I did mean in the USA. I am certain that similar circumstances pertain in most other “western” countries. Our culture seems to depend on the oppression of portions of the population for its full functioning, if we can call it that.
It is important to keep in mind that the first child abuse case was brought by the SPCA on the theory that children should be treated at least as well as dogs. Protection of women from abuse came 100 years later than children. We have always afforded pets more compassion and rights than humans, at least the humans that we have decided don’t deserve to be considered human.
There is nothing in my statements that conflicts with the idea that certain people’s conditions might have a physiological/medical genesis. All I’m saying is that calling these “mental illnesses” obscures the fact that there are multiple possible causes and multiple possible solutions, and that in many cases, there need not be anything physiologically wrong at all. Once we say someone “has depression,” any attempt to understand the real causes, be they physical, psychological, spiritual or social in nature, come to a rapid end. This is particularly true when the system automatically assumes that every single possible divergence from complete satisfaction with the status quo is caused by a “chemical imbalance” or other physiological problem.
There are most definitely physical illnesses that manifest with psychological “symptoms.” It just doesn’t work the other way. As Socrates pointed out, if all men have facial hair, and Bob has facial hair, it doesn’t follow that Bob is a man. The logic flows from known physiological conditions to psychological effects, but not the other way.
Yeah, I’m having flashbacks of having to moderate all of your comments! (Not really – you guys are great!)
The problem resides in trying to come up for a “solution” to something that can not be identified or defined as a single entity. “Mental illness” is a concept, not a disease state with a defined cause. Why would we imagine for a moment that something so nebulous and subjective as “mental illness” could possibly have a unitary cause or solution?
They must all be pretty freakin’ old!
Maybe the word “thought” doesn’t really apply here. Maybe “Delusional greedy fantasy leaders?”
Unfortunately, long-term statistics and models suggest that continuous “treatment” with “antipsychotics” makes any problems with the dopamine system that may theoretically exist into observably greater dysfunction.
Thank God for small favors!
True enough. If the facts supported the pro-psychiatry viewpoint, why would they be so bent on suppressing any kind of dissent with these sleazy tactics? The only reason people viciously “attack the messenger” instead of addressing the concerns raised is because they know they have something to hide.
I’m glad this is coming up, and it looks very interesting! I have only one suggestion: let’s see if we can find a way to talk about “people who are suicidal” without lumping them all together and implying there is some “treatment” that is going to “help” all such people. There is a subtle but powerful subtext through most of the titles of the presentations that buys into this idea.
How about “people who are feeling despair” or “people who are wondering if their life continues to be worth living” or something like that? Or “helping people find hope when their lives seem hopeless to them?” Something that makes it feel like “feeling suicidal” is actually a pretty common experience that doesn’t necessarily reflect anything “wrong” with the person having that experience?
I think Leah’s title gets to this best: “The Way Forward: Pathways to Hope, Recovery, and Wellness with Insights From Lived Experience.” Hope, wellness, insights… no mention of ‘suicidal people’ at all.
It is also important to remember that the “differences on brain scans” are AVERAGES, not diagnostic indicators. And you’re right, of course, they could mean anything. But even if some so-called “ADHD” kids do have a different genetic presentation, SO WHAT? Tall people have different genes than short people, red haired people have different genes than blondes or brunettes, men have VASTLY different genetics in the XY chromosome area… genetic differences are the key to species survival!
As for the heart events, this was being discussed way back in the mid 90s in antipsychiatry circles (see the “Ritalin Death” website), though it was massively denied by the mainstream. Now, once again, we find that the protesters were correct and the “professionals” were lying. Anyone see a pattern emerging here?
Yeah, I get that. And you’re right, the title WAS quite misleading to me as well! I kept waiting for the “solutions to poverty” part to come up, but it never did. I just attributed it to the source. As the Buddhists say, misery is caused by the expectation that things will be different than they actually are. (or words to that effect).
And they so often exclude those who drop out instead of viewing them as the “treatment failures” that they should be considered. Even within their own rules, these drugs don’t often do the job, so they change the rules to protect the concept.
Quite so. An epic tragedy driven purely by egos and the desire to maintain control, damage to the patients be damned.
I personally thought this was quite enlightening for anyone looking at the gap between what supporters of the DSM approach say and what is really true. I don’t expect an interview with the APA head to get into Marxist analysis, I expect it to report accurately what the APA head has to say. This can be VERY important in laying out a counterattack, as once a person is on record making specific statements, it is a lot easier to counter their position with factual research and descriptions of real events. I don’t see it as supporting the idea of “mental illness” just because MIA interviews someone who believes in it. But maybe that’s just me.
I read the quotes from the pamphlet in the article. It seems to be pretty straightforward, and the criticisms forwarded are generalizations and don’t appear to address any of the specific claims in the pamphlet at all. Saying something is “misleading and inaccurate” without saying what is inaccurate or misleading about it is a pretty lame criticism!
And it is a shame that the medical profession (not just psychiatry) is so willing to punish and shame those who display such bravery.
Shocking. Not really. I think they specifically DON’T look at “medication” as a factor because they are worried what they might find out!
Is there any other field of medicine where people “favor” certain philosophical viewpoints toward the “diagnoses” and “treatments?” Do we vote on whether or not someone has cancer or a broken leg?
You are correct, of course, and I do apologize. Though benzos CAN be drugs of addiction as well, and are sold on the street for that purpose. My point is rather that trying to say Klonapin isn’t a major drug is incorrect. It creates a physiological effect that is more difficult to get off of the longer you take it. AND it is a drug of addiction as well.
It is certainly the ability to force others to accept “treatment” that is the most reprehensible power of psychiatry, especially when they know their ‘disorders” lack all validity. But propaganda and status are other powers that can still be used to enforce the psychiatric worldview, even without the courts’ backing.
No, that’s “anosognosia!” EVERYONE is mentally ill because we SAY they are mentally ill! True insight is giving up on rationality and accepting psychiatry’s nihilistic worldview. At least, that’s THEIR definition of it.
And yet…
In psychiatry, “insight” means “realizing you’d better go along with the plan or you’ll get punished.” That’s a valuable insight if you’re in their clutches!
Klonopin is plenty powerful. Many people report becoming addicted. It’s a benzo. Sure, there may be worse things, like having a hand cut off is worse than just a finger. But it’s plenty dangerous.
I LOVE it! This would be a fantastic “study!”
That was poetically put!
Are we surprised?
I think you mean before “DesHorse!” Thanks for the laugh!
I’m not entirely certain that people are looking for relief from suffering, at least not all or most. I think a lot are looking for UNDERSTANDING and CONNECTION, but they are offered “escape from suffering” as a weak alternative by the psychiatric industry, and told that’s all they can hope for. Understanding is more nebulous, requires more work, and can be scarier, but those who have genuinely experienced understanding from another person after working through some pain know it is far superior to merely escaping. Because the escape offered by the psychiatric industry is not very different than getting drunk to forget one’s pain – once one “sobers up,” the pain remains in place and needs to be avoided yet again. To reconsider that pain from a new perspective can not only ease the pain, it can provide meaning for one’s suffering and pathways to create a better life going forward, something no drug can ever begin to deliver.
I don’t disagree with you on that point. There are certainly diseases and medical situations that cause what has come to be known as “mental illness.” My objection is only the idea that they are “mimicking a mental illness,” because there is no such thing as a “mental illness” to mimic, at least not as defined in the DSM. It is an absolute certainty that anything which is called a “mental illness” COULD be caused by real physiological problems (there are literally hundreds of examples), and one of the greatest harms done by psychiatry is to stop doctors and patients looking for actual causes and allowing the “mental illness diagnosis” stand in place of actual research into causes.
SO in essence, it seems we agree with each other, terminology notwithstanding. I appreciate the feedback.
What are the odds they controlled for psych drug exposure? About zero. Perhaps the article should read, “Exposure to neuroleptic drugs causes reduced links between brain cells?”
Quite so! But if you get the empty chamber, you can go on TV and tell how “psychiatric treatment saved my life!”
I agree they have no idea of the cause, but I highly doubt further study of the brain per se is going to yield any more information. It is their primary error to believe that the brain is the causal factor in these “disorders,” in the same sense that solving a software bug or issue can not be resolved by studying the hardware. The mind runs the brain, not the other way around.
More like Russian Roulette!
Right! If we even acknowledge a “mimic” of a “psychiatric disorder,” we are allowing that there are non-mimic situations where there is a “real disorder” going on. It’s insidious but very powerful.
Now, there is a thought! Kind of like stopping headaches by not allowing yourself to be hit on the head repeatedly by a hammer!
The Rosenhahn Experiment. They’re still trying to live that down.
It all depends what “effect” you’re trying to accomplish, I guess.
I for one am very glad that it still bothers you, Sera!
It is kind of amazing how they have to include an “explanation” of the third point, without any evidence, and without mentioning the obvious, likely hypothesis that the drugs themselves are increasing the suicide rate.
Apparently, going for a walk in the woods is now a form of “treatment.”
An excellent example. Thank you.
Lawrence, can you please address the issue of long-term neurological damage that extends beyond the technical withdrawal period from the drug itself? This is not really a controversial issue, at least in the world of substance abuse – it can take a long time for the brain to recover from years of drug-induced altered functioning, and in some cases, there is evidence of permanent damage. Why would this not apply to psychiatric drugs?
Isn’t “precision psychiatry” one of those oxymorons, like “Jumbo shrimp,” “civil war,” or “low-carb beer?” I can’t think of a less “precise” profession – even predicting the weather is more certain!
I agree. It bothers me when they chant “don’t blame the parents, don’t blame the parents!” Sometimes (not always) the parents ARE partly or largely to blame!
Well, what else did you expect him to do? It’s the only think he knows! Maybe he can give some drugs to the person doing the restraining?
It is certainly dependence at a minimum.
I would add that “withdrawal” may not be the proper term for this experience. It is more like “recovery from brain damage.” Most people know that the specific withdrawal period for cocaine, for instance, is pretty short – a matter of hours. But for someone taking cocaine long-term, the recovery period can literally take years. I find it pretty easy to believe that the exact same kind of mechanism would be at play for any psychoactive drug, in fact, I’d be stunned if it were not at play. There is plenty of research regarding neurological up- or down-regulation in the brain when the brain is flooded with/deprived of normal brain chemicals. Recovery from this kind of damage is going to take a hell of a lot longer than it takes the drug to exit the body, and I think it is pretty disingenuous to suggest that people suffering months or a year later are automatically suffering from some psychological problem when it is very possible they are continuing to suffer from brain damage induced by neurochemicals provided by their friendly “medical professionals.”
Gosh, who would have considered such a thought? No it’s not radical, it’s common sense, but as Tim McCarver once quipped, “If it were that common, more people would have it!”
Perhaps they should measure how much their drugs increase kids’ sense of belongingness? Something tells me the drugs will not perform very well with that as the outcome measure.
Speaking Chinese also runs in families. Do you think there may be genetic roots?
They can’t even find genetic vulnerabilities for heart disease or most cancers. There are a few clearly genetic diseases, but even physiological diseases are influenced heavily by environmental impacts. To suggest that “mental health” is analogous is pretty ridiculous.
Might as well call alcohol an antidepressant. People drink when they feel depressed, and then they feel better for a while until it wears off. What’s the diff?
This is the fourth loss of a significant MIA contributor and antipsychiatry activist in the last month or so, and it is hitting me and others very hard. Bonnie in particular always seemed so immutable, so inexorable and so powerfully present, it is hard to imagine her succumbing even to death. Her spirit will continue to be with us as we fight on, but this is a huge loss to us and to the world. RIP, Bonnie, and keep fighting on, wherever you are!
Being sarcastic. Sorry if that wasn’t obvious.
This happened all the time with kids I knew in foster care. They’d give the kids stimulants for “ADHD” and then they got aggressive, so they’d give them an “antipsychotic” to calm them down. Raise the dopamine with one drug, decrease it with the other. Idiocy, but it was done ALL THE TIME. No science going on here!
“Death Therapy, Bob. It’s a sure cure!” From the movie, “What About Bob?”
The kneecaps disintegrating is merely a sad escalation of the disease process. If only we’d have gotten there in time…
You mean gathering together everyone who experiences knee pain together and giving all of them the same “treatment” without any further analysis isn’t going to work? Wow, what a pessimist you are!
Though I suppose it “works” if your business is selling pain relievers.
It’s also ridiculous to ask if “treatment” is effective for a “condition” that is utterly unmeasurable and metaphorical in nature.
Thank you for that, Rachel! That was a wonderfully sensitive post!
That was my thought, too! If meditation can change attitudes toward distress, doesn’t that toss the “genetic brain disease model” in the garbage bin? But expecting consistency from the psychiatric “thought leaders” is a sure way to get a headache!
Yeah, they should say, “…divergence between commonly accepted pseudoscientic and self-serving ‘explanations’ for depression and the actual experience of those having those labels slapped upon them without any attempt to understand the context of the ‘symptoms.'”
Maybe you can select options: “If you’d just like a prescription, press 1. If you’d like a spurious but scientific-sounding ‘diagnosis,’ press 2. If you’d like to have the context of your ‘symptoms’ specifically invalidated, press 3. If you’d like a psychobabble explanation of why you need to keep taking your drugs forever, press 4. If you’d like someone to actually listen and understand your struggles, hang up and call somewhere else!”
Well said! It is the responsibility of those claiming to “treat the mind” to come up with a coherent definition of the “mind” they are supposedly treating. Those criticizing the approach don’t need to define “mind,” they just need to point out that those claiming to be “treating” it can’t define their terms.
You can’t treat a metaphor!
And at least they wouldn’t invalidate you if you disagreed with them.
“Keeping up appearances” is associated with being dishonest about what’s really going on in the family. Highly associated. Pretty much 100%.
Yeah, kind of like saying, “Broken legs are highly associated with specific blows to the leg region. People who were not struck in the leg were far less likely to have their legs broken. Very high level of certainty on this one!”
I like it! “Love Your Misery!” I’ll buy a copy!
Well said! There is no excuse for any “professional” not asking every client about relationships and family history. It seems today that such professionals are the exception rather than the rule.
Yeah, seriously. Creative work, there. Deep insights!
I don’t disagree with anything you said. I was making the point that I do support individual people in making their own decisions and try not to make generalizations about “psychiatrists” as individual practitioners. There are many subtle points on “effectiveness” of drugs – as I’ve often pointed out, alcohol is a great “antianxiety” agent, but no one would prescribe it as a MEDICAL TREATMENT. It’s just something that makes you feel better temporarily. There are always dangers of ANY psychoactive drug, and I would certainly not recommend Ritalin as a way to make oneself fit into the capitalist mold. My point is only that individual decision making is one issue, but group-wide intentional corruption is something completely different. The first is complex, the second is not really all that complex at all. People do things that bring them money, unless they are motivated by caring first. It’s clear that psychiatry as a profession is motivated by greed and power over individual results.
I would suggest that there are, in fact, many caring individual psychiatrists out there, and I have certainly met some of them. I think there is a distinction to be made between psychiatrists (who vary widely as individuals) and “psychiatry,” which is an institution that has its own objectives and strategies and fears and blind spots. It is the institution that I am criticizing, the APA and its group objectives to promote a biologically-centered viewpoint and a drug-centered approach and the DSM strategy of de-contextualizing people’s suffering and blaming them for their “wrong” reactions to trauma and stress in their lives, and the constant hostility and dismissiveness toward even their own research when it conflicts with their agenda. I also feel it is very appropriate to criticize the corruption coming from the pharmaceutical industry that has informed the above goals and strategies.
I also would never criticize an individual for doing whatever works for them or their families. I have stood by and watched while a friend’s husband got ECT (which didn’t work) and eventually came up with moving to another part of the country as a solution. I’ve known domestic abuse victims who used antidepressants as a means of becoming less worried about their abusers’ feelings and it helped them get away. I know people who feel that they can’t live without Prozac or who feel they’ve benefited from stimulants helping them concentrate better. I have no problem with people doing what works for them. And I have no problem with individuals, professional or not, helping other people. But I do have a big, big problem with an entire profession intentionally lying and manipulating data so that they and their drug company counterparts can increase their income and power, and I make no apologies for doing so.
I hope that makes things more clear.
I like this post. The distinction between trying to “make the bad behaviors go away” and understanding their origins so that a person’s needs can be met in another way is huge! Once we understand the emotions driving behavior, CBT can be a useful technique to practice doing something different. But CBT alone often comes across as minimizing or invalidating the emotional components of behavior. People choose a particular action for a REASON, and without understanding the motivation, changing the behavior in isolation doesn’t work very well, in my experience.
If only your brain worked properly, none of that would bother you at all! Stepford Wives are apparently the psychiatric ideal.
You can contact Bob at [email protected]. I can’t speak to how available he would be at a given time – he travels a lot!
I don’t know, maybe it would be fun to interrupt someone’s tirade and say, “You know I was considered one of ‘those people’ once. Do I seem crazy, dangerous or hopeless to you?” Might toss a monkey wrench in their works.
BUt I also get why you wouldn’t want to go there. People who are on that kind of trip really NEED to believe what they are saying, and even a big dose of “cognitive dissonance” rarely has any effect.
Having spent half my career advocating for foster youth, this article resonates with me. Foster youth are the most disempowered group of citizens in the country, and they need all of our help. The rates of drugging tend to be around 20%, but increase by adolescence to over 50% in most states. Claims of “genetic inheritance” and “chemical imbalance” are particularly offensive and egregious in these cases, as we KNOW the main reason why these youth are suffering, yet somehow they continue to be blamed and “treated” for not being happy with their second- or third-class citizen status in life. Many are groomed for the adult “mental health” system and are told they have no chance of surviving without public assistance/disability payments for life. Yet many also rebel when they are able to escape the system and ditch their “mental patient” identities, acting on impulses and beliefs that have been subdued since they were very young in many cases.
These youth need and deserve all the support we can give them. They are the ultimate “market” for the psych industry and are almost helpless to resist.
Consider supporting your local CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) program, or volunteer to become a CASA in your jurisdiction, and you’ll have some direct and substantial influence upon this most undesirable course of events!
Most of them don’t even know the adverse effects of the drugs they personally prescribed. I’d bet that 90% don’t even know there ARE withdrawal effects from Cymbalta. I just figure I have to educate them every time, but avoiding MDs whenever possible is much more effective. I only see them when I have no other choice or need something specific that only they can provide, like antibiotics. Don’t trust them as far as I can toss them.
1 in 4 women are on antidepressants. 1 in 5 women is in an abusive relationship at any given time. What do y’all think the overlap is there? It’s gotta be huge. Has this question ever even been asked?
Quite so. And of course, once we start “socially defining” “disorders,” anything and anyone can be targeted.
I’ll go with Oldhead on this one, and say that a MIND is an idea, or a set of ideas and processes, and ideas can’t be “ill.” There are neurological illnesses, which should all be detectable by some physiological means. But it is a mistake to equate neurology with “mind.” No one really knows what “mind” is, and until we do, it is going to do nothing but add confusion to call a mind “ill.”
Thanks, Gail. Most upsetting to hear about.
Alto, it’s good to see your name up here again! I’ve missed you. Thanks for the post!
Whether or not, the idea scares the snot out of me. It would certainly fit with the objectives of an MK ultra project.
Belief in the suppression of the “mentally ill” is a bipartisan issue. One of the few things the current parties can easily agree upon.
It is not lack of training, it is the ability to dehumanize the victims that leads to this kind of mass unethical behavior. It works very much similar to a gang rape. What is the likelihood that ALL members of a certain sports team are rapists? Simply not possible. So how does an entire team participate in such an atrocity, as has been documented numerous times? It happens when the victim is sufficiently dehumanized that other group members can treat the victim is a non-human so that normal rules of ethics don’t apply in this situation. Same thing with group torture like Abu Ghraib. And it is psychiatry’s own DSM labeling process that makes this mass dehumanization possible. Those people providing “treatment” have been “trained” to see the “patients” as a subgroup who don’t deserve the same rights as other humans. So, in fact, it is not a lack of training, but a training in the use of dehumanizing terms and beliefs that leads to this result.
Right you are, Sam! Genetic diversity is the core of species survival. Even if it’s proven that genetics, for instance, affect activity levels and that some “ADHD” people have a genetic difference means NOTHING about whether or not “ADHD” is a disease state! Men and women have VASTLY different genetics in the X/Y genes, heck, men are MISSING a whole bunch of DNA that women have, and men certainly act differently overall than women. Are we prepared to call having male sex genes a “disease” based on that fact alone? (Testosterone poisoning, anyone?)
The large associations with individual violence are drug use/abuse and domestic/family/pet violence. “Mental illness” and especially “Schizophrenia” are tiny blips in comparison. But it’s easier to blame than it is to deal with big societal problems like why so many people are using and abusing drugs and why so many feel it is OK to beat up their wives and children and dogs.
I think the larger question, Daniel, is how do you feel about the use of psychedelics IN THE HANDS OF PSYCHIATRISTS as you know they currently practice their brand of “medicine?” Hell, we know that alcohol can be a great antianxiety agent, and has a better “side effect” profile than benzos. But it’s not a MEDICAL INTERVENTION, it’s a way of holding anxiety at bay. That’s the level psychiatry is working at right now: Anxiety BAD. Benzo make anxiety go away. GOOD. Benzo patentable. GOOD. Alcohol not patentable. BAD. WE USE BENZO! There is no sense of mission or analysis deeper than that going on at the practice level, and for those operating on the “theoretical” level, the situation is even worse! “This research disproves our theory. WE MUST BURY IT! This person speaks uncomfortable truths. WE MUST ATTACK THEM! This group opposes us. WE MUST DEMONIZE THEM!” Do you really want people in such positions promoting psychedelic drugs for traumatized people? A profession that systematically denies that traumatic events are even causal factors in their lists of “disorders?” And who can then force psychedelics against their will on anyone they decide is unable to make informed decisions for him/herself?
It is much more than a question of whether there are positive research results. It’s a question of putting trust into an utterly corrupt system of decision making and control.
Steve
That’s what I was thinking. What psychiatrist would possibly be remotely qualified to engage in guiding someone through this kind of experience? It seems beyond ludicrous, having known some folks rather intimately who have used this drug. It is shocking that even psychiatry would be so arrogant as to think just giving someone a dose of this and “objectively” watching what happens would be anything but an invitation to disaster.
Maybe “cult” is the appropriate term?
Scary, yet hardly surprising.
Wow, you are suing? Let us know how this goes. I think the only real success in undermining the psychiatric worldview and control is to hit them in the pockedbooks and in the public realm of discussion. I am sorry all this crap happened to you, but t would truly be awesome to have national news about the psych professions getting their butts sued for hurting people they are claiming to help.
You’d have to have racked up some serious bad Karma to come back as a psychiatrist!
There has been some amazing work showing that the best way to get people off the street is to, wait for it… provide them with housing!!! Who could have guessed it?
I can’t quite agree with that last statement. While individual psychiatrists may have some concern over their individual clients, it would appear that psychiatry as a profession not only doesn’t care if their clients get better, they actually fear them getting better because it will cost them too many “customers.”
Psychiatry and big pharma have ALWAYS claimed miracle cures. Remember when Benzedrine was all the rage, safe, effective and non-habit forming? When that disaster was finally admitted, we had Valium, which was, wait for it, safe, effective and non-habit forming. Except that it’s one of the most addictive drugs known to man. Later on, we have claims that Prozac and the SSRIs are effective and have virtually no side effects. Well, except for increasing the rate of suicide and the occasional outburst of homicidal rage. Oops! So forgive me if I’m a tad skeptical when a party drug/tranquilizer is suddenly claimed as the miracle cure for everything. As for “rewiring the brain,” that’s a pretty tired analogy that doesn’t really correspond to any reality at all. There are no wires in the brain, and nerve channels are not in any way remotely similar to wires other than the ability to conduct and electrical signal.
It’s important to sift through the rhetoric. EVERY drug is “safe and effective with no side effects” until the patent runs out.
Are you trying to suggest that the DRUGS may make people violent? Well, we can’t have any of THAT kind of testing around! What will happen to our big donors’ bottom lines?
I did mean in the USA. I am certain that similar circumstances pertain in most other “western” countries. Our culture seems to depend on the oppression of portions of the population for its full functioning, if we can call it that.
It is important to keep in mind that the first child abuse case was brought by the SPCA on the theory that children should be treated at least as well as dogs. Protection of women from abuse came 100 years later than children. We have always afforded pets more compassion and rights than humans, at least the humans that we have decided don’t deserve to be considered human.
There is nothing in my statements that conflicts with the idea that certain people’s conditions might have a physiological/medical genesis. All I’m saying is that calling these “mental illnesses” obscures the fact that there are multiple possible causes and multiple possible solutions, and that in many cases, there need not be anything physiologically wrong at all. Once we say someone “has depression,” any attempt to understand the real causes, be they physical, psychological, spiritual or social in nature, come to a rapid end. This is particularly true when the system automatically assumes that every single possible divergence from complete satisfaction with the status quo is caused by a “chemical imbalance” or other physiological problem.
There are most definitely physical illnesses that manifest with psychological “symptoms.” It just doesn’t work the other way. As Socrates pointed out, if all men have facial hair, and Bob has facial hair, it doesn’t follow that Bob is a man. The logic flows from known physiological conditions to psychological effects, but not the other way.
Yeah, I’m having flashbacks of having to moderate all of your comments! (Not really – you guys are great!)
The problem resides in trying to come up for a “solution” to something that can not be identified or defined as a single entity. “Mental illness” is a concept, not a disease state with a defined cause. Why would we imagine for a moment that something so nebulous and subjective as “mental illness” could possibly have a unitary cause or solution?
They must all be pretty freakin’ old!
Maybe the word “thought” doesn’t really apply here. Maybe “Delusional greedy fantasy leaders?”
Unfortunately, long-term statistics and models suggest that continuous “treatment” with “antipsychotics” makes any problems with the dopamine system that may theoretically exist into observably greater dysfunction.
Thank God for small favors!
True enough. If the facts supported the pro-psychiatry viewpoint, why would they be so bent on suppressing any kind of dissent with these sleazy tactics? The only reason people viciously “attack the messenger” instead of addressing the concerns raised is because they know they have something to hide.
I’m glad this is coming up, and it looks very interesting! I have only one suggestion: let’s see if we can find a way to talk about “people who are suicidal” without lumping them all together and implying there is some “treatment” that is going to “help” all such people. There is a subtle but powerful subtext through most of the titles of the presentations that buys into this idea.
How about “people who are feeling despair” or “people who are wondering if their life continues to be worth living” or something like that? Or “helping people find hope when their lives seem hopeless to them?” Something that makes it feel like “feeling suicidal” is actually a pretty common experience that doesn’t necessarily reflect anything “wrong” with the person having that experience?
I think Leah’s title gets to this best: “The Way Forward: Pathways to Hope, Recovery, and Wellness with Insights From Lived Experience.” Hope, wellness, insights… no mention of ‘suicidal people’ at all.
It is also important to remember that the “differences on brain scans” are AVERAGES, not diagnostic indicators. And you’re right, of course, they could mean anything. But even if some so-called “ADHD” kids do have a different genetic presentation, SO WHAT? Tall people have different genes than short people, red haired people have different genes than blondes or brunettes, men have VASTLY different genetics in the XY chromosome area… genetic differences are the key to species survival!
As for the heart events, this was being discussed way back in the mid 90s in antipsychiatry circles (see the “Ritalin Death” website), though it was massively denied by the mainstream. Now, once again, we find that the protesters were correct and the “professionals” were lying. Anyone see a pattern emerging here?
Yeah, I get that. And you’re right, the title WAS quite misleading to me as well! I kept waiting for the “solutions to poverty” part to come up, but it never did. I just attributed it to the source. As the Buddhists say, misery is caused by the expectation that things will be different than they actually are. (or words to that effect).
And they so often exclude those who drop out instead of viewing them as the “treatment failures” that they should be considered. Even within their own rules, these drugs don’t often do the job, so they change the rules to protect the concept.
Quite so. An epic tragedy driven purely by egos and the desire to maintain control, damage to the patients be damned.
I personally thought this was quite enlightening for anyone looking at the gap between what supporters of the DSM approach say and what is really true. I don’t expect an interview with the APA head to get into Marxist analysis, I expect it to report accurately what the APA head has to say. This can be VERY important in laying out a counterattack, as once a person is on record making specific statements, it is a lot easier to counter their position with factual research and descriptions of real events. I don’t see it as supporting the idea of “mental illness” just because MIA interviews someone who believes in it. But maybe that’s just me.
I read the quotes from the pamphlet in the article. It seems to be pretty straightforward, and the criticisms forwarded are generalizations and don’t appear to address any of the specific claims in the pamphlet at all. Saying something is “misleading and inaccurate” without saying what is inaccurate or misleading about it is a pretty lame criticism!
And it is a shame that the medical profession (not just psychiatry) is so willing to punish and shame those who display such bravery.
Shocking. Not really. I think they specifically DON’T look at “medication” as a factor because they are worried what they might find out!
Is there any other field of medicine where people “favor” certain philosophical viewpoints toward the “diagnoses” and “treatments?” Do we vote on whether or not someone has cancer or a broken leg?
You are correct, of course, and I do apologize. Though benzos CAN be drugs of addiction as well, and are sold on the street for that purpose. My point is rather that trying to say Klonapin isn’t a major drug is incorrect. It creates a physiological effect that is more difficult to get off of the longer you take it. AND it is a drug of addiction as well.
It is certainly the ability to force others to accept “treatment” that is the most reprehensible power of psychiatry, especially when they know their ‘disorders” lack all validity. But propaganda and status are other powers that can still be used to enforce the psychiatric worldview, even without the courts’ backing.
No, that’s “anosognosia!” EVERYONE is mentally ill because we SAY they are mentally ill! True insight is giving up on rationality and accepting psychiatry’s nihilistic worldview. At least, that’s THEIR definition of it.
And yet…
In psychiatry, “insight” means “realizing you’d better go along with the plan or you’ll get punished.” That’s a valuable insight if you’re in their clutches!
Klonopin is plenty powerful. Many people report becoming addicted. It’s a benzo. Sure, there may be worse things, like having a hand cut off is worse than just a finger. But it’s plenty dangerous.
I LOVE it! This would be a fantastic “study!”
That was poetically put!
Are we surprised?
I think you mean before “DesHorse!” Thanks for the laugh!
I’m not entirely certain that people are looking for relief from suffering, at least not all or most. I think a lot are looking for UNDERSTANDING and CONNECTION, but they are offered “escape from suffering” as a weak alternative by the psychiatric industry, and told that’s all they can hope for. Understanding is more nebulous, requires more work, and can be scarier, but those who have genuinely experienced understanding from another person after working through some pain know it is far superior to merely escaping. Because the escape offered by the psychiatric industry is not very different than getting drunk to forget one’s pain – once one “sobers up,” the pain remains in place and needs to be avoided yet again. To reconsider that pain from a new perspective can not only ease the pain, it can provide meaning for one’s suffering and pathways to create a better life going forward, something no drug can ever begin to deliver.
I don’t disagree with you on that point. There are certainly diseases and medical situations that cause what has come to be known as “mental illness.” My objection is only the idea that they are “mimicking a mental illness,” because there is no such thing as a “mental illness” to mimic, at least not as defined in the DSM. It is an absolute certainty that anything which is called a “mental illness” COULD be caused by real physiological problems (there are literally hundreds of examples), and one of the greatest harms done by psychiatry is to stop doctors and patients looking for actual causes and allowing the “mental illness diagnosis” stand in place of actual research into causes.
SO in essence, it seems we agree with each other, terminology notwithstanding. I appreciate the feedback.
What are the odds they controlled for psych drug exposure? About zero. Perhaps the article should read, “Exposure to neuroleptic drugs causes reduced links between brain cells?”
Quite so! But if you get the empty chamber, you can go on TV and tell how “psychiatric treatment saved my life!”
I agree they have no idea of the cause, but I highly doubt further study of the brain per se is going to yield any more information. It is their primary error to believe that the brain is the causal factor in these “disorders,” in the same sense that solving a software bug or issue can not be resolved by studying the hardware. The mind runs the brain, not the other way around.
More like Russian Roulette!
Right! If we even acknowledge a “mimic” of a “psychiatric disorder,” we are allowing that there are non-mimic situations where there is a “real disorder” going on. It’s insidious but very powerful.
Now, there is a thought! Kind of like stopping headaches by not allowing yourself to be hit on the head repeatedly by a hammer!
The Rosenhahn Experiment. They’re still trying to live that down.
It all depends what “effect” you’re trying to accomplish, I guess.
I for one am very glad that it still bothers you, Sera!
It is kind of amazing how they have to include an “explanation” of the third point, without any evidence, and without mentioning the obvious, likely hypothesis that the drugs themselves are increasing the suicide rate.
Apparently, going for a walk in the woods is now a form of “treatment.”
An excellent example. Thank you.
Lawrence, can you please address the issue of long-term neurological damage that extends beyond the technical withdrawal period from the drug itself? This is not really a controversial issue, at least in the world of substance abuse – it can take a long time for the brain to recover from years of drug-induced altered functioning, and in some cases, there is evidence of permanent damage. Why would this not apply to psychiatric drugs?
Isn’t “precision psychiatry” one of those oxymorons, like “Jumbo shrimp,” “civil war,” or “low-carb beer?” I can’t think of a less “precise” profession – even predicting the weather is more certain!
I agree. It bothers me when they chant “don’t blame the parents, don’t blame the parents!” Sometimes (not always) the parents ARE partly or largely to blame!
Well, what else did you expect him to do? It’s the only think he knows! Maybe he can give some drugs to the person doing the restraining?
It is certainly dependence at a minimum.
I would add that “withdrawal” may not be the proper term for this experience. It is more like “recovery from brain damage.” Most people know that the specific withdrawal period for cocaine, for instance, is pretty short – a matter of hours. But for someone taking cocaine long-term, the recovery period can literally take years. I find it pretty easy to believe that the exact same kind of mechanism would be at play for any psychoactive drug, in fact, I’d be stunned if it were not at play. There is plenty of research regarding neurological up- or down-regulation in the brain when the brain is flooded with/deprived of normal brain chemicals. Recovery from this kind of damage is going to take a hell of a lot longer than it takes the drug to exit the body, and I think it is pretty disingenuous to suggest that people suffering months or a year later are automatically suffering from some psychological problem when it is very possible they are continuing to suffer from brain damage induced by neurochemicals provided by their friendly “medical professionals.”
Gosh, who would have considered such a thought? No it’s not radical, it’s common sense, but as Tim McCarver once quipped, “If it were that common, more people would have it!”
Perhaps they should measure how much their drugs increase kids’ sense of belongingness? Something tells me the drugs will not perform very well with that as the outcome measure.
Speaking Chinese also runs in families. Do you think there may be genetic roots?
They can’t even find genetic vulnerabilities for heart disease or most cancers. There are a few clearly genetic diseases, but even physiological diseases are influenced heavily by environmental impacts. To suggest that “mental health” is analogous is pretty ridiculous.
Might as well call alcohol an antidepressant. People drink when they feel depressed, and then they feel better for a while until it wears off. What’s the diff?
This is the fourth loss of a significant MIA contributor and antipsychiatry activist in the last month or so, and it is hitting me and others very hard. Bonnie in particular always seemed so immutable, so inexorable and so powerfully present, it is hard to imagine her succumbing even to death. Her spirit will continue to be with us as we fight on, but this is a huge loss to us and to the world. RIP, Bonnie, and keep fighting on, wherever you are!
Being sarcastic. Sorry if that wasn’t obvious.
This happened all the time with kids I knew in foster care. They’d give the kids stimulants for “ADHD” and then they got aggressive, so they’d give them an “antipsychotic” to calm them down. Raise the dopamine with one drug, decrease it with the other. Idiocy, but it was done ALL THE TIME. No science going on here!
“Death Therapy, Bob. It’s a sure cure!” From the movie, “What About Bob?”
The kneecaps disintegrating is merely a sad escalation of the disease process. If only we’d have gotten there in time…
You mean gathering together everyone who experiences knee pain together and giving all of them the same “treatment” without any further analysis isn’t going to work? Wow, what a pessimist you are!
Though I suppose it “works” if your business is selling pain relievers.
It’s also ridiculous to ask if “treatment” is effective for a “condition” that is utterly unmeasurable and metaphorical in nature.
Thank you for that, Rachel! That was a wonderfully sensitive post!
That was my thought, too! If meditation can change attitudes toward distress, doesn’t that toss the “genetic brain disease model” in the garbage bin? But expecting consistency from the psychiatric “thought leaders” is a sure way to get a headache!
Yeah, they should say, “…divergence between commonly accepted pseudoscientic and self-serving ‘explanations’ for depression and the actual experience of those having those labels slapped upon them without any attempt to understand the context of the ‘symptoms.'”
Maybe you can select options: “If you’d just like a prescription, press 1. If you’d like a spurious but scientific-sounding ‘diagnosis,’ press 2. If you’d like to have the context of your ‘symptoms’ specifically invalidated, press 3. If you’d like a psychobabble explanation of why you need to keep taking your drugs forever, press 4. If you’d like someone to actually listen and understand your struggles, hang up and call somewhere else!”
Well said! It is the responsibility of those claiming to “treat the mind” to come up with a coherent definition of the “mind” they are supposedly treating. Those criticizing the approach don’t need to define “mind,” they just need to point out that those claiming to be “treating” it can’t define their terms.
You can’t treat a metaphor!
And at least they wouldn’t invalidate you if you disagreed with them.
“Keeping up appearances” is associated with being dishonest about what’s really going on in the family. Highly associated. Pretty much 100%.
Yeah, kind of like saying, “Broken legs are highly associated with specific blows to the leg region. People who were not struck in the leg were far less likely to have their legs broken. Very high level of certainty on this one!”
I like it! “Love Your Misery!” I’ll buy a copy!
Well said! There is no excuse for any “professional” not asking every client about relationships and family history. It seems today that such professionals are the exception rather than the rule.
Yeah, seriously. Creative work, there. Deep insights!
I don’t disagree with anything you said. I was making the point that I do support individual people in making their own decisions and try not to make generalizations about “psychiatrists” as individual practitioners. There are many subtle points on “effectiveness” of drugs – as I’ve often pointed out, alcohol is a great “antianxiety” agent, but no one would prescribe it as a MEDICAL TREATMENT. It’s just something that makes you feel better temporarily. There are always dangers of ANY psychoactive drug, and I would certainly not recommend Ritalin as a way to make oneself fit into the capitalist mold. My point is only that individual decision making is one issue, but group-wide intentional corruption is something completely different. The first is complex, the second is not really all that complex at all. People do things that bring them money, unless they are motivated by caring first. It’s clear that psychiatry as a profession is motivated by greed and power over individual results.
I would suggest that there are, in fact, many caring individual psychiatrists out there, and I have certainly met some of them. I think there is a distinction to be made between psychiatrists (who vary widely as individuals) and “psychiatry,” which is an institution that has its own objectives and strategies and fears and blind spots. It is the institution that I am criticizing, the APA and its group objectives to promote a biologically-centered viewpoint and a drug-centered approach and the DSM strategy of de-contextualizing people’s suffering and blaming them for their “wrong” reactions to trauma and stress in their lives, and the constant hostility and dismissiveness toward even their own research when it conflicts with their agenda. I also feel it is very appropriate to criticize the corruption coming from the pharmaceutical industry that has informed the above goals and strategies.
I also would never criticize an individual for doing whatever works for them or their families. I have stood by and watched while a friend’s husband got ECT (which didn’t work) and eventually came up with moving to another part of the country as a solution. I’ve known domestic abuse victims who used antidepressants as a means of becoming less worried about their abusers’ feelings and it helped them get away. I know people who feel that they can’t live without Prozac or who feel they’ve benefited from stimulants helping them concentrate better. I have no problem with people doing what works for them. And I have no problem with individuals, professional or not, helping other people. But I do have a big, big problem with an entire profession intentionally lying and manipulating data so that they and their drug company counterparts can increase their income and power, and I make no apologies for doing so.
I hope that makes things more clear.
I like this post. The distinction between trying to “make the bad behaviors go away” and understanding their origins so that a person’s needs can be met in another way is huge! Once we understand the emotions driving behavior, CBT can be a useful technique to practice doing something different. But CBT alone often comes across as minimizing or invalidating the emotional components of behavior. People choose a particular action for a REASON, and without understanding the motivation, changing the behavior in isolation doesn’t work very well, in my experience.
If only your brain worked properly, none of that would bother you at all! Stepford Wives are apparently the psychiatric ideal.
You can contact Bob at [email protected]. I can’t speak to how available he would be at a given time – he travels a lot!
I don’t know, maybe it would be fun to interrupt someone’s tirade and say, “You know I was considered one of ‘those people’ once. Do I seem crazy, dangerous or hopeless to you?” Might toss a monkey wrench in their works.
BUt I also get why you wouldn’t want to go there. People who are on that kind of trip really NEED to believe what they are saying, and even a big dose of “cognitive dissonance” rarely has any effect.
Having spent half my career advocating for foster youth, this article resonates with me. Foster youth are the most disempowered group of citizens in the country, and they need all of our help. The rates of drugging tend to be around 20%, but increase by adolescence to over 50% in most states. Claims of “genetic inheritance” and “chemical imbalance” are particularly offensive and egregious in these cases, as we KNOW the main reason why these youth are suffering, yet somehow they continue to be blamed and “treated” for not being happy with their second- or third-class citizen status in life. Many are groomed for the adult “mental health” system and are told they have no chance of surviving without public assistance/disability payments for life. Yet many also rebel when they are able to escape the system and ditch their “mental patient” identities, acting on impulses and beliefs that have been subdued since they were very young in many cases.
These youth need and deserve all the support we can give them. They are the ultimate “market” for the psych industry and are almost helpless to resist.
Consider supporting your local CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) program, or volunteer to become a CASA in your jurisdiction, and you’ll have some direct and substantial influence upon this most undesirable course of events!
Most of them don’t even know the adverse effects of the drugs they personally prescribed. I’d bet that 90% don’t even know there ARE withdrawal effects from Cymbalta. I just figure I have to educate them every time, but avoiding MDs whenever possible is much more effective. I only see them when I have no other choice or need something specific that only they can provide, like antibiotics. Don’t trust them as far as I can toss them.
1 in 4 women are on antidepressants. 1 in 5 women is in an abusive relationship at any given time. What do y’all think the overlap is there? It’s gotta be huge. Has this question ever even been asked?
Quite so. And of course, once we start “socially defining” “disorders,” anything and anyone can be targeted.
I’ll go with Oldhead on this one, and say that a MIND is an idea, or a set of ideas and processes, and ideas can’t be “ill.” There are neurological illnesses, which should all be detectable by some physiological means. But it is a mistake to equate neurology with “mind.” No one really knows what “mind” is, and until we do, it is going to do nothing but add confusion to call a mind “ill.”
Thanks, Gail. Most upsetting to hear about.
Alto, it’s good to see your name up here again! I’ve missed you. Thanks for the post!
Whether or not, the idea scares the snot out of me. It would certainly fit with the objectives of an MK ultra project.
Belief in the suppression of the “mentally ill” is a bipartisan issue. One of the few things the current parties can easily agree upon.
It is not lack of training, it is the ability to dehumanize the victims that leads to this kind of mass unethical behavior. It works very much similar to a gang rape. What is the likelihood that ALL members of a certain sports team are rapists? Simply not possible. So how does an entire team participate in such an atrocity, as has been documented numerous times? It happens when the victim is sufficiently dehumanized that other group members can treat the victim is a non-human so that normal rules of ethics don’t apply in this situation. Same thing with group torture like Abu Ghraib. And it is psychiatry’s own DSM labeling process that makes this mass dehumanization possible. Those people providing “treatment” have been “trained” to see the “patients” as a subgroup who don’t deserve the same rights as other humans. So, in fact, it is not a lack of training, but a training in the use of dehumanizing terms and beliefs that leads to this result.
Right you are, Sam! Genetic diversity is the core of species survival. Even if it’s proven that genetics, for instance, affect activity levels and that some “ADHD” people have a genetic difference means NOTHING about whether or not “ADHD” is a disease state! Men and women have VASTLY different genetics in the X/Y genes, heck, men are MISSING a whole bunch of DNA that women have, and men certainly act differently overall than women. Are we prepared to call having male sex genes a “disease” based on that fact alone? (Testosterone poisoning, anyone?)
The large associations with individual violence are drug use/abuse and domestic/family/pet violence. “Mental illness” and especially “Schizophrenia” are tiny blips in comparison. But it’s easier to blame than it is to deal with big societal problems like why so many people are using and abusing drugs and why so many feel it is OK to beat up their wives and children and dogs.
I think the larger question, Daniel, is how do you feel about the use of psychedelics IN THE HANDS OF PSYCHIATRISTS as you know they currently practice their brand of “medicine?” Hell, we know that alcohol can be a great antianxiety agent, and has a better “side effect” profile than benzos. But it’s not a MEDICAL INTERVENTION, it’s a way of holding anxiety at bay. That’s the level psychiatry is working at right now: Anxiety BAD. Benzo make anxiety go away. GOOD. Benzo patentable. GOOD. Alcohol not patentable. BAD. WE USE BENZO! There is no sense of mission or analysis deeper than that going on at the practice level, and for those operating on the “theoretical” level, the situation is even worse! “This research disproves our theory. WE MUST BURY IT! This person speaks uncomfortable truths. WE MUST ATTACK THEM! This group opposes us. WE MUST DEMONIZE THEM!” Do you really want people in such positions promoting psychedelic drugs for traumatized people? A profession that systematically denies that traumatic events are even causal factors in their lists of “disorders?” And who can then force psychedelics against their will on anyone they decide is unable to make informed decisions for him/herself?
It is much more than a question of whether there are positive research results. It’s a question of putting trust into an utterly corrupt system of decision making and control.
Steve
That’s what I was thinking. What psychiatrist would possibly be remotely qualified to engage in guiding someone through this kind of experience? It seems beyond ludicrous, having known some folks rather intimately who have used this drug. It is shocking that even psychiatry would be so arrogant as to think just giving someone a dose of this and “objectively” watching what happens would be anything but an invitation to disaster.
Maybe “cult” is the appropriate term?
Scary, yet hardly surprising.
Wow, you are suing? Let us know how this goes. I think the only real success in undermining the psychiatric worldview and control is to hit them in the pockedbooks and in the public realm of discussion. I am sorry all this crap happened to you, but t would truly be awesome to have national news about the psych professions getting their butts sued for hurting people they are claiming to help.
You’d have to have racked up some serious bad Karma to come back as a psychiatrist!
There has been some amazing work showing that the best way to get people off the street is to, wait for it… provide them with housing!!! Who could have guessed it?
I can’t quite agree with that last statement. While individual psychiatrists may have some concern over their individual clients, it would appear that psychiatry as a profession not only doesn’t care if their clients get better, they actually fear them getting better because it will cost them too many “customers.”
Psychiatry and big pharma have ALWAYS claimed miracle cures. Remember when Benzedrine was all the rage, safe, effective and non-habit forming? When that disaster was finally admitted, we had Valium, which was, wait for it, safe, effective and non-habit forming. Except that it’s one of the most addictive drugs known to man. Later on, we have claims that Prozac and the SSRIs are effective and have virtually no side effects. Well, except for increasing the rate of suicide and the occasional outburst of homicidal rage. Oops! So forgive me if I’m a tad skeptical when a party drug/tranquilizer is suddenly claimed as the miracle cure for everything. As for “rewiring the brain,” that’s a pretty tired analogy that doesn’t really correspond to any reality at all. There are no wires in the brain, and nerve channels are not in any way remotely similar to wires other than the ability to conduct and electrical signal.
It’s important to sift through the rhetoric. EVERY drug is “safe and effective with no side effects” until the patent runs out.
Are you trying to suggest that the DRUGS may make people violent? Well, we can’t have any of THAT kind of testing around! What will happen to our big donors’ bottom lines?