Thursday, July 19, 2018

Comments by Sylvain

Showing 100 of 120 comments. Show all.

  • 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!


    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.

  • 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.


    “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.


    Murder victimes, FBI

    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.

  • Two other important biases can be cited.

    Due to the immense social pressures to continue taking neuroleptics, some patients may continue to buy the drugs without consuming them.

    In the Vermont study, in-depth interviews revealed that two-thirds of patients who were reported to have regular medication were lying.

    Still due to social pressures to continue taking neuroleptics, some patients are readmitted to hospital when their family or psychiatrist discovers they have stopped their treatment, even if they do not relapse.

    This is a common measure in France.

    See my comment on the other publication.

  • Extract from a compulsory outpatient care program, in France (translation):

    “Mr. X is also informed that a complete hospitalization may be proposed in the event of non-compliance with this program that could lead to a deterioration of his state of health.”

    “may be proposed” means “will be proposed to the director of the hospital”. It is obviously not the patient who decides. As you can see, there is no need for a relapse to be rehospitalized: disobedience is enough.

  • From which country do the data come from?

    In France, there is a psychiatric practice according to which a person who stops compulsory outpatient treatment will be readmitted “even if he has not relapsed”.

    Thus, if this study had been conducted in France, the “relapse rate” of dropouts would have been artificially inflated well beyond the real relapse rate.

    Note that this psychiatric rule is not legal: it has already been condemned by the courts. But that’s what is done. It is explicitly written on outpatient care programs.

    There is enormous social pressure, overwhelming social pressure for the continuation of treatment “ad vitam eternam”: from psychiatry, from family and from state.

    Thus, those who openly stop neuroleptics are the most crazy of all, because they know they will be rehospitalized by their family or by the state. This circle of rehospitalization, release, abrupt cessation of neuroleptics and rehospitalization is the most vicious of all and probably leads to the highest rate of suicides.

    A madman who has a minimum of intelligence will necessarily stop in secret. He will continue to buy the drugs (anyway, it’s free for “sick people”), but he will not consume them. And he will be proud to tell his family: “Look how I feel better! It’s thanks to the good care of Dr. X!”

    In the well-known Vermont study, in-depth interviews revealed that two-thirds of patients who reported taking regular medication were lying.

    “Seventy-five percent of the subjects stated they were complying with their regimes, but field interviewers were eventualy told, after hours of interview time had elapsed, that the actual compliance pattern was closer to the following: about 25% of the subject always took their medications, another 25% self-medicated when they had symtoms, and the remaining [25%] used none of their medications.”

    The Vermont Longitudinal Study of Persons With Severe Mental Illness, II: Long-Term Outcome of Subjects Who Retrospectively Met DSM-III Criteria for Schizophrenia

    Up to one-third of people buying drugs may not actually take them at all, and these people may have the lowest rate of relapse because they are also the smartest. This will artificially inflate the recovery rate in the allegedly compliant group.

    Due to ignorance of common strategies for escaping psychiatry, this study has a powerful bias. It is therefore not surprising that its results are contrary to those of the Harrow study or the Vermont study. In-depth interviews, a relationship of trust with the investigators avoids these biases.

  • Long-term efficacy studies are the ultimate weapon against psychiatry. Indeed, the side effects are easy to prove; so if the drugs are not effective, consumers ask themselves: “all this for nothing?”

    And we can answer them:

    “Not quite for nothing: your condition has become much worse, and some people have gained a lot of money thanks to you. So, everyone was not losing.”

  • > Anybody can talk to another human being about their problems, life in general.

    I think that is incorrect. Psychotherapy has developed and professionalized precisely because people have become devoid of empathy and listening. To transform a quality into a commodity, you must first strip humanity of that quality. So it becomes possible to sell it.

    But this spoliation is not the fault of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy is the consequence of this spoliation.

    “Finally, there came a time when everything that men had considered as inalienable became an object of exchange, of traffic and could be alienated. This is the time when the very things which till then had been communicated, but never exchanged; given, but never sold; acquired, but never bought – virtue, love, conviction, knowledge, conscience, etc. – when everything, in short, passed into commerce. It is the time of general corruption, of universal venality, or, to speak in terms of political economy, the time when everything, moral or physical, having become a marketable value, is brought to the market to be assessed at its truest value.”

  • You mean that an educated psychiatrist will be less harmful?

    First, that a psychiatrist is stupid, it’s normal. 10 years of skull stuffing at the university will make psychiatrists the fools that insurance and pharmaceutical industries need.

    Then I am often stupefied by the ignorance of psychiatrists, even in areas that they are supposed to master a little. Their knowledge of pharmacology is simply wrong. They believe only what they learn in pharmaceutical industry conferences, where they receive a lot of gifts. They NEVER study scientific research, they are unable to lead a serious discussion on the subject. They are complete empiricists: give the right of prescription to a carpenter and he will not do more damage than a psychiatrist.

    Their knowledge in ethnology, sociology and psychology are extraordinarily weak, in any case, they rarely use them. Their sensitivity and empathy are very much below average. Although the DSM is decried, in France, psychiatrists do not even use this reference for their diagnoses! They do not use any standard test! They do no use scales to evaluate progress or degradation of patients! This is the most complete arbitrary.

    But why are psychiatrists so stupid? Because they have no interest, no need to be smart. A “bad” psychiatrist does not lose his clients since he can force them to take his treatments. In addition, everything is repayable! It’s not the psychotherapists who will compete with him… In the end, the more he manages to deceive his clients and himself, the more he makes his clients dependent and disabled, the more he will get rich.

    He does not need to be intelligent, and the intelligence would risk giving him some scruples, contrary to his interest.

  • ==================
    “Money is the sinews of war”

    I can not approve you because insurance is a way to control and develop pharmaceutical drug trafficking, not to save money.

    Individual expenditure vs. overall expenditure

    Certainly, an insurer does not have an interest in the increasing the health expenses of a particular client. However, he has interest in a global increasing of health spending, in order to adjust its fees on this increase. This is the paradox of insurance: limit fraud for each individual, but increase overall spending.

    Caste of privileged

    On the other hand, insurers organize the “mental health” market to maximize their long-term profits. For this, they need agents in the place. These principal collaborators are psychiatrists: they have a solid corporation that has the hands on hospitals and the prescription of neurotoxic drugs. In addition, they do not spit on money and know very well how to keep their customers, through institutionalization and legal addiction. That’s why they are very well reimbursed.

    They are a caste of privileged people who structure the market.

    Then come the graduate psychologists working in the hospitals, who enjoy some privileges.

    Finally, non-graduated psychotherapists who have no advantage and have to cope with hard work.

    The struggle for middle class privileges will not change the dictatorship of the psychiatric institution, the pharmaceutical industry and the health insurances. On the contrary, it will weld the professionals better in the same financial interest, it will strengthen the hierarchy.

    Veblen’s Sabotage

    You start from the assumption that the goal of the “mental health” industry is the improvement of “mental health”. Not at all: like any capitalist enterprise, the goal is profit, and only profit. But it turns out that overall, at the scale of a whole system, pharmaceutical drug trafficking is the most profitable for health insurance, psychiatrists and of course the pharmaceutical industry. If it causes more destruction than construction, it does not matter. If we could not make a profit with the destruction, then why the war? Why drug trafficking? Why pollution? We often make more profit by destroying than by building and in general, we often make a mixture of both.

    The economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen has developed a theory on sabotage, or how to make profit by being less efficient by the organization of the monopoly, especially via the financial sector of which insurance is part. Thus the psychiatry has developed as it has become less and less effective and more and more harmful.

    That’s why I think we must not refund psychotherapists, but stop refunding psychiatrists and psychotropic drugs. We must abolish privileges, not create new ones. Privileges reinforce hierarchy, which is organized in order to maximize profits; and to maximize profits, you have to sell drugs.

  • “Psychiatric drugs save lives” is a meaningless phrase. But what are we talking about? Suicide, of course. It is well known that neuroleptics and antidepressants increase the risk of suicide. To say that neuroleptics and antidepressants “could” reduce the risk of suicide in some people is as doubtful, as implausible as saying that soaking one’s wound in a putrid swamp “could”, in some cases, improve the healing.

    But then why do some people claim that psychiatric drugs saved their lives? Here is my answer:

    People unable to take responsibility for their deaths are also unable to take responsibility for their survival.

    Just as they attribute to a “disease” the suffering of their lives, they attribute to a drug the responsibility for their survival. But this opinion is similar to that of the savage who believes that his wound has been healed because a sorcerer has put a dirty ointment on it. In reality, the ointment has increased the risk of infection, but as the wound has healed anyway, the savage attributes it to the ointment.

    These false beliefs about psychiatric drugs are only the extension of the disempowerment of patients, the need for unreality, especially on sensitive topics such as life and death.

    These beliefs are understandable, but if we want to be responsible for death and survival, we must stick to science.

    Healy, D. (2012). Benefit Risk Madness: Antipsychotics and Suicide (html)

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

  • Light therapy is not a real therapy, but a means of neutralizing the deleterious effect of artificial light by mimicking natural light. It is rather a useful technology in a society where buildings hide sunlight and artificial light is omnipresent.

    Light therapy, music therapy, work therapy, environmental therapy: what is part of the culture is transformed into “therapy”. That does not mean that all these things are bad, but simply that the psychiatric environment turns them into commodities.

  • In the end, Lawrence Kelmenson is right: institutional disempowerment is more serious than psychiatric drug addiction.

    @Richard D. Lewis

    The “victims” do not exist: there are only social conflicts and the notion of “victim” and “persecutor” is a view of the mind. Besides, the roles can change.

    We must stop thinking of people as victims, and ourselves as saviors! Of course, we can help people, but not beyond certain limits; on the other hand, we can not help someone who does not want to help himself. I’m really tired of these psychotics who, using the pretext of a trauma (which is real), make fools to be hospitalized and then be saved by a good Saint-Maritain!

    Psychotics are responsible for their actions, whether they like it or not, and we must not encourage them to indulge in irresponsibility.

    “Poor little thing, he’s sick, he’s weaning, he’s intoxicated!” No! We can help them, but not beyond a certain limit. Their actions have their consequences: enough mothering!

  • According to Daniel F Kripke (2012):

    “Rough order-of-magnitude estimates at the end of the supplemental files suggest that in 2010, hypnotics [including benzodiazepines] may have been associated with 320,000 to 507,000 excess deaths in the USA alone.”

    By comparison, tobacco, the leading cause of preventable death, causes the premature death of 480,000 people a year.

  • “Drink or drive, you must choose.” Why is it not the same for guns? It seems obvious that an addict, whether taking legal or illegal drugs, should not have access to a firearm until he has completely finished his withdrawal (at least 6 months after having totally stopped ).

    You take alcohol, you can not drive.

    You take drugs, you can not shoot.

    A certain number of dangerous activities require to be in full possession of its means: this implies to withdraw the license to drive or the license of the weapon to the alcoholics and the addicts!

  • Thank you for this analysis.

    Does Pies also exclude the issue of violence in his article? It seems to me that it is not a coincidence that you cite the example of two people fighting in the street to question the relationship between biology and sociology.

    Everything is a combat, everything is a struggle, and psychiatry is involved in this fight that stretches to flatten and smooth out social conflicts, by violence, if necessary. The biological explanation of social conflicts must be apprehended as a particularly brutal symbolic violence.

  • $ 5500 a month is still ridiculously expensive, and the men’s soteria house has its door locked. Whitaker also points out that these houses are run by repentants of biological psychiatry. There are valid reasons for being extremely circumspect.

    In my case, my income was 470 € per month (US $ 580), and now I have no income, I live on my savings. I have a problem with the fact they are spending so much money on the pretext that they are psychotic, whereas Soteria homes are supposed to be communities with extremely low fees.

    What I say is irrelevant? I sincerely ask the question. In France, I see officials who earn more than 8,000 € ($ 9,700) a month to drug their patients to death, and who always demand more money and staff under their control. It is the psychiatric dictatorship, with associated privileges. Meanwhile, I have a psychotic at home, who pays 200 € rent (250 $) and 240 € for food and services (290 $).

    In addition to the “therapeutic” aspect – which I think is a fiction, a stupidity – I see the economic aspect, with people who earn money with the psychosis of others, and psychotics who earn ” disabled allowances “. As far as I am concerned, I have supported and I support many psychotics, and I have not earned anything as money.

    From my point of view, psychiatry is a huge swindle, the legalized mafia. Both psychiatrists and psychotics are crooks. Families are opportunists. It is a huge machine to brew money, sell drugs, marginalize the “abnormal” people and indulge in a career of sick.

    Because being psychotic is a profession. It’s a shitty profession, it’s not much paid, but a profession anyway. It’s part of the division of labor. You are crazy, I am a psychiatrist, and together we trade drugs, psychiatric prisons and pump a maximum of wealth from society. For you, 810 € per month ($ 990), for me, 8000 € (9700 $).

    The real background of Soteria is the absence of psychiatry, the absence of psychotherapy: you put people in community, and they manage. If people do not reject each other anymore, where is the madness? There is no more psychotherapy, and there is no more madness either. You adapt society to what people are, you do not try to adapt people to society. So people stop going crazy.

  • Thank you for your article, Mr Whitaker.

    In France, the psychiatric hospital day costs between 500 and 1,000 € per day per person (between $ 600 and $ 1200), that is to say between 15,000 and 30,000 euros per month (between $ 18,000 and $ 37,000)

    It is much more expensive than in Israel. The question is: how is it possible to achieve such high costs?

    Here is my answer:

    The psychiatric hospital functions like any institution in a bureaucratic society: its ultimate goal is to grow indefinitely. When a day of hospitalization costs 100 € per person, it is simply a stage in its development; later, it will cost 200, then 500 and 1000 euros, without upper limit. It is only the competition between the institutions, and the limits of the state budget that governs the growth of expenditures, I would say the waste of the state.

    Also the argument that Soteria houses are “cheaper” than the psychiatric hospital is fundamentally irrelevant. The civil servants defend the reduction of the budget of the institutions only if:

    1) The state budget is decreasing globally, and then it is necessary to make budget cuts (and yet institutions like to borrow more than reason)

    2) the money saved somewhere can be reinjected elsewhere (this is what happened when they closed the psychiatric hospitals to reinject the money into drugs of the pharmaceutical industry).

    I do not think that moral principles will move psychiatry; I would even say it’s a baroque idea.

    Basically, we must be aware that we live in a bureaucratic and competitive society, with institutions that want to grow indefinitely under the principles of “state capitalism”.

  • Objectively, to solve an insomnia, it is necessary to stop working. We must sleep when we are sleepy, even when socially or economically it is not the moment. After having solved the sleep deficit, you have to wait to gradually recalibrate. It takes a while.

    The problem of insomnia is rather a social problem, at different levels. How can society tolerate you being tired “at the wrong time”? Do you need to sleep “at the wrong time”? This is where sleeping pills come in.

    It does not matter that sleeping pills exacerbate insomnia in the long run, and causes all sorts of problems: sleeping pills, like all psychiatric products, are disciplinary instruments. Employers can not allow their employees to leave their job for insomnia – which, objectively, would be the best thing to do – as it would be too much for absenteeism.

    Absenteeism at work is one of the essential factors of bad medicine.

  • Psychiatry does not like the theory of evolution. Indeed, if some “mental illnesses” are “genetic”, then they could not have a prevalence as huge as that advocated by psychiatrists, because natural selection would have reduced it to almost nothing for a long time.

    On the contrary, “psychic disorders” increase extremely rapidly (according to the psychiatrists) which is contradictory with the genetic hypothesis. To preserve this hypothesis, it would be necessary to pretend that the deficiating genes are spreading in the population, but that is simply eugenics, not darwinism.

    The latent eugenics of psychiatry is not compatible with the principle of natural selection, and so is not scientific.

  • “And I can assure you from my experience, no government I can imagine would ever even start on this process.”

    A revolutionary dictatorship can do that. During the revolution, all the services of the bourgeois state are stopped brutally, and the revolutionary state sets up only the services which are immediately useful to it. Naturally, setting up psychiatric hospitals is the least of the worries of a revolutionary state.

    “But the reality is that closing departments of psychiatry would itself cost far more than any hoped-for savings.”

    Closing departments of psychiatry is free. Repressing psychiatry costs a little money. Psychiatry is weak without the support of the police: they have no weapons. Block totally bank accounts of the psychiatry, and see those “coming out of the woodwork”. Put them under arrest.

    On the weaning:

    The revolution will provoke an economic crash such that the question of weaning will be very secondary. At best, two to six months of psychotropic drugs will be given, dependent on patients and doctors to do the weaning. In any case, the industrial production of psychotropic drugs will be stopped because the whole economy will be oriented towards the civil war.

    You can not conceptualize the abolition of psychiatry because your mind is not brutal enough. Abolishing psychiatry is like take the Bastille.

    I do not feel that Robert Nikkel caricatures my vision, but rather that he does not go to the end of his thought.

    I thank Robert Nikkel for frankly asking that kind of questions.

  • There was a disaster. 🙁 The failure of the German revolution, Stalinism, purges … A century of nomenclatura and opportunism on all continents, and idiots who shout: “kill the state but leave it alive!” Killing the state involves destroying institutions, and theoretically differentiating institutions from social functions.

    Are not identical:

    _ school and education,
    _ hospital and health,
    _ police and order.

    Otherwise, no institution can be destroyed and therefore the state either!

    “And above all, preserve the employment of the officials!” Even the libertarians are teaching us: we are ridiculous. 🙁 The “Marxists” of our time are statist and reformist, not revolutionaries.

  • I am a Marxist and I say that psychiatry is a state institution aimed at repressing legal deviance, alongside prison which represses illegal deviance. As a Marxist, I call for the abolition of the state, that is, the destruction of all its institutions, including psychiatry.

    An institution is an organization that has been given the monopoly of a social function. By this monopoly, the institution presents itself as irreplaceable, and imposes on us the views and the ways of the ruling class, for which it works. But we must not confuse the institution with the social function. Destroy institutions without fear, and immediately create new organizations that match your aspirations and needs. You will realize that you can live independently and freely, and that you do not need institutions.

    Those who oppose your autonomy and your freedom, destroy them by violence. Organize yourself in army, and remove the enemies of your freedom. If you do not, the state will rebuild and crush you; he will destroy everything you have built and will indoctrinate your children against you. But if you fight, you will never be enslaved: you will live free and you will die free, whatever happens.


  • The “first-episode psychosis” has existed since the dawn of time, especially through shamanism. How is it that nobody noticed that the FEPs killed 1 in 50 people in less than 1 year? Is there any ethnological documentation on shaman mortality? 1 in 20 people in the 26-30 age group!

    I am sorry, but in ethnology, such mortality of shamans should have been seen as the nose in the middle of the figure. Schoenbaum’s numbers are very odd.

  • Wait: 2%?

    This is in Table 2 p. 4.

    annual mortality rate, %:

    Age 16-30: 1.968%

    Age 16-20: 0.531%
    Age 21-25: 2.125%
    Age 26-30: 5.263%

    It sounds absurdly high. It is of the same order of the Sakel cure.

    “information on cause of death was not available for this study”

    “the MPCD restricted access to data on cause and manner of death.”

    “In the year after index, 61% of the cohort filled no antipsychotic prescriptions”

    It’s weird. I live in France and I have never met a single psychotic who had not been prescribed neuroleptics.

    “On an annualized basis, decedents had more hospitalizations than survivors (mean of 4.3 vs 1.3, respectively; P < .01), and more ED visits (mean of 4.2 vs 2.2; P < .01); while they had lower medication use in all psychotropic categories, as well as lower use of all types of psychotherapy."

    This is very very weird. When you are forcibly hospitalized, you receive many more psychotropic drugs than when you are outside. In addition, many outpatients do not take the medications prescribed for them.

    “MPCD data do not permit evaluation of possible causal links between low rates of treatment, the quality of services, and high mortality or manner of death among psychosis patients.”

    This study is interesting but it contains gaps and quirks.

  • What you write is very correct.

    On the efficacy of psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia, see for example the Jääskeläinen study (2012)

    recovery rate of schizophrenics:

    1941-1955: 17.7% (pre-neuroleptic era)
    1996-2012: 6% (era of neuroleptics)

    middle and low income countries: 36.4%
    high-income country: 13.0%

    The more psychiatry develops, the worse are its results.

    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:

  • You start to get bored with your obsession with discipline. It is parents and teachers who deserve to be disciplined, not children.

    Adults are completely unable to control their behavior with children. They regress. They maintain sado-masochistic relations with them: they impose arbitrary rules and punish them when they do not respect them.

    Is this how we treat human beings? We do not even treat animals like that. He who punishes his dog to make it obey is a bad master; he who dreams of abandoning it or of delivering it to the pound to manage it is an execrable master.

    Natural authority comes from good advices and good rules. If the orders are good for the community and their transgression causes problems, then the community will correct itself by operant conditioning. It is good, moreover, that the rules are sometimes transgressed: this makes it possible to check if a rule is justified or if it must be amended. If there is transgression, there is no fault, there is conflict: and there is no reason to take the side of the rule rather than the transgression. A new agreement must be found if one part of the community conflicts with the other, and there are many without the need for violence: reparation, forgiveness, exception, discussion, new rule… If part of the community feels compelled to use force to enforce its own rules, this community does not deserve to survive. Let it be warned that violence will respond to violence if it seeks to impose rules that do not suit the entire community.

  • This way of testing psychotropic drugs makes no sense and is thoroughly dishonest. There is no doubt that opiates would have “excellent results” on depression if they were tested in the way that antidepressants or now neurleptics are.

    Turning people into addicts because they have had problems is a criminal social choice determined by the sordid rapacity of psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry. All drug dealers should be put in jail, especially psychiatrists and industry executives.

  • According to Daniel F Kripke, Robert D Langer, and Lawrence E Kline, hypnotics would kill in the United States between 320000 and 507000 people in 2010. This is ten times more than the number of deaths by overdose of the current opioid crisis, and only comparable to the first cause of avoidable mortality: tobacco (480,000 deaths).

    It’s really a lot. What to think of this study?

  • How not to think of Winnicott’s transitional object: dolls, teddies? Producers of video games have understood the players sometimes spent long time to customize their avatars, that is to say, to play the doll. Even without customizing the avatar, the players address the character they play by ordering it to jump, to accuse it of having failed, etc. The transitional object allows one to exteriorize one’s emotions on an external object, and to learn how to control them. It is therefore not surprising avatar therapy has favorable results.

    Thus avatar therapy is not totaly new, but its form is adapted to the modern culture and the age of the participants.

  • Indeed, I think psychiatrists’ actions are crazy.

    One must be foolish to imagine implanting a microchip into the brains of traumatized people to control their emotions and behavior through artificial intelligence.

    “AI-controlled brain implants for mood disorders tested in people”

    “Brain implants that deliver electrical pulses tuned to a person’s feelings and behaviour are being tested in people for the first time. Two teams funded by the US military’s research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), have begun preliminary trials of ‘closed-loop’ brain implants that use algorithms to detect patterns associated with mood disorders. These devices can shock the brain back to a healthy state without input from a physician.”

    It sounds like paranoid delirium, but that’s what DARPA psychiatrists really do.

    The results, as one might expect, are catastrophic, abominable: psychiatrists also refuse to publish them in peer-reviewed journals. And yet they are always asking for more volunteers to participate in their Frenkeistein experiences:

    “Chang and his team are ready to test their new single closed-loop system in a person as soon as they find an appropriate volunteer, Sani says. Chang adds that the group has already tested some closed-loop stimulation in people, but he declined to provide details because the work is preliminary.” (i.e.: catastrophic)

    These people’s actions are absolutely crazy, not like “schizophrenics” or “bipolar”, but like the criminal doctors practicing in the concentration camps or in the MK-ULTRA project.

    Controlling people’s minds with artificial intelligence is just crazy, it’s fascist madness funded by a state that dreams of a totalitarian society of science fiction.

  • > They would call 911 even though no one was in physical danger, and local police would cart me away in an ambulance.

    It works like that in France too. A friend was hospitalized 17 times by this way. But we phoned the psychiatrist and recorded the conversation. He confessed:

    _ acting at the mother’s instigation,
    _ never have met the patient,
    _ in violation of the medical confidentiality, obtaining a psychiatric hospital’s file, in order to give to his false certificate an appearance of authenticity.

    We also have:
    _ recorded the mother’s confession,
    _ prove the accusations of violence written by another psychiatrist were a lie by recording statements from the father and the mother that they had not been assaulted by their son. Lies, lies, only lies and accomplices psychiatrists.

    We filed a complaint, it was accepted, there is a police investigation currently. With such solid evidences, we are certain to get all these bastards sentenced.

  • Be careful, you have to put these numbers in perspective.

    The suicide rate in the United States was 14.3 per 100,000 in 1977 and then decreased to 10.8 in 2000. From 2001, it has gone up again to 13.4 in 2014.

    The suicide rate in the United States varies slightly compared to other OECD countries. For example, the suicide rate in Hungary was 28.6 per 100,000 in 1960, rose to 49.7 in 1981, then plummeted to 18.10 in 2014.


    In addition, we must not forget this:

    Do nations’ mental health policies, programs and legislation influence their suicide rates?
    An ecological study of 100 countries

    Philip Burgess, Jane Pirkis, Damien Jolley, Harvey Whiteford, Shekhar Saxena

    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.
    Key words: mental health policies, mental health programs, suicide prevention, suicide.

    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2004; 38:933–939


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

    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 p. 5 (extract)

    Malee and female, total % Adjusted percentage change in suicide rates
    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%**

    All things being equal, the development of psychiatry and the consumption of “therapeutic” psychotropic drugs lead to a 7% to 11% increase in the suicide rate, while a policy of prevention of drug addiction decreases the suicide rate by 11%.


  • One of the most vicious, perverse and harmful aspects of psychiatry is its hypocrisy. Indeed, when an institution presents itself openly as a punishment, like prison, you know what to expect, and you can prepare your psychological defense for your stay.

    But in psychiatry, psychiatrists start by disarming you psychologically. They present themselves as doctors. They declare you unfit, invalid. They promise to take care of you. Then they brutalize you like a sub-human: you are drugged until drooling on the ground, you are locked in an isolation cell, you are tied to a bed. And again and again, they say they take care of you, they do you good, and so on.

    It’s the pinnacle of vice, the sadistic perfection. This is the maximum double bind of the executioner.

    The ethnopsychiatrist Devereux emphasizes trauma is not proportional to the violence, but to the relationship between psychological and cultural defenses on the one hand and the violence on the other. Thus, the more the psychiatrists present themselves as good, respectable, respectful and human – in contradiction with what they really are – more powerful will be the trauma, more serious and more prolonged will be the psychosis.

  • Ridiculous. So psychiatric coercion needs to be “respectful” and “humane”? I will tell you what we really need. We need to be avenged. Criminals must be punished relentlessly.

    Psychiatrists and their subordinates must be punished as if they were neither psychiatrists nor subordinates. Their actions must be appreciated in complete independence from their official function.

    Thus, forced hospitalization must be punished as kidnapping and forcible confinement. Forced treatment, isolation and restraint must be punished as torture.

    The fact it is “legal” today will not be an excuse, but rather an aggravating circumstance. They are complicit in an authoritarian state, and the “Nuremberg Defense” will not be tolerated.

  • Imagin this poster:


    [big picture of Kim, black and white]

    [big black swatiska]


    Posters everywhere.

    Brutal vicious Nazi bureaucrats must be brutalized by relentless denunciation campaigns.

  • Bah! I see what you mean, but frankly, you’re wrong. In my experience, using an accurate and brutal argumentation is very effective in getting supporters together. You do not need to receive tenderfeet support.

    However, nothing prevents from running two campaigns simultaneously: hard and soft. I am in France, but if I was at university in Great Britain, I would propose to tenderfeet to run the soft campaign, while I would do the hard campaign.

  • I understand your criticism. The purpose of the whistleblowing campaign is not only to expose the harm of the program, but to actually hurt the officials and raise the students’ indignation against them. Anyone exercising state (or private) bureaucratic brutality should suffer the most violent brutality of the people in return.

    “Expel people with disabilities” really sound like a Nazi program. It’s very good. In order to distance ourselves from the institutional vocabulary, it is possible to use even more outrageous terms to expose the deep nature of the program:


    Names of officials participating in this program:




  • Before the extermination of the Jews, the Nazis began to expel them from the universities. The Holocaust began in 1941, while the Nazis took power in 1933.

    As a concrete action, I propose: a campaign of denunciation, and an active boycott.

    For the whistleblowing campaign, posters:


    Names of officials participating in this program:

    [List of names of key officials, including psychiatrists]


    Followed by a beautiful black swastika, clearly visible.

    Do not worry: a poster with the words “expulsion of disabled people” “Nazi bureaucrats” and a swastika will be read and will open a discussion on the subject.

    For the boycott campaign: Students are strictly forbidden to attend, to speak, to eat with the officials participating in the program. To help students who may be expelled as a result of this program, all useful and effective means must be used to prevent psychiatrists from meeting them.

    Personal denunciation campaigns must be implemented against psychiatrists named and identified with a photo. Example:





  • There is no evidence that psychotropic drugs lead to long-term improvement. In fact, there is evidences that psychotropic drugs degrade the situation in the long term, especially neuroleptics, antidepressants and anxiolytics.

    Therefore, saying that “Medication might be one of those tools” is wrong. Saying that “Medication might be one of those tools” is like saying: “Cosmetics on purulent wounds might be one of those tools”.

    Psychiatry is really a non-science, not a science that contains errors. Its treatments, methods, means of proof are absolutely similar to those of the marabous, the sorcerers, the shamans; psychiatrists also have exactly the same social function.

    We must stop, totally stop believing in these charlatans. A rational person can not take any of their prescription seriously: in fact, buying a $ 2,000 voodoo doll will actually be cheaper, more effective and less harmful than taking psychotropic drugs in the long run.

    As long as you do not understand this, you can not say you are really emancipated from psychiatry: you are as credulous as the people who go to see palmists and cartomancers.

  • Raped by Carl Jung? Nowhere does Sabina Spelrein write Jung has raped her. This is Angela Sells who is spreading this legend:

    > According to Sells, in a private interview, Spielrein described what Jung, her treating physician, did to her as “rape.”

    In a “private interview”? Where is the source? This is pure defamation.

    Spelrein’s letters do not suggest any rape anywhere.

    Do you realize how serious rape charges are? If Sabina Spielrein and Carl Jung were still alive, they would be perfectly right to sue Angela Sells for defamation. The rape charges should not be made lightly! Those who are spreading these accusations without evidence should be punished.

  • Maybe I did not understand the study, but it seems to me there is an obvious selection bias, because the study does not take into account spontaneous recovery and spontaneous improvements.

    Suppose a group of 300 people including 100 slightly psychotic, 100 moderately psychotic, and 100 seriously psychotic.

    Neither these 300 people nor their relatives are seeking psychiatric services. It should be clear that only the severely psychotic and the people who are degrading will eventually be hospitalized. People who improve greatly or recover fully will never come into contact with psychiatric services.

    As a result, people who are slow to contact psychiatric services will appear to be more affected than those who contact them immediately, even though the rate of recovery of those avoiding psychiatry is higher than those seeking their services.

    Could you give me your opinion on this bias?

  • In my entourage, some psychotics have stopped neuroleptics in this way:

    1) indeterminate will to stop neuroleptics, to emancipate themselves from the psychiatric system,

    2) study of advices from relatives, vulgarization and scientific literature about the long-term benefits and short-term risks of weaning,

    3) decision to stop in an indefinite time, when the person feels ready,

    4) Last injection. Taking neuroleptic pills only if worry, crisis or to reduce the withdrawal syndrome.

    5) Nil or very punctual consumption of neuroleptics.

    I think the first three steps are the most important. Weaning must be gradual, and the dose must be increased on demand, but the most important is the informed choice to stop, and the initiative comes from the person himself.

    I add that having a psychotic crisis is not a problem in itself. I have a friend who still lives with her angel and her demon, who has visions and voices but is capable of managing her crisis and working, by isolating herself for a while, or taking a punctual dose of neuroleptic. Note also some crises are very pleasant to her, or emotionally neutral, and there is therefore no reason to prevent them.

  • “Nonetheless, since sleep problems are associated so strongly with most psychiatric diagnoses, treating those issues with the top recommended method–CBT–is a no-brainer.”

    I don’t agree. The study shows TCB is superior to “usual care”, but the usual care may possibly be inferior to no treatment. In addition, CBT may possibly be inferior to a neutral stimulus from a medical point of view, for example the remittance of a sum of money.

    “Psychic treatments” are too expensive, the minimum is they are more effective than just giving their value in money. In the opposite case, it is better, in theory, to give the money directly, or to do nothing.

  • “That’s not at all clear. In a crisis, antipsychotic medication can be invaluable.”

    There is no doubt neuroleptics reduce psychotic symptoms in the short term.

    However, I do not know of any study that suggests neuroleptics are superior to the absence of neuroleptics beyond two years, whatever the posology. It is possible that taking neuroleptics even once in a crisis increases the risk of remaining psychotic beyond 2 years, compared to the absence of neuroleptic.

    We should find a study that compares a group “absolutely zero neuroleptic” to a group “neuroleptic in case of crisis”, and see who has the best results after 2 years.

    In my opinion, the group “Neuroleptic in case of crisis” will have superior results before 1 or 2 years, and lower after, for various reasons (habituation, withdrawal syndrome, psychosis of hypersensitivity, psychological dependence…). Neuroleptics will always be a neurological debt to be repaid with interest. There is no free credit.

  • Freud became interested in cocaine as early as 1883, and prescribed it to his patients to fight against morphine addiction and to face various psychological or social difficulties. It seems Freud became aware of the dangers of cocaine quite late in comparison with his colleagues, in 1895. One of Freud’s friends died because of his addiction to cocaine. I don’t know if Freud took back cocaine later because of his cancer.

  • “Depending on the situation, drugs might be part of the solution […] but drugs are not a good long-term solution”

    This is contradictory. If the drug is degrading the situation in the long run, it’s a bad idea from the start. With regard to neuroleptics, Harrow (2014, p.4) found the following results:

    % of schizophrenic patients still psychotic after 4 years:

    Never on neuroleptic: 7%

    Sometimes on neuroleptics: 46%

    Always on neuroleptics: 72%

    This strongly suggests even occasional neuroleptic intakes reduce the chances of long-term recovery, and the only acceptable dose of neuroleptics is zero.

    Taking drugs is like getting a debt: you may feel like you have a lot of money, but in reality you will have to pay everything back, and with the interest. And the longer you delay paying off your neurological debt – the longer you delay doing your withdrawal – the more debt you will accumulate and you have to pay more and more interest.

    Psychiatrists are usurers.

    Harrow, M., Jobe, T. H., Faull R. N. (2014) Does treatment of schizophrenia with antipsychotic medications eliminate or reduce psychosis? A 20-year multi-follow-up study. Psychological Medicine, Page 1 of 10. © Cambridge University Press 2014 doi:10.1017/S0033291714000610 Repéré à

  • Misandrous women often take the path of racism. In France, conservative feminists do not hate men “in general”, but rather Arab men. In Germany, the press talked a lot about New Year’s Eve in Cologne, during which hordes of immigrant men allegedly raped and sexually assaulted over a thousand women. All this was wrong: a coup by the police, the press and the far right.

    If to defend herself, a woman say: “I do not only hate Arab men, I hate all men!” It’s not really better.

  • This woman says she is almost 27 years old. In 27 years, it is simply impossible she has never met a single man who respects her. This would mean good men are so rare, that in 27 years of life it is possible to never meet them.

    If we compare with racism, it’s a bit like living in Africa, and saying you never met a black person who’s good enough to have a positive relationship with him or her.

  • Why not?

    Here is quotes of a letter to “The Cut”, the website in which masculinity is described as “toxic”.

    This letter is called “I hate men”.

    I only change the words “men” by “black men” and “women” by “white people”.

    “All this on top of the fact that most of black men in my neighborhood have hit on me at one point or another, and like every white people, I can’t leave the house without getting harassed and I am constantly underestimated for no reason other than the fact that I have a white skin.”

    And the original paragraph is:

    “All this on top of the fact that most of my male role models have hit on me at one point or another, and like every woman, I can’t leave the house without getting harassed and I am constantly underestimated for no reason other than the fact that I have ovaries.”

    You see, you don’t have to change many words to highlight the paranoiac fascism of the conservative feminism.

    “I really, really try to do things right and be open and friendly and receptive to the idea that someday a man might treat me like a human, but it just gets harder the older I get, and I can feel myself hardening as a result.”

    This is truly the words of a full of hatred, sadomasochist, misandric woman.

  • “Toxic masculinity”? Do you realize how misandrous this expression is? Are there classes to cure women of their “toxic femininity”? When a woman falsely accuses a man of sexual assault, is her feminity “toxic”? When secret services, political parties, and journalists make sex scandals out of thin air to bring down public figures, without evidence, without legal process, without presumption of innocence, do women involved in this sordid process have a “toxic femininity” and deserve to be “reeducated”?

    What hypocrisy! What double standard!

  • The question is on which review Ben Goldacre relies.

    We must be very cautious when citing a source, as an imprecise or erroneous quote may turn against us. Orally, it is acceptable to be wrong, but in writing we must scrupulously check the original source, and correct when the oral source is wrong.

    It seems that the study cited by Ben Goldacre is “Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy”. It denounces the publication bias, but not in the same way:

    Evidence-based medicine is valuable to the extent that the evidence base is complete and unbiased. Selective publication of clinical trials — and the outcomes within those trials — can lead to unrealistic estimates of drug effectiveness and alter the apparent risk–benefit ratio.

    We obtained reviews from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for studies of 12 antidepressant agents involving 12,564 patients. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify matching publications. For trials that were reported in the literature, we compared the published outcomes with the FDA outcomes. We also compared the effect size derived from the published reports with the effect size derived from the entire FDA data set.

    Among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published. Whether and how the studies were published were associated with the study outcome. A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 study viewed as positive was not published. Studies viewed by the FDA as having negative or questionable results were, with 3 exceptions, either not published (22 studies) or published in a way that, in our opinion, conveyed a positive outcome (11 studies). According to the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive. Separate meta-analyses of the FDA and journal data sets showed that the increase in effect size ranged from 11 to 69% for individual drugs and was 32% overall.

    We cannot determine whether the bias observed resulted from a failure to submit manuscripts on the part of authors and sponsors, from decisions by journal editors and reviewers not to publish, or both. Selective reporting of clinical trial results may have adverse consequences for researchers, study participants, health care professionals, and patients.

  • Low-Carbohydrate Diets have a considerable placebo effect because they dramatically alter the eating habits inscribed in Western culture: bread, rice, corn, potatoes, all the foods that constitute the traditional basis of the diet are replaced by oil, butter, cream, olives, almonds. The strict ketogenic diet also requires severe discipline in our cultural environment, which further increases the placebo effect.

    I’ve been trying a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for a month now, and it’s true the diet improves awakening and the clarity of mind, and it changes the body sensation, but it’s impossible to know if that’s the primary effect or the placebo effect. I also had a nocebo effect: for a week, I felt bad, my chest hurt; I went to see a doctor who told me I had nothing and immediately my pain is gone (fun, but true!).

    Low-Carbohydrate Diet is probably a good treatment for schizophrenia, because schizophrenia is not a real disease. If it avoids a neuroleptic treatment or it is with a gradual withdrawal, it’s all good. The favorable biological effect of ketones on schizophrenia is possible, but there is no doubt the placebo effect is large.

    The possible biological effect of the ketogenic or low-carb diet may possibly be tested as part of a gradual withdrawal from neuroleptics, but it must be compared to a very exotic diet to limit cultural bias: for example, an Indian or African diet for Europeans.

  • Jeffrey R. Vittengl monitored 20 psychological and social variables, including the severity of depression, and found that those who did not take antidepressants had significantly better results in the long run, all other things being equal.

    The pharmaceutical toxicomania is a problem that belongs to the culture and not to the medicine, even if doctors are involved in the drug traffic. Antidepressant consumption is similar to the recommended cocaine use by doctors in the early 20th century. Scientific denialism and the double standards regarding medical and illegal psychotropic drugs also belong to the culture.

  • You can access the study via

    Copy-paste DOI and let’s go.

    The article is not very detailed, and it is hoped the study will be subject of a more complete new publication, however it concludes that all conditions being equal, including the severity of the depression, people who do not undergo any psychiatric treatment have the best results in the long run.

    Notably, drug treatment has the worst negative effects on long-term symptoms of depression, and non-drug treatments have neutral effect, equal to no treatment at all.

  • Have you tried cocaine? Freud thought he had found the miracle drug before being confronted with side effects. There is always a period of romance at the beginning of addiction. Then we are disillusioned. What happened to cocaine is coming to antidepressants: it is now proven that antidepressants aggravate depression in the long run. If you do not want to believe in scientific research, it’s your right.

  • “Among persons with MDD [Major Depressive Disorder], symptoms were higher after inadequate treatment (d = 0.25), adequate treatment (d = 0.40), or treatment including medication ( d = 0.54) compared to no treatment, and symptoms were higher after treatment including medication versus treatment without medication ( d = 0.43), p s < 0.001. However, symptoms after treatment without medication were no longer elevated compared to no treatment, d = 0.11, p = 0.20."

    Hopefully there will be a new publication on this study because the effect size (d) is not a very visual number. It would take a graph: a picture is worth a thousand words.

    You say: "Psychotherapy, on the other hand, appeared to have no detrimental effects." It seems not to have a favorable effect either. It may be hard to admit, but psychotherapy seems to have, at best, a neutral long-term effect on severe depression. This suggests that psychotherapy, on average, does not have a better or worse effect than any other human relationship.

    We should therefore requalify psychotherapists: "expensive friends who take themself a little too seriously".

  • The school system is anti-human. Spending the whole day sitting in a chair listening to someone talking, doing exercises, being able to express yourselves only when you are allowed to do so and only on a controlled topic makes you completely crazy. It is not surprising that children jump at each other’s throats after undergoing similar treatment. I listened to my younger brothers talk to each other after school: a large part of their exchange consists of threats, insults and assaults. It disappears during the holidays.

  • This article does not report any evidence that anxiety has actually increased among adolescents.

    He brings the proof:

    1) that adolescent psychiatry has developed in recent years,

    2) that, on the occasion of this development, the psychiatric staff found a relative increase in adolescent anxiety complaints.

    The author recognizes:

    “While it’s difficult to tease apart how much of the apparent spike in anxiety is related to an increase in awareness and diagnosis of the disorder, many of those who work with young people suspect that what they’re seeing can’t easily be explained away.”

    It is then the author unknowingly gives the most plausible reason for the increase in diagnoses:

    “For the teenagers who arrive at Mountain Valley, a nonprofit program that costs $910 a day and offers some need-based assistance, the center is usually a last resort after conventional therapy and medications fail.”

    The prescription of anxiolytics increases anxiety in the long run. In addition, psychiatric staff offer anti-anxiety services at $ 910 per day. The circle is complete. For comparison, my income in France is € 472 per month, or $ 557 per month.

    “During one group session in the summer of 2016 in a sunlit renovated barn with couches, a therapist named Sharon McCallie-Steller instructed everyone to write down three negative beliefs about themselves.”

    It is typically the kind of command that will diminish the participants’ self-esteem.

    “That’s an easy exercise for anxious young people (“Only three?” one girl quipped), but McCallie-Steller complicated the assignment by requiring the teenagers to come up with a “strong and powerful response” to each negative thought.”

    After our dear McCallie-Steller has sparked three negative beliefs about ourselves, arousing the irony of one of the participants, she gives the order: “get off with that!”

    What a wonderful psychologist! She really deserves $ 90 an hour! And the more she is harmful, the more its “non-profit” institution will have customers and will be able to enrich itself! It’s the circle of virtue.

    “At Mountain Valley, Jake learned mindfulness techniques, took part in art therapy and equine therapy and, most important, engaged in exposure therapy, a treatment that incrementally exposes people to what they fear. The therapists had quickly figured out that Jake was afraid of failure above all else, so they devised a number of exercises to help him learn to tolerate distress and imperfection. On a group outing to nearby Dartmouth College, for example, Jake’s therapist suggested he strike up conversations with strangers and tell them he didn’t have the grades to get into the school. The college application process was a source of particular anxiety for Jake, and the hope was that he would learn that he could talk about college without shutting down — and that his value as a person didn’t depend on where he went to school.

    Though two months in rural New Hampshire hadn’t cured Jake of anxiety, he had made significant progress, and the therapy team was optimistic about his return home for his senior year. Until then, Jake wanted to help other Mountain Valley teenagers face their fears.“

    LOL. Another way to say that two months of “exposure therapy” is a total failure! $55510 spend for nothing, otherwise fattening ~§@!# like McCallie-Steller! Moreover, if the “therapy team” is now “optimistic” for him, it is precisely because he began to act like a “therapist”:

    “Among them was Jillian, a 16-year-old who, when she wasn’t overwhelmed with anxiety, came across as remarkably poised and adultlike, the kind of teenager you find yourself talking to as if she were a graduate student in psychology. Jillian, who also asked that her last name not be used, came to Mountain Valley after two years of only intermittently going to school. She suffered from social anxiety (made worse by cyberbullying from classmates) and emetophobia, a fear of vomit that can be so debilitating that people will sometimes restrict what they eat and refuse to leave the house, lest they encounter someone with a stomach flu.

    Jillian listened as Jake and other peers — who, in reality, liked her very much — voiced her insecurities: “I can’t believe how insignificant Jillian is.” “I mean, for the first three weeks, I thought her name was Susan.” “If she left tomorrow, maybe we wouldn’t even miss her.”

    At the last one, Jillian’s shoulders caved, and her eyes watered. “I don’t want to do this,” she said, looking meekly at McCallie-Steller.”

    McCallie-Steller is definitely a remarkable therapist. Faced with a person who suffers, she encourage Jake and the whole group to push the victim underground. But, you see, the band likes her a lot, it’s for her good that it does that! Double bind erected in a “therapeutic” system, for more schizophrenic relationships!

    And see the completely specious reasoning!

    “FIRST, she suffered from social anxiety, THEN this social anxiety made worse by bullying.”

    It’s obviously the opposite! How can one be so blind ?!

    Lay off therapists like McCallie-Steller and destroy institutions like Mountain Valley, and you’ll have a net decrease in anxiety and “anxiety diagnose” among young people.

  • _ Make thorough inquiries into the legality of questionable procedures,
    _ attack institutions in court,
    _ have them pay overwhelming compensation.

    If a person complains about the violation of their rights, investigate by calling the psychiatrists and nurses of the facility and record the conversation clandestinely. Talk to them in a friendly way, trying to get them to confess offenses. Call several people several times to compile as many offenses as possible, and waste their time. Never dismiss your “kindness”: find evidence by all legal means.

    Do administrative procedures. Ask for administrative documents that they are obliged to transmit to you, ask for procedures they are obliged to do, write to them and phone them again and again for the most complex and time-consuming procedures. The more complex is the procedure and the more time the administration wastes, the more likely it is to commit a procedural error, which may justify even more procedures. All the time and money lost in procedure can not be used in forced treatment.

    Make solid and reliable investigation files. Use them agains institutions, psychiatrists, nurses, etc. Ruin their reputation by publicly denouncing them, or attack them in court. By all legal means, ensure that forced treatment is associed with bad advertisement, procedures and trials as costly as possible.

  • > Which article?

    Leucht, S., & Davis, J. M. (2017a). Do antipsychotic drugs lose their efficacy for relapse prevention over time?

    > So why did you post it?

    LOL. Maybe I understand: you did not confuse me with SamSara? It’s SamSara who defended neuroleptics, not me! I harshly criticized SamSara in my censored comment. If that’s the case, it’s really fun! 😀

    But my comment will probably return, you will see what I really wrote.

  • “You claimed that this paper should use some other method that paitient safety.”

    There must be a misunderstanding. I am not an anglophone and it is possible that I did not express myself correctly.

    No, I think this article is crap, and there is no way to prove that neuroleptics are effective in the long run, since they are not. To my knowledge, all follow-up studies beyond two years prove without exception that neuroleptics aggravate psychosis in the long term, even when relatively little dose is taken.

  • Yes. But you see, Temper, my comment has been removed.

    When Murray compares Donald Goff to a creationist and is censored, it deserves an article on MIA.

    But when I say that Leucht & Davis are idiots because they claim to refute a study that lasted 20 years with a 1-year study meta-analysis, I deserve to be censored on MIA.

    Thus, MIA ridicules itself by complaining on the one hand that American Journal of Psychiatry remove the criticisms of pro-neuroleptic authors, and on the other hand remove my own criticism of pro-neuroleptic authors.

  • Pfff! You quote Leucht & Davis? Seriously? Come on!

    “There is a new debate about long-term treatment with anti-psychotics stimulated by data suggesting a dose-related brain volume loss, supersensitivity effects of long-term treatment with antipsychotics and some follow-up studies showing that patients who do not receive antipsychotics in the long-term have better outcomes than treated patients.

    In this context Takeuchi et al present an analysis of the symptom trajectories in relapse prevention studies over 1 year. In the placebo-treated groups they find a continuous worsening of approximately 50% over baseline of the mean Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)/Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores at 1 year, compared with an only 10% worsening of these scores in the antipsychotic group. This finding is important because it means that antipsychotic efficacy is maintained over time and should not be discontinued.”

    Thus, to contradict long-term studies (that of Harrow lasted * 20 YEARS *) Leucht & Davis cite a meta-analysis of studies lasted … 1 year ?! what a light of intelligence! What a brilliant mind! But where do they come from?

    Declaration of interest:
    In the past 3 years S.L. has received honoraria for consulting from LB Pharma, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and TEVA, for lectures from AOP Orphan, ICON, Janssen, Lilly, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Sanofi, Roche, and Servier, and for a publication from Roche.

    Ho! Ho! Ho! What a fine soldier of the pharmaceutical industry! And Takeuchi, the author of the meta-analysis?

    Declaration of interest:
    H.T. has received manuscript fees from Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma. O.A. has received speaker’s honoraria from Eli Lilly & Company USA, Eli Lilly Canada, Janssen-Ortho (Johnson & Johnson), Lundbeck, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sepracor Inc. and Sunovion, and consultant fees from BMS, Eli Lilly & Company USA, Eli Lilly Canada, Janssen-Ortho (Johnson & Johnson), Lundbeck, Novartis, Otsuka, Roche, Sepracor Inc. and Sunovion, and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Neurocrine Biosciences, Janssen-Ortho (Johnson & Johnson), Otsuka, Pfizer Inc. and Sunovion. G.R. has received research support from Novartis, Medicure and Neurocrine Bioscience, consultant fees from Laboratorios Farmacéuticos ROVI, Synchroneuron and Novartis, and speaker’s fees from Novartis.

    It’s even worse! Soldiers work by squadrons!

    And you could give us an declaration of interest, it could be interesting. Have you received invitations to industry conferences, with free trip, free meal or free hotel? Have you received any money for consulting services? Or gifts?

  • On a forum of “schizophrenics”, one person asked if dreaming of having a horse or flying in a fighter plane was a “grandiose delusion”.

    She explained she is a reserved nature, she has very few friends and does not speak much; one day she confided in her psychologist by telling him these two wishes, and her psychologist immediately replied that thinking like that was a psychotic symptom.

    She was very upset because she thinks she does the difference between dreams and reality; we reassured her on this point, I sent her pictures of horse and fighter plane and after she was better.

  • Correct.

    In 1880 in the United States, the prevalence of the insanity in the adult population (+20 years) was 0.34% (Census Office, 1888, p.23)

    In 2016 in the same country, adult prevalence (+18 years) with any mental illness was 18.3% (SAMHSA, 2017, p. 2129), or 54 times more, and with serious mental illness, 4.2 %, or 12 times more (SAMHSA, 2017, p. 2135).

    Psychiatry is a disaster on the way.

    Census Office (1888). Defective, dependent and delinquent classes of the population of United States, as returned to the thenth census (June 1, 1880). Washington, Government Printing Office. Retrieved at:

    SAMHSA (2017). Results from the 2016 national survey on drug use and health: detailed tables. Rockville, Maryland 20857. Retrieved at

  • Strictly speaking, Goff does not deserve an “answer” but a denunciation of his scientific negationism, the evidences of the deleterious effects of long-term neuroleptics are overwhelming, and long ago.

    However, I am surprised by the letter from Joanna Moncrieff and Stefan Priebe:

    “Patients’ decisions will be influenced by the probabilities of different outcomes and by their personal appraisals of these outcomes.”

    Do the psychotics in your country really have the choice to take neuroleptics or not?