Monday, October 25, 2021

Comments by yinyang

Showing 6 of 6 comments.

  • I don’t see how psychiatric drugs would be a form of “gain of function” research; the latter involves taking a relatively benign virus and altering it to become more virulent or more transmissible, a la COVID. Psychiatric drugs are unrelated to viruses or “vaccines.”

    However, producing psychiatric drugs and engineering lethal viruses are comparably criminal activities in my book, so the two are related in that sense, and in the sense that the same forces are profiting from both.

  • I don’t see why research into psychiatric drugs should continue at all — any more than “gain of function” research should be allowed to continue.

    As for capitalism, I don’t think it can be “reformed” any more than psychiatry can be. Unfortunately I think we all missed the boat — fascism is here, albeit in different clothing than anticipated.

    I also find it a bit odd that people here seem to attack Big Pharma for its production of toxic psychiatric drugs which are forcibly administered, but no mention is made of forced “vaccines”; seems like the same issue to me. Anyway thanks for the article.

  • Greetings to all.

    Jack — I like your rundown of the labels you don’t ascribe to.

    Terminology is always a problem. Most of those who have endured psychiatry tend to call themselves “survivors” but I understand your discomfort with the term. It tends to connote the polar opposite of “victim,” which I think is a disempowering way to identify.

    Worst of all these however is “mad,” which far too many people romanticize and apply to themselves in a way that implies they are “special,” however if one person is capable of “madness” we all are. And what would “mad activism” consist of other than the effort to eradicate the ultimate source of all these labels, i.e. psychiatry itself?

    Anyway, a thought-provoking response worthy of praise.