Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Comments by Steve McCrea

Showing 100 of 4036 comments. Show all.

  • The way you discuss this makes it appear that “depression” and “episodes” are the problem, rather than symptoms of other difficulties. “Depression” is not a scientific entity, it’s a lay-person’s description of a state of the mind at a particular time. “Depression” as described in the DSM can result from early childhood trauma, thyroid dysfunction, nutritional deficiencies, a dead-end job, relationship instability, lack of sleep, lack of a sense of purpose, side effects of other drugs, a range of actual physiological illnesses, and more. It is ABSURD to consider “depression” as a unitary “disorder” and try to “treat it” without bothering to discover what is actually going on. Sure, drugs can make anyone feel better, if it’s the right drug at the right time. That’s why people go out drinking after work or smoke some weed when they get home. But no one thinks drinking alcohol is “treatment” for “anxiety disorders”. It’s a drug, plain and simple. Same with SSRIs or any other “medication.” They are drugs, plain and simple. They can’t “treat” depression any more than they could “treat” boredom or excitement or pain or irresponsibility. Depression isn’t a “treatable” entity. It is usually an indication of something else going on, and “treating” it without consideration of the causes is about as smart as “treating” pain without looking for the source of it.

  • What you’re talking about is analyzing what is actually happening to a person’s body, rather than just saying “all anxious people need B1” or other such generalizations. I’m right there with you. Everyone is different, and pretending that all people need therapy or B1 or meditation or ANY single intervention based on how they feel is never going to work. But for some, nutritional interventions have been very successful. It needs to be case by case.

  • The most basic error of psychiatry in the DSM era is the assumption that all people presenting certain ‘symptoms’ have essentially similar needs and causal factors in place. This, of course, could not be more wrong. So it is that some people will do wonderfully with magnesium supplementation, and some will experience no effect at all, and some might even do worse. True, it is much safer and smarter to try nutritional interventions or supplements of this sort, as the consequences of a “no result” are pretty minor compared to “antidepressants” or, Lord help us, “antipsychotics.” But the idea that a person experiencing intense anxiety automatically has a need for magnesium supplementation is just as scientifically wrong as believing that all anxious people need SSRIs. It is dehumanizing to lump people together based on some arbitrary category of emotional “disorder” defined by subjective observation and judgment regarding basic human emotional responses that could literally mean almost anything depending on the person experiencing them.

  • Thanks for that inside information about life in the UK. I know things are different in different countries. I’d have to say, though, that sounds like the facts on the worker level. I am guessing that someone higher up the food chain is still making a lot of money or it wouldn’t be so important to make sure workers are prescribing.

  • My understanding of socialism is that each person contributes work based on their skills and abilities without concern for salary per se. “To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.” Perhaps not the most realistic approach given human nature, but certainly not a call for people loafing around doing nothing.

  • I really appreciated this comment. It is important that we don’t allow ourselves to deteriorate into labeling and dismissing, as that is the tactic used by “the system” to keep dissenters down. We need to recognize the humanity of everyone we encounter, even if we have to decide to keep someone’s views or behavior in check due to the damage done to others. There is no telling which antagonist might at some time have “the scales fall from their eyes” and start to see things differently.

    Psychiatry’s biggest crime, in my view, is undermining and defeating people’s hope. We have to continue to have hope that people are human and are never entirely hopeless.

  • I’ve often said how senseless it is to focus all this energy on genetics, which is the one thing about a person you CAN’T alter, and take it off the environment, which is ultimately highly modifiable given sufficient motivation and skill (whether society’s or an individual’s motivation, it’s still modifiable.) So what if some people are more ‘susceptible’ to PTSD genetically? QUIT FREAKIN’ TRAUMATIZING PEOPLE and the ones who are more ‘vulnerable’ will be just fine!!!

  • I like the term “coalition.” It suggests that the people involved don’t have to agree on all their goals, but have common interests that allow working together toward an agreed upon goal that forwards both/all groups in the coalition. This kind of thinking is vitally important for a movement relating to “mental health”, because it is a form of oppression from which no one is entirely immune, and which cuts across all other identity groups to some degree or another.

    I will reiterate Poison Ivy’s point, which I also think is important: the term Identity Politics has been hijacked by the extreme right and I think we need to be very careful to define what we mean when we’re talking about it. I very much appreciate the clarity of your definition.

  • Too true! A lot of psychiatry and therapy ends up being about “stopping” those uncomfortable feelings that the “helpers” have projected/externalized onto their “clients.” This is one of the most destructive things about the DSM – it allows and even encourages the ostensible “helpers” to externalize their own demons to be symbolically wiped out in the “clients” who are making them so uncomfortable. If I can drug away everyone else’s “depression,” maybe I don’t have to become aware of or deal with my own.

  • The usage you describe here is, indeed, the way I understand the term. I was I interested in what Richard meant when he uses the term, as I absolutely know he is far, far away from being a “white nationalist”. I find it difficult to see how the term at this point can be used in a different way, but I don’t want to make any assumptions as I am pretty well aware of Richard’s political leanings.

  • I can see how that could happen. Thanks for sharing that perspective. Unfortunately, for more serious situations, this effect is unlikely to have the necessary effect. It also doesn’t address structural problems in the school which set kids up for failure. But at least there is some awareness that these behaviors don’t happen in a vacuum. Most bad behavior by kids IS caused by adults failing to meet their needs, as the Rat Park experiments have shown.

  • I had similar thoughts. As helpful as these methods may be in certain cases, the article ignores the fact that many children engage in aggressive behavior because they see it modeled at home (especially domestic abuse situations) or are subjected to it themselves. Additionally, many kids have outbursts because they are being expected to do things beyond their developmental capabilities, and this happens more and more in school. Bullying is also referenced, but the solution seems to be for the kid to learn not to react rather than to address the bullying. And it is important to remember that sometimes the adults are the ones doing the bullying.

    It is great that kids can learn skills in not reacting to abusive behavior. But to try and address aggressive or tantruming behavior without looking at the social environment and expectations they are exposed to will in many cases lead to the student accepting that abusive behavior by adults and more aggressive children is OK and that their reaction is the problem rather than the abusive behavior or unreasonable expectations they are exposed to.

  • Your comments remind me of the “Rat Park” experiment. It’s always been accepted in addiction research that rats given a choice between pushing a button for food and one for cocaine will eventually choose cocaine over food to the point of death. This is supposed to prove that the substances themselves are the problem. But when the Rat Park guy put the rats in a healthy environment with lots of stimulation and socialization opportunities, the rats were no longer very interested in the cocaine, and didn’t become “addicted.” When we see lots of addiction, we’re seeing people whose needs are not being well met in their environment. Yet we want to blame the drugs, because it lets our social leadership off the hook.

  • So when you refer to “identity politics,” are you simply referring to a group identifying itself as a “survivor based” group leading such an effort? Or are you objecting to the creation of such identity-based groups, or using the ‘survivor’ identity as a means of organizing people who have been harmed by the system? Or the exclusion of “non-survivors” from such groups?

    I remain genuinely somewhat confused as to what you’re objecting to, and would appreciate some clarification of what you mean in this case by “identity politics” diverting us from our goals.

  • It’s funny, because I think you’re both much closer together than you think you are. Frank (if I’m getting this right) believes that removing psychiatry won’t deal with the issue of coercion, because something else will take its place. Richard (again, if I’m understanding correctly) also believes that trying to remove psychiatry in and of itself won’t handle the situation, because there is a bigger power structure behind it that would continue the oppression. So it seems that both of you agree that psychiatry is problematic, but that removing it without dealing with the underlying patterns of coercion and oppression would not accomplish the end of keeping the “mentally ill” from being mistreated, labeled, and jailed.

    Something to build on, I think.

  • The only thing we can say about “everybody” is that “everybody is different.” The most fundamental problem with the “mental health” system is that it tries to categorize people’s “problems” and prescribe “solutions” that are supposedly going to work for everyone. It’s a fool’s errand, except if your goal is to confuse people and make a lot of money.

    Your post is right on the money!

  • The other part people don’t think about is that those who are NOT drugged and have that somewhat wild, hate-to-be bored kind of personality LEARN HOW TO COPE with people who don’t like their style or with situations where a less spontaneous approach is helpful. They learn SKILLS. But those who are on the stimulants don’t have to face those challenges, and can blame any failures on “my meds aren’t working” or “I have ADHD, I can’t help myself.” The psychological damage that can be done is quite substantial, beyond the obvious physiological damage of flooding the brain with dopamine every morning for a decade or more.

  • Clearly, in my view, only a fully vetted peer-run organization with at least a critical view to the DSM and standard psychiatric practice could possibly certify “peer workers.” And of course, the powers that be will not support that kind of approach. Hence, the problem that has been noted with co-optation of “peer workers.” Unless there is a real shift of power, the psychiatric establishment still gets to make the rules and gets to decide who is “certified” and who gets fired for being a little too honest. Same for professionals, actually. I was thoroughly discredited at a place I worked as “the guy who doesn’t like meds” and my opinion on the subject was completely discounted. That was just for voicing my opinion. If I had tried to talk to folks about actually getting OFF their “meds,” I am sure I’d have been in hot water, and probably got fired.

    So it all comes down to power, which is why deconstructing our authoritarian economic and power distribution system is critical to really making any changes stick over time.

  • It is certainly not a pathway to revolutionary change. At best, a way to make a bad system a little less dangerous for the few who can benefit. I left because I felt like continuing to work in the system was giving it tacit approval, but I think everyone has to make that ethical call themselves. Because as bad as the system is, those who happened to run into me were a hell of a lot better off than they would have been if I hadn’t been there. I quit for my own peace of mind, but I still struggled with the awful situation the clients were left in. I just knew I couldn’t change it from within.

  • I think that is very true. It takes a lot of courage to work behind the lines, and it takes a toll on one’s psyche to have to make compromises to be able to keep close enough to the clients to be of service. That’s why I eventually quit and went into advocacy. But I still have great admiration for folks who are able to walk that line successfully and be there for folks, because as much as we’d like to be rid of “the system,” there are still a lot of folks enmeshed in it and they still need to know that someone cares, even if it’s “the secret resistance.”

  • Who says basic principles need to be diluted for conservative-identifying folks to come on board? You’re assuming again that all “conservatives” are the same and that none are able to work together with people who see things differently and learn from them. Yes, there are even conservatives who are pro-choice. There are a growing number of younger conservatives who are very environmentally conscious. I just read an impressive story about a super right-wing Tea Party US representative who went to jail and had his eyes radically opened to the oppression of prisoners and of black people and has done a total political 180.

    I say, you create the organization on the principles you believe are necessary, and if someone identifying as “conservative” is interested, they are welcome to come. They’re not welcome to undermine the values of the organization, however.

    I was privileged to work for 20 years with the Court Appointed Special Advocates program in Portland, OR. I managed volunteers who went out into the homes and lives of foster youth who were abuse/neglect victims and tried to get them back to a safe home and protect them while in care. Many of my volunteers were of a conservative bent, though on the average, they tended to be liberal. Some of the more conservative folks were EXCELLENT advocates, including helping get kids off of psychiatric drugs. And some had their own epiphanies or growth experiences in terms of understanding poverty, racism, domestic abuse, and the oppressive psychiatric system. So I know from experience this can happen.

    Of course, I did have to fire a couple of folks for making unapologetically racist or sexist comments or otherwise violating our policies or our values as a group. They still had to live within the group values and expectations, and some couldn’t do it. (I fired a few “liberals,” too!) But we’d have been a poorer organization if we excluded all “conservatives” from our ranks.

  • Looking at that link, I can’t really agree with you. Unless you are saying that ALL observations of racist behavior are of necessity “trial by accusation?” Surely you would agree that racism still exists and is in regular practice today? Or are you really saying that racism is a thing of the past? People do use accusation to affect people’s opinion of a person, but it’s also true that some people do rape other people, and some of them are in positions of power. Are you denying the right of anyone to tell their story, because their story might damage someone’s reputation? Aren’t psychiatric survivors “accusing” psychiatrists and the field of psychiatry by telling the truth about what has happened to them?

  • I think that as long as anyone admits to the possibility of “legitimate ADHD”, the problem will continue to expand. When you come up with “diagnoses” that are convenient for those in power and have no rational or objective bounds that can be established, “diagnostic creep” is inevitable. And there are a lot of “diagnostic creeps” out there happy to be making big bucks supplying the fixes!

  • I think this is an unfair generalization about peer workers. I agree that this is what the “MH” system WANTS them to be, and some, perhaps the majority even, knuckle under to those expectations, but there are certainly dissident peer workers who do their work “behind enemy lines”, as it were, and are providing such support as they can within the limits of their power. I think it is very important to distinguish the intent of the system from the actual behavior of individuals within the system. I say this as a person who was a “behind the lines” dissident counselor, and I can name any number of situations where the person I encountered was very fortunate that they got me instead of a run of the mill system drone. Eventually, I couldn’t keep it up because of my own sense of ethical conflict, but to suggest that there aren’t others in the system doing this kind of work is, I think, quite inaccurate.

  • So how would you feel about engaging antipsychiatry folks who identify as “conservative” and finding out what made them decide to be “antipsychiatry” and to see where they’re at politically and to discuss your reasons for taking a “leftist” political analysis as essential to attacking psychiatry’s validity and power? Isn’t that the same thing we have to do with other left-leaning folks who are shouting out for “parity for mental health” and against “pill shaming” and other such unhelpful belief systems?

    Let’s be honest, there is not a big “left-leaning” (or “right-leaning” for that matter) movement to eliminate psychiatry. Why not collect all the allies we can find who are open to looking at the bigger picture? I’ve talked to lots of conservative folks who recognize the role of corruption and the impact of Big Pharma on medical practice. Why not start from a point of agreement and work toward educating in the areas where a person may need more information?

    I think it’s important not to make generalizations about “conservative” people. Sure there are some who are very rigid and who don’t really think through their positions, but there are others who are thoughtful and intelligent and open to reason. While I agree that an analysis that doesn’t include the impact of the profit motive and a harsh critique the neoliberal/neoconservative capitalistic society we’re part of will always fall short of the mark, but since most people aren’t there and need to be educated regardless of their political affiliations, why not just try to educate anyone who is compassionate about the plight of the survivors of the system, and work from where they’re at? If we don’t, we’re going to have a very small “movement,” IMHO.

  • I think it depends entirely on who the “peer” in question is and what kind of support or opposition they area getting from the institution where they work. In some institutions, peer work is valued or at least tolerated, while in others, it is openly attacked any time it conflicts with the institutional objective of compliant and well-drugged “residents.” At least that’s my experience.

  • Actually, it’s ironic that the “Decade of the Brain” research that was expected to find specific genetic or structural problems associated with “bipolar disorder” and “schizophrenia” and the like actually showed the opposite: that the human brain is incredibly flexible and capable of enormous growth and change, even in adulthood, in response to the environment. Other than the part about how early trauma causes brain changes (which fits with the “broken brain” agenda), very little of this research has seem the light of day, as it conflicts massively with the “bad genes” theory of “mental illness” and actually deeply supports the idea that positive relationships and a positive, supportive environment is the key to people avoiding or working through what has euphemistically been called “mental health symptoms.”

  • I am the biggest critic of the DSM and psych “diagnoses” as you’ll find anywhere. I’m not suggesting that nutrition should be promoted as “treatment” for psych “diagnoses.” What I said was that “I don’t think that an ‘antipsychiatry’ position in any way prevents one from believing that nutritional variables affect one’s mental/emotional state.” This is in SUPPORT of people who are saying they don’t believe in psych diagnoses, not opposed to it! I’m countering the implied or stated criticism, which is pretty common, that people who identify as “antipsychiatry” are denying that nutrition or any other physical body variable affects mental/emotional state. Try not sleeping for three days and you’ll see what I mean. A person who hallucinates after three days without sleep is not “mentally ill,” they are sleep deprived, and there’s no reason why an antipsychiatry activist would deny that obvious fact.

    I hope that clarifies my point. I’m the last person in the world to advocate for using “nutritional cures for ‘ADHD'” or that sort of thing. It totally supports the idea that “ADHD” is a “disorder” that needs to be “treated,” and I find that kind of marketing disingenuous at best, as well as having the unfortunate “side effect” of supporting the “broken brain” view that I so heartily detest.

  • Essentially, I try out gradually more and more potentially emotional or controversial topics. I often start with humor to see what this person believes is humorous. Then I try talking about something that has some meaning to me, and see if this person reacts as I might expect to something more personal. This might happen over multiple interactions, of course, and if I get feedback that this person either a) has no interest or is uncomfortable talking about non-standard topics, or b) grabs on a little too hard and is trying to control the conversation, I back away from sharing anything personal or intimate with that person. It’s hard to exactly describe what I’m looking for, but genuineness and compassion are definitely a part of it, plus a willingness to allow themselves to be a little vunlerable and share some of their own stuff. A person who is empathetic but not compassionate is most likely willing to hear what you’re willing to share (as it might come in handy later in meeting their objectives), but will rarely share their own experiences, or will do so in an artificial and probably dishonest way.

    That’s the best I can do. It’s something I started developing as a kid, long before I knew what it was I was doing, so a lot of it is pretty ingrained and hard to describe. I kinda just do it.

  • That’s not how I understand it. I participated in a training on OD a few years back led by Will Hall, and got a pretty good idea how it works.

    “Open Dialog” starts without any assumption regarding what, if anything, is “wrong.” It also steps down the power of the therapists by including larger numbers of people and regarding all as having important things to say, including the client, which is a VERY big shift from most US psychiatry in my experience. The therapists further break down their “authority” by talking about the case with each other in front of the client and other participants, acknowledging when they don’t understand things and asking the other participants for their ideas of what is going on or what might be helpful. It was about the most empowering therapy modality that I’ve ever seen. And it works not on techniques, but on principles of how people should treat each other in the present moment to give the best chance of finding a solution or a path forward.

    Does this mean someone might not coopt the name OD and do something else with it? Of course not. But it is not a “manualized therapy” like DBT where all of the “clients” are lumped together and assumed to need the same things. It is VERY individualized and requires therapists who are comfortable not knowing where exactly they’re going to end up or how they’ll get there, and are not afraid to show that vulnerability to the other participants in the process.

  • I have wondered if this is how SSRIs really “work.” Maybe increasing serotonin induces a “who gives a crap” attitude that might seem a big relief to those who have spent a lot of time worrying about other peoples’ opinions of them. It would also explain why a small subset, like the Germanwings air pilot who flew his plane full of passengers into a mountainside, do bizarre things on SSRIs that appear out of character and totally irrational from an outside viewpoint. Perhaps they stopped caring about the consequences of their actions, so suicide or homicide suddenly became acceptable.

  • It has always seemed to me that learning I can work my way through difficult emotions and even understand their origins was a much better approach than trying not to have those emotions or making them go away. If I know I can handle feeling anxious BY EXPERIENCE, then having anxiety is less worrisome to me, and my anxiety actually lessens over time. And I know that I am the one who did that, rather than someone coming in and messing with my body from the outside.

  • Commenting as moderator here:

    I don’t agree in this particular case. It appears he uses it in reference to to a specific comment, saying that the term “so-called racism” as used suggested that no racism currently exists and that people are making it up in order to accomplish some objective or other. You’re welcome to respond as to your actual intent in using that phrase, or dispute that the comment is racist, but it’s not an insult directed at you, it is an attempt to characterize a particular comment in terms of its implications. If we didn’t allow that, then we really would be in an “echo chamber.”

  • It is a very common tactic for domestic abusers to label their partners as “crazy” or more subtly “Bipolar” or “borderline” as a means of either directly confusing them or convincing others intervening in the situation that the victim is the one making the problems. Psychiatry unfortunately plays right into this tactic by tossing out labels that abusers can then use to discredit or attack their partners.

  • Posting as moderator here:

    Calling someone a “racist” is most definitely an ad hominem attack. Saying that a comment is “racist” may or may not be, depending on the context. There are definitely comments that could be called “racist” legitimately by the definition of the term. It is true that claiming “racism” can sometimes be used to shut down discussion. It is also just as true that there are plenty of racist memes and beliefs floating around and there is nothing wrong with confronting them if the content truly puts down an entire race or promotes the superiority of one race over another or justifies racist behavior.

  • I know what you’re saying, but it comes across a bit like “victim blaming.” It is not the fault of a person working to create change that the protectors of the status quo attack to keep control of their little or big fiefdoms. It is for sure to be expected, and strategies should be in place to keep such things in check to the degree possible. But the harm is not done by the person challenging the status quo. Those who engage in the “blowback” and especially those who ORGANIZE and PROMOTE such “blowback” are the ones who deserve to be chastised. I know this does no good for the victims of a “blowback” experience, but I think it’s important to make certain we’re not saying people shouldn’t try to make big changes just because there will be a reaction from those in charge of the status quo. It’s part of the price of change.

  • I think I understand what you’re talking about. I’ve only found a very small number of people able and willing to talk about “what’s happened to you,” and the majority of the “mental health” system are focused on “what’s wrong with you.” Most of the support I’ve found has been people who know little to nothing about the “MH” system but have worked on their own issues personally and can share the perspective of how to move forward. Such people are rare but do exist. I have a way of testing out people to see how far they can go down this path. I don’t think one in a hundred can even go there. It’s frustrating and disappointing, but I am afraid that is reality.

  • I do think this is an important distinction to make. I’d add that there is another type of dangerously empathetic person, though. There are definitely con-men and -women who just get into your head to mess with you. I think there are also those who genuinely get HOW you are feeling but don’t get WHY. These folks project their own “reasons” onto you and can thereby justify their actions as “being in your best interests” from their point of view. If confronted as you suggest, they would assure you that OF COURSE, they care about you, THAT’S WHY THEY ARE FORCING YOU TO TAKE THESE DRUGS (or whatever)! Because they are GOOD for you because they’ll make you FEEL BETTER.

    What they really mean by this is that if you take the drugs, it will make THEM feel better because they have done something to show they care for you so very, very much. If you deny they are helping, it hurts their feelings and a much less empathetic side will often emerge.

    Such people don’t appear to be moved at all when you tell them (or when observation shows them) that their “help” isn’t really helping or is making things worse. Because their worldview depends on believing that their model of “helping” has to work. But they do recognize how you are feeling and try to pressure and manipulate you, very similarly to the con man. I suppose the real difference is that in this case, they are “conning” themselves as well.

    Anyway, bottom line is that a person showing empathy for how you feel isn’t necessarily going to be able to help you get to a better place, and may in fact victimize you in the name of “helping.” Real compassion feels very different.

  • An excellent analogy, Oldhead. A little arsenic goes a long way. Same with Lithium. I would guess that it messes with your sodium/potassium balance really badly (since they all three are in the same group in the Periodic Table and easily replace one another in solutions and compounds) and those kidneys have to work double overtime to get the lithium out of there and get the sodium and potassium levels back to normal.

  • Commenting as moderator here:

    At this point, this conversation has gotten out of hand. I apologize for not getting to it sooner, but it appears we are degenerating into making negative comments about the authors and taking up personal issues that should be handled in other places than a comment section of an article. I have removed a few comments, but I am more concerned with the general tone of this conversation. The article focuses on the question of whether the TED organization is intentionally editing who is able to present talks and what they are allowed to talk about based on keeping their financial supporters happy. The conversation needs to stay on that point, and not stray to personal opinions as to whether or not TED was right or wrong regarding the author. Some of these comments are more subtle but are still aimed at attacking the character of the author, which violates the posting guidelines.

    Let’s please get back to the subject of TED and possible corruption and the marginalization of non-mainstream viewpoints in general.

  • There was a very well-documented and very successful effort by allopathic doctors (MDs) to wipe out every other form of competition in the late 19th and early 20th century. They went after midwives, naturopaths, homeopaths, chiropractors, and of course, patent medicine marketers, calling them all “quacks” and other more insulting terms and assuring everyone that MDs are the only ones who can be trusted. Their success was so complete and widespread that even today, we hear remnants of these marketed beliefs, where chiropractors are all quacks or where midwives are “dangerous” even though their safety records and Caesarian rates are far, far better than MDs. It was an incredibly vicious mass marketing effort that we have yet to recover from.

  • Have you read “Anatomy of an Epidemic”? Read the part about neurological up- and down-regulation and the impact it has on trying to withdraw from these drugs. The fact that people have a bad reaction to withdrawal doesn’t mean they “need these drugs.” It could mean that their brains have adapted, just as brains adapt to cocaine and meth and heroin, and that withdrawal effects occur when the drug is discontinued.

    Anyway, you really should read the book. That’s what this whole website is based on.

  • The obvious answer to the last question is “yes.” As to the rest, seems like we’re getting WAY off track here. But I’d bet that very, very few posters are in favor of nationalizing all industries and completely eliminating corporations and private ownership of stocks and that sort of thing. Marxism is the most extreme version of anticapitalism. Most “liberals” are in favor of stuff like Sweden and Denmark and Japan, where the government makes sure that people are able to survive the worst fallout from the profit motive, but companies are still privately owned and driven by profit. I don’t think that point is even worthy of debate – it’s simply obvious from the kinds of policies they promote. Even Bernie Sanders, avowed “Democratic Socialist,” has never even started to go down the path of nationalization of any industry or corporation. He just wants everyone to have healthcare coverage and decent wages and that sort of radical craziness.

    Sorry, but Marxists are very, very rare in the US of A, including on MIA.

  • You may be right. I think that’s because social causes have been so vigorously and systematically eliminated from consideration by the DSM and the APA. However, medicine in general has always given short shrift to nutrition and sleep and other variables that affect mood. I see nothing wrong with these aspects of someone’s mental/emotional wellbeing being handled by medical folks who actually KNOW about nutrition. My objection to psychiatry is the presumption and marketing of the idea that ALL “mental illnesses” are PRIMARILY caused by biological problems, and that the DSM was created without ANY consideration of the actual cause of any of the so-called “disorders,” including the complete denial of any role for nutrition, exercise, sleep or any other physiological cause or contributing factor.

    I could go on, but I think it’s important for you to recognize that most people in the antipsychiatry camp would never deny that biology plays a role in how we feel. The main objection is to the field of psychiatry deciding who is and is not “mentally ill” and the lies perpetrated in the interests of selling more pharmaceuticals, including forcing some people to take them against their will.

  • I said the majority. There’s also a very big difference between Marxist and liberal, as Richard I’m sure will passionately agree. And there are definitely conservative folks who post here, as well as “centrists” and anywhere else on the political spectrum. There is no requirement that people believe in any particular political worldview to post, only that they are respectful that their views are not the only ones that can be heard.