Saturday, November 18, 2017

Comments by Sylvain

Showing 55 of 57 comments. Show all.

  • 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?

  • Certainly not. 🙂 Truth is the correspondence between thought and reality. Without truth, it is impossible to achieve results with consciousness, one remains in the imaginary and the legend. Without the truth, you can not send satellites into space or cure illnesses. Nor can you solve psycho-social problems like psychosis.

  • It is not just the private interests that block the scientific progress, but the “systems” of private interests.

    The Sakel cure was used for decades without any scientific proof, because it corresponded to a system of interests: those of physicians, nurses … They did not begin to take an interest in the effectiveness of the method before laying the foundations for a new system: neuroleptics. Yet the resistance of the old system was severe: nurses and nursing aides who had acquired an “expertise” in this field (and therefore privileges) were resolutely opposed to abandoning the method, the scientific evidences against them.

    A system of interests, unlike private interests, has no precise limits. The system of interests of neuroleptics affect for example the psychiatrists, the families, the pharmaceutical industry…

    That is why the struggle for science is also a political struggle for a new system. It is by changing the system that you change its ideology, although the ideological struggle can have its share in the system change.

  • Involuntary Outpatient Commitment already exists in France.

    Almost systematically, the psychiatrist orders IOC after Involontary Inpatient Commitment.

    If the patient does not respect his “care program”, the psychiatrist can send him the paramedics or the police to have him re-hospitalized.

    IOC is abolished only if the psychiatrist thinks that the patient will take his injections voluntarily. IOC can last for years, or eternally.

    The psychiatric monster is progressing all over the world.

    We must denounce by name the psychiatrists who practice the forced treatments, describe precisely what they do in order to ruin their reputation.

    We need a directory of psychiatrists who refuse barbaric or forced treatment. All psychiatrists who do not belong to this directory must be fought.

  • As with the pharmaceutical industry, the fundamental reason for the distribution of neuroleptics by psychiatrists is economic.

    1) Income

    Prescribing neuroleptics takes a maximum of 1/4 hour per patient.

    _ A psychotherapy session a minimum of 3/4 hour per patient.

    By prescribing neuroleptics, the psychiatrist triple his income.

    2) Social demand

    By prescribing neuroleptics, the psychiatrist effectively solves a social problem in 70% of cases in the short term. This is the one and only thing the society asks of him.

    3) Dependence

    After some months of treatment, if the person stops gradually, the “relapse” rate is doubled for 18 months (Wunderink, 2007). If the person stops suddenly, the relapse rate is 75% in only 3 weeks.

    By the neuroleptics, the psychiatrist is assured to retain a customer for many years. The legislation on forced and compulsory treatments plays exactly the same role.

    The psychiatrist acts exactly like a street dealer and the state, instead of repressing the dealer, forces the drug addict to consume his toxic.

    Addiction is not an undesirable effect for the psychiatrist: it is the very purpose of treatment.

    Thus the question of neuroleptics is far from being exclusively scientific: it is above all an economic, political and social question.

  • The introduction of medicine into the hospital is relatively recent: mid-19th century. Previously, hospitals served as an asylum for the poor, the aged and the disabled, who were often locked up by force. Then the hospital was divided into several institutions: retirement home, sanatorium, establishment for mentally deficients, etc. Most of these institutions have retained their function of social control for old people, mad people and homeless people.

    Psychiatry can not be scientific, because its function is not medical, but social. Capitalist society permanently created deviants that it can not integrate, these deviants (old people, homeless, disabled, mentally retarded, delinquents, etc.) are then locked up in institutions or sedated until their death.

    If you do not understand this, you can not understand why psychiatry also grossly refuses the scientific method and the medical ethic.

    Capitalism proceeds from the destruction of the community, the development of institutions, the division of labor and the atomization. “What is good for individuals” is the restoration of the community, such as Soteria or Pavilion 21. But the community is precisely the opposite of the institution. This is why “reforming the institution” has no meaning: the development of truly human relationships necessary for the disappearance of psychosis inevitably leads to the suppression of institutions.

  • Between 1933 and 1969, the number of admissions to psychiatric hospitals was greater than the number of discharges. Why then did the number of residents decline from 1955 onwards? Because the mortality rate was extremely high before 1969, and began to decline only from the 1970s.

    And why was the mortality rate very high before the 1970s? Because the demographic composition of psychiatric hospitals was totally different. Until 1946, the majority of hospitalized patients were admitted for organic psychoses: syphilis, cerebral atherosclerosis, senile dementia… The antibiotics has destroyed syphilis, the improvement of food safety has removed the psychoses caused by malnutrition, the senile people are now supported outside of psychiatric hospitals.

    Please, I need help to clarify these statistics, because I am not a specialist in documentary research. What is certain is that the decrease in the number of residents in psychiatric hospitals has absolutely nothing to do with the introduction of neuroleptics, but with a temporary increase in mortality, because until 1969 the number of admissions to psychiatric hospitals was greater than the number of discharges.

  • “Using oxygen and anesthesia on people while you’re shocking them raises the bar for how much shock you must administer in order to cause the seizure so it’s actually more dangerous now than it was in earlier decades.”

    Peter R. Breggin says too: “modern ECT requires even stronger and more damaging doses of electricity”. If possible, I would like to have some sources on that.

  • The action mechanism of electroshocks is not unknown: intracranial electrocution causes traumatic brain injury, that is the “effectiveness” and the ravages of the treatment. Electroshocks are a simple mutilation, visible after autopsy. Those who practice electroshock should be treated like excisers, that is, imprisoned without the possibility of escaping.

    Saying that electroshocks are good for some too depressed people is like saying that excision is good for some too sensual women.

  • In France, it already exists: it is called the “care program”. When you are discharged from a forced hospitalization, you are put into “care program”, which means you are obliged to go regularly to make you inject a delayed neuroleptic. If you do not do it, the psychiatrist can convert your “care program” into forced hospitalization, and the police come to you to embark you, if necessary by kicking down the door (because it is an “emergency”).

    This is French psychiatry.

  • “Early psychosis programs” are an obvious trojan horse for the “early medication programs”. It is so obvious that some psychiatrists do not hide it: Professor Patrice Boyer, former president of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA), claims an early pharmaceutical treatment before psychosis: for “bizarre”, “antisocial”, “aggressive” and “irritable” people (yes!).

    Many psychiatrists in Europe already apply this program by giving neuroleptics to non-psychotic people (i.e.: depressives, school dropouts …), and thus cause real psychosis after one or two years.

  • Drug addiction can be confused with psychosis because psychiatrists essentially test deviance in a very unspecific ways.

    For example, if an addict is brought against his will to a psychiatrist, he will likely have a high score on many PANSS items, because of the circumstances and therefore be qualified as psychotic.

    It is not so much that the addict “mimics” the psychotic, but rather that the psychiatrist confuses them in the same entity: deviance.

  • Harrow’s study merely shows schizophrenics are:

    _ 3 times more likely to be in recovery after 2 years,
    _ 8 times more likely to be in recovery after 15 years,

    if they take NO neuroleptics.

    (Harrow, 2007, pdf p. 5, figure 2)

    There is NO study that proves neuroleptics are effective in the long term, and yet this is the STANDARD treatment for over 50 years.

    There is A LOT of studies for compart one neuroleptic to another in the sort term, but virtually NONE to compare a neuroleptic to a placebo in the long-term.

    Neuroleptics are one of the largest scientific scams in all psychiatry: lifetime treatment simply has NO evidence of efficacy, yet it is the STANDARD treatment; almost all research money is invested to compare neuroleptics AMONG THEM, while NONE prove its long-term effectiveness against placebo!

    It’s a ridiculous bullshit, just like the insulin comas that NEVER prove their effectiveness, and that have been used for decades! No science, zero science in that, and they want we take psychiatry seriously?

    You seriously believe that you can “correct” psychiatry? Medicine must get rid of psychiatry as astronomy got rid of astrology. Science demands science, and everything else must be thrown into the garbage: no money for crooks and dealers!

    Harrow, M., Jobe, T. H. (2007) Factors Involved in Outcome and Recovery in Schizophrenia Patients Not on Antipsychotic Medications: A 15-Year Multifollow-Up Study. J Nerv Ment Dis 2007;195: 406–414. DOI: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000253783.32338.6e.

  • You were wrong to promote the book of these pigs. Your “criticism” is worth nothing. You have already accepted a free book, why not accept other gifts from the pigsty? Make a commercial link to Amazon to allow these pigs to earn money by spreading their propaganda. Well, you are from the same milieu, you support each other, even here, on Mad In America. You disgust me.