Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Comments by Sylvain Rousselot

Showing 100 of 267 comments. Show all.

  • Convictions are very rare.

    I witnessed a psychiatrist who referred her client to a colleague with whom she had previously worked, in another hospital where she had previously worked, with a letter recommending the continuation of the restraint measure because of the voluntary cessation of patient care while in free care. Indeed, even when you are in free care and you stop the care freely, you may be reproached later if you return to care under duress, determining mandatory care potentially unlimited.

    This psychiatrist has violated the following laws:

    _ prohibition of comperage (article 23 of the CDM, Code of Medical Ethics),
    _ violation of the free choice of the patient (article 6 of the CDM),
    _ breach of professional secrecy (article 4 of the CDM),
    _ refusal of transmission of the medical file (article 46 of the CDM).

    and more.

    Fortunately, the administration being what it is, they failed to well organize the transfer. They forgot to write the necessary certificates, so the client was legally free without anyone knowing.

    When we started the release process, we realized that the client was already free. So we said bye-bye to the hospital, despite the helpless vociferations of the referral psychiatrist, and we had a good laugh in our sleeve.

  • In France, “compérage” is strictly forbidden by the law.

    The “compérage” (from “compadre”, “partner”) consists, for a legal or physical person, to send his client to another legal or physical person, under a customers exchange agreement or other benefits, to limit competition, limit the choice of the client, and keep the customers captive of an oligopolistic network of companies or liberal professions.

    When your psychologist sends you specifically and compulsorily to Chicago Lakeshore Hospital, which has an agreement with the University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Medicine, she commits an act of compérage, which is a form of corruption.

  • You claim that you are not against the system, that you want to increase the share of psychiatry in the health budget in Mexico, that is to say decrease the relative share devoted to the true medicine, and increase the psychiatric staff:

    “We are not against the system”

    “only around 2% of the health budget invested in mental health”

    “lack personal means”

    “scant mental health budget”

    “mental health has […] garnered even less support from the public coffers”

    In addition, your group is mainly made up of “academics” and “professionals”, that is to say people working in psychiatric companies or institutions and in the spread of psychiatry. This conflict of interest was not fully declared in the article. This is problematic because many members of the group would directly and personally benefit from the increase in the budget of psychiatry in Mexico.

    On the other hand, the collective revealed that some of its members consumed psychiatric narcotics, sometimes in massive proportions. This is also problematic because publicly advocating the consumption of toxic products is one way to promote them (Bernays, 1928; Amos, 2000: “Torches of Freedom”). Think about Camel, who interviewed doctors who smoked cigarettes.

    Research shows that the increase in psychiatric budgets across history and countries is correlated with a decrease in the recovery rate (Jääskeläinen, 2012), an increase in the suicide rate (Burgess, 2004), and the increase in the mortality of psychiatric patients relative to the general population (Hayes, 2017). Moreover, the increase in budgets is not associated with an effective enlargement of rights.

    This indifference to the facts, this sordid obsession to public money, this complacency towards neurotoxins, reflect the corporatist origin of this so-called “patient movement”, actually under the control of people who have a direct financial or professional interest in the development of the psychiatry.

    Bibiography:

    Amos, Amanda, and Margaretha Haglund. “From Social Taboo to “Torch of Freedom”: the Marketing of Cigarettes to Women .” Tobacco Control 9.1 (2000). Web. 28 Apr 2010.

    Bernays, E. L. (1928) Propaganda. Routledge.

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

    Jääskeläinen, E., Juola, P., Hirvonen, N., McGrath, J. J., Saha, S., Isohanni, M., … & Miettunen, J. (2012). A systematic review and meta-analysis of recovery in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia bulletin, 39(6), 1296-1306.

    Hayes, J. F., Marston, L., Walters, K., King, M. B., & Osborn, D. P. (2017). Mortality gap for people with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia: UK-based cohort study 2000–2014. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 211(3), 175-181.

  • Some legal axes to advance your situation:

    _ Blind expertise. Various studies have shown that psychiatrists’ assessments are not independent, and that psychiatrists rely on the record and advice of their colleagues rather than on their own opinion. The underlying reason is that psychiatric diagnosis and predictions are highly questionable and psychiatrists are unable to make the same diagnosis or prognosis without communicating with each other. But this is also highly unscientific and biased from scratch.

    _ Separation of psychiatric expertise and psychiatric care. Psychiatric expertise must focus exclusively on the diagnosis and dangerousness, without pronouncing or even a priori knowing the treatment used. Psychiatric care is polluted by considerations that have nothing to do with diagnosis, such as compliance or denial of the disease. But it is possible to be not dangerous without being compliant and to reintegrate into society without recognizing his diagnosis. Whoever prescribes or participates in the care of the patient should not have the opportunity to participate in the expertise, in order to avoid that expertise is distorted by internal disciplinary considerations or personal issues.

    _ Falsity of the medical file. The expertise can not in any case be based on the file, because it can contain erroneous, doubtful or false informations. Indeed, the medical file is not subject to the contradictory principle: its parts are added to the discretion of the administration alone, and the patient has no way either to add exculpatory material, or to question inculpatory material. In the absence of respect for the contradictory principle, the file must be rejected: each piece of the file must imperatively can be disputed, otherwise this piece must be considered as null.

    In summary:

    Perfect independence of expertise. The expertise of diagnosis and prediction of dangerousness must be carried out in several blind sessions.

    Perfect separation of psychiatric expertise and psychiatric care, to avoid malfeasance in one way or the other, as required by the scientific method and by the separation of medical and punitive attributions.

    Respect of the contradictory principle, and rejection of the parts which were not the subject of this principle.

    Good luck in your fight.

  • First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your research initiative.

    In addition, the absence of relapse, defined as the need for rehospitalization, is an extraordinarily good result. Especially since you have passed the period of beginning of weaning, the most at risk of relapse.

    I have some reservations about the pace and the weaning order suggest to your patients.

    1) I do not think that a patient who is poorly dependent on psychotropic drugs requires such a long withdrawal. The duration of weaning should be a function of the duration of exposure: the longer and the most intense is the exposure, the longer the weaning time should be.

    One-day, high-dose exposure requires weaning? I think not.

    An exhibition for a week? maybe two-three days.

    A one-year exhibition? three or four months.

    An exhibition of more than 5 years? Maybe it will take a weaning of more than one year.

    But it also depends on the medication, the motivation of the person and his anxiety. It depends on his surroundings and other social conditions. Typically, you can not compare benzodiazepine dependence, whose withdrawal is torture, and dependence on Haldol, whose withdrawal is often a physical and psychological relief, despite the risk of relapse.

    2) The decrease of one drug after another has the advantage of indicating, in case of withdrawal syndrome, which drug is at the cause, since you only decreases one at a time. However, this weaning order has the drawback of considerably lengthening the duration of the overall weaning, and of delaying the start of weaning of the other drugs, which continue to do damage during this time.

    In addition, some drugs, in polypharmacy, have antagonistic effects. Therefore, decreasing them at the same time may be easier than decreasing them one by one (when the client is taking a sedative and a stimulant, for example).

    Of course, you are anxious to cause relapse of your patients, because the rate of rehospitalization is easily measured, while the decrease in toxicity of drugs by weaning is less obvious. Have you done biological tests to your clients to check the progress of their health? Is there a control group where such tests have been done?

    If this is not the case, you are missing an objective measure that could be extremely useful when exposing your results. For is the progressive suppression of drug toxicity, not one of the goals of weaning?

    Regards,

    Sylvain Rousselot.

  • This is the normal runing of the “free” press: The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine

    Robert Withaker or other Mad In America authors should expect to be the subject of a denigration campaign at some point in the future, if their audience and speech exceeds certain limits, especially on TV show.

    Do not expect loyalty among journalists. On the contrary, they will use scientifically proven means to discredit you:

    _ ask unexpected, complex and multiple questions that require thought, research and rigor, but require short and immediate answers,

    _ appeal to public opinion, common sense, and popular sentiments,

    _ rely on non-existent, questionable or misunderstood scientific research that can not be challenged without rigorous verification,

    _ use the editing: select the plans to give an impression of hesitation, stupidity or ignorance of the person interviewed, or mount the plans in a wrong order,

    _ use advertisements that contradict the speech,

    _ distributing speech in an unfair and biased manner,

    Etc., etc.

  • “Mass shootings” are a “social subject” whose media coverage largely exceeds the objective importance.

    Mass shootings in 2018:
    373 deaths (gunviolencearchive.org)

    Opioid overdoses in 2018:
    68,557 deaths (US drug overdose deaths fell slightly in 2018)

    Excess mortality due to hypnotics in 2010:
    320,000 to 507,000 deaths (Hypnotics’ association with mortality or cancer: a matched cohort study)

    Only hypnotics cause 1000 times more deaths than mass shootings.

    If the press was objective, it would not even talk about these news items.

    An objective press would talk about the real mass murders, that there are hundreds of thousands of people dying every year in the United States, and millions more who are physically, socially and psychologically disabled by means of deliberate chemical poisoning.

    And this real mass murder, which makes mass shootings absolutely insignificant by comparison, is not only legal, but also encouraged by the press, which repeats that these psychotropic drugs are good for (mental) health and even save lives.

  • Teachers are the touts of psychiatry. No wonder psychiatrists say they need to be better indoctrinated.

    There is no factual difference between the state and the mafia, only a difference of legitimacy. Both organize their small society through violence, drug trafficking, and even sexual venality (marriage and prostitution).

    For both official servants and mafiosi, radical repression is fine.

  • Enrico Gnaulati, let me ask you a question:

    Is psychotherapy a medical act or a cultural act?

    If we take the trouble to think about it, we will see the problem differently.

    Does “mental illness” exist? Can an illness be “mental”? As an antipsychiatrist, I say: “no”.

    So what is psychotherapy? What can a psychotherapist and his client do well together?

    Psychotherapy is a cultural act. The therapist and his client speak together according to a particular cultural mode, which has a particular cultural meaning.

    In this, psychotherapy is not distinguished from cartomancy, Christian confession or shamanism. It occupies the same social place, according to a different cultural mode. Psychotherapy is steeped in a scientific philosophy, but it is rarely scientific, and its effectiveness is not science-based: psychotherapy is effective because it corresponds to the culture of the client and the therapist, and because the therapist and his client are in phase through this special cultural trait.

    Finally, cultural acts also relate to power, that is, culture imposed by the state. If psychotherapy is reimbursed, it is partly controlled by the state, which is unacceptable. The state uses culture for repressive purposes, and psychotherapy is associated with state university, psychiatric hospitals, and public servants. Psychologists are a corporation that obeys orders.

    That’s why, as a psychotherapist, I am against reimbursement, and for liberal psychotherapy; the psychotherapist must stop presenting himself as a doctor, stop presenting his client as ill and his acts as medical. He is not a doctor, his client is not sick and his actions are not medical. All this is cultural, and nothing else.

    If you want to make psychotherapy accessible, drastically reduce your fees; psychologists, like siberian shamans and african marabouts, think they have come out of Jupiter’s thigh.

    Low and adapted to client fees = more clients.

  • Meaghan Buisson’s pro-MDMA commentary is just great because it’s the most honest thing a MDMA promoter can write.

    Yes, MDMA is a drug used to commit sexual assault and rape, such as GHB. Even a therapist of the most holy and very serious MAPS could not resist sleeping with a patient using MDMA. Currently, the patient has sued her therapist.

    Yes, MAPS has negotiated an agreement with FDA & co to obtain a monopoly on the distribution of MDMA. Will MAPS participate in clinical trials that will allow the FDA to grant this monopoly? It would not even be surprising.

    Yes, MDMA weaning syndrome is brief, but it is also extremely intense. This is the reason why many MDMA consumers take heroin for the descent. In psychiatry, it is benzodiazepines that are used, with the same objective and the same result.

    One of MDMA’s problems is that consumers no longer perceive negative emotions, and perceive positive emotions that are unrelated to reality:

    _ Oh, that’s weird! Whoever gave me MDMA is sodomizing me. However, before taking MDMA, I had the impression that he was a big lecherous pig, dishonest and malicious. It must be a conincidence: love is blind. In addition, he has benzodiazepines/opioids for later, if I feel bad!

    _ Curious! MAPS has created a for-profit company to monopolize the sale of MDMA. They will make billions with that. I thought it was distributing it for the good of humanity, so that everyone would be happy! I am very surprised.

    And 6 years later:

    _ I became a real shit, addicted to benzodiazepines and/or opioids. My serotinergic system is screwed up: MDMA don’t work any more. I have no taste for anything. However, I am still in love with my prescriber, who has done very well in life. He became a millionaire: proof that MDMA is not bad for everyone, especially for those who sell it and do not take it.

  • I know, I said that to tease you. But “to minimize the drug” is ambiguous: it can mean zero drugs, or just a little drug.

    Moreover, in France, the “pill shaming” does not exist, or rather is not a subject of society, because everyone is already ashamed to take drugs. On the other hand, there is the “no-pill shaming”, to shame someone who does not take it, while he “should”. To this, we can answer that the one who do “no-pill shaming” is a mentally retarded, a sheep, a doggie to his psychiatrist; which is usually the case because he has actually accepted drugs out of ignorance or submission.

    We also have the masochists, for whom drugs are the proof that they are inferior, and sometimes we attend strange debates where polytoxicomaniacs dispute the golden palm of the sickest and the most dependent: “– Ho yes, I’m taking this and that, what am I sick, and you? — I’m taking this, and even I’ve asked my psychiatrist for more drugs and he’s refused! Yet I need it! — We’re really sunk! We’ll take drugs all our lives! We’re the sickest and the most compliant patients of the service, we’ll take everything our psychiatrist gives us and more!”

    Finally, we have the full fascists for whom “no-pill shaming” does not exist because you are an animal and animals are not ashamed. For them, drugs are an instrument of coercion, as the stick or the whip may be, and they are far too much penetrated by the conviction of your inferiority to take the least interest in your feelings.

    And then, it’s still funny the concept of “pill shaming”. In reality, you can not shame someone who is not ashamed, you can only shame someone who is already ashamed in his heart. And why is he ashamed? Because taking drugs is naturally shameful: it is the proof that you are inferior, that you are a “mentally ill”, a subhuman.

    And the psychiatrists may say, “No! You are not subhumans!” It does not prevent them from locking you up, tying you up and drugging you like a subhuman, and even as a subanimal. In pig farming, are pigs tied to a stretcher for days and days, with a haldol sting in the thigh? Butchers would be shocked. That’s why psychiatric hospitals and slaughterhouses are still separate institutions.

    This whole discussion of “pill shaming” is a sign that there is a shame somewhere, but nobody wants to take it.

    In conclusion I will say that it is not desirable to drive someone into more shame, but it would be counterproductive to act as if it did not exist. In my experience, tell someone:

    “You do not need drugs. Your psychiatrist is a mentally retarded and a fascist, and here is the scientific proof. I will help you to make a rational withdrawal. Surround yourself with people who respect you and who value you; and find strength in you to free yourself. ”

    is much more favorable to the ego than to say:

    “You still have a little need for drugs.”

    Which means nothing but:

    “You still are a little lower than me.”

    And there, without doing “pill shaming”, you multiply the shame by ten.

    Note that I know you do not say that, and that I write to you to give you my opinion.

    There are many ways to approach the problem and I think yours is very good.

  • Since neuroleptics are intended to be used for life, that is, nearly 50 years for someone starting at age 20, the short-term effectiveness of these products is of no importance in relation to their long-term effectiveness.

    If neuroleptics reduce the symptoms of psychosis for 1 to 2 years, but they increase them during the next 48 years, not to mention the side effects of these products, the therapeutic balance is negative, and these products can not be called medecines, but poisons.

    Even after weaning, one to three years later, the rate of relapse is higher with neuroleptics, compared with placebo (Schooler, 1967; Rappaport, 1978), which means that the therapeutic balance is negative even in case of planned weaning.

    Throughout the life of the subject, the therapeutic balance of placebo is always higher than that of neuroleptics, notwithstanding an illusory improvement in the short term with neuroleptics: with and without weaning.

    In other words, giving neuroleptics to someone means nothing more than lending him 6 months of non-psychosis, to make him pay for 60 months of psychosis throughout his full life, not to mention the other side effects.

    It’s an usurer and mafioso behavior, and it’s not doing any favors to someone to lend him $60,000, and then force him to repay $600,000 by blood and sweat, and by locking him regularly into the psychiatric asylum, which is nothing more than a metaphor for the prison for debt.

    Long-acting neuroleptics have only one acceptable use: withdrawal (Viguera 1997). Long-acting neuroleptics provide safe, independent withdrawal, without much dependence on a psychiatrist always ready to postpone or stop weaning at the slightest incident.

    Bibliography:

    Rappaport M, Hopkins H, Hall K, Belleza T, Silverman J. Are there schizophrenics for whom drugs may be unnecessary or contraindicated?. Int Pharmacopsychiatry 1978 ; 13 :100–11.

    Schooler N, Goldberg S, Boothe H, Cole J. One year after discharge : community adjustment of schizophrenic patients. Am J Psychiatry 1967 ; 123 :986–95.

    Viguera A, Baldessarini R, Hegarty J, Van Kammen D, Tohen M. Clinical risk following abrupt and gradual withdrawal of maintenance neuroleptic treatment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997 ; 54 :49–55.

  • It is probably necessary to talk about the use of MDMA as a means of social domination, because this is the main issue of legal or illegal drugs.

    Many drug dealers are highly degraded, both morally and physically. They are often violent people, ready for all the baseness, all the ignominies to make money. They are also very marginalized, under the constant threat of being arrested by the police and spending many years in prison.

    In these conditions, it is almost impossible for them to find a companion in the normal way.

    But there is one solution: MDMA and heroin. You can be the worst junk, the worst criminal, you can create artificial emotions and sensations with MDMA and heroin, you can chemically force a little junkie to fall in love with you. She will probably not realize that her emotions have been chemically forged, and you can mistreat her as much as you want, she will not defend herself.

    Here is an inspiring testimony:

    “I tested the ecstazy and it was great, especially with my sweetheart, it was like we was one. […]

    Then he made me test the heroine. And then, I totally loved it. I felt so reassured, so protected and all the more so because I was in his arms.

    […]

    In short, my love has become my dealer, so to speak. He would bring some and I was entitled to my share. I never buy it.

    Then from year to year I became a real rag, depressed at will. I did not do anything but put my ass on the couch. I had my subutex [Buprenorphine] prescribed by my doctor. But that never replaced the heroine. […]

    And now I see my man continue to take heroin because he knows how to manage it. He has already stopped a whole year all products without any harm. And I am beside him like a shit, who has no taste for anything, no more desire, no more passion.

    I do not know if the cam made me become depressive or if I was already but since I am, I do not taste anything and it will be now 5 years. [She met her dealer 6 years ago]

    Life is a bitch.”

    L’amour et la came. Pas tous égaux.

    Some psychiatrists and pharmacists want to get the legal monopoly of MDMA, as a way to quickly hook their customers, because the effect is intense and short. Similarly, the withdrawal syndrome is intense and short: it is in this window of sulfur that psychiatrists and pharmacists can seek to “relieve” their clients with more durable addictive drugs, for example, benzodiazepines (since heroine is still reserved to street dealers).

    MDMA should not be considered in isolation: MDMA is a special weapon in a global strategy of alienation.

  • I read various testimonials on a forum of French drug users.

    A consumer of MDMA happily explains that he gave lots of hugs to many people during his trip, and that everyone loved him, and that he loved everyone … That he was able to get lots of free drug, and give it to everyone …

    Another worries that he has been accused of theft. He does not understand: in his memory, he thought that his friend had given him his things, not that he had stolen them … Another did a bad trip, and his girlfriend, who was also under MDMA, is panicked: she did not know what to do and was very agitated.

    It seems that MDMA increases the feeling of empathy, while it decreases the real empathy.

    MDMA consumers are more likely to associate with positive emotions, but have a hard time understanding negative emotions. During weaning, it is the opposite: there is no longer any capacity to feel pleasure, and negative emotions are felt violently, caricatured. A weaning consumer explained that he had burst into tears and felt hopelessly desperate because he had dropped his fork on the floor.

  • I interviewed an ex-MDMA user I know very well. Here’s how he described the effects:

    “A few hours of intense pleasure for two days of intense displeasure. Although the pleasure at the beginning of the intake is high, the balance of pleasure/displeasure is very negative because of the withdrawal syndrome. It is also an ultra-fast addition drug: if, after a few hours you take a second dose to prolong the effects, it will be much less effective, and the third or fourth dose will probably have no effect. In this case, you know that the withdrawal effets will be extremely harsh.

    During the two days of weaning, you just feel extremely bad, you have no possibility of feeling pleasure, and it is only because you know, intellectually, that it will not last that you do not commit suicide. At the emotional level, however, you have the impression that the suffering will be eternal and you want to end it by any means, typically taking heroin. The consumption of MDMA can therefore be a gateway to opioid consumption, in order to reduce the withdrawal syndrome.

    Finally, what they call “improving empathy” translates concretely into the desire to touch everyone and to be touched by anyone. More prosaically, a person under MDMA can commit non-solicities touching, that is to say, sexual assault, or conversely be touched by anyone, which can lead them to be victims of aggression.

    From an outside point of view, a person under MDMA is obviously in a second state, gesturing and gurning like a dement. He is in a state of obvious vulnerability and can easily be abused. It only remains to rely on the “benevolence” of street dealers to “help” partygoers to withstand weaning with heroin…”

  • Why not publish an article on the role that alcohol could play to fight “social phobia”? And the heroine against “melancholia”?

    This propaganda for drugs is repugnant.

    We do not want pro-drug articles here! Get out the Big-Pharma propagandists! Get out the criminals, get out the monks who sanctify them!

    Get out, get out, get out!

  • In 1843, Karl Marx was already describing this subdivision of civil society into myriads of small spheres that are fighting each other, and the way this elevates the rulers:

    “It is a case of describing the dull reciprocal pressure of all social spheres one on another, a general inactive ill-humor, a limitedness which recognizes itself as much as it mistakes itself, within the frame of government system which, living on the preservation of all wretchedness, is itself nothing but wretchedness in office.

    What a sight! This infinitely proceeding division of society into the most manifold races opposed to one another by petty antipathies, uneasy consciences, and brutal mediocrity, and which, precisely because of their reciprocal ambiguous and distrustful attitude, are all, without exception although with various formalities, treated by their rulers as conceded existences. And they must recognize and acknowledge as a concession of heaven the very fact that they are mastered, ruled, possessed! And, on the other side, are the rulers themselves, whose greatness is in inverse proportion to their number!”

    Below, he asks the question:

    “Where, then, is the positive possibility of a German emancipation?

    Answer: In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.”

    It does not matter whether you are homosexual, transsexual or otherwise. What matters is that you belong to the lowest class of society, because then you have no sphere below you that you could crush to raise yourself.

    Since a sphere has another sphere below it to hit it, it can not be revolutionary.

    It is not as blacks, homosexuals, transsexuals or anyone else, a revolution is possible, but only as human being, by people below all, who have no one to oppress.

    A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Introduction

    We find a similar design in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice:

    “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal’d by the same means, warm’d and cool’d by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.”

    — Act III, scene I

    Although oppressed as a Jew, it is as a human being that Shylock claims his rights and deeds.

  • Here are several ecological studies on the link between psychiatry and suicides:

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

    Abstract
    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.

    Shah, A., Bhandarkar, R., & Bhatia, G. (2010). The relationship between general population suicide rates and mental health funding, service provision and national policy: a cross-national study. International journal of social psychiatry, 56(4), 448-453.

    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE:
    The main aims were to examine the relationship between general population suicide rates and the presence of national policies on mental health, funding for mental health, and measures of mental health service provision.

    METHODS:
    Data on general population suicide rates for both genders were obtained from the World Health Organization (WHO) databank available on the WHO website. Data on the presence of national policies on mental health, funding for mental health and measures of mental health service provision were obtained from the Mental Health Atlas 2005, also available on the WHO website.

    FINDINGS:
    The main findings were: (i) there was no relationship between suicide rates in both genders and different measures of mental health policy, except they were increased in countries with mental health legislation; (ii) there was a significant positive correlation between suicide rates in both genders and the percentage of the total health budget spent on mental health; and (iii) suicide rates in both genders were higher in countries with greater provision of mental health services, including the number of psychiatric beds, psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses, and the availability of training in mental health for primary care professionals.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Cross-national ecological studies using national-level aggregate data are not helpful in establishing a causal relationship (and the direction of this relationship) between suicide rates and mental health funding, service provision and national policies. The impact of introducing national policies on mental health, increasing funding for mental health services and increasing mental health service provision on suicide rates requires further examination in longitudinal within-country studies.

    Rajkumar, A. P., Brinda, E. M., Duba, A. S., Thangadurai, P., & Jacob, K. S. (2013). National suicide rates and mental health system indicators: an ecological study of 191 countries. International journal of law and psychiatry, 36(5-6), 339-342.

    Abstract
    PURPOSE:
    The relative contributions of psychiatric morbidity and psychosocial stress to suicide, and the efficacy of mental health systems in reducing population suicide rates, are currently unclear. This study, therefore, aimed to investigate whether national suicide rates are associated with their corresponding mental health system indicators.

    METHODS:
    Relevant data were retrieved from the following sources: the World Health Organization, the United Nations Statistics Division and the Central Intelligence Agency World Fact book. Suicide rates of 191 countries were compared with their mental health system indicators using an ecological study design and multivariate non-parametric robust regression models.

    RESULTS:
    Significant positive correlations between suicide rates and mental health system indicators (p<0.001) were documented. After adjusting for the effects of major macroeconomic indices using multivariate analyses, numbers of psychiatrists (p=0.006) and mental health beds (p<0.001) were significantly positively associated with population suicide rates.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Countries with better psychiatric services experience higher suicide rates. Although these associations should be interpreted with caution, as the issues are complex, we suggest that population-based public health strategies may have greater impact on national suicide rates than curative mental health services for individuals.

    Sher, L. (2016). are suicide rates related to the Psychiatrist Density? a cross-national study. Frontiers in public health, 3, 280.

    Abstract
    Introduction
    Most suicide victims have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. Treatment of psychiatric disorders should reduce the number of suicides. Higher psychiatrist-per-­population ratio increases the opportunity for contact between the patient and psychiatrist. It is reasonable to hypothesize that the higher psychiatrist density (PD) is associated with lower suicide rates. The aim of this study is to examine the association between suicide rates and the PD in the European Union countries. These countries are economically and culturally connected and located on the same continent. This is an attempt to study a relatively homogenous sample.

    Methods
    Correlations were computed to examine relationships between age-­standardized suicide rates in women and men, the PD, and the gross national income (GNI) per capita. Partial correlations were used to examine the relation between the PD and age-standardized suicide rates in women and men controlling for the GNI per capita.

    Results
    Higher suicide rates in women correlated with the higher PD. Controlling for the GNI per capita, the PD positively correlated with suicide rates both in women and in men. There was a trend toward a negative correlation between the GNI per capita and suicide rates in men. The PD was positively associated with the GNI per capita.

    Conclusion
    Probably, higher suicide rates directly and/or indirectly affect the decisions made by policy- and lawmakers regarding mental health services and how many psychiatrists need to be trained. The results of this study should be treated with caution because many confounding variables are not taken into account.

    Conversely, here is a ecological study on the link between social support and suicides:

    Šedivy, N. Z., Podlogar, T., Kerr, D. C., & De Leo, D. (2017). Community social support as a protective factor against suicide: A gender-specific ecological study of 75 regions of 23 European countries. Health & place, 48, 40-46.

    Abstract
    By studying differences in suicide rates among different geographical regions one may identify factors connected to suicidal behaviour on a regional level. Many studies have focused on risk factors, whereas less is known about protective factors, such as social support. Using suicide rates and data from the European Social Survey (ESS) we explore the association between regional level social support indicator and suicide rates in 23 European countries in 2012. Linear multiple regression analyses using region as the unit of analysis revealed inverse relationships between mean respondent valuing of social support and suicide rates for both genders, with some indication of a stronger relationship among men. Social support may have a protective effect against suicide on a regional level. Thus, increasing social support could be an effective focus of preventive activities, resulting in lowering suicide rates, with greater expected results among men.

    Note that for the link between psychiatry and suicide, some researchers insist heavily that “correlation does not imply causality”, but for the link between social support and protection against suicide, they more readily admit that it could be causal, even if they use the same kind of analytical method.

  • Hmm. It happens that the child remains idle at home, for a prejudice that he feels he has suffered. In particular, he feels that he has been subjected to parental and school authority without any personal benefit, without ever being able to realize his dreams, and on the contrary that he has been lied to make him work, to make him obey, not for himself, but for the others. Above the market, he is treated as mentally ill because he does not want to, because he can not meet these foreign aspirations.

    I think that shutting down the wifi should not work things out, on the contrary, but a much more radical separation is necessary: ​​the parents could give a modest alimony for a while so that the son can live outside from home and have time to find work and make a living.

    The amount of support and its duration could be negotiated explicitly, the main thing was to break the link of toxic interdependence that rotten the family life.

    When family members do not agree, it is reasonable to separate in good term, in a negotiated way. At age 19, the child is big enough to make a living, with the distant support of his parents. Do not treat an adult as a child, so he will behave like an adult. It is not a question of cutting all the links, but of putting distance.

  • According to Burgess and his team, only drug prevention policies are associated with a decrease in the suicide rate. Mental health policies, mental health programs, mental health legislation and especially “therapeutic” psychotropic policies (which are used to “fight” against illegal drug addiction) are associated with a severe increase in the suicide rate.

    Burgess, P., Pirkis, J., Jolley, D., Whiteford, H., & Saxena, S. (2004). Do Nations’ Mental Health Policies, Programs and Legislation Influence their Suicide Rates? An Ecological Study of 100 Countries. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38(11-12), 933–939. doi:10.1080/j.1440-1614.2004.01484.x

    Evidence That More Psychiatry Means More Suicide

  • Here is psychiatric expenses in France in 2016 (euros):

    disorder: Number of persons, total expenditure, expenses per person
    Psychotic disorders: 417300, 4976000000, 11924
    Mood and neurotic disorders: 1256600, 6229000000, 4957
    Mental impairment: 125900, 666000000, 5290
    Addictive disorders: 292900, 1361000000, 4647
    Psychiatric disorders beginning in childhood: 128800, 1277000000, 9915
    Other psychiatric disorders: 389800, 1796000000, 4607

    Source

    This represents 4% of the population and 10% of health expenditures.

    However, this includes only people with a “long-term condition”, consumers of psychiatric treatments are 5-6 times more numerous.

    It does not include non-medical expenses such as housing and disability pensions.

  • Insurers reimburse billions of dollars to psychiatrists, which increases the amount of psychiatric treatment.

    Hundreds of thousands of people die each year because the insurers reimburse these charlatans’ treatments.

    What kills most in America? Psychiatry or mafia? Just the hypnotics killed between 320000 and 507000 people in 2010 in the United States! (Kripke, 2012, p. 6, “Conclusions”)

    Whoever gives a penny to a psychiatrist is himself a criminal.

    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

  • According to Georges Devereux, the trauma is not directly related to the severity of the adversity. It is related to the relationship between the severity of adversity and the size of the adapted cultural defenses. This is why children are more susceptible to trauma than adults because their cultural defenses are not sufficiently trained or strong. But anyone can succumb to trauma if their defenses are not culturally adapted to adversity. Quantity vs quality…

    This relationship between adversity and cultural defenses is of paramount importance for understanding trauma. Psychosis is, basically, the creation of an idiosyncratic culture (beliefs, rituals, visions …) to face adversity. Psychotherapy is a way of dealing with the adversity one has experienced during childhood with the cultural defenses acquired in adulthood.

    The research on ACE is actually not at all new, but it provides statistics and methodology adapted to the contemporary era.

  • Interesting tips. Would you have an opinion on the situation I encountered?

    A woman has a washing OCD that worsens to the point of forcing her to stop working and return to live with her parents.

    At home, the mother participates in washing rituals to “relieve” her daughter, then the daughter stops her rituals almost completely and lets her mother perform them in her place.

    The daughter feels more and more guilty of the rituals her mother performs for her, while the anxiety increases, and the rituals themselves become more and more agonizing.

    The mother is exhausted in performing the rituals.

    The father, who refuses to perform the rituals, blames the situation on his daughter.

    The family conflict is intense. In the end, the daughter is forcibly hospitalized by the father.

    This extreme case perhaps illustrates a neglected aspect of OCD. OCD seems to cover three roles: the one who dirties, the one who is dirty and the one who is washing (or equivalent). These three roles can be distributed differently in the family.

    It is not impossible that the OCD is, in a transfigured form… a triangle of Karpman.

  • I do not think more research is needed. Why not put doctors and pharmacists drug traffickers in jail? There is no objective difference between the trafficking of legal and illegal narcotics. I think the really brutal repression must be used against these people. Something that strikes them with stupor and terror.

    The destruction of drug traffickers by uniform repression, regardless of the “legal” or “illegal” status of the drug, will have an extraordinarily beneficial effect on public health. These people are not necessary to society. Their disappearance in prison will have no negative effect on society. We have everything to gain by not being delicate.

  • Our defenders of the good found the solution to the evil: to destroy the polarized spirit and to launch a great world discussion on how to accept the point of view of others. The boss will discuss with the worker, the officer with the soldier, the United States with the Islamic State, and even Donald Trump will be able to discuss with the immigrants, if he wishes, if he really has the will. Is it not through discussion that the contradictions are resolved, that the “polarized mind” is destroyed?

    And did not Gandhi say his friend Hitler was the only one able to prevent War to happen? That the English, the Jews and the Nazis had to sit together to talk? The contradictions are only in the mind, there are no real contradictions, the whole fault is in the “polarized mind”!

  • “If they also show enhanced serotonin receptor activity in the same area of the brain, the team plans to test whether FDA-approved serotonin receptor blockers can normalize their behaviors.”

    These people are crazy.

    Far from recommending the prohibition of antidepressants for pregnant women, as is already the case with alcohol which causes the Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, these individuals do not dispute the voluntary intoxication of pregnant women by the doctors, but on the contrary they promise that they will find a magic bullet to cure the “Fetal SSRI spectrum disorders”, an illness they begin to “discover”.

    Psychiatry is telling us, “We are discovering that we are causing congenital and probably hereditary diseases by exposing children to neurotoxic drugs in utero, but do not worry! We are going to give them even more neurotoxic drugs, which should improve the situation (we hope)”.

    There is no drug to treat FASD because it is a developmental syndrome, and if the “Fetal SSRI spectrum disorders” really exists, there will be no drugs to treat it either, for the same reason.

    That’s why research will never change the psychiatry – nor will it abolish it, of course – that to stop psychiatry, we need repression of the state. And I’m not talking about a little repression, like penalties or prohibitions to practice, I’m talking about a brutal repression, really staggering and devastating, as the state knows very well to use when it deems necessary.

  • Another weak decision. We want repression, repression, repression! For all the violence they have done, they must suffer in turn! A revolutionary state must crush these criminals! Violence against violence, the power of the state will not always be in their hands!

    Here again, a crime has been committed, and no one is punished! As soon as it has a doctor’s title, it can make drug trafficking without consequence! It is the repression that is necessary, the brutal repression of a pitiless state against the high officials and the slavish and privileged Nomenklatura!

    CRIME = REPRESSION.

  • > Unfortunately, a new, more extensive study has failed to replicate this finding. It’s the third such study to show no effect.

    Why do you say “unfortunately”?

    The last time they found an “effective” treatment for schizophrenia (neuroleptics), the rate of recovery of schizophrenics decreased from 17.7% in 1941-1955 to 6% in 1996-2012 (Jääskeläinen, 2012).

    The non-reproduction of the preliminary results is a good new, insofar as it avoids a new sanitary catatrophe, as have been all psychiatric treatments deemed “effective” by psychiatrists.

    The research paradigm, according to which psychiatric drug toxicomania is the solution to life problems, is false, and any “advancement” in this field means nothing but the development of psychiatry and the dive into artificiel hell of a ever greater mass of people.

    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

  • An institution is an organization that has the monopoly of a social function. By increasingly claiming monopolies over basic social functions such as education and medicine, the bureaucracy is expanding its hold on society and using it to demand more money and more power. For that, it sabotages its own service: it can do it, since it proceeds from the monopoly! And it is hostage society for the delivery of its services.

    All this is very well explained by economists like Veblen, or many others who have studied the effects of monopoly. Assign yourself the monopoly of a social function, join other monopolies, build a tight network of production and distribution, then sabotage your own service to threaten the public with scarcity and ask for more money and power.

    The more the monopolies develop and are interconnected, the more the quality of services deteriorates; and the more quality degrades the more monopolies can demand and obtain money and power. This is how bureaucracy spreads and destroys everything, stifles everything, controls everything.

  • People in rich countries do not realize what they are asking for. The US education system is not underfunded and $11727 per year and per child in primary (2015) is not a small sum.

    You do not understand that it is your bureaucratic system itself that creates all this mass of “disabled” children? The overwhelming majority of “disabled” children have no physical illness. These children are designated as such only because they are rejected from the school system; materially, they have no organic trouble. You make your own handicapped people bureaucratically, and then you ask for more money to take care of them. The growth of the bureaucratic system is thus self-perpetuating.

    This kind of artificially manufactured disability did not exist in the past of the United States, for example, in 1880. The Census at that time reported only an insignificant minority of children with disabilities, and most of them were physically disabled. Where does this new cohort of “mentally” handicapped children come from, for whom the bureaucracy needs funding? From the bureaucracy itself: it invents them, manufactures them and maintains them at the chain like automobiles and the public does not say anything, the public approves the increase of the budgets, as if it appreciated this type of comodities.

  • It is important to note that many national laws prohibit doctors from forcing children to take treatment without the permission of their parents. The only exceptions are:

    _ the child is in grave and imminent danger (road accident, fatal but curable illness…),
    _ the prevention of contagious diseases (vaccines),

    Apart from these exceptions, circumvented by the law, parents remain free to accept or refuse medical treatment for their child. Conversely, parents can not force a doctor to prescribe a particular treatment.

    So:

    _ either the family and the doctor find an agreement that suits everyone, especially the child, who is the main interested,

    _ either the family and the doctor do not find this agreement, and in this case the doctor is legally obliged to recuse himself, to reorient the family to another doctor, unless the family can find this other doctor by his own means.

    Families must be aware that they can freely:

    _ accept or refuse a proposed treatment for their child,
    _ choose or change doctors for their child.

    Doctors are only service providers, outside the family. It is up to the family to find a suitable provider who is attentive to the family members’ requests, especially the juvenile patient.

  • It reminds me of those cockroaches who were told that a cook could work in a clean kitchen.

    Of course cockroaches find this horrible.

    What will happen is that drug-free units will have better long-term results, and therefore these units will be closed. Like Soteria.

    It also emphasizes that there is no need to discuss cockroaches about clean kitchens.

    The negationism of psychiatrists about long-term scientific research can only be compared with that of the extreme right, which seeks to defend Nazism by explaining that gas chambers had never exist.

  • If heroin was tested as a depression-fighting molecule, there is no doubt that the FDA would approve it, because the FDA-recognized test methods do not make it possible to observe the long-term effects of the drugs.

    The FDA’s approval methods are stupid by design, as serious methods of evaluation, ie long-term trials (> 2 years), would result in an almost systematic rejection of the psychotropic drugs.

    The story of this man does not raise my compassion but my indignation and contempt.

    This man who saw his wife die under Zoloft to enrich the pharmaceutical industry, would still be ready to give her to an experimental treatment that is not seriously tested. Maybe, brexanolone increases suicide even more than Zoloft!

    And then: what is this “scientific” method in which we must take into account the irrational and emotional arguments of a man who lost his wife?

    It’s shabby, just shabby: the FDA should be ashamed to use such methods to validate a drug.

  • “Mental Health” care must not be reimbursed:

    1) The practice of psychiatry is charlatanism and no charlatanism must be repaid.

    2) Psychotherapy is only a cultural conversation and as such must not be reimbursed. Psychotherapy is in no way different from practices such as Catholic confession or Siberian shamanism; it has the same social function, the same methods and the same results. The reimbursement of some psychotherapists to the detriment of others is a caste privilege that reinforces the corporatism and institutional association between psychotherapists, psychiatrists and health insurances.

    3) Psychiatry must not be funded under any circumstances, and this judgment is bad news. It will allow psychiatrists to increase their income and plunder insurance and thus society as a whole, through contributions.

    You graduated psychologists, you are privileged who benefit from reimbursement for practices of charlatanism or cultural conversations. You are accomplices in psychiatry with which you share the same privileges, especially in terms of money-back and corporatist and institutional interests.

    Dare to pretend that you are better than a Catholic priest: do you have proof? You fulfill the same social function, you use the same methods and you have the same results. Your practice is not scientific, because it is not a technique practiced on an object, but a cultural conversation with a human being. “Technique” is actually “folklore”.

    Psychotherapists and psychiatrists are new priest, and like priest, many are crooks, many have unjustified and scandalous economic and social privileges.

  • Students must associate to defend their rights. It is legitimate to post counter-propaganda on campus’ free expression boards to warn of the danger of the Student Counseling Services.

    If I were faced with this problem, I will not hesitate to have A3 posters printed with the following message:

    “The Student Counseling Services will not help you!

    They can search to expel you from the university for one semester, or even definitively.

    If you go to see them, you take the risk that they destroy your studies!

    [QR code toward the article]”

  • All this propaganda is an economic question.

    Psychiatry has two polarized markets, and an intermediate market:

    Pole 1 (intensive): The market for extra-judicial kidnappings, sequestration and torture of undesirables for the benefit of families and the state. This market is necessarily limited because it is the oppression of the majority on a minority, and the manufacture of a class of sub-men deprived of fundamental rights.

    Pole 2 (extensive): The market for universal toxicomania, drug trafficking and psychotherapy, which in principle has no strict limit. Anyone can use drugs or electroshock voluntarily, so it is for psychiatry to present itself to its customers in the best possible light, by trying to dissociate themselves from the first market.

    Between Poles 1 and 2: the middle market of people leaving psychiatric hospitals, supposedly “free” but actually subject to economic, social and family pressures to stay in the circuit, for example under the threat of rehospitalization, obliged to see a psychiatrist to continue to receive an invalidity pension, signing “therapeutic contracts” in which they agree to undergo injections in exchange for housing, etc., etc.

    Psychiatry is a mafia continuum of violence, pressure and seduction.

    Today, Mental Health Europe launches a big seduction campagn to increase psychiatric budgets, and tells us everything we want to hear, but we are not idiots: the money will be used to expand all markets because they work in synergy.

    Against the proposal of Mental Health Europe, we must instead advocate for the reduction of budgets, for the dismissal of its agents in schools, immigration centers, hospitals, and wherever possible, and the best way to achieve this goal is the reduction of budgets.

    Psychiatrists and their minions threaten us that if budgets are reduced, they will increase torture in psychiatric hospitals. The threat is in vain because in reality, the less money there is for hospitals, the fewer beds available, so the less torture there is. Psychiatry does not torture for free, it tortures because we feed it, because we give it money! Less money = less staff, less treatment, this is the absolute and direct goal of the anti-psychiatric movement.

  • You are a psychiatric industry’s submarine, designed to increase psychiatric spending, which is to increase your income.

    Your organization is made up of psychiatrists who are engaged in the trafficking of legal narcotics, thereby participating in the murder and destruction of hundreds of thousands of people in Europe.

    Who do you believe to be deceiving with your call to a more “psycho-social” and less “oppressive” psychiatry? You remain drug traffickers, lobbyists, seeking to enrich themselves by introducing your pawns in all sectors of society.

    “Include mental health in all relevant policies, such as employment, migration, social affairs” (Manifest, 2019)

    Billions of euros are devoted to the psychiatric industry in Europe, with therapeutic results lower than those of Africa. The solution according to you? Increase the budgets!

    “Strategic investment in mental wellbeing can generate enormous economic and social returns.” (Infography, 2017)

    You spread the lies of the psychiatric industry, like that 20% of teenagers are mentally ill (10 myths, 2017). Do you know the historical statistics of psychiatry?

    In 1880, the United States government launched a massive survey, in which nearly 80,000 doctors in America’s 100,000 (!) were involved in the census of mentally ill people across the country, including outside the institutions. (Census Office, 1888, pp. IX and X).

    Among people aged 10 to 19, the definition of adolescence according to WHO, the prevalence of madness was 0.02% (Census Office, 1888, pp. XV and XIX).

    The prevalence of mental illness would have been multiplied by 1000 in just 140 years?

    But yes, I think about it! All you do, as psychiatrists, is surreptitiously redefining your “nosography” from year to year, to include more and more “patients” who would have supposedly needed you. You change your words to seem less scary, but especially to expand your clientele, from the word “madness” to “mental illness”, then to “mental disorder” and finally your latest invention: “mental health problem”. I even read an article (Méréo, 2019) that heartache is a mental illness! You invade the whole society, like lice and rats. But you do it so gradually that very few people realize the trickery.

    You are not doctors, you are fraudsters. Historical statics shows that you have never done a medical diagnosis: you are simply describing more and more normal behaviors and emotions as diseases or “problems”, to enrich yourself and increase your power.

    Down with the psychiatric lobby! Down the masks!

    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. Repéré à : https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v21-02.pdf

    Mental Health Europe, (2017) 10 Myths about mental health that you can help us debunk!, mhe-sme.org https://mhe-sme.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Flyer-A4-MHE-WEB.pdf

    Mental Health Europe, (2017) 10 Things you should know about Mental Health, mhe-sme.org https://mhe-sme.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/10-things-you-should-know-1.pdf

    Mental Health Europe, (2019) A manifesto for better mental health in Europe For the European Elections 2019, mhe-sme.org https://mhe-sme.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/MHE-Manifesto-EU-Elections-2019.pdf

    Méréo Florence (2019) La pilule contre le chagrin d’amour arrive en France, Le Parisien, 13 février 2019, http://www.leparisien.fr/societe/la-pilule-contre-le-chagrin-d-amour-arrive-en-france-13-02-2019-8011425.php

  • If you want to hurt someone, tell him it’s for his good. Thus, he will be disarmed.

    The perversity of these people has no limit.

    It reminds me of this: migrant children are victims of rape and violence by ICE officials.

    On the other hand, doctors inject massive doses of neuroleptics and other psychiatric drugs to prevent them from revolting or defending themselves.

    This is the function of psychiatry: to destroy the brains of victims to protect criminals, and to participate in acts of torture under the guise of “cure mental illnesses”.

  • Several authors have developed the concept that a species is adapted to a certain degree of destruction, scarcity and mortality. In periods of excessive abundance, the species enters the phase of self-destruction because it is not adapted to such a level of abundance.

    The most convincing experiment on this subject is the “Death Squared” of John B. Calhoun (1973), in which scientists offer all the necessary comfort to mice, in a small space. The mice multiply to the point of being too numerous to maintain their social structure: the juveniles are no longer raised correctly and the sexual behaviors eventually disappear, to the point of bringing the colony to extinction.

    The authors emphasize that the mouse experience is not directly transposable to humans: there are third world cities in which the human density is much higher than in the cities of the developed countries, and yet the social relations are pretty good. There is no direct link between population density and social breakdown. The central idea of ​​Calhoun is that an excess of resources leads to a destructuration of the relations of the species with its environment and with itself, that is to say an ecological and social imbalance, which can lead to death of the species. For Calhoun, a prolonged excess of resources is just as dangerous as a prolonged shortage.

    Some authors who developed this concept, each in their own way:

    Karl Marx: the development of the productive forces contradicts the relations of production, which leads either to a revolutionary transformation of the whole society, or to the destruction of the classes in struggle. Karl Marx observes that man can change his social structure, and therefore that there are several cycles of accumulation of the surplus. The communist society is supposed to rationalize production and thus to prevent the overproduction that leads to self-destruction and death.

    Thorstein Veblen: concept of sabotage and conspicuous consumption. Overproduction is such that social classes sabotage each other, by strikes and lockouts. Monopolies are formed for the conservation of privileges and the status quo in the most unefficient way: unions, universities, corporations, diplomas, agreements between the state and big business for profit maximization. More and more useless and harmful commodities and services are producted for the conspicuous consumption. The state is itself a vector of waste and monumental destruction.

    Sigmund Freud poses the concept of “death drive”.

    Georges Bataille: the ruling class, which can not prevent the development of the productive forces, spend them in sumptuary constructions (pyramids, catedrals) or destroye them in blood baths (World War II).

    The self-consumption of psychiatric drugs falls into the category of voluntary self-destruction of a relatively privileged population, which no longer has the means to develop its humanity as society is saturated with production and consumption. These people no longer find their place in society: like Calhoun’s mice, all the useful, useless and even harmful social functions are already occupied, so that the only solution left is self-destruction and self-limitation.

    Calhoun, J. B. (1973). Death squared: the explosive growth and demise of a mouse population.

    Video

  • Doctors and journalists can hardly go beyond the polite criticism of psychiatry, because their caste. They can not say, for example, that their colleagues should be arrested, even if basically the solution to all this mess is in physical action, and not in intellectual discussion.

    On the other hand, I do not really see how psychiatry could be abolished without abolishing the current state.

    As Richard D. Lewis puts it, psychiatry is an instrument of state repression for social regulation, in families, at school and at work. It is also a very lucrative business. The state will not let go of its instrument of repression before being destroyed, nor offend the interests it serves.

  • Lenin can do this, lol. 😀

    More seriously, I am not an academic authority, but I know that I do not have under my command armed men who could close the psychiatric hospitals, and make the necessary arrests.

    In the meantime, I’m doing propaganda, and I help my comrades get out of the psychiatric hospital by giving them the necessary documents and advice. As such, RW’s articles are extremely useful, but not only.

  • The time has not yet come to overthrow psychiatry by revolutionary means.

    Meanwhile, the fight is largely intellectual, where antipsychiatry must prove again and again that the psychiatry is bad. When researchers criticize the canons of psychiatry, this is an opportunity to show the contradictions inside psychiatry, to encourage integrity and to denounce fraud, even if we can criticize moderation and conformity of the majority of critical researchers.

    It is known that MIA brings together both antipsychiatry and critical psychiatry: this has been discussed before. For the moment, this cohabitation does not bother me, because the critical psychiatry brings interesting scientific contributions to the antipsychiatric fight. Moreover, there is no doubt that many survivors of psychiatry come to radical antipsychiatry via critical psychiatry’s autors.

    In any case, science gives intellectual weapons to defend oneself in the present, and prepares future battles on a sound rational basis.

  • Science is our weapon. We must systematically promote scientific research among the general public in the form of accessible, fully sourced and verifiable articles, leaflets, videos and graphics.

    We must denounce relentlessly journalists, psychiatrists and experts who promote toxic and dangerous methods, by interest and not based on science.

    For lack of means, we will always have the media bottom, but we can nonetheless form an active minority that can reverse the situation when the time is right.

    Make graphics! A picture is worth a thousand words.

  • The school is a completely toxic institution, like the psychiatric hospital. The defense of this institution is repugnant to me, and I am seriously revolted at the idea that someone can look, here on MIA, for a sweet way to bring the children back to this slaughterhouse.

    As in psychiatry, the author of the article looks for ways to lock up children in school without even asking if it is an honorable goal. It is as perverse as to wonder how to lock up a child in a psychiatric hospital, without wondering if this institution could not definitively annihilate this child, and make him a disabled person for life.

    I claim that the “gentle and respectful” social pressure exerted by parents and teachers on children must instead be exercised in the most brutal and unmerciful
    way by children who have become adults on their former oppressors, by revolutionary and violent means.

    There is no question of tolerating the benevolence of the sadists, officials and guardians, slaves of the state, all are there to make children submissive beings, slaves and executioners and reproduce a foul society.

    Let’s be clear: the violence of children is legitimate, and children have to ripen in order to make their internal violence as sharp as steel, and organized like an army. And all those weak oppressors who believed they could exercising power over eternal children must be crushed by grown-up children who will always remember past oppression.

    We do not forget anything!

    This article’s hypocrisy is repulsive! “Support Jack”! He is on the right side of the handle, the educator!

    What I would say to this child is: swallow the snake, Jack. One day, they will pay for this garbage. Everything will be paid.

    But Ben Furman is a psychiatrist! No wonder he thinks like that! Psychiatrists are worse than teachers. It is the quintessence of the bureaucratic spirit that interferes in the private life of the people, who wants to direct the life of the children with his parish moralism.

    Do not touch the children, Mr. Furman. All children, once adults, will not necessarily have to thank you for your benevolence.

  • In this article, the economic determinants of this dispute are not discussed.

    Psychiatrists make money with antidepressants, psychologists, no.

    A patient may turn to a psychiatrist to cure his “depression”, or to a psychologist. But he can also turn to both, especially if the psychiatrist redirects his patient to a psychologist after prescribing antidepressants, or if a psychologist redirects his patient to a psychiatrist in psychotherapy. Which is common, and even usual.

    Thus, although rivals, psychiatrists and psychologists have an economic interest to collaborate, since they have the same clientele.

    However there are also territorial wars. The excessive promotion of antidepressants by psychiatrists can lead to a loss of clientele for psychologists. This is why psychologists occasionally remember that antidepressants are bad for your health, which puts psychiatrists in a rage.

    However, the collaboration between psychiatrists and psychologists is far too fruitful: one profession deals with drugs, the other with psychotherapy. That is why some psychologists are not favorable to the war, they think that antidepressants can be criticized “a little but not too much”, since psychologists and psychiatrists have fundamentally the same interests.

    This is what really explains this little controversy, and the eagerness of some psychologists to sign peace with the psychiatrists, with whom they share their clientele.

  • There is no evidence that aripiprazole, topiramate, d-fenfluramine, quetiapine and metformin improve health. Indeed, these drugs have not been compared in double-blind vs placebo or non-medication for naïve subjects.

    In contrast, all the cited studies about aripiprazole, topiramate, d-fenfluramine, quetiapine and metformin compared these drugs with other psychiatric treatments (see sources in the meta-analysis). The only thing this meta-analysis found is that these 5 drugs have less harmful effects than other psychiatrics treatments, if we take into account only a single class of biological variables, related to metabolism.

    This is an extremely weak conclusion, almost without interest.

    It seems that there is only one cited meta-analysis related to naïve patients (same autors, Vancampfort, 2013). Here is what this meta-analysis found:

    abdominal obesity
    drug-naïve patients: 16.6%
    multi-episode patients: 50% (significant)

    Hypertension
    drug-naïve patients: 31.6%
    multi-episodes patients: 37.3% (not significant)

    hypertriglyceridemia
    drug-naïve patients: 23.3%
    multi-episodes patients: 39.0% (significant)

    abnormally low HDL cholesterol levels
    drug-naïve patients: 24.2%
    multi-episodes patients: 41.7% (significant)

    MetS
    drug-naïve patients: 10.0%
    multi-episodes patients: 34.2% (significant)

    diabetes
    drug-naïve patients: 6.4%
    multi-episodes patients: 9.5% (non-significant)

    Thus, patients who are most exposed to the psychiatric drugs (multi-episodes patients) have a worse health than those who are not exposed to the drug (drug-naïve patients), several conditions being equal (which, I don’t know).

    It is dishonest to say that aripiprazole, topiramate, d-fenfluramine, quetiapine and metformin, have a beneficial effect on health, since these drugs have been tested on people severely intoxicated by neuroleptics. In the best case, the only thing we can conclude is that these drugs are less toxic compared to other psychiatric treatments, according to a single class of biological variables, relative to the metabolism. None of the cited studies prove that these drugs improve health compared to the total absence of psychiatric treatment. The naive-patient meta-analysis suggests the opposite.

    Vancampfort, D., Wampers, M., Mitchell, A. J., Correll, C. U., De Herdt, A., Probst, M., & De Hert, M. (2013). A meta‐analysis of cardio‐metabolic abnormalities in drug naïve, first‐episode and multi‐episode patients with schizophrenia versus general population controls. World Psychiatry, 12(3), 240-250. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wps.20069 (Open Access)

  • Puras and Gooding completely ignore the social function and economic interests of psychiatry, making their legalistic program utopian.

    The social function of psychiatry is to relieve the dysfunctional and disintegrative institutions of their disruptive elements, to punish individuals for the deficiency of institutions. For example, a dysfunctional family punishes the weaker member through psychiatry, the school punishes a student who argues with his neighbor, accusing him of ADHD.

    The more dysfunctional the institutions are, the wider the client base of psychiatry is. As the historical statistics of psychiatry illustrate, when a society is less institutionalized and more community-based, the prevalence of mental illness is extremely low: >0.5% (0,34% in the US’ 1880 Census). It is only in contemporary civilized society that we find a ridiculously high prevalence of 20%, always increasing (31% among College Students, according to WHO).

    Moreover, psychiatry has its own economic interests, which is ahead of its social function. Legal drug trafficking brings in bilions, hundreds of millions are willing to consume them voluntarily because of their addiction. But the constraint makes it possible to artificially increase the number of customers, and thus to earn more money; and the physical and mental disability generated by polydrug abuse and harsh treatment makes the clients permanent.

    Thus, if, in the long term, anxiolitics increase anxiety, antidepressants increase depression and neuroleptics increase psychosis, it is in line with the economic interests of psychiatry, and if the research irrefutably demonstrates this state of affairs, in front of the public, they must deny it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Intellectual, economic and political circles are not independent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The groups was also 43,3% female.

    US children and young’s mortality rate:

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

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

    Source: Death rate in the United States in 2015

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

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

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

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

  • This is CHRONIC pain, not the acute pain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [Blockquote]

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

    An ecological study of 100 countries

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

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

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

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

    […]

    Results

    […]

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

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

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

    total suicides: % change

    Mental health policy: +8.3%

    Mental health program: +4.9%

    Mental health legislation: +10.6%

    Substance use policy: -11.3%

    Therapeutic drugs policy: +7.0%

    Significant findings are in bold.

    [/blockquote]

    This is SCIENCE.

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

    Bibliography:

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

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

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

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

    What can stop them, if not brutal state repression?

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

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

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

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

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

  • > [antidepressants] help people and save lives

    It’s a lie! There is no proof!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Same source.

    Video shows student being shocked, CBS News.

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