; and then not telling anyone about all the violence the drug creates once it’s approved, although this is known, as well as that people committed suicide in the trials because of the effects of the anti-depressants.

    ALL OF THAT in order to believe that whether there’s less seratonin (although it’s believe there’s more) this correlates with helping depression, although we’re told it’s the other way around that more seratonin helps.

    So fine, the mice have LESS seratonin

    So, the aggressive behavior of the mice that’s associated with their lack of seratonin IS also found in humans, it’s called Akithesia, it’s the black warning label on anti-depressants. This of course isn’t considered to point out again the dangers of anti-depressants, and not even mentioned, along with that their theory of what seratonin has to do with it is the opposite of how it turns out, that there’s no real correlation with this seratonin debacle having anything to do with helping depression (more or less of it), although it’s again shown that less of it can make you aggressive.

    And what the experiment points out (that it makes you aggressive) is ignored as something to be considered, it seems; and it (the experiment) also points out that less seratonin doesn’t make a person more resistant to depression, although we’re told the drugs do the opposite and correlate with more seratonin, which they don’t they correlate with less.

    At WHAT LEVEL is this science!?

    It’s more like a test to see whether you’re fooled or not. The students could correct the teacher’s work but aren’t allowed to.

  • I think one can decidedly conclude that the lack of signs of depression amongst the mice developed to lack serotonin comes from there being clear evidence that they show definite signs of intelligence, otherwise direly lacking in the scientific community “experimenting” to find ways to “cure” mental health. This is something that would make one happy, to find they have clear signs of intelligence. I think this definitely goes beyond compelling evidence or the idea that they’re only making headway here. This is conclusive enough to show that the mice can be left alone now, and that liberating the mice to be pets would greatly contribute to mental health, or just liberating them in general from being used in labs.

    However… unfortunately, would one go to “most” psychiatrists dressed in a mice costume with a tail that elevates in a quick response to show how happy they are, it’s questionable whether this would be understood, or even be interpreted as a sign of emotional and/or mental health.

  • LOL! of course the mouse is just trying to be nice to the psychiatrist, giving him the input to see how ridiculous it is to earn your living genetically “developing” mice to not be able to produce serotonin, and do this in order to therapeutize humans (whose whole social hierarchy already depends on the control of psychopaths, with no empathy for how they treat others, mammalian life; so it’s really not necessary to show them that this is a means to an end).

    One can only wonder what the mice think of the conclusions drawn here, as well as how much they would do ANYTHING to be left alone.

    It seems that they’re ACTUALLY not even dealing with a correct conclusion of what anti-depressants do. It’s just what they “think” they do.

    None of this makes sense anyhow, because I thought SSRI’s when they’ve been “stabilized” actually cause LESS seratonin (in contrast to dopamin drugs cause more rather than less). Because the brain compensates.

    But heh with a tail suspension test, you gotta go for it.

    Does this means that if the rats/mice did what the psychiatrists/drugcartels “think” is supposed to be the result that they would be left alone?

    Sort of like how you get out of an asylum?

  • “Happy, Sad, Mad.  It’s called My Feelings.”

    One wonders why they forgot Homicidal, Suicidal (these could be the side effects of your medications)

    Or of course psychopath (you’re just empathizing with your therapist/psychiatrist). If this doesn’t help, you could end up…..

    What’s so amazing about this piece is that it points out that the only people who regain their freedom are the ones that can make their own decisions, somehow still, by some miracle: realize that in order to forgive (forget, move beyond) what’s going on they actually need to lie to the doctors (who probably at some level think this shows appropriate cunning, actually).

    What if the whole thing is an illusion? What if, as in Quantum Physics, you effect what you see when you observe it. What if EVERYTHING that comes your way in life is there because of how you are reacting to what you observe, and there’s no disconnect between you and the world around you. It’s not “outside” you but inside you. And this occurs beyond the rules of time and space, or chance as we know them; something even “science” with its Quantum Physics is starting to recognize with it’s technical mania and equipment that spy on what they call subatomic particles through electron microscopes and million dollar accelerators.

    What if the people stuck in the asylum are actually learning to forgive, and with them the pattern will stop, although we see them as being imprisoned and victims?

    What if, would we give them the right to not have to judge the psychiatrists (or start a war about it), that they could actually make more change than all of our protests?

    What if we could heal them rather than draft them into a war because we demand they see themselves as victims.

  • I’m sorry, but I STILL have to say something about this, this whole article.

    Just seeing how DIFFICULT it is to respond!

    This tactic of saying that, when someone makes a statement about psychiatry, to act as if there’s some sort of significant group (or majority even) that don’t see what’s going on in the rest of medical practice. Well, we can be glad that AT LEAST there’s acknowledgement something doesn’t smell right in psychiatry, but this doesn’t mean that when one is talking about one smell, one is supposed to include all the other bad smells or be considered fixated. And I personally HIGHLY DOUBT that the people who blog here are in ANY WAY ignorant in regards the rest of medicine. IT simply isn’t what the discussion is about. Neither does it excuse the illogic.

    Not only is it distracting to mention the rest of medicine, because psychiatry isn’t really a part of medicine. It’s a science that sells psycho-active drugs erroneously (or fraudulently) called medications that treat yet to be proven conditions, while causing the very same conditions (psychosis, chemical imbalances, depression, suicidal thoughts, the WHOLE works) and PROVING that their MEDICATIONS cause such conditions while completely lacking proof that what they say causes the conditions (which their MEDICATIONS DO CORRELATE WITH CAUSING)… that his doesn’t exist. There isn’t such proof, only in regards their “treatments” is IN THEIR DISCIPLINE proof that there’s a causal relationship with what they say they’re curing (which they’re causing). So, in all due honesty, this isn’t “medical” unless causing disease is.

    Not only is THAT distracting, but in EVERY conflict you have the same thing going on. Don’t look at us, you forget blah blah blah is as bad, and you can’t point out what’s going on with us that way, that’s discriminatory because over there, they are as bad or worse or whatever.

    This AGAIN doesn’t excuse ANYTHING.

    One might even wonder (with all of the excusing going on) whether it’s about (who knows by now) the illusion that anti-depressants make people less depressed (yet to be proven; unless it’s kosher to dismiss everyone who gets sick from the anti-depressants and has to leave the clinical trials as not being part of it, not counted, and then taking anyone who gets better in the placebo group the first couple of weeks out, again rigging the odds; and then still not having the “results” needed taking people who are already on a psychiatric drug (and used to it) in the trial (sort of like offering addicts a new street drug, or jet setters a new restaurant and/or resort to prove its wonders); and at first not reporting the last 7 weeks of the trial because so many people had serious withdrawal symptoms; and then not telling anyone about all the violence the drug creates once it’s approved, although this is known.. and I’m forgetting a few things already, this is such a @#$*@#($#@*())… and so they are healthier, so we aren’t making you dependent on the medical condition you’d get because of your depression which we say we’re healing by giving you a medical condition (!?!?!?!?!?);
    And all of this makes people less “depressed,” or at least sick once addicted and trying to get off.. and THIS in comparison to “medical” treatment for a real condition; which we’re all supposed to know about as well.

    WOW!

    I REALLY makes you wonder what someone is on, and the first syllable of what you get when you graduate that rhymes with sip, which as an adjective would be sippy.

    “Some writers here appear to consider psychiatry as an anomalous construct of a modern medicine that is otherwise doing well. “

    I don’t know since when pointing out EXACTLY what’s going on in psychiatry is in ANY way believing that “modern medicine” is “otherwise” doing well; but heh it’s along the line of a DSM diagnosis and/or clinical trial.

    Dope someone up till they stare at the wall, have no self initiative but to be docile and they “APPEAR” to be healed of psychosis (and it’s important enough to fill article galore with, this “appearance”). And when instead of becoming docile, this infuriates them, and they explode, this doesn’t “appear” to be anything but that they are non compliant and need more “treatment.”

    As “appearing” goes………….

    PLEASE leave

    go…

    has “appearing” left ?

    ??????????

  • I’m sorry but I’m going to have to say that this is wonderful what’s going on in Brazil, but this doesn’t mean that you can’t find the same support anywhere else on your own. That support is inside you. This also doesn’t mean that, when you don’t have the money to take one of Emma’s trips, and pay for the three star hotels that you can’t find the healing you need.

    There ARE people who find spiritual help in the US, and there is spiritual healing going on, whether or not it’s made into an institution and has a name (such as Spiritist); and I’m sure there are enough people in Brazil who don’t get the help they need. It’s easy to criticize and take people to where the grass is greener. And I’m not saying that the Spiritists isn’t wonderful, but this doesn’t mean that there isn’t amazing help around you already. In fact it’s inside you, not outside of you.

    Although Emma mentions a few places in the US, but then says they are bleak in comparison to the Brazil and the spiritist movement, you do have http://www.psychicsurgeon.org who is an amazing healer in the US; and there are others (Adam the Dream Healer from Canada, there’s brother Gregorio that travels around the US, and there are other filipino healers around who travel). There’s also the amazing book A Course in Miracles which has exercises for a whole year, and simply costs like 20 to 25 dollars, and when you actually do the exercises can help immensely, and this you CAN do all on your own.

    Under appropriate training Emma says:

    ” A person entering into training as a medium has the gift of meeting with others with similar gifts and thus having fellowship with peers. It is strongly encouraged that those with psychic abilities never work alone, that they work in small groups at appointed times. This helps to discourage ego inflation (someone getting too wrapped up in how special they are). The gifts are considered “God given” and a responsibility to use to benefit others—not a resource to be mined for personal financial gain. After years of training, the medium can lead a balanced life that is purposeful and personally meaningful and in service to community.”

    You can do A Course in Miracles all on your own (in fact I would recommend this rather than getting involved with institutions, since people often bond together for ego purposes and act like they are special because they all are adherents of this one book, or this one method). There is the element, just as there is with an artist, where a person expresses their individuality BECAUSE they do it all themselves, and need no institution.

  • I noticed that this sentence is a jumble (I tried to correct it, but it’s still quite a jumble, but I’ll leave it at that):

    “There’s a difference between someone who no longer can ignore the spirit world, or their self from forever which lives beyond fear, and all the loss we calculate from physical reality and try to defend causing it with our fears and what this does to time (as if we are separate from what we cause in our own lives and need hatred and attack towards others to eradicate it); there’s a difference between that and what goes on in “psychic” circles in popular culture.”

    I try to correct it.

    “There’s a difference between someone who no longer can ignore the spirit world, their self from forever that lives beyond fear and all the loss we calculate from the physical trying to defend ourselves from what we are causing with our own fears and what this does to time (as if we are separate from what we cause in our own lives and need hatred and attack towards others to eradicate it); there’s a difference between someone who is no longer able to hold onto such fears and what goes on in “psychic” circles in popular culture.”

    Sorry, it’s hard to put these things into words.

  • There’s so much I want to say here, I don’t know where to begin.

    I’ll just sort of jump in.

    Maybe I’ll start with the word psychic. Emma, the word psychic and the way it is used in popular culture is quite different from the way you use it. If you have ever had to deal with the kind of petty jealousy and attempts to take over the decision making of others that occurs with people in popular culture that call themselves psychic, the ones that make money for psychic readings. I’m not saying that there aren’t really helpful psychics and channels, but someone who is a healer is a whole different story. And the amount of energy by “psychics” put into making alliances with the lower astral, hooking people with telling them things about their future or private lives which isn’t supposed to be possible “objectively”, although it changes nothing except the people become hooked to know petty things, and actually become more fear based in their lives, rather than free. And this involves so much getting the ego to control things in life, which actually get in the way of healing; or separate one from God. A Course in Miracles brings this out clearly, I think: http://thecourse.ca/manual-for-teachers/manual-25-are-psychic-powers-desirable/

    I know that what you are talking about involving spiritism is a whole other brand of “psychic” where healing is acknowledged rather than the ego. I’m just bringing out the point about the word. And in a consumer oriented society, it’s become even quite materialistic. I have to say that when I had my psychic opening, along with the uncovered trauma from my youth, it was the “psychics” I had been around that added to the distress (again I know the spiritista association is different, they would have helped). There’s a difference between someone who no longer can ignore the spirit world, or their self from forever which lives beyond fear, and all the loss we calculate from physical reality and try to defend causing it with our fears and what this does to time (as if we are separate from what we cause in our own lives and need hatred and attack towards others to eradicate it); there’s a difference between that and what goes on in “psychic” circles in popular culture. Even such high held names as Deepak Chopra talk about spiritual healing, but when it comes to mental illness still condone “medications.”

    I have to mention that along with doing ACIM as well as other material (The books of Marlo Morgan), I did go to real spiritual healers, in my search for healing. A true Filipino healer (and they are called psychic surgeons, but this healer didn’t like the name because he says they don’t work with “psychic” energies, the lower astral and there is no trauma to the body when the heal: again a different use of the word psychic); and I had a phone session with Gene Egidio that helped immensely. I also talked with a couple other true healers, and these people all have shed their ego. They talk along the same lines as A Course in Miracles, except they live it, rather than using it as doctrine to make themselves out to be superior to others. What they love and adore is the healing energies, NOT themselves or how they can bamboozle others.

    I think that spirit is everything. We aren’t separate from each other. And neither does having “separate” bodies make us separate. What you think about another person, when you harbor secret attack thoughts, as if this is hidden; this does more than any judgment on their behavior. It’s the same way “society” treats people with a “mental illness,” we’re judged on our behavior, and judge with secret thoughts which believe they can know who is sane who isn’t, and how one needs to behave in order to be functional, or sane; and what’s dangerous. And so “society” shields itself from the very consciousness that can create a whole other society based on compassion and understanding rather than judgment, and a brand of justice that’s based on guilt and loss, on wielding the power to traumatize others into submission. With spiritual healing and miracles there is no loss. There wasn’t any loss when the Universe was created from a singularity, from nothing, and expanded into itself, as it goes in Quantum Physics. There IS a source you can give from where there’s no loss, that is from forever, that is where your consciousness comes from, the spark that’s part of the web that created th Universe – this is where the word forgive (for-give) comes from. To bypass any idea of loss, of guilt, of injustice; and see we are all one. All of us.

    I also think there’s a big difference between the people that actually had a spiritual awakening start to happen and those who went to their doctor and thought the magic pill would help them. I’ve been told by a very active personality in the MHS that I’m adding to the “holocaust” if I chose the power of love rather than making myself out to be a victim. And there ARE people who actually have had these experiences, the holy experiences and were called schizophrenic. That’s different than someone going on a medications because they were looking for an easy answer, and finding out differently. Spirit is from a world where it’s acknowledged where the Universe came from, the singularity that expands into itself, the love that has no opposite but is a source you can give from which can never be depleted, from which there is no loss; and there’s no loss to give from love rather than harbor attack thoughts.

    I’ve been through what happens, when a person doesn’t have the support they need in the beginning, when a spiritual opening occurs. What you call “schizophrenia,” but I still can’t say that’s what it is, even though I had all the “signs”. You remain in another world, you just have to learn to get to know it, and that still happens. Even if it takes 20 years or more (several lifetimes). And I still had miracles happen the whole time, in abundance.

  • I think everyone has part or parts of themselves they feel separate from. Part or parts of themselves they don’t understand, and also can’t relate to, can’t control. And then comes the part about taking another look at how things work. Everyone in our “culture” has a child survivor, a child that had to do what it was told or would be punished, a child that depended on it’s legal guardians and had to obey. A child that took on behaviors, not because it believed in them itself but because it had to in order not to be punished. And then beyond that, when someone is abused physically or emotionally, they disassociate. They can’t function while remembering the abuse.

    Why do they disassociate? Disassociation, to me, is something that occurs in order to transcend trauma, rather than harness it as a means to control or exploit. A child can’t control the situation and can’t express anger (or sorrow, or sadness, or outrage), but the disassociation also functions so that one isn’t investing in the very same concepts of trauma which are the root cause of whatever or whoever is causing the trauma.

    I don’t believe that multiple personalities exist in order to “re-integrate” a person back into the society with it’s trauma based discipline which caused or didn’t attend to the trauma, which caused the behavior, which caused the abuse; which then caused the “disassociation,” which then “needs” to be re-integrated back into the matrix, which is in collusion with causing the cycle. The same with other forms of disassociation.

    I believe multiple personalities exist in order to give a person the space to let go of their potential of responding with more trauma. When a “fragmented” personality is surrounded by love, and is allowed to have loving thoughts, then it can integrate; or find that there always was a connection, but that comes from allowing love, rather than wielding trauma based controls. But this would point out that it’s not the personality that was fragmented at all, it was the society itself; and it’s “consensual reality.” It’s the society which needs healing…

  • Chrisreed, you’d be surprised how many people know how ridiculous the whole con job is, once you get beyond all the people who watch anyone they think has a “mental illness” and try to take control over their lives, despite the fact that they are making everything worse. And it’s not just a small part of the population. One in five people in the US are on a psychiatric drug. Once you start just talking to people, I’m surprised how much they want to express how ridiculous it is. How easily a doctor puts someone on an anti-depressant etc..

    You’d also be surprised how many “celebrities” have a different notion of what’s going on than they let on. I’ve found this out to be the case personally, something which can infuriate me quite a bit. The same as that said actors would jump at doing a gay role (and make themselves out to be open minded role models, although they just took a role that a gay person wouldn’t be able to do, given marketing; and they have the “straight” image they have because they’re not completely honest) you have this in regards mental illness. But to go one step further would be too much for them. This then also IS Hollywood and corporate media one is talking about with it’s MOB mentality. So there isn’t really this great loss to not be represented there, either.

    And it’s not my place to tell you how to live your life, but I would offer that if it makes you extremely angry to have to deal with the system or forced drugging, that it’s OK to give yourself the space to just simply heal guilt-free, without feeling you have to respond to the system at all. I notice from your posts that you are well informed and extremely intelligent, and having to deal with all of the inconsistencies of the system can overload any intelligent person, anyone who actually has the ability to think for themselves enough to see the loose ends, and the fragmented jargon, clipped statements and false logic that goes on with “the system,” “psychiatry,” or whatever you want to call it. In fact, if you have read the shock doctrine by Naomi Klein, or any other book about oppression, this describes how they try to infuriate people on purpose in order to have an excuse to repress them. It’s perfectly OK for you just to want to heal, and to want the space to deal with your own thoughts, and not to have to say boo or bah to whoever is infuriating you. And I think that the most change one can make is on the inside; this communicates more than trying to force any change on the outside.

    It’s perfectly OK to feel you don’t have to be angry all the time, and to just heal rather than trying to fight injustice; I think healing yourself also communicates more than trying to argue with another person to change their view.

    When a person gets angry, the fight or flight response kicks in, then the immune system starts shutting down and all the attention is put onto what’s going on outside of the person, this isn’t good for the body.
    And when you’ve given yourself the space to rest, you’ve collected your thought as well, and know how to respond in a way that would communicate rather than it be out of frustration.

    Also (and for what it’s worth), I don’t believe one needs to be angry at another person, or see oneself as a victim in order to make change. By being angry and investing in a trauma based, fear based method of controlling others, this is the same as what one deems to be fighting against. I don’t believe it works. No matter how many numbers of victims ones says one is saving by perpetuating the trauma based methods of social control, this only perpetuates the method, and adds more numbers, in the end. And when you take a different turn, when you look towards compassion, forgiveness, non-attachment, art and beauty you find a whole different definition of what it is to be human, and you find that everyone responds to this, even though you are told that being human is something different, as if it needs to be defended with trauma based mind control and violence, instead. When you really look, and dare to heal yourself, you see we are all connected on the inside. This is what makes us human, all of us. It’s OK to look for joy rather than justice. And you’re not forsaking others by doing this, you are reminding them of who they are (whether they are friends or enemies), and you’re doing this on the inside where there isn’t any separation, nor would I say the constraints of time and space as they were defined in traditional science. Quantum physics has shown this to be true, but then the ancient religions said the same thing; and art has always known this.

  • I really want to emphasize what it does to have to, for “therapy,” deal with a person who can have your freedoms taken away, and/or force you on medications which don’t correlate with recovery, lessening of disability, which can cause terrible side effects, withdrawal symptoms, loss of life (20 to 25 years), which are extremely addictive, which correlate with causing more violence, which cause chemical imbalance rather than healing or addressing one, which the drug companies have had to pay severe fines for advertising in deceptive criminal ways…

    THIS is where discussion shuts down. And the result isn’t therapy but intimidation and mind control.

  • To repeat myself without becoming redundant.

    When it’s identified that the cause of emotional stress a child is suffering could be because of it’s environment, and could be because of it’s guardian (whether this is someone who adopted them, is a family member other than a parent, or a parent, or Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, The Lone Ranger or Captain Kangaroo) this doesn’t imply by any means that all guardians are abusive.

    It’s also not true that when a person points out the abuses of a corporation (let’s say the drug companies, which have had to haul out the to them “collateral damage” of something like 5 billion dollars in fines – don’t quote me, it’s in the billions – because of false advertising in regards the new wave of neuroleptics that were said to medicate bi-polar, their newest big hit “disease”) this doesn’t mean that whoever points this abuse out is saying that all corporations are evil abusive entities neither is the person pointing out the abuse necessarily a communist bent on undermining capitalism. This also doesn’t mean that the writings of Marx should be kept out of public libraries or that the CIA needs to know exactly who checked his writings out of a library, or who bought them from a commercial store.

    This “discussion” which has become quite redundant, is about the correlation between abuse and schizophrenia being overlooked. This doesn’t mean there might not be another cause, such as a biological one, but since the psychiatric profession with it’s medical model has only caused more occurrences of the disease, more relapses, more disability because of it, loss of life, severe addiction, disabling side effects and withdrawal symptoms; it’s not the place to go on in such a setting about what might be causing the symptoms, when the idea that it stems from an organic source is used to cause an actual organic disease with “medications.”

    When, in an attempt to prove “schizophrenia” is genetic, every correlation with a twin and his twin is counted TWICE, as if each twin has magically become another person, but when there is not a correlation (one is schizophrenic the other isn’t) this ISN’T counted twice, this is false convoluted logic, and there isn’t any real basis for this in science or statistics except to rig the results. Further more, environment is overlooked; and the only way as far as I know that there is any kind of correlation with genetics and “schizophrenia” is when they find a whole group of people who happen to have certain correlations, as in a bunch of red heads that like to eat Kentucky Fried Chicken are schizophrenic; and thus all the genes that involve this (which apparently involves a whole hundred different ones in the more recent announced “discoveries”) are all linked together as causing schizophrenia. Which makes one wonder why they stop at 100 when you could just say that all genes cause schizophrenia, the whole genetic material, since in I think ALL cases that it is found in said studies it DOES involve human genetics. But since that’s a bit rash, such “correlations” have to be grouped into more palatable groups sub-groups and such…….

    There is enough evidence that bad nutrition, not enough sleep, too much stress, and whole host of over things can cause “schizophrenia,” but this doesn’t excuse overlooking whether abuse by authority figures who are guardians can cause whatever “schizophrenia” is supposed to be, or whether it can be caused by abuse from others, or whether it comes from other types of trauma.

    I also believe strongly that what’s really going on (in such cases) can be a human being finding their ability to transcend trauma, and reach a different harmonic with life, but this is a problem for a society whose discipline is trauma based, and based on fear coercion, intimidation and other such aspects of a penal or military industrial system; but then “schizophrenia” becomes the ability to actual move away and out of the reach of such a “discipline” by recognizing how it effects one; and that is FAR from a disease, it’s a form of enlightenment which leads towards compassion and empathy and the ability to relate to others that are traumatized and heal them rather than to judge their behavior.

  • “Donna, you wrote “For example, if twins have the same IQ, looks and other factors, they are more likely to be treated in similar ways whether raised together or apart.” To which I respond “So what? Surely you cannot be suggesting that all adoptive homes are abusive? That would seem implied if one suggests that something about identical twins gets them both maltreated when adopted out.”

    Donna’s point is exactly made here. That in response it’s AGAIN ignored that the environmental factors play strongly. And to make an adhoc accusation that she’s stereotyping all adoptive homes, when her statement is IN NO WAY about all adoptive homes, but those homes (not even necessarily adoptive homes, it could be one went to live with a Grandmother) that a pair of twins with similar characteristics who were both identified as being schizophrenic would encounter.

    This kind of subterfuge of what someone clearly says isn’t even worth responding it. AND in reality rather than it being an attack on “all adoptive families” it’s a personal attack on Donna, implying she said something which she didn’t at all. She made a clear intelligent remark. It does point out how people might respond to someone with a high IQ….or intelligence….

  • “However, from time to time, I find myself feeling the urge to articulate my views and delineate them from people with whom I may be identified. “

    Sorry, but this is a completely unnecessary statement. Would anyone believe that anywhere in ANY blog or in ANY group, certainly here where a wide diversity of opinions are allowed to be expressed; would there be a believe that what others express identifies yet others who are in the group, this says something about whoever is making such assumptions, and THEIR need to stereotype.

    “This work feels like a shutting down of dialogue. There is little room for response. I am hoping to open up the conversation and I see no room for that with the rhetoric used here.”

    “Rhetoric” doesn’t have such limitations. And to me truly bad “rhetoric” would be to say that there’s no room for opening up the conversation, when in reality all one would have to do is take part. Something which, for example, isn’t allowed when someone who has been involuntarily committed is speaking to their psychiatrist and would tell the scientific truth about what’s truly known about the medications. And as has been brought up Steingaard HAS made an opening up of the conversation impossible in her work, and has taken away people’s freedoms in such a manner. She of course would make excuses for this, stating that there in certain causes are true reasons etc. but this doesn’t take away from the basic premise of what is going on here. Would one be rational about her claims about dangerous people, she might fall into this category herself, would she force dangerous mind altering addictive medications on others who would loose their freedom (possibly for life) to not be forced to have their brain damaged in such a manner. THAT is not happening here. No one is going to have her locked up etc. It IS different for someone who is being forced to have psychiatric treatment, would they discuss here openly who they are, what is going on with them, and rebel against a system using their own name, this could all be used to force them on more treatment, were they vulnerable to such controls.

    Anyone with a grip on common sense knows exactly what all of the quotes Dr. Steingaard uses refer to.
    Would psychiatry desist in locking people up against their will, would it desist from forcing them on medications which cause biological disease (all along telling their “patients” that they are healing a biological disease while all the true evidence points to the contrary, that they are CAUSING biological disease), which correlate with more disability, more relapsing, more occurrences of the disease, a loss of life, withdrawal symptoms, side effects and the utter confusion, abuse and trauma that all of this causes to the emotional, mental, physical and conceptual faculties of not only those who are forced to tolerate such “treatment” but to the rest of society believing that medical treatment and cures are going on, when it’s statistically the contrary. I haven’t mentioned what this does economically. Would psychiatry desist from all of these things, the term “psychiatry” would have a different meaning, as would psychiatric treatment, as would being a psychiatrist. And it would not be associated with a totalitarian system, which stereotypes people as being dangerous, takes away their freedoms, forces them on treatments which correlate with more of the problem they are said to solve and then those inflicting such “treatment” on society call themselves healers, and have the right to decide whoever needs such “treatment.”

    It’s also simple common sense to see that psychiatry, in contrast to just about all of “modern medicine” doesn’t have to show proof that their “treatments” actually are treating what they entertain they are treating (a chemical imbalance), they only have to make people more paranoid about normal reactions to trauma; make them believe there’s a pill that will solve it, disable the mind from even expressing trauma and act as if this eradicates what caused the trauma, terrify the rest of the populace to believe that this is necessary cure; and gain more and more control over anyone they can diagnose with a steadily increase repertoire of more and more criterion that have no scientific basis, and could apply to basically anyone.

    “The human desire for psychoactive substances which long precedes the business of psychiatry – modern or otherwise – is not likely to abate.”

    Psychiatry doesn’t advertise or even admit that the “psychoactive substances” they promote are that at all. They sell them as “medications” which treat a chemical imbalance. Otherwise, their “medications” would fall under the same realm as sugar, alcohol, caffeine and the illegal street drugs which half a century ago used to be psychiatric “psychoactive substances.” I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that marijuana use can cause “psychiatric” illness, when anti-depressants certainly cause “psychiatric” illness. To excuse the gross misinformation going on in psychiatry (and how much of this is profit driven) by saying that humans will always “desire” psychoactive substances is quite profoundly.

    To bring up the point about problems with modern medicine, and refer to others who seem to single out psychiatry and according to her think the rest of medicine is fine. And this blog isn’t about modern medicine, by the way; and I’m not aware that Steingaard is in “common practice,” or whatever you call a doctor that deals with diseases that have actually been proven to exist biologically. To continue to take part – and, as was brought up, also take part in forcing others on such treatment – in handing out “medications” which have no scientific basis, are extremely addictive, are forced on vulnerable people and then subterfuge all of this by pointing out profit driven entities (as if what she does isn’t involved with this, as if her forcing such medications on people is altruism); this to me is simply decorating compliance to a very abusive system with smooth talking overtures.

    But that then would fall under “consensual reality deportment.”

    That then also includes believing there’s ever an excuse to force anyone, against their will, on what has been proven to be drugs which damage the mind and do not truly correlate with healing, and correlate highly with causing violence.

    And I must say that all of this fussing about form rather than content could be quite inhibiting in therapy, where a person needs to feel that they can actually express what’s inside of them and what they need to let go of, without having to deal with a whole matrix of what’s acceptable and what isn’t. To me THAT is where dialogue is shut down.

  • They could have, of course, simply added artificial flavourings to their controlled substances, and then have advertised the chemical imbalance as having been for the lack of it, beforehand. Just like the Junk Food industry. As in: these medications treat proven and unproven chemical imbalances in artificial and unproven non-artificial ways. Or they could have just used a placebo (with or without artificial flavouring).

    That’s a LOT OF money folks for something that could have just been a spoon full of sugar.

    And, I promise, that if there’s a test on whether this post is sarcastic, it’s not me giving the test or marking you down, if you don’t pass.

  • I’m sure this is excellent work, adding up how the numbers don’t.

    But beyond that, it’s quite wrong to put a child somewhere it has no choice on it’s own to seek different avenues (a different school, a different setup for learning etc.) and then when the child is uncomfortable decide to see whether it later on in life is put into a diagnosed illness there’s no proof exists, as it is defined. Along with further taking away choice.

  • Great article. I just want to comment that this can be confusing (especially when you’ve been regaled in the Russian language):

    “Part of our political power base was the mental health workers’ independent labor union that had also mastered the long march through the institutions. ”

    “Through the institutions” is a lot like, if you would have said: “by means of the institutions,” which is exactly the opposite that you wanted to say.

    It’s just a bit like “With the institutions,” as if it’s by means of them. I’m just mentioning this because I DID see this happen. A lady was inspired by me to go to a Mind Freedom convention, and she expected the people on the board of where she was getting the money to have read what it was about, which wasn’t the case (even though there’s online easily accessible info). So they were there already, by means of the very institution which the get together was meant to be against.

    It’s like: let’s say one has the most beautiful 3/4 sized violin in existence; but you HATE the people that rate these things, sell them; and all the like:

    Do you:

    1) Never play on it consequently.
    2) Have it in your heart that you wanted it to be appraised by who you HATE, and thus resent that only you know it’s worth; which causes extreme stress, and converts you into an old Troll when you wanted to be a Millionaire and sell the instrument.
    3) Try to make a time machine for when you didn’t have the instrument.
    4) Become amazed that what you thought you never had was there the whole time, along with the amazing fact that there never was any need for you to feel guilty that you were unaware of it’s existence. And play and play and play and play and play like the world would never end.

  • I just looked at this again, and at first had to laugh a bit.

    One would seem that another analogy of how these “results” were obtained of 83% runs along the lines of the old story about a bunch of gorillas and type writers (NO insult to gorillas, intended at all). That if you gave them type writers and allowed them to bang on the keys long enough, you would get all of Shakespeare’s plays; because it’s in the probability theory extended to infinity. And this proves gorillas actually wrote Shakespeare’s plays rather than Shakespeare, the Earle of whoever of Mr. Bacon. This ALMOST approaches how the results are tweaked.

    Then, I had another thought, a harrowing thought. Since schizophrenia diagnosis depends totally on a “psychiatrist” and not only has no clear objective basis based on diagnosis of behavior, being that this is discrepant (not only based on time, but on who is doing the diagnosis), but it also has no biological marker.

    But

    Well….

    So it would depend on finding the gene for imagination, or abstract thought that doesn’t have {or ignore} flaws in logic excused by “consensual reality basis,” or “statistical based norms,” being that both such “concepts” define reality or appropriate behavior on consensus or on statistics of belief rather than objective evaluation and thus find the statistical norms to be scientifically validated, without proof. Stated simpler, if the gaps in “consensual reality deportment” or “statistical based norms,” disturb or confuse a person, and they would need support to see that their minds are on the right track, this then is “schizophrenic” for those who deny that they need such support, or that they need to simply be left alone.

    “consensual reality deportment” is a term Sandra Steingard brought up
    “statistical based norm,” is a term used by the APA trying to address the hunger strike demanding proof of a chemical basis for mental illness that mind freedom had in 2003. They said that a person’s inability to adapt to statistical based norms made their “survival” difficult. This proves they have a “mental illness.” It was pointed out that that’s a sociological concept (not proof of a mental illness), and also defines people that are minorities, live in poverty or a war zone or who suffer other kinds of oppression and/or discrimination.

    How does one deal with this?
    How does one deal with people whose “consensual reality based deportment” is based on not only one particular environment where this is “consensual,” but is not at all consistent in moving to another environment, which has different consensual concepts. In fact, this basically is an analogous to maintaining differences in cultures, and stating that such differences are necessary, despite whether they have any function for survival beyond such behavior not fitting into the culture being punished. And before long you have different cultures disagreeing with each other, and you have wars, and anyone of a different culture than what is the dominant culture is a minority; and it’s not too far a stretch to see that wars cause poverty rather than there’s agreement that leads to harmony and a productive society. And this “reality deportment” is based on a group of people deciding how a person should behave to not be ostracized in the “group” or found “crazy” rather than on what the group is accomplishing (with their consensual reality deportment) or whether they are in fact completely unaware of what’s going on, or in denial etc..

    One simply can point out that this (this “survival” based on reality deportment statistics from consensually based norms) already occurs with medications. You just have to study what Mr. Whitaker reports to see that “consensual reality deportment” and “statistical based norms” are that medications treat mental illness, and bring healing: However, in reality, when a person is articulate in how they observe what’s going on, this isn’t the case at all. So, a further “logical” continuation of that “survival” depends on following “statistical based norms” is that you just take these pills, despite the fact that statistically the data within the consensual reality deportment correlate with things getting worse, and that this IS the norm in scientific observation (except maybe short term if you’re lucky) and………

    who’s profiting?

    and does this make them happy?

    If they are happy why do they keep on ignoring reality?

    And are these profits, or are they an excuse OTHER people make of getting it wrong again!?

    I mean it just isn’t….

    It isn’t perspective when there’s a retreat into an area where there’s yet another consensual reality deportment which finds others abnormal while saying: “we have the right to be able to wield what you’re using to oppress us.”

  • I agree completely with Ute M Kramer’s remark. Again the focus is on “schizophrenics” becoming violent or “psychotics” becoming violent, and the whole matrix in society which breeds, excuses and even nurtures violence in the military industrial complex or as a means to attain a supposed end is ignored. And then there’s another factor. Psychiatric drugs are the “medications” most associated with causing violence. To what an extent are those who have suffered sexual abuse more likely to be prescribed such medications? And to what extent do those medications strongly correlate with causing violence, as well as lessening recovery rates, lessening life, lessening self initiative, lessening general health; and then increasing the profits of the drug companies (of whom we’re not told how much they funded and/or steered this research and it’s findings).

  • You have to remember that [many or most] psychiatrists actually believe that they are fixing up society. This is also where all of their anger is directed, that’s how they see things (that people have emotional problems they shouldn’t and which need to be eradicated) and that things are the way they are because people aren’t being controlled by them, being that they know the way to fix things. In comes the yet-to-be-proven-but-we-haven’t-got-there-yet biological illness model/myth. This was the same with the invaders of an indigenous area who thought that the natives were savages.

    To me it all comes from the separation we make between good and bad and how this excuses a trauma based discipline which says you are allowed to humiliate, attack, intimidate, punish and hate the “bad” person or people. And when you are trying to heal trauma (which I think is what the issue is) this doesn’t help to invest in more trauma based discipline, because that is the problem to begin with. And it becomes a means to an end on all sides, each side excusing their hatred by means of it. It’s why people believe so much in good and bad that they attach to mythologies about a chemical imbalance, and think they are saviors of the world when adhering to whatever idea that involves something being made out to be the bad thing to attack. It’s also why people make out that the evil is psychiatry rather than how they are trying to make change, and invest in the very method on whose foundation psychiatry maintains its controls.

    When you move away from this you come to a whole other area of reality that isn’t required to adhere to the control tactics of trauma based discipline and it’s illusion of safety. And to a mind which can’t let go of the allure of fitting into the trauma based model of control, this seems crazy. And yet this is where compassion, where the taoist idea of non-attachment, where forgiveness, and where creativity and art come in. And miracles, evolution growth and enlightenment.

  • Um, I think I have a test for “schizophrenia” which is 100% accurate.
    Has that person been to see a psychiatrist?
    This will be yes 100% of the time, I think.
    Thus, psychiatry as a cause for schizophrenia is more reliable than:
    1) genetics
    2) chemical imbalance (unless caused by psychiatric medications)
    3) trauma (unless caused by psychiatry)
    4) poverty (unless caused by psychiatry)
    5) social oppression (unless caused by psychiatry)

    Well, I’ve heard that psychiatric drugs can effect genes in future generations, so genetic problems might be caused by psychiatry as well.

    The only problem here is that in a country where there is no psychiatry (in indigenous cultures for example); there isn’t a correlation with psychiatry and schizophrenia.

    So, if Exxon corporation would be given the privilege of determining who is schizophrenic without it being “psychiatric” they could put all indigenous populations in an asylum, pollute their water and land as much as the want (something necessary for a productive economy); and we’d have a true source for “schizophrenia” not caused by “psychiatry.”

    And this hunt for communism started by McCarthy years back could turn into a hunt for “schizophrenia.” All backed by medical science.

  • Sorry, I just don’t believe that some guy in the North Pole with a whole factory of elves to keep children in line giving them rewards or not, because his surveillance methods know whether they’ve been good or bad (and who decides the criterion?) that this is, as the article says something that exists as certainly as what gives life: “its highest beauty and joy…

    But I have seen elves although I have absolutely NO desire to EVER have to prove whether they exist or not.

  • From the link :”Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there.”

    I have seen fairies dancing on the the lawn, all the time; but I have as little desire to prove they exist than that Santa could (who I haven’t seen). I think each flower has a fair, if you look right. I also don’t think there’s a pill that can make you see them, or stop you from for that matter.

    And isn’t that Quantum Physics, that we disrupt matter trying to pin it down? Those are two completely different worlds. The real and the unreal, only the unreal is what we think is real. And when we think we’ve pinned it down (which in the long run always ends up being we missed something and have to look further) then we think it’s real; as if creation could exist that way. That first you have to have defined what isn’t possible as if being that anything is possible wasn’t how we came up with limitations that don’t exist, as well. Even THAT is possible that we come up with limitations that don’t exist and believe it’s real.

  • This is rather silly. People who suffer trauma are more likely to get involved with substance abuse because society doesn’t allow them to express trauma, doesn’t allow them to understand it (which would also help to expose the trauma of those causing trauma to others, were there more interest in what trauma does other than a means of mind control): does this mean that the controlled substances also caused the need for escape (which is a disease), or is there simply a need for escape and were there acknowledged there might be healthier choices available?

  • “What makes it so difficult for people to believe that brain illnesses exist? Every other organ system in the body can break down; why not the brain? “

    Yes, give a person a drug that disables the mind, is highly addictive, causes brain damage and you have brain illnesses. And this suppresses trauma that needs to be expressed to be exposed so it can be dealt with and heal. But psychiatry doesn’t address that THIS is where there’s proof of a brain illness, while they talk about one they can’t prove exists.

    And no, the people that actual can relate to people and help them to heal aren’t the ones that just say it’s some attitude problem in contrast to whoever lecturing on attitudes.

    “Psychiatrists don’t make this stuff up.”

    What they “make up” is the proof that mental illness is biological, which they can’t substantiate other than saying drugs that CAUSE chemical imbalance heal it, and then start listing how these drugs interfere with natural working of the mind, and act as if this is treating a chemical imbalance?

    And also the implementation of the biological method only really correlates with MORE mental illness, not less than it. Thus, this whole statement: “if you are talking about severe, life threatening psychiatric illnesses with very real mortality rates, psychiatrists save the lives of people every single day with medications.” this is not supported at all. In fact, psychiatric treatment CORRELATES with a mortality rates, disability, an increase in the disease, with CAUSING physical disease; as well as fear against normal human responses to trauma, which when disabled with “medications” CORRELATE with what I’ve had to repeat too often already.

    “Psychiatric illnesses are for the most part invisible and I think that tosses them up in the air for discussion, judgment, and assumptions. “

    Santa Clause also seems to be “for the most part” invisible, does that make him available for “scientific” discussion and judgment as well. And what ISN’T invisible? What turns up in EVERY test of ANYONE who is put on a psychiatric drug, and is caused by the drug INTERFERING with the mind? Making up something, because you say it’s invisible and thus is up for grabs, doesn’t push to the side that in the meantime you are CAUSING what you yourself have defined as a disease, with the “treatment.” And why is it that this OVERWHELMING evidence that psychiatric drugs cause the brain to break down isn’t seen for what science and statistics show it to be, when it involves “treatment”!?

    “Misery, poverty, homelessness, and marginalization” HAVE NOT been proven to be solved with health care that disabled the mind. Neither did the opium wars fix the economy of China.

    And we’re supposed to be angry that it hasn’t worked, and believe it’s because it hasn’t been implemented enough?

    When whoever is finished being “angry” that I or the rest of us who have this supposed attitude problem don’t follow such guidance (and thus we are the cause), I just wonder whether they are really going to calmly consider all sides of what they are going on about and consider the illogic pointed out? Or are they going to reach for a psychiatric “medication” or another proven controlled substance because perspective causes too much stress in their lives?

    And further more I’m just listing supportable facts, not “bashing” anyone. Bashing someone would be saying they have a disease which I can’t prove exists, forcing treatment on them if they don’t want to believe it after convening with my colleagues as if that constitutes proof, and when all such “healing” methods cause more of the disease try to change the laws so I can do this without having to worry about such annoyances as civil rights. Along with causing, by my own definition of said disease, the very disease I say I’m healing ( a chemical imbalance). OK, sorry, that’s not bashing, that’s one step further than that.

    Bashing then would be implying that people just are unreasonable, stubborn and have a personality flaw when they don’t want to believe that this “brain disease” actually exists without proof, although the method of healing said “disease” HAS been proven to cause brain disease. Etc. !!!

  • Of course it would be nothing but a solace, a blessing to be able to have proof that Open Dialogue works, which one can present in open dialogue about mental health care. But in many ways that proof is already there. It’s there when one looks at the old method of the quakers where a person was simply given healthy food and allowed to rest (the model from which the asylum comes, although what rest there is is questionable when in common practice that’s common in practice today it involves being intimidated that if you don’t believe you have a chemical imbalance, which they can’t prove exists, and you don’t take “medications” which have been proven to cause a chemical imbalance rather than treat one, you’re non compliant and you won’t get better, although statistics show that there are less relapses when one isn’t on said “medications” along with the “medications” taking years off of a person’s life, when taken as prescribed – this all conveniently putting the blame when things get worse on someone not taking their medications, although the “medications” actually correlate with it getting worse; and bingo, you have more need of “medications” and more profits for the drug companies). To repeat myself the initial model of an asylum where a person gets rest and healthy food, rather than indoctrinated into believing in a yet to be proven treatment, this corresponded with healing. As Robert Whitaker reports in his material, there’s clear proof that people who are not on medications or have weened themselves off of them have higher rates of recovery, and less relapsing. There’s also statistical material showing that a person who isn’t receiving any treatment whatsoever, who has been diagnosed as “schizophrenic” will do better if simply left alone rather than have to take medications at all. There’s also the ortho-molecular method. There’s also the abundant resource of people like you have on this site and other “contrarian” gatherings where you have people who have experienced healing that comes from breaking away from the biological method, and who form a cohesive outlet for people to express themselves. These voices aren’t counted at all, in fact they are suppressed from being expressed in mainstream psychiatric care. And a person who has had such experiences of healing is pretty much discouraged or prevented from having their voice heard the minute a person comes under the control of psychiatry. And as this guy whose name I’d rather forget says, anyone who speaks against common care, and dares to witness their own healing in contradiction to it is a “contrarian.” In essence he’s trying to say that we have a personality flaw. “Contrarian” is a politically correct way of saying we have oppositional defiance disorder.

    Given the absolute hostility towards such voices, and the attempts to stereotype them (look at name-deleted posts on huffingtonpost for example, another person I’d rather forget); or how anyone pointing out that mental illness can come from emotional trauma is attacked as blaming the parent, when this isn’t going on – given such behavior, it only becomes clear what’s going on. Gabor Mate also points this out, as soon as he even mentions trauma as a cause for mental illness, or stress; even though he clearly points out that he’s not blaming the parents but simply pointing out an environment, he’s attacked as blaming the parent. And trauma based healing heals trauma, that includes looking at the trauma of the person who caused the trauma felt by others; that’s different than the trauma based discipline, which society tries to brainwash people into believing. As if the trauma of one person is a cause to traumitize another, and this supposedly solves the situation rather than promotes the very cause of the problem, which is trauma. And when a person isn’t controlled by those fears (when their behavior isn’t limited to this little spectrum allowed to not be attacked as deserving trauma based discipline) they’re behavior is analyzed to mean they have a mental illness, or when a person is in a minority, suffers poverty, or finds themselves in the middle of a war the understandable signs of trauma in their life are used to analyze their behavior as having signs of a mental illness rather than being understood as trauma. And so those wielding these “powers” can act like they’re healers, that they are saving society, and fill in the blank with their fabricated responses, which in reality make me wonder why I would use the word fabricated, since that refers to fabric, something which clothes are made of, and something the emperor in the famous story was missing, although no one was supposed to see it.

    Whether anyone ever “proves” that open dialogue works, or anyone ever “proves” that all the people here that have a voice, and have experienced healing actually exist, or that anyone ever proves that the sun exists, or water; Open Dialogue stands as a shining beacon to those who just want to hear that there is a different way, that that inkling in their mind, something so quiet it wouldn’t go away, something so subtle is somehow isn’t stuck in time enough to deteriorate, that this is worth listening to and worth being allowed to have a voice. THAT makes a difference, whether or not the machinery of science ever pins it down in a way that Quantum Physics has already shown that the building blocks of the Universe are free of…

    That there’s a method which says you don’t have to terrify people into believing there’s some diabolical disease going on, that’s it’s human experience, that it’s taking a nuanced look at things, that it’s being flexible, that it’s not judging another person but taking a look at what went on in their life and how this reflects society in general…and how we can find our own self worth and the majesty of what it is to be human inside ourselves, instead.

    ok…?

  • Mary, thanks for your wonderful work.

    I don’t agree that Marvin Ross’s claim that we need more proof in order to substantiate Open Dialogue is valid. Were this valid, he would have to ask for the same kind of proof in what he promotes, and he doesn’t do this at all. In fact there’s more than enough proof that NOT implimenting what he promotes and just leaving a person alone who has “schizophrenia” achieves better results than what he’s promoting. One only has to continue looking at how contorted and corrupt (and full of stereotyping) his claims AND his language are.

    Would his claim be valid at all, and his need for scientific proof, he’d have to have proof that what he’s promoting is better than no treatment, or that what he calls a biological disease exists at all. All of that is dismissed, and one is supposed to find this OK, and overlook it in dealing with “proving” another method is effective, while allowing the kind of flaws in logic to continue in what he is promoting, and have it be less effective than no treatment, while it is causing the disease it says it is healing (a chemical imbalance).

  • Without being an official institution, I have heard this kind of story from someone else recently. The same kind of story. Someone with brain injury is removed from their parents and treated with antipsychotics. In fact, someone else with a brain injury themselves told me that he couldn’t get a judge to listen to him, when he tried to explain what he had had since he was a child. A brain injury. He had had a brain injury and the amount of water in his brain was just below what would be considered hydrocephalic. This in regards his mental condition treatment and putting him on brain damaging medications.

    There is no correlation of understanding.

  • I find this part of Rufus’ post really amazing and helpful:

    “When we get mentally overwhelmed it is because parts of us are trying to protect themselves in powerful ways that are confusing to the person or those around them.  For example, in depression parts of us withdraw when they are exhausted. They are perhaps full of fear and don’t want to fail again. The person may also be overwhelmed with feelings of grief, sadness and bitterness to the point of a complete sense of nothingness and pointlessness.
    In what gets called obsessive compulsive disorder a child-like part of us may be in control. It knows that – temporarily – it can protect the person from pain by creating an illusion of control in an unsafe and uncertain world. In mania, impulsive energies and child-like parts and power-hungry parts team up and overtake the exhausted responsible adult parts. They are running on suppressed energy, and often it is a powerful cocktail of pent-up frustrations and grief.
    When we are seen as delusional, our magical and imaginative children may have taken over our awareness, creating stories that seek to protect us and in some ways symbolize our emotional strife and need for safety. Our heroes and our messiahs are often given a role to protect us  from painful feelings of isolation, vulnerability, and loneliness.
    When we hear voices we may be hearing parts of ourselves we have consciously or unconsciously separated from and personified.  Angry voices are often parts of us that have witnessed or been subject to neglect, emotional or physical violation, manipulation and exploitation. They are angry at the person and the world that has let them down.
    Somebody who experiences high levels of anxiety may be highly sensitive, and this trait needs to be honoured as an ability to feel energies and emotions strongly.  Anxiety also seems to mount up when we are trying to keep a lid on angry and frightened parts of ourselves.
    Suicidal feelings come from parts of ourselves that are overwhelmed with painful feelings. They want a break. They are telling us we need new ways to look after and respond to these painful feelings. When emotional pain feels listened to or is channelled in some way into activity, it calms down markedly.”

    My thoughts:

    If our inner child starts making up stories which seek to protect us and in some ways symbolize our emotional strife and need for safety who is to say that these stories are unrealistic, when they take on an emotional perspective which is connected to the creative energies which steer our destiny and create our lives. The very fact that they stray away from objective substance reliable reality, and the mind does this by itself, shows that they may be tapping into something that’s the source rather than the result. That they are tuning into cause rather than effect, content rather than surface. And often they are being judged because what they express transcends accepted norms, which aren’t objective either, and thus are about challenging people to question their assumptions rather than anything objective at all.

    (Thinking about your thoughts)

  • I did touch upon the idea of diversity today, that unity comes from diversity (all of it), actually.

    Beyond all the words on my other post(s).

    http://oelte.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/dscf0679-jpg/

    And today’s lesson from ACIM (A Course in Miracles) is (238th day of the year is today, I think): http://acim.org/Lessons/lesson.html?lesson=238

    After going to the soup kitchen, which I do occasionally, so I have enough left over for vegetables; I went to the ministry where you can do art, for free. And I usually work on my A Course in Miracles exercise or the text, in a leisurely way. So, in just looking at what images appeared in my mind, and playing with them, this (there the link up there) came out.

    I really think that’s what being a peer is, because it’s not being glued together by some addendum. It happens: we’re experiencing the same thing, without others or even ourselves having to define it. And you’re welcome Lucinda.

  • Since there’s no edit button, I’ve edited this. I just simply really think that it’s out of place to start using the term “neurodiversity” when the toxicity which effects nerves, effect neuroactivity, and which is going on in treatment, or from other sources that aren’t acknowledged is suppressed.

    Lucinda: I looked over your posts, and see your use the term neurodiversity quite often, and you say it comes from Autism terminology..

    If you are going to use a scientific term which refers to neurons, I wonder how much of the scientific data you are articulately referring to. One thing that’s turns up with autism consistently is the damage to the intestines (which are made out of the same cells as the brain, the intestines being called the second brain). And how much vaccines correspond with causing such damage, which is also effects the brain. And in “mental illness” the only true sign of “neodiversity” in a scientific sense is what is caused by the medications. People who are “treated” with psychiatric medications HAVE a form of “neurodiversity,” this can be addictions, brain damage, a disabled brain, loss of life and also dependency on a controlled substance to avoid withdrawal symptoms. If you are going to speak of “neurodiversity” in such a context, are you also going to refer to drug addicts, alcoholics, people with sugar addictions or who overindulge in other substances; and are you going to acknowledge that they also have “neurodiversity” and need to be accepted for who they are, that because of the trauma in their life they weren’t able to deal with, they sought to self-medicate themselves? This is the only “science” going on in reference to any “neuro” activity, that it is being disabled, by whatever means. And are you going to acknowledge that what are advertised as “psychiatric medications” don’t do anything more than disable the brain in the same way that “self medicating “does? That neurodiversity, would hit have any true scientific validity, means people were told they have a chemical imbalance, treated, and then given one they didn’t have before this. Along with the people that chose for a chemical imbalance, that knew it. This is the science of what’s “diverse, according to what’s known as “neurodiversity.” But there wasn’t any “neurodiversity” to speak of before “treatment.”

    Is love making out a non proven theory that there’s a chemical balance being treated (rather than being caused by medications), heralding this as a cause (“neurodiversity”): is this really love, or is this a sly way the ego has of causing fear in people’s lives, and distracting them from actually attending to what’s going on in their life because they have “neurodiversity?” Although true recovery might not involve such complications, heralding a condition with a scientific name that doesn’t apply to it, whose treatment causes that very condition. True recovery might actually not involve banding together based on ideology that’s not been proven and is contorted in such a fashion, in order to create a concept of being a “peer,” people use to bond together. And there would be no need to add onto this already confusing terminology the idea that evolution is taking place (either aided or inhibited by the “medications”).

    You said the following in a post: “As my Teacher says, there are two energies on our planet, fear (contraction) and love (expansive) and we have free will in any moment to choose. Finally, there is no “us” and “them”–we are all “we” as catalysts for one another’s awakening. It is fear that separates us from Ourselves and has us feel alone.”

    If “we” is not “us” and “them” (which I agree with) why are you heralding such a misleading title as “neurodiversity” which exactly DOES separate people into us and them, and does it in a way that pretends to be scientific, but has no basis in scientific fact?

    How is going on about the unsubstantiated sound-clip term “neurodiversity” helping people wake up? To me it’s confusing, one positive result is that then they might go elsewhere (including not needing help from the government for more money, for what hasn’t been shown to be helpful). And how is this helping them express free will to see the difference between contraction and expansion? People who are the worst off, when they receive NO treatment, do statistically better, without drinking any of the Kool-aide, no toxic drugs, no “peer support,” no need to say they have “neurodiversity,” etc… They didn’t band together in groups and weren’t given grants for such gatherings…..

    There might actually be some sort of difference in how the brain works of an artist, a psychic, a sensitive, a healer, a person able to see scientific logic that hasn’t been acknowledged in mainstream doctrine; and more people of “diversity,” however the kind of disabling of the mind that’s taking place, and the kind of patting on the head when a person has adapted to statistical based norms, salience with consensual reality comportment, and what is done in the name of “mental healthy” really attempts to counteract all such. And fortunately it’s only theory that there’s anything different in the brains of such people. From the way things go, that would only be made out to be a problem. I don’t know how many psychiatric drug advertisements I’ve seen trying to act like, having a time machine, they could have made Beethoven Van Gogh or who knows which great artist’s life easier: people who have been nurturing the collective consciousness for generations, without “treating” a chemical imbalance which hasn’t been proven to exist while this correlated with an epidemic. But what true science has PROVEN is that the biological problem is what the treatment has done, and WOULD HAVE done, a chemical imbalance which wasn’t there before. Treatment leads towards addiction, disabling, more relapsing, less recovery, loss of life, loss of self initiative, loss of creativity and loss of clear thought as well as a fear for emotional or conceptual responses which aren’t considered “normal,” and when turned off are considered healed, although you get addiction, disabling, more relapsing, less recovery, loss of life, loss of self initiative, loss of creativity and loss of clear thought as well as a fear for emotional or conceptual responses which aren’t considered “normal.” Here I could have continued with ‘and when turned off are considered healed, although you get addiction, disabling’ etc. But I put an end to it there already.

    I find it inappropriate to use a term referring to the neurons of the brain as if there’s something biological going on, when this very focus distracts from the spiritual, emotional and empathic healing that has been shown to help.

    The whole term “neuro” heralds the whole biological method, which HASN’T found any true definite difference, but causes difference in a negative way; and uses the whole idea of someone’s brain being different in order to say they are treating rather than causing difficulty.

    And again the reference to cancer is inappropriate, that’s a biological disease, not an alleged one that yet to be proven exists.

    And in your new post, you again make reference to “brain” experiences, when this is only alleged, except for what medications do in causing brain malfuction, that IS proven.

    This, I think, was Sera’s whole point, the innapropriate use of the term Peer in order to be used as a means of preventing actually interaction between people. The ideology “neurodiversity” I find inappropriate when the very idea there’s something “neuro” going on has caused treatments to be promoted which actually CAUSE neurological toxicity, and this isn’t acknowledged AT ALL for the most part, and so this is, to me, extremely misleading us of the term”neuro” anything. Using such terms “brain” experiences or “neurodiversity” when this is terminology that has been used to deny the need for diversity, or has been used to deny what a brain experience is (disabling the brain with toxic substances, which is all that has scientifically been proven to be going on is NOT in any way treating a chemical imbalance). And then people are judged on whether they use an accepted form of brain numbing or not; and those that don’t are stigmatized. Getting together to talk about what science has proven to be going on, and how the drugs were disabling, this accurately might be about brain experiences. Or talking about how changing their diet helped or other physical activities. But bringing in concepts about “neurodiversity” I find convoluted when this puts the focus on a biological something which is unsubstantiated, when people need to be able to talk about their emotional experiences, as thought rather than the result of some yet to be proven theory; which distracts from the focus on thought, on emotions, on sharing, on actual experiences, on perspective, on feeling safe to be able to really express what went on and promote letting go and an understanding of trauma rather than exploiting it to control people with “discipline.”

  • Lucinda: I looked over your posts, and see your use the term neurodiversity quite often, and you say it comes from Autism terminology..

    If your are going to use a scientific term which refers to neurons, I wonder how much of the scientific data you are articulately referring to. One thing that’s turns up with autism consistently is the damage to the intestines (which are made out of the same cells as the brain, the intestines being called the second brain). And how much vaccines correspond with causing such damage, which is also effects the brain. And in “mental illness” the only true sign of “neodiversity” in a scientific sense is what is caused by the medications. People who are “treated” with psychiatric medications HAVE a form of “neurodiversity,” this can be addictions, brain damage, a disabled brain, loss of life and also dependency on a controlled substance to avoid withdrawal symptoms. If you are going to speak of “neurodiversity” in such a context, are you also going to refer to drug addicts, alcoholics, people with sugar addictions or who overindulge in other substances; and are you going to acknowledge that they also have “neurodiversity” and need to be accepted for who they are, that because of the trauma in their life they weren’t able to deal with, they sought to self-medicate themselves? This is the only “science” going on in reference to any “neuro” activity, that it is being disabled, by whatever means. And are you going to acknowledge that what are advertised as “psychiatric medications” don’t do anything more than disable the brain in the same way that “self medicating “does? That neurodiversity means people were told they have a chemical imbalance, treated, and then given one they didn’t have before this. Along with the people that chose for a chemical imbalance, that knew it. This is the science of what’s “diverse, according to what’s known as “neurodiversity.” But there wasn’t any “neurodiversity” to speak of before “treatment.”

    Is love making out a non proven theory that there’s a chemical balance being treated (rather than being caused by medications), heralding this as a cause (“neurodiversity”): is this really love, or is this a sly way the ego has of causing fear in people’s lives, and distracting them from actually attending to what’s going on in their life because they have “neurodiversity?” Although true recovery might not involve such complications, heralding a condition with a scientific name that doesn’t apply to it, whose treatment causes that very condition. True recovery might actually not involve banding together based on ideology that’s not been proven and is contorted in such a fashion, in order to create a concept of being a “peer,” people use to bond together.

    You said the following in a post: “As my Teacher says, there are two energies on our planet, fear (contraction) and love (expansive) and we have free will in any moment to choose. Finally, there is no “us” and “them”–we are all “we” as catalysts for one another’s awakening. It is fear that separates us from Ourselves and has us feel alone.”

    If we is not us and them (which I agree with) why are you heralding such a misleading title as “neurodiversity” which exactly DOES separate people into us and them, and does it in a way that’s pretends to be scientific, but has no basis in scientific fact.

    How is going on about the unsubstantiated sound-clip term “neurodiversity” helping people wake up? To me it’s confusing, on positive result is that then they might go elsewhere (including not needing help from the government for more money, for what hasn’t been shown to be helpful)? And how is this helping them express free will to see the difference between contraction and expansion? People who are the worst off, when they receive NO treatment, do statistically better, without drinking any of the Kool-aide, not toxic drugs, no “peer support,” no need to say they have “neurodiversity,” etc… They didn’t band together in groups and were given grants for such gatherings…..

    There might actually be some sort of difference in how the brain works of an artist, a psychic, a sensitive, a healer, a person able to see scientific logic that hasn’t been acknowledged in mainstream doctrine; and more people of “diversity,” however the kind of disabling of the mind that’s taking place, and the kind of patting on the head when a person has adapted to statistical based norms, salience with consensual reality comportment, and what is done in the name of “mental healthy” really attempts to counteract all such. And fortunately it’s only theory that there’s anything different in the brains of such people. From the way things go, that would only be made out to be a problem. I don’t know how many psychiatric drug advertisement I’ve seen trying to act like, having a time machine, they could have made Beethoven Van Gogh or who knows which great artist’s life easier: people who have been nurturing the collective consciousness for generations, without “treating” a chemical imbalance which hasn’t been proven to exist, and causing an epidemic. But what true science has PROVEN is that the biological problem is what the treatment has done, and WOULD HAVE done, a chemical imbalance which wasn’t there before. Treatment leads towards addiction, disabling, more relapsing, less recover, loss of life, loss of self initiative, loss of creativity and loss of clear thought as well as a fear for emotional or conceptual responses which aren’t considered “normal,” and when turned off are considered healed, although you get addiction, disabling, more relapsing, less recover, loss of life, loss of self initiative, loss of creativity and loss of clear thought as well as a fear for emotional or conceptual responses which aren’t considered “normal.” Here I could have continued with ‘and when turned off are considered healed, although you get addiction, disabling’ etc. Bu I put an end to it there already.

    I find it inappropriate to use a term referring to the neurons of the brain as if there’s something biological going on, when this very focus distracts from the spiritual, emotional and empathic healing that has been shown to help.

    The whole term “neuro” heralds the whole biological method, which HASN’T found any true definite difference, but causes difference; and uses the whole idea of someone’s brain being different in order to say they are treating rather than causing difficulty.

    And again the reference to cancer is inappropriate, that’s a biological disease, not an alleged one that yet to be proven exists.

    And in your new post, you again make reference to “Brain” experiences, when this is only alleged, except for what medications do in causing brain malfuction, that IS proven.

    This, I think, was Sera’s whole point, the innapropriate use of the term Peer in order to be used as a means of preventing actually interaction between people. The ideology “neurodiversity” I find inappropriate when the very idea there’s something “neuro” going on has caused treatments to be promoted which actually CAUSE neurological toxicity, and this isn’t acknowledged AT ALL for the most part, and so this is, to me, extremely misleading us of the term”neuro” anything. Using such terms “brain” experiences or “neurodiversity” when this is terminology that has been used to deny the need for diversity, or has been used to deny what a brain experience is (disabling the brain with toxic substances, which is all that has scientifically been proven to be going on is NOT in any way treating a chemical imbalance). And then people are judged on whether they use ab accepted form of brain numbing or not; and those that don’t are stigmatized. Getting together to talk about what science has proven to be going on, and how the drugs were disabling, this accurately might be about brain experiences. Or talking about how changing their diet helped. But bringing in concepts about “neurodiversity” in order to put the focus on a biological something, when people need to be able to talk about their emotional experiences, as thought rather than the result of some yet to be proven theory; which distracts from the focus on thought, on emotions, on sharing, on actual experiences, on perspective, on feeling safe to be able to really express what went on and promote letting go and an understanding of trauma rather than exploiting it to control people with “discipline.”

  • Timothy. I’m still concerned about the interpretations here, and if, as you say, you have a problem with enduring problems (or others do), I just want to point something out. Because there’s a misunderstanding here. a misinterpretation.

    When -_Anonymous said this:

    “Some people feel ‘morally blamed’ for not succeeding in mastering their problems without psychiatry’s toxic drugs. I don’t feel this way.”

    And you respond this way:

    “Succeed in mastering” your problems? Clearly suggests its a simple matter of the person ‘overcoming’ the problems. Goes directly to my original wheelchair analogy.”

    You know, here -_Anonymous is simply sharing his experience. And a view point. He’s saying that no one needs to feel morally blamed if they can’t solve their problems without psychiatric drugs.

    And you fuss about the word mastering, as if this states that someone who hasn’t found the answer, just hasn’t mastered his life, and there’s something wrong with him. This is EXACTLY what -_Anonymous WASN’T saying. And to go on. -_Anonymous, could have used another word, and there’s still the potential to start picking and fussing at that as well.

    He could have said “No one needs to be blamed that they can’t heal without psychiatry’s disabling medications.” and then one can start fussing at the word heal. As if this statement is that someone who continues to suffer, just isn’t doing what they need to heal. When in reality that AGAIN says exactly the opposite to begin with. If they haven’t healed it’s nothing to blame them about.

    AS if, would someone even suggest that they might not be healing (or mastering, or recovering or any other word) using ANY word which needs to be used in order to point out they shouldn’t feel as if there’s something wrong with them, when they aren’t; then the very fact that they have used ANY word to point out healing, recovery, mastering or another word; supposedly means to suggest that they are saying that a person can just recovery, heal or master their illness; when that’s completely not why they used the word, it’s not how it was used in context, and the whole statement was that they shouldn’t feel they have failed, that they aren’t morally obliged to master, that they don’t have a personality flaw if they don’t heal, and it’s OK.

    And just because they use a word (any word) to describe healing, and how they relate to it (and to add to this in context that no one should feel bad if they haven’t accomplished this) this DOES NOT mean that they are saying that that’s the only way, or that anyone who doesn’t accomplish healing that way has a personality flaw or whatever.

    YOU are the one not allowing for another form of healing, because when a form of healing is simply mentioned, you jump on that quite out of context. The reason it was simply mentioned, was not to refer to it as the only form of healing, but simply to affirm a statement that someone shouldn’t feel bad who hasn’t attained what they feel is healing, or that they failed, or to feel morally blamed.

    And I’m just saying I’m concerned about such a misinterpretation.

    And again,there’s nothing wrong with you expressing how you saw it, or how it made you feel. But it really was a misinterpretation. And that’s OK too.

  • Jonah, I actually have experienced a sort of reverberation of held beliefs that can materialize as a sort of “voice” or “voices” except it’s just unconscious reflexes that my mind is intelligent enough to bring to my attention.

    And so when I hear those things (and thanks to the excellent exposing of what hearing voices is on this site, and the encouragement you can do something with it) I now know I need to, for example, not worry about what people are thinking about me, or compromise my approach to fit into what people are going to accept or not (or statistical based norms or salience with consensual reality deportment).

    So I can not say anything rather than trying to be accepted, or I can say it nevertheless and allow their offended responses join the voice telling me not to offend them, which I’m already ignoring: or I can find out that it is accepted.

    And actually I move to an area where it is accepted, that way. I don’t hang around with the offended voices; or stay somewhere where I can’t say what I think.

    I think I started doing this a while back. Not holding back, that is. I’d been aware of these “voices” or “reverberations” before; but now I understand them more, in retrospect.

  • And it’s such a beautiful matrix, too…..

    People just are….. soo busy…..

    The whole Universe came out of one singularity that expanded into itself. Out of nothing, out of potential, possibility.

    That anyone would take some time to relate to things that came out of “nowhere” and have the connection with creativity that actually bring out what human possibility is, is too much to ask.

    Too many wars to fight to prevent trauma bye causing it….

    Where did this poem come from that slipped through your fingers onto paper, was it from Wallmaart or a source where there’s no loss in giving from?

    Nope, don’t have time for it….

    or

    “That’s nice….”

  • I didn’t know this about Deepak.

    Makes no sense.

    What I heard was this whole talk about how we’re all energy. We replace all of the atoms in our body every 7 years. Nothing it stagnant. And then yet….

    To have the energy to understand your own spirit (without psychiatric drugs) isn’t good….

    Well, he’s made a lot of money, anyhow….