Saturday, January 19, 2019

Comments by Sylvain Rousselot

Showing 100 of 203 comments. Show all.

  • In 1880, the United States government launched a large-scale survey, with extraordinary budget, in which nearly 80,000 of the 100,000 doctors that count America participated in the census of mentally ill people across the country, including outside of institutions. (Census Office, 1888, pp. IX and X).

    The government found a prevalence of 0.18% of cases of madness, 0.34% among those over 20, 0.01% among those under 20 (Census Office, 1888, XXIX).

    So if “17 million American children struggle with some form of psychiatric illness”, this makes us a prevalence of ~ 20%, for 83 million people under 20 years.

    In other words, the prevalence of mental illness among children would have increased by 200,000% in 140 years, a rather remarkable increase.

    Since psychiatrists do not study historical statistics across the 19 and 20 centuries, they do not realize how grotesque their pretensions are.

    Census Office (1888). Defective, dependant and delinquent classes of the population of United States, as returned at the thenth census (June 1, 1880). Washington, Government Printing Office. https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v21-02.pdf

  • There is an ocean between suicidal ideation and actual suicide. Since the psychiatric hospital increases the risk of suicide, Facebook has certainly contributed to many suicides by denouncing people to the police.

    Facebook is a repugnant spy in the service of the American state and political censorship. The New York Times is no better: it is a lackey who peddles all the gossip of the state and congratulates Facebook for its policy of surveillance and censorship.

  • I totally disagree the principle of having a “balanced” point of view on psychiatric drugs. These drugs already benefit from an apologetic publicity from the pharmaceutical industry and the psychiatric staff: to really balance the discussion, only the critic must be put forward: the glorification, we already have ad nauseam.

    On the other hand, the arguments in favor of drugs are extremely doubtful. You did well to present your sources, it makes a difference with the practices of the psychiatric vulgarization.

    Here I will take just one example: you say that lithium could probably reduce the risk of suicide by 14%. However, the study cited (Song J et al, 2017) simply shows that the rate of suicidal events is lower during periods of lithium consumption than during periods of non-consumption, in people who regularly take lithium and subjected to massive psychiatric polytoxicomania (see Table 1 of the original study).

    This is not a proof that lithium reduces the risk of suicidal events. This could be due to withdrawal syndrome, and more so to the consumption of antidepressants that were taken by 70.8% of subjects on lithium. Since lithium reduces mania, while antidepressants increase it, the combination of lithium withdrawal and the use of antidepressants increases the risk of mania, and therefore could increase the risk of suicide events.

    By the way, “At least one suicide-related event during follow-up”

    Lithium: 10.1%
    Valproate: 13.1%
    Never Treated With Lithium or Valproate: 7.8%

    This is statistically significant. From this study, I could possibly conclude that lithium and valproate increase the risk of suicidal events, and that the increase in suicidal events in the lithium group at discontinuation was due to withdrawal syndrome and to the consumption of antidepressants.

    But that would be a hasty conclusion, because all subjects massively consumed all kinds of drugs: the difference in the rate of suicidal events could be due to these drugs or their withdrawal, or to a subtle and complex combination of all this bazaar.

    Moreover, the 8-year actual suicide rates in the lithium (1.1%), Valproate (1.2%) and Never Treated With Lithium or Valproate (1.2%) groups are about the same, and the difference is not statistically significant.

    In any case, this study does not prove that lithium decreases the suicidal risk.

  • Another thing: can we really suspect the honest mistake of authors Horgan and Malhi, to recommend a practice as directly and explicitly contrary to the survival of patients?

    What should be the reaction of the scientific community and society in general, in the face of doctors who would recommend the combination of two opioids to treat respiratory depression?

  • “no single meta-analysis conducted thus far found a significantly lower suicide risk in antidepressant groups relative to placebo recipients.”

    Nice understatement. In fact, a meta-analysis by Healy and Whitaker (2003) shows that antidepressants multiply the risk of suicide by 5 compared with placebo.

    Giving antidepressants to suicidal people is like giving opioids to people with respiratory depression “to prevent them from suffering too much from the choking sensation”.

    Healy, D., Whitaker, C. (2003). Antidepressants and suicide: risk-benefit conundrums (html) Psychiatry Neurosci 2003; 28 (5)

  • This sad episode in the history of science at least has the merit of teaching us the true nature of these “dear colleagues” associated with the pharmaceutical industry, and the real links between universities, hospitals, institutions and scientific associations on the one hand, and the centers of power on the other hand.

    Intellectual, economic and political circles are not independent.

  • School is responsible for 12% of youth suicides (Hansen, 2011).

    School is associated with 46% of psychiatric hospitalizations for violence or self-harm (Lueck, 2015).

    The school is one of the first providers of clients to the psychiatry, if not the first.

    Hansen B , Lang M (2011). Back to school blues: Seasonality of youth suicide and the academic calendar. Economics of Education Review 30 (2011) 850– 861. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.04.012

    Lueck C et al. (2015) Do emergency pediatric psychiatric visits for danger to self or others correspond to times of school attendance? American Journal of Emergency Medicine 33 (2015) 682–684. 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.02.055

  • This study compares the toxicity of neuroleptics with the toxicity of antidepressants and psychostimulants, but does not tell us anything about the absolute toxicity of neuroleptics.

    To get a rough picture of the absolute toxicity of neuroleptics, antidepressants and psychostimulants, the child mortality rate in this study can be compared to the overall child mortality rate.

    For this we need to create a group of children roughly comparable to this one.

    The children were aged 5 to 24, and their average age was 12 years old.

    3 children from 5 to 9 years old (average: 7),
    1 child from 10 to 14 years old (average: 12),
    1 young person from 15 to 19 years old (average: 17),
    1 young person from 20 to 24 years old (average: 22),

    Indeed: (3*7+12+17+22)/(3+1+1+1) = 12

    The groups was also 43,3% female.

    US children and young’s mortality rate:

    in 2015
    5-24 years
    12 years means age
    43,3% female rate
    per 100,000

    age weight male female total
    weight 56.7% 43.3%
    05-09 3 013.2 010.2
    10-14 1 016.9 012.2
    15-19 1 066.6 029.1
    20-24 1 129.9 046.5
    05-24 042.2 019.7 032.5

    Source: Death rate in the United States in 2015

    Mortality rate of a group of children and young people comparable in age and sex, in parts per 100,000: 32.5

    Mortality rate among children and youth in the study who used antidepressants, psychostimulants or low dose neuroleptics in parts per 100,000: 54.5. Risk of death multiplied by 1.68.

    Mortality rate of children and young people in the study who took neuroleptics at high doses, in parts per 100,000: 146.2. Risk of death multiplied by 4.50.

    Of course, this is a rough calculation that does not take into account any confounding factors. However, the use of antidepressants, psychostimulants and low-dose neuroleptics is associated with substantial excess mortality in children (+ 67.7%).

  • This is CHRONIC pain, not the acute pain.

    However the improvement is so small that it is possible that this is due to the fact that some patients have discovered that they take the active molecule and not the placebo, because of the side effects.

    Compared to an active placebo, which simulates side effects without having an anti-pain property, it is possible that the real effectiveness of all these molecules for chronic pain is zero.

  • Here is a study what deserve to be review by MIA. Here is a popular article:

    Opioids no more effective for treating chronic pain than over-the-counter options, study finds

    “[Opioids] won’t work for most patients. For those that do, those benefits will often attenuate over time,” he said. “So why is it that so many patients, when started on long-term opioid therapy, will continue?”

    PS: Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • It’s not because you click on a link that you approve its destination! 😉

    But the Fox News article is only propaganda to encourage opioid users to continue indefinitely, with the fallacious argument that opioids do not worsen chronic pain, and that withdrawal will result in pain so severe that patients will commit suicide.

    Burgess’s study proves the exact opposite: drug prevention and withdrawal policies reduce the national suicide rate by 11.3%, while “therapeutic” drug addiction policies increase the national suicide rate by 7.0%.

    The Fox News article will kill people, encouraging them to continue opioids, by lying to them about the real causes of chronic pain and suicide.

    You can read the Burgess’ study on Sci-hub.

  • According to Dr. Thomas Kline, “one of the worst health care crises in our history”, this is not the opioid crisis, but on the contrary the redirection of Americans towards a progressive weaning “by the force”. It would be “torture”, something dreadful that would cause an epidemic of suicides which, by comparison, makes the current overdoses epidemic much less worrying.

    But where are the facts? I will give some because the mafia does not do it (Burgess, 2004).

    [Blockquote]

    Do nations’ mental health policies, programs and legislation influence their suicide rates?

    An ecological study of 100 countries

    Objective: To test the hypothesis that the presence of national mental health policies, programs and legislation would be associated with lower national suicide rates.

    Method: Suicide rates from 100 countries were regressed on mental health policy, program and legislation indicators.

    Results: Contrary to the hypothesized relationship, the study found that after introducing mental health initiatives (with the exception of substance abuse policies), countries’ suicide rates rose.

    Conclusion: It is of concern that most mental health initiatives are associated with an increase in suicide rates. However, there may be acceptable reasons for the observed findings, for example initiatives may have been introduced in areas of increasing need, or a case-finding effect may be operating. Data limitations must also be considered.

    […]

    Results

    […]

    Mental health policies, programs and legislation as predictors of suicide rates

    Table 4 shows the findings of the regression analysis (significant findings are in bold). A country’s adoption of a substance use policy in a given year was associated with a decrease in male, female and total suicide rates in the following year and the years beyond that. By contrast, the introduction of a mental health policy and mental health legislation was associated with an increase in male and total suicide rates, and the introduction of a therapeutic drugs policy was associated with an increase in total suicide rates.

    table 4 (abstract). Adjusted percentage change in suicide rates

    total suicides: % change

    Mental health policy: +8.3%

    Mental health program: +4.9%

    Mental health legislation: +10.6%

    Substance use policy: -11.3%

    Therapeutic drugs policy: +7.0%

    Significant findings are in bold.

    [/blockquote]

    This is SCIENCE.

    What’s this Fox News‘s article? LIES.

    Bibliography:

    Burgess, P., Pirkis, J., Jolley, D., Whiteford, H., & Saxena, S. (2004). Do nations’ mental health policies, programs and legislation influence their suicide rates? An ecological study of 100 countries. Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 38(11-12), 933-939.

  • Decidedly, the mafia is free to publish in news websites with large circulation … They are plainly telling us that the lifetime consumption of opioids prevents suicide!

    Obviously the law of the mafia prohibits comparing the suicide rate of people who are weaning and people who continue … Since when the mafia is doing scientific studies to promote his cam?

    Assert without proof, use the fear of suicide to counter the fear of overdose. They are garbage without faith nor law, they stop at no ignominy to continue their despicable traffic.

    What can stop them, if not brutal state repression?

  • Greta McLachlan is not a human being, because she identifies human feelings to diseases.

    And do not tell me, “but if she is also a human being!” she is not human in the philosophical and political sense of the term. She constitutes a terrible and mortal danger for humanity, she degrades, she defiles humanity by her propaganda and her treatments and should be prevented to harm by the most resolute means.

    Her existence raises my heart because it represents everything I hate: hypocritical, dirty, she promotes ketamine and psilocybin, presenting them as miracle drugs capable of resolving depression in 7 days! What is the BMJ, the journal of itinerant doctors of the 19th century? It’s a shame that the BMJ publishes this kind of insanity, it’s like the Wild West! Let’s throw this fake doctor into the trash!

  • Why do you report this psychiatric comment? There is no depression, there are only little informed naives and drug dealers, having nothing to do with humanity. All is just drugs and chemical balancing for these doctors who hide their cruelty and greed behind good feelings and a junk professionalism. I can not advise the depressive people too much to take their life in their hands by the most resolute means, and not to be euthanize as an animal, since psychiatric drug addiction is only a slow agony of human consciousness.

    Donald Trump announced the death penalty for drug dealers. I say that he is a hypocrite! The drug dealers are in his government, in his companies, and their tentacles extend into the most shabby medical offices in the United States! And they talk openly about the best way to intoxicate the population in their medical journals, and nothing happens to them! Oh, do these people like to talk about the death penalty for drug dealers? Well, they will have a surprise on the day of the revolution!

  • > [antidepressants] help people and save lives

    It’s a lie! There is no proof!

    Find a single study that proves that antidepressants have saved a single life! Where is this study? People who lie do not represent me!

    The meta-analysis of Healy & Whitaker (2003) shows that the suicide rate is 5 times higher with antidepressants than with placebo!

    Enough of lies! Enough of complacency! Whenever someone spreads this lie to please the pharmaceutical industry and the “medical community”, there will be people taking antidepressants and committing suicide! It’s a lie that kills people, so stop spreading it, right now!

    Healy, D., Whitaker, C. (2003). Antidepressants and suicide: risk-benefit conundrums (html) Psychiatry Neurosci 2003; 28 (5)

  • On the other hand, the infinite love of psychiatrists for the Third World is never anything but an effect of overproduction and imperialism. Indeed, psychiatry has reached such a degree of development in the imperialist countries that the market of neurotoxins can no longer be extended without the risk of suppressing economic grown by destroying the brains of the useful labor force; so you have to export these neurotoxins, to destroy the brain of the workforce abroad, for example the brain of tramp children who will probably never be productive.

    Economic progress also means having a growing population that is completely useless economically, and that must be managed; and psychiatry offers solutions for managing this surplus and unusable workforce, as well as prison and war.

  • The cruelty of psychiatry is not at all “unintentional”.

    In fact, people diagnosed as “mentally ill” are exempted from work, so it is a basic economic principle to subject them to cruel treatment in order to ensure that the “secondary benefit of the disease” is less than the “prejudice of the treatment”, and that the patients are “really crazy”, that is to say crazy enough to lend themselves to barbaric and degrading treatments.

    Do you realize, if the “mentally ill” were treated well? Everyone would pretend to be sick, which would be all the easier because most psychiatric diagnoses are not based on any tangible biological criterion.

  • The truth is that the psychiatrist has replaced the father. That’s why the son obeys the psychiatrist, that’s why the father rage. Behind the question of the drug, there is the substitution of paternal authority.

    Typical systemic problem in which the psychiatrist participates: “schizophrenia” is always a systemic problem.

  • The somatic or psychosomatic nature of fibromyalgia is unclear. Fibromyalgia could cover real biological diseases, but also a psychosomatic and even sociosomatic syndrome.

    Potential biological causes should not be neglected, and treated with rigor and seriousness. But some fibromyalgia would be effectively “cured” by a psycho-social approach (reduction of stress, improvement of social relations, sport, ethnotherapy, etc.).

    The French wikipedia article points out this indeterminacy of the “disease”, between the body, the society and the spirit. In particular, he emphasizes a higher prevalence of fibromyalgia among migrants, which is probably not only explained by the hard work they face, but also by the cultural shift and disorientation caused by the change of country.

  • Below are two videos of the “aversive therapy” used at JFC.

    Since this method is torture, these videos are very violent (screams of pain, bloody wounds, laughter of torturers, etc.)

    This psychiatric treatment is legal and APPROVED by the US justice.

    “in June [2018] a family court judge stepped in and ruled that the activities of the center were legal and must be allowed to continue.”

    Same source.

    Video shows student being shocked, CBS News.

    JRC FDA petition April 2014 by Greg Miller, Fox News.

  • Some statistics from this article:

    Sexual and romantic relationships between nubile people collapse. From 1991 to 2017, the number of high school students who had sex decreased from 54% to 40% (-26%). At the age of 20, the percentage of abstinent people has more than doubled, from 6% to 15%. From 1999 to 2014, the average number of intercourse per adult per year decreased from 62 to 54 (-13%). About 60% of adults under 35 live without a spouse or partner.

    These figures come from the United States, but the trend is the same in other countries of the world. From 2001 to 2012, in Great Britain, the number of sexual relations per adult per year decreased from 72 to 60 (-17%) in the age group of 16 to 44 years. In Australia, the same rate went from 94 to 73 (-22%). In 2005, one third of Japanese people under 18 to 34 years old and living alone were virgins. In 2017, the rate had further increased to 43%.

    In 1995, a large US longitudinal study showed that 66% of young men and 74% of 17-year-old women had experienced a “special romantic relationship” in the last 18 months. In 2014 when the Pew Research Center asked 17-year-olds if they “ever dated, hooked up with or otherwise had a romantic relationship with another person” —seemingly a broader category than the earlier one— only 46 percent said yes (-34%).

  • Psychiatrists use negationism to defend their point of view. They deny that neuroleptics were introduced into psychiatry because they had the same effects as the lobotomy. They deny animal research and research on humans. They use the same tactics as the far right, who deny the existence of gas chambers to protect Hitler.

    With the use of neuroleptics and chemical castrators in US concentration camps for migrants, the latent eugenics, scientific negationism, filiation with Nazism is transparent. These people deserve to be judged and condemned mercilessly.

  • I read the article: it is appalling. A group of crazy scientists doing secret experiments on non-consenting patients, risking the death of 39% of patients in the experimental group by respiratory depression, and publishing their article in a peer-reviewed journal just like that.

    This is the real madness: psychiatrists out of control, violating the FDA’s prohibitions and who are not subject of any criminal investigation. Let these monsters be condemned and put out of action: they are dangerous.

  • I find this experience weird. Is this the right way to test the anxiolytic effects of lavender? Should we really use laboratory mice, make them anosmic and use artificial perfumes? I find the protocol artificially complicated to give an appearance of scientificity; while this experience does not allow to make definite conclusions about the effectiveness of lavender in anxiety.

    Why not do studies in real situations, with humans? If it is only a matter of practicing psychotherapy in a perfumed cabinet or in another non-perfumed one, it is a very simple experiment, and the results are immediately exploitable, without formality. The experiment will not be double-blind, but it can be controlled by testing several perfumes with the absence of perfume.

  • I am not sure that followers of “mental health” church have anything to say about the dangers of religion.

    I return the compliment to them:

    “DSM-based psychiatric hospitals that enphasize patriarchal authority in medical structure and use harsh psychiatric methods can be destructive.

    But the problem isn’t just physical and sexual abuse. Emotional and mental treatment in psychiatric hospital also can be damaging because of 1) toxic teachings like incurable mental illness or genetic defects 2) psychiatric practices or mindset, such as punishment, electrochocs, or chemical castration, and 3) neglect that prevents a person from having the information or opportunities to develop normally. […]”

    Very few sects use such brutal and barbaric means as the church of “mental health”.

  • Lowrence is ours. A fundamental advance in medicine is to have been able to distinguish a symptom of a disease: that a disease can have several symptoms and that a symptom can cover several diseases.

    That is why a real doctor will never tell you “you have the fever disease” but “you have the flu”.

    Defining chronic pain as a disease, arbitrarily grouping symptoms into disease without etiology is an intellectual swindle, quackery, a retreat to the pre-scientific area. This is deeply dangerous and leads millions of people to addiction, under the rule of legal and respectable drug traffickers (like The British East India Company).

    At no place Lowrence denies chronic pain as a symptom, he denies it only as a disease.

    In this respect, he is right not to be complacent, not only with doctors, but also with patients who harbor false hopes, misconceptions and misrepresentations. It’s hard, but we have to wean ourselves off of that too.

  • “It was John’s mother, Linda, who was dying in the hospital: since returning to civilization, she has been taking large doses of Soma daily, which has caused respiratory failure. When Linda dies, John mourns his passing, which causes misunderstanding of the present Deltas, as they are conditioned from an early age to be accustomed to death. Faced with their ignorant reactions to his misfortune, John becomes angry then violent. Shortly after, he tries to dissuade the Deltas from taking their daily Soma ration at the end of the working day, that an official comes to bring them. He throws, with Watson’s help, all the rations out the window, imposing on them freedom by delivering them from this drug that he considers responsible for his mother’s death. But the Deltas consider it a sacrilege: they start attacking them without even knowing how to fight. The police, with gas masks, is called for help. It intervenes using Soma in the form of gas and a tape recorder broadcasting words of appeasement. The Deltas calmed, the sergeant asks John, Helmholtz and Bernard to follow them, the latter two being present at the time of the fight.”

    Summary of chapter 15 of Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” (1932), french Wikipedia.

  • Interesting study, but his results are very bad. The results of the meta-analysis of Vigera are much better: only 30% relapse in 24 months after progressive weaning.

    Some remarks on this study:

    1) The definition of relapse is very extensive: it is a CPRS score.

    If we use a more restrictive measure, the rehospitalization rate, relapse rates are as follows (in 6 months):

    neuroleptic: 0%
    weaning: 31%

    In addition, one patient from the neuroleptic group had a portion of the injection-depot removed surgically and did not relapse.

    2) The use of emergency neuroleptic tablets was prohibited. The use of emergency neuroleptic tablets is absolutely necessary, because the concentration of neuroleptic in the blood does not decrease perfectly regularly with the depot injections. The depot injection is a progressive weaning, but it is not perfectly regular. The author himself notes this problem in the “Discussion” chapter.

    3) The average duration of the “disease” was greater than 10 years: they was thus very addict “chronic” subjects.

    The author emphasizes that other studies have shown that the success of weaning depends on many factors, including the duration of exposure and the dose of neuroleptic. In the studies of Engelhardt et al. (1960) for example, the duration of exposure was short and the dose was low, and there was only 25% relapse in the weaning group after 12 and >18 months. This is a very encouraging result.

    4) Finally, the author points out that despite relapses, “This study was supported by the interest of patients who were enthusiastic and positive in their participation and visited our team at almost every rating.”

    Relapse rate is therefore not necessarily a relevant criterion for measuring the success of withdrawal: researchers should instead focus on improving quality of life, social relationships and other personal and social parameters.

  • “if the phenotyope of the enzyme is poor and an individual can’t adequately make that conversion to GABA”

    IF. If, if, if…

    Do you know some living human with genetic deficiencies that prevent the correct synthesis of GABA?

    Many genetic deficiencies lead to a non-viable embryo and therefore to a miscarriage or stillbirth.

    You have to prove that a human being with such a deficiency is viable and exists before making the assumption that a skull ache could be caused by such a deficiency.

    In the first article, the researchers describe the process of GABA synthesis and its genetic origin. Unless I am mistaken, they do not describe a pathological condition where a genetic defect would hinder the synthesis of GABA. Unless I am mistaken, they do not mention any subject having such a defect.

    Can you cite more specifically a study (with quotation) in which a genetic defect is linked to a defect in the synthesis of GABA and that the cause has been formally identified and observed on living human beings?

    In this case, it should be possible to detect a group of human beings with this genetic disease which would cause above-average anxiety. As an individual, I have never heard of such a genetic disease.

  • Gandhi has been object of “cult of the personality” like Stalin, Mao or Steve Jobs. The opposite of “cult of the personality” is the “demonization”. As much the cult of the personality as the demonization obscure the intelligence. But in the case of Gandhi, it is rather the cult of the personality which has maintained incredible myths.

    For example, Gandhi was not at all non-violent, far from it. He has participated in many wars: against the Zulus, against the Boers and against Germany on the side of the United Kingdom, but also against the United Kingdom on the side of Hitler (Gandhi, op cit, vol 78, p. 386 “460. TO EVERY BRITON” July 2, 1940.). Gandhi’s position on violence would be better defined as follows: you must not use violence against powerful governments like those in the United Kingdom or the Third Reich. On the other hand, when these same governments order you to slaughter your neighbor in an imperialist war, you must do it, otherwise you are cowards and effeminate (Gandhi, op.cit., Vol 17: p 83 “67. APPEAL FOR ENLISTMENT “, June 22, 1918).

    So no, I do not think Gandhi was “no different than any other person”. He had a very special personality, made of oportunism, religious fanaticism and racism. People with such a high level of duplicity are rare, even among politicians.

  • What is controversial is that the neuroleptics were sold to the psychiatrists because they had the same effect as the lobotomy, and when they opened corpses of schizophrenics to check, they noticed that there was a lack of 100-200 grams of brain in the skull.

    But at this time, the lobotomy had become unpopular, so the machine of psychiatric denialism started.

    They first said the loss was caused by the disease, but animal studies have contradicted this claim. They also found in healthy subjects that haloperidol was apparently the fastest reducing brain size drug, ie the most effective chemical lobotomizer. So they said neuroleptics were neurotoxic for healthy people and neuroprotective for “sick” people. In short, they said anything to hide the fact that with neuroleptics, the practice of the lobotomy had exploded, and that the psychiatrists denied it in the way of Robert Faurisson.

    Why not honestly tell your patients that you are practicing “small” lobotomies by dispensing “small” amounts of haloperidol? Why not show your patients two beefsteaks, the first of 150 grams that illustrates the chemical lobotomy of conventional psychiatry, and the second of 75 grams that illustrates the chemical lobotomy of progressive psychiatry?

    Surely you do not see the brains of your patients. You do not have to play the scalpel with neuroleptics, it’s easy!

    “Doctor continue the lobotomy: it makes me feel good.” “Doctor, remove another 10 grams of my brain: my voices are back.” “Another 10 grams, please doctor, I had bad thoughts”. “Another 10 grams, another 10 grams, another 10 grams…”

  • “I still work as a psychiatrist and I know people who appear to benefit from these drugs.”

    Given that the human body is in perpetual struggle against these drugs, and reacts to them as poisoning, it is difficult to say that some patients “benefit” from this treatment.

    It is not because the patient says he has a benefit of the treatment that this is true.

    Neuroleptics are primarily chemical lobotomizers: Dorph-Petersen (2005) found that haloperidol and olanzapine reduced the brain mass of monkeys by 8 to 11% in 17 to 27 months.

    The mass of the human brain is about 1500g. 8 to 11% of the human brain corresponds to 120-165 grams of fresh mater. It’s the equivalent of a steak (100-150g).

    Go and remove 120 grams of a man’s brain. Would you do it? It will be necessary to push the scalpel deeply into the brain, and to go on several times.

    It is not ethical to practice any treatment – even when the patient requests it or seems satisfied – especially in the case of lobotomized patients who lack 120 to 165g of human brain.

    Psychiatrists who maintain a patient on neuroleptics – with or without their agreement – must be regarded as practitioners of the chemical lobotomy.

    If you refuse to start or maintain a patient on neuroleptic, it would be a progress.

    Dorph-Petersen, K. A., Pierri, J. N., Perel, J. M., Sun, Z., Sampson, A. R., & Lewis, D. A. (2005). The influence of chronic exposure to antipsychotic medications on brain size before and after tissue fixation: a comparison of haloperidol and olanzapine in macaque monkeys. Neuropsychopharmacology, 30(9), 1649. https://www.nature.com/articles/1300710

  • Other relevant elements:

    “In the last 36 months, Stefan Leucht has received honoraria for lectures from EliLilly, Lundbeck (Institute), Pfizer, Janssen, BMS, Johnson and Johnson, Otsuka, Roche, SanofiAventis, ICON, Abbvie, AOP Orphan, Servier; for consulting/advisory boards from Roche, Janssen, Lundbeck, EliLilly, Otsuka, TEVA; for the prep- aration of educational material and publications from Lundbeck Institute and Roche. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.”

    And all the analyzed studies come from the pharmaceutical industry.

  • An interesting study, but it should be emphasized some points:

    “We used individual patient data from 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of olanzapine or amisulpride with other antipsychotics or placebo for the treatment of patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Treatment efficacy was measured using the PANSS scale in 8 studies and the BPRS scale in the other 8 studies. The 16 RCTs were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry and have already been published. 10–25 All trials were randomized, and all, but one open-label, 19 were double-blind. One study included only first-episode patients 21 and one study patients with predominant negative symptoms. 25 Important characteristics of the included studies are presented in the supplementary eTable 1.

    As our research question was how many patients do not respond to antipsychotic medication after adequate time of treatment, we defined a period of 4–6 weeks (preferably 6) as follow-up time to assess response 26 and we excluded patients who received placebo or an antipsychotic drug at an ineffective dose, ie, outside the target dose ranges according to the International Consensus of Antipsychotic Dosing published by Gardner et al. 27 Six thousand two hundred twenty-one patients who received amisulpride (N = 1092), flupenthixol (N = 62), haloperidol (N = 1421), olanzapine (N = 2604), quetiapine (N = 175), risperidone (N = 596), and ziprasidone (N = 271) were included in the analysis. The mean age of the included patients was 37.2 years (CI: 36.9–37.5), the mean duration of illness was 13.6 years (CI: 13.4–3.9), and most of them were males (65.8%, N = 4093).”

    Only one study focused on the first-episode patients and the mean duration of illness was 13.6 years, so it is likely that the majority of patients have been on neuroleptics for a long time. Thus, the “acute exacerbation of schizophrenia” could actually be a psychosis of hypersensitivity, or a psychosis of withdrawal. No comments are made in the study on this possibility.

    The possibility that the exacerbation of psychotic symptoms is caused by psychosis of hypersensitivity is to the advantage of neuroleptics, because the re-increase of the dose will naturally attenuate the syndrome of withdrawal.

    Placebo patients were excluded from the study, but this is not a bad thing given that people on placebo are often not a real placebo group, but more likely a brutal withdrawal group.

  • In some cases, neither excuses nor even repairs are possible. Indeed, some people have an objective interest in hurting you: they get richer and find an emotional satisfaction to brutalize you: feeling of power, feeling of superiority, contempt of people deemed inferior, perverse satisfaction in violence, self-justification and self-moralisation of caste. These people can not be moralized because it is their practice that drives their morale, not the other way around.

  • This is not a scientific study but a deduction from a collection of testimonies.

    MIA should not promote articles whose conclusion can not be rigorously verified.

    Here is an excerpt from a scientific article (Fond, 2018, p. 15-16) about the use of legal and illegal drugs by medical interns in France:

    psychiatrists (N=302), other interns (N=1863) and Whole sample (N=2165)

    Current cannabis use disorder: 12.3%, 5.2% and 6.1%
    Current alcohol use disorder: 40.7%, 32.9% and 34.0%

    Psychiatric follow-up: 35.4%, 15.9% and 18.7%
    Anxiolytic consumption: 10.6%, 6.1% and 6.7%
    Antidepressant consumption: 7.9%, 2.3% and 3.0%
    At least one daily psychotropic consumption: 7.9%, 2.6% and 3.3%

    Ecstasy: 24.4%, 17.0% and 18.2%
    Cocaine: 21.8%, 12.4% and 13.9%
    Mushrooms: 16.5%, 11.3% and 12.1%
    Amphetamines: 10.2%, 5.6% and 6.3%
    LSD: 7.1%, 3.9% and 4.4%

    Fond G, Bourbon A, Micoulaud-Franchi J-A, Auquier P, Boyer L, Lançon C, Psychiatry: a discipline at specific risk of mental health issues and addictive behavior? Results from the national BOURBON study., Journal of Affective Disorders (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.05.074

  • The narration of his psychiatric hospitalization is literally infamous, abominable: Doctors Balassa, bitter enemy of disinfection, Wagner an opportunist who did not even see Semmelweis, and Bókai, the vicious traitor, the Judas who sold his friend for the 30 deniers of bourgeois respectability, wrote completely bogus, completely empty and contradictory certificates, betraying a cowardly and deliberate will to get rid of a great scientist who highlighted their nullity and insignificance.

    Read the certificates! Bókai, Wagner and Balassa are murderers, and if they were not already dead, no doubt they would deserve hanging for their crime.

    The death of Semmelweis is the story of a heinous crime. There is no doubt that the three doctors wanted to proceed with the social assassination of Semmelweis but that, psychiatry being what it is, this social assassination turned into outright assassination. There is much to suggest that Semmelweis’ medical record was rewritten after his death, in order to reinvent his “illness”, with many inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions. This fake was then hidden for more than a century, to hide the crime.

    K.C. Carter, S. Abbott et J.L. Siebach, Five documents relating to the final illness and death of Ignaz Semmelweis. Bull. Hist. Méd. 1995, no 69, p. 255-270. https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44444549.pdf

  • > Semmelweis was ridiculed by mainstream medicine for his ideas and ended up in an asylum, where he died two weeks later from septicaemia.

    This is an heavy historical error: Semmelweis was beaten to death by psychiatric staff.

    “Much biographical material has been written on Semmelweis, yet the true story of his death on 13 August 1865 was not confirmed until 1979, by Nuland. After some years of mental deterioration, Semmelweis was committed to a private asylum in Vienna. There he became violent and was beaten by asylum personnel; from the injuries received he died within a fortnight. Thus some dramatic theories have been destroyed, including the suggestion that he was injured and infected at an autopsy, which if true would have been a wonderful case of Greek irony.” (Lancaster, 1994, p. 14)

    “The autopsy revealed major injuries that could only have been sustained in beatings to which Semmelweis had been subjected while in the asylum. There were serious injuries involving even the bones, purulently decomposed and deficient tissues on the hands, the arm, the legs, stinking gas between the pectoral muscles, a large tearing hole in the pleura surrounded by a fist-sized ichorous center between the pleura and
    the pericardium, evidence of inflammation in the cerebrum and in the myelon. “It is obvious that these horrifying injuries were… the consequence of brutal beating, tying down, trampling underfoot.” The cause of death was identified as pyemia. Given the autopsy report and the medical record of Semmelweis ‘s stay in the asylum, it seems most likely that Semmelweis was severely beaten by the asylum guards and then left essentially untreated.” (Carter, 1995, p. 268)

    Yes, the great scientist Ignaz Semmelweis was murdered by the psychiatric staff of Wien Döbling, and this crime has been camouflaged for more than one century by the medical corporation.

    Bibliography

    H O Lancaster, « Semmelweis: a rereading of Die Aetiologie . . . Part I: Puerperal sepsis before 1845; Die Aetiologie », Journal of Medical Biography, no 2: 12-21,‎ 1994, p. 14

    K.C. Carter, S. Abbott et J.L. Siebach, Five documents relating to the final illness and death of Ignaz Semmelweis. Bull. Hist. Méd. 1995, no 69, p. 255-270.

  • It’s a relief to read you, Lawrence Kelmenson. It is not enough to be a scientist coldly analyzing the consequences of drug trafficking, we must still explicitly denounce drug dealers. And whether they are petty criminals or graduate doctors, it’s the same scum: we need a revolutionary law that strikes them equally and without any mercy.

  • This interpenetration of the school and the psychiatric hospital is catastrophic. It should be noted that school is one of the leading factors in children’s psychiatrisation regarding suicide, violence and self-harm (Hansen 2011, Lueck 2015, Plemmons 2018).

    I wrote an article about it on my blog, in French.

    https://psychiatriedroit.wordpress.com/2018/07/28/lecole-est-responsable-de-12-des-suicides-chez-les-jeunes/

    I have a friend who has endured the joys of psychiatry in the school environment. Every night she returned to the psychiatric hospital, where she was locked in her solitary confinement cell. At school, it was a completely drugged wreck, sleeping on his desk. She scared other children. My friend describes this period as “surrealist” because everyone was acting as if nothing had happened, when something awful was happening.

    The treatment of anorexics is extremely cruel in France: psychiatrists use massively isolation cell, and drugs of course. After the chemical treatment and the isolation cell, my friend began to develop severe hallucinations, which she had never had before. She was rediagnosed “schizophrenic”, obviously. The hallucinations are never gone.

    Fortunately, she stopped the neuroleptics about a year ago, the hallucinations became less painful, and she began to take control of her life.

    It is essential to prevent the collaboration between school and psychiatry. [Comment moderated].

    Hansen B , Lang M (2011). Back to school blues: Seasonality of youth suicide and the academic calendar. Economics of Education Review 30 (2011) 850– 861. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.04.012

    Lueck C et al. (2015) Do emergency pediatric psychiatric visits for danger to self or others correspond to times of school attendance? American Journal of Emergency Medicine 33 (2015) 682–684. 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.02.055

    Plemmons G, Hall M, Doupnik S, et al. (2018) Hospitaliza­tion for Suicide Ideation or Attempt: 2008–2015. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6):e20172426

  • I was watching a lecture by Dr. Breggin, and I was wondering if it would ever be possible to produce rigorous research in psychiatry. The simple fact of giving a psychotropic to solve a problem implies a negation of the human being, of the human relationship, it implies the will to create false emotions, false behavior, the suppression of free will. This is already a breach of ethics, humanism, and of the purpose of any helping relationship.

    The purpose of any helping relationship is to remove the barriers that prevent the client from developing as a complete human being, in his relationship to himself and in his relationship to others, and primarily in his relationship with the therapist. It involves empathy, congruence, attention, and as Breggin says, love; Breggin means absolute and sincere benevolence towards the client.

    Since we give a psychotropic to a client in order to “improve him”, we miss this goal at the root. It is reification, and reification, from the beginning, hurts the human being.

    That’s why giving psychotropic drugs to a client in order to prove that psychotropic drugs are bad (or good) is neither ethical nor humane.

    It is ethical to criticize those who do this kind of research, to force them to record the bad results of their experiences, to denounce their biases, but we can not reproduce these experiences because they are inhuman. It is also impossible that this kind of research is ever rigorous, because at the base it proceeds from a malicious intention, a reification of the human being. Rigorous and honest research on psychotropic drugs would immediately reveal this malicious intent, which psychiatrists will never admit. This is why it is fundamentally impossible for psychiatric research to be scientific.

    Is ethical research on weaning. If we do not have the right to hurt the clients, it is human to limit the harm that others have done.

    Is ethical research on non-psychiatric, social and psychological approaches to human suffering. This research is likely to give the most brilliant results.

  • One of the fundamental problems of Africa is the lack of electricity: how do you want to develop a business if at any time there can be a power cut? It is the same for all infrastructure components: road networks, digital networks, financial networks, commercial and industrial relations: capitalism develops in synergy, all elements are interdependent and develop organically, most often centrally around of the state, in a planned way.

    And during this time, mentally deficient psychiatry tell us: “And if we drugged 10% of the population as in the North, maybe Africa would develop better?”

    This illustrates the utter stupidity, opportunism, predation and sufficiency of the psychiatric industry. In a country that lacks infrastructure, what should you invest in? In the drugs, of course!

    But look at this band of racist colonialists, who tell us that if Africa has not developed properly, it’s because of a gang of degenerate madmen who slow down production! The psychiatric spirit is a veritable mental deficiency, which prevents the very understanding of the most basic foundations of the economy. If only we could give all their pills to these idiots, not only would it rid us of an endemic overproduction of the pharmaceutical industry, but in addition it would definitively reduce them to silence, which would do us the greatest good!

    Psychiatry is a real plague that is about to sweep over Africa and the “emerging” countries. There is overproduction of drugs! If the pharmaceutical industry wants to continue to grow, it has to export its model abroad. It’s that simple! And what does it matter if it produces legions of drug addicts who wander the streets or are locked up in psychiatric hospitals. As if Africa needed this!

  • Psychiatrists have nothing to do with truth. They follow Hitler’s precepts on propaganda:

    “The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

    […]

    The people in their overwhelming majority are so feminine by nature and attitude that sober reasoning determines their thoughts and actions far less than emotion and feeling. And this sentiment is not complicated, but very simple and all of a piece. It does not have multiple shadings; it has a positive and a negative; love or hate, right or wrong, truth or lie never half this way and half that way, never partially, or that kind of thing.

    […]

    But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unfiagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.

    […]

    When there is a change, it must not alter the content of what the propaganda is driving at, but in the end must always say the same thing. For instance, a slogan must be presented from different angles, but the end of all remarks must always and immutably be the slogan itself. Only in this way can the propaganda have a unified and complete effect.

    This broadness of outline from which we must never depart, in combination with steady, consistent emphasis, allows our final success to mature. And then, to our amazement, we shall see what tremendous results such perseverance leads to results that are almost beyond our understanding.

    All advertising, whether in the field of business or politics, achieves success through the continuity and sustained uniformity of its application.”

    http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html

  • According to Karl Marx, Even the most fanatical supporters of the prisons considered in 1845 that single cell housing was more cruel than forced labor:

    “In the debates on solitary confinement in the Chamber of Deputies this year, even the official supporters of that system had to acknowledge that it leads sooner or later to insanity in the criminal. All sentences of imprisonment for more than ten years had therefore to be converted into deportation.”

    http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1845/holy-family/ch08_3.html

  • I find this article extremely weak, full of unsubstantiated, questionable, or completely false statements.

    > psychoanalysts had done a great deal to “open up psychiatric services”

    Ho, yes? Can you prove what you just said?

    Can you cite a single IPA’s or WAP’s document calling for the prohibition of forced treatments or the release of mental patients from psychiatric hospitals? Or is it historical revisionism designed to hide the real collaboration of psychoanalysis with psychiatry?

    And I’m not talking about some isolated psychoanalysts, but about the official position of psychoanalytical associations: where did they write that mad people should be free and have the same rights as other citizens?

    > DSM psychiatry has been justly accused of encouraging public health policies that emphasize permanent evaluation and the profitability of reduced lengths of hospitalisations thanks to excessive medicalisation

    Psychotropic drugs lengthen the duration of hospitalization:

    “In a study of 1413 first-episode male schizophrenics admitted to California hospitals in 1956 and 1957, researchers found that “drug-treated patients tend to have longer periods of hospitalization. . . furthermore, the hospitals wherein a higher percentage of first-admission schizophrenic patients are treated with these drugs tend to have somewhat higher retention rates for this group as a whole”. In short, the California investigators determined that neuroleptics, rather than speed patients’ return to the community, apparently hindered recovery [13].” (Whitaker, 2003)

    http://psychrights.org/research/digest/chronicity/50yearecord.pdf

    > while suppressing frameworks focusing on receiving and welcoming patients, providing a refuge and a place for life.

    But what are you talking about? Are you totally blind to the history of psychiatry? What you say is incredible.

    In addition, your position on drugs is very ambiguous. In 2015, you said at the Swiss Time:

    “Of course, taking amphetamines is like drinking alcohol, there may be temporary relief. Ritalin speed-up neurotransmitters, but it does not cure. I am not radically against drugs. I prescribe methylphenidates in a third of the cases I treat, when the suffering is too great.”

    https://www.letemps.ch/societe/lhyperactivite-nexistait

    The comparison is interesting. Will you advise children to drink alcohol, the time to set up psychotherapy? In fact, you are very favorable to ritalin, which you prescribe widely, and at the same time, you criticize the overmedication.

    https://stop-dsm.com/en/methylphenidate-mph-an-opportunity-to-waste-what-are-the-alternatives/

  • These anonymous denunciations are a problem. Imagine that an MIA editor is accused of harassment by anonymous people, and that these denunciations are widely disseminated in the press. In reality, these anonymous people could be totally foreign to MIA, and interested in sowing discord within MIA, or messing up MIA’s reputation.

    MIA should make it a rule never to peddle rumors.

    Testis unus, testis nullus.

  • This society is divided into classes, it is normal that it be polarized. Those who want to prevent polarization are in reality oppressors: they want to subject the oppressed to their views. The establishment is not moderate, on the contrary, it fanatically defends the status quo, it is the extremism of the center. Who launches wars abroad? Who run the prisons, the psychiatric hospitals? The “moderates”. Who spreads the most lies, fake news and propaganda in the press? The “moderates”. It is in the name of “moderation” that Facebook and Google censor anti-war and leftist criticism. It is in the name of “moderation” that people are forcibly drugged for life.

    In order for society to no longer be “polarized”, why should we submit to the points of view that are, by chance, those of the ruling class? If the ruling class believes it is “moderate” to torture people in secret CIA prisons, to launch wars abroad, to forcibly drug people, if the social inequality is “moderate”, if border closures and concentration camps for foreigners are “moderate”, I could just as easily say that the war against the ruling class is moderate, that the ban on psychiatry and secret prisons is moderate, that the Border opening and concentration camps closure are moderate, and society generally would be “less polarized” if everyone agrees with this view.

  • Fools violate implicit rules, while outlaws violate explicit rules.

    Prison represses those who violate the explicit rules, while psychiatry represses those who violate the implicit rules.

    If fools suffer and are destroyed by psychiatry, that’s normal, that’s the goal.

    Families of psychotic are often very happy to see their loved ones suffer and be destroyed, because they are pathological families in which everyone is hurt each other.

    Searles rightly points out that psychic killing, by making the other person crazy or by sending him into psychiatry, can be just as effective as physical murder, with the advantage of not risking anything legally.

    Psychiatry is a present extension of the social sado-masochism, filled with pretense, hypocrisy and violence: it is normal for psychiatry to be pseudo-scientific and barbaric.

  • Too fast weaning is not reasonable, but too slow weaning is not reasonable either.

    Suppose a dose of 3mg of haldol per day. How long does it take to reach 0.25mg per day, by reducing the dose by 30% every 3 months, the most “rapid” weaning proposed in the study?

    21 months.

    But the author sometimes speaks of reducing the dose by only 25%, or waiting more than 3 months … or even to re-increase the dose to the initial value.

    In the end, only 3 people managed to stop neuroleptics after 5 years. 3 out of 129! This is a very bad result (2%).

    According to Harrow, Wunderink, Moilanen, Wils and others, we should expect great benefits with the total cessation of the drug. So we must stop being scared, stop frightening patients who want to stop the drug!

    1) The therapist must have confidence in total weaning. Admittedly, there will be more relapses in the weaning group, but only for ~14 weeks! (Viguera, 1997, pdf p. 4, fig. 3) After that, there will probably be no relapse in the weaning group, while the maintenance group will continue to relapse forever. It takes maximum support especially at the beginning to put the client back on track (social relations, employment …), ideally daily, by phone.

    2) The client should not be encouraged to decrease only, and still less to re-increase: if he wants to stop, you must stop! And in a reasonable time. If the weaning is too slow, it may encourage him to stop abruptly, which happened in this study! The best, in my opinion, is to stop depot injection, with some tablets in security, and with the possibility to call someone often.

    2% of total cessation is too little: it is the proof that the therapist did not have enough confidence in the weaning, which led patients to decrease too slowly or to wean themselves brutally (in a spirit of contradiction). A therapist with reasonable self-confidence could hope for a result of:

    _ 33% total weaning,
    _ 33% decrease,
    _ 33% maintenance.

    and maybe even better depending on the clientele.

    If you have confidence in weaning, and you are weaning rationally (ie gradually and adapted to the needs), it will greatly increase the chances of success by mere effect of suggestion and autosuggestion.

    Viguera AC, Baldessarini RJ, Hegarty JD et al. (1997) Clinical Risk Following Abrupt and Gradual Withdrawal of Maintenance Neuroleptic Treatment Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;54:49-55

  • We see that you do not know long-term research.

    On neuroleptics, I advise you to read The Case Against Antipsychotic Drugs: a 50-Year Record of Doing More Harm Than Good by Robert Whitaker, the editor-in-chief of Mad In America. For the most recent research: Psychiatry Defends Its Antipsychotics: A Case Study of Institutional Corruption , by the same author.

    Note that Robert Whitaker only reviews the research: he does not invent anything. In fact, advocates of neuroleptics recognize themselves that there is no evidence of long-term efficacy of neuroleptics .

    We do not have the opportunity to discuss the historical statistics of psychiatry: it would take too much time. But the fact that the “official” prevalence of mental illness has very gradually increased from 0.18% to 26.4% in the United States, an increase of 147 times, this raises questions, is not it?

  • “the researcher failed to protect Dan Markingson”

    Would it not be more accurate to say that Dr. Olson used prisoners as rats for dangerous and toxic experiments? Are you aware that this is precisely one of the reasons why Nazi doctors were executed in Nuremberg?

    “In recent times, research with persons diagnosed as mentally ill has increased to provide better therapeutic options and understanding of current trends in treatment.”

    This is perfectly false: this research is conducted with the aim of commercializing new products, in order to repress mental deviants, but also Latin migrant children. This research has no ethical or scientific basis: there is no mental illness, and the purpose of these products is the control of deviant populations and migrants.

    “The World Health Organization estimates that close to 10% of the world’s population is suffering from various forms of mental illnesses and about 25% of persons experience some psychiatric illness during their lifetime.9 This suggests there is a need for research with these populations.”

    Do you really believe that? In 1880, the United States government launched a large survey, in which nearly 80,000 physicians participated in the census of mental patients across the country, including outside institutions. (Census Office, 1888, pp. IX and X).

    The government found a prevalence of 0.18% of cases of madness in the general population. (Census Office, 1888, pp. XXIX).

    Could you explain how we went from a prevalence of 1 in 500 to 1 in 10 in just over a century? This prevalence of 10% is ridiculous: no species can survive with 10% of “mentally ill”. It’s just the percentage of people that society wants to marginalize with psychiatric “diagnoses”.

    “There is a need to increase and maintain the integrity – the quality and the morality – of any research work.”

    The quality and morality of psychiatric research has always been excruciating. In France, the medical profession (Fond, 2018) is sorry to note that 41% of interns in psychiatry are alcoholics, 22% regularly consume cocaine, 17% hallucinogenic mushroom, 12% cannabis, 10% amphetamines, and 7% LSD. Psychiatric students have always been the most depraved of the medical school. How can you be surprised at their total lack of ethics once they graduate? And for the quality of their research, this huge joke! Psychiatry is the only “medical” discipline where treatments have worse and worse results. Did you know Jääskeläinen (2013)? In 1941-1955 the recovery rate of schizophrenics was 17.7%. In 1996-2012, it was only 6%! It must be said that in the meantime, we had made this superb discovery: the neuroleptics.

    Thank you psychiatric research!

    Census Office (1888). Defective, dependant and delinquent classes of the population of United States, as returned at the thenth census (June 1, 1880). Washington, Government Printing Office. https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v21-02.pdf

    Fond G et al. (2018) Psychiatry: a discipline at specific risk of mental health issues and addictive behavior? Results from the national BOURBON study. Journal of Affective Disorders Volume 238, 1 October 2018, Pages 534-538. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.05.074

    Jääskeläinen, E., Juola, P., Hirvonen, N., McGrath, J. J., Saha , S., Isohanni, M., Veijola, J., Miettunen, J. (2012). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recovery in Schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull (2013) 39 (6): 1296-1306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbs130 https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/39/6/1296/1884290/A-Systematic-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-Recovery

  • [Moderated]. Fifty years ago, no one would have dared to suggest that perferctionnism could be the cause of psychological distress, but rather that perferctionnism is a defense mechanism against psychological distress. It is amazing to see how low the intellectual level of the experts is.

    Not looking for “psychological treatment” is normal: [moderated]. There is no reason to find this behavior particularly glorious and estimable. [Moderated].

    There are no “treatment-resistant” people, only ineffective treatments.

    In the philosophical sense, stigma is not an attribute of mental illness; on the contrary, mental illness is an attribute of stigma. It is because people are first stigmatized that they are later labeled mentally ill. Diagnosis is simply a form of stigma.

    Therefore, a sentence such as: “research suggests that those who resist stigma have far better outcomes when seeking treatment for psychological distress across all diagnostic groups.” [moderated]. It is people who are already diagnosed who need to fight against stigma. And when they are less stigmatized, as if by chance, we find them less sick! This amazing correlation does not make sense in your mind?

    But for those who are not stigmatized, what would it be like to go to an expert to get diagnosed, and then to fight against stigma? It’s completely stupid!

    Perfectionism is already a defense mechanism. As a good capitalist, Dr. Shannon first seeks to annihilate this defense, in order to sell her psychological junk.

    “If it’s raining, it’s probably because people are wearing umbrellas. Let’s take umbrellas off and give them parasols! I observed a correlation between sun and parasols. I’m rightly selling parasols! Another inexplicable correlation.”

  • I would like to point out that the CAMS study lasted from 2002 to 2007, while the CAMELS study started in 2011. In other words, for each participant, 4 to 9 years elapsed between the two studies. 4 to 9 years, when the former placebo group used more drugs and more therapies on the advice of study authors (phase II of the CAMS study).

    And it was these children who had the worst results on the long run. In these circumstances, the conclusion that more drugs and more therapies is needed is pure dishonesty, not to say scientific fraud.

  • This study is very unsatisfactory on many levels, but I will focus on the essentials:

    At the end of the CAMS study, just before the CAMELS study, the placebo group began to consume massively psychiatric drugs and therapies!

    Here is the percentage of children who have used psychiatric drugs between the CAMS and CAMELS studies:

    30/44 = 68% (formerly placebo group)
    51/79 = 65% (formerly Sertraline only group)
    52/82 = 63% (formerly Sertraline and CBT group)
    45/83 = 54% (formerly CBT only group)

    And here is the percentage of children who have used psychiatric therapies between these two studies:

    35/44 = 80% (formerly placebo group)
    44/79 = 56% (formerly Sertraline only group)
    43/83 = 52% (formerly CBT only group)
    39/82 = 48% (formerly Sertraline and CBT group)

    (Ginsburg, 2014, Table 3)

    And the formerly placebo group had the worst results at the end of the study!

    Do you realize what that means? This means that the study has exactly opposite results to the conclusions of the authors.

    The CAMELS are a SCAM!

    Bibliography

    Ginsburg GS, (2014). Naturalistic follow-up of youths treated for pediatric anxiety disorders. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014 Mar; 71 (3): 310-8. doi: 10.1001 / jamapsychiatry.2013.4186. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969570/

  • You have forgotten the essential. What is the category of people specifically targeted by this diagnosis? Diagnoses always target a certain category of deviants.

    This diagnosis is aimed at children. These are children who will be ripped from their homes to be thrown into psychiatric asylums, based on this diagnosis! Many parents are eagerly awaiting this diagnosis. And to any disease its treatment! What will it be this time? Neuroleptics? Or psychostimulants? Soon money to test drugs for this new disease!

  • Dear Mr. Whitaker,

    Currently, research cited by MIA tends to prove that:

    _ anxiolytics aggravate anxiety in the long term,
    _ antidepressants aggravate depression in the long term,
    _ antipsychotics aggravate psychosis in the long term.

    Therefore:

    “anxiolytics” should be called: “anxiogenic drugs”
    “antidepressants” should be called: “depressogenic drugs”
    “antipsychotics” should be called: “psychosogenic drugs”.

    Since then:

    Why advise a anxious, depressed or psychotic person, a “selective use” of anxiogenic, depressogenic or psychosogenic drugs? For their short-term effects? But, if the long-term effects cancel the short-term effects, and even reverse them, should not you be for the complete prohibition of all these drugs?

    There is an inconsistency in your remarks, a political inconsistency.

    Rigorous scientific reasoning leads to the conclusion that psychotropic drugs should never be used to solve social and psychological conflicts (“madness”). I think you do not come to this conclusion for political reasons, because you do not want to sound too radical.

    You play in the center.

  • Cultural capital, “Field”, Habitus, Doxa, Social Illusion, Reflexivity, Social capital, Symbolic capital, Symbolic violence, Practice theory…

    To deepen these concepts, in particular concerning academic success, see Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron:

    Les héritiers: les étudiants et la culture (1964), Eng. The Inheritors: French Students and Their Relations to Culture, University of Chicago Press 1979.

    Here, the statistical evidence is robust, and is regularly replicated on many samples in many countries and at many times.

  • In its guidelines, TED blithely mixes authority arguments and scientific arguments. However, those two types of arguments are incompatible, if the argument of authority can have any value.

    Personally, I find that TED conferences are shows. I prefer to read, which allows me to think in peace, and to check the sources. There is so much bullshit in “science” that the work of criticism is a thousand times more important than the work of “discovery”.

  • Number of deaths in the USA in 2010:

    Homicides: 12,996 (1)
    Hypnotics: 320,000-507,000 (2)

    Legal crimes are MUCH more deadly than unlawful crimes.

    Our society is obsessed with delinquency and deviance, but in fact, legal and normal acts are MUCH more dangerous.

    Sources:

    (1)
    Murder victimes, FBI

    (2)
    Kripke DF, Langer RD, Kline LE. Hypnotics’association with mortality or cancer: a matched cohort study. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000850. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000850

  • You are absolutely right, except on one point: non-medical psychotherapists have never usurped the function of psychiatrist. If psychiatrists are involved in drug trafficking, it is their responsibility, not ours.

    There is indeed a link between psychoanalysis and advertising, and this link is called: Edward Bernays. You probably know his most famous book: Propaganda. A very interesting book.

  • Still analogies …

    Opioid addiction is a biologically objective fact, while the acceptance or non-acceptance of pornography or “social networks” is a fact of culture, which has nothing to do with it.

    There is no doubt that psychiatrists, in an appropriate cultural environment, would declare that Victor Hugo is dependent on writing, Pierre de Fermat dependent on mathematics, and Albert Einstein on theoretical physics.

    The addiction that psychiatrists do not recognize is addiction to psychiatry. Yet, it’s easy to prove from their own point of view: psychiatrists do psychiatry all day, they can not do without it, as soon as we are told they have to stop they get angry and go deeper into psychiatry.

    We must treat them, the poor, and give them their own drugs against addiction.

  • Reduce school budgets is an excellent thing. Have you ever read Ivan Illich?

    The school is not a better institution than the psychiatric hospital: always the same disciplinary and inhuman environment.

    It is not surprising that the school collaborates with psychiatry: the same authoritarian and aristocratic blood flows in their veins.

  • Do “Sexual assault is a significant issue on college campuses” ?

    According to the cited study:

    “Findings on the prevalence of sexual victimization on college campuses varied significantly among studies, making it difficult to synthesize results across the 34 studies.”

    “Among studies measuring completed rape, defined as forcible vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse using physical force or threat of force (n 1⁄4 9), prevalence findings ranged from 0.5% (S12) to 8.4% (S21) of college women”

    “Findings for studies measuring attempted rape, defined as attempted vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse using physical force or threat of force (n 1⁄4 3), were comparable and ranged from 1.1% to 3.8% (S6, S10, and S14) of college women.”

    Uncertainty about the actual prevalence of sexual assault is very high.

    Personally, I had never heard of sexual assault at the university before the “sexual panic” of recent years. I do not believe that sexual assaults are more or less important at university than elsewhere, nor that a great change has taken place in recent years.

  • Money opens all doors …

    The trouble is that the money of the opponent opens even more easily these doors.

    It is a problem that money can guide research, because even if you have successfully lobbied (good for antipsychiatry), the psychiatric industry is doing the same thing and has more money than you.

    This illustrates a fundamental problem.