Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Comments by Sylvain

Showing 100 of 164 comments. Show all.

  • 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.


    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.


    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.”


  • 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.”


  • 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)


    > 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.”


    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.


  • 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!


    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.


    “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) https://davidhealy.org/benefit-risk-madness-antipsychotics-and-suicide/

    Healy, D., Whitaker, C. (2003). Antidepressants and suicide:risk-benefit conundrums (html) J Psychiatry Neurosci 2003;28(5) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC193979/

  • 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: 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

  • 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.

    Source: https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/suicide-rates.htm

    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%.

    Source: https://sci-hub.bz/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2004.01484.x

  • 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.