Tuesday, November 29, 2022

Comments by Sylvain Rousselot

Showing 306 of 308 comments. Show all.

  • I disapprove this article for the following reasons:

    The article presents itself as a measured critique of a valid scientific subject, in so doing it totally misses the point.

    There is no such thing as a real illness called “depression” and therefore no cure either.

    Psychotherapy is not a real therapy, like oxygen therapy for example, but a cultural relationship similar to the Christian confession or to the exorcism of demons. Psychotherapy is surrounded by the same kind of irrational mystic.

    By design it is not scientific, but it can be the object of scientific investigation, like ethnology.

    What this study describes is a ritual similar to shamanism, embellished with a scientistic pretension unique to modern culture. Whoever takes these scientistic claims seriously proves that he has not understood anything about what “depression”, “treatment” and “psychotherapy” really are, namely simulation of illness and simulation of medicine: cultural traits. A rational person observe in this experience people who ritualistically indulge in drug addiction, and surround it with a contemporary scientistic and mystical justification: psychiatry.

    It is reprehensible to present the “results” of this study as promising or scientific.

    Drug addiction is an instrument of the bourgeoisie aimed at stupefying and weakening the proletariat, preventing it from looking for the real causes of its misfortune and paralyzing it with rituals of self-mortification.

    The mortification presented here produces an artificial psychosis and a state of psychic vulnerability which, even in the long term, “benevolent” people are sure to exploit.

    People who voluntarily place themselves in a state of vulnerability will suffer the consequences. The people who encourage people to weaken themselves are foxes and those who trust in them are baby rabbits. Any auto-intoxication, any drug addiction will have its biological and social consequences.

    In short, this kind of research has to be denounced for what it is: a stupid advertisement for narcotics, the level of scientificity of which does not exceed that of a village sorcerer who justifies the use of hallucinogens to hunt demons (today, our neo-shamans hunt “depression”, to seem more modern), and whose social goal is illusion, attrition and submission.

  • “about 1% of people get a schizophrenia diagnosis in the general population.” It’s half less.

    “Of the 132 core studies, 21 studies reported point prevalence, 34 reported period prevalence, and 24 reported lifetime prevalence. The median prevalence of schizophrenia was 4.6/1,000 for point prevalence, 3.3/1,000 for period prevalence, 4.0 for lifetime prevalence, and 7.2 for lifetime morbid risk. […] Several important findings emerge from Saha and colleagues’ analysis. For clinicians, the analysis indicates clearly that lifetime prevalence is 4.0/1,000 and not 1%, as reported in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, and other textbooks.”

    Dinesh Bhugra (2015), The Global Prevalence of Schizophrenia

    Since the diagnosis of schizophrenia is not based on biological but cultural observations, it does not make sense to look for genetic causes that are relatively fixed, to a cultural phenomenon that is changing. This is typically the kind of situation where one can find correlations without causality.

    Example: Suppose that for cultural reasons, people with blue eyes inspire less confidence and are more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia. Blue eyes are genetically determined. We will therefore find a correlation between the genetic factors that determine the color of the eyes and schizophrenia. This correlation is not a causality.

    Trustworthy-Looking Face Meets Brown Eyes

    Genetics determine many traits in living things, but these traits are then interpreted culturally, often unconsciously. Schizophrenia is typically the interpretation of a cultural phenomenon, without biological observation. The limited correlations of schizophrenia with genetics do not therefore mean anything in particular.

  • It is not necessary to initiate new research on products which have already been shown in randomized trials to worsen psychosis in the long term (Rappaport, 1978, etc.). Prescribing neuroleptics has been maintained for political non-medical reasons, as it is an excellent tool of repression, superior to the whip and the cangue, to obtain submission.

    It is therefore by political means that neuroleptics can be suppressed, on the occasion of a revolution, by the outright prohibition of psychiatry, the seizure of all personal and institutional property of people participating in psychiatry, and their internment during the revolution, as prisoners of civil war.

    Rappaport, M. “Are there schizophrenics for whom drugs may be unnecessary or contraindicated?” Int Pharmacopsychiatry 13 (1978): 100-11

  • Hello bob,

    I’m not sure if this is the right place to do it, but I would like to publicly suggest you to implement a preprint section on a dedicated MIA-related wiki, and develop the open review.

    The preprint and the open review on wiki offers many advantages:

    Protect from any accusations of censorship, because even when a paper is not accepted, it is available on the preprint wiki and the reasons for its rejection are available on the talk page.

    Discussions about improving the article are public.

    The different versions of the article are accessible via the history of changes.

    Wiki technology facilitates an open collaboration between authors, reviewers and editors. The greater the openness, the greater the trust.

    There is a free, ad-free wiki platform for associations and foundations ourproject.org. They will welcome MIA with open arms.

  • The length of withdrawal depends on the degree of addiction, and the degree of addiction in turn depends on the length of exposure, among other things.

    This is why I think expressing the length of withdrawal as an absolute value doesn’t make a lot of sense, and it would be better to express it as a percentage of the length of exposure.

    For example, a person exposed for 6 months to a neuroleptic will probably not need 9 months to wean, while for a person exposed for 10 years, 9 months will probably not be enough, let alone multiple drug abuse.

    To say that a person probably needs 10% to 20% of the exposure time to wean may make more sense, although other factors come into play as well.

    In addition, one should not overlook personal and relational subjective factors, and even political factors.

    States that promote legal drug addiction for social regulation (and all states do) will make withdrawal more difficult.
    I think the length of withdrawal should be biologically “reasonable”, but political intervention is needed.

  • > In the French procedure, the sleep is the treatment.

    LOL. It made me laugh to read this. We realize how stupid the procedure is. It’s like an anesthesiologist saying that anesthesia is the treatment, and if 2 hours of general anesthesia isn’t enough, he will try it for 15 days.

    However, don’t trust the presentation of Doctissimo. What this article proves is that sleep therapy exists, not how or why it is used. Since the practice is legal in France, it can be used in non-voluntary care, and nothing prevents it from being combined with other treatments, including electroshock.

    It is very difficult to know how much and how sleep therapy is used in France, in voluntary care or without consent, alone or in combination with other treatments, because there are no statistics. However, it is likely that the practice is relatively rare in France, because otherwise I would have found other testimonies. In any case, French psychiatrists have a free hand to combine sleep therapy with other treatments, including care without consent, simply because it is legal.

  • Sleep therapy is still practiced in France.

    Are you sure it is not practiced in Australia or the United States?

    You can find on this forum the messages of a certain Étienne who testifies that his sister-in-law was hospitalized for a sleep cure in 2011, described as follows:

    Sleep: 20 hours a day
    for: 15 days
    Xanax infusion.

    Many French pro-psychiatric websites describe the sleep cure in very favorable terms, specifying that it is practiced in psychiatric hospitals.

    In the 90s, a doctor was given a one-year suspended prison sentence after killing his patient with a sleep cure. Nevertheless, the court does not question the practice of the sleep cure in itself, but only the conditions in which it was carried out (drug addict patient, at home, no medical supervision).

  • Fanon was a fanatic of insulin comas and electroshocks. But let Fanon speak for himself, since here, the editorial staff have lost any critical thinking to the point of extol one of the criminals we are fighting.

    “Second step. During a narco-analysis, we push the shot until deep sleep, we change the patient’s environment, and we transfer her to another district, where she must be submitted, without any new contact with the old psychotherapist, to the Bini cure [electroshocks]. Reaching the confusing stage as quickly as possible, we replace the “nursing home” environment and the individual room, with the very “hospital” “set” for several patients. Practically, if she has some clearings of conscience during these first days, she can only note the vague concept of “disease”, and that very reassuring of “attentive care”.

    Third step. Once the confused amnesic stage has been obtained, the patient begins to undergo insulin therapy [insulin comas] the aim of which is to place her, at the beginning of her awakening, in the very primitive situation of the mother-child intercourses: food in the mouth, cleanliness care, first words. […]

    […]

    Gradually, the corrections and the awareness of the situation become total. “I’m sorry, I was very sick, the other day, I spoke to you as if you were Miss X., twenty years ago…, when my brother was born… we didn’t need him. Now I don’t have to have the same ideas. It was a conversation I had with her. We spoiled him so bad he was raised badly… I’m confused about it. I was told that I was sick, but I didn’t believe it… It’s a great place here, with you… If one day I relapse – there has heredity with us – I would not hesitate a moment to come back… “

    She talks and cares about concrete problems in her community, especially with our only sister-nurse…, sometimes with us…; the behaviour becomes completely normal, and there is no sign of deterioration. She re-enters the community and quickly adapts to it. The hospitalization with us lasted a total of three months. During the five days of annihilation, she had seventeen electroshocks. She underwent forty insulin therapy sessions, forty days of directed institutional therapy.

    Sur quelques cas traités par la méthode de Bini

    I solemnly protest against the pro-psychiatric deviation of Mad in America, which reaches new heights where a supporter of electroshock, insulin comas and patient annihilation can be promoted as “radical” and “progressive” on Mad in America.

    sylvain.rousselot.pro (at) gmail.com

  • I note that I have indeed misinterpreted your words and that you are indeed in favor of the use of psychiatric drugs.

    You simply object to the “abuse” of psychotropic substances and the coercive use of these drugs.

    That’s why we have nothing in common, and I totally reject Marcello Maviglia’s call to work together.

    On the contrary, in my comment, which has been the subject of major cuts in order to be published, I called to exclude from Mad in America those favorable to psychiatric drugs, that is to say, not to allow them to publish here.

    [Moderation.]

    By way of analysis, I believe there are two irreconcilable categories of readers and editors here on Mad in America.

    First we have the “carers”, the intellectuals, the journalists, who studied at the university and who share a common “habitus” between themselves and with the psychiatrists, that is to say, to simplify, the same social class. These are supporters of “critical” psychiatry, they want to reform psychiatry to save it, make it better and develop it according to their views. They do not hesitate to ask for more budgets for psychiatry and to promote illegal drugs, which they are often very fond of.

    And then we have the real victims of psychiatry, those who were broken by the machine, those who experienced REAL mournings and REAL mutilations. Those who lost their freedoms, those who saw their loved ones wiped out by treatment that made them weak and helpless – or DEAD. Those who saw the criminality of psychiatrists, through their agreement with the family to camouflage rapes and incest, for the production of false certificates to lock up, for the systematic violation of professional secrecy and private life and all other human rights.

    For these, no compromise, no agreement is possible and psychiatry must be exterminated to the root, so that not even a fossil remains for centuries to come.

    This is why you will understand that the reformists, with their legal and illegal drugs, their intentions of better “caring” us, their complacency with their colleagues, their pacifism, their moderation and their common work with psychiatrists, all these people are for us like a splinter in the foot.

    I hope that my message will not be censored, and that it will not be subject to any cut, having expressed in the clearest way possible the position of a certain number of people who read, comment or publish here.

  • Maybe someday I will write a blog about the necessary prohibition of psychotropic drugs, except anesthesia and rigorously controlled, reasonable duration weaning (because a weaning which lasts more than 2 years is a fake weaning).

    Prohibition is necessary not only for medical reasons, but also for political reasons.

    The prohibition of psychotropic drugs and psychiatry in general, whether exercised by a psychiatrist or anyone else, will allow us to separate allies and enemies on this point, and allow us to crush members of the psychiatric industry/institution.

    This is why I say that prohibition is necessary on several levels.

    Do you know this quote from John Ehrlichman?

    “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

    — Dan Baum, Legalize It All: How to win the war on drugs, Harper’s Magazine (April 2016)

    If one day we take the power, we will use the same kind of methods, but in an open way, to crush psychiatrists (and not Blacks or anti-war activists). The little cannabis users, we don’t care.

    We want prohibition, for get hold of the psychiatrists. Prohibition (among other measures) will allow us to bring down an entire sector of the old state repressive apparatus and develop our own repressive apparatus. Only, our repressive apparatus will be directed against a whole other section of the society.

  • [Moderation].

    In her articles, Laura Guerra spoke out clearly against drug use (not only against drug “abuse”): she translated a book by P. Breggin and severely warned her readers against drugs.

    On the contrary, according to the biography of Dan Monticelli, Dan Monticelli and Marcello Maviglia have together written a book entitled: “New Paths to Recovery: Behavioral, Physical and Spiritual Potentials for Cannabis”.

    Since Marcello Maviglia is a psychiatrist, I would like to ask him the question: [moderation]? Or put another way: does he prescribe psychotropic drugs?

    Since Marcello Maviglia is asking for feedback on his project, here is mine.

    I believe [moderation] and drug promoters should be removed from the “Mad” network.

    [moderation]

    [Published after autor and moderation’s agreement.]

  • Early genius is, obviously, non-genetic. See the experience of the Polgár sisters. Common factors include an early start and hard work. Behind all precocious genius, there is a pedagogue. If early genius were genetic, it would be passed from parent to child, and we would have successive generations of geniuses that would reproduce predictably. But this is not the case.

  • What about animal experimentation? Indeed, I doubt that the mice raise their twins MZ and DZ differently. The use of laboratory mice would allow to pass them double-blind tests, and to test the mice in very large numbers and at low cost.

    Given that the breeding and testing environment is extremely similar and that the mice have no culture but only instinctive behavior, such a well-controlled and double-blind experiment would give us serious clues about plausibility of the genetic hypothesis.

    My opinion is that there will be no statistically significant difference in behavior depending on whether the twin pairs are MZ or DZ.

  • Critical psychiatrists can never help but make a concession to mainstream psychiatry: “Pills may be helpful to modulate extreme distress”, which illustrates that they are from the same corporation and have the same function.

    All that distinguishes a critical psychiatrist from a conventional psychiatrist is the feeling of guilt, but a critical psychiatrist will never take it upon himself to take revolutionary action: on the contrary, they always admit, according to their program, that narcotics can be useful “in some cases” and put us to sleep with promises of reform that will never come.

    Who can believe a man who works in a mental hospital? He will fill out the same psychiatric records, engage in the same drug trafficking and offer absolution to anyone who seeks in him the root cause of his misfortunes.

    After the drug trade, the intimate confession? We know that the Mafia has always been very attached to the Catholic Church. Likewise, psychiatrists are staunch defenders of psychotherapy, which is somehow their excuse and their priesthood for all the crimes they have committed.

    Corrupt priests might as well say that the Mafia can redeem itself. Narcotics, kidnappings, blackmail, corruption, extortion and exploitation: all this can be corrected as soon as you surrender your soul to God. But don’t stop the Mafia! Amen.

  • It is a selection bias.

    Suppose 1000 people are going through a psychotic crisis in families refusing psychiatric treatment.

    Suppose, 5 years later, 90% have recovered, and 10% have worsened.

    In desperation, the families of these 10% finally hospitalize them.

    In this case, we observe that 100% of people hospitalized have worsened in the last 5 years. Psychiatrists might observe that, in this group of chronic psychotics, the recovery rate is only 5%. But it is a selection bias: the original sample of this group was 1,000 people, and 90% of this group have recovered and will never go to psychiatry. They are therefore invisible.

    Now suppose 100 people are going through a psychotic crisis, but this time, in families following the recommendations of psychiatrists, and immediately hospitalizing their loved one.

    Suppose that with medication, 5 years later, 30% of people recover and 70% become chronic psychotics.

    Thus, according to psychiatric observations:

    30% of psychotics treated immediately recover, 40% become chronic;
    5% of psychotics treated 5 years later recover, 95% remain chronic.

    But according to the actual data:

    90% of psychotics never treated recover, 10% become chronic;
    30% of psychotics treated immediately recover, 70% become chronic.

    Association ≠ causality.

    Sometimes a negative association can reveal positive causation.

  • The psychedelics of indigenous societies have a social function, just like the psychotropics of capitalist society: to prevent society from evolving. Primitive societies are absolutely incredible in their concervatism: they can remain similar to themselves for tens of thousands of years.

    The ritual consumption of narcotics to stupefy the people and thus prevent any human progress is thus an instrument of choice to keep society in its current state. No new invention, no discovery is then possible.

    It is only in exceptional circumstances (war, famine, migration …) that the tribe is forced to moderate its consumption of narcotics, and possibly to evolve, but it takes an extremely long time.

    Thus, the opposition of indigenous “spiritual” society to “materialist” capitalist society is irrelevant, because in both cases the consumption of narcotics has a surprisingly similar social function: to prevent society from evolving. And more precisely in capitalist society: preventing the revolution.

    This video explains it absolutely very well, taking for example the monopoly of the production and distribution of alcohol in Tsarist Russia.

    What is true for the monople of alcohol is just as true for the “medical” monopoly of massively consumed psychiatric drugs in contemporary capitalist society.

  • PROTOCOLIZE RESEARCH REVIEW

    Thank you for your review of this study.

    You and other writers of Mad In America have gained crucial experience in examining research, consisting in tests and analysis criteria.

    Isn’t it time to compile all these criteria in a protocol, allowing to carry out a systematic review of research according to predictable and rigorously defined criteria?

    We always find the same criteria in your articles and those of other editors:

    _ representative vs non-representative population
    _ placebo study vs withdrawal study
    _ naive population vs non-naive population
    _ Confounding factors (including medication)
    _ short term vs long term
    _ protection of the safety (in particular due to withdrawal)

    Etc.

    There is not much missing to compile all these criteria in a systematic analysis protocol.

    I would like different Mad In America editors to come together to establish such a protocol, which would guide the editors in their analysis of studies.

    It makes it possible to assess the quality of studies in a stricter, more in-depth and better defined manner.

    Such a protocol could eventually become a recognized standard for evaluating scientific research.

  • > In June 2018, he pleaded guilty to the theft of $87,000, after which a judge sentenced Neumeister — a classically trained pianist — to play piano for “an hour at least twice weekly for the next three years at group facilities in Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, and Waterbury,” Connecticut, the Associated Press reported at the time.

    This is a joke? To punish him, the judge asked him to do a leisure activity ?? !!!

    It’s been 312 hours of leisure.

    $87,000/312h = $280/h

    And meanwhile, there are people who spend years in jail for pickpocketing.

    The judges also, they will have to be punished for their class complacency.

  • “Those who […] were currently abusing substances […] were excluded from the study. […] Participants were assisted in tapering their current antidepressant medication and were allowed benzodiazepines only if needed.”

    But antidepressants and benzodiazepines consumption IS substances abuse!

    Since when is the consumption of antidepressants or benzodiazepines no longer a drug addiction? Because a psychiatrist said it was good for your health? Because the state says it’s legal?

    Addiction to psychiatric drugs is almost always more serious than addiction to illegal drugs, because psychiatric drugs are practically free, while illegal drugs are relatively expensive. Thus there is an economic limit to the consumption of illegal drugs, while for legal drugs, the pockets of social security and insurance are wide open!

    The severe consumption of psychiatric drugs, the concomitant withdrawal from antidepressants, and the “at will” consumption of benzodiazepines make the “results” of this pseudo-study completely random.

    Besides, we don’t need “scientific” studies to find out if recreational drugs are … recreational. Obviously, certain drugs are “pleasant”, and they temporarily decrease the suffering of some. People are ready to risk prison, and even life, to consume them! Not only do these studies teach us nothing, but in addition their methods are fraudulent, dishonest and criminal: why not give good doses of heroin to depressed people? I am sure that such a study would give “promising” results according to the kind of analysis that Mad in America give us for hallucinogens.

    Why this double standard? Why then a rigorous critical analysis for neuroleptics, and a disgusting complacency for hallucinogens? It is however the same kind of pseudo-science at the basis of their promotion!

    There are reasons to believe that this selective complacency is not innocent. Just as scientists must declare their conflicts of interest, journalists who promote the use of illegal drugs should declare whether they are former users, occasional users or regular users.

    For me, it is extremely doubtful that this sudden collapse of the critical mind, when hallucinogens comes to discussion, is pure chance.

    When you talk about recreational drugs, honesty requires that you make a declaration of consumption or non-consumption, whether in the past or in the present.

  • Mad in America is totally ambivalent about drugs. There is no clear editorial line.

    On the one hand “Mad in America” will require long-term studies on neuroleptics, antidepressants and anxyolitics, and conclude that they must be condemned. Some authors deny the existence of mental illness, and claim an exclusively social and / or cultural approach.

    On the other, it prostrates itself against illegal recreational drugs, based on short-term clinical trials, the scientific value of which is extremely low. There is then no longer any serious scientific requirement, and “mental illness” again becomes like a real disease, which must be treated with medication.

    I say that I have had enough of this ambivalence.

    I say that the editorial line must be clearer, that Mad in America must abandon its anti-scientific spirit when it comes to illegal and recreational drugs.

  • There are effective treatments for acute pain.

    But are there effective treatments for chronic pain? Are there randomized studies which prove that a treatment for chronic pain is effective beyond two years?

    This is a silent character.

    To my knowledge, “chronic pain” means to the doctor:

    a) put the patient on opioids,
    b) enrich himself in a pornographic way like a heroin dealer until the patient’s death.

    If someone has the reference of a randomized study comparing an analgesic to a placebo or the absence of treatment, and doing a follow-up beyond two years, I am interested.

    The object of study being chronic pain, studies whose follow-up is less than two years are not relevant.

  • Testing psychotherapy to cure “mental illness” is as meaningless as testing exorcism to cast out demons.

    Exorcism and psychotherapy are cultural activities whose “effectiveness” depends on the social and personal congruence between the parties.

    It is not surprising that psychotherapy is more effective in wealthy people, since psychotherapy was born in liberal circles.

    The bursting of psychotherapeutic approaches attests to the diversity, complexity, syncretism and cosmopolitism of modern Western culture, unlike other older, more local and more homogeneous cultures.

    Psychotherapy is neither medical nor paramedical, it is a purely cultural activity which testifies to the time and the place in which we live.

    It is out of the question to reimburse psychotherapies, just as it is out of the question that the State or Social Security finance the Church; all this is only the corporatism of charlatans associated ready to submit to state control in order to enrich themselves.

    Down with the Rasputins!

  • Schizophrenia is defined by a series of sets of behaviors, not even consistent with each other.

    Not being a scientifically defined entity, but rather an extremely vague social category, it doesn’t even make sense to search for genetics under it.

    Here are two real cases of people diagnosed with schizophrenia:

    Case 1

    At the beginning of adolescence, a young girl begins to use recreational drugs massively, in the milieu of rave parties. A little later, she develops a severe psychosis. Her divorced father was himself an addict, addicted to hard drugs.

    Psychiatric “diagnostic”: schizophrenia.

    “Treatment”: neuroleptics.

    The girl continues to use recreational drugs, no measures are taken to change her social environment or to clarify the links between her father’s addiction and her own addiction. On the contrary, her psychiatrist is actively involved in getting her to test various drugs, including a psychostimulant which has triggered an extreme psychotic crisis.

    Case 2

    At 14, a young girl is sexually touched by her stepfather. The family decides to keep the matter quiet, and recommends to the girl do the same. At 18, the girl begins to tell her story to everyone, and shows a rebellious and independent spirit. She leaves the family home with the intention of no longer living with her stepfather. Her mother calls her back, and, without explicitly forbidding her, makes her understand that she must not leave the family (double-bind). The girl begins to develop a sort of “uncertainty psychosis”, deciding to return home then immediately after leaving. This alternation of decisions becomes faster and faster until the girl becomes completely confused. She was quickly interned by her mother. Since then, she is regularly interned by her parents, as soon as she shows initiative, which triggers a psychosis.

    “Diagnosis”: schizophrenia.

    “Treatment”: neuroleptics and successive hospitalizations, in order to “subdue” her (to make her accept the illness and the treatment, which she refuses).

    Other family and environmental aspects: the sister was raped by the stepfather’s brother at the age of 5. She did not develop psychosis. Of course, there is no genetic link between the father-in-law and the uncle on the one hand, and the two sisters on the other. This young woman is “supported” by those around her, but like a “mental patient”; she is also treated as a “sacred person”, being mentioned that she is truly in contact with the world of the beyond (literally). Thus, her entourage justifies her “schizophrenia” by a contradictory mixture of genetics, mysticism and incest; the sordid reality of sexual touching is most often concealed and minimized in favor of psychiatric and mystical explanations. Her grandmother bluntly told her that incest was a “normal” phenomenon, and that it was important not to talk about it.

    Two completely different cases, clearly non-genetic and treated in the same way by psychiatry. How can we even seriously consider that these two people could have a “common genetic profile” that would distinguish them and separate them from the rest of humanity? Genetics serve as a cover-up for an absolutely obvious, overwhelming social reality, which psychiatrists have the task of camouflaging for the benefit of family tranquility: the drug addiction of a father, the incest of a stepfather.

    This is the real justification for the so-called “research” on the genetics of this absurd entity that is “schizophrenia”.

  • Currently, scientific research on nutrition is in absolute contradiction with official nutritional recommendations.

    We don’t eat enough fat: the PURE study (Dehghan, 2017), bringing together more than 130,000 people over a median of 7.4 years, studying the mortality and morbidity rate according to the intake of macronutrients, finds the lowest mortality rate in the population quintiles consuming the most fats and the least carbohydrates.

    Thus, all other things being equal (tobacco, physical activity, education, etc.):

    People in the 1st quintile getting a median of 46.4% of their energy from carbohydrates have a death rate of 4.1 per thousand and per year,
    People in the 5th quintile getting a median of 77.2% of their energy from carbohydrates have a death rate of 7.2 per thousand and per year,

    People in the 1st quintile getting a median of 10.6% of their energy from lipids have a mortality rate of 6.7 per thousand and per year,
    People in the 5th quintile getting a median of 35.3% of their energy from lipids have a mortality rate of 4.1 per thousand and per year,

    (page 5)

    For proteins, the optimal amount was around 16.9% (4th quintile), between 16.4% and 17.4%, although there may be an association between protein consumption and consumption of lipids or carbohydrates (fatty meats, dairy products; vegetables…).

    The fact that the mortality rate is lowest in the 1st quintile of carbohydrate consumption and in the 5th quintile of lipids consumption suggests that an even lower consumption of carbohydrates and even higher consumption of lipids decreases mortality even more.

    And indeed, the first graph in Figure 1 on page 7 shows an inverse relationship between lipid consumption and the mortality rate. The mortality rate is the lowest… at the end of the graph, when more than 45% of the total energy comes from lipids!

    In addition, an increased consumption of saturated fatty acids or monounsaturated fatty acids does not increase the mortality rate, on the contrary. It’s just that a very high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids lowers the mortality rate even more. In other studies, it is trans fatty acids that have demonstrated their harmfulness (margarines…), not the saturated fatty acids!

    On the contrary, beyond 55% of energy in the form of carbohydrates, the mortality rate increases in an accelerated way.

    100ml of breast milk contains:

    4.2g, 37.8cal (54%) fat
    1.1g, 04.4cal (06%) protein
    7.0g, 28.0cal (40%) carbohydrates

    By natural selection, breast milk is probably close to optimal for the newborn.

    It gives us an indication of the importance of lipids in human nutrition.

    The optimal share of lipids in human food after weaning is certainly greater than or equal to 45%, probably around 54%, as in breast milk.

    Proteins are of variable quality in human food after weaning: part of the protein is used for anabolism (cell construction) and the other for catabolism (energy): more protein is therefore needed to ensure anabolic needs, and pay attention to their quality. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons why, all other things being equal, people consuming more animal proteins have a lower mortality rate; another reason being that a higher consumption of animal proteins is associated with a higher consumption of lipids (fatty fish, fatty meat…).

    In general, the quality of macronutrients is important, and the way they are taken: for example, we know that fibers significantly reduce the harmfulness of fructose (whole fruits…), while pure sucrose, i.e. refined sugar, is very harmful and causes diabetes (Coca-Cola…).

    Dehghan, M., Mente, A., Zhang, X., Swaminathan, S., Li, W., Mohan, V., …Mapanga, R. (2017). Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study. Lancet, 390(10107), 2050–2062. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32252-3

  • The comparison with cocaine is wise.

    The pharmaco-medical complex intends to expand the extremely lucrative market for recreational drugs, and to seize the market shares currently held by the Mafia.

    The “scientific” method by which esketamine has been approved is applicable to any recreational drugs.

    It is therefore not only the approval of esketamine that is at stake, but the groundswell aimed at widening the market for recreational drugs: opiates, benzodiazepines, veterinary sedatives, psycho-stimulants, ecstasy, LSD, cannabis, etc.

  • We can find other biases in this study.

    Hawthorne effect: “is a type of reactivity in which individuals modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed.”

    Social desirability bias: “is a type of response bias that is the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others.”

    Classical conditioning: “refers to a learning procedure in which a biologically potent stimulus (e.g. alcool) is paired with a previously neutral stimulus (e.g. aversive social situation).”

    At least some parts of the experience was designed to maximize the Hawthorne effect and the social desirability bias by classical conditioning.

    “Baseline and post-manipulation (i.e. Day 1 and Day 10) cue reactivity was assessed via ‘liking’ and ‘urge to drink’ ratings of a set of beer (N = 7), wine (N = 3) orange juice (N = 4) and soft drink (N=2) cue images, as described previously12. The experimenter first opened a bottle of lager (Pilsner Urquell) in front of the participants and poured 150ml into a half-pint glass. This was placed on the table in front of the participants and they were told that they would drink this beer when instructed to by on-screen prompts, but that first they would rate a series of images for pleasantness(liking) and their effects on urge to drink(wanting) the beer in front of them. All ratings were made verbally on a scale of -5 (extremely unpleasant/ greatly reduces urge) to +5 (extremely pleasant/ greatly increases urge) and noted by the experimenter. Images were 400×400 pixels, presented centrally on a computer screen, in a random order, for 10 seconds each. Following completion of the rating, participants were asked to rate their current urge to drink the in vivo beer (anticipatory urgerating) and how much they Conducting the cue reactivity/alcohol reinforcement task on Day 1 and Day 10 both provided a metric of clinically-relevant changes in the hedonic and motivational effects of beer and maximised the expectancy of receiving beer during the Day 3 reactivation procedure, thus generating a prediction error (PE) when the drink was withheld on Day 3.

    The alcohol MRM (RET) and Control (No RET) Memory Reactivation Procedures took place on Day 3 and used sub-sets of stimuli from the cue reactivity /alcohol reinforcement task. For MRM retrieval (RETgroups), these were four images of beer and for No RET+KET, these were four images of orange juice. All participants also rated two ‘soft drink’ images of cola and coffee. Participants in MRM retrieval conditions were told they would repeat the image rating and beer consumption task from Day 1. Again, a beer was opened and 150ml poured into a glass placed in front of participants. They then rated four of the beer cue images (designated ‘beer retrieval’ images) and the two soft drink images, along with their ‘urge to drink’ and anticipated enjoyment of the in vivo beer. The drinking prompt screens then began, but the final prompt read ‘Stop! Do not drink’.”

    This is pure classical conditionning. Alcohol consumption is associated with an unpleasant social situation, frustration, and public exposure by the “experts”.

    Although the experiment has resulted in “favorable” results, it is likely that it has above all (re)demonstrated the effectiveness of classical conditioning and social pressure in reducing alcohol consumption, or at least, the declaration of alcohol consumption.

    Other biases can be found in the detailed description of the experiment.

    For example, 27/30 of the placebo group and 60/60 of the ketamine group guessed which group they were in. Therefore, this experience is almost open label.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

  • I really appreciate this scientific watch from madinamerica.com.

    Unlike other media outlets, madinamerica.com reports on therapies that do not work.

    This avoids the crushing and painful bias by which only favorable results are massively disseminated, giving the illusion of scientific progress without end and error.

    The reality is that the march of science is riddled with massive, shameful and ridiculous errors; kept artificially alive by interest, authority and blindness.

    90% of true scientific work is to get rid of these mistakes, not to create “new” scientific knowledge that is usually defective.

  • For example, anti-scientific communication operations that seek to promote or protect corporations or businesses, and that have the effect of degrading the health of the population, could be punished by real jail time.

    Indeed, this kind of propaganda has the effect of maintaining or increasing the consumption of legal narcotics, and thus of causing harm to society, which can be measured in financial losses, in losses of years of life in good health and losses of human lifes.

    These losses should be measured concretely and the people involved should be punished in the same way as other criminals.

  • “Emphasis on shared decision-making” aims to restore the reputation of psychiatry, and to integrate the institution to trade as a normal service, as are the services of hairstyles or lawyer.

    This is total utopia, because the fundamental function of psychiatry is the repression of some form of deviance, while the trafficking of narcotics and psychotherapy are a subordinate function, whatever its economic size.

    “Despite the clear benefits of involving young people in their own treatment” This is so obvious that the author is careful not to mention them. Would the benefit be that children can be subjected to drug addiction with their own agreement? Or that it is not necessary to use brutal force against them?

    The “decision-making process” is a lie of war propaganda. War propaganda, like the myth of chemical imbalance, is a weapon of war, and makes deaths like any weapon. Proponents of war lies are criminals just like criminals who handle material weapons, like psychiatric narcotics.

    “I did not … [know] … they just make decisions for me.”

    This child is right. He is not stupid. the propagandists of the “shared decision-making” are liars, who deserve the same fate as other psychiatrists.

    Down with the liars!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Some statistics from this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I return the compliment to them:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Some remarks on this study:

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

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

    neuroleptic: 0%
    weaning: 31%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    IF. If, if, if…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Other relevant elements:

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

    And all the analyzed studies come from the pharmaceutical industry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    […]

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

    […]

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

    […]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Psychotropic drugs lengthen the duration of hospitalization:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIA should make it a rule never to peddle rumors.

    Testis unus, testis nullus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    21 months.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    and maybe even better depending on the clientele.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • “the researcher failed to protect Dan Markingson”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you psychiatric research!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (Ginsburg, 2014, Table 3)

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

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

    The CAMELS are a SCAM!

    Bibliography

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

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

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

  • Dear Mr. Whitaker,

    Currently, research cited by MIA tends to prove that:

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

    Therefore:

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

    Since then:

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

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

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

    You play in the center.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Number of deaths in the USA in 2010:

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

    Legal crimes are MUCH more deadly than unlawful crimes.

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

    Sources:

    (1)
    Murder victimes, FBI

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

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

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

  • Still analogies …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    According to the cited study:

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

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

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

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

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

  • Money opens all doors …

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

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

    This illustrates a fundamental problem.

  • Two other important biases can be cited.

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

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

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

    This is a common measure in France.

    See my comment on the other publication.

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

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

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

  • From which country do the data come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And we can answer them:

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

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

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

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

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

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Individual expenditure vs. overall expenditure
    ============================

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

    Caste of privileged
    ============

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

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

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

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

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

    Veblen’s Sabotage
    ===========

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Healy, D. (2012). Benefit Risk Madness: Antipsychotics and Suicide (html) https://davidhealy.org/benefit-risk-madness-antipsychotics-and-suicide/

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

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

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

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

    @Richard D. Lewis

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle

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

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

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

  • According to Daniel F Kripke (2012):

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

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

    http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000850

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

    You take alcohol, you can not drive.

    You take drugs, you can not shoot.

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

  • Thank you for this analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Thank you for your article, Mr Whitaker.

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

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

    Here is my answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    On the weaning:

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

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

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

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

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

    Are not identical:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FREEDOM OR DEATH

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

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

  • Wait: 2%?

    This is in Table 2 p. 4.

    annual mortality rate, %:

    Age 16-30: 1.968%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This study is interesting but it contains gaps and quirks.

  • What you write is very correct.

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

    recovery rate of schizophrenics:

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

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

    The more psychiatry develops, the worse are its results.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000850

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

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

  • Indeed, I think psychiatrists’ actions are crazy.

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

    http://www.nature.com/news/ai-controlled-brain-implants-for-mood-disorders-tested-in-people-1.23031

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, we must not forget this:

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

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

    Objective: To test the hypothesis that the presence of national mental health policies, programs and legislation would be associated with lower national suicide rates.
    Method: Suicide rates from 100 countries were regressed on mental health policy, program and legislation indicators.
    Results: Contrary to the hypothesized relationship, the study found that after introducing mental health initiatives (with the exception of substance abuse policies), countries’ suicide rates rose.
    Conclusion: It is of concern that most mental health initiatives are associated with an increase in suicide rates. However, there may be acceptable reasons for the observed findings, for example initiatives may have been introduced in areas of increasing need, or a case-finding effect may be operating. Data limitations must also be considered.
    Key words: mental health policies, mental health programs, suicide prevention, suicide.

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

    […]

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

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

    Table 4 p. 5 (extract)

    Malee and female, total % Adjusted percentage change in suicide rates
    Mental health policy **+8.3%**
    Mental health program +4,9%
    Mental health legislation **+10,6%**
    Substance use policy **-11,3%**
    Therapeutic drugs policy **+7,0%**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Imagin this poster:


    DORM MOM KIM INVOLVED IN PROGRAM FOR MARGINALIZATION AND EXPULSION OF UNDESIRABLES AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES FROM THE UNIVERSITY

    [big picture of Kim, black and white]

    [big black swatiska]

    DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN NAZI MEETINGS ORGANIZED BY DORM MOM KIM FOR THE MARGINALIZATION AND EXPULSION OF VULNERABLE PEOPLE!

    Posters everywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

    UNIVERSITY EXPELS UNDESIRABLES, PARASITES AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

    Names of officials participating in this program:

    […]

    [swastika]

    DOWN NAZI BUREAUCRATS!

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

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

    For the whistleblowing campaign, posters:

    UNIVERSITY EXPELS DISABLED PEOPLE

    Names of officials participating in this program:

    [List of names of key officials, including psychiatrists]

    DOWN NAZI BUREAUCRATS!

    Followed by a beautiful black swastika, clearly visible.

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

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

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

    DOCTOR XX PARTICIPATES IN EXPULSION PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PEOPLE

    [Photo]

    [swastika]

    NO TO NAZISM!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Could you give me your opinion on this bias?

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

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

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

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

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

    5) Nil or very punctual consumption of neuroleptics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    % of schizophrenic patients still psychotic after 4 years:

    Never on neuroleptic: 7%

    Sometimes on neuroleptics: 46%

    Always on neuroleptics: 72%

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

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

    Psychiatrists are usurers.

    Harrow, M., Jobe, T. H., Faull R. N. (2014) Does treatment of schizophrenia with antipsychotic medications eliminate or reduce psychosis? A 20-year multi-follow-up study. Psychological Medicine, Page 1 of 10. © Cambridge University Press 2014 doi:10.1017/S0033291714000610 Repéré à http://www.mentalhealthexcellence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HarrowJobePsychMedMarch2014.pdf

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

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/05/hamb-n05.html

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

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

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

  • Why not?

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

    This letter is called “I hate men”.

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

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

    And the original paragraph is:

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

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

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

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

    https://www.thecut.com/2017/11/ask-polly-i-hate-men.html

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

    What hypocrisy! What double standard!

  • The question is on which review Ben Goldacre relies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • You can access the study via http://sci-hub.cc/

    Copy-paste DOI and let’s go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    He brings the proof:

    1) that adolescent psychiatry has developed in recent years,

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

    The author recognizes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And see the completely specious reasoning!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • > Which article?

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

    > So why did you post it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It’s even worse! Soldiers work by squadrons!

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

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

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

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

  • Correct.

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

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

    Psychiatry is a disaster on the way.

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

    SAMHSA (2017). Results from the 2016 national survey on drug use and health: detailed tables. Rockville, Maryland 20857. Retrieved at
    https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2016/NSDUH-DetTabs-2016.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Involuntary Outpatient Commitment already exists in France.

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

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

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

    The psychiatric monster is progressing all over the world.

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

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

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

    1) Income

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

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

    By prescribing neuroleptics, the psychiatrist triple his income.

    2) Social demand

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

    3) Dependence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fYCu3MUbfPEV1Zw0nNydLRAiyk1GVbcwRn2PxyzcKks/pubhtml?gid=2018955832&single=true

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M3FL2aCwpigOO2Uywo3zIkO4aGUn8d9DEwpXfYlQzXg/pubhtml

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

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

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

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

    http://www.ectresources.org/

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

    This is French psychiatry.

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

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

    http://francais.medscape.com/voirarticle/3603178?faf=1&src=soc_fb_170416_mscpfr_feat_EPA1

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

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

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

  • Harrow’s study merely shows schizophrenics are:

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

    if they take NO neuroleptics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Harrow, M., Jobe, T. H. (2007) Factors Involved in Outcome and Recovery in Schizophrenia Patients Not on Antipsychotic Medications: A 15-Year Multifollow-Up Study. J Nerv Ment Dis 2007;195: 406–414. DOI: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000253783.32338.6e. http://www.mentalhealthexcellence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/OutcomeFactors.pdf

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