Tuesday, April 7, 2020

Comments by Nijinsky

Showing 404 of 424 comments. Show all.

  • Excuse me but I’m really not interested in curt ideas of how one can ONCE AGAIN label normal responses to trauma as something severe that we need to cope with (or battle against), and then have bettered our and everyone else’s lives, as if seeing it as being severe and something to get rid of some as sort of heavy undertaking we get points for, simply because we make it out to be severe. I lost track at how often people over react once they believe you’re crazy, and act like there’s as you put it “something seriously wrong,” when what’s really wrong is the ridiculous paranoia, the gossip, the fear mongering, the social ostracizing and the bullying and ridiculing. The very initial thing one goes in to the mental health system believing they are in some sort of grave danger (Trewlany’s favorite line in Harry Potter) isn’t what causes the “episodes” either, it’s the resistance against them, the resistance against seeing it as a normal response, and also then often a response to “medications.” The DSM is a highly politicized bunch of paranoia, full of social constructs that are quite illogical except that it goes along with society’s belief in compromises as magic. (verbose enough?)

    What kind of nonsense is this: “Heh buddy, you know there’s something serious going on.”

    “If you actually followed what correlates with recovery then you wouldn’t have to deal with the result of recycling into “episodes” that wouldn’t be there without the disabling substances that prevented understanding, and recovery, which in this case is simple understanding by allowing someone to go through a process, rather than creating stigma and paranoia against it. And if you haven’t gone through it without trying to prevent it, then you haven’t gone through it.”

  • “My progression from nonpsychotic to psychotic followed a pretty typical course, unfortunately, there was much hesitation in giving me such a “serious” label, when in the end the correct diagnosis saved my life. I come to accept my diagnosis because I want to move on and live my life, helping others, not accepting things like this lead to a life time of questions and anger which isn’t worth it in the end. As tough a diagnosis as schizoaffective disorder has been it has helped me heal and taught me how to help others.”

    “Not accepting things like this lead to a life time of questions and anger which isn’t worth it in the end.” “Things?” What does “things” refer to? There are a lot of “things” you get points for for accepting from society, but cause trouble when you don’t conform, and thus anger and questions.

    Not accepting that you’re taking on a disease label that in contrast to being proven to be biological isn’t although its “cure” has been proven to be, this leads to a “lifetime” of question and anger that isn’t worth it in the end? Why would that be?

    Going against a fascist system (taking away people’s right to dissent from treatment, taking away personal liberties, labeling them as dangerous when they aren’t etc.) can also cause a lifetime of anger and questions. In fact more questions not less.

    I’m quite sure that there are people, and evidence shows they are in the majority, that indeed take on a life time of questions and anger (and suppression) exactly BECAUSE the label isn’t something that addresses what’s going on with them, puts them in a position for extreme discrimination and abuse, some of which you have highlighted, although there’s quite a bit more going on, certainly with people who have never acquired the insight to even know what’s going on and remain disabled lab rats for an ideology that hasn’t been proven to be effective..

    People take all sorts of stimulants to disable their mind. Sugar, alcohol, nicotine, street drugs, sex, shopping, $$$$$$$, junk food, chocolate and then think it’s part of this hard task of being productive, moving on with their life, as you put it. Getting past that annoying part of themselves that gets in the way of the happiness they believe is fulfillment when they’ve become a “productive” part of “society.” In fact they work hard to maintain it. In fact society for the most part nurtures a mindset that is drugged by ideology and maintains it through disabling the mind through various means. Whatever fashion is prevalent in whatever society uses it to judge others. Whatever arbitrary fear based bonding method that the group feels safe following in order to gain self worth above others who for whatever reason don’t follow such doctrines.

    And what you’ve delineated as being a very typical course (from non psychotic to psychotic) also delineates for many people how they got lost in a system at a vulnerable time in their lives, and remain stuck in it, disabled, a mere shadow of who they truly are, disabled and coerced into believing it’s necessary. And to promote a “tough” diagnosis earlier on is exactly what causes such repression.

    Beyond that, the simple right a person should have to their own life, and if there are things that society has difficulty with, and they would rather adapt, and disabling the mind helps them that’s THEIR choice, given informed consent, which usually isn’t going on with psychiatric drugs. That’s YOUR choice, but to call it a disease, to condone it being labeled as something it’s never been proven to be while the “cure” scientifically causes exactly what the disease is said to be (a chemical imbalance), this while most people aren’t informed of that: To call the whole process you have been through, which at this point you say is your own choice, a disease that’s been cured still does not make it a disease that’s been cured. And to label it such is highly fraudulent and misleading. And to label a list of symptoms as something inherent to a disease, be happy they have been alleviated (because you are happier that way) when there ARE a whole array of people who learned to understand the “symptoms” : added to this in this system calling it a disease and touting a cure that causes they very definition of the disease that wasn’t there to begin with, those people aren’t allowed a voice… then this starts creating fear mongering against symptoms, and heralds when they’ve been alleviated rather than understood with a healthy mind.

    sorry…

  • I’m sorry, but this being very true how someone is treated in “psychosis,” but you’ve defined it again for something it isn’t.

    All the violence against one is horrible, but how can one solve this while investing in the very institutions which condone such violence and promote it, and quake it as necessary for “safety.”

    It’s very much the same when someone gets hooked on street drugs, whether it’s through peer pressure, or in this case being forced on them, often through the same lies as peer pressure about street drugs and their wonders. Only here someone is forced on disabling substance and then told how miraculous they are because they disable dissent, they disable the very spiritual-artistic-human expressions that if given just a little bit of legroom would be understood, but would defy the status quo, the common compromises, the whole mind set society holds onto as if their fear based norms created reality, which could never be the case.

    Defending this and supplying videos that erroneously call schizophrenia a brain disease, this is misrepresenting what psychosis is, this is adding to stigma for people that need to get away from being bombarded with such misrepresentations, this is exploiting something that’s not working to make more demands and push to the side the simple things that work, which is non “treatment” with the “medications” that correlate with the whole spike.

    If you actually followed what correlates with recovery then you wouldn’t have to deal with the result of recycling into “episodes” that wouldn’t be there without the disabling substances that prevented understanding, and recovery, which in this case is simple understanding by allowing someone to go through a process, rather than creating stigma and paranoia against it. And if you haven’t gone through it without trying to prevent it, then you haven’t gone through it.

    There is an immense riff here between the need to simply allow inexplicable things like find yourself somewhere you don’t know how you got there (what psychiatric drugs were involved if any that might have helped with the lack of a healthy brain to remember enough, or that might have caused the need to escape?); not being able to express dissent from anything to such a degree that you attach to something you don’t understand yourself (aliens); or having repressed parts of yourself that you don’t even know need expression and you have suddenly a shift from another wise labeled shy personality.

    I might sound a bit annoyed and even impatient but I have had it SO MANY TIMES, encountering someone that understandably has all of these problems and points them out so articulately, and with such justified aggression, but when I offer a simple solution that works, and isn’t part of demanding the system change which isn’t working, I end up on the receiving end because why? Because the war is so just you don’t have to see that you’re ending up promoting what caused it (the problem) for the sake of justice: it’s such a “holy” war.

    “Schizophrenia” is NOT a brain disease, and never has been truly proven to be, unless you include the “treatment” for it, which DOES prove to cause a brain disease. And those are TWO completely different things. When the standard “treatment” correlates with what’s defined as a disease (in fact “the” disease), and the original disease in itself doesn’t, you’re not talking about healing a disease, you’re talking about causing one that didn’t exist before.

    In the meantime there ARE creative spiritual and to use an overused work “enlightened” people who have gotten out of the system, and have turned this supposed disease around to enhance what it is to be human instead, allowing it to be as innate a part of being human as imagination or hope or the fact that “God” exists outside of everything people get in the way of their life making demands on it rather than letting go and seeing what happens. People who have stopped allowing the “left brained” activity with all of it’s game theory fears, and all of its adherence to beliefs that come from social compromises rather than truth, and labels EVERYTHING as being “crazy” that scares it along with the belief in miracles. There are people that have STOPPED allowing that relentless itinerant fussing to get in the way. But that’s just a completely different way and it doesn’t say I need your “hospitals” when I can’t deal with myself, and it doesn’t say I need your “medications” when I don’t understand my responses, and my brain won’t conform to fear based social norms; and when all of that has shown to be a cause rather than a cure, it DOESN’T go there for “healing” or “safety”!

    Because there IS another way, and there ARE other outlets, you just have to let go of the ones that don’t work…. EVEN though there seems to be some immense loss to. This whole idea that SOMETHING needs to be there for me because this problem is so HORRENDOUS! If you didn’t think in such a way about it you wouldn’t be causing it to burst out again trying to show you differently, you wouldn’t be causing it, because you would actually have insight rather than fear.

    And this is supposed to be really harsh right, because this doesn’t empathize with what hasn’t been shown to work, although everyone gets points for investing in it – what doesn’t work, because then there’s more need for it despite that it doesn’t work, because it’s supposed to although it doesn’t – and to not go along with this nonsense is labeled as cruel, inhuman and lacking in concern….

    It’s THAT convoluted.

    I’m not interested in other people misrepresenting what I’VE gone through and was MY experience NOT THEIRS, and then have to be believing it’s necessary for “help.”

    sorry….

    Prince Charming coming riding in with a hypodermic needle full of…….

    (!?)

    Or his “Castle”

    Or being “Faithful” to him

  • Not only have I found it difficult to get someone ever enduring anti-depressants to engage with these very well documented statistics, but I’ve had it where someone already off of them, which the other ended up being as well, that one is there to: you know like a used car dealer where they sell you something that doesn’t work, although you have to pay to get it as well as transport it to where you’ll fix it, and then also pay membership fees, and when you figure out what they should have told you, being nice, they repeat what you said and say that that’s why they people that.

    !?

    Is suicide supposed to exist in Heaven that it’s a thought that doesn’t depend on an anti-depressant, because I think that already would, Heaven existing at all, mean that we have a soul, and that doesn’t die, but thoughts do when they are incapacitated, and that is what ALL psychiatric drugs, and ALL “medical” psychiatric treatments do, and that is disable natural functions of the mind.

    Because that’s then their argument, that stopping anti-depressant won’t stop violence, or suicide or the drug companies lying to everyone.

    It’s all just conformistic convenience, like Johnny Depp making a movie with Mr. Actor who defends his child murdering, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Brando but are we to get him and Johnny to admit how misinformed they’ve put forth truly damaging ideas, it’s oh, but there’s something else that makes people violent, or there’s an excuse for the violence, or it never happened, people like that don’t do such things.

    And children who truly don’t do such (see above) are never sexually molested.
    And chase scenes don’t get people so riled up they don’t know where they are anymore, or how to respond to even trying to cook a meal with the sounds they’ve heard pounding in their consciousness trying to find some entertainment, some leisure for their mind.

    And when Johnny Depp has a hoard of friends and family members as well as his pimp Tim Burton make excuses for his behavior when he assaulted his ex wife numerous times, this is normal for the supposed oddballs to have such drug habits, legal and not.

    OH, and I forgot Time Burton isn’t his pimp. That used to be someone from Russia who didn’t even know who he was, and he got into doing gay porno under a pseudonym. And has been stalking and trying to intimidate me for more than 20 years feeling free to create gossip about me I never invited while surfing on what he lets out about himself, to sexually harass me and stalk me in coffee houses (helped by the family of someone who died from drugs on his property), and oh, he made a movie where a pill magically helps Don de Marcos know who he is again. Or that flick where his love interest gets treated like she’s at a tropical resort after being committed.

    And this isn’t even fictional.

  • To be as honest as possible and try to squeeze a response in

    This whole thing is like saying that the amount of time it takes to make plans that work decides whether they will.

    Psychosis is simply finding what works, for that person who is going through it, you give a person that right and they will. But handing out what-works-for-others-not-going-through-psychosis to gain control so that those who are going through it are hampered, and then say time is involved in a negative way. Why is it negative? Who is stuck not seeing as negative? Is it negative? If it was positive would there be more of it?

    That I would go back now and believe all of whatever wasn’t allowing me to let go of what simply didn’t work, and put how CONFUSING it ended up being when discouraged from finding my own answer in a list of symptoms, as if there was no reason for me to be confused…..

    And now that I’ve gotten this far, it’s not about being a working member of society; it’s about miracles, which were happening the whole time, but in the background and now have stepped forward rather than further away or down under or hidden or anything like that.

    And yet I hear the birds come and cry at my window every day, because of what’s lost to them, thanks to how “man” cares for nature.

  • “Others point out that the fear around the relationship between DUP and outcomes has led to doctors consolidating more authority and more frequently restrain patients at the slightest hint of psychosis.”

    That’s the problem the patients are so ‘cute” and the doctors are so…..

    And the answer probably isn’t taking a squirt gun into “therapy” and shooting the doctor with kool aid.

    Besides, the keys that will release you aren’t ones he can hold, that would be like Hollywood selling keys to the city, or to release Pegasus for a joy ride, or who knows what!?

  • The longer a tree falls to the ground, the more danger there is, because the more impetus it gains falling from its height, the more upon hitting it’s target there will have been gravity involved.

    This is why we should make sure to get hist (oops I mean hit) often as possible by many many missiles called asteroids, then the planet will have more gravity, and the tree won’t take so long to fall!

  • By the way, Washington Irving had Cowotelexomaniac periods – which also, along with the slang which is used usually by men towards women (could mean they’re jealous of all of the attraction that women have they don’t) – the meaning has of a Dutch word for chewing, pronounced the same as Cow (Kauwen); only Cow as onomatopoeia is without the added syntax of the n’s (or being in them [n’s) and knocking u over), however that’s only in certain verbal forms of the infinitive’s conjugation, formally.

    He still has it too, it’s when the paintings get feverish over plagiarism that’s going on amongst those in the library that they have to sit and look at (they really can’t turn their gaze away without causing undue stress to their otherwise peaceful life), and look at while watching them, something they apparently have second thoughts about, and consequently end up a bit climbing the walls.

    It HAS happened that their eyes have flown off, but that’s more Shakespeare, and what happens to Juliet.

  • Yeah, but there’s so much to learn from putting them in little reservoiries like a shell game, to see whether the stupid populace with all of the unwarranted need for honesty they have can figure out what is under what, which hand, why it doesn’t move by itself, and eventually (the populace) only sees (the populace sees, is correct form of the verb to see) what is invisible, because then at least….

    however YOU brought up coding that’s extra-scientific and that’s not even a verb

    Or am I wrong

    Extra-scientific aspects of psychotherapy is coding, which is against alcohol. Ethical aspects is hypnosis against a nervously ticking child.

    I’m surprised you didn’t bring up hypnoses and hippotelexomaniacs related to Rhino it’s brother, that has also made its way into wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose-picking however, its brother still remains hidden.

    And I don’t know whether in other languages the names for psychiatric diseases use articles that contain gender references.

    For example, if still somewhere homosexuality is seen as a disease of the mind, is that disease then referred to, would a man have it as: “He has her.” “She’s got to be gotten rid of.”
    “We can’t have her around.” “Just read the bible about her.” “The world would be a better place without her.” “If we could just have more laws against her, and better privilege to eradicate her.” “She’s REALLY a danger to our children.” “Just imagine if SHE could actually cause reproduction!?”

  • To the list of platents hovering over one forced on, and forcing them:

    A girl named [redacted], the reincarnation of Charlotte Bronte, working at a foster care facility, but mostly for those called “retarded” or cognitively challenged, WHY such people are put on what’s listed above finally clearly, and the rest.

    So her x-husband (don’t ask me the story, to have to repeat it without serious yowling like what happens when you swing a dead cat by the tail and it starts yowling anyhow giving sign that Jesus is around, the whole history of it which rivals a serial killers, and he, the x was Rasputin) he had stopped working at a place he was forced to dole out such “meds,” and I had the nerve to point out that this didn’t mean he didn’t have concern for the people, because he wasn’t playing the game of catch one who’s vulnerable enough to think they are being helped. This woman who followed me home, took up so much time that I wasn’t walking the dog of my parents house being a different excursion, who got her own house after making sure she made me think I would get another to rent she first sat in instead, and in the mean or somewhere after or before time invited me over to clean the apartment that wasn’t interim but before she moved who knows how many times afterwards as well with another guy or three she changed warrants for, to instead accuse me of being difficult to get close to when I didn’t want to get high with her and the guy she’d been complaining about non-stop who WAS on such meds, and wasn’t her x or another of them; But heh, I point out not handing out such meds is not a sign of not caring, and she explodes in amplified anguish embellished with turgid tears of desire, hurt that I dared not make her out to be compassionate in her devices. Since, she’s had at least two children with different guys, one of the fathers was murdered when he gave the impression of being inchoate in his sincerity; and with yet another she’s now in “domesticity”.

    It’s not just those that produce the meds, those that advertise them, those that patent them, prescribe them and stuff them down the throats of innocent victims, it’s also those that out of kindness make it seem like it’s part of a necessary ritual. If you take that percentage of brain washing out of this study, how much is left at all?

  • The oldest trick in the book, ma[k]e a [] reference that’s not coded and say it’s “around”…

    and I think she did a lot of damage with the publicity she got surrounding that

    And that’s not thinking, and further more, if it was “around” in reference to “publicity…..”

    She’d still not be sitting with him and his cohorts and their booze bottles.

    And it’s called “felicity,” being true to something if you are hired to be a public informant called a reporter.

  • To look at the weaving soliloquy
    Of your thoughts dancing, murmurings of truth
    As far as you can see into the deep
    Blue heaven of being under the sun
    Where it’s human like the birds to have wings
    Only for us it’s imagination
    And that makes it so alright to be here
    That to forget anything else, is love

    I want to apologize that I haven’t posted for awhile, but the dragon keeps eating my home work you see. And that basket weaving class of she knows who, after I got her kicked out of teaching art class where we were not allowed to touch the models we saw doing anything and everything imaginable (even to make them comfortable or give more room for them to be finding themselves), and after you know what and you thought you knew who and the rest of what the f%$#& from the rest of the flock accused of not being able to count when you know this then that the dragon got the leader and it improves the flight…

    They all think I’m back but I’m not the dragon!

  • Throwing the baby out with the bath water is a reference to the times when everyone took a bath in the same tub, and the baby last, so by that time the bath was so clouded that they might not know there was anything as intelligent as a baby wondering why they no longer cared to sustain its life.

    Further more, remembering the kind of out of control behavior, many call crazy, but I wouldn’t insult those diagnosed with such a dilemma to use such terminology at all:

    Someone that doesn’t speak the language is put in an asylum, this I can vouch for.

    Someone who protests is put in an asylum, and the people there tell him that they know he’s not “crazy,” but don’t tell the police that brought him there that they can’t accept such discrepancies and lies.

    I’ve had it that a social worker confronted with the task of being simply honest, as if I’m too receptive to that and being honest isn’t productive, makes out that when she’s at a loss to convince anyone that I’m a danger to anything (which I wasn’t the whole time, at all) that I was supposed to have command dialogue going on to have heard the thoughts she was thinking that she didn’t express verbally, as if they were said verbally, and then further more might have made up afterwards, as if there’s some legal juxtaposition of time would she have to find reason for what didn’t happen in order to make out that she was protecting something that wasn’t helped at all by her indoctrinated brainwashing others were supposed to be infected with or there was some danger that didn’t appear to be there when it wasn’t. And this person still stalks me…. And I by now was supposed to feel free to make up the same lies about anyone that was honest rather than making out a danger was there when it wasn’t honestly at all.

    THAT kind of behavior is throwing the baby out with the bathwater by trying to get others to not even see there’s something vital inside of the cloud they’ve made of what was meant to be fulfilling to stuff one does to feel clean.

    In the same vein, someone actually able to dream and able to express the scenarios related to life, if they actually non violently make such relationship (say like Joseph Jacob’s son exposing his father’s manipulations of inheritence when nature honored honesty rather than device) that there’s a danger there, because it might expose the lies of those thinking truth isn’t truth but a loss to them. Or someone that’s simply walking down the street wearing a different fashion than one, would they actually simply mind their own business and walk past one rather than going a different direction because of a prejudice one might have, that one is free to make up lies about them.

    And what is supposed to be there instead of water to involve such lies?

    The anosognosia of psychiatric drugs that make a person believe that lies are reality because it works for THOSE people to believe there’s a danger there isn’t without honestly checking, and try to make others believe it and that they are helping when they aren’t, and yet…..

    miracles happen

    sorry….

    they do despite all of those lies to the contrary.

  • Just a hopeful guess, but I wonder, would it at all be possible, and is it in any way whatever soever even slightly just a little bit, not too much a bit just a little bit, that I might just endeavor to maintain that having to sit in school many full wonderful hours a day, probably without a pillow to make one too comfortable, probably having to ask to use a bathroom rather than it becoming a hideout, probably a great percentage of the time having to do things that are so necessary they don’t occur automatically which would make one’s mind consequently quite overloaded with possible attempts of distraction that further more should be labeled as inappropriate, that this might possibly would consequently relieve the great concern with those doing these wonderful amazing interventions for young people!?

    For example, when I chimed in about anti-depressants on the bus, because a man said his doctor had advised him, and he mentioned how he used to have a foster care facility there where the famous Columbine shootings took place, and that those two boys would play pool at his facility, and told how they were bullied in school, how the Principle said to go to the Sheriff, and the Sheriff said to go to the Principle, and when the ring leader of the two told his doctor that his new medications (Luvox) were making him have angry hateful thoughts towards just about everyone (his girlfriend, his friends, his parent, etc.) that when the doctor told him to just keep taking them, and so many weeks later the famous incident occurred, that we don’t know who this wise doctor is for his own protection, that the court case was thank GOD paid off by the drug companies (the case against the most wonderful anti-depressant), that the one boy that spoke out against this (which truly concerns me) ended up taken great care of in a foster care facility helped by psychiatric treatment for a chemical imbalance (on medications that left him unable to put the wrong things together that would have otherwise occurred by some fault), that, if I may assume, now such a thing, is all going to be put further into such protective measurements now in California where there will be an amazing reduction in such mass shootings!?

  • seeing as I can’t reply yet, the comment, other one not actually approved of, would here say:

    There are better ways of going psychotic, in order to be deemed a non reliable source, just in case you’ve got the nerve to get yourself into obliviousness, but it’s of course really about aliens with spaceships that come and pick you up, if you’re in need of an air lift, and on anti-depressants, because I really don’t think that you would get shipped over to the USA, just because Russia wanted you treated right.

  • Pretty disgusting. Dangerous people on the streets? Does this mean that anyone not on the streets is less dangerous, because that might be the opposite, actually. Plants, they also don’t live in houses, they might be dangerous too, MORE GENETIC ENGINEERING!

    Perhaps those behind desks devising ways to make money off of the trend to ignore the mother earth (which also doesn’t live in a house, can you imagine how dangerously homeless and uncontrolled by societal dogma such a creature as the mother earth is?), perhaps those behind a desk might be more dangerous. Maybe they should have an experiment and put those behind desks in the situation those who are homeless have, and see whether they are dangerous then or not. And let the homeless run the system, instead, but then they might know it isn’t working to begin with, and might change things too much.

    That someone who is homeless, or someone unable to adapt to a system that’s raping the mother earth, or someone that’s expressing trauma as trauma that they are a danger is utter fallacy of judgment, which I would insult those labeled as such to call crazy. One is supposed to get points for denying what trauma does because it’s supposed to be a social disciplinarian device instead, giving them the right to persecute anyone expressing trauma as trauma.

    But when you get away from the system, you notice that there’s something much more worthwhile there when you just let go of all of i, because it’s never going to work. Those deemed as crazy or dysfunctional to it, are already one step ahead of finding what it is to be real, and human. The Universe is allowed to blossom in their soul.

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

    From the article:

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

    Isn’t fussing about…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hasn’t the UN actually spoken against forced treatment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And with that I am rather blogged out here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Give them something else to do. Someplace to go.

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

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

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

    To mention only a few thing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It’s all really crazy.

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

    But REALLY!

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

    And it’s crazy…..

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

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

  • another correction

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

    It should read something like this:

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

  • correction

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

    should read

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is science?

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

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

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

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

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

    WHAT are they saying!?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Well, I’m done….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MY GOODNESS!

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

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

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

    IMHO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It seemed endless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    or hearing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Try it anyhow. See if you like it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Let me count the ways, of suffering

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

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

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

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

    get over yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And that kind of pretentiousness is promoted as kindness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    WELL!

    It gets crazier, fortunately.

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

    you know

    “society”

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Up above it’s talked about as well….

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

    Or are they already!?

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

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

    That’s of course

    um

    SCHIZOPHRENIC!

    Now everybody howl…..

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That’s reality based?

    When a schizophrenic goes along with that they are healed?

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

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

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

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

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

    Does anyone see the irony?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or write your own story, Go crazy….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Hi JanCarol,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I think…

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

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

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

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

    (!?)

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

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

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

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

    Peace Sara. I’m on your side.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Many people ward of the state, the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    My mind reels just thinking where to start.

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

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

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

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

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

    And that’s what gets me:

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

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

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

  • that was supposed to be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And the rest of it.

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

    Do you see you are actually diagnosing emotions?

    Can you not do that?

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

    And all of the lying.

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

    And thus it continues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Wars will never do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In fact

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

    BUT

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PshUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuueeeeeeeeeeeeeew

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Perhaps you need to get over labels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Which seems to be a consistent story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Leave her alone!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I hope this helps.

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

    Or is it more an inclusive barrier within the field?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Totally what everyone completely knows and says nothing about..

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

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

    Ahem

    The potatoes might be ready by now!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    that’s one study

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

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

    Anyhow,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    !!

  • You know, this might be an old story

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/1970

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The article also mentions that they

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

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

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

    And what does this have to do with thought?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I read this whole article, and….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Thank you for this well articulated response.

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

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

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

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

  • I’m going to say something truly radical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • There’s more description of this here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Since you mentioned Tchaikovsky in your post.

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

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

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

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

    Tchaikovsky also simply said that God loved me…..

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

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

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

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

    Or

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

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

  • 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….

  • I left out one word here, which I added as *NOT*

    “Schizophrenics”, when they have these “delusions” that they are under surveillance; which when left alone might teach them about how fear works: not only are *NOT* allowed to work this out (it’s seen as a symptom of a disease and needs to be eradicated rather than an expression of trauma, or illusion that when allowed to be exposed facilitates letting go of fear based programming); they are then put under actual diagnosis and discrimination (which IS surveillance) in regards their behavior; drugged so that they are more docile and lose self initiative (which is seen as a sign of healing rather than coercion), it’s implied that they are supposed to dwell on more “pleasant” things that don’t trigger dark elements in society, and that they are disruptive because “society” doesn’t want to deal with the issue of surveillance, or whatever their supposedly “disruptive” “delusions” are about.

    Here again I left out *DON’T*

    They also don’t have the choice to just dwell on more “pleasant” things. In fact, they are told they are “crazy” just because their imagination is flexible enough to work out their own fear, with such symbolism others don’t understand, *DON’T* know how to relate to and label a symptom of a disease.

  • The point in the article, I believe, isn’t that the cameras are getting too much attention in regards “schizophrenics,” who aren’t necessarily the ones buying all the surveillance equipment or using it, I think. It’s that with “schizophrenics” they point out how cameras are part of the fear based culture. A writer might use the theme of surveillance to point out what it does to society; the same a “schizophrenic” in relating to their own fear uses it as a symbolism. And it’s as real for the “schizophrenic” as it is for the reader of the writer of the story, in order to relate. A “schizophrenic” doesn’t have the lack of sensitivity that they can just ignore such elements, I think. They’ve had enough trauma in their life, that they know how such fear based elements effect society; and thus their imagination and how it relates to reality is flexible enough that they can encompass the phenomenon of “cameras” and use it to embody their own fear, to let go of it. They also don’t have the choice to just dwell on more “pleasant” things. In fact, they are told they are “crazy” just because their imagination is flexible enough to work out their own fear, with such symbolism others don’t understand, know how to relate to and label a symptom of a disease. While there’s enough evidence in regards methods that achieve rates of recovery with “schizophrenia” that these “symptoms” which when seen as expressions instead could help them let go of fear, or help them understand themselves at a deeper level, if left be. And they are often are forced on psychiatric medications to stop these “symptom,” even though The medications don’t even stop the delusions statistically, or promote recovery; they only disable the natural workings of the mind, and I would think this could hamper it’s ability to understand what’s going on at a holistic level. “Schizophrenics”, when they have these “delusions” that they are under surveillance; which when left alone might teach them about how fear works: not only are allowed to work this out (it’s seen as a symptom of a disease and needs to be eradicated rather than an expression of trauma, or illusion that when allowed to be exposed facilitates letting go of fear based programming); they are then put under actual diagnosis and discrimination (which IS surveillance) in regards their behavior; drugged so that they are more docile and lose self initiative (which is seen as a sign of healing rather than coercion), it’s implied that they are supposed to dwell on more “pleasant” things that don’t trigger dark elements in society, and that they are disruptive because “society” doesn’t want to deal with the issue of surveillance, or whatever their supposedly “disruptive” “delusions” are about.

    And if someone actually was under surveillance, and this was being suppressed; it could then be called a delusion,as well.

    This stuff is quite amazing. A friend of mine was court ordered to see a therapist regularly, who he felt RUINED his whole day, so he didn’t go to see her. She called him back up, and in the context of the conversation asked him if he needed a ride to see her (they would pick him up) but he said no, and hung up. The next day, the police showed up at the apartment building and escorted him back to the asylum. And in the asylum he was asked by the psychiatrist, whether he thought anyone was after him…

    A writer that writes a novel about surveillance and allows his imagination to encompass that; can bring perspective to the issue for himself and others that read or hear about his story. The “schizophrenic” I see as working out the issue inside themselves. Both those, I think, are giving attention to the issue. I don’t think that suppressing either of those two choices helps deal with the issue. Disabling the mind when confronted with the issue, isn’t going to make it go away, either, I think. Or help you let go of it.

  • A chemical imbalance is what’s being treated rather than being caused (psychiatric medications cause chemical imbalance, it’s not being treated); treatment is what statistically correlates with more of the disease, rather than healing; stigma is telling a person they can heal, mentioning that it could be from emotional trauma in the same family that might be forcing them on treatment or simply abandoning them emotionally; when there’s more of the disease this means that there’s more need for the treatment that correlates with the increase, rather than seeing a different approach is needed; science then also is made out to be an approach that causes a chemical imbalance, as long as you can scientifically play out how you alter brain chemistry this is magically made out to be medical treatment; and the people who are made out to be the worst in mental health, the most “sick,” who respond the best to alternative methods, are touted as examples of why there’s need for for forced treatment that correlates with a lack of recovery, because they’re the worst; And all the people complacent with these extremes in lack of healing and recovery gripe that when someone witnesses where healing occurs, we just don’t know what it’s like with these “severe” cases, or we’re promoting stigma.

  • Steven, actually as far as I know, the only supposed “evidence” that support genetics being a component, has never pointed to any gene at all.

    If more people with red hair have “schizophrenia” then they they believe that the gene for red hair and schizophrenia might be linked, somehow. But that’s only conjecture. And with all of the probably billions of dollars of research, they haven’t found any faulty gene at all. I think that’s called a marker (when they find that there’s more prevalence of a “disease” amongst people with red hair). That in itself can become quite malicious, because it insinuates that minorities who are oppressed, or anyone who suffers trauma, have something wrong with them, when they express this trauma. Because if there’s a genetic component amongst those suffering oppression (as there could be in a ghetto) this then is linked with a supposed genetic flaw.

    It would sort of be the same if someone has bruises and there was a host of scientific investigation looking for a genetic component that causes bruises, rather than a look at the physical abuse that caused the condition.

  • I was wondering whether we’d hear more about the three ringed trinity. It’s probably quite important because people are so serious, otherwise…..
    The holy spectacle is there so we can talk to God…. I mean spectre, oops ghost…. spear-it oops spirit (must be a tick tock-sin)

    I did work on this musical idea which might turn into a prelude with fugue (many voices)…..

    And it moves to a mediant of e-flat, which is G. Also playing around with other mediants….

  • Timothy, in reality, I think, you have hijacked this thread based on your gripes with things that weren’t even going on in this post or this site, made gross generalizations while ignoring that the people you are criticizing and judging are the brunt of EXACTLY the kind of behavior you are accusing them of FROM the people you are saying we’re disrespectful of when we point out what’s going on (this is possibly why -_Anonymous can not share his name, because if he dares to dissent against this “method” you say people putting it on the line about are being unfair towards, he may lose personal freedoms and be assaulted with human rights abuses). Whether Anonymous attacked you is YOUR opinion, I don’t agree with it. What I see is that you are trying to repress his freedom to express his own viewpoint.

    In fact, it already was explained to you why someone like -_Anonymous can’t share their “legal” name. I just had to repeat that. If you were a bit more sensitive to what people go through, it wouldn’t have had to be repeated.

    And then you say that meaningful or fruitful dialogue cannot occur here, because after coming in here and changing the topic, and accusing people here of things that we don’t believe; we don’t agree with you.

    On the contrary what has been going on is that there’s such interest for fair play and open dialogue, that all of that has been tolerated, and even welcomed.

    And -_Anonymous was simply in open dialogue debating what you said on your blog. This was after you came in here and went of topic to this blog. YOU introduced yourself, and started criticizing what going on here in general, We really didn’t go looking for you. He was just honestly debating what YOU brought up, when you went off topic. When he doesn’t agree with you and can sustain his logic, what I see is that you say he’s attacking you. Knowing his legal name, and the rest of his personal information he doesn’t chose to share has totally NOTHING to do with defending or maintaining the logic of your blog, and wouldn’t defend your blog, either. One can only guess why you make such a requirement. You’d really have to defend your blog with your own logic. Again, that’s your own choice to engage with him or not, but when you say you “can’t” because he uses a screen name rather than his real name, that simply isn’t true, because it’s about your blog not his legal identity, or anything else about him he doesn’t share here. To me, that in itself it judging him, the way that you presented it.

    And to me, that’s simply more of the excuses you’ve been touting to not enter into open dialogue. That’s how I see it, sorry.

    To me, you use a whole array of terms that seem designed to vacillate in perspective in order to not engage with what’s actually going on with what you are trying to defend. In doing so, to me, you constantly portray the flaws of what you are trying to defend, rather than making a statement about what’s going on. Certainly not here.

  • I do feel it prudent to point out again that the kind of arguments here, and the kind of derailing of a blog, actually clearly point out the needs for an alternative method, which is what Sera has been pointing out about the workshop/training her organization is providing involved with the hearing voices program.

    When not only is there an inability to support statements of the medications being needed for a chemical imbalance (although the medications cause one); but simply scientific and statistical facts are categorized as shaming, and it eludes me to remember the rest. Oh yes, fear mongering, hero worship, heterogeneity….

    You can read all over the Internet statements about this supposed science, which can’t be backed up; and see most of the responses to even demanding some sort of real proof, or clearly refuting the statements met with statements, when anyone supplies statistical facts this method doesn’t correlate with healing, one is accused of preventing healing, that it is stigmatizing to actually bring out science, it’s dangerous to actually encourage alternatives; and this because when the method in use that correlates with the lack of healing and statistical increase of the disease gets the results is does, there’s more need for treatment using this method.

    In other words, you don’t even have to really look at what’s going on, just tack accusations such as fear mongering, hero worship, shaming and what have you; along with repeating statements like “it’s commonly believed,” “we’re making headway,” “we are sure we will discover that fill-in-the-blank-with-ideology,” and “there’s compelling evidence that (compelling evidence means that there’s belief something points to proof rather than it exists),” whenever scientific proof is asked for. And then go into scientific detail as to how you are disabling the mind, act like this is treating a chemical imbalance (while in reality science points out you are causing one that didn’t exist before) and target the minority of people who are happy with this treatment to get rewards when they say how much it has improved their life, while the statistics that in general this has caused more of the “disease” itself is suppressed. And people lose their free choice, and human rights abuses are overlooked, and the real fear mongering shaming, hero worship and suppression goes on where it occurs.

    It’s not at all illogical to simply add to this that when someone is taking a disabling psychiatric substance that it would be thoughtful to point out that this can add to their inability to think clearly; and instead of actually seeing the reality of statistics, lack of science, abundance of human rights abuses, loss of life and recovery: the psychiatric substance facilitates them hallucinating and fantasizing that what they have been programmed to believe is going on, rather than what clear cognition not disabled by a controlled substance would tell them.

    And it’s not redundant to once again state that common practice often doesn’t even allow these scientifically backed observations to be made by someone regarding their own personal life….

  • “Timothy” You made the following statements. “This same poster-who I can’t really respond to because they aren’t using their name-seems to be attacking “psychiatry” as a proxy for arguing against points I made in my original comment.” 

    ALL the posters here have a very clear screen name. There is NO reason you can not respond and have the decency to acknowledge the screen name they are using and have chosen, when addressing them. That you “cannot really respond to” them according to you is completely untrue disingenuous and convoluted. Whatever screen name they use whether it’s @#$*(@#[email protected]*#( or any other combinations of characters available on the computer keyboard, that is THERE screen name, THERE personal choice and how they represent themselves here, and any comment addressed to THAT screen name ends up being addressed to them and who they are here in this post. The only variation on that might be that someone else uses their login (having been allowed to or having stolen it), but that could as EASILY happen with someone who uses their “legal” name.

  • No, actually I thought seventh chord (didn’t specify what kind) usually means a Major seventh. Diminished can be sort of Sturm and Drang, A Major Seventh is different, can’t put it into words.

    Sort of penetrating in a patient way, challenging or provoking. And this resolves differently than it’s expected to. Without the third…. well I have to figure this out.

    It resolves to a mediant, like Virginia Woolf and her symbolism.

    OK enough of the music theory.

    What’s interesting about hearing voices is that when you actually hear someone give you directions, and it’s oral; this works with the centers of the brain that work with time in a non linear fashion, that see time as a matrix. For example, if someone gives you directions how to get somewhere, this is easier to remember than reading it on a map.

    And so, talking to oneself might be a very healthy way to actually tune into this part of the self, and work with thought, with conception. Although “talking to yourself” is supposed to be a symptom of mental illness. And people talking to themselves who are seemingly incoherent are maybe actually trying to relate to that part of their mind. I always find if fascinating, anyhow. But then that’s a problem in itself; if I don’t find it a disease, I’m supposedly “not helpful,” or “weird.”

  • mjk, I also don’t completely go for the trauma approach. I do think that it helps to have the space to express trauma, so that it doesn’t control us; but that also means seeing it as something that we’re letting go of. The penal system uses trauma to try to control those who traumatize others, this really perpetuates the cycle, I think. I also don’t find healing from trauma to involve identifying perpetrator and victim so much as it’s allowing the space to heal from trauma, and NOT use it as a means to invest in more ideas of suffering, pain and fear.
    All one has to do is become a “conspiracy theorist” and see the kind of shadow government that actually runs things, people all at one time given the right to traumitize others in order to maintain “discipline;” and who got so mesmerized with pain, guilt, fear and suffering that they do what they do.
    I often withhold myself from saying this here, but you can simply decide not to feel hurt, not to invest in pain, and heal from trauma that way as well. To move away from the idea of I’m hurt and that means there was an injustice and so someone needs to be punished for this. You CAN break the cycle. And I would say (just suggesting) that someone as sensitive as you who already (by real experience) isn’t enslaved by preconceptions of limitations in time and space, that that really is the way you’ll find peace. Because you really don’t need to get caught up with the “world’s” way of dealing with things. You have a flexibility with time whose line would get tied up in terrible knots and squeezed and tangled into torturous contortions would you try to invest in the world’s ideas of discipline and “trauma.”
    There’s this word for-give, and it doesn’t mean overlooking an injustice, it means not investing in the idea of injustice, but instead to see there’s a source where there’s no limit to give from, no loss (where infinity leads towards forever)…..
    Anyhow, I hope I haven’t lectured you, I just wanted to say something because you’re a beautiful butterfly, a sensitive flower, and you don’t need to get trample on with this need to change things using the same trauma that caused it……

    and thanks chasya for the beautiful article

  • mjk I don’t pretend to know what’s going on in your life, like I’m an authority only you could be about yourself; but I guess I’ve also had this kind of time loops. In a different way. With me it’s more “past” lifetimes, and you learn actually that the history book are mostly propaganda. The person beating the dog to death is called the winner, and he’s made out to be a hero, and the dog the enemy. It doesn’t even seem to have anything to do with who they are beating, just a random target. But beyond time, you see, maybe the dog isn’t dead. Maybe that’s just an unreal time loop where death is made out to be something we’re supposed to stop by investing in hating and traumatizing those that inflict it on others (when that’s actually more what caused the behavior rather than what will stop it). Sadly, it’s the people beating the dog to death that are ditching their own self, their own humanity. And looking at past lifetimes, and the horrible things that happened, I learned that when I let go of them they are over, and they’re not going to repeat.

    There’s a tribe of people called the real people tribe (see books by Marlo Morgan: Mutant Message Down Under and Mutant Message from Forever). They had to be published as fiction to protect these people, but they aren’t really fiction. Here, they say every meeting is from forever. This actually means that the source of it is beyond time and space, and that there’s an element there that can’t be destroyed or even defended (there’s no need to defend it when it’s from forever). What happens is that the pattern repeats itself when we respond with fear, rather than love (love for creation itself). We actually can get the pattern to not repeat itself, to not have to deal with the things that we hate, when we stop hating them. And thus time (I believe) isn’t some linear thing ticking away whose antics we are slave to.

    I’m not saying don’t do something to stop them killing the dog, but do it in a way without hatred so that the pattern stops. And actually, that way, your reflexes to know what to do are there. I think…..

    I hope this helps mjk….

  • _anonymous
    I don’t know where to begin….
    This whole majority minority thing,
    I mean on another, on Huffington post, when I blogged on Marvin Ross’ “article” about whether “journalists” (his definition not mine) shouldn’t be allowed to report medical information because they’re not medical specialists (conflicts of interest wins as does $$$$$$ again)…..

    One can’t actually (and I struggle to find the context again)… one can’t actually point out what has best outcomes, and what leads to healing, then someone is actually magically “marginalizing” the parents. Since they are so hurt already that what they’ve done hasn’t worked. And so the whole movement to get more leeway to force feed people what doesn’t correlate with healing (what’s called the Dear Nami, or Mommie Nami movement) . Someone’s post was removed simply because they mentioned this, and to tell you the truth, I hadn’t put two and two together, quite. They are trying to make themselves out to be a minority because they don’t have the free will to have the majority (that by some miracle still hasn’t been diagnosed) institutionalized when they feel they need it, despite statistics. It’s the same with the war on terror, global warming and other things such as whether they should have prayer in school, but meditation then is not good, and not having prayer is marginalizing. And here we have another unexpected twist, that it’s hero worship, fear mongering and shaming to actually witness your own healing; because of course there are those who continue to suffer (but if you’ve continued to suffer and it’s not the mainstream method you want to follow or finally achieved results with, you should keep your mouth shut because, as long as they aren’t healing people, it’s taboo to mention this because it’s shaming).

    This all has nothing to do with what’s going on. When you tell an alcoholic to stop drinking, it usually doesn’t work, because their drinking isn’t about drinking, it’s about distracting from something they can’t handle, from some trauma they can’t deal with. I think. It’s an addiction. The best thing you can do sometimes is just not talk about alcohol. And here we’re not talking about something that’s physical, we’re talking about something that might be worse, we’re talking about an addiction that’s mental. And also, an addiction that manifests things in people’s lives they’re quite in denial about. And that thus aren’t going away. Not questioning they’re method, it has to be someone else’s fault. They don’t know what they’re doing, and it turns into some unconscious game where perhaps the only thing they are aware of is that they can get others annoyed, and thus they judge them. Same goes on in the asylums, I’m sure. With fascism and political dissent, also.

    So, sometimes the best is just to not respond at all, but hold them in the light of your mind and know there is another way. As infuriating as it is. You deserve the right to not feel bad if you just let it go, instead, when you don’t get yourself riled up till you feel uneasy.

    It’s the people whose condition is considered the worse that do the best with alternative methods. So, of course there’s then this issue with those who continue to suffer.

    Sometimes it’s really better to trust that what it’s about isn’t what they’re going on about. Just take it as unreal. If you just honor them as human and smile, it says more than engaging with it, sometimes.

    Um, are we related? since you added kin to Nijinsky making it Nikinsky?

  • I don’t think that clearly reporting the outcomes regarding psychiatric drugging is fear mongering. I think fear mongering is trying to suppress such information, depending on whether it actually bring the efficacy of a treatment into question. Calling it fear mongering doesn’t change the statistics.
    And when someone shares how they found recovery, and clearly points out the kind of immense resistance and oppression of the method that achieved their recovery received, this to me in no way is one sided hero worship. It’s pointing out oppression.
    Neither are either of those devaluing the struggles of people, they simply are offering an alternative that deserves consideration.

    When methods that have shown healing, and are shared because they show healing, and are shared because having shown healing they deserve to be shared, but then are not supposed to be shared, because they are called fear mongering or hero worship or shaming…

    This is again turning everything around: healing isn’t supposed to be about healing, but about not pointing out healing, because it might “shame” some people who might be embarrassed that what they’re doing isn’t working. And that’s not what ANY of it is about to begin with. And it’s completely untrue to say that those who have found recovery just haven’t been through or don’t understand ongoing challenges, distress and/or altered states.

    And TRULY, the attempt at shaming that is going on is against the people who chose to NOT go for medications. THEY are told that they are putting themselves and society in danger, are told they aren’t being responsible, are told they aren’t treating an alleged biological condition that there is NO proof truly exists (although the treatment DOES cause a verifiable biological disease). And in the end OFTEN have their freedoms taken away, and made to feel they deserve extremely inhumane treatment, because they dared to dissent. And further more, it’s an attempt to shame people to tell them that sharing their healing is hero worship and fear mongering….

    GOOD GOD! That a person can’t openly with joy share their healing, because they love the human condition, and want people to know it’s possible and might speak to others who would find the same healing without this being insulted with charges such as fear mongering and hero worship and shaming…..

    Well, I guess people just need to hear that, to see how corrupt things have become.

    And anyone too positive, is shaming, worshiping heroes, fear mongering….

    You know I think this is about healing, not not sharing healing when someone is still suffering ongoing challenges, distress and/or altered states, because it might shame them, scare them or intimidate them

    It’s also, I think, about using all sources at disposal, not not using anything beyond mainstream because then you’re not using the mainstream method, which means using another method than that is not using all methods, because you’ve actually chosen one that isn’t mainstream, which means that ever chosing anything besides mainstream (just that one) is not using all sources at disposal (because you’ve then shamed it out of hero worship and fear mongering). Which means that having more than one choice means always chosing the same one, because if you don’t you’re scared and/or bamboozled and/or trying to intimidate.

    No thank you for the inhibitions.

  • mjk To have the amazing experience of transcending the accepted yet erroneous belief that time is some lineary energy we are slave to ticking away assaulting us with arbitrary pieces of chance and chaos, is very welcome to share here, to me.
    Thank you for sharing that you actually saw this lady “before” you met her, or ever laid your eyes on her “physically”.

    Just don’t be discouraged when it seems that people don’t engage with such things. Thought is really still the source, where they come from. They can’t even really destroy it with their toxic medications, because thought is beyond the physical. It’s not going away, and it’s beyond time and anything they are terrified of losing or they think they need to defend, I would say.

    Just don’t look for any justice to hold against them (when you don’t feel acknowledged), because that dims the light that’s beyond time (can’t be defended, is from forever and can’t be destroyed at any point in time or space). When you have such a glimpse and you dare to acknowledge that with your own thought that’s already stronger than time and space, I would say. No need to worry about the rest, just trust…..

  • Timothy, I have a friend who had “psychosis” for 20 years, about, or more. And completely recovered. Incidentally, when you do not medicate someone, and leave them alone for that amount of time, there’s also, according to quite a few studies, more chance of recovery than with medications. The reason my friend recovered is, according to her own words, that she ditched fear based religious beliefs. She stopped believing that there was a devil after, her, which sometimes cause her to believe that people could put spells on her, that there was such a malevolent entity.
    I’ve also had the same number of years of “psychosis,” and learned from it, in going through it, and have the same story about fear and stress. This can be incredibly subtle, what kind of fear runs society, and causes stress. It can simply be the stress that one feels one has to be doing something; or that one isn’t a worthy human being if they aren’t doing something. And being marginalized, resulting in the inevitable hope that one day one will be accepted, this can be an extra push to get one to start doing things more based on just doing “something,” rather than actually coming from the core. I have run myself ragged more than a few times, doing an immense amount of work I’m hardly acknowledged for at an institutional level, although at other levels it was highly appreciated (even in the institutions themselves). This led to psychosis, in the end, just causing that much stress, and hope that was a bit misplaced.

    I have a book called A Course in Miracles that helps me immensely right now, and which so to speak makes me happy I’m “defeated” from doing too much. It’s just a play on words. There’s of course a bit of a sigh letting go of high hopes and ambitions (and the rather riled up feeling one is doing something, a feeling which even becomes physical), but they are always replaced with the immense knowledge that there’s an amazing opening there towards truth, towards an amazing matrix of what’s already there for me, which doesn’t require all of the stress the world would say I need to go through before I deserve anything.

    I really think letting go of fear is an incredibly important thing, and learning not to stress the mind in such a way might be a necessary precursor to getting off of medications.

    I do think you need to stop insulting people insinuating that statements they have made about recovery point out that they haven’t been through as much as you have, and then use the term heterogeneity in order to try to meld this all together (as if people who have actually recovered, and whose method is NOT recognized, just haven’t suffered as much as those who haven’t). You DO NOT know what they have been through, many who have been through years and years of trauma, you might not know ANYTHING about. And yet they have healed. Also many who have been through as many years of “psychosis” or other difficulties as you. And yet they have recovered. The point is that their method is NOT acknowledged, although it truly has clear advantage, methodically (doesn’t take away personal freedoms), economically, statistically and scientifically (is based on clear science, doesn’t cause a chemical imbalance through “medications” stating that they cure one). Because someone has recovered, doesn’t mean they haven’t been through as much as others; in many cases, they have been through more, because they have had to take on the whole system which is saying and trying to enforce that they are supposed to see it differently.

    You stated:

    “What about ‘recovery?’ I personally think it is problematic to emphasize ‘full recovery’ as in many of the public ‘heroic survivor narratives’-as sociologist Linda Morrison has put it-without emphasizing that many people-myself included-continue to experience ongoing distressing experiences of ‘psychosis’-regardless of any type of intervention, ‘Hearing Voices’ groups or otherwise. I think it can be problematic when individuals speak –on the basis of relatively brief or circumscribed experiences–about what those of us with enduring and ongoing difficulties need to do in order to ‘recover.’ Clearly these experienced are poorly understood ‘scientifically’ and ‘culturally,’ but what we do know seems to point to their being ‘caused’ by many different things and leading to many different outcomes. The longitudinal studies that are frequently-and problematically-cited as evidence that neuroleptics ‘cause’ psychosis, point to this heterogeneity. Some people simply continue to struggle. It’s been a consistent finding. For me personally, this is why it has been important to focus on how to live the life I want in spite of my different way of experiencing the world (ie. ‘struggles’)”

    The statements about neuroleptics leading to psychosis, is simply a very NEEDED statistical AND medical statement. To include this with a whole statement as if this needed information is denying someone’s suffering is quite convoluted and disingenuous. The same statements about other controlled substances like sugar, coffee, alcohol or even illegal ones (which used to be psychiatric drugs 50 years ago) are the same kind of statements.

    Beyond that people still make their own choices. It’s only those who chose NOT TO be forced on medications that DO NOT have a free choice to NOT take the medications, often!

  • And to be real clear: “Here is a metaphor, not intended to smuggle in a medical framework, but ask yourself: would it be reasonable for a person who recovered from being wheelchair bound with a broken leg to speak to the experience of someone wheelchair bound due to paraplegia? To what extent could they really understand that experience, or make recommendations about how the person might ‘recover?’”

    OK, I really think that when there’s an institution that tells you you HAVE TO believe you have a chemical imbalance, that when there’s not only abundant statistical material available that says people do better WITHOUT their treatment, that even far better results happen with other treatments; it’s pretty clear who is trying to define the other’s experience, AND healing, and is not allowing for another viewpoint.

  • “Also, a message I often see on this website-and related spaces-is that people with lived experience need to be listened to, should be leaders in providing support and care to struggling others. I couldn’t agree more. So it confuses me when the perspective of a great many folks who have these experiences are discredited–almost as if they are brainwashed–because they take medication, identify with a diagnosis etc. I realize that powerful ideological forces can both constrain and produce experience and identity-for all us, no one is immune.”

    People on this site, mostly, really do nothing more than supply an alternative, and support this with evidence. Scientific evidence that there are better results, as well as pointing out that the chemical imbalance theory when applied to an organic disease, has yet to be proven. This isn’t the case with medications CAUSING chemical imbalance. When push comes to shove, and this very clear evidence is met with others, who when on medications and believing in diagnosis, have to respond with being accused of being brainwashed, this again, to me, is a clear case of turning things around.

  • To begin with, in mainstream society, the acceptance is mostly only for people who take their medications, and believe they have a chemical imbalance, and repeat ideology that hasn’t been proven, while they are addicted to “medications” and would have severe side effects in trying to get off of them (again blamed on the disease that hasn’t been proven to exist); and to add to this that the minority here (although in terms of who have recovered, we AREN’T a minority, it’s only a minority in what ideology we hold onto, disregarding recovery rates), who have found a place to express their own healing, are expected to find it normal that THEIR experiences are ignored for the most part in mainstream treatment. Regardless of recovery rates, which are greater.
    And so we have this whole playing out, that, although YOUR view is mostly what’s promoted, because it isn’t promoted here, we are being discriminatory. Even though statistically the best methods of healing occur elsewhere, and ARE NOT promoted or even accepted in mainstream methods.
    Your use of the word “anomolous” shows the same inability to see exactly what is suppressed in common practice (the stress to conform is in common practice, not in alternative methods), your reference to wheelchairs does the same (it’s common practice that is suppressing alternative/different methods, NOT the other way around; alternative methods don’t have that kind of monopoly on treatment) and you talk about caring about poverty, when, a simple look at the economics of psychiatric drugging, the amount of money used to promote something that’s only causing more mental illness (and more consumers and more profits for those repressing what does help statistically), will clearly point out that it’s another exploitation of poor people, rather than something that’s truly helping them. That’s a corrupt economic model, and IT part of the suppression, although not the only element.
    And again you say it’s paternalistic to suppress a method, when it’s the paternalism of the drug companies suppressing what’s not drug related in treatment.
    When turning that amount of what’s acknowledged and what isn’t around, using phrases like anomolous, paternalism, and other high brow terminology doesn’t change the maneuver.
    And this whole gripe with what’s going on in MIA only points out that perhaps you’re not getting the support you need somewhere else, where you say we’re supposedly criticizing too much. Why do you come in here if you’re looking for support, and you get it somewhere else?

    Not to be sarcastic or insulting (TRULY), but I don’t really expect this statement to be understood as an argument, it’s only to point out the architecture of this turning around, so the pattern can be seen; and so that people like Sara (who DO understand) won’t feel they have to waste their time playing fetch with such machinery (unconscious or not)….

  • What I’m saying is that with the person deemed insane, there’s something natural going on, the mind itself has moved away from being indoctrinated; and the part of the person that’s actually helping them grow is the part labeled insane. Psychiatry tries to turn this around with such phrases as consensual reality comportment salience, ability to adapt to statistical based norms, or is a danger to themselves and others.

    I’m also trying to see if the edit command will work now, which wasn’t working this morning. If it’s working this A will be changed to a B.

  • It would be interesting to inflict the same kind of judgments on “psychiatrists”, the same judgment on their behavior (which is easy to do, they HAVE been proven to be a danger to themselves and others on a much larger scale, with easily MORE evidence as they use to judge others) and then inflict them with the same loss of freedoms, the same implementation of methods which suppress thought, and then see how easily programmable they end up being, in comparison to those they are judging. How easily they might believe whatever they are told in comparison with the people they are judging, how non-violent they are in comparison, whether they are creative or not and whether they respond with compassion or whether they fall into destructive programmable behavior being taken in by a delusional web of happiness just because they believe they are doing “something,” although there’s no connection between cause and effect, no connection with diagnosis and the need for treatment.

    That would be interesting, but I think that this has been going on the whole time. Except there’s no need to institutionalize the experiment or even set it up.

    Another comparable “story” would be someone going to a TV repair store, and the repair person hasn’t been shown to truly repair the TV, believes that in the future what he’s doing will repair the TV, although mostly he’s causing more damage than repair; and then instead of saying to the client/consumer: “I can’t help you,” and advising them to go to another repair place, he represses the information getting out that he can’t repair the TV, because he has already a monopoly on the repair business; turns the evidence that he’s not really repairing TVs into phrases like: “we are making headway,” “there are increasing cases of TVs being in disrepair, so we need to have more leeway to repair them;” he might confiscate the TV of anyone who doesn’t want to have there’s repaired saying they are putting TVs in danger, or even might lock them up saying they are in denial that he needs to repair their TV, when they don’t want him to, don’t believe he can or simply don’t see the repair as something so necessary that they are going to have someone who statistically makes things worse get involved with it.

  • The “insane” person already isn’t finding danger where it doesn’t really exist. Isn’t projecting programmed fears onto whoever isn’t going along with the arbitrary consensual reality fashion of how things need to be, in order to overlook that they aren’t really working.

    If you need to judge their behavior as being a danger to themselves or others, you aren’t taking away their personal freedoms to protect them, you’re taking away your own freedom to be human.

  • I think you have to understand (and I stress HAVE TO, because without such understanding you aren’t relating to reality): when a person who simply has a “behavior” which is deemed “dangerous” is being judged on that, all this is saying is that whoever is judging them has no understanding of the behavior, and thinks that the behavior needs attention rather than the person.
    And to continue to judge the person’s behavior after they haven’t been attended to as a human being, when attending to them as a human being DOES have healing results and judging their behavior DOES NOT, this is then the reason why you think there’s some sort of “emergency” going on. Because YOU judged them, not because of what they did.

    And in reality where there’s behavior that puts others at risk, is with those who diagnose others and take away their personal liberties refusing to tend to the human being, ALTHOUGH they call themselves healers.

    It of course goes both ways.

    But a person who is supposed to be “Crazy” already ISN’T fitting into this insane society that getting so alarmed about behavior they don’t understand consistently resort to what under any kind of sane cognition shows that it’s making things worse. So, the healer really isn’t the psychiatrist or psychiatry. The healer is the person that can’t adapt to such a situation anymore, and is erroneously judged as being a danger to themselves or others.

    And if you would look at the people whose lives are suppressed in such a way, you will see that their responses still, in comparison with those judging them, are more non-violent. The same with say, indigenous people, women and others who are oppressed.

  • I’m sorry, but when there is the abundance of evidence that SSRI’s cause severe withdrawal symptoms; where does this not end up being brain damage? All that they have been proven to do is to interfere with natural biological functioning in the brain. There are enough other substances that do this (prior psychiatric drugs that now are street drugs, sugar, alcohol, nicotine etc.) and which people associate with relief. Are these going to be prescribed by a doctor and then end up being paid for by medical insurance? Is this necessary to give a bunch of innocent animals SSRI’s? Or maybe try Torey’s collection of brains, only you’d have to get a subpoena. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvMd1VDx5N8

    Bust just think, if they find brain damage is caused by anti-depressants; they’ll be inspired to make another drug to fix it…

    The body itself can repair damage, I think it’s designed better than the drug companies policy; as is nature with it’s modes of healing….

  • Marian thanks for pointing this out because this statement was so nebulous, I actually didn’t get it:
    “On the other hand, severe mental disturbance can be prolonged and disabling. Looking at hospital records from before the days of modern drugs, some people never came out of it, and spent their lives in a state of extreme confusion and degradation, unable to perform the most basic functions, or to communicate with anyone around them. I have occasionally seen people today who have been in this sort of state for many years, some of whom had had little or no drug treatment.”
    People who never had anyone to validate their humanity; were emotionally abused, if not physically and sexually; were ostracized, spent their lives locked up being told there was something wrong with them. And then it’s said that there’s a severe mental disturbance that can be prolonged and disabling. All in order to validate that “maybe” medications can help. Rather than look at what actually very clearly is going on. And there isn’t any “on the other hand,” then there would have to be an “other hand” a look at what else there is; rather than this obsessive repetition of how it just about always goes, and everyone overlooks the basic emotional needs. And then we hear this story about medications “always,” are necessary: “usually” are necessary; “need to be tried” or are “sometimes necessary” or are “sometimes helpful.” And the whole time, there has been so little emotional support; or any support from anyone who has actually been shown to be able to relate to such condition that such statements about “medications” are something akin to trying to save the old ikon which was running everything ragged. The “holy” relic. To speak about on the other hand would be looking at what’s marginalized, what should have been tried because it’s what gets the best results the whole time, rather than this same old blah blah blah blah blah….
    But then you’d have to see them as human rather than people to diagnose, to bereave of human contact, emotional support, personal freedoms, and when analyzing their behavior (after these abusive social and often “medical” treatments) make analyses like:
    “On the other hand, severe mental disturbance can be prolonged and disabling. Looking at hospital records from before the days of modern drugs, some people never came out of it, and spent their lives in a state of extreme confusion and degradation, unable to perform the most basic functions, or to communicate with anyone around them. I have occasionally seen people today who have been in this sort of state for many years, some of whom had had little or no drug treatment.”
    And this from a society which invests in trauma as a means of social control: if you don’t follow our religion you’ll go to hell; if you don’t follow the rules you’ll go to jail or be killed; if we can’t use violence to coerce the “enemy” then all hell will break lose (probably because of the weapons we put into manufacture along with the idea that coercion is a means to attain what you want; and such materials and ideas being promoted and forced on everybody enough that they take it into their own hands ). If “society” would actually look at the people it ostracizes and locks up in asylum (or care centers); and look at what fear and trauma really do to the human condition; it might have a different understanding and trust in human behavior than to invest in trauma controls, and expect people to be happy disabled into being treated as if they have a disease that has never been proven to exist; because they just haven’t learned to “behave” properly. They just haven’t adapted to fear based norms. They just aren’t salient to consensus based reality. They don’t fit in with accepted statistical based norms. And behavior that isn’t understood is labeled as a disease, rather than it’s not understood. And what’s truly on the other hand is mostly likely never been allowed and/or even tried. So lets go back to “on the other hand” we can go back to trying a substance reliable way of disabling the mind; then we don’t have to worry about what we don’t understand, or what thought is…

  • Eleanor, I think it’s really sad you have to even address “medications.”
    That’s an amazing statement to say that one should be warned not to use them as a permanent substitute for coping with stress. Not to make a toss at bliss, like one learns in Sufism; but there’s of course a difference between a chemically induced oblivion and bliss, nirvana – in case someone would want to just avoid dealing with stress. Not that you were even saying that psychiatric drugs could do this; I’m just saying something to point out what kind of an insult to a swamp it becomes to address THAT issue (heh swamps have a function too other than to be sold as real estate in Florida).

    “DO YOU WANT TO JUST LEAVE YOUR STRESS BEHIND, NOT EVEN HAVE TO THINK ABOUT COPING WITH IT: TRY fill-in-the-blank-drug AND YOU’ll FIND BLISS” (commercial with dancing dervishes)

    One wouldn’t want to make a toss at bliss… maybe take a toss at the blah blah blah, or use a cup and pour water over it….

    Don’t you have to experience what’s beyond all of this blah blah blah…

    *!?*

    It’s amazing to see someone that actually has been there get a degree in psychology….

    And survived….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk_gJXfGoKw&fmt=18

    bless you…

  • You’re actually going to go on about “Ca release in Fura-2-like experiments”, “vacuolizations to activation of caspases and what not,” Have abbreviations for SGN and FGN; and completely skip the fact that with either form (or subform) of these “medications” you are causing the brain to start producing more dopamine; and consequently a person can’t without difficulty get off of these “medications.” *The amount of loss of life; the increase in disability, relapses and loss of recovery. And the habituation, and addiction to turning off the natural functions of the brain; and call this “mood stabilizing” or a cure for psychosis; when statistics actually point out that it’s so much a con job (this disabling of natural brain functions as if the problem has gone away), things actually get worse. Well, then you need to go on about some sub-fixation with things that avoid and distract from the main effect (the INCREASE in mental illness, the suppressing of understanding of an innate expression of being human; see prior comments at the * sign…); and you need to have comparisons with older or newer brands or brand names or “what not,” sort of like advising beer is better because it’s a cheaper form of inebriation than Champagne or expensive wines.
    Well one thing certainly is right, New and Improved doesn’t necessarily mean better in the Mental Health system. Neither do older treatments like Lobotomies necessarily mean things were better before. If I might point out: Cocaine use and Meth (both older medications, and both mess around with neurotransmitters to “alleviate” distress just like modern medications and maybe cause euforia like Electro Shock which could be considered either new or old also, and you don’t need a prescription for this; just enough money to make an illegal drug deal); this also wouldn’t be a good idea, *probably* even though they are older methods (and outside the realm of getting a pen, sandwich and speaker fees for representing), I think….And this also here that although we’re not having anti-depressant wars with China, we don’t necessarily need to repeat the Opium wars in finding a way to make everyone forget their problems….

  • When you say the “toxic tormenting sense of hopelessness humiliation and despair about myself and my prospect” it was also something I guess I’ve been repressing feeling myself. I guess I had a basis for not worrying about my prospects. It was more, how would I survive, and what kind of pain would I go through. I had been involved with spiritualism (another kind of hearing voices) and… well, I knew I was an artist, a musician; and that was simply what I did. I had talked with the spirit of Mozart’s mother through at least three different mediums; until the social norms of spiritualism (and the egos of the mediums) itself became to confining for us, and too complicated. Being called crazy (when it had developed that far), only meant I didn’t have to worry about what people thought about me, and could go ahead and open up the channel of creativity regardless of what they said; since then, I’ve also learned to let go of looking for gratitude from others, rather than myself.

    But it’s not like I was never hurt by people’s phobic responses.

    There’s actual evidence that your mind when “psychotic” might be having an immune reaction which causes swelling, and this has to do with the same nerves you have in your gut; and the inability to process; or what happens when you’re under stress. Psychiatric medications only really cause more stress on the system. And psychiatric or quite often psychological diagnosis only disables a person from being given the right to let go of the stress. It’s usually that there’s something wrong with your behavior that you have to fix, rather than gaining insight into your behavior.

    But the utter helplessness of either thinking that there’s something wrong with me and I need to be fixed, or to give up; or simply not knowing: that’s an incredible bruised feeling. Especially coming out of a psychotic episode, where I’d become scared of my own behavior, didn’t know how to stop judging it, didn’t know how to understand it; and had this idea that life itself, almost, was against me.

    I think it’s exactly that which became the engine for all the years I couldn’t relate to what was going on, and only became more stressed and more fearful; and also at times more hopeful, actually: as the process unfolded itself. Because I started to see that there wasn’t anything wrong with me, It wasn’t a loss to not be part of the system; and there’s wasn’t any abandonment going on from life towards me; but there’s this quietness that remains beyond the worlds grasp, which emerged. And isn’t imprisoned by it’s “logic.”

    What an honor to have you writing, blogging at MIA. And to see and hear your alive vibrant compassionate message on the Internet. And really, I mean that. The one other person I heard give a talk which gave me the same feeling of compassionate communication, that told me things I knew I needed to hear, and did it in a genuinely vibrant way, communicating it with the positive friendliness of being human rather than spilling out doom. That was Naomi Klein…..

    Thank you so much for this beautiful talk you gave, and the lilt, the happiness to show you dare to be yourself…..and it’s worth it to make yourself vulnerable and be human.

    And I completely love the freedom you embody to express yourself, how you don’t inhibit the mind; but by being positive and making yourself vulnerable give it the flow it needs to be as much a part of life as the song of the birds – something we think is external rather than an internal (eternal) reminder of life’s joy…..

  • Sorry Chrys, but as I said, I’m not reading your responses anymore. And haven’t. No need to address a comment to me. I really think you might see that people aren’t attacking you as a parent, simply pointing out what didn’t work. And you won’t find out what life can bring to you until you believe it’s possible. It’s only THEN that you can see it. The mind is that powerful.

  • I have quite a few friends who I’ve helped to titrate off of psychiatric drugs. I’ve also been able to talk people out of a psychotic episode (completely stressed out and “paranoid”), to be there for them to let go of the idea of pain, and stress, and fear which was throwing them into an episode, they learned how to let go of. I’ve also been there for many friends to help them deal with the psychiatric system and; NO, I’ve never told them that they needed a system which statistically makes things worse, something you’ve repeatedly said is the only option, in “certain situations”. When according to you a person has lost sight of “reality.” And no, I don’t need a badge of having been a friend (or parent, or whatever) to someone I couldn’t help, and thus everyone needed to “give me slack…” when I fell back to saying the system that made things worse was necessary for, as you said: “but when experiencing psychoses or altered states of mind there is no alternative support available, for respite or peace of mind.” And then you have AGAIN used the parent badge to excuse this, when it’s absolutely not the case at all that there’s no other alternative. It only shows what you fall back onto, rather than to see what possibility is.

    And I’m not discussing this anymore Chrys, you’d repeatedly gone back to saying that the system which statistically makes things worse for “psychosis,” is the only respite. Well, it isn’t.

    And you repeatedly are adding up that it’s the only way, and using being a parent as a badge to say it was the only way out, simply shows how much it isn’t, otherwise you would NOT need to flash your badge as added excuse.

    I don’t know what kind of an excuse having to deal with the system and how it creates difficulties is supposed to be, except the system doesn’t work (but it’s the only respite supposedly, so if you haven’t been stuck having to deal with it as a parent you don’t know). As if there was no way out; and being a parent excuses it. And I have dealt with the system enough.

    To me, this shows again that these people don’t need “medications” they need people to be able to relate to them, when often their parents (or the system) couldn’t; and they had to deal with this since they were children, and built up a whole vacuum that the “psychosis” fills in. And then when something “beyond their ability to control” comes up, they can’t deal with it, and get “psychotic,” and supposedly need the system for respite. Well, that’s not true. They CAN learn to deal with what’s going on, but not from the people who created the vacuum (whoever that may be). In the end learning to understand themselves and emotions through “psychosis” becomes a gift rather than “psychosis” being a disease. And that they’re not being helped by the system or those who weren’t there for them, doesn’t excuse either one: the system or those who weren’t there for them.

    If I hadn’t been able to help my friends (when often their parents HADN’T been there for them), then yes I’d need an excuse to have fallen back on the system, but that’s not what happened. So, sorry, I don’t flash my: “oh it’s so difficult” badge; and accuse everyone who doesn’t have a group of friends having to deal with the mental health system as not knowing what it’s like, and saying everyone always blames everything on people’s friends (when the parents weren’t there for them)…..

    And Chrys, I will not be reading your responses anymore, I can’t waste anymore time on it. You’ve gone back and used the “I’m a parent, do you know what it’s like to be a parent? everyone blames the parent, it’s damned if you do damned if you don’t” excuse like a synthetic intelligence program would; just to have a response, an excuse. And saying the system which really only makes things worse is the only respite (because “something” needs to be done, when statistically just leaving it alone already has better results), again is just an automatic fear based response, to me. An excuse to not see you’re interfering. I can see the kind of stress you cause with such behavior, and can only imagine what someone in psychosis would have to deal with, with such responses.

    And I shouldn’t have to start using my own personal experience in order to validate what I’m trying to say, when the statistics speak for themselves, as does the information that has been shared. No excuses necessary. And someone with absolutely no experience with people with “psychosis” could put two and two together, and decide to just be there for someone when they’re going through their process, and read the alternative materials (like Lang and others share) and thus avoid the whole system. This excuse that someone had to deal with the system, and thus others have no right to simply point out it’s not working, is self defeating, entirely, I think.

    Also, there ARE many people who have actually been there to help their children, when they might have otherwise ended up in the system. I’m not someone who has children. So, instead of asking me about experience as a parent, I wouldn’t have, try talking to the people who HAVE such experience, because it happens enough. I also haven’t enlisted as a soldier, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know better than to get involved with believing violence creates harmony or to get involved with wars that are about strategic interests and resources to make money rather than what they are even made out to be about. Or there are people who simply have been good enough parents that their children can deal with stressful situations that might throw another into “psychosis.” You could look at how they might have been different parents. I didn’t have such parents and have had to deal with “psychosis,” THAT I have been through, and have been able to find my own healing. How you try to invalidate that by acting like I’m supposed to have been a parent who wasn’t able to help their child enough to avoid being committed before I can make a statement about what I know DIDN’T help me, is more than infuriating, and convoluted. As if I can’t speak out for my own healing (DESPITE MY PARENTS). Psychiatrists would say the same thing: “Have you ever dealt with people that don’t get better and rising numbers of “mental illness?” As if they have nothing to do with it, as if their “method” isn’t a cause. I’ve spent like a whole hour just responding to your remark, and I have better things to do, it’s also EXTREMELY stressful to me given the context, as if something which I know would have ruined me, squelched my creativity, is the only way out. I think that if you had truly been interested in learning how to help your son avoid the system, you could have found that information, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation, and there’d be no need for badges or excuses on your part. There IS such information out there, you just have to look. And the resources you would need are right there with the people around you but NOT in the system. The very fact that you need to start using the excuse of being a parent and disqualify anyone who hasn’t been the kind of parent that couldn’t prevent their child from getting involved in the system; really only invalidates your whole point, and points at how defensive you are.

    And to bring it full circle. I do remember reading in one of your posts that as a child you suggested that your mother needed to be committed, when your father asked you what to do. There IS a different way. And it DOES work.

  • What is this strain to have to do “something” all the time? Someone is stressed out, so they have to do “something” and stress out the person they are doing “something” for; then they are in “pain” because the “something” didn’t work (or this “hurts” me more than it does you); and then along comes the fool who says: “heh you might just not do that and save yourself the stress,” and it’s cause for more investment in stress because “something” has to be done…..
    Oh, excuse me, I need a badge for that; what’s available hurt parent, frustrated authority figure or something else?

  • Chrys: No I don’t think it’s an excuse having given birth to someone, to then say you have the right to say he needs to be poisoned with psychiatric drugs. That also has nothing to do with being a mother, that has to do with fear, and societal programming; and making excuses to not actually think about what one is doing, because that’s what you’re “supposed” to do. That’s nothing but an excuse. WHOEVER it is.

    And you say: “However when a person is in an altered state of reality, in severe mental distress or an emotional crisis that engulfs them then doing nothing doesn’t seem the best alternative.” Yes, I understand that’s how you feel; but statistics themselves speak differently. When “schizophrenics” DON’T receive any treatment and are just left alone, there’s less disability, more recovery, less relapses. So you can stop this ad about what “seems” to you to be the best alternative, and then try to back it up with that you’re damned if you do and or don’t, anyhow…..In fact, if you just simply wouldn’t, it would be a whole different story.

    And I’m really not interested in going on in circles about this, having to deal with “mothers can never do right” or whatever when I simply point out facts and it happens to be towards a mother. If it had been his girlfriend, it would be the same story. Or anyone else.
    There are enough mothers who simply wouldn’t have their child drugged, or diagnosed, or “treated” and would listen to what he has to say rather than using him as a publicity stunt (which they as “mother” can do) for Torrey, Earley and Gang.

    Further more, I’m very capable of talking to someone who has been brainwashed to believe that the drugs or the system are the answer, and I have done this, and changed their minds. And look at it from their perspective, relate to them, don’t judge them; and make change where it’s possible in how they approach the situation. However, this doesn’t involve giving them slack because: “well, I had to do something, otherwise I wouldn’t feel comfortable….” and then say that others just don’t understand what it’s like to be a parent. That’s insulting to all of the parents who dare to actually listen to their children, and don’t decide that: “doing nothing doesn’t seem the best alternative,” as if they’ve done “nothing” by simply trusting their child and the process rather than complicating it with having done “something,” because the system said they should, which would have been better to actually have been left at “nothing,” even when you think it’s nothing. Statistics show that’s more something than “something.”

    When Christopher Robin went into the forest to play with Pooh and was asked what he was doing, he would say nothing. That’s the best parts of someone’s youth. And I think it’s better to just leave it that way rather than to say that doing “nothing,” isn’t good enough.

    And you say that people just don’t know what it’s like. I DO know what it’s like when someone has tried to fix me, and have had to deal with it. And I don’t care WHO it is……(mother, saint, preacher, doctor, psychiatrist, the system, the need anti-psychiatry has to hate the system or what have you)..

    I CERTAINLY would never make ANY excuse to assault ANYONE ELSE with it, badges included…

  • Can I remind you that this is about a woman who kicked her son out of the house, because he wanted to be responsible enough to try a method which statistically correlates with recovery rather than disability!? I’m sure Whitaker says enough that immediate drug withdrawal is dangerous…..

    WHAT slack are we supposed to leave her, to make out that it’s dangerous to even condone a method which correlates with recovery, and you should kick your son out of the house rather than investigate how to do it safely!?

    And this whole thing is used as a publicity stunt to suppress what Whitaker has to say because this woman is in so much “pain.” And Whitaker is then some dangerous reporter, so you can overlook the whole epidemic, and those overwhelming statistics that show that it’s the mental health system that are putting these people in danger, and increasing the numbers.

    And it’s COMPLETELY not true that there aren’t alternatives. Those alternatives are what you make out of it. Simply leaving the person alone is an “alternative” which has better results than treatment in quite a few studies. You decide that the system is supposed to do it, and then yes, you have the excuse you need to not have alternatives, and have your whole “well we just didn’t know what to do, and there were no alternatives,” chipper smile that “yes, we also are victims, what’s your story, and isn’t it just awful that the system just doesn’t work, let’s all bond with that rather than not relying on the system”

    Yes, we ALL understand the care givers didn’t know what to do, and followed the system. But cutting them slack when it should be clear to any reasonable person that it’s not working, is ONLY empowering them to keep making the same abusive mistakes.

    Further more, simply deciding that they don’t get it, and it’s no use to try to debate with them, and they don’t know any better; that’s something completely different than supporting their idea that they are so in pain, because what never could work didn’t….

    There’s actually no need to give them slack, where the whole situation ended up shows they HAVE HAD enough slack to see what’s going on.

    There’s a BIG difference between truly wanting to help and gearing what you do to get points from the system, because that gives you the freedom to say you have the right to control the lives of others, and make yourself look like a hero or a victim, regardless of outcomes….

  • Um, to lump together the trauma a parent might have had, which prevented them from being a good parent, and put this together with them “suffering” (notice quotation marks) because they have a child with “schizophrenia” (quotations)….
    The diagnosis “schizophrenia” denies that it’s an emotional wound that comes from trauma. This cycle of trauma (from parent to child, and where it started before that) ends when the child sees what’s going on, and heals themselves (or the parent, or anyone who might come along). Becomes their own parent, or finds it in life (or God, or nature, or art, or meditation….anything and everything).
    There’s no sense in saying that what you do to maintain the trauma (see your child as a “schizophrenic” rather than someone who has an emotional wound, or just needs to be listened to rather than analyzed, diagnosed and “treated”), is something that needs to not be pointed out, because otherwise there’s “stigma” (notice quotation marks) going on. Thus if you actually change the pattern to heal the trauma, you are causing “stigma.” In reality stigma would be giving them a label and not allowing a person to say, that’s bogus, there’s no proof you’re dealing with a biological disease; and then denying their experience in life (as if the healing they could experience by looking at trauma to let go of it doesn’t exist). And schizophrenia (if it is to mean anything) would be an emotional wound which allows you to heal from trauma by recognizing it and feeling it and allowing one to feel that something is going on. And to see that compassion does heal. And suffering becomes something existential that allows you to relate to the human condition and see what compassion and forgiveness is, and how that breaks the cycle. To say suffering is how you suffered by causing suffering (because you didn’t know any better); and then mention how much you (or they) suffered because they were causing suffering rather than healing (and this just didn’t work, but it was supposed to which “hurts”); and say that mentioning that: “heh, you could stop it, it’s not working, no matter how much “suffering” you cause doing something that’s not working will not get it to stop” this then is called “stigmatizing” otherwise you have to give up the ghost.
    Ending suffering is stigmatizing because when you make yourself suffer really bad, then you get enough attention for your suffering to ignore your suffering is causing suffering rather than healing!?
    Just because you are doing things that cause suffering, and then overlooking cause and effect to maintain the cycle (because you have to acknowledge they are suffering rather than have perspective); this ISN’T anywhere along the line going to magically fix everything dependent on how much you acknowledge everyone’s “suffering,” and allow it to accumulate as objective object needing attention. But don’t mention you could stop it because stopping it would be to cause more “suffering” since it was supposed to work rather than not work.
    And this is all part of a “treatment” that’s necessary, and denial is causing “suffering”, “stigma”, is “infuriating” and “hurtful”…..(did I get the quotation marks right?)
    If the treatment isn’t working, and causes more “suffering” consequently; this validates the treatment. Everyone needs to feel sorry because it’s “supposed to” work. And healing mental illness means being so mental you can ignore whether it’s working (add medications here because it hurts, and then you won’t feel it, because you’re “suffering”)…

    Sacrificing virgins was “supposed to” appease the Gods. Feeling sorry for all the suffering that they went through, because it didn’t work, (because it’s real “suffering” when to try to appease the Gods with a virgin sacrifice and it doesn’t work, so it’s stigmatizing to not feel sorry for this “suffering”) ….
    And pointing out statistics that there’s no correlation with a sacrificed virgin and a good crop yield, this then is seen as dangerous to the fact that we need to sacrifice virgins otherwise there will be pain and suffering, because all of the pain and suffering we did sacrificing virgins won’t be allowed to do it’s magic; well then you have to deny you might be causing your own suffering; and anyone who causes enough suffering deserves the attention to show that that’s not how it works, by everyone being told it’s “stigmatizing” to say such “treatment” is not working and this causes “suffering.”

    And the more “suffering” you cause the more “attention” you deserve.

    I guess I just don’t feel I’m causing enough “suffering” to be such an “example”….even though, if I “created” enough of it following the “leader”, you would feel “sorry” for me.

  • Thanks so much for this comment. Being scared of skeletons in the closet doesn’t change the fact that people don’t really care about them. When they are discovered by others, and seen for what they really are, they are as glad to let you let go of them as they are to clean out their own closet. To find those people all you have to do is not try to hide your own, and not make it out to be worse than it isn’t…..

  • Doctor Steingard,
    I also have heard that injectibles cause death, simply because they are injected and there is a toxic abundance of the drug found in the person when the autopsy is done. These are injections that are supposed to be long acting. When this could happen to anyone, how is there any “judicious” use!? This has happened repeatedly, and since it ALSO happens in psychiatric practice more than often that such deaths are misreported or not reported at all, this probably has happened more than we are told. There’s also deaths now from many other “side effects” that all of us who are in the circle to share such reports read about.
    As I have already stated, whether you intend it that way or not, this is stress inducing to be confronted with such responses, and then to even be requested to share links to information about clearly highly dangerous medications, you are questioning (and clearly, although you are a professional administering those drugs aren’t in a circle to get the information you would need). And then you state that people have already made up their minds so comments are likely to have no influence, which you have also seen in this site (WHILE YOU ARE ASKING, IN COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE, INFORMATION YOU AS A PROFESSIONAL SHOULD HAVE ALREADY FREELY AVAILABLE IN A RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING YOUR PROFESSION). There are more than a few of us who have spent an incredible amount of time trying to share information that most people dismiss because of mainstream brainwashing, and know pretty much most people have made up their minds about, but we care enough about that fraction of a possibility that someone might be questioning what they are told; and we might save ONE LIFE out of hundreds, thousands or millions. Yet you discourage that because you say most people have already made up their mind. To me, such advice does go along with holding onto the need for prescribing brain disabling medications, I must say! And requesting others to find information you should have had to begin. And who actually has made up their mind already? What would be the difference in not being fearful whether people have made up their minds or not, what would the difference in regards treatment?
    What someone shared (possibly on this site) is that injectables use oil in the skin to cause a place where the “medications” stay and are slowly let loose into the body, and this can dissolve too soon or something like that. Whether that’s the case with older forms of injectables or both new and older, or it’s something else; there ARE cases where a person clearly dies because they were injected. And death occured because of the nature of what might happen when injected NOT because it was injected improperly. Where this falls under: “I do not think the long acting injectables are more harmful so I would suggest the same judicious use of this formulation.” is again only an example that there’s not clear information, damage is overlooked and it’s the habit!

  • I looked at this disturbing blog. Pete Early’s. Quite full of incredible statements. To quite a few, it seems, for anyone to actually report scientific findings, they have to be a scientist. And these are findings that are suppressed in mainstream media, mainstream media they are all happy to repeat without questioning it even though TV or The New York Times aren’t “scientists.” Someone says Bob isn’t a scientist and the choir repeats it. Whitaker is simply reporting facts that are scientifically verifiable. Something any good reporter does. When another reporter reports things in main stream media which can’t be scientifically verified but are pro drugging, then they have no problem it’s not a scientist.

    One lady at the end (when I looked) mentioned that they have all tried non medication, all 100% of them. That’s an interesting way to promote a treatment, mention that everyone who hasn’t followed that treatment has already tried not having the treatment. If you’re not immediately fixed because you haven’t tried blah blah blah treatment, you’ve tried what happens without it, and it’s failed. You can say that anyone needs THAT treatment that way (despite side effects, lack of life, a plumetting in rates of recovery in comparison to other methods). It just happens to be that people who don’t receive “any” treatment in regard say “schizophrenia” (which means no forced drugging) do better statistically in levels of recovery. It’s the ones who are drugged and having so many relapses, and can have extreme withdrawal symptoms when trying to get off of the medications without help, that cause most of the problems which are then used to promote forced drugging. Those problems don’t exist in such an extent with those not “treated,” something she says they’ve all tried (100%) while apparently dismissing the statistics of those who actually have (and have they been treated or not; since if they have been treated but not “treated” then they’ve not been treated, because everyone who hasn’t been treated has already tried not being “treated.”). And she says Whitaker is trying to use a disease to promote his method. Because he offers methods which do better statistically, and he can back it up….and simply offers it as a possibility without promoting forcing it on anyone.

    The facts are that probably none of them have experienced the Healing Homes of Finland method, which actually is treatment where the statistics speak for themselves, or Orthomolecular, or Soteria or Inner Dialogue. If one is to say that they all (100%) have tried the none drug method….

    (how many times can you say treatment, and still have tried not being treated while you were saying it!?)

  • Doctor Steingard,
    What I see you doing here, is using the idea that someone’s inability to “comport with consensual reality” as an excuse to not see that medications which are neurotoxins, that interfere with normal healthy brain functions; that stop dopamine from doing it’s natural function, that take years off of a person’s life, that cause tardive dyskenisia, that are highly addictive and cost not only much more than talk therapy but because they are addictive, this “therapy” is spread out over a long period of time, costing more and effecting the whole economic flow in “mental health” and what kind of “Treatment” is available – that you are using a scientific sounding statement about salience that comports or doesn’t comport with consensual reality to promote fear against a response that’s not only possible misunderstood but in general suppressed.

    And to me to say someone has an inability to comport with consensual reality, and then say this causes them pain and suffering, and then keep it in the bag to subscribe “medications” that were already advertised so dishonesty that there have been billions of dollars of fines the drug companies have had to pay; to me this might add up as paranoia against someone simply expressing trauma, that this doesn’t remove them from “consensual reality,” but puts them in a reality (which at first might seem “non-consensual” but actually is more consensual at a level that doesn’t need to be acknowledged), that’s not based on disabling the brain, rather than being scared of their response, which seems to undermine the safer reality where they couldn’t express or acknowledge or let go of their trauma. The clinical use of words such as “lack of salience with consensual reality:” What’s the difference between that and the sociological terms used to portray poverty, minority status, etc.. That’s also inability to comply with statistical based norms. That’s also only a few steps from saying that there’s some malignant genetic component because of inability to “adapt” to statistical based norms. The problem REALLY may not be in supporting the idea that a person is in pain and suffering because they can’t “adapt,” but helping them to see that what is making them think they can’t adapt, when understood, would help them to adapt to a different “consensual reality” which is where they are meant to be, which doesn’t require interfering with natural brain functions, and which will make them truly happy in a way they don’t have to see beforehand to facilitate.

    You also have to understand that you are asking people who have been through increased trauma in their life, and have had to deal with the whole intimidation that they are supposed to be on these “medications,” or are supposed to believe that others are supposed to be on these medications (and be told or are made to be aware that they are sticking out of the crowd if they have different beliefs, or that “their salience doesn’t comport with consensual reality”). Those the worst off have to deal with all of that instead of receiving the kind of emotional support which they weren’t given and had to search for someplace else (often while dealing with the added complication of having to get off of these “medications” while trying to find such support). You are asking these people to supply you with information links about said “medications,” when perhaps they already have more than enough to deal with. We don’t have the superhuman abilities to split into three or four different entities traversing linear time which all have 24 hours available to them, so that this is multiplied by four: one that looks for needed emotional support; one that does the therapy which wasn’t given; one which tends to basic needs as in money, food, clothing and “the pursuit of happiness”; and one that does this research into deciphering quite extensive propaganda and contorted ideology that tries to sound like science taking on it’s form but not it’s content. I’m quite amazed and humbled by the articulate ability of the people on this site to supply such very needed information, and maze through piles of confusing misleading statements excusing ideology and excusing excuses rather than being reality based.

    It might be enough to simply know that they (these “medications”) are interfering with natural organic functions of the very sensitive human organism known as the brain, are known to disrupt said organism and cause chemical imbalance but aren’t known to address any chemical imbalance; are highly addictive; have a known list of horrible side effects, aren’t really acknowledged as the neurotoxins and brain altering substances that they are; are not a class of drugs that society in general supplies rehab centers and/or such information for and about, although this clearly effects all of society as much or even more than street drugs; have been falsely advertised and caused more than significant damage which would further think someone would be dissuaded from implementing their usage further. Etc. etc.

    Have you truly thought about how much you are asking? Have you thought about how this can overload a person’s mind – those who have had to at an experiential level had to deal with all of this, rather than an “observer” – into becoming psychotic, just to try to attend to such questions and the litany behind it?

    I myself am truly amazed, heartened and humbled by the ability, – despite ALL they have been through, – of the people on this site to attend to such often redundant fear based questions! And the patience they have! And the courage they show against being seen to stick out too much, or as has been expressed differently: lack salience in their consensual comportment.

  • This program Orthomolecular is wonderful and amazing; but that doesn’t disqualify Soteria or Inner Dialogue. There’s no reason the two can’t work together, and there’s no need for competition, for Brand Name wars there, whatsoever. There’s no need for anyone saying “this is the one answer, the best.”And I really don’t see the Soteria project, Inner Dialogue, Healing Homes of Finland and the Orthomolecular Program being in any way incompatible with each other. Those, I think, should all be available in a mainstream approach, being that they get better results than what is usually enforced. And they are more cost effective. When a person’s emotional needs are tended to, they want to take better care of themselves. And their own personal instincts are allowed to come out, that part of them which knows better than anyone else what’s good for them. In fact, focusing on something outside of the self as being the cause can cause exactly the kind of fear that may result in psychosis. Looking for the answers on the inside doesn’t do this. Tending to emotional wounds doesn’t do this. I’m not saying one shouldn’t be up on nutrition, relaxation exercises, everything that the orthomolecular method has looked into; I’m just saying that you can’t separate emotional health from physical, and when not tending to one create a holistic organism. Both need to be looked into. To be acknowledged.

    The orthomolecular only has a 50% recovery rate with those who have had “schizophrenia” for a long time. From personal experience of my own and others, that may require attention to thought itself. This is “anecdotal.” A friend of mine was having”psychotic episodes” for years (20 years, I think). But when she stopped believing in the devil, a belief she had been indoctrinated in as a child; then she stopped inducing the stress which cause her to have psychotic episodes. Those are her own words, by the way, and she’s been completely fine, since. Also, she saw that as an experience, not as a disease. And she wouldn’t judge other people as being sick either, but be able to relate to them. Everyone has their own story, but I find that when it involves thought, that it’s usually less acknowledged than something based on a tangible physical source of cure. Often it’s completely overlooked, because you can’t put it into “black and white,” but you have to allow for something as intangible as human nature or the human condition and experience. And you have to just simply listen, rather than trying to be objective and knowing the answer. I understand that people who aren’t medicated, have a much higher recovery rate for “schizophrenia.” In fact I have read that in itself is 90 %. But I haven’t read any material where those people were themselves asked how their thinking changed, or what changes occurred in their lives.

    I find it fortunate that thought in itself remains intangible to someone trying to find an objective source for healing. And it remains free to everyone, that way. If you believe thought is just a chemical reaction, then you have still decided to have a belief, to involve thought. Even if you say that’s an observation, you could have looked at it very very differently, and that also is thought.

    I also don’t know how anyone can decide that another is still “sick” with schizophrenia. Or make a judgement on the 10 percent, the 17 percent, the 50 percent or the greater numbers that are still seen as having “schizophrenia.” Those are all still completely valid human beings with their own experience of life. They are the only ones that know their experience. They aren’t separate from the creative source. And to understand them, you have to first see them as human, rather than as a disease. And you have to listen rather than try to convince them there’s something wrong with them. Needing emotional attention isn’t a disease. Needing good nutrition isn’t a disease. Needing vitamins isn’t a disease. Needing the freedom to express yourself creatively isn’t a disease. None of those are diseases as little as dying of hunger is a disease or something “genetic.” When you stop seeing them as being flawed, you find your own human nature in them. There’s absolutely no loss there whatsoever….

  • This band-aide approach I also find cursory. Fussing about the “crazy” people while the “sane” people, the “authorities” in control with their weaponry (nuclear weapons) can destroy all life on the planet 20 times to make sure the enemy is dead (that isn’t suicide?)…

  • If one is going to talk about “Rule Governed Behavior is behavior that adheres to the general rules or sequences of things we need to do,” then we can start with the very premise of biological psychiatry. And that is that we’re told that there’s a biological disease. To say that there is a biological disease, you need proof. And when treating a biological disease, you need to reduce the occurrence of the disease, not increase it. And when treating a chemical imbalance, you need to treat a proven chemical imbalance, not cause one with the treatment.
    There are many ways to help children who have the difficulties talked about. Telling them that there is something wrong with their brain, when there is no proof for this, isn’t something that honors the sequence of logic.

  • It’s quite amazing to me that when they see someone homeless, but not in a “psychotic” episode, they do nothing. That person could die on the streets. And yet they will spend 1000 dollars a day (you add up how much this costs, and who gets paid for it) in order to keep someone in an asylum against their will; put them on “medications” which statistically shorten their life by 20 to 25 years, don’t correlate with healing and are extremely addictive.
    What if all of this money were put into actually feeding people and giving them shelter? I mean people that are hungry and have no home. That might even make it safer to be homeless or “on the streets.” And at a fraction of the cost of 1000 dollar a day, you can provide shelters, true asylums for people who have gone into periods the psychiatrists would call psychosis, and supposedly need to be medicated whether they want to or not. And in these shelters, when the usually 500 to 1000 dollars a month of “medications” aren’t forced on someone, it has consistently been shown that the outcome is far better for recovery. What if the target wasn’t vulnerable people, and forcing them on highly addictive medications? What if the focus wasn’t on making them out to be a danger to themselves and others? If you look at it closely, the medications (their withdrawal symptoms or as with anti-depressants their side effects) have been shown to be the strongest correlation with what causes such violence!
    The article called the changing face of Nami mentions the Newtown shooting, but it doesn’t mention that these shootings basically didn’t happen before we had anti-depressants. And that anti-depressants or another psychiatric drug is it seems always involved, or the information is withheld, which would indicate that it likely was involved, otherwise the information wouldn’t be withheld. These are the medications Nami says it needs more leeway to force on people. Read the black warning label on anti-depressants, something the drug companies were against. The drug companies also stopped taking in reports of the violence anti-depressants caused, and said that they weren’t getting reports. They also changed the rules for clinical trials in many ways to get the results they wanted to make them legal, in the first place: when people started getting better in the non control group the first few weeks they were removed from the statistics rigging the results in favor of the anti-depressant; when they didn’t get the results they wanted, they allowed people in the trials who were already on psychiatric drugs (not really appropriate for a clinical trial), not incomparable to asking drug addicts whether they wanted to try a new street drug; when most of the people in the trial in the control group had to leave the trial because of horrible side effects from the anti-depressants, they didn’t count this, and this happened repeatedly; when people in the control group had horrible side effects the last 7 weeks of the trial period (flue like symptoms, seizures, couldn’t sleep), because they were getting off of the anti-depressants, this at first wasn’t included in the material about the trial. With the amount of court cases where the drug companies have had to pay billions of dollars for falsely marketing psychiatric drugs (mostly newer psychiatric drugs than anti-depressants); with the intense rise in mental illness rather than a decline; it would be only logical that NAMI needs to change what it’s doing. But sorry, I don’t think this is some amazing new development, given how late it is, how minor the change is; and given the results of all the methods that weren’t mainstream drug treatments, results that have been there before they ever started the biological theory, and forced it on people without appropriate proof that it was valid. I guess I don’t know if I should find this an amazing new development, because if I do, it only colors NAMI badly as well; because any reasonable organization actually interested in a perspective on what’s going on, and articulately assimilating information would have changed their policy a LONG TIME AGO…
    And Kathy I’m not trying to criticize you. I think it’s immensely heart warming to hear your story, and see how much you are willing to see that there are different ways. And how much you love your son, and have stood by him. And show that NAMI actually isn’t completely stolid. But this evidence about NAMI, and how much they were involved with promoting what correlates with the great increase in mental illness, and how many lives were mislead, were given information that wasn’t accurate…When I look at their main website, what I see is information that’s mostly the same as what correlates with the increase in mental illness. Just because they are treating more and more people doesn’t make them some wonderful organization, when you look at how what they promote correlates with the increase in what’s termed mental illness. Instead, it points out to me that they monopolize on people’s fear of something that could be better understood and treated without the alarm about it.

  • Kathy, I wonder if you are aware of how much you use terminology which doesn’t actively engage a person with what is going on conceptually. Have you considered how much taking on the term “mental illness” might have disabled you from being able to relate to what was and is going on? Because that term was used to condone treatments that also don’t relate to what is going on conceptually. There is no proof there’s a biological disease, and this theory used to implement a biological cure has only caused more mental illness. In regards your son, I would suggest that contributed to what is going on, and I will not repeat the terms used. I can’t imagine being told that I have an organic illness, and then to be given “medications” which only suppress organic workings of my brain, and correlate with more disability and more mental illness, and to be told this is a cure: I can’t imagine that this would help make me happy unless I wanted my happiness to depend on what others told me to think and disregard my own instincts. Many veterans, after society has used them for violent action, also become homeless, and do not want to be part of such a society, and it’s lack of flexibility in finding answers. And here we are talking about a war on the brain. It’s all about disabling natural brain functions. I can’t really speak for them, but to me this is only logical. Is this because they have something organically wrong with their brain, or is something else going on? Is this even fair to them to be treated in such a manner: To be told they have an organic disease there is no proof of, and be given a treatment which has proven to cause exactly what they are told is a malfunction of their body, when it has never been proven to? The drugs cause the brain to malfunction, the disease has never really conclusively been proven to.
    Perhaps try counting how many times you use a diagnostic label; or how many medications you mention. All of that, I believe, has been proven statistically to only complicate what’s going on rather than introduce healing; and then that effect it used to demand more of the same “treatment,” rather than a different approach. That’s how the statistics are used by the people manufacturing those labels and those medications.

  • When confronted with the difficulty of dealing with unconscious responses that are programmed rather than authentic or instinctive, and not being given the space to gain perspective, and then to be told that you have a biological disease, this is in no ways encouraging. Especially when there is no proof it is a biological disease, although the treatment has been proven to cause a biological disease and this propaganda is largely disseminated and believed. And this is what you hear about yourself. And this is how people treat you. And I have found they often make you out to be a danger you could never be. This is how you make a person disturbed. What Laura is saying here, in her beautiful opoignant post, about it being self fulfilling prophesy to have a diagnosis is very true, very pertinent to what’s going on.
    Instead of seeing yourself as having a disease, but seeing you have a very fulfilling challenge to face, a challenge to find out who you are, and how life is already waiting there for you, this is by no means a dangerous idea.
    I had to learn how to let go of what was getting in the way of me seeing what the trauma was I could let go of. That basically was that I didn’t have to go along with the world’s way of judging, of seeing offenses. That it was OK for me to not seek some sort of justice. Then I could let go of the initial trauma, and it wasn’t controlling me. Then I didn’t see that as trauma anymore, but as a challenge, a learning experience. And the people that had “traumatized” me were off the hook as well. I didn’t feel I needed to perpetuate suffering by wanting to traumatize them to discipline them. They were also free to become themselves. And then really, the humanity of everyone was allowed to emerge. And healing occurred on all sides rather than everyone was being controlled by fear to “fit in.” I think you can compare it with entanglement in quantum physics. All the different particles are connected beyond time and space as we know it. And we aren’t separate from what we’re observing.
    And I’ll tell you, when one is supposedly “psychotic” you do a lot of observing. You take a lot in. You find people behaving in extremely phobic ways towards you. It’s really up for grabs which is worse, the initial trauma, or how you are treated when ostracized because you can’t fit in anymore because of it. And it’s a big struggle to let go of all of that, when coming out of such a state, remembering all of it. But it is how I healed. And it is possible. And it is worth it.

  • “ We have so little understanding of the brain or how to best address mental illness. And most of us don’t have that time.  ”
    Healing homes of Finland has an 80% recovery rate. I really don’t see those statistics anywhere else. That’s how much we know how to best address mental illness, and yet their method (which is cheaper also than medications) is mostly not implemented, and mostly not allowed. A person in their first psychotic episode, would they be introduced to medical intervention would almost always be forced on medications. NAMI being one of the main organizations which promotes drugging, and as stated by cannotsay2013 wants to make it easier for people to be forced on medications, although this correlates statistically with more mental illness. That’s also something we know about what’s the best way to treat mental illness.

    We also know enough about psychiatric medications that trying to get off of medications can cause psychiatric symptoms in itself. This doesn’t come from any disease, unless you want to look at the imbalance the psychiatric medications themselves cause. And the medications haven’t really been proven to address a chemical imbalance found in a biological disease, but cause chemical imbalance. The same as street drugs. The medications also correlate with more disability and a shorter lifespan, in regards neuroleptics a reduction of 20 to 25 years.
    What the medications do is suppress symptoms of mental illness, they suppress normal brain functions. They alter the normal workings of neurotransmitters (same as street drugs do). For a person to understand their initial symptoms, this often involves being given the right to express dissent against an environment that isn’t tending to their emotional needs, that isn’t listening or acknowledging them. That isn’t allowing them to think or respond. Just suppressing these thoughts, these “symptoms” by disabling the workings of the brain doesn’t allow this, and also statistically doesn’t correlate with recovery, rather with more mental illness. This also colors the expression of dissent from what could be an oppressive environment as something to be suppressed; and it suppresses the understanding of such emotional expression, although this understanding is much simpler than telling a person they have a biological illness there is no real proof of, and calling that a true illness. There’s a difference between the relapse of a yet to be proven biological disease, and withdrawal symptoms from psychiatric medications. And yet these withdrawal symptoms are so often labeled as a relapses, as a symptom of a biological illness, when the only conclusive truly scientific evidence points out that they are a chemical imbalance caused by psychiatric medications.
    Not having the time to look at what you’re getting into beforehand can cause you to have to worry about what the generic treatment itself is doing , although it’s blamed on the disease. The treatment here scientifically correlates with what the disease is said to be, and that’s a chemical imbalance; while what’s called the disease hasn’t been proven to correlate with it. I don’t believe Nami told you this before you got involved with psychiatric medications. Why not? That much understanding of how the brain works has been known the whole time, and easily accessible to anyone, without taking up too much of their time.

  • Before this gets off topic. When I was referring to thought in the above post, this was in regards the two sides of a disagreement, both sides believing that the other side is something objectively separate from who they are; and that their judgments of the other side (and anger, attack thoughts, condemnation and the privileges they give themselves to use force) is objective as being separate, and what their thoughts are doesn’t effect what’s going on. How they judge the other party and to what extent they would like to punish the other party (as if trauma induces good behavior) is all seen as being separate from what’s going on. And what they are observing the other party doing is seen as objective, rather than a decision they are making themselves.
    From all the trauma I’ve been through, I really haven’t found finding a just cause to traumatize the other party, and call this discipline, something that induces healing. And dialogue in itself goes beyond the physical parameters of it, I believe, and involves what you think. This is beyond time and space, I believe; and it seems that quantum physics also points this out, as have many disciplines before this.
    To find peace of mind, I haven’t found this to come from hating and wanting to punish the other party. In fact, I believe that this is investing in what caused the problem to begin with, and only causes more confusion and trauma, and results in more of what you’re trying to stop, to prevent.

  • Excuse me, I’m talking from my own experience, also in regards “schizophrenia. So you can say this “maybe” goes part way, but it’s my story and what has healed me. And that in no way is half way. This also in regards personal trauma which wasn’t minor or easy to understand, and how I healed from that. If you have your own story of how you healed, then feel free to relate it.
    Further more, Quantum physics itself, which is the result of hard scientific investigation at the most intense level possible regarding the physical Universe, says the same thing about thought and “subjectivity.” We aren’t separate from what we are observing and judging.

  • I’m going to try to point something out, and hope it doesn’t cause too much of an explosion. Psychiatric drugs indeed are dangerously addictive, horribly so. But why do these drugs even exist? What is it about civilization that illicits their production and use? And what does this have to do with addiction?. And I think we’re talking about an addiction that’s stronger than anything physical: it’s the habit of judging other people. A group of psychiatrists do that with their diagnosis, and a group of anti-psychiatry people do that with an idea of justice. Both believe they are doing it for the good of the all.

    If people who truly look at mental illness do this to gain an understanding of trauma, and this becomes universal to the human condition, this also relates to criminals and what they went through; that is a completely different approach than the justice system, for the most part. This also deals with trauma and addresses it and heals it. And that deals with cause and effect rather than making the effect out to be a cause in itself, which it isn’t. That also becomes an addiction, this involves thought, and is more of a cause than anything physical (drugs, what happens that’s called objective and can be labeled as a diagnosis or a crime).

    Is a justice system, a penal system which uses trauma (punishment and it’s threat) to try to control people’s behavior really the appropriate tool to use to try to change the mental health system or is dialogue a better tool? And beyond that, not judging people, which involves thought, which involves that our thoughts never were separate; that they have an energy beyond the physical which doesn’t change as much as we try to make the physical out to be something “objective” in itself, when maybe thought which remains “subjective” is more objective than anything physical. And so not judging a person is felt stronger than any means which would try to control them. Is that maybe a better approach?

    A “schizophrenic” instead of having a disease, I see as someone approaching this relationship with thought. Acting out the parameters of fear he/she needs to let go of so that he can think clear, because it’s thought rather than it’s programmed behavior that’s acceptable or isn’t acceptable to the “society” around him wielding fear and justice and all of its controls. And I myself have encountered the same problem amongst some of the “anti-psychiatry” people; that they have a set regiment of controls that cause the same “psychotic” reaction in me until I let go of them, get away from them. That can also cause problems like the mental health system does. I can only hope that Claire Weber actually looks at the results of the Homes in Finland, Open Dialogue, the Earlier asylums the Quakers had, the Soteria project; and all the people that went on to have fruitful lives after being diagnosed with schizophrenia. One can only hope that the approach isn’t that with the worst cases we go back to the medical model, although that has proven to only make things worse. Or that it’s seen as the only method of treatment (although it’s statistically only hampered and complicated recover) and thus is implemented because “something” needs to be done making the people doing “something” feel appeased while it abuses the person actually needing help. And they’re not allowed to say how they feel about it or is judged as being non-compliant. One can only hope that what this truly does isn’t overlooked because she “seeks everyday to make space for all perspectives and experiences that cross her path.”

  • Just to let you know (a word is a word and if someone said googoo gaagaa in context that has as many meanings as any of them), the association I had with baseline was that it meant something like flatline; what happens when a heart monitoring machine goes flat and there’s no heartbeat anymore. Which is basically what’s expected; to show no real signs of life, I guess. And decompensating (or de’comping) this I thought actually had to do with “overcompensating,”…..I didn’t have the association with baseline until you told me what it means, but I did with decompensating, before you filled in the jargon’s use.

    It’s really the system that’s overcompensating. I’ve heard the term “non-reality-based” as a symptom I supposedly had, by a social worker. This fortunately wasn’t in any setting where she had any control over my life, she had been teaching “yoga” at Parks and Recreation. I had said something that was a bit off base (LOL….oh yeah… “baseline”) and she didn’t want me in her class anymore (which was actually a solace, because she was a terrible teacher, and completely misrepresented yoga turning it into a chase scene rather than the healing modality it is). And she literally turned EVERYTHING I had ever done around, was she looking for something.

    If I went out the same door everyone else did, and she happened to have gone through it as well, I was following her to her car (and I never got anywhere near her car but always went straight for my bike, and I think only went out the same door as she did maybe twice of the umpteen times). If she had mentioned that she had bought a whole bag of chocolate bits in a moaning tone, and I mentioned you could put coco powder in your oatmeal and still get the same buzz you get from chocolate but without all the sugar, she said I was mad at her for eating too much sugar (and started going on about her doctor saying she needed to cut down her sugar intake). If I was talking to her after class about yoga (which she invited everyone to do) and she had a bad posture, which caused me to respond by straightening mine up to show you don’t have to stand that way, I was physically trying to intimidate her, weighed like 50 more pounds than I do, an inch higher; and intruding into her “private space.” If I came to class and went to the only still available space which was right in front of her, I was getting too close to her. If I had a back ache and couldn’t do all of the exercises (still did more than 80% of them), according to her I didn’t do 80% of the exercises and spend the whole time staring at her. If I actually watched her do the poses, when I was trying to figure them out (it was difficult to listen to her explain things because she had such a pretentious patronizing sing-song voice), then I was staring at her all the time. The only way I could follow what she was doing, because she was going so fast – and this was supposed to be yoga and was more like a Richard Simmons workout – was to watch what she was doing and do the exercises at the same time, and so her “friends” all had told her that all I did was watch her. Actually trying to do the exercises counted for nothing apparently. And trying to see what they were was even worse.

    Because the exercises were such an intrusion on the relaxed hum that yoga in it’s true form is meant to be (and she actually did many of the actual yoga exercises but went too fast, made them out to be almost like weight training in how they strained the muscles); after class I would slow down for awhile because I had to ride my bike home, and I was still coming down from her whole class, and my muscles were still oscillating with a nervous trill. She often would be having conversations with people (and I was always getting my stuff together slowly, I had to put my jacket and mittens and shoes back on, roll up my yoga mat and maybe just stood or sat there calming down); and then she says I was “closely listening” to her conversations. I guess I was supposed to be deaf, actually. I actually was quite amused at times, because all my friends are basically just living at a “baseline” level. That is, they just have their basic needs, don’t go on vacations, don’t have cars, mostly. And here this was this character like out of a book that was so pretentious in all of her interactions: model for how it’s supposed to be that only goes with A Disney Movie or the McCarthy era, I couldn’t help but be interested in what the heck was going on. The same with how she did yoga. Her upper arms were way too developed, made her look a bit like a thug; it also put her posture and most of her poses out of kilter. She also constantly did a routine that moved from downward dog to getting up and bending down and touching your toes; repeating that rotation like weight training.

    I have never in my life heard so much nonsense, except I hear it from my friends every day. And so I discovered what they had been through when they were “committed,” and what they had to deal with with their various case managers, social workers, psychiatrists and all.

    The thing that I had said that was a bit off-base or confused (and it wasn’t even to her) I won’t completely go into; but I’ve received attention from actors (and all the way up the scale); because apparently a vulnerable “schizophrenic,” who just wants to experience life and has this not-inhibited respond to it (and also talks about having memories of the dancer whose name I use here, which has “celebrity” status), this is attractive. That’s who I was for years. And it’s a big role in Hollywood, the emotionally disturbed “crazy” person. And this gets to you, actually. Actors that can do the role of a schizophrenic (and actually also a gay person) that in Hollywood no gay person could do, let alone a “schizophrenic.” And what can be rather uncouth, insensitive and presumptuous behavior that goes along more with their image as a media figure than who they are. So, I was a bit confused about something that went on, thought there was this whole intrusion into my life; was actually paranoid about it for one day, which I realized the next wasn’t what was going on. But this “yoga teacher” had made such a fuss about it (and such a construction of untruths) that I got a restraining order against me, and wasn’t allowed to take classes there anymore. No you can’t be confused about something for a day (especially if it’s only a day, and you don’t believe it’s a sign of a disease). And all of that is of course so confusing, and so exhausting to try to figure out: I was left in a space where I couldn’t make much sense out of it or know how to respond.

    What’s the most interesting is that the actually “confusion,” when I was making things out to be something that wasn’t really completely going on: it has quite fascinating elements that are as illuminating as a novel. This”yoga teacher” and her associates were making such a ridiculous bunch of paranoia out of anything I did that it was like some Hollywood chase scene with stereotyping just to cause the adrenaline rush (and it was supposed to be a yoga class, with the teacher causing the whole chase scene instead). Since, I’ve discovered things about yoga, and simple positions I made up on my own, that I couldn’t have slid into were I taking this “class.” Oh, and that’s another thing. I respond to stress in a way that I wasn’t always aware of – isn’t baseline all about stress also: do what you’re told or….?. And I actually got bad eczema while taking her class, which caused me to skip a few classes. In the beginning, I also couldn’t make a few classes.

    I had taken yoga classes before that from someone who became a good friend, he actually picked me up in passing and took me to a Hindu service; and we’d talk all the time. I also gave him a CD of my music, my compositions I played on the piano. My music actually is in line with yoga, in how it is. I had offered her a CD of mine after the first class (I would have offered this to any yoga teacher; and all sorts of people have my CDs, a lot of the bus drivers, a convenience store owner who had to get a new copy because her sister wouldn’t give her’s back saying it was the only thing that could get her to sleep at night; all sorts of friends. She said she couldn’t take people’s gifts, although she offered to play it during class, which I declined because I didn’t know if I could concentrate; I might get distracted hearing things I thought were wrong about my playing, I thought. And then, after this, when I couldn’t catch the bus because the bike rack was full the next couple of weeks, she said in the report that I was resentful she didn’t take my present, and skipped a couple of classes (it was the bus). And when I had really bad eczema, and also skipped some classes because of this; it was the same story.

    She had mentioned (she works as a social worker at a hospital) what pains she had because of the vaccines she needs to take every year. And I simple asked the question as to whether those vaccines were as helpful as they say they are. She actually said she didn’t want to have a discussion about that, when I simply said I think you need to look at what the other side says about vaccines (nothing more) she proceeded to argue (which she said she didn’t want to do) and then said that I skipped classes again because I was resentful. She also said she had said all sorts of things she never had said. If she was having defensive thoughts (clearly based on stereotyping and paranoia) she felt free to fill in things she had never said, as if this is some reality that never happened. One can only wonder whether she’s on something to facilitate this. At the end of a yoga session you usually have 5 minutes where you relax in child’s pose or just on your back. We were doing this, and I was thinking about going to a store where they have these really big cookies, afterwards. She actually said to the whole class: “Don’t think about what you are going to do after class, you haven’t left yet, you’re not concentrating.” So, I actually didn’t go to this store to get a big cookie. And it’s because of this I said something about putting coco in your oatmeal (after she was whining about buying chocolate). That way you could skip the sugar. I was trying to tell her this, she said she didn’t remember about saying she bought chocolate; and then the next class was getting ready to start, which she pointed out. I was a bit perturbed about myself, because I had started running my mouth, while there was another class getting ready to start, so I looked a bit annoyed. Then a got a bit of a gist of how coy and pretentious she was being, for a moment; and I was further perturbed for a moment; but I shook that off and just left. This later turned into that it was mentioned how scary my anger was, she felt I was in her personal space, had told me to back off (she never said that at all, what she had said was that she didn’t remember saying she had bought chocolate); that I was mad at her for eating too much sugar (I was just sharing something, couldn’t care less how much sugar she eats) mentioned that her doctor told her to eat less sugar and was surprised I paid that much attention (apparently she had mentioned the doctor’s advice to someone, if even that is true, I didn’t know anything about this); and that I had intruded into a conversation, which she also said about me simply asking whether vaccines were as helpful as they said they were (which was that she was having a conversation with someone else right over me: I was in the spot in between them, in the class where everyone has their own spot, their own personal space). It also happened once that I had a personal thought during a quiet time during class, and started tearing a bit. And then one of her “friends” actually saw this, and says “and he starts crying.” Now mind you, that’s the kind of thing they say to boys all the time, as if they aren’t allowed to have emotions. Or anyone. I didn’t even know what this was about. I didn’t know this paranoid “yoga teacher” had nothing better to do with her friends than act like I was interested in her in other ways than as a teacher. Which was a mistake to begin with, being interested in her as a teacher. And she also actually said she was scared that I would follow her home to her house (!?!?!?!?!?!?). I’m not even heterosexual in orientation, to begin with. Being friendly, trying to share insights and a CD really doesn’t qualify for a stalker, I don’t think. But if you’re confused for one day, the sky’s the limit. It’s clear that she and her cohorts spent an incredible amount of energy trying to make things going on that weren’t; she can look in her little computer as a social worker and see I have a “diagnosis..”.

    And clearly I’m not “committed” enough to “non reality based thinking.”

    I’ll look up the definition of “Decompensate:n.
    1. Medicine Failure of the heart to maintain adequate blood circulation, marked by labored breathing, engorged blood vessels, and edema.
    2. Psychology The inability to maintain defense mechanisms in response to stress, resulting in personality disturbance or psychological imbalance.

    Wow, it does have something to do with leading towards “flatlining.”

    And this stuff is in many ways really mild, what I’ve been through. You wouldn’t believe how her report reads either. Like some sort of insecure high school student (incredible lack of grammar and content) rambling on about someone she and her friends think is weird, and he deserves all of the lies because he just shouldn’t be weird. To end up in an asylum, having your brain chemistry altered so you can’t think anymore, lose your freedoms, end up in a foster care facility…….This is more like what “Nijinsky” went through…..and MOST of my friends…..

    There is the word friend also, in contrast to “peer.”

    Nijinsky

  • Sera, I don’t know what ‘decompensate’ and ‘baseline’ refer to in context of mental illness. Seriously, LOL. Could you tell me? I’m completely off on lucky number 7.

    To fuss about words a bit more, here’s a quote from your article:
    “And, by the way, those common experiences in this particular context go beyond simple diagnosis, emotional distress and so on.  Those are just the ones that the mental health system happens to be most comfortable discussing.  In truth, common experiences between people who have been diagnosed and treated within the mental health system also generally include oppression, discrimination, loss of power, loss of sense of self and more.  (But people sometimes start to get nervous, defensive and a little edgy when that gets recognized too loudly.)”

    Just to point out how difficult it is to use words, the words emotional distress for example: all the things you rightly mention that people get evasively nervous, defensive and edgy about, when they are recognized too loudly, ARE actually causes for emotional distress. Which makes one wonder what they are talking about when talking about “emotional distress.”

    So maybe we can add number 11:

    11) You think emotional distress is about whether you’re “normal,” rather than wanting to be normal might have caused it.

    Or even add 12:

    12) You think emotional distress is caused by other people that aren’t “normal” enough and jar in social settings.

    And as diagnosing goes: somehow, I don’t think that “wants to be too normal,” as a symptom, if put in the DSM, would help either….

    Or

    “Is scared of the color purple”

    Or

    “Is terrified of anarchists and/or anarchy.”

    In hopes this doesn’t make too much sense,
    (Nijinsky)

  • The point being that when something is perceived as having a certain degree of severity, it’s “normal” to then assume that a physical intervention needs to take place; even when there’s abundant evidence that it’s exactly NOT interfering physically, but giving emotional support, giving thought a chance that statistically (and economically and in regards human rights) heals this condition. The same regarding “voices.”

    And here Doctor Littrel says she’s not trying to define in terms of diseases (but makes statements using anecdotal evidence that she says she in general wouldn’t allow to pass if it were a student). And to me, this is all terribly confusing to anyone really taking it seriously and trying to be conscientious about it:

    “Where I diverge from psychiatry: I don’t think in terms of “disease” on anything. Classifications are invented systems. They have no “truth”. They are hopefully helpful, although not necessarily so. Even when looking at cancer cells, it’s pretty hard to establish where the line is and deciding when to call it. We now know that normal people carry around more microbe cells than human cells. So what’s an infection? I teach substance abuse and in my class we talk about whether alcoholism is a disease. The problem is in defining “disease”. It’s a term that connotes without denoting: who knows what it means. I suggest we, as a class, just talk in terms of processes we can describe. Forget the label. Also, I tell the class that if someone is going to make a statement about what causes alcoholism, I generally will ask, “where’s your data?”, “tell me about the findings from the study and describe the researcher’s methodology.”

  • I thought I’d just share two quotes from Doctor Littrell’s responses:

    “Also, I tell the class that if someone is going to make a statement about what causes alcoholism, I generally will ask, “where’s your data?”, “tell me about the findings from the study and describe the researcher’s methodology.”

    “With regard to all they need is support, people who are acutely schizophrenic usually don’t pay any attention to you, however, supportive you are. They are too distracted by the internal stimuli. Often, they are very scared. When I worked on a receiving unit at the state hospital, one new admission (never had been medicated) kept hitting his head against the wall in an attempt to make the voice go away. I sat down with him and we played a board game, my attempt to distract him. He looked a little less frightened. Another guy was convinced that his brain was infected and worms were coming out of his nose. I don’t have a problem with something being horribly “gone awry” with regard to schizophrenia, although people are only guessing on what it could be. I would not make this case for depression and anxiety-which I regard as just part of being alive.”

    Sorry, but isn’t the latter completely anecdotal in how it supports it’s statement about the freedoms allocated in how one should view “schizophrenia?” What does the former quote say about this, regarding how a student should support their statements? And this in regards to whether “support” in itself can heal schizophrenia.

  • Jonah, thank you for sharing the beautiful film about the girl hearing voices. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5B6D685236A79C41 I think that also speaks to the truth that we are all one. Even the bully that she identified the voice as being in the end, it became her friend. Even though he had apologized to her before the whole catharsis, I think that she took it one step further, and made him part of her; so that she could be there more for others, be more resilient, have a different view, more perspective. I’m not really the one to be interpreting what this voice represented for her, but that’s how it inspires me. A Course in Miracles says that our enemies are our saviors; they are the ones that show us we really can make a choice in how we respond. We can let go of attack thoughts and chose something that’s creative instead. Something that comes from love. And forgive comes from two words. For and Give. When you let go of attack thoughts (in this case learning to understand where the fear came from), you’re not investing in loss; and there’s no depletion of what you give from there. It’s really that simple, I think.

    When someone is given directions verbally, this is easier to remember than trying to read them. This is because we process in time better orally. A process that takes time is better understood. So maybe hearing “voices” can facilitate how we navigate through life. Bring to our attention things we might have never seen, as cathartic as they may seem to become, they can change our life.

    And thanks so much for reminding me of this little song I put to thought in January. I really needed to be reminded of that, it being prelude to everything I’ve been through since, so I can look back and see that it really was just life. Enlightenment.

  • Sorry, but this wasn’t about anyone acknowledging me. It’s about the evidence in such programs as Healing Homes of Finland. I wasn’t part of that program. And I’m not really involved with anything that’s measured with such statistics. There’s no conflicts of interest going on. Healing Homes of Finland has shown that support does heal “schizophrenia.”

    I certainly wasn’t trying to make anyone look “wrong, stubborn, dismissive, hateful, stupid, ignorant, etc. ” That’s really misrepresenting my intentions. I was simply working with what I believe is logic, and not inhibiting that.

    Have a nice day. Be well.

  • When a person has received a physical wound. Say a cut. They get a scab. That’s a natural thing, although this isn’t normal. At least not too normal. You don’t see everyone walking around with scabs and bruises. That would catch your attention, if they do have these. One could decide there’s a biological cause for this, investigate exactly what goes on with these scabs. How they involve unusual biological processes, what chemistry is involved. How a this is different from a normal person that has no scabs or bruises. This however does nothing to remove a person from the environment, or behavior towards themselves that caused the scabs and bruises.

    There’s all this type of focus looking for a physical cause for “schizophrenia,” and yet the people that have recovered so often have valid stories to tell of what was going on emotionally. And being allowed to explore what’s going on there achieves results. And how that achieved results. I also have these “stories” myself, and have had all the symptoms. In fact, I’ve actually been able to talk people out of psychotic episodes recently; because I’ve been through them, and know how to relate. Healing Homes of Finland gets amazing results that are basically quite unheard of. Why don’t we hear about this in the media, rather than umpteen stories of people losing it, needing more treatments; we here that such treatment needs to be more available, and this all mostly being about “biological” treatments which are more expensive and which don’t even correlate statistically with healing. They correlate with more need for “treatment,” and so basically you mostly hear about what hasn’t been shown to help, and thus we are supposed to be more informed and alarmed in order to believe it will help, and all the evidence that it isn’t helping is stuffed in the it’s-a-biological-disease-and-needs treatment, box. Who is making money out of selling these “treatments”? The same, scabs could be made out to be a biological disease. Or being tired. Or being overworked. Or being sad. Or talking back to accepted authorities. Or having different ideas than the norm…. The only difference is that with “mental illnesses,” there isn’t even the biological marker that goes on with scabs. You can biologically determine that someone has a scab. You can’t do this for schizophrenia. You can however allow them to be put in an environment where their emotional wounds have been shown to heal (such as healing homes of Finland).

    If there are all these studies in finding out what is “wrong” with someone (biologically and mentally) that has “Schizophrenia,” why aren’t there studies to find out what’s RIGHT with the ones that have recovered. Finding out that someone has too many free radicals etc. when they are having difficulty, doesn’t mean you can dismiss that there are methods not focusing on a biological cause that attend to the person, and thus empower their body to heal what’s going on, the same that a scab forms a protective shield for healing. Allowing someone to explore what’s going on allows such a protective shield, I think. Finding what’s wrong doesn’t mean not seeing what’s right, and not seeing what actually heals.

    This data already exists. Bruce Lipton talks about these things; as do many others. There’s enough data that shows what stress does. I don’t even think you would have to measure whether someone in “psychosis,” has too many free radicals, and then see whether that’s different after they received support and come have out of it. I think the evidence of what stress does is already there, and it speaks for itself to begin with. As does the healing support has shown to illicit in “schizophrenics.” But you could do such experiments rather than just focusing on what’s wrong and deciding you need to interfere with natural processes to fix it!

    And basically, I find that people who are supposedly “schizophrenic,” have another gear. They have let go of inhibitions that prevented them from going one step further in their thinking. There might be a lot of what seems like utter nonsense going on, but in the midst of all of this seeming clutter there are the links to the new realizations that are trying to emerge. Whether this is symbolic or whether it’s so elusive and quiet that it evades the understanding of most people, or lacks the environment to allow it to come out without being dissected; it’s there. You can find that out by actually talking to schizophrenics. And learning to understand. You learn to understand yourself better, and human nature.

    But you have to suspend your judgments about what you believe is sane and what isn’t. Or even what a disease is.

  • When someone says they wish that support could “cure” “schizophrenia,” includes “schizophrenia,” in a list of proven biological diseases they wish support could cure, while there’s the amount of evidence that support does heal, which is talked about on MIA abundently (80% Healing homes of Finland); and they say that they believe there’s a biological cause for all behavior and all life, I think it’s quite logical to make the assumptions or deductions I’ve made.

    This is fine when people have different focuses. But someone who likes to drive cars rather than fix them; to have them driving through a shopping mall is another thing. Focus on a biologic cause for “Schizophrenia” and not acknowledging the methods that have been proven to heal, when the topic is about healing not about the biological method,” this might actually be driving in the wrong area. And the biological focus on schizophrenia correlates with a dramatic increase, with people forced on medications taking away 20 to 25 years of their life, “medications” that suppress self initiative, creativity and self expression, that are highly addictive… and people mostly aren’t allowed to try another method. Jill herself says she doesn’t condone all of that. So why not acknowledge the healing that has occurred when it’s not seen as a biological phenomenon? Why is that relegated to “I wish it could,” and good intentions?

    Also, when what heals has been proven to, this deserves attention rather than to hear such remarks lumping schizophrenia with other diseases that have clear biological markers; and then say human support is important and that one wishes it could cure “schizophrenia” when it actually HAS been shown to; that is misrepresentation in itself. I also find it dismissive, for whatever reason. When someone says they believe that all human behavior has a biological cause, has determined that people with “schizophrenia” don’t respond to support because she didn’t experience them responding to her; and in Homes of Finland there’s 80% healing going on because people receive support, but whether support heals is still only expressed as coming from good intentions and one is told they wish it would heal…

    And I don’t believe that the people that help create the healing that does occur, I don’t believe they would judge a “schizophrenic” as “not responding to support.

    Jill said:

    “With regard to all they need is support, people who are acutely schizophrenic usually don’t pay any attention to you, however, supportive you are. They are too distracted by the internal stimuli. Often, they are very scared. When I worked on a receiving unit at the state hospital, one new admission (never had been medicated) kept hitting his head against the wall in an attempt to make the voice go away. I sat down with him and we played a board game, my attempt to distract him. He looked a little less frightened. Another guy was convinced that his brain was infected and worms were coming out of his nose. I don’t have a problem with something being horribly “gone awry” with regard to schizophrenia, although people are only guessing on what it could be. I would not make this case for depression and anxiety-which I regard as just part of being alive.”

    The people whose treatment does correlate with 80% healing, they do see schizophrenia as a valid expression of what someone has gone through in life. I think. And NOT seeing it as something “awry” which has gone wrong with the brain (a societal stigma which one could easily see leads to behaviours such as thinking there are worms in one’s brain or banging one’s head on the wall; as if the valid emotions one feels because of trauma, when not acknowledged by society, means their brain is broken); this has proven to lead to 80% healing. I think. As has been mentioned by Duane, people in a coma, although seen as practically brain dead, have shown that they do hear everything that’s going on, those who have come out of the coma. They can tell you what was going on. And again, I don’t believe the people whose treatment corresponds with 80% healing would judge a person as not responding to support. In fact, if they are dealing with internal stimuli, and so involved with these that they aren’t directly responding, this completely doesn’t mean they don’t feel the support. I would think it means they know someone cares, and this would help more than you can know judging them as not responding.

  • Yes the insurance companies could do themselves a favor. The police could also do themselves a favor and not arrest people to have them doped up, something which correlates with more violence; and the legal system could do the same, if it’s trying to promote harmony in society and prevent violence and understand the human condition rather than promote false advertising.
    Human evolution has come to a brink where there’s a lot of answers that have to be solved regarding our environment and our interactions with others. We have enough nuclear weapons to blow up all life on the planet 20 time over to make sure the “enemy” is dead, is just one thing. It would help if finding ways of disabling the mind (which is all psychiatric drugs have been proven to do), and conning people into believing things that aren’t really true weren’t such a focus.

  • Since AGAIN someone else’s post has been removed (Richard D Lewis), I’ll try to bring out the gist of what was removed, and was of value.

    The following paragraph: “I know that everyone that visits this web-site is well intentioned. I think human support is very important. I wish it could cure cancer, Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, schizophrenia, and other distress producers that visit our species. Keep working at it. If you can achieve good results, I’ll be the first to cheer. I’ll be attending the conference at the Copeland Center in September. I’m hoping to be encouraged by what I see and hear.”

    To begin with, Healing Homes of Finland achieves 80 percent healing for people with “schizophrenia” without seeing it as nothing but a biological disease, but offering support. If there was some chemical procedure which caused a reduction in Cancer that achieved the same results, we’d hear about it all over the news, it would be touted as a miracle cure, and highly available. The reason being because it’s a chemical procedure, which can be sold, rather than something as intangible as simply giving a person emotional and personal support. And here Jill is acting as if that doesn’t exist, when it does. She says we have good intentions hopes to be encouraged and says she’ll cheer us if there are good results (as if these don’t already exist ) and then lists “schizophrenia” as something that human support hasn’t been shown to cure (when it has); and this one can only assume is because there hasn’t has been a “chemical process” shown to cure schizophrenia. So we can ignore 80% cure rate, and lump schizophrenia together with diseases that have been shown to have more of a clear physical cause. And act like there’s not cure for it, because Jill’s ideology hasn’t found it, so it can’t exist.

    Jill also talks about voices and tries to assimilate a theorem about them. This involves having the compassion to stick probes into animals to measure dopamine output. At the same time there are groups with voice hearers, and many people who have more than compelling stories about how they learned to deal with their voices, and this WASN’T by seeing it as a chemical reaction based on ideology about substance abuse and theories to go along with the current fashion and accepted norm of pills and chemical processes.

    What’s clear is that Jill is dismissing more than a few things that aren’t along with her ideology; and ignoring their results, and acting like the results don’t exist; and then presenting a tone of being positive (I hope to see good results, I know you are all well intentioned) while already having shown she’s not really interested in actively acknowledging the results that are already there. For some reason.

    To ANYONE who has had to deal with time and again being forced on mind numbing treatments, and or the emergence of voices that go along with such limiting of what’s acknowledged as healing and/or loss of freedom in one’s environment, that can be VERY DISTRESSFUL. To call those voices a chemical process, and concoct theories about it while ignoring methods that already have substance in healing can add to this stress and discomfort! Because it assaults a person with fixated ideas.

    And so again it’s not the voice hearer that has a disease. They are sensitive enough to actually hear what’s going on in the background, that there are fixated ideas that others aren’t even aware of. And those that have healed have learned to let go of it. The same a “schizophrenic” experiences and is assaulted with phobias they learn to let go of society doesn’t want to admit are undermining the human condition, the same a depressed person experiences sadness….. and on we go with the rest of the diagnosis which have never been proven to have any truly conclusive physical cause.

    One can only hope that Doctor Littrell starts hearing her own voices (which I think thoughts and beliefs are otherwise why would we use our physical voices to express our ideas or anyone even be reading this), rather than repeating the same ideology they clearly are touting over and over again, while dismissing the positive results of what doesn’t fit. But then hearing voices wouldn’t be seen as a biological disease.

    Voices are very different than reading, by the way. When you actually hear something, this activates your sense of planning, of movement through time and space. Actually hearing a voice can clearly animate and materialize the thoughts, can expose what might subconsciously be pulling someone’s strings, would they want to know or have experienced enough trauma in their life that they have to find out to move on. That doesn’t mean they have a biological disease, however.

    And now I’ve AGAIN spent almost an hour (and by now probably more) trying to make a statement, when what I’m saying is completely backed by statistics, science, methodology and human rights, but this most likely would not be taught in an academic setting, but be dismissed, because it doesn’t go with the fashion that goes with economic trends, isn’t mainstream enough, makes people question their preconceived values and beliefs too much, rocks the boat too much, is too logical and doesn’t conform enough. And thus I’m supposed to think there’s some kind of loss to even see what’s really going on.

  • I don’t find everything written in the article a fair and reasonable point at all.
    The points, to me, brought up are mostly quite untenable and convoluted.
    That an “agrarian” society has less stress is almost laughable, given what kind of stress those people in these days have to go through. The life of any farmer not part of a big corporation of mega farming is quite difficult in these days ,to say the least. I think perhaps those people might have different values and a stronger family bond but that isn’t something you can remove from how you approach “psychiatric illness.” Those would be things that point out how you heal it, not how you excuse it. And to say that the services they have in Finland aren’t available in the United States also says nothing except that it’s not available; this says nothing about whether it works, or whether that alternative deserves to be looked at. Or that there might be “unknown factors” impinging upon the results, also really says nothing. You can literally dismiss ANY statement made about ANYTHING that way.
    And the blog continues going on about why they couldn’t change the system because they don’t have the resources to change it; as if, would they have to change it completely overnight, they wouldn’t know where to begin. Or statements that Robert’s blog is full of people who are virulently anti-psychiatry and their views are irreconcilable with NAMI. These supposedly anti-psychiatry people have the same goals in mind, and attain them. They help heal people. If that’s irreconcilable the problem is in refusing to see that there’s another way. And these “anti-psychiatry” people really don’t have a police force arresting people to lock them up take away their freedom and force them off of medications; they’re just promoting free choice; and can strongly argue that point given statistics, science and human rights. This then is supposed to be “virulently” anti-psychiatry.

    The only statement I read trying to refute any of the statistics Robert shared is that someone says 7 out of 10 “respected professionals” with “schizophrenia” are still on medications. Interesting that it’s admitted that even 7 out of 10 can do without them. Given that schizophrenia is advertised as a permanent physical ailment based on a yet to be proven theory of chemical imbalance. But we aren’t told what this means or who they are these “respected professionals,” we aren’t told whether any other choice or method was available to begin with than drugging, and we aren’t even told how difficult it is to get off of these highly addicted medications and what a feat that even 3 out of 10 have accomplished this, or against what kind of aversion to them even attempting it. I would think that more than just “trusted professionals” have ever been diagnosed as having schizophrenia. People in “undeveloped agrarian” environments have already been dismissed, as well as those in Finland. What’s left that’s referred to as “trusted professionals”!?

    And sorry, I’m not interested in getting dizzy reading any more of it, here or there. I’m actually one of those people who is there for others who beat the odds and likely will never end up being counted. The people that set a new trend others don’t believe is possible, exactly BECAUSE of numbers. I have better things to do than count numbers like a media outlet would……

  • I looked briefly at the blog linked to. One of the most amazing responses was how there’s not enough money for talk therapy, so then we have to give drugs otherwise these people aren’t being treated, and everything gets worse.

    Talk therapy is cheaper than drugs, to begin with, when you add everything up. And drugs correlate with an increase in mental illness. Which is why we need to have more drug treatment to make sure that the increase (directly correlating with psychiatric drugging rather than talk therapy) is treated, which would then logically correlate with more of an increase, thanks to the treatment; and this is why there’s no money for what’s cheaper and more effective.

    Quite amazing.

  • I also miss _Anonymous’ post.

    I’ll just, for now, pick out ONE part of what he addressed from Jill’s comment.

    “In addressing the question of a biological base, I usually look at the adoption studies, where babies with biological pedigrees for some condition get raised in non-stressful, supportive environments. Then you count the number of now adult adoptees who manifest the phenomenon. There are specifics for most conditions in the DSM.”

    I’ll do Jill the favor to assume that “biological pedigrees” isn’t really an attempt to refer to humans as being for sale (using the term pedigree can be seen to relate to monetary value), although there’s a reference to adoptions of said “pedigrees” and how they end up making people possible targets to become consumers of pharmaceuticals for psychiatric medications. How were these people adopted? How were they taken away from their parents and then put in “non-stressful supportive” environments? Were they told that their biological parent had a “pedigree” and how did this effect their outlook on life? Did they experience their parents recieving “psychiatric treatment” that didn’t help, and is this why they were put up for adoption? Were the parents who adopted these children told that their biological parents had a “pedigree” and how much does this effect their response and/or alarm when their child starts having difficulty emotionally? How did the children fare who were put in an environment that doesn’t analyze a person as having a psychiatric illness, when they have difficulty? People who suffer war, poverty and minority status are all more prone to these “pedigrees,” does that make them gene pools for mental illness? If there actually are specifics in the DSM, then why is it that psychiatrists consistently come up with different diagnosis for the same person using these “specifics.”

  • That’s very orderly of you, to point out the out of order of the disorder of those causing the out of orderliness. I feel a lot safer, and less confused: “A medical orderly (also known as a ward assistant or nurse assistant), is a hospital attendant whose job consists of assisting medical and/or nursing staff with various nursing and/or medical interventions. These duties are classified as routine tasks involving no risk for the patient. Orderlies are typically dressed in all white clothing.”

  • Wow, this is amazing. Why isn’t this in the DSM: Communication deviance, with a whole list of symptoms, of which a definite number have to be occurring for a clear label?
    Haven’t they caught on? A whole new opportunity to heal society with treatment! It’s not for no reasons so many psychiatrists are on ADHD medications (keeping themselves in a suspended state of mild shock to enhance their attention on the things outside of them), so they can concentrate on this label!
    Why aren’t there clinical trials to see whether Communication Deviance has something to do with seratonine reuptake, wild crazy untamed dopamine roaming around, the lack of neuroplasticity caused by brain damage and other such wonders of modern psychiatry!?

    Maybe try 3 out of these 5:
    1) Parent doesn’t remember color of child’s shirt worn at last holiday.
    2) Parent doesn’t use disciplinary measure to get child to do homework, and shows insufficient interest for penal methods.
    3) Person writing this is tired of making stuff up, and allows reader to interpret this anyway that allows for a third positive.
    4) Parent agrees or doesn’t agree with writer of list, since both actions show insufficient interest in child.
    5) Parent has never been arrested for breaking into locked psychiatric facility to to read this list, which also shows insufficient interest in communication.

  • I’m sure I’ve mentioned enough of the methods the biological method represses that actually do heal “Schizophrenia,” exactly because they don’t put it in the same bag with actual biological diseases such as Alzheimer’s Huntington’s etc.

    Please do not be as patronizing as the following statements, when simply actually reading Robert Whitaker’s books supply enough proof that human support DOES heal “schizophrenia”:

    “I know that everyone that visits this web-site is well intentioned. I think human support is very important. I wish it could cure cancer, Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, schizophrenia, and other distress producers that visit our species. Keep working at it. If you can achieve good results, I’ll be the first to cheer. I’ll be attending the conference at the Copeland Center in September. I’m hoping to be encouraged by what I see and hear.”

    We HAVE already gotten good results. Why is it that this can be repeated consistently and you overlook it? Are we supposed to believe that your dismissal has a “biological reason,” and look for a cure for that!?

    Simple things like music have also been shown to help amazingly with Alzheimer’s, even though it does have a biological basis one could get obsessed about and that turns up in lab results.

    And sorry, I really only see you going around in circles. As in these lab results have this result, which goes with that, although we don’t know these things at all, and there could be multiple conclusions we could make but this might point out blah blah blah because I think there’s a biological cause; and I’ll be positive about simple support helping, although I ignore that it already has been proven to and keep fussing about what hasn’t been proven to help.

    If you aren’t making things better, which another method does do, WHY don’t you just leave it alone!?

    It really doesn’t have to be the magical pill or controlled chemical process which solves everything, as little as that sacrificing a goat used to be seen to do the same.

    Sorry if this comment seems angry, but we REALLY aren’t just a bunch of people with good intentions, what we are talking about has been PROVEN to heal, not an experiment looking for proof of a theory. And there are people truly able to deal with the spiritual symbolism and emotional wounds yearning for expression and release that goes on in “schizophrenia,” the alleged biological disease. And that’s where healing has been proven to occur. Even for those calling it a disease….Taking care of yourself, nutrition etc..isn’t thrown out the window this way, either. it’s enhanced when a person can express themselves and follow their natural instincts. And it’s done holistically not as something to focus on and get obsessed about in itself, which can cause again more stress, which then requires more obsession which requires more stress etc.

    So this TRULY isn’t: “Oh that’s nice, but it really is a horrible biological disease, and I have to be serious and responsible and focus on that.”

  • All this talk about free radicals is clearly related to stress.
    There’s quite a bit of research into how the gut is effected, when people have symptoms of “schizophrenia.” That is ALSO related to stress. Stress clearly effects the gut.
    And their might be some sort of immune reaction that causes inflammation in areas of the brain. That AGAIN is stress related.
    The body is quite capable of dealing with all of that, it’s only when a person is under stress that this stops being the case.
    Telling a person that when they are under stress, are experiencing symptoms of emotional stress; that they have an incurable illness, or that there’s something “awry” going on with them; and that you want to love them and help them by creating MORE stress in their life convincing them of all of this; this HAS BEEN proven to NOT induce healing. As well intentioned as anyone ever has been saying that they love schizophrenics, and think that they’re going through some horrible torture, and that they are going to find the physical cause and cure them; this as yet has to go anywhere much but making things worse. It ALSO causes an incredible amount of stress to tell someone that they have a physical flaw and this is causing their emotional distress, rather than actually helping them understand their emotions and teaching them how to alleviate stress, and not buy into creating it in their life.
    Complicating everything, focusing on ONE effect while ignoring how this throws everything else out of balance (free radicals, dopamine, symptoms etc.), all this does is INCREASE stress. And healing DOES take place with such methods as the Soteria Project, Healing Homes of Finland, Open Dialogue and other places which don’t see a person as being flawed, which give them a safe haven, which don’t treat them in a patronizing way, saying they know what’s going on with their “disease” when in reality it’s all just theory and “good intentions.” And those methods that heal clearly do not cause stress, they empower the person; and they trust that their own process will heal them, which it does.

    There’s also so often a whole spiritual awakening going on with “schizophrenia” that when allowed to happen, and allowed to help transcend fear, enlightens a person so that they recognize and learn to deal with stress and fear, and how to alleviate it. That’s also why they are “paranoid,” or are having thoughts that seem non-reality based. They’re learning how they caused this themselves, and you can trust that process, when you don’t interfere with it making it out to be a biological flaw and disabling their mind rather than allowing it to go through the healing process that’s been initiated. That’s spiritual. That’s something different than a society that runs on stress and fear. That’s another way that the self has of healing, rather than being made out to be a victim to physical limitations, which are only caused by the stress that one takes on investing in those limitations rather than looking beyond them towards a holistic perspective.

  • Have you ever been diagnosed with “schizophrenia” and received “treatment?” Have you ever asked a “schizophrenic” who has recovered whether they had a “terrible condition” or was it the “treatment” they received (medical and social) which was the real horror, which put them in a “terrible condition?”

    A “schizophrenic” is at least experiencing what fear does. Those who see it as a “terrible condition with voices and delusions which can be terrifying” seem to be numb, to be immune to what’s going on other than to be alarmed and call it terrible. In fact they seem to want “Schizophrenics” to think it’s all terrible to get good points for “empathy.” This kind of fear mongering about the disease doesn’t correlate with healing, I don’t think.

    Actually experiencing fear will teach you a lot, when you learn how to let go of it, and see what kind of a deception in can cause in your thinking. The problem is that this undermines the basic fear based programming of human behavior in societies investing in a penal system, social heirarchy, social controls and norms, the whole works.

  • Also it’s not just “initially” that dopamine blocking drugs cause more production of dopamine. The body tries to compensate. And so ever going off of these medications that correlate with high loss of life expectency and a host of other complications, causes the excess production to suddenly increase even more with the blocking taken away. And so a person can be flooded with all sorts of thoughts they may never have been allowed or helped to understand.

  • “I don’t have a problem with something being horribly “gone awry” with regard to schizophrenia, although people are only guessing on what it could be.”

    I don’t really know what to say about such a comment, except that it turns cause and effect around. It’s basically the people who do not see something horribly awry that are the ones who help “schizophrenics”, and this is the treatment they get that effects the most cures, and recovery. In Soteria House, Inner Dialogue, Homes of Finland, and the kind of cure that the Quakers had. Also, simply leaving someone alone and not “medicating” them or reacting alarmed that something is wrong will effect the most cure. And understanding.

    Further more, it’s only clear that when someone is in a psychotic break and in an environment where they weren’t understood, and then ends up in a medical setting, where they will get further treatment which doesn’t involve the understanding that evokes healing; they are going to be stressed out, and the more “psychotic” they are the more stressed out and least understood. What happens to someone that has had physical trauma, do they also have “free radicals” going on. with such focus on physical symptoms, you might say that they also are in danger of brain shrinkage, that there’s something awry going on, and need “treatment.”

    People in a psychotic state might also have other signs that come from stress. The statement that you made: “With regard to all they need is support, people who are acutely schizophrenic usually don’t pay any attention to you, however, supportive you are.” That’s quite contradictory and perhaps only a statement on your experience, and perhaps inability to relate to them. The methods I’ve mentioned have shown to be different. And there are people who can talk someone out of a psychotic break. The two examples you site both clearly show signs of what society does to people, when it says there’s something wrong with your brain, when you show signs of emotional stress, confusion or “psychosis.” That’s why someone bangs his head on the wall or believes his brain is infected with worms.

    All this going on and on looking for physical symptoms, saying something must be awry, against all the evidence that it’s exactly not investing in such which affords the best results in healing; one might call this psychotic as well. The difference is it’s all too fixated, too ingrained with accepted norms and accepted beliefs to be seen as having the flexibility which the thoughts called psychotic have, and which can allow a person to actually see how they’ve invested in fear. A person believing in accepted norms (no matter that a hundred years of intense research application and freedom to torture others with such “treatments” has only made things worse, turned up no answers, caused loss of freedom and created a corrupt economic flow for such treatments)… if they believe in such norms they AREN’T going to experience the stress that someone with more flexible “Crazy” ideas will, because it won’t cause the level of abandonment, ostracizing influences, feeling of being broken etc.

    Einstein said that being crazy is trying the same thing over and over again and looking for a different result.

    And I really don’t find it “sane” to experiment for hundreds of years on vulnerable scared people, and keep trying to look for something “awry” going on in order to excuse how society uses fear and alarm at things they don’t understand to try to maintain cohesiveness numbers.

  • Actually, I thought that drugs that block dopamine receptors, in the end, INCREASE dopamine production, because the dopamine isn’t doing the job it otherwise would. And this is also how they got the statistics that dopamine hyperactivity has to do with schizophrenia, because when you drug people with dopamine receptor blocking “medications” in the end you get dopamine hyperactivity, because the brain tries to compensate for the dopamine that’s not allowed to work, and makes more.

    This then would explain the following also: “A number of investigators have found elevations in free radicals and lower levels of antioxidants in persons exhibiting psychosis who were not taking medications (Arvindakshan, et al., 2003; Khan et al., 2002; Li et al., 2011; Mahadik et al., 1998; Owe-Larsson, et al., 2011; Yao et al., 1998; Zhang et al., 2009). Furthermore, the level of oxidative stress in unmedicated persons with psychosis correlates with level of negative symptoms (Arvindakshan et al., 2003; Li, Zheng, Xiu 2011) and positive symptoms (Mahadik et al., 1998; Zhang et al., 2009). ” because we aren’t talking about “unmedicated” people. We are talking about people who have been medicated, had their brain try to compensate for the blocking of dopamine, and then when they try to get off of medications which make them experience their thoughts as further and further away, and muted; they get dopamine hyperactivity, confusion, stress and then these free radicals. Which easily could come from the stress (both physical and emotional) rather than anything to do with “schizophrenia,” “psychosis,” etc..

    Also, you’re grouping together “psychosis” or “psychotic symptoms” from cocaine use, and psychosis from true emotional trauma. Those are two very different things. And it’s been shown that people with psychosis from emotional trauma do the best when NOT medicated in any way, but receive support, and are put in an environment that’s not alarmed by responses they have, and they can let go of their fear rather than be further assaulted by the indoctrinated around them.

    And it’s completely true that the whole connection with symptoms and their cause is obfuscated here. To add to that dopamine receptor blocking medications increase dopamine production, they may suppress expression of what the psychiatrist calls symptoms. Ad these are called symptoms for lack of insight into what a patients emotional experiences have been. When these “symptoms” are only magnified because of “treatment” this still makes no correlation with brain reduction and “schizophrenia” itself. It’s the increase in dopamine the dopamine receptor blocking drugs caused that correlates with “symptoms” and with further suppression of a person’s expression. And this expression has been shown to be allowed to heal when allowed in other settings not using these “medications.” This whole talk about brain reduction makes no sense. It’s trying to make out that the increase in symptoms caused by the lack of emotional help and the implimentation of medications, which caused increase in dopamine production (and has been used to pin on the “disease” rather than the medications) that this then is used to correlate with the brain reduction that statistically clearly correlates with the medications.

    You would have to allow a person who is having “symptoms” to be given the help that has been shown to be more effective than medications, and then see whether this prevents brain reduction. That, they’re not interested in, to begin with. They’d have to try a different approach than the biological model they have yet to prove is actually biological. And so they talk about brain reduction correlating with one thing, when it clearly (and scientifically) correlates with the other, which is their unproven biological model, which promotes these “medications.”

  • I finally looked this up, The “probandwise” concordance method. What this does is actually count both twins who have a concordance with schizophrenia as two pairs, but the one where only one ends up being schizophrenia (although both have a pair that they are not concordant with), this is then only counted as one. Although it remains the same. Both pairs are either concordant with each other (both have the disease) or aren’t concordant (don’t both have the disease).

    I don’t know how that can pass as science, actually, except it’s convoluted, and sounds complicated enough that people will believe it’s amazing. In reality, I think that this might point out that genetic research is quite flawed, white often.

    And then there’s theories like Bruce Lipton’s, which point out we aren’t controlled by are genetics the way we are told, and that we are rewriting our genes all the time, depending on how we respond to our environment. Whether we respond with fear and shut down our system using the flight or run response, or whether we respond with empathy, forgiveness, understanding, perspective; something beyond what we have been taught form is.

  • Actually I like “psychosis,” I just don’t like it when they use that word in reference to things that don’t warrant the comparison, but try to make it out to be nothing but a lack of comprehension. Someone who is psychotic is very different from someone who is brainwashed and has no idea what they are doing. A psychotic person is letting go of fear, rather than being controlled by it. And when you don’t respond to him or her with fear, than amazing things happen, and healing.

  • I was referring to psychotic as a negative term. People use this when they think someone’s logic is ridiculous. When a person is truly psychotic, this is actually an opening up of their innocence. They even act out the things that they have been programmed to believe, but in a way that it exposes (if allowed to) that they are being controlled by fear rather than their heart. And yet all of that supposedly disruptive behavior is necessary for them to grow. To see what they can let go of.

    I don’t really think that the people that understand psychosis are so far and in between. They’re in the cracks. I don’t know, maybe I’ve been lucky. Maybe luck doesn’t really exist, and I’m more “normal” than I think. But I find that people actually adore psychosis, because it’s such a child like state. And I find that I’m often more concerned and worried, and feel ashamed about it than they do.

    Of course, I’m not running for president. But neither are the people that manage to get in between the cracks of the system, which actually seem to be more like extremely wide valleys, come to think of it.

    You don’t think that everyone believes all of this static that goes on as if it keeps the sun from extinguishing itself do you?

  • I disagree, because there are people who can relate to a person who is in a psychotic episode, no matter how extreme. If it’s true “psychosis” – that someone has started to create their own world to relate to their trauma, their fear based programming – this simply means the people who can relate can relate to someone who knows how to respond without magnifying fear, to not invest in fear. Incidentally, when I use the word psychosis, that’s something different than what’s going on when someone refers to illogical methods as being “psychotic.” People I know wanted to start a facebook page called “psychotic psychiatry.” I find that insulting to people that have ever been psychotic. A person that is truly psychotic has let go of their need to be controlled by fear based programming to such a degree that they wouldn’t be able to follow the programmed matrix of the illogic of “psychiatry” and fit in.

    Further more, one will never find out how to do this naturally, how to relate to this fragile state called psychosis, when you try to suppress it, which is what neuroleptics do. When a person is manufacturing seemingly ungrounded and unrealistic fear based scenarios in order to get in touch with their own trauma, in order to let go of the entangled fear disrupting their life; one will never find what is going on if the very neurology expressing this is suppressed. And would you be looking at ways to calm the mind so that it can heal, then this by NO MEANS points to neuroleptics. There are all sorts of ways of doing this, from herbs, to yoga, to music, to quiet space, to simply having someone that listens without judgment on whether something it “objectively” true, when we are dealing with a subjective reality that’s more real than objectivity.

    I see using neuroleptics (and their production) as an excuse to not look at the people who actually can relate to psychosis; as a way of saying their ideas are too extreme, are too in left field, and that when someone can’t express themselves anymore, when this is suppressed, backed up, waiting to explode there’s some sort of magical healing going on. This simply isn’t true that neuroleptics are “useful to get people out of psychosis and let their brain calm down and heal itself.” It’s not scientifically true, nor statistically. They’re only “useful” to those making the diagnosis rather than relating, and they are useful to those terrified of who they really are, and believe they need to suppress becoming aware of the illusions in their life, their programming, their fears that if they were themselves rather than a programmed entity whose behavior adds up to normal that then they are OK. The very fact that they are supposed to “come out of” a psychosis already points out that there’s a lack of understanding. That’s like saying people aren’t supposed to react to their environment to such a degree that their reactions would start pointing out the dysfunction of societal programming that it’s convenient for society and it’s beliefs to suppress or ignore. And the danger isn’t in whether the person “comes out of” a psychosis; the danger is in society refusing to understand what’s going on, and how this effects it’s whole matrix of population control. To deny trauma, and say that suppressing it’s neurology… yes this is helpful for people to maintain the illusion that trauma is necessary to control people. But in reality that’s what’s causing all the problems to begin with. Not in the “psychotic” people but in society.

    Anti-psychotics don’t heal the brain, and they don’t calm you down. They suppress thought. And there are ways of healing the mind and calming it down that don’t involve medications that are as dangerous as listed above. Just because they are produced by a “drug company” and they are main stream economic fare, and they are available; and it looks good to excuse them, this doesn’t mean that they are an intelligent choice. Not even if it’s just for a “short” time.

  • It wasn’t my intention in my post last night to instigate such fear against what neuroleptics have done, that a person would lose hope, had they been on them. Or spend the rest of their life so angry against what happened to them that they still overlook the healing that could have taken place that the neuroleptics didn’t help with.

    I just don’t think neuroleptics would be administered, if the whole truth were known. And since they are administered because of fear based ideas, I think to move away from fear gets you out of that quantum experience, and the whole experiential/time matrix involved with it.

    I still always believe that the human body can do amazing things, and beyond that there are all sorts of healings that occur constantly, which science as we know it can’t explain.

    Bruce Lipton talks about how much a difference not investing in fear makes, that this can change our very genetics. And beyond that there are all sorts of things that occur which would be called miracles, but have a science of their own which main-stream “science” suppresses with great prejudice.

    Anyhow, I don’t want to encourage all sorts of fear and anger, which would hamper anyone’s healing, if they have been forced on neuroleptics.

    I find that people who have a simple faith beyond fear, not only find the answers they are looking for, because of this; but seemingly impossible things happen in their lives. The very fact that “scientists” would give a bunch of monkeys neuroleptics, as if the monkey’s were created for man to abuse to assuage his fear about having to “know” something, points out the limitations with such “science” and how they look at form and matter as having limitations that aren’t really there.

  • Well, define brain (define came out defien first try, with a “fruedian” typo: almost de fiend). It’s like the less we use it the more people think there is of it. As long as you don’t use it, you might be more apt to get political awards, and even diplomas, and have a big military budget….

    OK

    Of course what’s actually going on to create this shrinkage of the brain (I still can’t believe that they invented neuroleptics after the word “shrink” came out… as in head shrinkers)…A new form of shrunken heads, the miracle of psychiatry….

    OK

    What’s actually going on to create this shrinkage is I might imagine much worse than the shrinkage, itself. And I’m sure we haven’t heard but a minor fraction of what’s really going on; but then there’s the side effects list.

    http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/zyprexaffex.html

  • The shrinkage is only small (from neuroleptics).. what EXACTLY is large? And what is going on exactly in the brain (and the rest of the body) to cause such a shrinkage? And there’s the the loss of life (20-25 years) that is “normal.” There’s no mention in the article of the of loss of self initiative, creativity, how this effects a person’s life, and society. The difference between a person on neuroleptics having to actually make intelligent decisions regarding anything that requires true initiative, and one that’s not on them. And when one has to go beyond following what someone else has spelled out is what reality is, or how things work; and actually finding an answer for a critical problem, is there a difference? What degree of difference is there in true problem solving with people who believe they need neuroloptics or those that prescribe them (that evidence is already there for those that prescribe them, would you look at whether there’s recovery)…..

  • You only have to look at how people actually believe that because the United States hasn’t outlawed gay marriage everywhere within it’s borders, it has lost favor with God. And that this is the cause of fill-in-the-blank natural disasters. That ALSO is the same use of preaching (or fabricating) some danger in order try to control people. Part of totalitarian population control. Blame it on a minority (homosexuals or say schizophrenics, the ones Frances says need help and are conveniently the most vulnerable to not being able to prevent being forced to receive “help”) and there you can get the mob riled up and tell them more they’re too terrified to question….

    The homosexuals and the “mentally ill” along with the gypsies were also the first people Hitler went after….

  • No it isn’t a misrepresentation of any doctrines would I point out how this hurts others, who are told they have a personal flaw (whether it’s original sin, their feelings of love for another or “schizophrenia”). I also didn’t bring the penal system into the discussion (which tries to control people using coercion, something I believe cause exactly what they are trying to prevent)…

  • I notice that a remark of mind WAS removed. And was marked as personal attack. FURTHER MORE, I don’t have a copy of that remark and have no way of trying to decipher what you call a personal attack, as there was none in my remark, unless it was misinterpretted.

    What WAS in the remark was how the Catholic Church (which has been pointed out here abundantly as a historic occurrence) uses the doctrine of original sin (which Jesus didn’t believe in, and isn’t reconcilable with his teachings) to create an idea that people have a flaw, that they are in danger, and that they have to follow the dictates of the church in order to get into heaven or find salvation. That’s a basic tenet of totalitarian control which you find Hitler used with Reichstag incident: make people think they are being attacked. And when they believe they are in danger, you can gain control over them. And here you are trying to make people feel they have a valid reason to feel attacked, would I bring this out.

    WOW!

    You REALLY need to show you feel attacked. I think you need to look at what this can lead to.

    I’m glad to not blog here anymore…

  • It’s a funny thought, but would you really want these politicians and their amazing ability to get everything all tangled up, would you really want them to be on our side? The very thought of having to get, in comparison, therapeutic counseling from psychiatrists isn’t the most comforting thought either, would they listen to how we think things should be.

    Maybe it’s better to just not know where to start, and sort of sit back ti watch everything get so tied up in knots that they’re too busy to bother us anymore, and they’ll have to spend time entangling themselves instead….

    http://www.readprint.com/chapter-2800/Little-Dorrit-Charles-Dickens

  • I also think it’s way too contradictory to what Jesus taught, to believe he advocated original sin. That’s an indoctrination, an attempt at population control used by a fear based society, and exactly what Jesus was showing was an illusion – that it didn’t govern who he was. He wasn’t some evil person to be put to death as an example that everyone should obey the authorities. He wasn’t there to follow those who dictated who would go to heaven and who wouldn’t; and how they were supposed to behave; and be controlled; and buy into fear; and find fault with anyone that didn’t follow the same guidelines.

    To say that it’s insensitive to ANYONE’S religious beliefs to state these simple facts, is exactly what the drug companies in their need to make profits and the corruption in psychiatry does. THE SAME! When someone exposes the simple lies about the reasons a person needs to be a consumer for the drugs that are promoted and forced on people; that’s exactly the same reaction you get from the drug companies. That you are getting in the way of other people’s healing. That questioning their model of what mental illness is means that people don’t get the help they need, rather than there’s a discussion based on open information, logic – and then of course they would use exactly the same terms: that someone is “extremely disrespectful” when clear information is brought out about what’s going on in psychiatry, and that this isn’t healing but using people as objects to be controlled by others. Simple exploitation. When anyone’s supposed belief is so sacrosanct that when it’s simply refuted, this is seen as an insensitivity to others who would need to defend their beliefs – the discussion isn’t about freedom of religion anyone, it’s about suppressing other people’s ideas and about taking away their freedoms to express themselves.

    That’s also what the conversation was about before whoever it was felt they needed to come in and start promoting the same kind of labels you read in the DSMs. So and so is disrespectful to other people’s beliefs. So and so isn’t showing proper social behavior, consequently. There’s something wrong with so and so etc. They shouldn’t be allowed to express themselves here. There’s hardly a difference between that and telling somebody they have a personality disorder, and should be on medications to suppress these thoughts. And I’m sure there are many people (and it would seem a majority) that have suffered emotional abuse from EXACTLY such behavior. Whether it’s the formal body of a Church, Psychiatry or what have you. People that were treated this way any time they attempted to say what they really thought, or what they had come to know, or what they had seen; and then be called disrespectful, and then be harangued in humiliating mind control attempts using fear, intimidation, peer pressure using social privilege, ostracization etc. It’s those people that Jesus teachings show there never was anything wrong with them. And there never will be. And never is….

    And Jesus, what he taught, actually heals the people that even the anti-psychiatry people would say have been permanently damaged by the drugs. There’s still healing possible there. And that changes the system beyond using fear or an idea of injustice to control anyone. He goes that far into seeing that the limitations we are supposed to believe in (or be seen as crazy) aren’t there (the sins, the injustices, the loss, the unrepairable damage). To control yourself or another with fear only creates an illusion that something is done while you’re investing in the same energy (fear, condemnation, judgment, coercion) that causes what you’re using it for to try to change what it causes instead So, you’re actually adding more of what you don’t want rather than alleviating it, and not seeing this (which eventually will become obvious). I certainly don’t believe he advocated original sin. I think he saw that a fear based society tries to maintain limitations that don’t really exist, but that’s a whole different matter than people are born with sin. That’s a fear based society, not the miracles that each child is, emerging from heaven full of joy wanting to show us there’s a different way.

  • I wouldn’t NOT call myself a Christian, but that’s not to the point here. I’ve actually learned from Jesus, and wouldn’t use him as an excuse that I’ve got the answers. That’s not fair to him, and it’s not what learning is.

    I’ve studied for years, and got unbelievable help from a book called A Course in Miracles. It’s in that book Jesus says he never said he came to bring a sword. The bible perhaps talks about that book when Jesus said that God would send a paramour after him…

    This is what A Course in Miracles says, and I believe that (T means text, since there are three parts to it Text, Workbook, and Teacher’s Guide)

    T-6.I.15. These are some of the examples of upside-down thinking in the New Testament, although its gospel is really only the message of love. 2 If the Apostles had not felt guilty, they never could have quoted me as saying, “I come not to bring peace but a sword.” 3 This is clearly the opposite of everything I taught. 4 Nor could they have described my reactions to Judas as they did, if they had really understood me. 5 I could not have said, “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” unless I believed in betrayal. 6 The whole message of the crucifixion was simply that I did not. 7 The “punishment” I was said to have called forth upon Judas was a similar mistake. 8 Judas was my brother and a Son of God, as much a part of the Sonship as myself. 9 Was it likely that I would condemn him when I was ready to demonstrate that condemnation is impossible?

    Regardless of what the bible says, that book has helped me, and it has helped me understand Jesus, what he taught; teachings which are Universal to all religions actually. And that’s an understanding, something you become aware was always there, this isn’t from any indoctrination; it’s from experiencing miracles, from healing and from inspiration and creativity.
    There’s a oneness that transcends limitations. Many people who have had near death experiences talk about the same things; how when you die that separation falls away between people; that heaven is a state where there’s not even a need to forgive (and we always are in this space whether we now it or not; we are that space and carry it with us), that all the offenses we would judge (and observe and dwell on the illusion of time and space to validate as outside of ourselves), all these things become an understanding of what the other person went through, how he got that way, how it’s part of the whole experience of life that is the human condition we all are, and in the end they still remain pure love, as does everyone.
    And so A Course in Miracles says there’s no such thing as sin, it’s an illusion. It’s not something going on outside of yourself, it’s something you can let go of inside of yourself. When you search for defenses, you create the very thing you are trying to defend yourself from. It you need defense, you believe you can be attacked. And if you believe you can be attacked you create this yourself. THAT came first not the thing outside of yourself you perceive as the attack. The time and the space that this occurs in is an illusion. It wasn’t something outside of yourself, something you’re separate from that caused it. That’s an illusion you share, but you could have dissolved it into nothing giving up on defenses. And so, A Course in Miracles says that defenseless is your only true safety. I think that’s how my friend Jesus knew he would be resurrected, and didn’t see himself as a victim, and showed that death doesn’t really exist; then, those 2000 years ago, which I don’t mind seeing being over with; since he is my friend, and I would only wish a better longer life for him……

    And it’s from many unconventional sources I learned about Jesus life. I learned how the other disciples would make Judas feel terrible because he didn’t understand certain things, and do this even though they knew how it made him feel. And Jesus never did that, he was always gentle.

  • What’s sad is that Frances wouldn’t see it’s fear mongering. For him, when something is “severe” when he’s talking about the worst cases; he doesn’t cognate that there’s a relationship between the treatments not working and what he sees. He just neeeEEEEEEEEEEeeds to see a need for treatment.

    So, it’s completely discrepant. The people that would be helped the most by NOT receiving the treatments he condones (those his cohorts say need “treatment” the most, and who would receive the “medications” that correlate the most with loss of life and disabilities and side effects and loss or recovery): these people who statistically do far better when NOT treated, are then those that according to him still need the treatments, because then there’s still a reason for these treatments. Those also happen to be the most vulnerable people, who have the least say about how they are treated, whose freedoms have been taken away from them the most, their life choices compromised, who are seen as non-compliant would they rebel at all. So, they are the easiest to force treatment on and have the results stay off the record.

    If he would see what’s actually going on, then the whole argument would clearly fall apart, having no base to stand on.

  • This isn’t going to work that you call a differing opinion “highly disrespectful” and then try to repress it as if it shouldn’t be allowed on this blog, by reporting it and saying that because “millions” think a certain way one is insensitive would they point out the false logic that is observed.

    That IS disruptive. This blog isn’t about enforcing your views (or anyone else’s) by saying anyone who thinks differently (despite that you will have difficulty with it) is insensitive when they express it never-the-less…

  • Religious freedom DOES NOT mean calling someone who has a difference of belief disrespectful. And if your beliefs, which you say millions follow (although many DO NOT follow the dictates of the church who are IN the church, and also have contrary views)… if your beliefs, which you say millions follow (and when contradicted are called disrespectful): if they are so true, they would speak for themselves and not need you calling anyone who simply contradicts them with logic disrespectful.

    Further more, this site is completely not about repressing statements that say that Christianity might be something different than how it’s defined by the Catholic Church, WHILE pointing out how contradictory the church is, and HAS BEEN. Nor is it about repressing clear analogies of how the Catholic Church with it’s original sin doctrines and their implimentation uses the same kind of population control tactics of some impending doom that needs attention, which fascism uses to gain control over them.

    Because you might not agree doesn’t make these statements or analogies disrespectful; nor does it make them suppressing of anyone else’s beliefs. YOUR attempt at suppression of contrary views is disrespectful and an attempt to suppress contrary beliefs.

  • There’s enough evidence that Mary Magdelene herself never was a prostitute (and even if she was that’s still no reason to judge a person without knowing what went on in her life); and that the Roman Catholic Church actually is responsible for those statements being in the bible, although there was enough material to the contrary. BECAUSE it would give women too much power. And didn’t go along with their misogynist teachings.

    I don’t believe she ever was a prostitute.

    One could also point out to HOW JESUS saved the live of a prostitute….

  • The Majority of Catholics already disagree with the pope here: http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/03/22/survey-catholics/ Further more, this doesn’t make them non Christian. Nor does it makes their beliefs disparaging against Christians. I don’t see Seth’s statement against the doctrine of original sin as disparaging, either.

    When someone has so put their beliefs in something that when questioned — with quite reflective and clear logic — is labeled as being disparaging. Upon reflection, you might find that what’s disparaging is the belief itself.

  • Back to the original story. That Robert Whitaker says that perhaps we need a whole new Paradigm in relating to mental health is certainly something that, given the evidence, needs more than a little bit of attention.

    And then the interviewer goes on about that there’s some evidence (which doesn’t exist) that they are treating real biological symptoms. And they aren’t even alleviating “symptoms.” I think statistically they have caused MORE symptoms. And their own premise of a chemical imbalance points how WHY there are more symptoms. As the cause is denied and denied, and denied….

    Humans grow when they are loved, and allowed to be themselves. NOT as those who are analysed as having “symptoms” when not fitting into a fear based norm; that shows how unrealistic and fear based it is when it treats people the way it does.

    And when Frances goes on about treating people with the “most severe illnesses,” that’s again fear mongering. Because it’s EXACTLY those people, who when NOT treated with psychiatric drugs who do MUCH BETTER in recovery.

    If something isn’t working, it’s again a typical maneuver to make out that there’s something critical going on that does needs attention, when they problem is being caused by those saying they need to treat it…..