Thank you for this excellent piece. Two things: 1) It is great to see your references to psychiatry’s PR buzz words like “severe mental illness” in quotation marks. Those words are key to psychiatry’s colonization of our emotional lives, how we think about ourselves and what we do about our problems. This is the same PR trick politicians use all the time to herd voters to rush in whatever direction suits them. Examples: Years ago, Republicans took a pretty rational law – taxing inheritances above $5,000,000 – and portrayed it as an arbitrary and confiscatory thing by labelling it a “death tax.” Later, Maryland enacted a small fee for people and businesses with paved driveways and parking lots, to help pay for the damage to the Chesapeake Bay caused by the runoff of polluted water from paved surfaces into the bay. Politicians re-labelled this “the rain tax,” implying “big government” over-reach in taxing us for the rain that fell on our heads. As long as you can dictate the words people use, you can control how they think. Writers at Mad In America shoot their own cause in the foot when they use mental illness, mental health, diagnose and disorder, in pieces arguing against the medical model. Those are psychiatry’s brand names, the things they want to stick in the minds of “consumers'” as they decide whether to take a pill versus seeing a counselor. It’s basic ad-biz, and it works – that’s why Pharma spends more each year on “promotion” than on research. Imagine writing to support humane treatment of asylum seekers at the U. S. border, while calling them “illegals” (or, per our (not) Glorious Leader, “rapists and murderers”). We should not reinforce psychiatry/Pharma propaganda by using their own key buzz words. 2) Thank you for your reference to the WHO study. It is very heavy reading, but I recommend their final report, Recovery From Schizophrenia – an International Perspective. I didn’t even try to hang in for all the graphs and statistical analyses – Robert Whitaker summarizes it in Anatomy of an Epidemic. But I could get through some of their chapters and their statements of conclusions. As Whitaker points out, not only were recovery rates in developing countries better than in developed countries, but there was a consistent correlation – the developing countries used fewer psych drugs, and Agra, India, the study center with the lowest use of the drugs, also had the best recovery rate of all. The most striking thing: the WHO concluded, as you say, that family structure, etc. influence outcome, but they did not choose to notice an obvious possible factor – the less psych drugs, the better the outcome. So even a publication from the WHO, via Oxford University Press seems to have been too intimidated by psychiatry/Pharma’s hegemony to tug on Super Man’s cape by mentioning the obvious.